REPUBLIC V.

ROASA (land registration, computing period of possession)

The Republics petition that possession of subject lot before establishment of alienability should be
excluded in the computation of the period of possession for purposes of registration was DENIED. Section
14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree should be interpreted to include possession before the declaration
of the lands alienability as long as at the time of the application for registration, the land has already been
declared part of the alienable and disposable agricultural public lands. The law imposes no requirement that
the land should have been declared alienable and disposable agricultural land as early as June 12, 1945.
What is important in computing the period of possession is that the land has already been declared
alienable and disposable at the time of application for registration. Upon satisfaction of this
requirement, the computation of the period may include the period of adverse possession prior to the
declaration that land is alienable and disposable.
Notes:

The petition is GRANTED. Applicants for land registration must present a copy of the original
classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as true copy by the legal custodian of the
official records.
Notes:

Republic v. TAN Properties (2008) Applicants for land registration must present a copy of the
original classification approved by the DENR Secretary. A CENRO certification is not enough to
certify that a land is alienable and disposable.

Republic v. Serrano (2010) A DENR Regional Technical Directors certification annotated on

the subdivision plan constitutes substantial compliance.

Republic v. Vega (2011) EXCEPTION - Applications for land registration may be granted even
without the DENR Secretarys Certification provided that the application was currently pending
at the time Republic v. Vega was promulgated (applies on a pro hac vice basis only). Exception
applies only to applications for registration currently pending before the trial court prior to
Decision in this case and shall be inapplicable to all future applications.

Republic v. San Mateo (2014) The rule requiring certification from the DENR Secretary should
be applied. RTC decided the case on 2010. The rule on strict compliance was already in effect.

PRESENT CASE RTC Resolution was issued in 2012 after the promulgation of the TAN
case. Thus, the rule requiring certification from the DENR Secretary should be applied.

Applicant for original registration of title based on a claim of exclusive and continuous possession must
show the existence of the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession, by themselves or through their

predecessors-in-interest
Land possessed or occupied must have been declared alienable and disposable agricultural land
or public domain
Possession or occupation was under a bona fide claim of ownership
Possession dates back to June 12, 1945 or earlier (cut-off date only applies to requirement of
possession)

REPUBLIC V. LUALHATI
(requirements for application for land registration CENRO certification not sufficient)
The Republics petition was GRANTED. It is not enough for the CENRO (City Environment and
Natural Resources Office) or the PENRO (Provincial) to certify that a certain parcel of land is alienable and
disposable. The applicant must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary
and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. The CENRO is not the official
repository or the legal custodian of the issuances of the DENR declaring public lands as alienable and
disposable. CENRO certifications are not sufficient proof.
Notes:
Applicants for registration of title must prove that:
1.
2.

REPUBLIC V. CASTUERA (land registration advance plan & CENRO certification insufficient)
The petition is GRANTED. The advance plan and the CENRO certification are insufficient proofs of
the alienable and disposable character of the property. Applicants for registration of title must present a
certified true copy of the DENR Secretarys declaration or classification of the land as alienable and
disposable.
DAR V. DUMAGPI
The petition is GRANTED. Free patent applications under the Public Land Act apply only to disposable
lands of the public domain.
1.

Subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain
They, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, have been in open, continous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier

Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State. Thus, the burden of proof in
overcoming presumption of State ownership is on the applicant. He must present incontrovertible evidence.

2.

An application for original registration must be accompanied by:

1.
2.

CENRO or PENRO certification

Copy of the original classification approved by the DENR and certified as true copy by the legal
custodian of the official records

Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when
not supported by any other evidence.
REPUBLIC V. ALORA (Land registration DENR certification required)

3.

The land Dumagpi was claiming was not alienable public agricultural land but in truth was
classified and reserved as a coal mine from 1938 to 1984, a period which overlapped with his
claimed acquisitive possession. He cannot invoke Section 48(b) of CA 141 and assert an
acquisitive title thereto by reason of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession for 30
years. His application for free patent was never released. Even if granted, the free patent would
still have been void under the Constitution, since free patent applications under the Public Land
Act apply only to disposable lands of the public domain.
Dumagpi has doubtful standing to file petition for quieting of title. He has no title, records or
instruments to uphold. Under Sec. 23 of RA 6657, as agrarian reform beneficiary he is allowed
only 3 hectares, not 22. Even if his complaint be treated as one for reconveyance, there is no
ownership or title to reconvey because he never had one, not even through acquisitive
prescription.
Also, issues concerning issuance of subject titles can only be raised to the DAR Secretary. Thus,
the RTC has no jurisdiction to decide the case and its judgment is void.

CITYSTATE SAVINGS BANK V. AGUINALDO

The petition not to admit amended complaint is DENIED. A substantial alteration in the cause of action
or defense is not a bar to amend the original complaint so long as the amendment is not meant for delay.
In this case, the CA allowed the amended complaint in order to grant complete relief to Aguinaldo. The
additional reliefs (nullification of title and restitution) do not alter Aguinaldos cause of action or the theory
of the case. They are mere remedies to which Aguinaldo became entitled to as a result of the alleged
supervening events. The amended complaint effected no change in the cause of action, defense, or theory of
the case since it remained to be an action for the nullity of a title that was erroneously issued in anothers
name.

Rule 13, Sec. 2, Rues of Court: If any party has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon
his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court.
General Rule: Notice sent directly to client is not notice in law.
Exceptions (from jurisprudence):

Notes:
Section 3, Rule 10, Rules of Court Amendments by leave of court. Except as provided in the next
preceding section, substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court. But such leave may be
refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to delay. Orders of the court upon the
matters provided in this section shall be made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse
party, and an opportunity to be heard.

LIM TECK CHUAN V. SERAFIN UY

Petition is PARTLY GRANTED, counterclaim of Lim Teck Chuan is REINSTATED. Dismissal of the
complaint does not necessarily result to the dismissal of the counterclaim.
1.

The amendment may substantially alter the cause of action or defense.

The Court will not hesitate to set aside technicalities in favor of what is fair and just
THE PLAZA V. AYALA LAND
The Petition is DENIED.
The Compromise Judgment, covering the surrender of the possession of the subject premises, and its
demolition and removal of the salvaged materials, is by nature immediately executory unless a motion is
filed to set aside the compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake, or duress, in which event an appeal may
be taken from the order denying the motion. Since there was no motion, the RTC is bound to issue a writ of
execution to carry out said judgment to its full force and effect.

Court considered filing motion for reconsideration as actual notice of assailed decision
Considered receipt of lawyers Manifestation informing that court that he had been formally
substituted by another lawyer as an alerting medium that a final ruling has been issued by the trial
court

2.

Petitioner has a claim against the respondents because of the possession of the original owners
copy of TCT which was not lost and has always been in his custody. The subject property was
never transferred nor encumbered to any person during the lifetime of Antonio Lim (owner of
land, father of Lim Teck Chuan).
o
From the cases inception, petitioners interests and that of his siblings over the
subject property were vigilantly defended as evidenced by the numerous exchange of
pleadings made by the parties. Thus the petitioner has valid defenses and enforceable
claims against the respondents.
RTC erred when it dismissed the case when the present rules state that the dismissal shall be
limited only to the complaint. A dismissal of action is different from a mere dismissal of the
complaint. Since only the complainant and not the action is dismissed, the defendant in spite of
said dismissal may still prosecute his counterclaim in the same action.

Notes:

In this case, the parties already fixed periods within which to demolish the Building. To allow the RTC to fix
such period would allow it to amend a substantial part of the parties agreement. Judges have the ministerial
and mandatory duty to implement and enforce a compromise agreement.

Commentaries of Justice Regalado on the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: Where the plaintiff moves for the
dismissal of his complaint to which a counterclaim has been interposed, the dismissal shall be limited to the
complaint. Such dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to either prosecute his
counterclaim in a separation action or to have it resolved in the same action.

The RTC cannot extend the coverage of the execution proceedings to deal with a supervening event that
carries with it a new cause of action. Remedy of Plaza is to file a civil suit directly for its cause of action for
restitution.

LBP V. CACAYURAN
Case REMANDED. All indispensable parties should be joined in a suit.

Notes:
Remedies when a compromise agreement is breached:

File motion for execution of judgment

File action for indirect contempt
Motion for reconsideration, motion for new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment,
petition for certiorari, petition for annulment of judgment
New cause of action which may be pursued in a separate action (not barred by res judicata)

1.
2.
3.

The case stemmed out of the two loans obtained by the municipality from LBP.
The parties which entered into and executed the Loan Agreements and Mortgage/ Assignment
Documents were LBP as lender and the municipality as borrower
The municipality on whose lands stands and is found the Agoo Public Plaza and Commercial
Building stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the case and is therefore the real
party-in-interest

Notes:

BRACERO V. ARCELO & HEIRS OF MONISIT

The lower court declared that subject loans null and void, since the Plaza Lot is property for public use and
thus cannot be used as collateral for loans.

Petition is DENIED. Receipt of petitioners counsel of a copy of the motion for execution amounts to
effective official notice of the Decision.

Section 7, Rule 3, Rules of Court mandates that all indispensable parties should be joined in a suit.

Notes:

Indispensable party one whose interest will be affected by the courts action in the litigation, and without
whom no final determination of the case can be had

Failure to implead a dispensable party to a suit does not necessarily result in the outright dismissal of the
complaint. The proper remedy is to implead them.

2.

SPOUSES GATUSLAO V. YANSON (Writ of possession)

3.

Petition is DENIED. Subsequent buyers of properties at a public auction sale are entitled to the
issuance of a writ of possession. (Facts: Father of Gatuslao mortgaged lots to PNB PNB foreclosed
mortgage PNB sold lots to Yanson)
1.

2.

3.

The issuance of a Writ of Possession may not be stayed by a pending action for annulment of
mortgage or the foreclosure itself. Until the foreclosure sale of the property in question is
annulled by a court of competent jurisdiction, the issuance of a writ of possession remains the
ministerial duty of the trial court.
Petitioners are not strangers or third parties to the foreclosure sale; they were not deprived of due
process.
They are mortgagor Limsiacos heirs. As successors-in-interest, they merely stepped into
Limsiacos shoes and are thus compelled to acknowledge and respect the mortgage he had
earlier executed in favor of respondent. They do not have an independent right of
possession other than what they had acquired from him.
Right to due process not violated because petitioners were not occupying the properties
adversely to the mortgagor. Thus, a writ of possession may be issued ex parte.
Respondent is entitled to the issuance of the Writ of Possession. As transferee or successor-ininterest of PNB by virtue of the contract of sale between them, he is considered to have stepped
into the shoes of PNB.

JAVATE V. TIOTUICO (Writ of possession)

Petition is DENIED. The remedy of a writ possession is available to a subsequent purchaser (of
foreclosed property from the mortgagor) but only after hearing and after determining that the subject
property is still in the possession of the mortgagor.
1.
2.

Error in the amount appears to be harmless. There was no intention to mislead, as the errors in
fact did not mislead the bidders as shown by the fact that the winning registered bid is over and
above the real amount of indebtedness.
Error in designation of the mortgagor does not invalidate the notice of sale.

The notice rule was complied with when the Notice of Sheriffs Sale was published in a national newspaper
of general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks.
Notes:
Mistakes which would invalidate notice:
1.
2.
3.

calculated to deter or mislead bidders

depreciate the value of the property
prevent it from bringing a fair price

SPOUSES MERCADO V. LBP (Determination of Just Compensation in CARP)

Petition PARTLY GRANTED, case REMANDED to the RTC for proper determination of just
compensation. The rule is that the RTC must consider the guidelines set forth in Sec. 17, RA 6657 and
the formula in DAR AO No. 5. It may deviate from these factors/ formula if the circumstances warrant, but
it must clearly explain the reason for deviating.
In this case, the RTC did not strictly conform with the guidelines set forth under Section 17 of RA 6657. Not
all the factors were considered and no reason for deviating from the same was given. The RTC merely stated
in general terms that it exercised its judicial prerogative and considered all the facts of the case, including
the evidence and applicable laws, to conclude what amount is reasonable just compensation for the land.
Notes:
Valuation factors to be considered in determining just compensation (Sec. 17, RA 6657):

Even if the petition was filed ex-parte, a hearing was nonetheless conducted when the RTC
gave petitioner her day in court by giving her opportunity to file various pleadings to oppose
respondents petition.
There is no dispute that the petitioner remained in possession of the subject property prior to the
issuance of the questioned writ of possession.

acquisition cost of property

current value of like properties
nature, actual use and income thereof
sworn valuation of owner
tax declarations
assessment of government assessors

Notes:
Guidelines for proper determination of just compensation:
Sec. 33, Rule 39, Rules of Court: The remedy of a writ of possession, a remedy that is available to the
mortgagee-purchaser to acquire possession of the foreclosed property from the mortgagor, is made available
to a subsequent purchaser, but only after hearing and after determining that the subject property is still in the
possession of the mortgagor.
When writ of possession may issue ex-parte or without hearing: if purchaser is mortgagee or a third party
during the redemption period

1.
2.
3.

just compensation must be valued at the time of taking of the property expropriated, or the time
when the owner was deprived of its use and benefit
interest may be awarded as may be warranted by the circumstances of the case
just compensation must be arrived at pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Section 17 of RA
6657
If RTC finds these guidelines inapplicable, it must clearly explain the reasons for deviating.

BPI V. SPOUSES CASTRO (notice of sale in foreclosure proceedings)

NAPOCOR V. HEIRS OF BORBON (Eminent Domain)

Petition is GRANTED. Foreclosure proceedings have in their favor the presumption of regularity and
the party who seeks to challenge the proceedings has the burden of evidence to rebut the same. In the present
case, errors pointed out by respondents appear to be harmless. There was no intention to mislead. Erroneous
designation of an entity as the mortgagor does not invalidate notice of sale.

Expropriation proceedings DISMISSED, case REMANDED to RTC for further proceedings. The very
moment that it appears at any stage of the proceedings that the expropriation is not for a public use,
the action must necessarily fail and should be dismissed, even during pendency of appeal or at any
other stage of the proceedings.

1.

BPI had complied with the requirements of Act No. 3135 regarding notice of time and place of
sale.

In view of discontinuance of proceedings and the eventual return of the property to the respondents, there is
no need to pay just compensation. Instead, NAPOCOR should compensate respondents for the disturbance
of their property rights from the time of entry until the time of restoration of possession by paying them

actual or other compensatory damages. This compensation must be based on what they actually lost as a
result and by reason of their dispossession and of its used, including the value of the fruit trees, plants and
crops destroyed by the construction of the transmission lines.

Payment of provisional value need not be judicially determined since it has already been set by the current
relevant zonal value of the area. It must be paid immediately to the owner before writ of possession may be
issued.

Notes:

Alterations in document must be properly authenticated; if not- it shall be inadmissible in evidence.

Right of Eminent Domain ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate, not only the public but the
private property of all citizens within the territorial sovereignty, to public purpose

Setting aside of an improperly issued Writ of Possession is not the same as an issuance of an Injunctive Writ.
MANALANG V. BACANI (Boundary Dispute cannot be settled in action for Unlawful Detainer)

Limitations:
1.
2.

it is for a particular public purpose

just compensation be paid to property owner

Public use use by the public; utility, advantage or productivity for the benefit of the public; public interest,
public benefit, public convenience it is the fundamental basis for the action for expropriation
Effects of abandoning public purpose:

1.

file another petition for new purpose

return property to its private owner, if the latter desires to reacquire it
2.

When just compensation shall be determined:

The appeal has no merit. The MTCs dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is
correct. In cases of unlawful detainer, the complaint should embody a statement of facts clearly showing the
attributes of unlawful detainer. In this case, the complaint did not show that the petitioners permitted or
tolerated the occupation of the portion of their property by the respondents; or how the respondents entry
had been effected; or how and when dispossession by respondents had started. The action in this case is not
unlawful detainer.

at time of TAKING, not time of filing action

TAKING = when the owner is actually deprived or dispossessed of his property; when there is
practical destruction or a material impairment of the value of his property or when he is deprived
of the ordinary use thereof

REPUBLIC V. HEIRS OF FERNANDEZ (Expropriation under RA 8974 - AN ACT TO FACILITATE THE

3.

ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, SITE OR LOCATION FOR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE

PROJECTS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES)

Petition is DENIED. Writ of possession can only be issued upon full compliance with Section 4 of the
Act. For the State to be able to take possession of the property, it must first pay 1 00% of the current relevant
zonal valuation of the property. The State must first comply with the requirements in Section 4 of RA 8974
before being allowed to take possession of private property for a national infrastructure project.
In this case, amount paid was incorrect. It was based on a photocopy of the zonal values with alterations
which were not authorized.
Notes:
Payment of provisional value under Section 4 is different from payment of just compensation.
PAYMENT OF PROVISIONAL VALUE
Prerequisite to issuance of writ of possession
Based on current relevant zonal valuation
Preliminary/ provisional determination of value of
property - Serves a double-purpose of pre-payment
if property is fully expropriated, and of indemnity
for damages if proceedings are dismissed
Not a final determination of just compensation
may not necessarily be equivalent to fair market
value of property

PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION

Based on prevailing fair market value

The RTC, in an appeal of the judgment in an ejectment case, shall not conduct a rehearing or trial
de novo.
o
The RTC violated the rules by ordering the conduct of the relocation and verification
survey in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and by hearing the testimony of the surveyor
The CA correctly held that a boundary dispute must be resolved in the context of accion
reivindicatoria, not an ejectment case.
o
Boundary dispute is not about possession, but encroachment whether the property
claimed by the defendant formed part of the plaintiffs property
o
It cannot be settled summarily under Rule 70, proceedings of which are limited to
unlawful detainer and forcible entry
Dismissal of the MTC on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction was correct.
o
To vest jurisdiction in the MTC, the complaint must embody such a statement of facts
clearly showing the attributes of unlawful detainer.
o
In this case, allegations did not show that the petitioners permitted or tolerated the
occupation of the portion of their property by the respondents.

Notes:
Boundary Dispute not about possession, but encroachment whether the property claimed by the
defendant formed part of the plaintiffs property cannot be settled summarily under Rule 70 (unlawful
detainer and forcible entry)
Unlawful Detainer defendant unlawfully withholds the possession of the premises upon the expiration or
termination of his right to hold such possession under any contract, express or implied. Possession was
lawful at the beginning, becoming unlawful only because of expiration/ termination of right of possession
Forcible Entry possession is illegal from the very beginning, and issue centers on which between the
plaintiff and the defendant had prior possession de facto
DELA CRUZ V. SPOUSES HERMANO (Forcible Entry)
Petition is GRANTED. The Complaint was sufficient in form and substance, but there was no proof of
prior physical possession by the respondents.

Final determination just and complete equivalent

of the loss which the owner has to suffer by reason
of expropriation

1. The Complaints allegations sufficiently established the jurisdictional facts required in forcible entry
cases.

There was allegation that entry into the land by Dela Cruz was effected without the knowledge of
Hermano possession by stealth.

When forcible entry occurred clandestinely, the one-year prescriptive period should be counted
from the time the person who was deprived of possession demanded that the deforciant desist
from dispossession when the former learned about it.

2. The title to the property of respondents and their tax declaration proved possession de jure, but not their
actual possession of the property prior to petitioners entry.

No sufficient evidence to prove allegation of prior physical possession.

Tax declarations and realty tax payments are not conclusive proofs of possession.
The proofs submitted by respondents only established possession flowing from ownership. They
failed to discharge burden of proving element of prior physical possession.

Notes:
Sec. 1, Rule 70 In actions for forcible entry, it must be alleged that the complainant was deprived of the
possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, and the action was filed
anytime within 1 year from the time the unlawful possession took place. This implies that possession of the
land by the defendant has been unlawful from the beginning. Complainant must allege and prove prior
physical possession.
Possession in a forcible entry suit refers only to possession de facto (actual or material possession) and not
one flowing out of ownership. A party who can prove prior possession can recover the possession even
against the owner.
SUPAPO V. SPOUSES DE JESUS (Accion Publiciana)
Petition is GRANTED.
1.

2.

3.

The MTC properly acquired jurisdiction.

o
Jurisdiction over actions involving title to or possession of real property is now
determined by its assessed value (assessed value = fair market value x assessment
level; taxable value)
o
Complaint properly alleged assessed value of property at 39,980, located in Metro
Manila proven by the tax declaration.
The cause of action has not prescribed.
o
The spouses filed the complaint more than 10 years after the certificate to file action
was issued but their cause of action is imprescriptible because the subject property
is registered and titled under the Torrens System.
o
Lands covered by a title cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
Claim of acquisitive prescription is baseless when land involved is a registered land.
o
Without solid evidentiary basis, laches cannot be a valid ground to deny the petition.
The complaint is not barred by res judicata.
o
There is no identity of subject matter, parties and causes of action between the
criminal case for squatting and the civil action for the recovery of the subject property.

Notes:

Article 555, Civil Code: A possessor may lose his possession:

(4) By the possession of another, subject to the provisions of Article 537, if the new possession has lasted
longer than one year. But the real right of possession is not lost till after the lapse of 10 years.
Section 47, PD 1529: Registered land not subject to prescriptions No title to registered land in derogation
of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
Person who holds Torrens Title has an imprescriptible right to eject any person illegally occupying their
property.
Bishop v. CA: Even if it be supposed that the holders of the Torrens Title were aware of the other persons
occupation of the property, regardless of the length of that possession, the lawful owners have a right to
demand the return of their property at any time as long as the possession was unauthorized or merely
tolerated, if at all.
No laches in this case. Acts of spouses that showed clear intent to exercise right over property:
1.
2.
3.

1.

2.

RA 7691

Bar by prior judgment - Rule 39, Sec. 47(b)

o
When a right or fact had already been judicially tried on the merits and determined by
a court of competent jurisdiction, the final judgment or order shall be conclusive upon
the parties and those in privity with them and constitutes an absolute bar to
subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand or cause of action
REQUISITES:
a.
Former judgment/ order must be final
b.
Must be a judgment on the merits
c.
Rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties
d.
Must be between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter, and cause
of action
Conclusiveness of judgment Rule 39, Sec. 47(c)

IN PRESENT CASE:

an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independent of
title
refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of
action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty
objective is to recover possession only, not ownership BUT where parties raise issue of
ownership, court may pass upon the issue to determine who between the parties has the right to
possess the property not a final determination of ownership

brought dispute to appropriate Lupon

initiated criminal complaint for squatting
filed accion publiciana

Res judicata

Accion Publiciana
-

divested RTC a portion of its jurisdiction

granted the MeTC, MTC, and MCTC the exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear actions
where the assessed value of the property does not exceed 20,000 or 50,000 if the property is
located in Metro Manila

No identity of parties.
CRIMINAL: Prosecuted in the name of People of the Philippines
CIVIL: Filed by and in the name of the Spouses Supapo
No identity of subject matter
CRIMINAL: Prosecution of crime under the Anti-Squatting Law
CIVIL: Action to recover possession of subject property
No identity of causes of action
CRIMINAL: To protect and preserve governmental interests by prosecuting persons who violated
the statute
CIVIL: To protect their proprietary interests over the subject property and recover its possession

In the present case, the ruling is not a bar for the parties to fie action for determination of issue of ownership.
Ruling here is only limited to issue of determining who between the parties has a better right to possession.
SPOUSES AQUINO V. SPOUSES AGUILAR (Rights of persons who build on the land of another)

Petition is PARTLY GRANTED.

1.

2.

3.

Article 1678 is not applicable to this case.

Applies only to lessees who build useful improvements on the leased property. It does not
apply to those who possess property by mere tolerance of the owners, without a contractual
right.
As builders in bad faith, respondents are not entitled to reimbursement of useful expenses.

Not in good faith because of the presence of evidence that petitioners prohibited
respondents from building their own structure on a portion of the property.

Lack of constant reminders about the prohibition is immaterial. What is crucial is that
petitioners left respondents clear instructions not to build on the land. This prohibition is
considered extant and continuing since there is no evidence that it was withdrawn or
modified.

Petitioners, as owners of the land, have the right to appropriate what has been built on the
property, without any obligation to pay indemnity therefore.

Respondents have no right to a refund of any improvement, pursuant to Art. 449 and Art.
450 of the Civil Code.
Respondents may recover the necessary expenses incurred for the preservation of the
property but without the right of retention.

Pursuant to Art. 452 of the Civil Code, a builder in bad faith is entitled to recoup the
necessary expenses incurred for the preservation of the land.

No right of retention because they are builders in bad faith.

Those who occupy the land of another at the latters tolerance or permission, even without any contract
between them, are necessarily bound by an implied promise that the occupants would vacate the property
upon demand. Failure to comply with this demand renders the possession unlawful and actual damages may
be awarded to the owner from the date of the demand to vacate until the actual surrender of the property.
Notes:
FACTS: Occupants = Aguilar; Owners = Aquino
According to Respondents (the occupants Aguilar):

They were co-owners of the property and the improvement constructed thereon by virtue of their
contributions to the costs of improvement and of their management and supervision.
They were builders in good faith because petitioners never object to the improvement of the
property.

Notes:
Res judicata a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by
judgment; RULE that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is
conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on points and matters determined in the
former suit.
Two concepts of res judicata:
1.

2.

Petition is GRANTED. In reconveyance cases, the party must provide clear proof that the property
should be his. Respondents were unable to show that they have been in open, continuous, adverse and
uninterrupted possession of the subject property for more than 30 years, there being no document to prove it.
They also failed to present any document proving the alleged sale. On the other hand, petitioner was able to
show that respondents occupation was through mere tolerance.
1.
2.

Petitioner (Degayo) believed that the area was an accretion. Respondents (Magbanua) believed that the
disputed property was an abandoned river bed.

2.

Respondents failed to dispense their burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that
they are entitled to the reconveyance of the subject lot.
On the other hand, evidence of petitioner clearly and convincingly proved his exercise of
ownership over the disputed property.
Original Certificate of Title
Tax Declaration
Demand letter to vacate
Barangay Certification to file action
Application and notice to file for Free Patent
Order of DENR of rejecting free patent application in favor of petitioner
Evidence of Respondents:

Petition is DENIED.
Decision in Civil Case 16047 (deciding in favor of respondents) constitutes res judicata.
The judgment in the first civil case has attained finality in view of the tenants
abandonment of their appeal to the CA. It was adjudicated on the merits.
Identity of parties (a real litigant may be held bound as a party even if not formally
impleaded because he had his day in court and because his substantial rights were not
prejudiced)
The claim of accretion has no valid basis.
Jalaud River naturally changed its course and moved southward and as a result, it
abandoned its previous bed and encroached upon a portion of respondents lot.

Bar by former judgment

o
Effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same
claim, demand or cause of action
o
Merger/ bar or claim preclusion
Conclusiveness of judgment
o
Precludes the relitigation of a particular fact of issue in another action between the
same parties on a different claim or cause of action
o
Collateral estoppel or issue preclusion
o
Only identities of parties and issues are required for the operation of this principle
o
Estops the parties from raising in a later case the issues or points that were raised and
controverted, and were determinative of the ruling in the earlier case

IBOT V. HEIRS OF TAYCO (Claim of ownership)

DEGAYO V. MAGBANUA

1.

Art. 461, Civil Code: River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in
the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are occupied by
the new course in proportion to the area lost.

Miscellaneous Sale Application & Appraisal Report signed by Land Inspector not
deeds of reconveyances or proofs of alleged sale
No document showing open, continuous, adverse, and uninterrupted possession of
subject property

Notes:
FACTS: Respondents (Tayco) occupied land. Petitioner (Ibot) was the registered owner.
Grounds of respondents Tayco for complaint for reconveyance:

That they were in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession

That Tayco bought land from Amelita Ibot but lost the documents
That they introduced improvements on the lot
That fraud attended issuance of Ibots OCT

Claim of petitioners:

Amelita merely tolerated their occupation

Free Patent application was not fraudulent
He was issued OCT by the Register of Deeds
Upon learning about respondents sale of a portion of the lot, the petitioner formally demanded
them to vacate but they did not heed his demand

Burden of proof in reconveyance cases clear and convincing evidence

Generally, in civil cases, burden of proof is on plaintiff to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence
evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.
However, in an action for reconveyance, party seeking it should establish not merely by a preponderance of
evidence but by clear and convincing evidence that the land sought to be reconveyed is his.
Requisites for reconveyance of property:
1.
2.

Tax receipts are not an evidence of ownership but they are good indicia of possession in the concept of
owner, for no one would ordinarily be paying taxes for a property not in his actual or at least constructive
possession.
Proof of Tolerance must be shown by some overt act such as the permission accorded by petitioner to
occupy disputed property in order for it to be well taken. Mere tolerance always carries with it permission
and not merely silence or inaction for silence or inaction is negligence, not tolerance. Must also be shown
that the supposed acts of tolerance have been present right from the very start of possession.

Requisites for action of quieting of title:

1. Plaintiff or complainant has a legal or equitable title or interest in the real property subject of the action.

There is no provision of law that the failure of a buyer in a foreclosure sale to secure a Certificate
of Final Sale, execute an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership and obtain a writ of possession
over the property within 10 years from registration of Certificate of Sale will operate to bring
ownership back to the person whose property has been previously foreclosed and sold.
Issuance of a final deed of sale becomes a mere formality, an act merely confirmatory of the title
that is already in the purchaser.

Notes:
FACTS: The land of Spouses de Guzman was sold at a public auction and Tabangao was the highest bidder.
Spouses did not redeem the land. Heirs of De Guzman then filed action to quiet title against Tabangao.
Quieting of Title - common law remedy for the removal of any cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty with
respect to title to real property
When quieting of title may be availed:

DE GUZMAN V. TABANGAO REALTY INCORPORATED (Quieting of Title)

Petition is DENIED. The petitioners complaint failed to allege the two requisites for an action to quiet
title. All the rights, title, interest, and claim of the spouses de Guzman to the property was already acquired
by respondent upon the expiration of the one-year redemption period without redemption being made.

property was still registered in the spouses names these allegations are insufficient to
establish petitioners title to the subject property
Upon expiration of the period, respondent was already substituted to and acquired all rights, title,
interest and claim of the spouses to the subject property. When the spouses died, they had no
more rights over the property to pass on by succession to the petitioners.
All rights, title, interest and claim of the Spouses de Guzman to the subject property was already
acquired by respondent upon the expiration of the one-year redemption period without
redemption being made.

2. The deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting a cloud on his title must be shown
to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.

Identity of land claimed

Title thereto

Art. 434, Civil Code: In an action to recover, the property must be identified and the plaintiff must rely
on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendants claim.

There was no allegation that the spouses redeemed the subject property within the one year
redemption period.
Petitioners allege that they were the children and only heirs of the spouses and that the subject

Art. 476 When there is a cloud by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or
proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective,
voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title.
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or
any interest therein.
Art. 478 There may also be an action to quiet title when the contract, instrument or other
obligation has been extinguished or has terminated, or has been barred by extinctive prescription.

Art. 477, Civil Code Plaintiff in action to quiet title must have legal or equitable title to or interest in the
real property, which is the subject matter of the action, but need not be in possession of said property.
Rule 39, Sec. 33, 1997 Rules of Court: Upon expiration of the right of redemption, the purchaser or
redemptioner shall be substituted to and acquire all the rights, title, interest and claim of the judgment
obligor to the property as of the time of the levy.