Part 2 LTD Cases 11.2.16

PersonalCopyofCynthiaV.
Pantonal
LTDCasesAtty.FrancisDoble
[G.R.No.128102.March7,2000.] ofAppealsreversedandsetasidethedecisionoftheRTC;
declaredtheprivaterespondentsastherightfulpossessors
AZNARBROTHERSREALTYCOMPANY,petitioner,vs.COURT defactoofthelandinquestion;andpermanentlyenjoined
OFAPPEALS,LUISAYING,DEMETRIOSIDA,FELOMINO theSherifffromeffectuatingthedemolitionofthehousesof
AUGUSTO,FEDERICOABING,andROMEOAUGUSTO, theprivaterespondents.TheCourtofAppealsnotedthatat
respondents. thetimeAZNARenteredtheproperty,theprivate
respondentshadalreadybeeninpossessionthereof
RolandoA.Navarroforpetitioner.
peacefully,continuously,adverselyandnotoriouslysince
FernandezCarilloPonceSeguerraOsanoLawForumand timeimmemorial.Therewasnoevidencethatpetitioner
SantosPilapil&Associatesforprivaterespondents. waseverinpossessionoftheproperty.Itsclaimof
ownershipwasbasedonlyonanExtrajudicialPartitionwith
SYNOPSIS DeedofAbsoluteSale,whichprivaterespondents,however,
claimedtobenullandvoidforbeingsimulatedand
PetitionerAznarBrothersRealtyCo.(AZNAR)acquiredalot
fraudulentlyobtained.Petitionerelevatedthecasetothe
locatedatBrgy.Mactan,LapuLapuCity,fromtheheirsofa
Court,viathepresentpetitionforreviewoncertiorari.
certainCrisantaMaloloyonbyvirtueofanExtrajudicial
HDCTAc
PartitionofRealEstatewithDeedofAbsoluteSale.Said
deedwasregisteredwiththeRegisterofDeedsofLapuLapu TheSupremeCourtreversedandsetasidethedecisionof
City.Ontheotherhand,theprivaterespondentsalleged theCourtofAppeals.TheCourtruledthat,contrarytothe
thattheyarethesuccessorsanddescendantsoftheeight rulingoftheCourtofAppeals,priorphysicalpossessionby
childrenofthelateCrisantaMaloloyon,whosenames theplaintiffofthesubjectpropertyisnotanindispensable
appearedastheregisteredownersintheOriginalCertificate requirementinunlawfuldetainercases,althoughitis
ofTitleNo.RC2856.Theyalsoallegedthattheyhadbeen indispensableinanactionforforcibleentry.Thelackof
residingandoccupyingthesubjectportionofthelandinthe priorphysicalpossessiononthepartofAZNARis,therefore,
conceptofownersincethetimeoftheirparentsand ofnomoment,asitscauseofactionintheunlawful
grandparents.Hereinprivaterespondentswereallegedly detainercaseispreciselytoterminateprivaterespondents'
allowedbyAZNARtooccupyportionsofthesubjectlotby possessionofthepropertyinquestion.Ontheissueof
meretoleranceprovidedthattheyleavethelandinthe validityoftheExtrajudicialPartitionwithDeedofAbsolute
eventthatthecompanywouldusethepropertyforits Sale,theCourtruledthatthesameisanotarizeddocument
purposes.Later,AZNARenteredintoajointventurewith andassuch,ithasinitsfavorthepresumptionofregularity,
Sta.LuciaRealtyDevelopmentCorporationforthe anditcarriestheevidentiaryweightconferreduponitwith
developmentofthesubjectlotintoamultimillionpeso respecttoitsdueexecution.TheCourtalsostressedthat
housingsubdivisionandbeachresort.Whenitsdemandsfor whoeverallegesforgeryhastheburdenofprovingthe
theprivaterespondentstovacatethelandfailed,AZNAR same.Forgerycannotbepresumedbutshouldbeprovedby
filedwiththeMunicipalTrialCourt(MTCC)ofLapuLapu clearandconvincingevidence.Privaterespondentsfailedto
Cityacaseforunlawfuldetaineranddamages.TheMTCC dischargethisburdenofproof;hence,thepresumptionin
renderedadecisionorderingtheprivaterespondentsto(a) favorofthequestioneddeedstands.
vacatethelanduponthefinalityofthejudgment;and(b)
payP8,000asattorney'sfeesandP2,000aslitigation SYLLABUS
expenses,pluscosts.Aggrievedbythedecisionprivate
1. REMEDIALLAW;SPECIALCIVILACTIONS;FORCIBLE
respondentsappealedtotheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC).The
ENTRYANDUNLAWFULDETAINER;STAYOFIMMEDIATE
RTCaffirmedthedecisionoftheMTCCandorderedthe
EXECUTIONOFJUDGMENT,REQUIREMENTS;FILINGOF
issuanceofawritofdemolitiondirectingthesheriffto
SUPERSEDEASBONDTOSTAYIMMEDIATEEXECUTION,
demolishprivaterespondents'housesandother
GENERALLYMANDATORY;EXCEPTIONISWHERETHE
improvementswhichmightbefoundonthesubject
JUDGMENTDOESNOTCONTAINANYAWARDOFRENTALS
premises.Onappealbytheprivaterespondents,theCourt
INARREARSORDAMAGES;CASEATBAR.Underthe
1
PersonalCopyofCynthiaV.Pantonal
formerSection8,Rule70oftheRulesofCourt,ifthe withoutprejudicetotheappealbeforetheCourtofAppeals.
judgmentofthemunicipaltrialcourtinanejectmentcaseis ThesaidSectionrepealedSection10oftheRulesofCourt
adversetothedefendant,executionshallissue allowingduringthependencyoftheappealwiththeCourt
immediately.Tostaytheimmediateexecutionofthe ofAppealsastayofexecutionoftheRTCjudgmentwith
judgment,thedefendantmust(1)perfecthisappeal;(2)file respecttotherestorationofpossessionwherethe
asupersedeasbondtoanswerfortherents,damages,and defendantmakesaperiodicdepositofrentals.Thus,
costsaccruingdowntothetimeofthejudgmentappealed immediateexecutionofthejudgmentbecomesaministerial
from;and(3)periodicallydeposittherentalsfallingdue dutyofthecourt.Nonewwritofexecutionwas,however,
duringthependencyoftheappeal.Asarule,thefilingofa issued.Nevertheless,thewritofdemolitionthereafter
supersedeasbondismandatoryandifnotfiled,theplaintiff issuedwassufficienttoconstituteawritofexecution,asit
isentitledasamatterofrighttotheimmediateexecutionof substantiallycompliedwiththeformandcontentsofawrit
thejudgment.Anexceptioniswherethetrialcourtdidnot ofexecutionasprovidedforunderSection8ofRule39of
makeanyfindingswithrespecttoanyamountinarrears, theRulesofCourt.cIADTC
damagesorcostsagainstthedefendant,inwhichcaseno
bondisnecessarytostaytheexecutionofthejudgment. 3. ID.;PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION;INJUNCTIONDOES
Thus,inOncev.Gonzales,thisCourtruledthattheorderof NOTLIEWHENTHEACTSOUGHTTOBEENJOINEDHAD
executionpremisedonthefailuretofileasupersedeasbond ALREADYBECOMEAFAITACCOMPLI.Intheinstantcase,
wasgroundlessandvoidbecausenosuchbondwas privaterespondents'petitionforreviewwithprayerforthe
necessarytherebeingnobackrentalsadjudgedinthe immediateissuanceofatemporaryrestrainingorder(TRO)
appealedjudgment.Similarly,intheinstantcase,therewas orpreliminaryinjunctionwasmailedon2August1994but
noneedfortheprivaterespondentstofileasupersedeas wasreceivedbytheCourtofAppealsonlyon30August
bondbecausethejudgmentoftheMTCCdidnotaward 1994.Meanwhile,on3August1994,thewritofdemolition
rentalsinarrearsordamages.Theattorney'sfeesofP8,000 wasimplemented,resultinginthedemolitionofprivate
andthelitigationexpensesofP2,000awardedinfavorof respondents'houses.Hence,anyrelevantissuearisingfrom
thepetitionerneednotbecoveredbyabond,astheseare theissuanceorenforcementofthewrithadbeenrendered
notthedamagescontemplatedinSection8ofRule70ofthe mootandacademic.Injunctionwouldnotlieanymore,as
RulesofCourt.Thedamagesreferredtothereinarethe theactssoughttohavebeenenjoinedhadalreadybecome
reasonablecompensationfortheuseandoccupationofthe afaitaccomplioranaccomplishedorconsummatedact.
propertywhicharegenerallymeasuredbyitsfairrental
4. ID.;UNLAWFULDETAINERCASES;PRIORPHYSICAL
valueandcannotrefertootherdamageswhichareforeign
POSSESSIONISNOTANINDISPENSABLEREQUIREMENT.
totheenjoymentormaterialpossessionoftheproperty.
Nowontheapplicabilitytounlawfuldetainercasesofthe
Neitherweretheprivaterespondentsobligedtodepositthe
requirementofpriorphysicalpossessionofthedisputed
rentalsfallingdueduringthependencyoftheappealin
property.ContrarytotherulingoftheCourtofAppeals,
ordertosecureastayofexecutionbecausetheappealed
priorphysicalpossessionbytheplaintiffofthesubject
judgmentdidnotfixthereasonablerentalorcompensation
propertyisnotanindispensablerequirementinunlawful
fortheuseofthepremises.Hence,itwaserrorfortheRTC
detainercases,althoughitisindispensableinanactionfor
toordertheexecutionofthejudgmentoftheMTCC.
forcibleentry.Thelackofpriorphysicalpossessiononthe
2. REMEDIALLAW;REVISEDRULESONSUMMARY partofAZNARisthereforeofnomoment,asitscauseof
PROCEDURE;SUMMARYPROCEDURE;THERTCDECISION actionintheunlawfuldetainercaseispreciselytoterminate
AFFIRMINGTHECOURTAQUO'SDECISIONINAN privaterespondents'possessionofthepropertyinquestion.
EJECTMENTCASEISIMMEDIATELYEXECUTORY;WRITOF
5. ID.;ID.;QUESTIONOFTITLEMAYBEDECIDED
DEMOLITIONCONSTITUTEDWRITOFEXECUTION.Atany
SOLELYFORTHEPURPOSEOFDETERMININGTHEISSUEOF
rate,pursuanttoSection21oftheRevisedRulesof
POSSESSION.Inanactionforejectment,theonlyissue
SummaryProcedure,thedecisionoftheRTCaffirmingthe
involvedispossessiondefacto.However,whentheissueof
decisionoftheMTCChasbecomeimmediatelyexecutory,
possessioncannotbedecidedwithoutresolvingtheissueof
2
ownership,thecourtmayreceiveevidenceuponthe 8. NOTARIALLAW;NOTARIALDISQUALIFICATION;A
questionoftitletothepropertybutsolelyforthepurpose REPRESENTATIVEOFAPERSONINWHOSEFAVORA
ofdeterminingtheissueofpossession. CONTRACTWASEXECUTEDISNOTDISQUALIFIEDTO
NOTARIZETHESUBJECTDOCUMENT.Privaterespondents
6. CIVILLAW;EXTRAJUDICIALPARTITION; contendthattherewasviolationoftheNotarialLaw
PRETERITIONOFHEIRS;PARTICIPATIONOFNONHEIRS becausethelawyerwhopreparedandnotarizedthe
DOESNOTRENDERTHEPARTITIONVOIDINITSENTIRETY documentwasAZNAR'srepresentativeintheexecutionof
BUTONLYTOTHEEXTENTCORRESPONDINGTOTHEM. thesaiddocument.UnderSection22oftheSpanishNotarial
Privaterespondentsclaimthatnotalltheknownheirsof Lawof1889,anotarypubliccouldnotauthenticatea
CrisantaMaloloyonparticipatedintheextrajudicial contractwhichcontainedprovisionsinhisfavorortowhich
partition,andthattwopersonswhoparticipatedandwere anyofthepartiesinterestedisarelativeofhiswithinthe
madepartiestheretowerenotheirsofCrisanta.Thisclaim, fourthcivildegreeorseconddegreeofaffinity;otherwise,
eveniftrue,wouldnotwarrantrescissionofthedeed. pursuanttoSection28thereof,thedocumentwouldnot
UnderArticle1104oftheCivilCode,"[a]partitionmade haveanyeffect.Thisruleonnotarialdisqualificationno
withpreteritionofanyofthecompulsoryheirsshallnotbe longerholdstruewiththeenactmentofActNo.496,which
rescinded,unlessitbeprovedthattherewasbadfaithor repealedtheSpanishNotarialLaw.UndertheNotarialLaw
fraudonthepartofthepersonsinterested;butthelatter inforceatthetimeofthenotarizationofthequestioned
shallbeproportionatelyobligedtopaytotheperson deed,Chapter11oftheRevisedAdministrativeCode,only
omittedthesharewhichbelongstohim."Inthepresent thosewhohadbeenconvictedofanycrimeinvolvingmoral
case,noevidenceofbadfaithorfraudisextantfromthe turpitudeweredisqualifiedtonotarizedocuments.Thus,a
records.Astothetwopartiestothedeedwhowere representativeofapersoninwhosefavoracontractwas
allegedlynotheirs,Article1105isinpoint;itprovides:"A executedwasnotnecessarilysodisqualified.Besides,there
partitionwhichincludesapersonbelievedtobeanheir,but isnoproofthatAtty.RamonIgaawasarepresentativeof
whoisnot,shallbevoidonlywithrespecttosuchperson." petitionerin1964;whatappearsonrecordisthathewas
Inotherwords,theparticipationofnonheirsdoesnot theChiefofthepetitioner'sLegalDepartmentin1993.
renderthepartitionvoidinitsentiretybutonlytothe Additionally,thisallegedviolationoftheNotarialLawwas
extentcorrespondingtothem. raisedonlynow.ISTCHE
7. REMEDIALLAW;EVIDENCE;NOTARIZATIONOF 9. LANDREGISTRATION;CONVEYANCEOFPROPERTY
DOCUMENTS,EFFECTSOF;PROOFOFFORGERY;A VALIDANDBINDINGWHENNORIGHTOFINNOCENTTHIRD
NOTARIZEDDOCUMENTENJOYSTHEPRESUMPTIONOF PERSONORSUBSEQUENTTRANSFEREESISINVOLVED;
REGULARITY.ItisworthytonotethattheExtrajudicial PURPOSEOFREGISTRATION;NONREGISTRATIONOFA
PartitionwithDeedofAbsoluteSaleisanotarized DEEDDOESNOTRELIEVETHEPARTIESTHERETOOFTHEIR
document.Assuch,ithasinitsfavorthepresumptionof OBLIGATIONS.Anentthenonannotationofthe
regularity,anditcarriestheevidentiaryweightconferred ExtrajudicialPartitionwithDeedofAbsoluteSaleinthe
uponitwithrespecttoitsdueexecution.Itisadmissiblein reconstitutedOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.RO2856,the
evidencewithoutfurtherproofofauthenticityandis samedoesnotrenderthedeedlegallydefective.Itmustbe
entitledtofullfaithandcredituponitsface.Hewhodenies borneinmindthattheactofregisteringadocumentis
itsdueexecutionhastheburdenofprovingthatcontraryto nevernecessarytogivetheconveyancelegaleffectas
therecitalintheAcknowledgmentheneverappeared betweenthepartiesandthevendor'sheirs.Asbetweenthe
beforethenotarypublicandacknowledgedthedeedtobe partiestoasale,registrationisnotindispensabletomakeit
hisvoluntaryact.Itmustalsobestressedthatwhoever validandeffective.Thepeculiarforceofatitleisexhibited
allegesforgeryhastheburdenofprovingthesame.Forgery onlywhenthepurchaserhassoldtoinnocentthirdparties
cannotbepresumedbutshouldbeprovedbyclearand thelanddescribedintheconveyance.Thepurposeof
convincingevidence.Privaterespondentsfailedtodischarge registrationismerelytonotifyandprotecttheinterestsof
thisburdenofproof;hence,thepresumptioninfavorofthe strangerstoagiventransaction,whomaybeignorant
questioneddeedstands.
3
thereof,andthenonregistrationofthedeedevidencing theprivaterespondentstovacatethelandfailed,AZNAR
saidtransactiondoesnotrelievethepartiestheretooftheir filedwiththeMunicipalTrialCourt(MTCC)ofLapuLapu
obligationsthereunder.Here,norightofinnocentthird Cityacaseforunlawfuldetaineranddamages,whichwas
personsorsubsequenttransfereesofthesubjectlotis docketedasCivilCaseNo.R1027.
involved;thus,theconveyanceexecutedinfavorofAZNAR
byprivaterespondentsandtheirpredecessorsisvalidand Ontheotherhand,theprivaterespondentsallegedthat
bindinguponthem,andisequallybindingandeffective theyarethesuccessorsanddescendantsoftheeight
againsttheirheirs.Theprinciplethatregistrationisthe childrenofthelateCrisantaMaloloyon,whosenames
operativeactthatgivesvaliditytothetransferorcreatesa appearastheregisteredownersintheOriginalCertificateof
lienupontheland"referstocasesinvolvingconflicting TitleNo.RC2856.Theyhadbeenresidingandoccupyingthe
rightsoverregisteredpropertyandthoseofinnocent subjectportionofthelandintheconceptofownersincethe
transfereeswhoreliedonthecleantitleoftheproperties." timeoftheirparentsandgrandparents,exceptfor
Thisprinciplehasnobearingonthepresentcase,asno TeodoricaAndaleswhowasnotaresidentinsaidpremises.
subsequenttransferofthesubjectlottootherpersonshas PrivaterespondentsclaimedthattheExtrajudicialPartition
beenmadeeitherbyprivaterespondentsortheir ofRealEstatewithDeedofAbsoluteSaleisvoidabinitiofor
predecessorsininterest. beingsimulatedandfraudulent,andtheycametoknowof
thefraudonlywhenAZNARenteredintothelandinthelast
DECISION quarterof1991anddestroyeditsvegetation.Theythen
filedwiththeRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofLapuLapuCitya
DAVIDE,JR.,C.Jp: complaintseekingtodeclarethesubjectdocumentnulland
void.ThiscasewasdocketedasCivilCaseNo.2930L.prcd
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45of
theRevisedRulesofCourtseekingtoreverseandsetaside On1February1994,theMTCCrenderedadecisionordering
the26March1996Decision1oftheCourtofAppeals theprivaterespondentsto(a)vacatethelandinquestion
declaringtheprivaterespondentstherightfulpossessorsde uponthefinalityofthejudgment;and(b)payP8,000as
factoofthesubjectlotandpermanentlyenjoiningSheriff attorney'sfeesandP2,000aslitigationexpenses,pluscosts.
JuanGatoorhisrepresentativefromeffectingthe 2
demolitionofprivaterespondents'houses.cda
TheMTCCdelvedintotheissueofownershipinorderto
CulledfromtheevidenceprofferedbypetitionerAznar resolvetheissueofpossession.Itfoundthatpetitioner
BrothersRealtyCo.(hereafterAZNAR),itappearsthatLot AZNARacquiredownershipofLotNo.4399byvirtueofthe
No.4399containinganareaof34,325squaremeters ExtrajudicialPartitionofRealEstatewithDeedofAbsolute
locatedatBrgy.Mactan,LapuLapuCity,wasacquiredby SaleexecutedbytheHeirsofCrisantaMaloloyonon3
AZNARfromtheheirsofCrisantaMaloloyonbyvirtueofan March1964,whichwasregisteredwiththeRegisterof
ExtrajudicialPartitionofRealEstatewithDeedofAbsolute DeedsofLapuLapuCityon6March1964asappearingon
Saledated3March1964.Thisdeedwasregisteredwiththe thefacethereof.Privaterespondents'allegationthattwoof
RegisterofDeedsofLapuLapuCityon6March1964as thesignatorieswerenotheirsoftheregisteredowners;that
shownonthefacethereof.Afterthesale,petitionerAZNAR someofthesignatorieswerealreadydeadatthedateofthe
declaredthispropertyunderitsnamefortaxationpurposes executionofthedeed;andthatmanyheirswerenotparties
andregularlypaidthetaxesthereon.Hereinprivate totheextrajudicialpartitionisaformofanegative
respondentswereallegedlyallowedtooccupyportionsof pregnant,whichhadtheeffectofadmittingthatthe
LotNo.4399bymeretoleranceprovidedthattheyleavethe vendors,exceptthosementionedinthespecificdenial,
landintheeventthatthecompanywouldusetheproperty wereheirsandhadthelegalrighttosellthesubjectlandto
foritspurposes.Later,AZNARenteredintoajointventure petitioner.Thefactthatsomeormostheirshadnotsigned
withSta.LuciaRealtyDevelopmentCorporationforthe thedeeddidnotmakethedocumentnullandvoidabinitio
developmentofthesubjectlotintoamultimillionpeso butonlyannullable,unlesstheactionhadalready
housingsubdivisionandbeachresort.Whenitsdemandsfor prescribed.Sincetheprivaterespondentsoccupiedtheland
4
merelybytolerance,theycouldbejudiciallyejected privaterespondentshadalreadybeeninpossessionthereof
therefrom.ThattheDeedhasnotbeenannotatedonOCT peacefully,continuously,adverselyandnotoriouslysince
RO2856isofnomoment,sincesaidtitlewasreconstituted timeimmemorial.Therewasnoevidencethatpetitioner
onlyon25August1988,whilethesubjectDeedwas waseverinpossessionoftheproperty.Itsclaimof
executedon3March1964.Lastly,thereconstitutedtitlehas ownershipwasbasedonlyonanExtrajudicialPartitionwith
notasyetbeentransferredtoapurchaserforvalue. DeedofAbsoluteSale,whichprivaterespondents,however,
claimedtobenullandvoidforbeingsimulatedand
AggrievedbythedecisionoftheMTCC,privaterespondents fraudulentlyobtained.TheCourtofAppealsfurtherheld
appealedtotheRTC. thatwherenotalltheknownheirshadparticipatedinthe
extrajudicialagreementofpartition,theinstrumentwould
Duringthependencyoftheappeal,oron8March1994,the
benullandvoidandthereforecouldnotberegistered.6
RTC,uponAznar'sexpartemotion,issuedanordergranting
Moreover,AZNARwasestoppedtoassertownershipofthe
theissuanceofawritofexecutionpursuanttoSection8,
propertyinquestion,sinceithadadmittedinapleadingin
Rule70oftheRevisedRulesofCourtinviewofthefailure
thereconstitutionproceedingsthatthepropertyhadnever
ofprivaterespondentstoputupasupersedeasbond.A
beenconveyedbythedecreedowners.Additionally,from
weeklater,awritofexecutionwasissued.Thesheriffthen
1988uptothefilingoftheejectmentcaseon4August1993,
serveduponprivaterespondentsthesaidwritofexecution
AZNARneverregisteredtheextrajudicialpartitiondespite
togetherwithanoticetovacate.On11April1994,the
opportunitiestodoso.Itsallegationthatprivate
sheriffpadlockedtheirhouses,butlaterintheday,private
respondentsoccupiedthepropertybymeretolerancewas
respondentsreenteredtheirhouses.Thus,on6May1994,
notproved.PursuanttotherulinginVda.deLegaspiv.
AZNARfiledanomnibusmotionfortheissuanceofawritof
Avendano,7thefactthattherightoftheprivate
demolition,whichprivaterespondentsopposed.This
respondentswassoseriouslyplacedinissueandthe
motionwassetforhearingthreetimes,buttheparties
executionofthedecisionintheejectmentcasewouldhave
optedtosubmitaconsolidatedmemorandumandagreedto
meantdemolitionofprivaterespondents'houses
submitthesameforresolution.3
constitutedanequitablereasontosuspendthe
On22July1994,theRTCaffirmedthedecisionoftheMTCC enforcementofthewritofexecutionandorderof
andorderedtheissuanceofawritofdemolitiondirecting demolition.
thesherifftodemolishprivaterespondents'housesand
AZNARthenelevatedthecasetothisCourt,viathispetition
otherimprovementswhichmightbefoundonthesubject
forreviewoncertiorari,contendingthatrespondentCourt
premises.4
ofAppealserredin
On29July1994,awritofdemolitionwasissued,and
1. ...reversingthejudgmentsoftheMunicipalTrial
noticesofdemolitionwereserveduponprivate
CourtandtheRegionalTrialCourtofLapuLapuCitydespite
respondents.PerSheriff'sReport,5privaterespondents'
thefinalityofthejudgmentsandthefullimplementation
housesweredemolishedon3August1994,exceptfortwo
thereof;
houseswhichweremovedoutsidethepremisesinquestion
uponthepleaoftheownersthereof.dctai 2. ...invokinglackofpriorphysicalpossessionover
thelandinquestionbythepetitionerasonegroundinits
Onappealbytheprivaterespondents,theCourtofAppeals
Decisionsoughttobereviewed;
reversedandsetasidethedecisionoftheRTC;declaredthe
privaterespondentsastherightfulpossessorsdefactoof 3. ...holdingthattheExtrajudicialPartitionwith
thelandinquestion;andpermanentlyenjoinedSheriffJuan DeedofAbsoluteSalewasnullandvoid;LLjur
Gatoorwhoeverwasactinginhissteadfromeffectuating
thedemolitionofthehousesoftheprivaterespondents. 4. ...holdingthatpetitionerwasinestoppelinpais
whenitmadetheallegationthatthepropertywasnotsold
Inarrivingatitschallengeddecision,theCourtofAppeals orencumberedinitspetitionforreconstitutionoftitle;
notedthatatthetimeAZNARenteredtheproperty,the
5
5. ...applyingtherulinginthecaseofVda.de Thedamagesreferredtothereinarethereasonable
Legaspivs.Avendano(79SCRA135[1977]). compensationfortheuseandoccupationoftheproperty
whicharegenerallymeasuredbyitsfairrentalvalueand
Weshalljointlydiscussthefirstandfifthassignederrorsfor cannotrefertootherdamageswhichareforeigntothe
beinginterrelatedwitheachother. enjoymentormaterialpossessionoftheproperty.12
Neitherweretheprivaterespondentsobligedtodepositthe
Initsfirstassignederror,petitionerarguesthatthedecision
rentalsfallingdueduringthependencyoftheappealin
oftheMTCCofLapuLapuCityhadbecomefinaland
ordertosecureastayofexecutionbecausetheappealed
immediatelyexecutoryinviewoftheundisputedfailureof
judgmentdidnotfixthereasonablerentalorcompensation
theprivaterespondentstopostasupersedeasbondas
fortheuseofthepremises.13Hence,itwaserrorforthe
requiredbySection8,Rule70oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.
RTCtoordertheexecutionofthejudgmentoftheMTCC.
Wedonotagree.Sincetheprivaterespondentshad LLpr
seasonablyfiledanappealwiththeRTCofLapuLapuCity,
Atanyrate,pursuanttoSection21oftheRevisedRulesof
thejudgmentoftheMTCCofLapuLapuCitydidnotbecome
SummaryProcedure,thedecisionoftheRTCaffirmingthe
final.Andforreasonshereunderstated,theperfectionof
decisionoftheMTCChasbecomeimmediatelyexecutory,
theappealwasenoughtostaytheexecutionoftheMTCC
withoutprejudicetotheappealbeforetheCourtofAppeals.
decision.dctai
ThesaidSectionrepealedSection10oftheRulesofCourt
UndertheformerSection8,Rule70oftheRulesofCourt,8 allowingduringthependencyoftheappealwiththeCourt
ifthejudgmentofthemunicipaltrialcourtinanejectment ofAppealsastayofexecutionoftheRTCJudgmentwith
caseisadversetothedefendant,executionshallissue respecttotherestorationofpossessionwherethe
immediately.Tostaytheimmediateexecutionofthe defendantmakesaperiodicdepositofrentals.Thus,
judgment,thedefendantmust(1)perfecthisappeal;(2)file immediateexecutionofthejudgmentbecomesaministerial
asupersedeasbondtoanswerfortherents,damages,and dutyofthecourt.Nonewwritofexecutionwas,however,
costsaccruingdowntothetimeofthejudgmentappealed issued.Nevertheless,thewritofdemolitionthereafter
from;and(3)periodicallydeposittherentalsfallingdue issuedwassufficienttoconstituteawritofexecution,asit
duringthependencyoftheappeal.9 substantiallycompliedwiththeformandcontentsofawrit
ofexecutionasprovidedforunderSection8ofRule39of
Asarule,thefilingofasupersedeasbondismandatoryand theRulesofCourt.Moreover,privaterespondentswere
ifnotfiled,theplaintiffisentitledasamatterofrighttothe dulynotifiedandheardontheomnibusmotionforthe
immediateexecutionofthejudgment.Anexceptionis issuanceofthewritofdemolitionandweregivenfivedays
wherethetrialcourtdidnotmakeanyfindingswithrespect toremovetheirhouses.14
toanyamountinarrears,damagesorcostsagainstthe
defendant,10inwhichcasenobondisnecessarytostaythe InvokingLegaspiv.Avendao,15theCourtofAppealsheld
executionofthejudgment.Thus,inOncev.Gonzales,11 thattherewasanequitablereasontosuspendthe
thisCourtruledthattheorderofexecutionpremisedonthe enforcementofthewritofexecutionandorderof
failuretofileasupersedeasbondwasgroundlessandvoid demolitionuntilafterthefinaldeterminationofthecivil
becausenosuchbondwasnecessarytherebeingnoback caseforthenullificationoftheExtrajudicialPartitionwith
rentalsadjudgedintheappealedjudgment. DeedofAbsoluteSale.
Similarly,intheinstantcase,therewasnoneedforthe InLegaspi,thisCourtheld:
privaterespondentstofileasupersedeasbondbecausethe
Wheretheaction...isoneofillegaldetainer...andthe
judgmentoftheMTCCdidnotawardrentalsinarrearsor
rightoftheplaintifftorecoverthepremisesisseriously
damages.Theattorney'sfeesofP8,000andthelitigation
placedinissueinaproperjudicialproceeding,itismore
expensesofP2,000awardedinfavorofthepetitionerneed
equitableandjustandlessproductiveofconfusionand
notbecoveredbyabond,asthesearenotthedamages
disturbanceofphysicalpossession,withallitsconcomitant
contemplatedinSection8ofRule70oftheRulesofCourt.
6
inconvenienceandexpense[f]orthecourtinwhichthe DeedofAbsoluteSaleuponwhichpetitionerbasesitstitleis
issueoflegalpossession,whetherinvolvingownershipor nullandvoidforbeingsimulatedandfraudulentlymade.
not,isbroughttorestrain,shouldapetitionforpreliminary
injunctionbefiledwithit,theeffectsofanyorderor First,privaterespondentsclaimthatnotalltheknownheirs
decisionintheunlawfuldetainercaseinordertoawaitthe ofCrisantaMaloloyonparticipatedintheextrajudicial
finaljudgmentinthemoresubstantivecaseinvolvinglegal partition,andthattwopersonswhoparticipatedandwere
possessionorownership. madepartiestheretowerenotheirsofCrisanta.Thisclaim,
eveniftrue,wouldnotwarrantrescissionofthedeed.
Intheinstantcase,privaterespondents'petitionforreview UnderArticle1104oftheCivilCode,"[a]partitionmade
withprayerfortheimmediateissuanceofatemporary withpreteritionofanyofthecompulsoryheirsshallnotbe
restrainingorder(TRO)orpreliminaryinjunctionwasmailed rescinded,unlessitbeprovedthattherewasbadfaithor
on2August1994butwasreceivedbytheCourtofAppeals fraudonthepartofthepersonsinterested;butthelatter
onlyon30August1994.Meanwhile,on3August1994,the shallbeproportionatelyobligedtopaytotheperson
writofdemolitionwasimplemented,resultinginthe omittedthesharewhichbelongstohim."Inthepresent
demolitionofprivaterespondents'houses.Hence,any case,noevidenceofbadfaithorfraudisextantfromthe
relevantissuearisingfromtheissuanceorenforcementof records.Astothetwopartiestothedeedwhowere
thewrithadbeenrenderedmootandacademic.Injunction allegedlynotheirs,Article1105isinpoint;itprovides:"A
wouldnotlieanymore,astheactssoughttohavebeen partitionwhichincludesapersonbelievedtobeanheir,but
enjoinedhadalreadybecomeafaitaccomplioran whoisnot,shallbevoidonlywithrespecttosuchperson.
accomplishedorconsummatedact.Cdpr Inotherwords,theparticipationofnonheirsdoesnot
renderthepartitionvoidinitsentiretybutonlytothe
Nowontheapplicabilitytounlawfuldetainercasesofthe extentcorrespondingtothem.cdtai
requirementofpriorphysicalpossessionofthedisputed
property.ContrarytotherulingoftheCourtofAppeals, Privaterespondentsalsoallegethatsomeofthepersons
priorphysicalpossessionbytheplaintiffofthesubject whoweremadepartiestothedeedwerealreadydead,
propertyisnotanindispensablerequirementinunlawful whileotherswerestillminors.Moreover,thenamesof
detainercases,althoughitisindispensableinanactionfor somepartiestheretoweremisspelled,andotherswhoknew
forcibleentry.16Thelackofpriorphysicalpossessionon howtoreadandwritetheirnamesweremadetoappearto
thepartofAZNARisthereforeofnomoment,asitscauseof haveaffixedonlytheirthumbmarkinthequestioned
actionintheunlawfuldetainercaseispreciselytoterminate document.Likewise,thesignaturesofthosewhowere
privaterespondents'possessionofthepropertyinquestion. madepartieswereforged.
17
Theforegoingarebareallegationswithnolegtostandon.
WenowcometotheissueofthevalidityoftheExtrajudicial Nobirthordeathcertificateswerepresentedbeforethe
PartitionwithDeedofAbsoluteSale. MTCCtosupporttheallegationsthatsomeofthepartiesto
thedeedwereminorsandotherswerealreadydeadatthe
Inanactionforejectment,theonlyissueinvolvedis timeoftheexecutionofthedeed.Whatprivate
possessiondefacto.However,whentheissueofpossession respondentsadducedasevidencewasmerelyafamilytree,
cannotbedecidedwithoutresolvingtheissueofownership, whichwasatmostselfserving.Itwasonlywhenthecase
thecourtmayreceiveevidenceuponthequestionoftitleto wasonappealwiththeRTCthattheprivaterespondents
thepropertybutsolelyforthepurposeofdeterminingthe presentedasAnnex"B"oftheirMemorandumandAppeal
issueofpossession.18 BriefaphotocopyofthecertificateofdeathofFrancisco
Aying,19sonofCrisantaMaloloyon,whoreportedlydied
Intheinstantcase,privaterespondentshavesetupthe
on7March1963.Thiscertificatewasallegedlyissuedon17
defenseofownershipandquestionedthetitleofAZNARto
January1992bytheParishPriestofVirgendeReglaParish,
thesubjectlot,allegingthattheExtrajudicialPartitionwith
LapuLapuCity.Thefactremains,however,thatthis
photocopywasnotcertifiedtobeatruecopy.cdphil
7
ItisworthytonotethattheExtrajudicialPartitionwith vendor'sheirs.Asbetweenthepartiestoasale,registration
DeedofAbsoluteSaleisanotarizeddocument.Assuch,it isnotindispensabletomakeitvalidandeffective.The
hasinitsfavorthepresumptionofregularity,anditcarries peculiarforceofatitleisexhibitedonlywhenthepurchaser
theevidentiaryweightconferreduponitwithrespecttoits hassoldtoinnocentthirdpartiesthelanddescribedinthe
dueexecution.20Itisadmissibleinevidencewithout conveyance.Thepurposeofregistrationismerelytonotify
furtherproofofauthenticity21andisentitledtofullfaith andprotecttheinterestsofstrangerstoagiventransaction,
andcredituponitsface.22Hewhodeniesitsdueexecution whomaybeignorantthereof,andthenonregistrationof
hastheburdenofprovingthatcontrarytotherecitalinthe thedeedevidencingsaidtransactiondoesnotrelievethe
Acknowledgmentheneverappearedbeforethenotary partiestheretooftheirobligationsthereunder.27Here,no
publicandacknowledgedthedeedtobehisvoluntaryact. rightofinnocentthirdpersonsorsubsequenttransfereesof
23Itmustalsobestressedthatwhoeverallegesforgeryhas thesubjectlotisinvolved;thus,theconveyanceexecutedin
theburdenofprovingthesame.Forgerycannotbe favorofAZNARbyprivaterespondentsandtheir
presumedbutshouldbeprovedbyclearandconvincing predecessorsisvalidandbindinguponthem,andisequally
evidence.24Privaterespondentsfailedtodischargethis bindingandeffectiveagainsttheirheirs.28
burdenofproof;hence,thepresumptioninfavorofthe
questioneddeedstands. Theprinciplethatregistrationistheoperativeactthatgives
validitytothetransferorcreatesalienupontheland
Privaterespondentscontendthattherewasviolationofthe "referstocasesinvolvingconflictingrightsoverregistered
NotarialLawbecausethelawyerwhopreparedand propertyandthoseofinnocenttransfereeswhoreliedon
notarizedthedocumentwasAZNAR'srepresentativeinthe thecleantitleoftheproperties."29Thisprinciplehasno
executionofthesaiddocument.UnderSection22ofthe bearingonthepresentcase,asnosubsequenttransferof
SpanishNotarialLawof1889,anotarypubliccouldnot thesubjectlottootherpersonshasbeenmadeeitherby
authenticateacontractwhichcontainedprovisionsinhis privaterespondentsortheirpredecessorsininterest.30
favorortowhichanyofthepartiesinterestedisarelative
ofhiswithinthefourthcivildegreeorseconddegreeof Byandlarge,itappearsonthefaceoftheExtrajudicial
affinity;otherwise,pursuanttoSection28thereof,the PartitionwithDeedofAbsoluteSalethatthesamewas
documentwouldnothaveanyeffect.Thisruleonnotarial registeredon6March1964.TheregistrationwasunderAct
disqualificationnolongerholdstruewiththeenactmentof No.3344onunregisteredlandsallegedlybecauseatthe
ActNo.496,whichrepealedtheSpanishNotarialLaw.25 time,notitlewasexistinginthefilesoftheRegisterof
UndertheNotarialLawinforceatthetimeofthe DeedsofLapuLapuCity,asitwasallegedlylostduringthe
notarizationofthequestioneddeed,Chapter11ofthe lastworldwar.Itwasonlyon8August1988thatthetitle
RevisedAdministrativeCode,onlythosewhohadbeen wasreconstitutedattheinstanceofthepetitioner.
convictedofanycrimeinvolvingmoralturpitudewere
Astothefourthassignederror,wedonotagreewiththe
disqualifiedtonotarizedocuments.Thus,arepresentative
CourtofAppealsandtheprivaterespondentsthat
ofapersoninwhosefavoracontractwasexecutedwasnot
petitionerisinestoppeltoassertownershipoverthe
necessarilysodisqualified.Besides,thereisnoproofthat
subjectpropertybecauseofpetitioner'sownallegationin
Atty.RamonIgaawasarepresentativeofpetitionerin
thepetitionforreconstitution,towit:
1964;whatappearsonrecordisthathewastheChiefofthe
petitioner'sLegalDepartmentin1993.Additionally,this Thatcertificatesoftitlewereissuedtheretobutwerelost
allegedviolationoftheNotarialLawwasraisedonlynow. duringthelastworldwar.Thatthesamewerenotconveyed
muchlessofferedasacollateralforanydebtcontractedor
AnentthenonannotationoftheExtrajudicialPartitionwith
deliveredforthesecurityofpaymentofanyobligationin
DeedofAbsoluteSaleinthereconstitutedOriginal
favorofanypersonorlendinginstitution.
CertificateofTitleNo.RO2856,thesamedoesnotrender
thedeedlegallydefective.Itmustbeborneinmindthatthe Thewords"thesame"inthesecondsentenceoftheafore
actofregisteringadocumentisnevernecessarytogivethe quotedparagraphclearlyreferstothecertificatesoftitle.
conveyancelegaleffectasbetweentheparties26andthe
8
Thismeansthatthecertificatesoftitle,notnecessarilythe
subjectlot,werenotconveyedorofferedasacollateralbut
werelostduringthelastworldwar.Indeed,aspetitioner
contends,itwouldbeveryabsurdandselfdefeating
constructionifweweretointerprettheabovequoted
allegationinthemannerthattheCourtofAppealsandthe
privaterespondentsdid,forhowcouldpetitioner,whois
claimingownershipoverthesubjectproperty,logically
allegethatthepropertywasnotsoldtoit?dctai
Itbearsrepeatingthatpetitioner'sclaimofpossessionover
thesubjectlotisanchoredonitsclaimofownershiponthe
basisoftheExtrajudicialPartitionwithDeedofAbsolute
Sale.Ourrulingontheissueofthevalidityofthe
questioneddeedissolelyforthepurposeofresolvingthe
issueofpossessionandistoberegardedmerelyas
provisional,withoutprejudice,however,tothefinal
determinationoftheissueintheothercaseforthe
annulmentorcancellationoftheExtrajudicialPartitionwith
DeedofAbsoluteSale.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.Thechallenged
decisionofpublicrespondentCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SP
No.35060isherebyREVERSED,andthedecisionofthe
RegionalTrialCourt,Branch27,LapuLapuCity,is
REINSTATED.LibLex
Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
[G.RNo.L17951February28,1963.] INDICATES.Wheretherewasnothinginthe
certificateoftitletoindicateanycloudorviceinthe
CONRADOC.FULEandLOURDESE.ARAGON, ownershipoftheproperty,oranyencumbrance
petitioners,vs.EMILIAE.DELEGAREandCOURTOF
thereon,thepurchaserisnotrequiredtoexplore
APPEALS,respondents.
fartherthanwhattheTorrenstitleuponitsface
Teehankee,Taada&Carreonforpetitioners. indicatesinquestforanyhiddendefectorinchoate
rightthatmaysubsequentlydefeathisrightthereto.If
IgnacioM.Orendainforrespondents. therulewereotherwise,theefficacyand
conclusivenessofthecertificateoftitlewhichthe
SYLLABUS
Torrenssystemseekstoinsurewouldentirelybefutile
1. LANDREGISTRATION;SALEOFREGISTERED andnugatory.
LAND;INNOCENTPURCHASERSFORVALUE;
DECISION
PURCHASERINGOODFAITH.Apurchaseringood
faithisonewhobuyspropertyofanother,without REGALA,Jp:
noticethatsomeotherpersonhasarightto,orinterest
in,suchpropertyandpaysafullandfairpriceforthe Thisisapetitionforcertioraritoreviewthedecisionof
same,atthetimeofsuchpurchaser,orbeforehehas theCourtofAppeals,promulgatedonNovember16,
noticeoftheclaimorinterestofsomeotherpersonsin 1960,inCivilCaseNo.15728R,entitled"EmiliaE.
theproperty.Goodfaithconsistsinanhonestintention Legare,plaintiffappellant,versus,ConradoC.Fuleand
toabstainfromtakinganyunconscientiousadvantage LourdesF.Aragon,defendantsappellants.
ofanother(CuiandJovenvs.Henson,51Phil.606). ThefactsofthiscaseasfoundbytheCourtofAppeals
2. ID.;ID.;ID.;PRODUCTIONOFOWNER'S initsdecisionareasfollows:
DUPLICATECERTIFICATEDEEMEDCONCLUSIVE "Thisisanactionforannulmentofcertaindeedsofsale
AUTHORITYTOENTERNEWCERTIFICATE.Under andconveyancecoveringaparcelofland,togetherwith
Section5,Act496,theproductionoftheowner's theimprovementsexistingthereon,situatedinthe
duplicatecertificateoftitleoperatesasaconclusive municipalityofSanJuan,provinceofRizal,andfor
authorityfromtheregisteredownertotheregisterof damages.
deedstoenteranewcertificate.
"Itappearsinevidencethattheplaintiff,EmiliaE.de
3. ID.;ID.;ID.;WHENFORGEDDEEDMAYCONVEY Legare,wastheownerofaparcelofland,togetherwith
TITLE.Althoughgenerallyaforgedorfraudulent aresidentialhouseerectedthereon,situatedatNo.146
deedisanullityandconveysnotitle,however,there Sta.MesaBoulevardExtension,SanJuan,Rizal,her
areinstanceswhensuchafraudulentdocumentmay ownershipbeingevidencedbyTransferCertificateof
becometherootofavalidtitle.Onesuchinstanceis TitleNo.21253,issuedbytheOfficeoftheRegisterof
wherethecertificateoftitlewasalreadytransferred DeedsoftheProvinceofRizal.Shewaslivinginthat
fromthenameofthetrueownertotheforger,and housetogetherwithdefendantJohnW.Legare,her
whileitremainedthatway,thelandwassubsequently adoptedson,andamaidnamedPuritaTarrosa.On
soldtoaninnocentpurchaser.Forthen,thevendeehad September26,1951,theplaintiff,thruapublicdeed,
therighttorelyuponwhatappearedinthecertificate.
constitutedontheabovementionedhouseandlota
4. ID.;ID.;ID.;BUYERNOTREQUIREDTOINQUIRE firstclassmortgageinfavorofdefendantTomasQ.
FARTHERTHANWHATFACEOFCERTIFICATEOFTITLE Sorianotoguaranteethepaymentofaloaninthe
10
amountofP8,000.00.Thisdeedofmortgagewasonthe applicationforpaymentofcompensation.Asplaintiff
samedaterecordedintheOfficeoftheRegisterof hadconfidenceinJohnW.Legareandpriortothat
DeedsoftheprovinceofRizalandannotatedinthe occasionshehadreceivedfromtheU.S.Veterans
memorandumofencumbrancesoftransfercertificate Administrationaletterconcerningsomecompensation
oftitleNo.21253.Onaccountofcertainpartial shewastoreceive,shesignedthatpaper.Afterthe
paymentsmadebytheplaintiffandthecontractingby paperwassignedbytheplaintiff,JohnW.Legarehad
thelatterofadditionalloansinsmallamountsfrom PuritaTarrosasignitasawitness,withouthowever,
TomasQ.Sorianothedebtguaranteedbytheabove allowingthelattertoreadit.
mentionedmortgagewasreducedtothesumof
P7,000.00asofFebruary23,1953.Thesetransactions, "Afterthatpaperwasthussigned,JohnW.Legaretold
however,werenotannotatedonthememorandumof theplaintiffandPuritaTarrosatopackuptheirthingsas
encumbrancesoftheabovementionedcertificateof theywereleavingthehousetohideinahotel,adding
title. thatthemenwhocameearlierthateveningwereHuks.
EarlythenextmorningJohnW.Legaretooktheplaintiff
"Atabout9:00o'clockintheeveningofMarch29,1953, andPuritaTarrosatotheWindsorHotelintheCityof
whiletheplaintiff,JohnW.Legare,andPuritaTarrosa Manila,andafterconductingthemtoaroominthe
wereseatedinthedrawingroomofthehouseabove hotel,toldthemnottoleavetheroomnorpeepoutof
referredto,anunknownmanintrudedintotheroom, thewindowastheymightbeseenbythemenwho
approachedtheplaintiff,coveredhermouth,and, cametotheirhouseinthepreviousevening.Thisadvice
pressingaknifeonherside,demandedthatshegive givenJohnW.Legareleftthehotel.Theplaintiffand
himP10,000.00ifshedidnotliketobekilled.The PuritaTarrosastayedinthathotelforaboutamonth
plaintiffrepliedthatshedidnothavethatamount. andahalf.JohnW.Legareoccasionallyvisitedthem
Thereupon,theintrudertoldtheplaintifftoraisethe there.Inoneofsaidoccasionalvisitstheplaintifftold
necessaryamountashewouldcomebackthefollowing Johnthatshewantedtogohome.Thelattertoldher
morning,andoncemorethreatenedtokillherifshe thatitwasnotyetsafeforhertogohome.OnMay7,
wouldfailtodoso.Afterhavingmadethatthreat,the 1953,however,JohnW.Legarecametothehotel,gave
intruderleftthehouse.JohnW.Legaredidnotcallfor theplaintiffafivepesobill,andtoldherthatshecould
helpnormadeanyattempttodefendhismother,and usetheamountfortransportationexpensesifshe
whenPuritaTarrosastooduptogodownthehouseto wantedtoleavethehotel.Onthefollowingmorning
callforapoliceman,heheldthelatterbythehandand theplaintiffandPuritaTarrosaleftthehotelandwent
slappedheronthefacewhenshepersistedingoing directtoherhouseatSta.MesaBoulevardExtension.
down,tellingherthatthemanhadcompanionswaiting Whentheyarrivedatthehouse,however,theyfound
downstairs. thatitwasoccupiedbystrangers,andthatallher
furnitureandpersonalbelongingshaddisappeared.
"AftertheintruderwasgoneJohnW.Legare Inquiringfromthosestrangershowtheyhappenedto
approachedtheplaintiff,andexhibitingtoherapaper
occupythehouse,thelattertoldherthatJohnW.
toldhertosignitaswiththesamehecouldsecurefrom
Legarehadsoldthehousetothemandthatitwasno
theU.S.VeteransAdministrationtheamountwhich
longerhers.Theplaintiffthereuponsoughtthehelpof
theyneededtodelivertothatintruder.Theplaintiff, herattorney.Itwasthendiscoveredthatthepaper
whodidnotknowhowtoreadnorwrite,althoshe
whichJohnW.LegarehadtheplaintiffandPurita
couldsignhername,askedJohnW.Legarewhatthat
TarrosasignintheeveningofMarch29,1953wasa
paperwas.Thelatteransweredthatitwasan deedofsaleofthelotandhouseinquestioninfavorof
11
JohnW.LegareforthesumofP12,000.00,andthatit thelattertransfercertificateoftitleNo.30127(Exhibit
wassupposedtohavebeenexecutedonthe7thdayof Y1),whichcancelledtransfercertificateoftitleNo.
April1953,andacknowledgedbeforeanotarypublicon 30126,andthenannotatedonthememorandumof
thatdate.ExhibitX. encumbrancesoftransfercertificateoftitleNo.30127
thedeedofmortgage(ExhibitX1)executedinfavorof
"ItfurtherappearsthatsometimepriortoMay9,1953,
TomasQ.Sorianobysaidspouses.Oncethesewere
JohnW.LegareapproachedEliasB.Fermin,thereal accomplished,EliasB.FerminandJohnW.Legarewent
estatebrokerwhointervenedinthesecuringofthe
backtothehouseofthespousesConradoC.Fuleand
loancontractedbytheplaintifffromTomasQ.Soriano,
LourdesF.Aragonandgavethetransfercertificateof
andsoughtsaidbroker'shelptosellthelotandhouse titleNo.30127.Thereuponsaidspousesdeliveredto
inquestion.EliasB.Ferminacceptedthecommission JohnW.Legarethebalanceofthepurchasepriceofthe
andofferedthepropertyinsaletodefendantsspouses propertyafterdeductingtherefromtheamountofthe
ConradoC.FuleandLourdesF.Aragon.ConradoC.Fule mortgageconstitutedthereoninfavorofTomasQ.
readthetitlepapersinthehandofJohnW.Legareand Soriano,thebrokeragefeesandtheexpensesincident
inspectedthepremises,andsatisfiedwiththeresultof totheexecutionandregistrationofsaiddeedsand
hisinspection,heagreedtopurchasethepropertyfor
issuanceofnewcertificatesoftitle,whichamountedto
P12,000.00onconditionthatthesumofP7,000,the
alittleoverP4,000.00.
unpaidbalanceofplaintiff'sindebtednesstoTomasQ.
Sorianosecuredbyamortgagethereon,wouldbe "Upontheevidence,thetrialcourtrenderedjudgment,
deductedfromtheprice,andthathewouldassume thedispositivepartofwhichreadsasfollows:
saidmortgage.ThetermsofferedbyConradoC.Fule
beingacceptabletoJohnW.LegareandTomasSoriano, "INVIEWOFALLTHEFOREGOING,thisCourthereby
thepartiesproceededtoformalizethecontract. orders:
Accordingly,onMay9,1953,defendantTomasQ. "1) thecancellationofCertificateofTitleNos.
Sorianoexecutedadeedofabsolutesalethereof,free 30127and30126,therebyleavingvalidTCTno.21253
ofallliensandencumbrances,infavorofdefendant inthenameofEmiliaE.deLegaretogetherwiththe
spousesConradoC.FuleandLourdesF.Aragon,Exhibit encumbrancethereoninfavorofTomasQ.Soriano;
X2,andsaidspousesinturnexecutedinfavorofTomas
Q.Sorianoadeedofmortgagecoveringtheproperty "2) thedeliveryofthepossessionofthepremises
forthesumofP7,000.00ExhibitX3.Thesethreedeeds, totheplaintiffandthemonthlyrentalofP150.00a
togetherwithtransfercertificateofTitleNo.21253, monthfromMay9,1953,uptoandincludingthedate
issuedinthenameoftheplaintiff,wereonthatsame onwhichthedeliveryistobemade,thisobligation
datepresentedforregistrationintheOfficeofthe beingunderstoodtobejointandseveralinsofarasthe
RegisterofDeedsoftheprovinceofRizal.Thelatter, defendantsFuleandAragonareconcerned;"
followingtheusualprocedure,recorded,first,thedeed
3) theawardofP5,000.00asmoraldamagesin
ofsaleexecutedbytheplaintiffinfavorofdefendant
favoroftheplaintiffandenforceableagainstJohnW.
JohnW.Legare(Exhibit1)andissuedinthenameofthe
Legareforthefraudperpetratedbythelatteronthe
lattertransfercertificateoftitleNo.30126which
former;
cancelledtransferforcertificateoftitleNo.21253
(ExhibitY),thenthedeedofsaleexecutedbyJohnW. "4) theawardofP1,000.00asattorney'sfees
LegareinfavorofthespousesConradoC.Fuleand enforceableagainstthedefendantsFuleandAragon;
LourdesF.Aragon(ExhibitX2)andissuedinfavorof
12
"Andonthecrossclaimthecourtorders otherfourweresimplydetailedaspectsoftheone,sole
issue,towit:
"1) JohnW.LegaretorefundtothespousesFule
andAragontheamountpaidbythelatteronaccountof Werethehereinpetitionerspurchasersingoodfaith
thesalecontainedinExhibitX2plusinterestthereonat andforvalueofthepropertiesherecontested?
thelegalratefromthedateofthecrossclaim;
GuidedbythefactsfoundbytheCourtofAppeals,We
"2) theawardofP5,000.00asmoraldamagesin holdthehereinpetitionersinnocentpurchasersfor
favorofthespousesFuleandAragonandenforceable valueofthehouseandlotheredisputed.In
againstJohnW.Legareforthemisrepresentationmade consequence,theyarehereadjudgedthelawfulowners
byhim; thereof.
"3) thereimbursementtothespousesFuleand Apurchaseringoodfaithisonewhobuyspropertyof

AragonbyJohnW.Legareofallamountswhichmaybe another,withoutnoticethatsomeotherpersonhasa
paidbytheformertotheplaintiffbywayofrentalsfor rightto,orinterestin,suchpropertyandpaysafulland
thepremisesinvolvedherein,aswellasattorney'sfees fairpriceforthesame,atthetimeofsuchpurchase,or
intheamountofP1,000.00. beforehehasnoticeoftheclaimorinterestofsome
otherpersonsintheproperty.Goodfaithconsistsinan
"SOORDERED." honestintentiontoabstainfromtakingany
TheCourtofAppeals,indecidingtheappeal,entereda unconscientiousadvantageofanother(CuiandJoven
judgmentthedispositiveportionofwhichfollows: vs.Henson,51Phil.,606).Wehavemeasuredthe
conductofthepetitionerspousesbythisyardstick.
"WHEREFORE,modifiedasindicatedabove,i.e.,the
transfercertificateoftitleNo.21253issuedinthename Thesefactswereuncontroverted.Thenegotiationand
ofEmiliaE.deLegareisrevivedwiththemortgagein transactionwhicheventuallycausedthecertificateof
favorofappelleeTomasQ.Sorianoannotatedonits titletobetransferredfromthehereinrespondentto
memorandumofencumbrancesbutreducedtothe thepetitionerspouseswereconductedbyarealestate
amountofP7,000.00,andthattheawardofattorney's brokerlicensedsince1938.NothinginJohnW.Legare's
feesintheamountofP1,000.00tobepaidbythe personorbehavioursuggestedanythingsuspicious.He
spousesConradoC.FuleandLourdesF.Aragon,infavor wastheadoptedsonofthehereinrespondent,and,to
oftheplaintiff,iseliminatedtherefrom,thejudgment thetimethathewascontractingwiththepetitioner
appealedfromisherebyaffirmedinallotherrespects, spouses,hehadnotbeenknowntocommitcrimeor
withoutspecialpronouncementastocostsinthis dishonesty.Onthecontrary,Johnhashadprevious
instance. dealingswiththerealestatebrokerduringwhichhe
exhibitedtheexpecteddegreeoftrustworthiness.
"ITISSOORDERED."
Itshouldbenotedthatthedeedofsalewasregular
InelevatingthejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealstothis uponitsface,andnoonewouldhavequestionedits
Tribunalforreview,hereinpetitionersdiscussed6 authenticitysinceitwasdulyacknowledgedbeforea
assignmentsoferror.However,thisCourt,isoftheview notarypublic.Moreover,evenifthepetitionershadthe
that,ineffectandsubstance,onlyoneissuewasraised. opportunitytocomparethesignatureofthe
Wehavealwaysrefrainedfromreviewingfactual respondentonthedeedofconveyancewithaspecimen
findingsoftheCourtofAppealsandthefirsttwoerrors ofhergenuinesignature,theeffort,nonetheless,would
assignedwerebutattemptsatdisputingthesame.The havebeeninvainsincetherespondent'ssignatureon
13
thedocumentwasadmittedlyhers.Lastly,itshouldnot registrationshallbeconclusiveauthorityfromthe
beoverlookedthattherespondent,duringthewhole registeredownertotheregisterofdeedstoenteranew
periodofthenegotiation,wasnowhereavailableto certificateortomakeamemorandumorregistrationin
confirmordenytheexecutionofthedeed.Shewas accordancewithsuchinstrument,andthenew
theninhiding,or,hidden,attheWindsorHotelin certificateormemorandumshallbebindinguponthe
Manila. registeredowneranduponallpersonsclaimingunder
him,infavorofeverypurchaserforvalueandingood
Thediligenceandprecautionobservedbythe faith...."
petitionersthemselvescouldhardlyhavebeenwanting.
Therecordsshowthattheydidnotrelysolelyandfully WhileitwastruethatthetransferinfavororJohnwas
uponthedeedofsaleinfavorofJohnW.Legareand stillunregisteredwhenhesoughttosellthepropertyto
thefactthatJohnhadtheninhispossessionthe thehereinpetitioners,itwasnottruethatthelatter
correspondingcertificateoftitleoftheregistered observednoprecautionwhatsoeverfromthe
owner.Theydemandedmore.Theyinsistedthatthe complicationofsuchnonregistration.Asalready
saleinfavorofJohnW.Legarebefirstregisteredand discussedabove,thepetitionersrequiredthatthe
thatthetransferintheirfavorbethereafterlikewise registrationoftheprevioussale(fromtherespondent
registered.Itwasonlyafterallthesewerecomplied toJohnW.Legare)befirstattendedtoandcompleted.
withthattheypaidthepurchaserprice.Inotherwords, Afterthatwasdoneandthecertificateoftitlewas
thepetitionerspousesreliednotreallyonthe issuedtoJohnbytheRegisterofDeeds,theystill
documentsexhibitedtothembyJohnW.Legare,but, withheldpaymenttillthesecondsale(fromJohntothe
ontheregisterabilityofthosedocuments.Thisinour petitioners)wasinturnregisteredandthe
view,satisfiesthemeasureofgoodfaithcontemplated correspondingcertificateoftitlethereforwasissuedin
bylaw. theirnames.Itwasonlyafterallthesewerefollowed
thattheentirenegotiationwasterminatedwiththe
Itistruethatatthetimethehereinpetitioners paymentofthebalanceofthepurchaseprice.Allthese,
purchasedthepropertiesfromJohnW.Legare,hewas wehold,wereadequatesafeguardsagainstthe
notyettheregisteredownerofthesame.Thisfact
objectioninterposed.Acontraryconclusionwould
alone,however,couldnothavecausedtheherein operatetoweakentherelianceofthegeneralpublicon
petitionerstolosetheirstatusasinnocentpurchasers theindefeasibilityoftitlesregisteredundertheTorrens
forvalue.Itshouldberecalledthatalthoughthetitle System.
wasinthenameoftherespondentEmiliaE.deLegare,
thecertificateoftitlewasinthepossessionofher Wehavesofardemonstratedthegoodfaithofthe
adoptedson,John.UnderSection5ofAct496,as petitionerspouses.Bytheveryfactsestablishedbythe
amended,John'spossessionofthecertificateandhis CourtofAppeals,however,thereisstillanotherreason
subsequentproductionofittothehereinpetitioners whythepropertyhereinquestionshouldbeadjudged
operatedasa"conclusiveauthorityfromtheregistered tothepetitioners.
ownertotheregisterofdeedstoenteranew
certificate." AlthoughthedeedofsaleinfavorofJohnW.Legare
wasfraudulent,thefactremainsthathewasableto
"SEC.55 ... securearegisteredtitletothehouseandlot.Itwasthis
titlewhichhesubsequentlyconveyedtotheherein
"Theproductionoftheowner'sduplicatecertificate petitioners.Wehaveindeedruledthataforgedor
wheneveranyvoluntaryinstrumentispresentedfor fraudulentdeedisanullityandconveysnotitle
14
(DirectorofLandsvs.Addison,49Phil.,19).However, "Art.1434. Whenapersonwhoisnottheownerof

wehavealsolaiddownthedoctrinethatthereare athingsellsoralienatesanddeliversit,andlaterthe
instanceswhensuchafraudulentdocumentmay sellerorgrantoracquirestitlethereto,suchtitlepasses
becometherootofavalidtitle.Onesuchinstanceis byoperationoflawtothebuyerorgrantee."
wherethecertificateoftitlewasalreadytransferred
ThisCourtsympathizeswiththerespondent.Itisaware
fromthenameofthetrueownertotheforger,and
whileitremainedthatway,thelandwassubsequently ofthetreacherous,painfulfraudcommittedonherby
heradoptedson.Butpositiveprovisionsoflawand
soldtoaninnocentpurchaser.Forthen,thevendeehad
settledjurisprudencecannotbesubordinatedtothat
therighttorelyuponwhatappearedinthecertificate
(Inquimboyvs.Cruz,G.R.No.L13953,July28,1960). feeling.
Wehavebeenconstrainedtoadopttheconclusionhere Besides,therecordsofthiscaserevealthattheherein
setforthbecauseundertheTorrenssystem, respondentisherselfnotentirelyfreefromblame.We
"registrationistheoperativeactthatgivesvalidityto notethatwhenJohnpresentedtoherthedocument
thetransferorcreatesalienupontheland(Secs.50 whichturnedouttobeadeedofconveyanceinhis
and51,LandRegistrationAct).Consequently,where favor,shereadilyaffixedhersignaturetheretouponthe
therewasnothinginthecertificateoftitletoindicate simplerepresentationofJohnthatitwasadocument
anycloudorviceintheownershipoftheproperty,or pertainingtoherclaimwiththeU.S.Veterans
anyencumbrancethereon,thepurchaserisnot Administrations.Shecouldhaveaskedhermaidtoread
requiredtoexplorefartherthanwhattheTorrenstitle thecontentsofthesameforherandyetshedidnot.
uponitsfaceindicatesinquestforanyhiddendefector These,Webelieve,amounttoalackofprudenceand
inchoaterightthatmaysubsequentlydefeathisright precautiononthepartofMrs.EmiliadeLegare.
thereto.Iftherulewereotherwise,theefficacyand INVIEWOFTHEFOREGOING,thedecisionoftheCourt
conclusivenessofthecertificateoftitlewhichthe ofAppealsisherebyreversedandsetaside.Anewone
Torrenssystemseekstoinsurewouldentirelybefutile ishereentereddismissingtherespondent'scomplaint
andnugatory.(Reynesvs.Barrera,68Phil.,656;DeLara anddeclaringthepetitionershereinthelawfulowners
andDeGuzmanvs.Ayroso,50O.G.No10,4838).The ofthepropertieshereinvolved.Without
publicshallthenbedeniedofitsforemostmotivation pronouncementastocosts.
forrespectingandobservingtheLandRegistrationAct.
Intheend,thebusinesscommunitystandstobe Padilla,BautistaAngelo,Labrador,Concepcion,Reyes,
inconveniencedandprejudicedimmeasurably. J.B.L.andDizon,JJ.,concur.
Furthermore,whentheRegisterofDeedsissueda Bengzon,C.J.,concursintheresult.
certificateoftitleinthenameofJohnW.Legare,and

thereafterregisteredthesame,JohnW.Legare,insofar
asthirdpartieswereconcerned,acquiredvalidtitleto
thehouseandlotheredisputed.When,therefore,he
transferredthistitletothehereinpetitioners,third
persons,theentiretransactionfellwithinthepurview
ofArticle1434oftheCivilCode.TheregistrationinJohn
W.Legare'snameeffectivelyoperatedtoconveythe
propertiestohim.
15
[G.R.No.107967.March1,1994.] fact,itisnotdisputedthatoneofhisheirswasactually
residingtherein.Thereisnoannotation,defectorflaw
CONSORCIATENIOOBSEQUIO,ORLANDOOBSEQUIO, inthetitlethatwouldhavearousedanysuspicionasto
andMANUEL,REGINA,TUNAYandMELITON,all
itsauthenticity.Suchbeingthecase,petitionerhasthe
surnamedOBSEQUIO,petitioners,vs.COURTOF righttorelyonwhatappearsonthefaceofthe
APPEALS,EUFRONIOALIMPOOS,andPONCIANA certificateoftitle.
ALIMPOOS,respondents.
4. ID.;ID.;TORRENSSYSTEMOFLAND
SYLLABUS REGISTRATION;MAINPURPOSE.Themainpurpose
1. CIVILLAW;LANDREGISTRATIONACT;RIGHTOF oftheTorrenssystemistoavoidpossibleconflictsof
ORIGINALOWNERTOSEEKANNULMENTOFTRANSFER, titletorealestateandtofacilitatetransactionsrelative
SUBJECTTORIGHTSOFINNOCENTHOLDERFORVALUE. theretobygivingthepublictherighttorelyuponthe
UnderSection55oftheLandRegistrationAct,as faceofaTorrenscertificateoftitleandtodispensewith
amendedbySection53ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1529, theneedofinquiringfurther,exceptwhentheparty
anoriginalownerofregisteredlandmayseekthe concernedhasactualknowledgeoffactsand
annulmentofatransferthereofonthegroundoffraud. circumstancesthatshouldimpelareasonablecautious
However,sucharemedyiswithoutprejudicetothe mantomakesuchfurtherinquiry.
rightsofanyinnocentholderforvaluewithacertificate 5. ID.;ID.;ID.;EVERYPERSONDEALINGWITH
oftitle.
REGISTEREDLANDMAYSAFELYRELYONTHE
2. ID.;ID.;TORRENSTITLE;PURCHASERINGOOD CORRECTNESSOFTHECERTIFICATEOFTITLE.Where
FAITHANDFORVALUE,DEFINED.UnderSection55 innocentthirdpersons,relyingonthecorrectnessofthe
oftheLandRegistrationAct,asamendedbySection53 certificateoftitlethusissued,acquirerightsoverthe
ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1529,anoriginalownerof property,thecourtcannotdisregardsuchrightsand
registeredlandmayseektheannulmentofatransfer orderthetotalcancellationofthecertificate.Theeffect
thereofonthegroundoffraud.However,sucha ofsuchanoutrightcancellationwouldbetoimpair
remedyiswithoutprejudicetotherightsofany publicconfidenceinthecertificateoftitle,foreveryone
innocentholderforvaluewithacertificateoftitle. dealingwithpropertyregisteredundertheTorrens
systemwouldhavetoinquireineveryinstanceasto
3. ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;PETITIONERINCASEATBAR,A whetherthetitlehasbeenregularlyorirregularlyissued
PURCHASERINGOODFAITH.Inconsonancewiththis bythecourt.Everypersondealingwithregisteredland
acceptedlegaldefinition,petitionerConsorciaTenio maysafelyrelyonthecorrectnessofthecertificateof
Obsequioisapurchaseringoodfaith.Thereisno titleissuedthereforandthelawwillinnowayoblige
showingwhatsoevernorevenanallegationthatherein himtogobeyondthecertificatetodeterminethe
petitionerhadanyparticipation,voluntarilyor conditionoftheproperty.
otherwise,intheallegedforgery.Norcanwecharge
saidpetitionerwithnegligencesince,atthetimeofthe 6. ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;GOVERNMENTSHOULDBE
saletoher,thelandwasalreadyregisteredinthename FIRSTTOACCEPTVALIDITYOFTITLESISSUED
ofEduardoDeguroandthetaxdeclarationwasalso THEREUNDER.TheGovernment,recognizingthe
issuedinthelatter'sname.Itwasalsoclearlyindicated worthypurposesoftheTorrenssystem,shouldbethe
atthebackoftheoriginalcertificateoftitlethat firsttoacceptthevalidityoftitlesissuedthereunder
EduardoDeguroacquiredownershipoverthesaidland oncetheconditionslaiddownbythelawaresatisfied.
byvirtueofthedeedofsaleexecutedinhisfavor.In
16
7. REMEDIALLAW;EVIDENCE;AUTHENTICITYOF certificateoftitlewasalreadytransferredfromthe
CONTRACTOFSALE,BOLSTEREDBYAPPROVAL nameofthetrueowneroftheforgerand,whileit
THEREOFBYGOVERNMENTAGENCY.Thereisno remainedthatway,thelandwassubsequentlysoldto
reasontodoubttheauthenticityofthedeedofsale aninnocentpurchaser,thevendeehadtherighttorely
whichconstitutedthebasisfortheissuanceofthe uponwhatappearedinthecertificateand,inthe
transfercertificateoftitleinthenameofEduardo absenceofanythingtoexcitesuspicion,wasunderno
Deguro,consideringthatnotonlywasthecontract obligationtolookbeyondthecertificateandinvestigate
notarizedbutthatitwasalsoapprovedbytheSecretary thetitleofthevendorappearingonthefaceofsaid
ofAgricultureandNaturalResourcesincompliancewith certificate.
Section118ofthePublicLandAct.
11. ID.;ID.;ID.;SAFEGUARDINPREVENTINGA
8. ID.;ID.;NOTARIALDOCUMENT;PRESUMED FORGEDTRANSFERFROMBEINGREGISTERED.The
ISSUEDREGULARLY.Thereisnoindubitable,legal TorrensAct,inordertopreventaforgedtransferfrom
andconvincingreasonfornullifyingthedeedofsale. beingregistered,erectsasafeguardbyrequiringthatno
Hereinprivaterespondentshavenotpresentedany transfershallberegisteredunlesstheowner's
cogent,completeandconvincingprooftooverridethe certificateoftitleisproducedalongwiththeinstrument
evidentiaryvalueofthedulynotarizeddeedofsale.A oftransfer.
notarialdocumentisevidenceofthefactsintheclear
unequivocalmannerthereinexpressed.Ithasinits 12. ID.;ID.;ID.;AUTHORIZEDHOLDEROFA
favorthepresumptionofregularity.Tocontradictall DOCUMENTOFTRANSFER,AUTHORIZEDTODEALWITH
these,theremustbeevidencethatisclear,convincing THELAND.Anexecuteddocumentoftransferof
andmorethanmerelypreponderant. registeredlandplacedbytheregisteredownerthereof
inthehandsofanotheroperatesasarepresentationto
9. ID.;ID.;FORGERYCANNOTBEPRESUMED; athirdpartythattheholderofthedocumentof
MUSTBEPROVEDBYCLEARANDCONVINCING transferisauthorizedtodealwiththeland.Inthecase
EVIDENCE.Forgerycannotbepresumed;itmustbe atbar,itwasevenprivaterespondentswhomadethe
provedbyclear,positiveandconvincingevidence. allegationthattheyfurtherdeliveredtheircertificateof
Thosewhomaketheallegationofforgeryhavethe titletoEduardoDeguro,allegedlytosecuretheloan
burdenofprovingitsinceamereallegationisnot extendedtothem.Consequently,petitionercannotbe
evidence.Privaterespondentsinthiscaseruefullyfailed faultedand,asamatteroffact,sheisvestedwiththe
tosubstantiatewithsufficientevidencetheirclaimthat righttorelyonthetitleofEduardoDeguro.
theirsignaturesappearingonthedeedofsalewere
forged. 13. ID.;ID.;ID.;RULETHATASBETWEENTWO
INNOCENTPERSONSONEOFWHOMMUSTSUFFERTHE
10. CIVILLAW;LANDREGISTRATIONACT;TORRENS LOSS,THEONEWHOMADEITPOSSIBLEMUSTBEAR
SYSTEMOFLANDREGISTRATION;AFORGEDDEEDCAN THELOSS.Furthermore,itwastheveryactofthe
BEABASISOFAVALIDTITLE.Ithasbeen respondentAlimpoosspousesinentrustingtheir
consistentlyruledthataforgeddeedcanlegallybethe certificateoftitletoEduardoDegurothatmadeit
rootofavalidtitlewhenaninnocentpurchaserfor possibleforthecommissionoftheallegedfraud,if
valueintervenes.Adeedofsaleexecutedbyan indeedtherewassuchafraudulentconductasimputed
impostorwithouttheauthorityoftheowneroftheland tothelatter.Hence,theruleoflawandjusticethat
soldisanullity,andregistrationwillnotvalidatewhat shouldapplyinthiscaseisthatasbetweentwo
otherwiseisaninvaliddocument.However,wherethe innocentpersons,oneofwhommustsufferthe
17
consequencesofabreachoftrust,theonewhomadeit previouslycoveredbyOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.P
possiblebyhisactofconfidencemustbeartheloss. 1181registeredinthenameofhereinrespondent
EufronioAlimpoosandwhichheacquiredthrougha
14. ID.;ID.;ID.;RIGHTOFINNOCENTPURCHASER
homesteadapplication.1Thesaidlandisnow
FORVALUEMUSTBEPROTECTED;REMEDYAVAILABLE registeredinthenameofhereinpetitioner,Consorcia
TOPERSONPREJUDICED.Therightoftheinnocent TenioObsequio,asevidencedbyTransferCertificateof
purchaserforvaluemustberespectedandprotected, TitleNo.T1421.2
evenifthesellerobtainedhistitlethroughfraud.The
remedyofthepersonprejudicedistobringanaction OnSeptember10,1986,privaterespondentsfileda
fordamagesagainstthosewhocausedoremployedthe complaintinthecourtaquoagainsthereinpetitioners
fraud,andifthelatterareinsolvent,anactionagainst ConsorciaTenioandherhusband,OrlandoObsequio,
theTreasurerofthePhilippinesmaybefiledfor andtheheirsofEduardoDeguroforrecoveryof
recoveryofdamagesagainsttheAssuranceFund. possessionandownership,allegingthatsometimein
1964,theymortgagedthelandtoEduardoDegurofor
15. CIVILLAW;PRESCRIPTIONOFACTIONS;ACTION P10,000.00;thattoguarantytheloantheydeliveredto
FORRECONVEYANCEMUSTBEFILEDWITHINTEN(10) thelattertheoriginalcertificateoftitletotheland;that
YEARSFROMISSUANCEOFTITLE;ACTIONINCASEAT inthemeantime,theycontinuedtocultivatethesame
BARHASPRESCRIBED.Itisalsosignificantandworth and,attheendoftheharvestseason,theygavetwo
notingthathereinrespondentsfiledtheinstant thirds(2/3)oftheharvesttoEduardoDeguro;thaton
complaintonlyaftertwentytwoyearsfromthe June25,1965,EduardoDeguroandhiswife,without
executionofthesupposedlyforgeddeedofabsolute theknowledgeandconsentofhereinprivate
sale,andaftersixteenyearsfromthedatethetitlewas respondents,preparedadocumentofsaleandthrough
transferredinthenameofhereinpetitioner.Anaction misrepresentationandothermanipulationsmadeit
forreconveyanceisalegalremedygrantedtoa appearthatprivaterespondentssoldthelandtothem.
landownerwhosepropertyhasbeenwrongfullyor cdphil
erroneouslyregisteredinanother'sname,butthenthe
actionmustbefiledwithintenyearsfromtheissuance Thisdeedofsalewasannotatedatthebackofthesaid
ofthetitlesincesuchissuanceoperatesasa certificateoftitleasEntryNo.16007.Byvirtuethereof,
constructivenotice. OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.P1181inthenameof
EufronioAlimpooswascancelledandTransfer
DECISION CertificateofTitleNo.T1360wascorrespondingly
REGALADO,Jp: issuedinfavorofEduardoDeguro.Afterthedeathof
EduardoDeguro,hisheirssoldthelandtoConsoria
Thispetitionforreviewoncertiorariseekstoannuland TenioObsequio.OnSeptember22,1970,Transfer
setasidethedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R. CertificateofTitleNo.T1421wasissuedinhername.It
CVNo.22990,datedJuly9,1992,whichreversedthe wasallegedlyonlyin1982,whenEufronioAlimpoos
judgmentofthetrialcourt,aswellasitsresolutionof receivedaCertificateofAgriculturalLeaseholdofhis
November6,1992denyingthemotionfor landfromtheDepartmentofAgrarianReform(DAR),
reconsiderationofitsaforesaiddecision. thathelearnedthatthelandwasalreadytitledinthe
nameofanother.
Thesubjectmatterofthepresentdecisionisaparcelof
land,designatedasLotNo.846,Pls225locatedat Intheiranswer,theheirsofEduardoDeguroclaimed
Andanan,Bayugan,AgusandelSur.Thislotwas thatrespondentAlimpoosspousessoldthelandtotheir
18
lateparentsonJune25,1965foraconsiderationof March13,1987,consistingoftheproceedsfromthe
P10,000.00,asevidencedbythedeedofabsolutesale; saleoftheharvesttakenfromtheareainvolved,is
thatasaresultthereof,TransferCertificateofTitleNo. awardedtodefendantConsorciaTenioObsequio,as
T1360wasissuedinfavoroftheirparents;thatonApril ownerthereofafterdeductingthenecessaryexpenses
23,1970,afterthedeathoftheirparents,theysoldthe andClerkofCourt'(s)commissionfee."3
saidlandtoConsorciaTenioObsequio;thaton
September22,1970,anewTransferCertificateofTitle Onappeal,respondentCourtofAppealsreversedthe
decisionofthelowercourtandrenderedjudgment:
No.T1421wasissuedinthenameofthelatter.
ConsorciaTenioObsequio,ontheotherhand, "1) DeclaringtheplaintiffEufronioAlimpoosasthe
maintainsthatshepurchasedthelandinquestionfrom trueandlegalownerofthepropertysubjectofthis
theheirsofDeguroingoodfaith,forvaluable case;
considerationandwithoutknowledgeofanyflawor
defectwhatsoever. 2) DeclaringnullandvoidtheDeedofAbsolute
SalemarkedasAnnex'C'orExhibit'D'andorderingthe
Thetrialcourt,givingcredencetotheevidence cancellationofTCTNos.T1360andT1421inthe
presentedbyhereinpetitioners,defendantstherein, namesofEduardoDeguroandConsorciaTenio
ruledintheirfavorandrenderedjudgmentdisposingas Obsequio,respectively;
follows:
3) OrderingtheheirsofEduardoDeguroand
"1) dismissingthehereincomplaint; LaureanaRabuya,namely,GonzaloDeguro,Manuel
2) declaringdefendantConsorciaTenioObsequio Deguro,TunayDeguroandReginaDegurotoreconvey
thesaidpropertytotheplaintiffs;
asthetrueandabsoluteownerofthelandinlitis;
3) orderingplaintiffstopayP10,000.00bywayof 4) OrderingtheRegisterofDeedstocancelthe
moraldamages; annotationoftheDeedofAbsoluteSaleatthebackof
TCTP1181infavorofConsorciaTenioObsequioandto
4) orderingplaintiffstopayP10,000.00bywayof clearsaidTCTofallencumbrancesexecutedbyEduardo
exemplarydamages; Deguroand/orhisheirs.
5) orderingplaintiffstopaytheexpensesof Inaddition,thedefendantsareorderedtopaythe
litigationintheamountofP5,000.00; plaintiffs,jointlyandseverally,thesumofP50,000.00
bywayofmoraldamages;P30,000.00bywayof
6) orderingtheplaintiffstopay(a)ttorney'sfeesin compensatorydamagesandP5,000.00bywayof
theamountofP5,000.00;and attorney'sfeesandcostsoflitigation."4
7) topaythecosts. Petitionersthenfiledamotionforreconsiderationof
Inlikemanner,themoneydepositedintheMunicipal thesaiddecisionwhichwasdeniedbytheCourtof
Treasurer'sOfficeofBayuganintheamountsof AppealsinitsresolutiondatedNovember6,1992,5
P2,724.95coveredbyOfficialReceiptNo.0442623 hencetheinstantrecoursebypetitioners.cdrep
datedSeptember7,1988andP1,658.10coveredby Afteracarefulreviewoftherecordsofthiscaseandthe
OfficialReceiptNo.5497715datedSeptember14,1988,
legalconsiderationsapplicabletotheprovenfacts
aswellasthesumofP3,927.00depositedinCourt
thereof,wefindthepetitionatbartobemeritorious.
pursuanttotheCourt'sOrdersofJanuary16,1987and
19
Reconveyanceofthelandinquestiontotheoriginal ThemainpurposeoftheTorrenssystemistoavoid
ownerisnotinorder. possibleconflictsoftitletorealestateandtofacilitate
transactionsrelativetheretobygivingthepublicthe
HereinrespondentAlimpoos,astheoriginalownerof
righttorelyuponthefaceofaTorrenscertificateof
thesaidland,isassailingthetitleofpetitioneronthe
titleandtodispensewiththeneedofinquiringfurther,
groundthattheiroriginalcertificateoftitleoverthe
exceptwhenthepartyconcernedhasactualknowledge
saidlandwascancelledbyvirtueofaforgeddeedof offactsandcircumstancesthatshouldimpela
absolutesale.
reasonablecautiousmantomakesuchfurtherinquiry.
UnderSection55oftheLandRegistrationAct,as 11Whereinnocentthirdpersons,relyingonthe
amendedbySection53ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1529, correctnessofthecertificateoftitlethusissued,acquire
anoriginalownerofregisteredlandmayseekthe rightsovertheproperty,thecourtcannotdisregard
annulmentofatransferthereofonthegroundoffraud. suchrightsandorderthetotalcancellationofthe
However,sucharemedyiswithoutprejudicetothe certificate.Theeffectofsuchanoutrightcancellation
rightsofanyinnocentholderforvaluewithacertificate wouldbetoimpairpublicconfidenceinthecertificate
oftitle. oftitle,foreveryonedealingwithpropertyregistered
undertheTorrenssystemwouldhavetoinquirein
Apurchaseringoodfaithandforvalueisonewhobuys everyinstanceastowhetherthetitlehasbeenregularly
thepropertyofanother,withoutnoticethatsomeother orirregularlyissuedbythecourt.Everypersondealing
personhasarighttoorinterestinsuchproperty,and withregisteredlandmaysafelyrelyonthecorrectness
paysafullandfairpriceforthesameatthetimeofsuch ofthecertificateoftitleissuedthereforandthelawwill
purchaseorbeforehehasnoticeoftheclaimorinterest innowayobligehimtogobeyondthecertificateto
ofsomeotherpersonintheproperty.6Inconsonance determinetheconditionoftheproperty.12
withthisacceptedlegaldefinition,petitionerConsorcia
TenioObsequioisapurchaseringoodfaith.Thereisno TheTorrenssystemwasadoptedinthiscountry
showingwhatsoevernorevenanallegationthatherein becauseitwasbelievedtobethemosteffective
petitionerhadanyparticipation,voluntarilyor measuretoguaranteetheintegrityoflandtitlesandto
otherwise,intheallegedforgery. protecttheirindefeasibilityoncetheclaimofownership
isestablishedandrecognized.Ifapersonpurchasesa
Norcanwechargesaidpetitionerwithnegligencesince, pieceoflandsontheassurancethattheseller'stitle
atthetimeofthesaletoher,thelandwasalready theretoisvalid,heshouldnotruntheriskofbeingtold
registeredinthenameofEduardoDeguro7andthetax laterthathisacquisitionwasineffectualafterall.This
declarationwasalsoissuedinthelatter'sname.8Itwas wouldnotonlybeunfairtohim.Whatisworseisthatif
alsoclearlyindicatedatthebackoftheoriginal thiswerepermitted,publicconfidenceinthesystem
certificateoftitlethatEduardoDeguroacquired wouldbeerodedandlandtransactionswouldhaveto
ownershipoverthesaidlandbyvirtueofthedeedof beattendedbycomplicatedandnotnecessarily
saleexecutedinhisfavor.9Infact,itisnotdisputed conclusiveinvestigationsandproofofownership.The
thatoneofhisheirswasactuallyresidingtherein.10 furtherconsequencewouldbethatlandconflictscould
Thereisnoannotation,defectorflawinthetitlethat beevenmorenumerousandcomplexthantheyare
wouldhavearousedanysuspicionastoitsauthenticity. nowandpossiblyalsomoreabrasive,ifnoteven
Suchbeingthecase,petitionerhastherighttorelyon violent.TheGovernment,recognizingtheworthy
whatappearsonthefaceofthecertificateoftitle. purposesoftheTorrenssystem,shouldbethefirstto
20
acceptthevalidityoftitlesissuedthereunderoncethe substantiatewithsufficientevidencetheirclaimthat
conditionslaiddownbythelawaresatisfied.13 theirsignaturesappearingonthedeedofsalewere
forged.
Moreover,thereisnoreasontodoubttheauthenticity
ofthedeedofsalewhichconstitutedthebasisforthe Atanyrate,thereareseveralreasonstodoubtthe
issuanceofthetransfercertificateoftitleinthename authenticityofthe"KasabutansaPrenda."Firstly,ithas
ofEduardoDeguro,consideringthatnotonlywasthe notbeensufficientlyexplainedwhy,althoughitshould
contractnotarizedbutthatitwasalsoapprovedbythe normallybewiththemortgagee,theoriginalmortgage
SecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalResourcesin contractremainedinthepossessionofthemortgagor
compliancewithSection118ofthePublicLandAct.14 anditwasonlyafterthedeathoftheallegedmortgagee
thatthesamewaspresented,whichwasmorethan
Thereisnoindubitable,legalandconvincingreasonfor twentyyearsfromthedateofitsallegedexecution.
nullifyingthedeedofsale.Hereinprivaterespondents
Secondly,theconsiderationofP10,000.00fora
havenotpresentedanycogent,completeand
mortgagein1964ofapieceofrurallandconsistingof
convincingprooftooverridetheevidentiaryvalueof only81,822squaremeters,withthemortgageepaying
thedulynotarizeddeedofsale.Anotarialdocumentis thetaxesthereon,istoohighorexcessive,considering
evidenceofthefactsintheclearunequivocalmanner thatthesamepieceoflandwascoetaneously
thereinexpressed.Ithasinitsfavorthepresumptionof mortgagedwiththeDevelopmentBankofthe
regularity.Tocontradictallthese,theremustbe PhilippinesforonlyP1,900.00.19Thirdly,thetextureof
evidencethatisclear,convincingandmorethanmerely thepaperonwhichitwaswrittenandtheclarityofthe
preponderant.15 writingshowthatthedocument,supposedlyexecuted
Thefactalonethatthesignatureofprivaterespondent onJuly25,1964,isofrecentvintageandcouldnotbe
EufronioAlimpoosappearingonthedeedofsaleto morethantwentyyearsold,evenasofthislatedate.20
Degurodiffersincertainpointsfromhissignature Yet,evenontheimplausibleassumption,exgratia
appearinginthe"KasabutansaPrenda"isnotenough argumenti,thatthedeedofsaleinfavorofEduardo
towarranttheconclusionthatthesignatureinsaid Degurowasforgedandis,therefore,nullandvoid,such
deedofsaleisnotgenuine.Therecordsshowthatthe factcannotbesuccessfullyinvokedtoinvalidatethe
signaturesofprivaterespondentEufronioAlimpoosin
titlesubsequentlyissuedtohereinpetitionerwho,as
oneofthecashadvancereceipts16andinthenoticeof earlierstated,isaninnocentpurchaserforvalueandin
thetrialcourt'sorderdatedMarch4,198817are
goodfaith.
similartothesignatureappearinginthedeedofsale.It
is,therefore,notimprobablethat,asclaimedbyherein Ithasbeenconsistentlyruledthataforgeddeedcan
petitioners,privaterespondentscouldhavedeliberately legallybetherootofavalidtitlewhenaninnocent
andpurposelyalteredtheirsignaturesonthemortgage purchaserforvalueintervenes.21Adeedofsale
contracttothereaftermakeitappearthatadiscrepancy executedbyanimpostorwithouttheauthorityofthe
actuallyexists.Cdpr ownerofthelandsoldisanullity,andregistrationwill
notvalidatewhatotherwiseisaninvaliddocument.
Forgerycannotbepresumed;itmustbeprovedby
However,wherethecertificateoftitlewasalready
clear,positiveandconvincingevidence.Thosewho transferredfromthenameofthetrueownerofthe
maketheallegationofforgeryhavetheburdenof
forgerand,whileitremainedthatway,thelandwas
provingitsinceamereallegationisnotevidence.18 subsequentlysoldtoaninnocentpurchaser,thevendee
Privaterespondentsinthiscaseruefullyfailedto hadtherighttorelyuponwhatappearedinthe
21
certificateand,intheabsenceofanythingtoexcite Itisalsosignificantandworthnotingthatherein
suspicion,wasundernoobligationtolookbeyondthe respondentsfiledtheinstantcomplaintonlyafter
certificateandinvestigatethetitleofthevendor twentytwoyearsfromtheexecutionofthesupposedly
appearingonthefaceofsaidcertificate.22 forgeddeedofabsolutesale,andaftersixteenyears
fromthedatethetitlewastransferredinthenameof
TheTorrensAct,inordertopreventaforgedtransfer
hereinpetitioner.Anactionforreconveyanceisalegal
frombeingregistered,erectsasafeguardbyrequiring remedygrantedtoalandownerwhosepropertyhas
thatnotransfershallberegisteredunlesstheowner's
beenwrongfullyorerroneouslyregisteredinanother's
certificateoftitleisproducedalongwiththeinstrument
name,butthentheactionmustbefiledwithintenyears
oftransfer.However,anexecuteddocumentoftransfer fromtheissuanceofthetitlesincesuchissuance
ofregisteredlandplacedbytheregisteredowner operatesasaconstructivenotice.26
thereofinthehandsofanotheroperatesasa
representationtoathirdpartythattheholderofthe WHEREFORE,thedecisionandresolutionofrespondent
documentoftransferisauthorizedtodealwiththe courtnowunderreviewareherebyREVERSEDandthe
land.23Inthecaseatbar,itwasevenprivate decisionofthecourtaquoisaccordinglyare
respondentswhomadetheallegationthattheyfurther REINSTATED.LLphil
deliveredtheircertificateoftitletoEduardoDeguro,
allegedlytosecuretheloanextendedtothem. SOORDERED.
Consequently,petitionercannotbefaultedand,asa
matteroffact,sheisvestedwiththerighttorelyonthe
titleofEduardoDeguro.
Furthermore,itwastheveryactoftherespondent
Alimpoosspousesinentrustingtheircertificateoftitle
toEduardoDegurothatmadeitpossibleforthe
commissionoftheallegedfraud,ifindeedtherewas
suchafraudulentconductasimputedtothelatter.
Hence,theruleoflawandjusticethatshouldapplyin
thiscaseisthatasbetweentwoinnocentpersons,one
ofwhommustsuffertheconsequencesofabreachof
trust,theonewhomadeitpossiblebyhisactof
confidencemustbeartheloss.24
Therightoftheinnocentpurchaserforvaluemustbe
respectedandprotected,evenifthesellerobtainedhis
titlethroughfraud.Theremedyoftheperson
prejudicedistobringanactionfordamagesagainst
thosewhocausedoremployedthefraud,andifthe
latterareinsolvent,anactionagainsttheTreasurerof
thePhilippinesmaybefiledforrecoveryofdamages
againsttheAssuranceFund.25
22
23
[G.R.No.79787.June29,1989.] HISGUARDASTOTHEPOSSIBILITYOFEXISTENCEOF
DEFECTONTITLE,NOTANINNOCENTPURCHASERFOR
APOLONIOEGAOANDBEATRIZEGAO,petitioners,vs. VALUE.Whereapurchaserneglectstomakethe
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALS(NINTHDIVISION),
necessaryinquiriesandcloseshiseyestofactswhich
SEVERODIGNOSANDSEVEROBONTILAO,respondents.
shouldputareasonablemanonhisguardastothe
EliudJ.Pailagaoforpetitioners. possibilityoftheexistenceofadefectinhisvendor's
title,andrelyingonthebeliefthattherewasnodefect
GuerreroA.Adazaforprivaterespondents. inthetitleofthevendor,purchasestheproperty
withoutmakinganyfurtherinvestigation,hecannot
SYLLABUS
claimthatheisapurchaseringoodfaithforvalue.
1. REMEDIALLAW;EVIDENCE;BURDENOFPROOF
6. ID.;ID.;ACTIONFORREVERSION,MAYNOTBE
ANDPRESUMPTIONS;ANOTARIALDOCUMENTHASIN
BROUGHTBYANYPRIVATEINDIVIDUAL.Aprivate
ITSFAVORTHEPRESUMPTIONOFREGULARITY.A
individualmaynotbringanactionforreversionorany
notarialdocumentisevidenceofthefactsinclear
actionwhichwouldhavetheeffectofcancellingafree
unequivocalmannerthereinexpressed.Ithasinits
patentandthecorrespondingcertificateoftitleissued
favorthepresumptionofregularity.Tocontradictall
onthebasisthereof,withtheresultthattheland
these,theremustbeevidencethatisclear,convincing
coveredtherebywillagainformpartofthepublic
andmorethanmerelypreponderant.
domain,asonlytheSolicitorGeneralortheofficer
2. ID.;ID.;FINDINGSOFFACTSOFTHECOURTOF actinginhissteadmaydoso.
APPEALS,GENERALLYNOTDISTURBEDONAPPEAL.
7. ID.;PUBLICLANDACT;RULEONPARIDELICTO;
Thequestionofauthenticitybeingoneoffact,theCourt
NOTAPPLICABLEWHEREITSENFORCEMENTOR
willnotdisturbtheconclusionsoftheCourtofAppeals
APPLICATIONRUNCOUNTERTOTHEPUBLICPOLICYOF
onthematter.
PRESERVINGTHEGRANTEE'SRIGHTTOTHELAND
3. CIVILLAW;LANDTITLESANDDEEDS;TORRENS UNDERHOMESTEAD.Theruleofparidelictonon
TITLE;ONCEREGISTERED,CANNOTBEDEFEATEDBY orituractio(wheretwopersonsareequallyatfault
ADVERSE,OPENANDNOTORIOUSPOSSESSION.A neitherpartymaybeentitledtoreliefunderthelaw),
Torrenstitle,onceregistered,cannotbedefeated,even admitsofexceptionsanddoesnotapplytoan
byadverseopenandnotoriouspossession.Aregistered inexistentcontract,suchas,asalevoidabinitiounder
titleundertheTorrenssystemcannotbedefeatedby thePublicLandAct,whenitsenforcementor
prescription.Thetitle,onceregistered,isnoticetothe applicationrunscountertothepublicpolicyof
world.Allpersonsmusttakenotice.Noonecanplead preservingthegrantee'srighttothelandunderthe
ignoranceoftheregistration. homesteadlaw.
4. ID.;ID.;ID.;INNOCENTPURCHASERFORVALUE; 8. ID.;PROPERTYREGISTRATIONDECREE;
CONSTRUED.An"innocentpurchaserforvalue"is REGISTRATIONOFDEED,OPERATIVEACTTHATBINDS
deemed,undertheTorrenssystem,toincludean THELANDINSOFARASTHIRDPERSONSARE
innocentlessee,mortgageeorotherencumbrancerfor CONCERNED.Sec.51,par.2oftheProperty
value. RegistrationDecree(PD1529),formerlySec.50ofthe
LandRegistrationAct(ActNo.496)expresslyprovides
5. ID.;ID.;ID.;BUYERWHOCLOSESHISEYESTO thattheregistrationoftheDeedistheoperativeact
FACTSWHICHSHOULDPUTAREASONABLEMANON
24
thatbindsoraffectsthelandinsofarasthirdpersons ofaverifiedcomplaintforQuietingofTitleand/or
areconcerned. RecoveryofPossessionandOwnershipbeforetheRTC
ofManoloFortich,Bukidnon,*againstpetitioners
9. ID.;LANDTITLESANDDEEDS;DECREEOF
ApolonioandBeatrizEgao.
PRUDENCEREQUIREDWHEREONEBUYSFROMA
PERSONWHOISNOTTHEREGISTEREDOWNER.The Privaterespondents'complaintallegedthattheyare
lawrequiresahigherdegreeofprudencefromonewho thelegitimateownersandpossessorsoftwo(2)parcels
buysfromapersonwhoisnottheregisteredowner, oflandsituatedatLonocan,ManoloFortich,Bukidnon,
whenthelandobjectofthetransactionisregistered perdeedofabsolutesaledated21December1979
land.Whileonewhobuysfromtheregisteredowner which,amongothers,recitedthus:Cdpr
neednotlookbehindthecertificateoftitle,onewho
buysfromanotherwhoisnottheregisteredowneris "WHEREAS,theabovementionedParcelsoflandLot
No.662iscoveredbyOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.P
expectedtoexaminenotonlythecertificateoftitlebut
3559FreePatentNo.298112registeredinthenameof
allfactualcircumstancesnecessaryforhimto
determineifthereareanyflawsinthetitleofthe APOLONIOEGAOmarriedtoBeatrizMenosaandLot
transferor,orinhiscapacitytotransfertheland.Failing No.661iscoveredbyOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.P
toexercisecautionofanykindwhatsoeveris 3558FreePatentNo.303249registeredinthenameof
tantamounttobadfaith. RAULITACONEJOSmarriedtoPedroConejos,all
transcribedintheRegistrationBookintheRegisterof
10. ID.;PUBLICLANDACT;SALEOFPATENTED DeedsfortheProvinceofBukidnon;.
LANDSWITHINTHEPROHIBITIVEFIVE(5)YEARPERIOD,
NULLANDVOID.Deedsofsaleofpatentedlands, "WHEREAS,LotNo.662hasbeentransferredin
perfectedwithintheprohibitedfive(5)yearperiodare ownershipfromBEATRIZMENOSAEGAO,marriedto
nullandvoid(Sec.124,PublicLandAct).Notitlepassed ApolonioEgaoinfavorofROBERTON.MARFORIper
fromtheEgaostoMarforiwhichcouldbevalidly DeedofAbsoluteSaleexecutedbeforeTommyC.
transferredtohereinrespondentsBontilaoandDignos. Pacana,NotaryPublicofCagayandeOroCityenteredin
Nemodatquodnonhabet(nobodycandisposeofthat hisNotarialRegistryunderDoc.No.75;PageNo.15;
whichdoesnotbelongtohim). BookV;Seriesof1965;andLotNo.661likewisehas
beentransferredinownershipfromRAULITAR.
11. ID.;ID.;ID.;VENDORORHISHEIRS,ENTITLED CONEJOSinfavorofROBERTON.MARFORIperDeedof
TOPOSSESSIONOFTHELANDWHILETHE AbsoluteSaleexecutedbeforeTommyC.Pacana,
GOVERNMENTHASNOTTAKENSTEPSTOASSERTITS NotaryPublicofCagayandeOroCity,datedJune3,
TITLE.Whilethegovernmenthasnottakenstepsto 1965,enteredinhisNotarialRegistryunderDoc.No.
assertitstitle,byreversion,toahomesteadsoldin 20;Page4;BookV;Seriesof1965.
violationofthePublicLandAct,thevendororhisheirs
"WHEREAS,theVENDEEShereinis[sic]awareofthe
isbetterentitledtothepossessionoftheland,the
factthattheCertificateofTitleovertheabove
vendeebeinginnobettersituationthananyintruder.
mentionedparcelsoflandhavenotyetbeen
DECISION transferredinfavorofROBERTON.MARFORIexceptfor
thetaxdeclarationsbutthattheVENDORhereinisin
PADILLA,Jp: actual,physical,continuous,uninterrupted,andadverse
Thisisalanddisputewhichculminatedinthefilingby possessionoftheabovedescribedparcelsoflandfree
privaterespondentsSeveroDignosandSeveroBontilao fromallliensandencumbranceswhatsoever;"1
25
Allegedly,uponpurchaseofLotNo.662fromRoberto MenozaEgao,thisistheultimateandbestevidenceof
Marfori,improvementswereintroducedandtaxespaid titlegrantedbythegovernmentwhichmustbehonored
byprivaterespondents.SometimeinJune1983,herein andrespectedbythecourts.Inanutshell,theplaintiffs
petitionersallegedlyoccupiedillegallyportionsofthe miserablyfailedtopresentorshowanytitletoLotNo.
land.2 662,PLS854whichshouldbequietedorfreedfromany
cloudofdoubtasprayedforintheircomplaintandthey
Petitioners'answertothecomplaintassertedthat furtherfailedtoshowthattheyareentitledtothe
ApolonioEgaoistheregisteredowneroftheparcelof ownershipandpossessiontoLotNo.662,PLS854."3
landknownasLotNo.662,Pls854withanareaof
3,451sq.metersevidencedbyOCTNo.P3559issued PrivaterespondentswenttotheCourtofAppealsinCA
bytheRegisterofDeedsofBukidnonpursuanttoFree G.R.No.09539.SettingasidetheRTCdecision,the
PatentNo.298112dated12August1965;thathe appellatecourt**held,inpart,thus
(ApolonioEgao)andhisfamilyhavebeeninactual,
"Thatthelandistitledinthenameofdefendant
physical,adverse,openandcontinuouspossession
thereofevenbeforetheissuancetohimofthefree ApolonioEgaoisnotinquestion.Themainpointin
patent;thatthelandhasneverbeensoldbyreasonof issueiswhetherdefendantscouldvalidlysellthelandto
theprohibitionagainstalienationunderCommonwealth Marforiwhointurntransferredownershipthereofto
ActNo.141(PublicLandLaw);andthattheinstantcase theplaintiffs."4
wasthefourthinaseriesfiledagainsttheEgaosandis MarforiandEgaowerebothheldbytheCourtof
partofrespondents'schemetograbsaidparcelofland Appealsinparidelictoforviolatingthefive(5)year
fromthepetitioners. restrictionunderSec.118,CommonwealthActNo.141
JudgeFelicidarioM.BatoyruledinfavoroftheEgaos, asamendedbyActNo.496againstencumbranceor
hereinpetitioners(defendantsinthecourtaquo), alienationoflandsacquiredunderafreepatentor
orderingrespondentSeveroBontilao(plaintiffinthe homestead;hence,theycannot,accordingtothe
courtaquo)toimmediatelydelivertotheEgaosthe appellatecourt,seekaffirmativerelief,butrespondents
owner'sduplicatecopyofOriginalCertificateofTitle ontheotherhandweredeclaredinnocentpurchasers
No.P3559.Saidtrialjudgeheld:Cdpr forvaluewhoobtainedtheowner'sduplicatecopyof
theOCT(stillinthenameoftheEgaos)fromMarfori
"Intheinstantcase,grantingarguendo,thatdefendants whotransferredtothem(respondents)physical
executedthe2documentsinfavorofMarfori(Exhs.A& possessionoftheproperty.Finally,theCourtofAppeals
B)afterthefilingoftheapplicationforfreepatentbut held:
beforetheissuanceofthelatter,withouttheapproval
oftheDirectorofLands,uponissuanceofFreePatent "WHEREFORE,thedecisionappealedfromisherebySET
No.298112.OnAugust12,1965,thesaiddeedsofsale ASIDEandanewoneisrendered:
(Exhs.A&B)wereipsofactocancelledorsuperseded 1. Declaringtheplaintiffsastheabsoluteowners
bysaidfreepatent.Moreover,itappearsfromthe ofthelandknownasLotNo.662,Pls854oftheLand
evidencethatdefendantsnevervacatedorabandoned RegistryofBukidnon;
theirpossessionofLotNo.662astheyhave
continuouslylivedonsaidlotsince1950,afact 2. OrderingtheRegisterofDeedsofBukidnonto
admittedbytheplaintiffsthemselves.Andaslongas effectthecancellationofOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.
OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.P3559remainsinthe P3559inthenameofApolonioEgaoandinlieu
nameofdefendantApolonioEgao,marriedtoBeatriz
26
thereof,anotheronebeissuedinthenamesof rightoverthedisputedland,therespondentsbeingthe
plaintiffs,afterpaymentoftheproperfees; transfereesofMarfori.prcd
3. Orderingthedefendantstosurrenderpeaceful ItisundisputedthatFreePatentNo.298112wasissued
possessionofthelandtoplaintiffsandtodesistfrom topetitionerApolonioEgaooverLotNo.662on12
furtherdisturbingthepossessionoverthelandof August,1965.Sec.118ofCommonwealthActNo.141,
plaintiffs; asamended,prohibitsthealienationorencumbrance,
withinaperiodoffive(5)yearsfromthedateof
4. Orderingthedefendantstopaythecosts. issuanceofthepatent,oflandsacquiredunderfree
SOORDERED."5 patentorhomestead.Assuming,arguendo,the
authenticityoftheDeedsofSaleexecutedbytheEgaos
PetitionersturntothisCourtforrelief,assailingthe infavorofMarforioverportionsofLotNo.662(the
appellatecourtforallegedlycommittinggraveabuseof landinquestion),dated7May1964,14Januaryand6
discretionamountingtolackofjurisdictioninholding October1965,itclearlyappearsthatalldeedswere
that: executedwithintheprohibitedperiodoffive(5)years.
Ascorrectlyfoundbytheappellatecourt
a. PetitionerssoldLot662toRobertoMarfori;
"Section124ofthePublicLandActprovided[sic]that
b. Itwasonlyin1983whenPetitionerswrested
anyacquisition,conveyance,alienation,transferor
possessionoverthelandfromprivateRespondents;
othercontractmadeorexecutedinviolationofanyof
c. Petitionersneverdeniedthesalesmadein theprovisionsofSections118,121,120122and123of
favorofMarfori,intheiranswer; thisActshallbeunlawful,nullandvoidfromits
executionandshallproducetheeffectofannullingand
d. PrivateRespondentsare"innocentpurchasers cancellingthegrant,title,patentorpermitoriginally
forvalue."6 issued,recognizedoractuallyorprescriptively,and
causethereversionofthepropertyandits
and/orforallegedlydecidingquestionsofsubstancenot
improvementstothestate."9
inaccordancewithlawand/orapplicabledecisionsof
thisCourt. Petitionersdenytheauthenticityanddueexecutionof
thenotarizeddeedsofsaleinfavorofMarfori,asserting
Withoutgivingduecoursetothepetition,theCourt
continuedownershipoverthelandbyvirtueofa
requiredrespondentstocomment.7Aftercomment,
TorrensCertificateofTitleissuedintheirname.While
theCourtresolvedtorequirepetitionerstofileareply,
theCourtisnotsatisfiedwithrespondents'explanation
whichtheydid.Respondentsfiledarejoinder.
oftheirfailuretopresentthenotariespublic(whowere
Consideringtheallegations,issuesandarguments
residentsofaneighboringprovince)toaffirmtheir
adduced,theCourtresolvedtogiveduecoursetothe
participationinthepreparationoftheDeeds,theCourt
petition.Uponsubmissionbythepartiesoftheir
alsofindsasinsufficientthemeredenialsbypetitioners
respectivememorandum,thepetitionwassubmitted
astodueexecutionandauthenticityofsaidDeedsof
fordecision.8
Sale.Anotarialdocumentisevidenceofthefactsin
ValidityoftheDeedsofSaleexecutedbetweenMarfori clearunequivocalmannerthereinexpressed.Ithasin
(aspurchaser)andthepetitioners(assellers)isthe itsfavorthepresumptionofregularity.Tocontradictall
mainissuetoberesolved,indeterminingrespondents' these,theremustbeevidencethatisclear,convincing
andmorethanmerelypreponderant.10Thequestion
27
ofauthenticitybeingoneoffact,theCourtwillnot enforcementorapplicationrunscountertothepublic
disturbtheconclusionsoftheCourtofAppealsonthe policyofpreservingthegrantee'srighttotheland
matter. underthehomesteadlaw.17
OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.P3559overthelandin Sec.51,par.2ofthePropertyRegistrationDecree(PD
disputewasissuedon1March1966,afewmonths 1529),formerlySec.50oftheLandRegistrationAct(Act
aftertheexecutionbytheEgaosofthelastDeedofSale No.496)expresslyprovidesthattheregistrationofthe
infavorofMarfori.11TheOCTisregisteredinthe Deedistheoperativeactthatbindsoraffectstheland
nameoftheEgaos,hereinpetitioners. insofarasthirdpersonsareconcerned.Thelawrequires
ahigherdegreeofprudencefromonewhobuysfroma
ATorrenstitle,onceregistered,cannotbedefeated,
personwhoisnottheregisteredowner,whentheland
evenbyadverseopenandnotoriouspossession.A objectofthetransactionisregisteredland.Whileone
registeredtitleundertheTorrenssystemcannotbe
whobuysfromtheregisteredownerneednotlook
defeatedbyprescription.Thetitle,onceregistered,is behindthecertificateoftitle,onewhobuysfrom
noticetotheworld.Allpersonsmusttakenotice.No anotherwhoisnottheregisteredownerisexpectedto
onecanpleadignoranceoftheregistration.12 examinenotonlythecertificateoftitlebutallfactual
Contrarytotheappellatecourt'sconclusion, circumstancesnecessaryforhimtodetermineifthere
respondentsarenotinnocentpurchasersforvalue.13 areanyflawsinthetitleofthetransferor,orinhis
An"innocentpurchaserforvalue"isdeemed,underthe capacitytotransfertheland.Failingtoexercisecaution
Torrenssystem,toincludeaninnocentlessee, ofanykindwhatsoeveristantamounttobadfaith.18
mortgageeorotherencumbrancerforvalue.14Where Deedsofsaleofpatentedlands,perfectedwithinthe
apurchaserneglectstomakethenecessaryinquiries prohibitedfive(5)yearperiodarenullandvoid(Sec.
andcloseshiseyestofactswhichshouldputa 124,PublicLandAct).NotitlepassedfromtheEgaosto
reasonablemanonhisguardastothepossibilityofthe Marforiwhichcouldbevalidlytransferredtoherein
existenceofadefectinhisvendor'stitle,andrelyingon respondentsBontilaoandDignos.Nemodatquodnon
thebeliefthattherewasnodefectinthetitleofthe habet(nobodycandisposeofthatwhichdoesnot
vendor,purchasesthepropertywithoutmakingany belongtohim).19
furtherinvestigation,hecannotclaimthatheisa
purchaseringoodfaithforvalue.15 Whilethegovernmenthasnottakenstepstoassertits
title,byreversion,toahomesteadsoldinviolationof
Furthermore,aprivateindividualmaynotbringan thePublicLandAct,thevendororhisheirsisbetter
actionforreversionoranyactionwhichwouldhavethe entitledtothepossessionoftheland,thevendeebeing
effectofcancellingafreepatentandthecorresponding innobettersituationthananyintruder.20
certificateoftitleissuedonthebasisthereof,withthe
resultthatthelandcoveredtherebywillagainformpart Accordingly,respondentswhoarenotinnocent
ofthepublicdomain,asonlytheSolicitorGeneralor purchasersforvaluehavenostandingtoquestion
theofficeractinginhissteadmaydoso.16 petitioners'righttothelandandtofileanactionfor
quietingoftitle.LibLex
Theruleofparidelictononorituractio(wheretwo
personsareequallyatfaultneitherpartymaybe WHEREFORE,theappealeddecisionoftheCourtof
entitledtoreliefunderthelaw),admitsofexceptions AppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.09539isREVERSEDandSET
anddoesnotapplytoaninexistentcontract,suchas,a ASIDE.Meanwhile,petitionersasregisteredownersare
salevoidabinitiounderthePublicLandAct,whenits entitledtoremaininphysicalpossessionofthedisputed
28
property.Respondentsareorderedtodeliverthe
owner'sduplicatecopyoftheOCT(No.P3559)to
petitioners,withoutprejudicetoanactionforreversion
oftheland,whichmaybeinstitutedbytheSolicitor
GeneralfortheState.
LetacopyofthisdecisionbefurnishedtheSolicitor
General.
SOORDERED.
29
30
[G.R.No.L32723.October28,1977.] sincethenpossessed;sometimeafterwardsonadate
notveryclearintherecord,JoseMarambafiledCivil
JUANDACASIN,JOSEMARAMBA,MARIAMARAMBA, CaseNo.895oftheCourtofFirstInstanceof
SORAHAYDAMARAMBA,FLORDELIZAMARAMBAand
PangasinanagainstSabinaCapuaandcompanionsfor
FILIPINASMARAMBA,petitioners,vs.THECOURTOF
reivindicacion;butthatnotwithstanding,Sabina
APPEALS,FELIPECAPUA,SINFOROSAPADILLA
remained;whileJoseMarambahadhisowndeclaration
GUALBERTOCALULOTandOLIMPIALOMIBAO, oflandtax,itwillappearthatSabinaalsohadherown,
respondents. seeExh.F;whilethatCivilCaseNo.895waspending,
AlbertoR.deJoyaforpetitioners. SabinasoldthepropertyuntoGualbertoCaluloton21
April,1950Exh.AandGualbertotookover;thereisno
R.E.Gonzalesforrespondents. evidencethatGualbertowasinformedorcametoknow
ofthependinglitigationbetweenJoseMarambaand
DECISION
SabinaCapua:atanyratebydecisiondated1
GUERRERO,Jp: (September),1952,theCourtofFirstInstanceof
PangasinandeclaredJoseMarambaabsoluteownerand
Petitionforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionofthe condemnedSabinaandcompanionstovacateand
CourtofAppealsinCAG.R.No.42404Rentitled"Felipe delivertoMaramba,unfortunatelydecisionwasnot
Capua,etal.,PlaintiffsAppellants,vs.JuanDacasin,et executedwithinthereglementaryperiodoffive(5)
al.,DefendantsAppellees"reversingthejudgmentof yearsfromthetimeithadbecomefinalpursuanttothe
theCourtofFirstInstanceofPangasinanwhich Rules;andforhispartseveralyearslaterspecificallyon
adjudicatedtheownershipofthelandincontroversyto 27May,1960,Exh.CGualbertosoldthesameproperty
theplaintiffs. untonowplaintiffsspousesFelipeCapuaandSinforosa
Padilla;andtheselastcameintopossessthereafter:
Theoriginalactioninstitutedinthecaseatbarsought
meantimetheprevailingpartyinCivilCaseNo.895Jose
thecomplaintfiledbytheplaintiffsFelipeCapua,
Marambahavingdied,hisheirsandsuccessorsin
SinforosaPadilla,GualbertoCalulotandOlimpia
interestsometimeafterwardson2August,1961,Exh.1,
Lomibao(hereinrespondents)againstthedefendants
soldthepropertytohereindefendantJuanDacasinand
JuanDacasin,JoseMarambaandFilipinasMaramba
hiswife;itwasatthisstagewherethetroublecameto
(hereinpetitioners),docketedasCivilCaseNo.1455,
brewbecauseJose(Maramba)havingtriedtopossess
CourtofFirstInstanceofPangasinan.
andthwartedinhiseffortsbyFelipeCapua,wenttothe
ThefactsasfoundbytheCourtofAppealsareas CourtinCivil(Case)No.895andsecuredawritof
follows: possessionon3October,1960,Exh.Gandpossession
wasuntohimdeliveredbytheSheriffon4October,
"ITRESULTING:Thattheantecedentsarequite 1960,Exh.G1;fromthenonactualpossessioncameto
complicatedanditwillbethetaskofthisCourtto beaseesaw;notwithstandingthewrit,FelipeCapua
simplify;sometimepriortoJanuary19,1943the triedtocomeinonceagain;(JoseMaramba)askedto
propertyinquestion,aparcelofrurallandinthebarrio punishhimforcontemptbutthePangasinanCourtby
ofPatayac,MunicipalityofSta.Barbara,Provinceof orderof5February,1961heldthattherecouldbeno
Pangasinandescribedinparagraph2ofthecomplaint contemptbecausethewritofpossessionhavingbeen
wasbeingpossessedbyJoseMaramba,Exh.4;inthat issuedmorethan5yearsfromthedatethejudgment
monthandyearacertainSabinaCapuawith hadbecomefinalbecameanullityunderRule39,Sec.6
companionsgrabbedpossessionoftheproperty;and and90itwasthatthePangasinanCourtrestoredFelipe
31
Capuatopossession;withthatdevelopment,theheirs "WHEREFORE,inviewofalltheforegoingthisCourt
ofJoseMarambafiledCivil(Case)No.D1292inthe rulesthatdefendantJuanDacasinisthetrueandlawful
PangasinanCourton22February,1962againstSabina ownerofthatcertainparceloflanddescribedinthe
CapuaandcompanionsintheoldCivilCaseNo.895for aboveentitledcomplaint,havingshownthatthistitle
revivalofthejudgment,Exh.X;andinanswertothat theretohasbeenacquiredingoodfaithfrom
Sabinaallegedthatshehadalreadydisposedofthe unpollutedsources,andistherefore,entitledtothefull
propertymorethanten(10)yearspreviousto andcompletepossessionofthesame.Theplaintiffsare
GualbertoCalulotwhointurnhadsoldafterwardsto herebyorderedtorespectdefendants'possessionand
FelipeCapua,IfExh.Y;andthePangasinanCourtafter torefrainfromfurthermolestinedefendantJuan
hearingthecaseforrevivalofjudgmentreviveditby Dacasinintheenjoymentofsaidproperty.The
decisionof21March,1963againstSabinaCapuaand preliminaryinjunctionissuedbythisCourtishereby
heroldcompanionsinCivilCaseNo.895;nowin dissolvedandthecounterbondfiledbythedefendant
anticipationofrepercussionsthatwouldhavetobe JuanDacasinisorderedcancelled.Theplaintiffsarealso
producedbythatjudgment,FelipeCapuabeganthe orderedtopaythedefendants,jointlyandseverally,the
presenthostilitiesbyfilingtogetherwithhiswifeand amountofP50000spentbythemindefendingthissuit.
hisoriginalvendorsGualbertoCalulotandwifethe Theclaimmadebythedefendantsfordamagesinthe
presentCivilCaseNo.1456againstJuanDacasinand amountofP5,000.00,thesamenothavingbeen
theheirsofJoseMarambaaskingthathe,FelipeCapua satisfactorilyproven,isherebydenied.Finally,the
andhiswifebedeclaredtheabsoluteownersofthe plaintiffsarealsoorderedtopaythecostsofthis
property,byvirtueofhispurchaseingoodfaithandby proceedings.
thecontinuouspossessionfrom21April,1950ofhis
SOORDERED.
immediatepredecessorininterestGualbertoCalulot
succeededbyhimselfon27May,1960underExh.C; DagupanCity,July8,1968.
anddefendantJuanDacasin,etal.induetimefiled
theiransweron30April,1963allegingthathewasthe SIXTOA.DOMONDON
trueowner,andthatthequestionofownershipwas
Judge"
alreadyjudiciallysettledinCivil(Case)No.895,andin
thetrialofthecasebothpartiessoughttosustaintheir Notsatisfiedwiththedecisionofthetrialcourt,the
respectivepositionsbyoralanddocumentaryproofs; plaintiffsappealedtotheappellatecourt.OnJuly17,
thegistofplaintiff'spositionsoughttobedevelopedin 1970,theCourtofAppealspromulgateditsdecision
hisevidencebeingthathewasthetrueowner reversingthejudgmentappealedfrom,adjudicatingthe
notwithstandingCivilCaseNo.895becauseofhislong ownershipofthelottothedefendantspousesFelipe
continuedpossessiontackedwiththatofhis CapuaandSinforosaPadilla;madethewritofinjunction
predecessorsininterestwhiledefendantssoughtto issuedbythetrialjudgeonMarch28,1963againstthe
showthereverse,thattheholdingontheissueof defendantspermanent;andsetasidetheorderofthe
ownershipwasalreadyimpossibletoevadehavingbeen trialjudgedatedApril29,1964dissolvingthewrit,with
finallysettledinCivil(Case)No.895infavoroftheir costsagainstthedefendants.Plaintiffsthereinnow
predecessorininterestJoseMaramba." appealtothisCourtinfourteen(14)assignmentof
errorswhichcanbereducedtoonlyoneissue,thatis,
Aftertrial,judgmentwasrenderedinfavorofthe
whetherthedecisionisinaccordancewithlawand
petitionersJuanDacasin,etal.inthefollowingwiseand
jurisprudence.
manner:cdll
32
TheCourtofAppealsheld"thatthequestionof whichmakesittotheinterestoftheStatethatthere
ownershipwaslitigatedbytheparties'respective shouldbeanendtolitigation;theotherthehardshipon
predecessorsininterestinCivilCaseNo.895(and)if theindividualthatheshouldbevexedtwiceforthe
thisweretobetheonlypointinvolvedthereshouldbe samecause.Acontrarydoctrinewouldsubjectthe
noquestionthatJoseMaramba,defendants' publicpeaceandquiettothewillandneglectof
predecessorininteresthavingbeendeclaredthetrue individualsandpreferthegratificationofalitigations
ownerofthepropertyasagainstSabinaCapua, dispositiononthepartofthesuitorstothepreservation
plaintiffs'predecessorininterest,thepresentlitigation ofpublictranquilityandhappiness."(Yusingco,etal.,vs.
musthavetobedecidedinthesamemanner."Tothis OngLian,42SCRA589)
holdingofrespondentcourt,Weareinfullagreement
forindeedthejudgmentinCivilCaseNo.895fittedand Respondentcourt,however,wentfurther,statingthat
docketedintheCFIofPangasinanonSeptember8, "thetroubleisthatplaintiffFelipeCapuahassquarely
1944,anddecidedonSeptember1,1952infavorof raisedthequestionofhisowntitleobtainedthru
JoseMaramba,resolvedthequestionoftitleand acquisitiveprescription;paragraph6,complaint,andit
ownershipofthepropertyinlitigationasfollows: musthavetobeadmittedthatthepropertybeing
unregistered,ownershipthereincouldbedefeatedby
"TheCourtherebyrendersjudgmentinfavorofplaintiff acquisitiveprescription."TheCourtheldthat
andagainstthedefendant,declaringtheplaintiffs,Jose "throughouttheinterveningperiodfrom1943to1960,
Maramba,theabsoluteowner,withrightsofpossession orforaspaceofseventeen(17)yearsnotJose
andenjoymentofthelandinquestionandordersthe MarambabutSabinaCapuaandafterthesalebySabina
defendanttovacatethesameanddelivertothe toGualbertoon21April,1950underExh.Aafterwards
plaintiffthepossession." Gualberto,weretheonesinpossessionintheconcept
ofowneroftheproperty,andasGualbertointurnwas
(RecordonAppeal,p.61)
succeededon27May,1960byhereinplaintiff,Felipe
Wefindinthiscaseatbarthefollowingrequisitesthat Capua,pursuanttothedocumentExh.C,andthat
concur:(1)theremustbeafirstjudgmentororder;(2) possessionwasexclusive,adverseandcontinuous,the
thecourtrenderingthesamemusthavejurisdiction saidsuccessivepossessionof,namelySabinaCapua
overthesubjectmatterandovertheparties;(3)there from1943to1950,GualbertoCalulotfrom1950to
mustbeajudgmentororderonthemerits;and(4) 1960andFelipeCapuahereinplaintifffrom1960upto
theremustbebetweenthetwocasesidentityof theinstitutionofthepresentcasewasenoughto
parties,identityofsubjectmatterandidentityofaction. perfectatitleofownership."
(Santosvs.SanGabriel,45SCRA288;Virayvs.Marias, WedonotagreetothisholdingoftheCourtofAppeals.
49SCRA44;Beninvs.Tuason,57SCRA531;Pacific
CommercialandIndustrialBankvs.Pfleider,65SCRA 1. Inthefirstplace,whenJoseMarambasued
13). SabinaCapuaonSeptember8,1944inCivilCaseNo.
895,thepossessionofSabinaCapuawasthereby
"Thedoctrineofresjudicataprecludespartiesfromre interruptedbytheissuanceofthejudicialsummons
litigatingissuesactuallylitigatedanddeterminedbya
(Article1123,NewCivilCode).Duringthependencyof
priorandfinaljudgment.Itisarulepervadingevery thelitigation,fromSeptember8,1944toSeptember1,
wellregulatedsystemofjurisprudence,andisputupon
1952whenjudgmentwasrendered,oraperiodofeight
twogroundsembodiedinvariousmaximsofthe (8)years,thepossessionofSabinaCapuaovertheland
commonlaw;theone,publicpolicyandnecessity, didnotrun.Itremainedinterrupted.Thelandwasin
33
custodialegis.ThefactthatSabinaCapuasoldtheland WhenpossessionofthepropertywastakenfromFelipe
onApril21,1950duringthependencyofthecaseto CapuaandgiventoJoseMarambabytheProvincial
GualbertoCalulotcannotreviveorrestorethe SheriffonOctober4,1960byvirtueofawritof
possessionofthevendor,whichwerepeatwas possessionissuedbythecourtinCivilCaseNo.895,
renderedinterruptedbythejudicialsummons.The FelipeCapuabecameawareorcametoknowthatthere
successorininterestofSabinaCapuawhoisthevendee existedaflawinhistitleormodeofacquisition.Felipe
GualbertoCalulotcannottackhispossessiontothatof CapuamayhaveacquiredthelandingoodfaithonMay
hisvendorSabinaCapuanotonlybecausethejudicial 27,1960whenheboughtthepropertyfromGualberto
summonsinterruptedthelatter'spossessionbutalso Calulotbuthisevictiontherefromthruthewritof
becauseshefinallylostinthelitigation. possession,althoughlaterannulledinJanuary,1961,
madehimawarethathepossessedthelandimproperly
Byreasonofthisinterruption,itisnotcorrecttosay orwrongfully.Consequently,FelipeCapuacannotclaim
thatthroughtheinterveningperiodsof1943to1950 goodfaithastoripehispossessiontoacquisitive
(thepossessionofSabinaCapua),thenfrom1950to prescription.
1960(possessionofGualbertoCalulotandfrom1960to
1963(possessionofFelipeCapuauptotheinstitutionof 3. Thefactsarealsoundisputedthatthedeedof
thepresentsuit)thepossessionwasacontinuingand saleexecutedbetweenJoseMarambaasvendeeand
uninterruptedoccupancyenoughtoperfectatitleof EmilianaAbadasvendorin1958wasdulyregisteredin
ownership,becausetherewasagapfrom1944to1952 theRegistryofDeedsaswellasthedeedofsale
(interruptionduetojudicialsummonsuptothe executedin1929betweenEmilianaAbadandthe
terminationofthelitigation).llcd originalownerFlorentinoQuinajon.Underthelaw,
Article709oftheNewCivilCode,titlesofownershipor
2. TheNewCivilCodeofthePhilippinestook ofotherrightsoverimmovablepropertydulyinscribed
effectonAugust30,1950.Atthispointintime,the orannotatedintheRegistryofPropertyconstitute
possessionofSabinaCapuawasnotrunningforithad noticetothirdpersonsandaffordsprotectioninfavor
beeninterruptedbythejudicialsummonsinCivilCase
ofhimwhoingoodfaithreliesuponwhatappearsin
No.895.Herpossessionofthelandremained
theregistry.Asbetweentwopartiesrelyingontheir
interrupted,passiveorsuspendeduptothedatewhen respectiveinstrumentsofsaleofthesameproperty,
thejudgmentwasrenderedagainstheronSeptember lawandjusticecommandthathewhohasregisteredhis
1,1952. deedmustprevailoverhisadversarywhohasnotdone
WeholdthatthevendeeGualbertoCalulotcannot so.Theruleofcaveatemptorrequiresthepurchaserto
legallyacquirepossessionduringthependencyofthe beawareofthesupposedtitleofthevendorandhe
litigation;itcanonlycommenceafterthedecisionis whobuyswithoutcheckingthevendor'stitletakesall
renderedtherein,whichwaspromulgatedon therisksandlossesconsequenttosuchfailure.Noneof
September1,1952.Bythistime,theNewCivilCode thedeedsofsaleevidencingtheownershipof
wasalreadyenforcedandthepossessionofGualberto GualbertoCalulotandFelipeCapuawereregisteredin
Calulotincludingitslegaleffectsmustbegovernedby theRegistryofProperty,hencetheycannotprevailover
theNewCivilCode.UnderArticle1131and1128, therightsofthepetitionerwhoholdsinhisfavorthe
N.C.C.,goodfaithandjusttitlearenecessaryfor instrumentofsaledulyregistered.
ordinaryprescriptionofrealproperty. 4. TheCourthasignoredorfailedtoconsider
materialevidencefoundintherecordsthatdisproves
34
clearlyandpositivelyrespondentFelipeCapua'sclaim WHEREFORE,thejudgmentoftherespondentCourtof
ofacquisitiveprescription,thisevidenceshowingthat Appealsisherebyreversedandthedecisionofthe
FelipeCapua'spossessionwasnotintruthandinfactin CourtofFirstInstanceofPangasinaninCivilCaseNo.
theconceptofownerduringtherequiredperiodof 1455affirmed,withcostsagainsttherespondents.
time.ThedeedofsaleexecutedbySabinaCapuato
Petitiongranted.
GualbertoCalulot(ExhibitA)describesthelandsoldto
be"assessedatP240.00underTaxNo.17426forthe SOORDERED.
currentyear,"thatis,1950,thedeedhavingbeen
executedApril21,1950.WhenthespousesGualberto
CalulotandOlimpiaLomibaosoldthesamepropertyto
FelipeCapuaunderExhibitC,thelandasdescribedin
thedeedstillbearsthesamedescriptionasinExhibitA,
thatis,"assessedatP240.00underTaxNo.17426for
thecurrentyear."i.e.1960asthedeedwasexecuted
onMay27,1960.Thetaxnumberofthelotin1950is
thesametaxnumberin1960.ThenameofSabina
Capuaasthedeclaredownerremainedfrom1950to
1964.Thetaxreceipts,ExhibitsF1,F2,F3,F4,
showedthatSabinaCapuawasthedeclaredowner.In
otherwords,GualbertoCalulothadnotdeclaredthe
landinhisownnamefortaxpurposes.Hehadnot
soughtthecancellationofthetaxdeclarationinthe
nameofSabinaCapuatohimasthevendee,hencethe
inevitableconclusionisthatsaidGualbertoCalulotdid
notdeemhimselftheownerthereofand,therefore,his
possessionwasnotintheconceptofowner.Thisbeing
so,Calulot'soccupancyfailedinoneessentialrequisite
ofacquisitiveprescription,whichispossessioninthe
conceptofowner.ThesameistruewithFelipeCapua.
AlthoughGualbertoCalulotpaidtaxesonthelandfor
theyearin1958,thereisnoevidencethathepaidtaxes
inhisnameorthathepaidtaxesanyotheryearbefore
orafter1958.LLpr
Theclaimoftherespondentsbasedonacquisitive
prescriptionis,therefore,withoutmerit.Whatremains,
therefore,isthesolequestionofownershipwhichas
respondentcourtitselfheldifrespondents'claimof
acquisitiveprescriptionisdefeatedmust
unquestionablyberenderedinfavorofpetitionerJose
Marambaandhiscopetitionersbyrightofresjudicata.
(Supraatp.4)
35
36
[G.R.No.138660.February5,2004.] petitionforintervention,whichtheCourthadalready
denied,constitutedforumshoppingandconsideredas
HEIRSOFTRINIDADDELEONVDA.DEROXAS, anabuseoftheCourt'sprocessesequivalenttodirect
petitioners,vs.COURTOFAPPEALSandMAGUESUN
contempt.Thegeneralruleisthatacorporationandits
MANAGEMENTANDDEVELOPMENTCORPORATION, officersandagentsmaybeheldliableforcontempt.
respondents.
SYLLABUS
AbelloConcepcionRegalaandCruzforpetitioners.
1. REMEDIALLAW;SPECIALCIVILACTIONS;
PonceEnrileReyesandManalastasforMaguesunMgt., CONTEMPTOFCOURT;DEFINEDANDCONSTRUED.
etc. InHalili,etal.vs.CIR,etal.,thisCourtexplainedthe
R.A.S.DizonLawOfficeforMeycauayanControl,etc. conceptofcontemptofcourt:Contemptofcourtisa
defianceoftheauthority,justiceordignityofthecourt;
SYNOPSIS suchconductastendstobringtheauthorityand
administrationofthelawintodisrespectortointerfere
TheSupremeCourtawardedthesubjecttwoparcelsof
withorprejudicepartieslitigantortheirwitnesses
landtothehereinpetitionersinapreviousdecision
duringlitigation(12Am.Jur.389,citedin14SCRA813).
whichbecamefinalandexecutory.MeycauayanCentral
Contemptofcourtisdefinedasadisobediencetothe
RealtyCorporation(Meycauayan),claimingtobea
Courtbyactinginoppositiontoitsauthority,justiceand
purchaseringoodfaith,wantedtoretainownershipof
dignity.Itsignifiesnotonlyawillfuldisregardor
someportionsofthesubjectland.Hence,afterits
disobedienceofthecourt'sorders,butsuchconductas
motionforinterventionwasdeniedbytheCourtand
tendstobringtheauthorityofthecourtandthe
theirderivativetitleswerecancelledbytheRegisterof
administrationoflawintodisreputeorinsomemanner
DeedsofTagaytayCity,itfiledacomplaintfor
toimpedethedueadministrationofjustice(17C.J.S.4).
reconveyance,damagesandquietingoftitleagainst
ThisCourthasthusrepeatedlydeclaredthatthepower
petitionersandseveralothers.Thecomplaintfiledwas
topunishforcontemptisinherentinallcourtsandis
almostanexactreproductionofthepetitionfor
essentialtothepreservationoforderinjudicial
interventionitpreviouslyfiledbeforetheSupreme
proceedingsandtotheenforcementofjudgments,
Court.Asaresult,petitionerfiledthispetitiontocitefor
orders,andmandatesofthecourt,andconsequently,
indirectcontempttheofficersofMeycauayan.DHTCaI
tothedueadministrationofjustice(SladePerkinsvs.
TheSupremeCourtfoundMeycauayan'sexecutivevice DirectorofPrisons,58Phil.271;InreKelly,35Phil.944;
presidentguiltyofindirectcontempt.Also,theCourt CommissionerofImmigrationvs.Cloribel,20SCRA
foundthatMeycauayancommittedforumshoppingand 1241;Montalbanvs.Canonoy,38SCRA1).
thusMeycauayananditsexecutivevicepresidentwere Meycauayan'scontinuingresistancetothisCourt's
guiltyofdirectcontempt.AccordingtotheCourt, judgmentisanaffronttotheCourtandtothesovereign
Meycauayan'sdefiancetoitsdecisionandresolutionby dignitywithwhichitisclothed.Meycauayan's
filinganactionforreconveyanceinvolvingthesame persistentattemptstoraiseissueslongsincelaidtorest
parcelsoflandwhichtheCourtpreviouslydecidedwith byafinalandexecutoryjudgmentofnolessthanthe
finalityconstitutedindirectcontemptundertheRulesof highesttribunalofthelandconstitutecontumacious
CivilProcedure.Inthisconnection,theCourtalsoheld defianceoftheauthorityofthisCourtandimpedethe
thatMeycauayan'sactoffilingacomplaintfor speedyadministrationofjustice.EAHDac
reconveyanceraisingthesameissuesasitdidinits
37
2. ID.;CIVILPROCEDURE;JUDGMENT;RES 3. CIVILLAW;PROPERTY;PURCHASEROFLAND
JUDICATA;ELEMENTS;CONSTRUED.Wellsettledis MUSTGOBEYONDCERTIFICATEOFTITLEWHERETHE
therulethatwhenacourtofcompetentjurisdictionhas SAMEISINPOSSESSIONOFAPERSONOTHERTHANTHE
triedanddecidedarightorfact,solongasthedecision VENDOR;RATIONALE.Wherethelandsoldisinthe
remainsunreversed,itisconclusiveonthepartiesand possessionofapersonotherthanthevendor,the
thoseinprivitywiththem.MoresowheretheSupreme purchasermustgobeyondthecertificatesoftitleand
CourthasalreadydecidedtheissuesincetheCourtis makeinquiriesconcerningtherightsoftheactual
thefinalarbiterofalljusticiablecontroversiesproperly possessor.Indeed,onewhobuyspropertywithfull
broughtbeforeit.AsheldinBuayav.Stronghold knowledgeoftheflawsanddefectsofthetitleofhis
InsuranceCo.,Inc.:...Anexistingfinaljudgmentor vendorandofapendinglitigationovertheproperty
decreerendereduponthemerits,withoutfraudor gamblesontheresultofthelitigationandisboundby
collusion,byacourtofcompetentjurisdictionacting theoutcomeofhisindifference.Apurchasercannot
uponamatterwithinitsauthorityisconclusiveofthe closehiseyestofactswhichshouldputareasonable
rightsofthepartiesandtheirprivies.Thisrulingholdsin manonguardandthenclaimthatheactedingoodfaith
allotheractionsorsuits,inthesameoranyother believingthattherewasnodefectinthetitleofthe
judicialtribunalofconcurrentjurisdiction,touchingon vendor.SDATEc
thepointsormattersinissueinthefirstsuit....Courts
willsimplyrefusetoreopenwhathasbeendecided. 4. REMEDIALLAW;ACTIONS;FORUMSHOPPING;
DEFINED.Forumshoppingistheactofaparty
Theywillnotallowthesamepartiesortheirpriviesto
againstwhomanadversejudgmenthasbeenrendered
litigateanewaquestion,onceithasbeenconsidered
anddecidedwithfinality.Litigationsmustendand inoneforum,seekinganotherandpossiblyfavorable
terminatesometimeandsomewhere.Theeffectiveand opinioninanotherforumotherthanbyappealor
efficientadministrationofjusticerequiresthatoncea specialcivilactionofcertiorari.Thereisalsoforum
judgmenthasbecomefinal,theprevailingpartyshould shoppingwhenapartyinstitutestwoormoreactions
notbedeprivedofthefruitsoftheverdictby basedonthesamecauseontheexpectationthatoneor
subsequentsuitsonthesameissuesfiledbythesame theothercourtmightlookwithfavorontheparty.
parties.Thisisinaccordancewiththedoctrineofres 5. ID.;SPECIALCIVILACTIONS;CONTEMPTOF
judicatawhichhasthefollowingelements:(1)the COURT;CORPORATION,ITSOFFICERSANDAGENTS
formerjudgmentmustbefinal;(2)thecourtwhich MAYBEHELDLIABLEFORCONTEMPT.Thegeneral
renderedithadjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterand ruleisthatacorporationanditsofficersandagentsmay
theparties;(3)thejudgmentmustbeonthemerits; beheldliableforcontempt.Acorporationandthose
and(4)theremustbebetweenthefirstandthesecond whoareofficiallyresponsiblefortheconductofits
actions,identityofparties,subjectmatterandcausesof affairsmaybepunishedforcontemptindisobeying
action.Theapplicationofthedoctrineofresjudicata judgments,decrees,orordersofacourtmadeinacase
doesnotrequireabsoluteidentityofpartiesbutmerely withinitsjurisdiction.ACaDTH
substantialidentityofparties.Thereissubstantial
identityofpartieswhenthereiscommunityofinterest 6. ID.;ID.;ID.;PENALTY.UnderSection1of
orprivityofinterestbetweenapartyinthefirstanda Rule71oftheRulesofCourt,directcontemptis
partyinthesecondcaseevenifthefirstcasedidnot punishablebyafinenotexceedingtwothousandpesos
impleadthelatter. (P2,000)orimprisonmentnotexceedingten(10)days,
orboth,ifcommittedagainstaRegionalTrialCourtora
courtofequivalentorhigherrank.Hence,Meycauayan
38
anditsExecutiveVicePresidentJuanM.Lamson,Jr.are nowformingpartoftheRecordsofLRCNo.TG373,is
eachfinedP2,000fordirectcontemptofcourtfor awardedtohereinpetitionerTrinidaddeLeonvda.de
forumshopping. Roxasandherheirs,hereinsubstitutedaspetitioners.
UponfinalityofthisDecision,theLandRegistration
DECISION
AuthorityisherebydirectedtoISSUEwithreasonable
CARPIO,Jp: dispatchthecorrespondingdecreeofregistrationand
certificateoftitlepursuanttoSection39ofPresidential
TheCase DecreeNo.1529.2
Thisisapetitiontociteforindirectcontemptthe On22May1997,MeycauayanfiledaPetitionfor
officersofMeycauayanCentralRealtyCorporation InterventioninG.R.No.118436.Meycauayanalleged
("Meycauayan")fordefyingthefinalandexecutory thaton14May1992,itpurchasedthreeparcelsofland
DecisionandResolutionofthisCourtinG.R.No.118436 fromMaguesunwhichformpartoftheproperty
entitled"HeirsofManuelA.RoxasandTrinidaddeLeon awardedtotheheirsofTrinidaddeLeonVda.DeRoxas
Vda.DeRoxasv.CourtofAppealsandMaguesun RoTasheirs").Meycauayancontendedthatsinceitisa
Management&DevelopmentCorporation"("G.R.No. purchaseringoodfaithandforvalue,theCourtshould
118436").1cSIADH affordittheopportunitytobeheard.Meycauayan
contendsthattheadversedecisioninG.R.No.118436
TheAntecedents
cannotimpairitsrightsasapurchaseringoodfaithand
ThispetitionstemsfromacasefiledbyTrinidaddeLeon forvalue.
Vda.DeRoxastosetasidethedecreeofregistration
On25June1997,thisCourtdeniedthePetitionfor
overtwounregisteredparcelsoflandinTagaytayCity
Intervention.ThisCourtalsodeniedtheMotionfor
grantedtoMaguesunManagementandDevelopment
ReconsiderationfiledbyMaguesun.Thus,on21August
Corporation("Maguesun")beforetheRegionalTrial
1997,theDecisiondated21March1997inG.R.No.
Courtonthegroundofactualfraud.Thetrialcourt
118436becamefinalandexecutory.
dismissedthepetitiontosetasidethedecreeof
registration.Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsdeniedthe On13April1998,theLandRegistrationAuthority
petitionforreviewandaffirmedthefindingsofthetrial ("LRA")submittedaReporttotheRegionalTrialCourt
court.On21March1997,thisCourtreversedthe ofTagaytayCity,Branch18("landregistrationcourt"),
appellatecourt'sdecisioninG.R.No.118436.The inLRCaseNo.TG373,prayingthatthelandregistration
dispositiveportionreads: court:
WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisherebyGRANTED. a) OrdertheLRAtocancelDecreeNo.N197092in
TheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinC.A.G.R.CVNo. thenameofMaguesuntoenableittoissueanother
38328("TrinidaddeLeonVda.deRoxasv.Maguesun decreeinfavoroftheheirsofManuelA.Roxasand
Management&DevelopmentCorporation,etal.") TrinidaddeLeonVda.deRoxas;
promulgatedonDecember8,1994isherebyREVERSED
ANDSETASIDE.Accordingly,registrationoftitleover b) OrdertheRegisterofDeedstocancelOCTNo.
thesubjectparcelsofland,describedinPlanAS04 0515andallitsderivativetitles;and
000108,LotNos.7231and7239,withanareaof3,461
c) OrdertheissuanceoftheDecreewithrespect
and10,674squaremeters,respectively,asshownand tothedecisionoftheSupremeCourtdated21March
supportedbythecorrespondingtechnicaldescriptions
1997.
39
Meycauayanfiledwiththelandregistrationcourta intendedthatthesameparceloflandshallbecovered
"MotionForLeaveToInterveneAndForPeriodOfTime bymorethanonecertificateoftitle.
ToFileOppositionToTheReportDatedMarch25,1998
c) Whetheranorderfromthetrialcourtis
FiledByTheLRAAndToFileComplaintinIntervention."
necessarybeforetheLRAcancomplywiththeSupreme
On4June1998,theRoxasheirsfiledaMotionfor CourtdecisiondirectingtheLRA"toissuewith
ClarificationwiththisCourtraisingthefollowingissues: reasonabledispatchthecorrespondingdecreeof
DCcTHa registrationandcertificateoftitle"infavoroftheRoxas
heirs?
a) Whetheritisnecessaryforthetrialcourttofirst
ordertheLRA"tocancelDecreeNo.N197092inthe On23June1998,theRoxasheirsfiledaSupplementto
nameofMaguesunManagementandDevelopment MotionforClarification,thepertinentportionsofwhich
Corporationtoenable(theLRA)toissueanotherdecree are:
infavoroftheHeirsofManuelA.RoxasandTrinidadde
LeonVda.deRoxas"?Oristhatordernecessarily 1. Inpetitioners'MotionforClarification,oneof
includedinthedispositiveportionoftheSupremeCourt theitemssoughttobeclarifiediswhetherthe
decisiondirectingtheLRA"toissuewithreasonable derivativetitles(i.e.,thetitlesderivedfromMaguesun
ManagementandDevelopmentCorporation's
dispatchthecorrespondingdecreeofregistrationand
certificateoftitle"infavoroftheRoxasheirs?Please ["Maguesun"]OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.0515and
issuedtoMeycauayanCentralRealtyCorp.)shouldbe
notethatthisnecessaryimplicationisaconsequenceof
canceled,togetherwithMaguesun'scertificatesoftitle,
theSupremeCourtfindingthatthedecreeinfavorof
Maguesunwaswrongfullyissuedbecauseitwas"not sothatnewdecreeofregistrationandcertificateoftitle
entitledtotheregistrationdecree"asithadno canbeissuedtopetitioners,asorderedinthedecision
registrabletitle,since"ZenaidaMelliza(fromwhom ofthisHonorableCourtdated21March1997,which
Maguesunsupposedlyboughtthelots)conveyedno hasbecomefinalandexecutory?
titleoverthesubjectparcelsoflandtoMaguesun 2. FromthePetitionforInterventionfiledby
Corporationasshewasnottheownerthereof." MeycauayanCentralRealtyCorporation
b) Whetheranorderfromthetrialcourtis ("Meycauayan")withthisHonorableCourton22May
necessaryfor"theRegisterofDeedsconcernedto 1997,thefollowingstatements,amongothers,are
cancelOCTNo.0515andallits,derivativetitles"?Oris alleged:
thatordernecessarilyincludedinthedispositive a. "ThatonMay14,1992,theintervenor
portionoftheSupremeCourtdecisiondirectingtheLRA purchasedforvalueseveralparcelsofrealproperty
toissuethecorrespondingdecreeofregistrationand fromprivaterespondentMaguesunManagementand
certificateoftitleinfavoroftheRoxasheirs, DevelopmentCorp.coveredbyTCTNos.24294,24295
consideringthattheoriginalcertificateoftitleissuedto and24296containinganareaof2,019squaremeters
Maguesunwasbasedonanillegaldecreeofregistration each,moreorless."
asfoundbythisHonorableCourt.Further,the
unconditionalorderoftheSupremeCourttoLRAto b. "Thatpriortopayingtheagreedpurchaseprice
issuethecorrespondingcertificateoftitletotheRoxas infulltorespondentMaguesun,aninvestigationwith
heirsnecessarilyimpliesthattheOCTissuedto theTagaytayCityOfficeoftheRegisterofDeedswas
Maguesunanditsderivativetitlesshallbecanceled,for madetodetermineandascertaintheauthenticity,
itcannot[be]assumedthattheSupremeCourt
40
statusandconditionofthetitlesofMaguesunoverthe TagaytayCity,didintervenorcometoknowofthe
aforesaidproperties."EHCaDS existenceofacaseinvolvingthepropertiessoldtoitby
respondentMaguesunonMay14,1992."
c. "Thatinvestigationmadebytheintervenorwith
theOfficeofRegisterofDeedsofTagaytayCityshowed 3. Meycauayan'sPetitionforInterventionwas
thatinallthecertifiedtruecopiesofthetitlestothe deniedbythisHonorableCourtinitsResolutiondated
propertiesabovementionedwhichwereregisteredin 25June1997,adenialthathassincebecomefinaland
thenameofMaguesun,thelastentrywhichappeared executory.However,asstatedinpetitioners'Motionfor
wasthefollowing,towit:...". Clarification,Meycauayancommittedtheproscribedact
offorumshoppingbyfilingwiththetrialcourtamotion
d. "Appearingthatthepropertiestobepurchased
forleavetointerveneraisingagaintheissueofits
bythehereinintervenorfromrespondentMaguesun allegedownershipofportionsoftheland.
havenoexistingliensand/orencumbrancesand
consideringthatthepropertiesdonotappeartobethe 4. InordertosettleonceandforallMeycauayan's
subjectofapendingcasewhichwouldaffectthetitles allegationthatitwasabuyeringoodfaith,andtoshow
ofthosewhomaysubsequentlypurchasethesame,the thatitsderivativetitlesshouldbedeclaredvoidand
hereinintervenorproceededtopay,infull,thetotal canceledbythisHonorableCourt,petitionerswillshow
amountofONEMILLIONFIVEHUNDREDTHOUSAND hereinthatthesaletoMeycauayanwasspuriousor,at
PESOS(P1,500,000.00)toMaguesun.Immediately theveryleast,itwasabuyerinbadfaith.
thereafter,Maguesun,throughitsdulyauthorized
InaResolutiondated29July1998,thisCourtacted
officer,executedthecorrespondingDeedsofAbsolute
Sale." favorablyontheRoxasheirs'MotionforClarification
anditsSupplement.Thepertinentportionsofthe
e. "Thatafterthecorrespondingtaxesand/orfees Resolutionread:IDcTEA
werepaidbyhereinintervenor,theaforementioned
Uponcarefulconsiderationofthepointsmadeby
TCTNos.T24294,24295and24296,werecanceledand
inlieuthereof,newtitlesinthenameofintervenor petitionersintheirmotions,thisCourtfindsthesame
meritoriousand,hence,aclarificationisinorder.We,
wereissuedbytheRegisterofDeedsofTagaytayCity."
therefore,declarethatourdirectiveontheLRAtoissue
f. "ThatonMarch25,1997,anofficerofthe withreasonabledispatchthecorrespondingdecreeof
intervenorcorporationwasinformedofanewspaper registrationandcertificateoftitlealsoincludes,aspart
reportstating,inbigboldletters,thefollowingsub thereof,thecancellation,withoutneedofanorderof
headline,towit: thelandregistrationcourt,ofDecreeNo.N197092,as
wellasOCTNo.0515,andallitsderivativetitles.Thisis
SCRULESONROXASFAMILYLANDROWINTAGAYTAY" anecessaryconsequenceoftheCourt'searlierfinding
g. "ThePresidentofhereinintervenorrightafter thattheforegoingdocumentswereillegallyissuedin
securedfromtheTagaytayCityOfficeoftheRegisterof thenameofrespondent.ButinlightofSection39of
Deedscertifiedtruecopiesoftorrenstitlesoverits PresidentialDecreeNo.1529(the"Property
TagaytayCityproperties." RegistrationDecree"),DecreeNo.N197092which
originatedfromtheLRAmustbecancelledbytheLRA
h. "Thatonlythen,afteritsecuredcertifiedtrue itself.Onaccountofthiscancellation,itisnow
copiesofthetitlesmentionedinthepreceding incumbentupontheLRAtoissueinlieuofthecancelled
paragraphfromtheOfficeoftheRegisterofDeedsof decreeanewoneinthenameofpetitionersaswellas
41
thecorrespondingoriginalcertificateoftitle. T25690andT27390.3TCTNos.T25688,T25689,T
CancellationofOCTNo.0515,ontheother,hand, 25690andT27390werederivativetitlesalreadyinthe
properlydevolvesupontheRegisterofDeedswho, nameofMeycauayan.
underSection40ofP.D.No.1529,hasearlierentereda
On5April1999,theRoxasheirsfiledaMotionfor
copythereofinhisrecordbook.OCTNo.0515having
IssuanceofWritofPossessionwiththelandregistration
beennullified,alltitlesderivedtherefrommustalsobe
consideredvoiditappearingthattherehadbeenno court.
interveningrightsofaninnocentpurchaserforvalue On20April1999,MeycauayanfiledaComplaintfor
involvingthelotsindispute. reconveyance,damagesandquietingoftitlewiththe
trialcourtentitled"MeycauayanCentralRealtyCorp.v.
ACCORDINGLY,theCourtherebyresolvestoGRANT
petitioners'MotionforClarificationtogetherwiththe HeirsofManuelA.RoxasandTrinidaddeLeonVda.de
Roxas,MaguesunManagementandDevelopment
Supplementthereto.Forthisreason,thedispositive
Corp.,RegisterofDeedsofTagaytayCity,CityAssessor
portionofourdecisiondatedMarch21,1997is
clarified,thus: ofTagaytayCityandLandRegistrationAuthority."4The
Complaintisalmostanexactreproductionofthe
First,theRegisterofDeedsshallCANCELOCTNo.0515 PetitionforInterventionfiledbyMeycauayanbefore
andallitsderivativetitles,namely,TCTNos.T25625,T thisCourt.TheComplaintprayedforjudgment:DSETac
25626,T25627,T25628,T25688,T25689,andT
1. OrderingthedefendantsLandRegistration
25690,thelatterthreebeingalreadyinthenameof
MeycauayanRealtyandDevelopmentCorporation(also AuthorityandtheRegisterofDeedsofTagaytayCityto
designatedas"MeycauayanCentralRealty,Inc."and cancelthetitlesanddecreeofregistrationtheyissued
"MeycauayanRealtyCorporation"). inlieuofTCTNos.25688,25689,25690and27390
registeredinthenameofplaintiffMeycauayanCentral
Thereafter,theLandRegistrationAuthorityshall: RealtyCorporationandreconveysaidpropertiestothe
plaintiffcorporationbyreinstatingthesaidcancelled
(a) CANCELDecreeNo.N197092originallyissued titlesorifthesamenotbepossible,causetheissuance
inthenameofMaguesunManagementand
ofnewdecreesandtitlesthereto;
DevelopmentCorporationwithoutneedofanorder
fromthelandregistrationcourt;and 2. OrderingthedefendantCityAssessorof
TagaytayCitytoreinstatetheAssessmentsforreal
(b) ISSUEwithreasonabledispatchanewdecreeof
estatetaxesitpreviouslycancelledcoveringthe
registrationandaneworiginalcertificateoftitle(OCT)
propertiesofplaintiff;
infavorofpetitionerspursuanttoSection39of
PresidentialDecreeNo.1529.(Emphasisadded) 3. OrderingthedefendantsRoxasandMaguesun
tojointlyandsolidarilypaytheplaintiffactualand/or
On11December1998,thelandregistrationcourt
compensatorydamagesinthetotalamountofFIVE
issuedanorderdenyingtheLRAReportdated25March
HUNDREDTHOUSANDPESOS(P500,000.00);
1998andtheMotionforLeavetoIntervenefiledby
MeycauayansincetheSupremeCourtResolutionof29 4. OrderingthedefendantsRoxasandMaguesun
July1998hadrenderedthemmoot. tojointlyandsolidarilypaytheplaintifftheamountof
TWOHUNDREDTHOUSANDPESOS(P200,000.00)as
TheRegisterofDeedsofTagaytayCitythencanceled andbywayofnominaldamages;
TCTNos.T25626,T25627,T25628,T25688,T25689,
42
5. OrderingthedefendantsRoxasandMaguesun certiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtwiththe
tojointlyandsolidarilypaytheplaintiffexemplary CourtofAppealsassailingthetrialcourt'sdismissalof
damagesintheamountofTWOHUNDREDTHOUSAND thecomplaint.
PESOS(P200,000.00);
Meanwhile,theRoxasheirsfiledon2June1999this
6. OrderingthedefendantsRoxasandMaguesun petitiontociteforindirectcontempttheofficersof
tojointlyandsolidarilypaytheplaintiffAttorney'sfees Meycauayan.
intheamountofONEHUNDREDTHOUSANDPESOS
(P100,000.00);and TheIssues
7. OrderingthedefendantsRoxasandMaguesun Thepartiesraisedthefollowingissues:
tojointlyandsolidarilypaytheplaintiffthecostsofsuit. 1. WhetherthisCourt'sDecisionandResolutionin
5 G.R.No.118436bindMeycauayan;EIaDHS
On6May1999,Meycauayanfileda"Special 2. WhetherMeycauayan'sactoffilingwiththe
AppearanceQuestioningCourtJurisdictionand trialcourtacomplaintforreconveyance,damagesand
OppositiontotheMotionforIssuanceofWritof quietingoftitleinvolvingparcelsofland,whichwere
PossessionAgainstMeycauayanCentralRealty thesubjectofthisCourt'sDecisionandResolutionin
Corporation"withthelandregistrationcourt. G.R.No.118436,constitutesindirectcontemptunder
On2September1999,thelandregistrationcourtissued Section3,Rule71oftheRulesofCivilProcedure;and
anorder,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads: 3. WhetherMeycauayanisguiltyofforum
shopping.
WHEREFORE,inthelightoftheforegoing,letaWritof
PossessionbeissuedagainstMaguesunManagement TheCourt'sRuling
andDevelopmentCorporationinthesecases.However,
insofarasMeycauayanCentralRealtyisconcerned,leta Thepetitionismeritorious.WefindMeycauayan's
resolutionofthemotionfiledbythemovantshereinbe ExecutiveVicePresidentJuanM.Lamson,Jr.guiltyof
deferreduntiltheSupremeCourthadresolvedwith indirectcontempt.WealsofindthatMeycauayan
finalitythepetitionforcontemptofhereinmovantin committedforumshopping,andthusMeycauayanand
G.R.No.138660. itsExecutiveVicePresidentJuanM.Lamson,Jr.are
guiltyofdirectcontempt.
On7March2000,thetrialcourtdismissedforlackof
meritMeycauayan'scomplaintforreconveyance, TheRoxasheirsallegethatthefollowingactsof
damagesandquietingoftitle.Thetrialcourtheldthat Meycauayanconstituteindirectcontemptunder
(1)thenullityofOCTNo.0515,whichisthesourceof Section3,Rule71oftheRulesofCivilProcedure:(1)
Meycauayan'stitles,isnowresjudicata;(2)the Meycauayan'sdefianceofthefinalandexecutory
complaint'sprayerforthetrialcourttoannulthe DecisionandResolutionofthisCourtinG.R.No.
decisionoftheSupremeCourtinG.R.No.118436is 118436;(2)itsactoffilingpleadingsbeforetheland
beyondthetrialcourt'sjurisdiction;and(3) registrationcourttopreventexecutionoftheDecision
Meycauayanisguiltyofforumshopping.6Thetrial andResolution;(3)itsactoffilingaComplaintraising
courtlikewisedeniedMeycauayan'sMotionfor thesameissuesinitsPetitionforInterventionwhich
ReconsiderationinanOrderdated20June2000.7On thisCourthadalreadydeniedandurgingthetrialcourt
24August2000,Meycauayanfiledapetitionfor toignoreandcountermandtheordersofthisCourt.
43
Ontheotherhand,Meycauayanallegesthatthe 71oftheRulesofCivilProcedure.Section3(d)ofRule
DecisioninG.R.No.118436,doesnotbindMeycauayan 71reads:
becauseitwasnotapartyinthecase.Accordingto
Meycauayan,theDecisioninG.R.No.118436maybe SEC.3. Indirectcontempttobepunishedaftercharge
andhearing.Afterachargeinwritinghasbeenfiled,
enforcedagainstMaguesunbutnotagainst
andanopportunitygiventotherespondentto
Meycauayanwhichisastrangertothecase.
Meycauayaninsiststhatasapurchaseringoodfaith commentthereonwithinsuchperiodasmaybefixedby
thecourtandtobeheardbyhimselforcounsel,a
andforvalueitsrightscannotbeprejudicedbythe
personguiltyofanyofthefollowingactsmaybe
allegedfraudulentacquisitionbyMaguesunofthe
subjectproperties.Meycauayan,therefore,isnotliable punishedforindirectcontempt:ASICDH
forcontemptofcourtforfilinganactionfor xxxxxxxxx
reconveyance,quietingoftitleanddamages.
(d) Anyimproperconducttending,directlyor
TheissueofwhethertheDecisioninG.R.No.118436 indirectly,toimpede,obstruct,ordegradethe
bindsMeycauayanwasalreadyaddressedbythisCourt administrationofjustice;
whenitdeniedMeycauayan'sPetitionforIntervention.
Furthermore,thisCourt'sResolutiondated29July1998 InHalili,etal.v.CIR,etal.,8thisCourtexplainedthe
clarifiedtheDecisiondated21March1997byordering conceptofcontemptofcourt:
theRegisterofDeedstoCANCELOCTNo.0515andall
Contemptofcourtisadefianceoftheauthority,justice
itsderivativetitles,namely,TCTNos.T25625,T25626,
ordignityofthecourt;suchconductastendstobring
T25627,T25628,T25688,T25689,andT25690,the
theauthorityandadministrationofthelawinto
latterthreealreadyinthenameofMeycauayanRealty
disrespectortointerferewithorprejudiceparties
andDevelopmentCorporation(alsodesignatedas
litigantortheirwitnessesduringlitigation(12Am.Jur.
"MeycauayanCentralRealty,Inc."and"Meycauayan
389,citedin14SCRA813).
RealtyCorporation").ThisCourtalsofoundthatthere
hadbeennointerveningrightsofaninnocentpurchaser Contemptofcourtisdefinedasadisobediencetothe
forvalueinvolvingthelotsindispute. Courtbyactinginoppositiontoitsauthority,justiceand
IndirectContempt
Meycauayan'sobstinaterefusaltoabidebytheCourt's tendstobringtheauthorityofthecourtandthe
DecisioninG.R.No.118436hasnobasisinviewofthis administrationoflawintodisreputeorinsomemanner
Court'sclearpronouncementtothecontrary.Thefact toimpedethedueadministrationofjustice(17C.J.S.4).
thatthisCourtspecificallyorderedthecancellationof
Meycauayan'stitlestothedisputedparcelsoflandin
theResolutiondated29July1998shouldhavelaidto
resttheissueofwhethertheDecisionandResolutionin
G.R.No.118436isbindingonMeycauayan.Clearly,
Meycauayan'sdefianceofthisCourt'sDecisionand
Resolutionbyfilinganactionforreconveyance,quieting
DirectorofPrisons,58Phil.271;InreKelly,35Phil.944;
oftitleanddamagesinvolvingthesameparcelsofland
CommissionerofImmigrationvs.Cloribel,20SCRA
whichthisCourtalreadydecidedwithfinality
1241;Montalbanvs.Canonoy,38SCRA1).
constitutesindirectcontemptunderSection3(d),Rule
44
Meycauayan'scontinuingresistancetothisCourt's (3)thejudgmentmustbeonthemerits;and(4)there
judgmentisanaffronttotheCourtandtothesovereign mustbebetweenthefirstandthesecondactions,
dignitywithwhichitisclothed.9Meycauayan's identityofparties,subjectmatterandcausesofaction.
persistentattemptstoraiseissueslongsincelaidtorest 14Theapplicationofthedoctrineofresjudicatadoes
byafinalandexecutoryjudgmentofnolessthanthe notrequireabsoluteidentityofpartiesbutmerely
highesttribunalofthelandconstitutecontumacious substantialidentityofparties.15Thereissubstantial
defianceoftheauthorityofthisCourtandimpedethe identityofpartieswhenthereiscommunityofinterest
speedyadministrationofjustice.10 orprivityofinterestbetweenapartyinthefirstanda
partyinthesecondcaseevenifthefirstcasedidnot
Wellsettledistherulethatwhenacourtofcompetent impleadthelatter.16HcSCED
jurisdictionhastriedanddecidedarightorfact,solong
asthedecisionremainsunreversed,itisconclusiveon TheCourtruledinG.R.No.118436thatMeycauayan's
thepartiesandthoseinprivitywiththem.11Moreso predecessorininterest,Maguesun,committedactual
wheretheSupremeCourthasalreadydecidedtheissue fraudinobtainingthedecreeofregistrationofthe
sincetheCourtisthefinalarbiterofalljusticiable subjectproperties.TheDecisioninG.R.No.118436
controversiesproperlybroughtbeforeit.12Asheldin bindsMeycauayanundertheprincipleof"privityof
Buayav.StrongholdInsuranceCo.,Inc.:13 interest"sinceitwasasuccessorininterestof
Maguesun.Meycauayan,however,insiststhatitwasa
...Anexistingfinaljudgmentordecreerendered purchaseringoodfaithbecauseithadnoknowledgeof
uponthemerits,withoutfraudorcollusion,byacourt anypendingcaseinvolvingthelots.Meycauayanclaims
ofcompetentjurisdictionactinguponamatterwithin thatthetrialcourthadalreadycanceledthenoticeoflis
itsauthorityisconclusiveoftherightsoftheparties pendensonthetitleswhenitpurchasedthelotsfrom
andtheirprivies.Thisrulingholdsinallotheractionsor Maguesun.InitsMemorandum,Meycauayanstresses
suits,inthesameoranyotherjudicialtribunalof
thattoensuretheauthenticityofthetitlesandthe
concurrentjurisdiction,touchingonthepointsor
annotationsappearingonthetitles,particularlythe
mattersinissueinthefirstsuit.
cancellationofthenoticeoflispendens,Meycauayan
xxxxxxxxx checkedwiththeRegisterofDeedsandtheRegional
TrialCourtofTagaytayCity.17SinceMeycauayan
Courtswillsimplyrefusetoreopenwhathasbeen checkedwiththeRegionalTrialCourtofTagaytayCity,
decided.Theywillnotallowthesamepartiesortheir Meycauayanthenhadactualknowledge,beforeit
priviestolitigateanewaquestion,onceithasbeen purchasedthelots,ofthependingcaseinvolvingthe
consideredanddecidedwithfinality.Litigationsmust lotsdespitethecancellationofthenoticeoflispendens
endandterminatesometimeandsomewhere.The onthetitles.
effectiveandefficientadministrationofjusticerequires
thatonceajudgmenthasbecomefinal,theprevailing Furthermore,asfoundbythisCourtinG.R.No.118436,
partyshouldnotbedeprivedofthefruitsoftheverdict theRoxasfamilyhasbeeninpossessionoftheproperty
bysubsequentsuitsonthesameissuesfiledbythe uninterruptedlythroughtheircaretaker,JoseRamirez
sameparties. whoresidedontheproperty.18Wherethelandsoldis
inthepossessionofapersonotherthanthevendor,the
Thisisinaccordancewiththedoctrineofresjudicata purchasermustgobeyondthecertificatesoftitleand
whichhasthefollowingelements:(1)theformer makeinquiriesconcerningtherightsoftheactual
judgmentmustbefinal;(2)thecourtwhichrenderedit possessor.19Meycauayanthereforecannotinvokethe
hadjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterandtheparties;
45
rightofapurchaseringoodfaithandcouldnothave SEC.7. Punishmentforindirectcontempt.Ifthe

acquiredabetterrightthanitspredecessorininterest. respondentisadjudgedguiltyofindirectcontempt
ThisCourthasalreadyrejectedMeycauayan'sclaimthat committedagainstaRegionalTrialCourtoracourtof
itwasapurchaseringoodfaithwhenitruledinG.R.No. equivalentorhigherrank,hemaybepunishedbyafine
118436thattherehadbeennointerveningrightsofan notexceedingthirtythousandpesosorimprisonment
innocentpurchaserforvalueinvolvingthelotsin notexceedingsix(6)monthsorboth....ITESAc
dispute.AsheldinHeirsofPaelv.CourtofAppeals:20
Inthiscase,MeycauayanExecutiveVicePresidentJuan
InthecaseofSantiagoLandDevelopmentCorporation M.Lamson,Jr.causedthepreparationandthefilingof
vs.CourtofAppeals(G.R.No.106194,276SCRA674 thePetitionforInterventioninG.R.No.118436andthe
[1997]),petitionermaintainedthatasapurchaser ComplaintforReconveyance,DamagesandQuietingof
pendenteliteofthelandinlitigation,ithadarightto Titlewiththetrialcourt.23JuanM.Lamson,Jr.signed
interveneunderRule12,Section2.Werejectedthis theverificationandcertificationofnonforumshopping
positionandsaidthat"sincepetitionerisnotastranger forthePetitionforInterventionandtheComplaintfor
totheactionbetweenQuisumbingandthePNB, Reconveyance,DamagesandQuietingofTitle."Even
petitionerinfacthavingsteppedintotheshoesofPNB thoughajudgment,decree,ororderisaddressedtothe
inamannerofspeaking,itfollowsthatitcannotclaim corporationonly,theofficers,aswellasthecorporation
anyfurtherrighttointerveneintheaction."Asinthe itself,maybepunishedforcontemptfordisobedience
instantPetition,itwasarguedthatthedenialofthe toitsterms,atleastiftheyknowinglydisobeythe
MotiontoIntervenewouldbeadeniallikewiseofdue court'smandate,sincealawfuljudicialcommandtoa
process.Butthis,too,wasstruckdowninSantiagoLand corporationisineffectacommandtotheofficers."24
whereweheldthat"petitionerisnotreallydenied Thus,forimproperconducttendingtoimpedethe
protection.Itisrepresentedintheactionbyits orderlyadministrationofjustice,MeycauayanExecutive
predecessorininterest."Indeed,sincepetitionerisa VicePresidentJuanM.Lamson,Jr.shouldbefinedten
transfereependentelitewithnoticeofthepending thousandpesos(P10,000).25
litigationbetweenReyesandprivaterespondent
DirectContempt
Carreon,petitionerstandsexactlyintheshoesofReyes
andisboundbyanyjudgmentordecreewhichmaybe Meycauayan'sactoffilingaComplaintfor
renderedfororagainstthelatter. Reconveyance,QuietingofTitleandDamagesraising
Indeed,onewhobuyspropertywithfullknowledgeof thesameissuesinitsPetitionforIntervention,which
theflawsanddefectsofthetitleofhisvendorandofa thisCourthadalreadydenied,alsoconstitutesforum
pendinglitigationoverthepropertygamblesonthe shopping.Forumshoppingistheactofapartyagainst
whomanadversejudgmenthasbeenrenderedinone
resultofthelitigationandisboundbytheoutcomeof
forum,seekinganotherandpossiblyfavorableopinion
hisindifference.21Apurchasercannotclosehiseyesto
factswhichshouldputareasonablemanonguardand inanotherforumotherthanbyappealorspecialcivil
thenclaimthatheactedingoodfaithbelievingthat actionofcertiorari.Thereisalsoforumshoppingwhen
therewasnodefectinthetitleofthevendor.22 apartyinstitutestwoormoreactionsbasedonthe
samecauseontheexpectationthatoneortheother
Forthepenaltyforindirectcontempt,Section7ofRule courtmightlookwithfavorontheparty.26
71oftheRulesofCourtprovides:
Inthiscase,theCourthadalreadyrejected
Meycauayan'sclaimonthesubjectlotswhentheCourt
46
deniedMeycauayan'sPetitionforInterventioninG.R. THOUSANDPESOS(P10,000).Furthermore,wefind
No.118436.TheCourtruledthattherehadbeenno MeycauayanCentralRealtyCorporationandits
interveningrightsofaninnocentpurchaserforvalue ExecutiveVicePresidentJuanM.Lamson,Jr.GUILTYof
involvingthelotsindispute.TheDecisionofthisCourt DIRECTCONTEMPTforforumshoppingandFINEthem
inG.R.No.118436isalreadyfinalandexecutory.The TWOTHOUSANDPESOS(P2,000)each.TheCourtwarns
filingbyMeycauayanofanactiontorelitigatethetitle themthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaroffense
tothesameproperty,whichthisCourthadalready shallmeritamoreseverepenalty.SCIcTD
adjudicatedwithfinality,isanabuseofthecourt's
SOORDERED.
processesandconstitutesdirectcontempt.

Section5ofRule7oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthat
"iftheactsofthepartyorhiscounselclearlyconstitute
willfulanddeliberateforumshopping,thesameshallbe
agroundforsummarydismissalwithprejudiceandshall
constitutedirectcontempt,aswellasacausefor
administrativesanctions."ThefactthatMeycauayandid
mentioninitscertificationofnonforumshoppingits
attempttointerveneinG.R.No.118436,whichthis
Courtdenied,27doesnotnegatetheexistenceof
forumshopping.Thisdisclosuredoesnotexculpate
Meycauayanfordeliberatelyseekingafriendlierforum
foritscaseandrelitigatinganissuewhichthisCourt
hadalreadydecidedwithfinality.28
Thegeneralruleisthatacorporationanditsofficers
andagentsmaybeheldliableforcontempt.A
corporationandthosewhoareofficiallyresponsiblefor
theconductofitsaffairsmaybepunishedforcontempt
indisobeyingjudgments,decrees,orordersofacourt
madeinacasewithinitsjurisdiction.29
UnderSection1ofRule71oftheRulesofCourt,direct
contemptispunishablebyafinenotexceedingtwo
thousandpesos(P2,000)orimprisonmentnot
exceedingten(10)days,orboth,ifcommittedagainsta
RegionalTrialCourtoracourtofequivalentorhigher
rank.Hence,Meycauayan30anditsExecutiveVice
PresidentJuanM.Lamson,Jr.areeachfinedP2,000for
directcontemptofcourtforforumshopping.
WHEREFORE,wefindMeycauayanCentralRealty
Corporation'sExecutiveVicePresidentJuanM.Lamson,
Jr.GUILTYofINDIRECTCONTEMPTandFINEhimTEN
47
[G.R.No.L28740.February24,1981.] declaration,taxreceiptsandotherpapersrelated
thereto.3SinceJune10,1945,theplaintiffLaureta
FERMINZ.CARAM,JR.,petitioner,vs.CLAROL. hadbeenandisstillincontinuous,adverseand
LAURETA,respondent.
notoriousoccupationofsaidland,withoutbeing
Paredes,PobladorandNazareno,AzadaandTomacruz molested,disturbedorstoppedbyanyofthe
forpetitioner. defendantsortheirrepresentatives.Infact,Lauretahad
beenpayingrealtytaxesduethereonandhad
AndresLawOfficeforrespondent. introducedimprovementsworthnotlessthan
P20,000.00atthetimeofthefilingofthecomplaint.4
DECISION
OnMay5,1947,thesamelandcoveredbyOriginal
FERNANDEZ,Jp:
CertificateofTitleNo.3019wassoldbyMarcosMatato
Thisisapetitionforcertioraritoreviewthedecisionof defendantFerminZ.CaramJr.,petitionerherein.The
theCourtofAppealspromulgatedonJanuary29,1968 deedofsaleinfavorofCaramwasacknowledged
inCAG.R.NO.35721Rentitled"ClaroL.Laureta, beforeAtty.AbelardoAportadera.OnMay22,1947,
plaintiffappelleeversusMarcosMata,CodidiMataand MarcosMata,throughAttys.AbelardoAportaderaand
FerminCaram,Jr.,defendantsappellant;Tampino GumercindoArcilla,filedwiththeCourtofFirstInstance
(Mansaca),etal.Intervenorsappellants,"affirmingthe ofDavaoapetitionfortheissuanceofanewOwner's
decisionoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofDavaoinCivil DuplicateofOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.3019,
CaseNo.3083.1 allegingasgroundthereforthelossofsaidtitleinthe
evacuationplaceofdefendantMarcosMatain
OnJune25,1959,ClaroL.LauretafiledintheCourtof Magugpo,Tagum,Davao.OnJune5,1947,theCourtof
FirstInstanceofDavaoanactionfornullity,recoveryof FirstInstanceofDavaoissuedanorderdirectingthe
ownershipand/orreconveyancewithdamagesand RegisterofDeedsofDavaotoissueanewOwner's
attorney'sfeesagainstMarcosMata,CodidiMata, DuplicateCertificateofTitleNo.3019infavorofMarcos
FerminZ.CaramJr.andtheRegisterofDeedsofDavao Mataanddeclaringthelosttitleasnullandvoid.On
City.2 December9,1947,thesecondsalebetweenMarcos
MataandFerminCaramJr.wasregisteredwiththe
OnJune10,1945,MarcosMataconveyedalargetract
RegisterofDeeds.Onthesamedate,Transfer
ofagriculturallandcoveredbyOriginalCertificateof
CertificateofTitleNo.140wasissuedinfavorofFermin
TitleNo.3019infavorofClaroLaureta,plaintiff,the
CaramJr.5
respondentherein.Thedeedofabsolutesaleinfavorof
theplaintiffwasnotregisteredbecauseitwasnot OnAugust29,1959,thedefendantsMarcosMataand
acknowledgedbeforeanotarypublicoranyother CodidiMatafiledtheiranswerwithcounterclaim
authorizedofficer.Atthetimethesalewasexecuted, admittingtheexistenceofaprivateabsolutedeedof
therewasnoauthorizedofficerbeforewhomthesale saleofhisonlypropertyinfavorofClaroL.Lauretabut
couldbeacknowledgedinasmuchasthecivil allegingthathesignedthesameashewassubjectedto
governmentinTagum,Davaowasnotasyetorganized. duress,threatandintimidationfortheplaintiffwasthe
However,thedefendantMarcosMatadeliveredto commandingofficerofthe10thdivisionUSFIP,
Lauretathepeacefulandlawfulpossessionofthe operatingintheunoccupiedareasofNorthernDavao
premisesofthelandtogetherwiththepertinentpapers withitsheadquartersatProjectNo.7(Km.60Davao
thereofsuchastheOwner'sDuplicateOriginal AgusanHighways),intheMunicipalityofTagum,
CertificateofTitleNo.3019,sketchplan,tax
48
ProvinceofDavao;thatLaureta'swordsandrequests "4. DirectingClaroL.Lauretatosecuretheapproval

werelaws;thatalthoughthedefendantMatadidnot oftheSecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalResources
liketosellhispropertyorsignthedocumentwithout onthedeed,ExhibitA,afterMarcosMatashallhave
evenunderstandingthesame,hewasorderedtoaccept acknowledgedthesamebeforeanotarypublic;.
P650.00MindanaoEmergencyNotes;andthatdueto
"5. DirectingClaroL.Lauretatosurrendertothe
hisfearofharmordangerthatwillhappentohimorto
hisfamily,ifherefused,hehadnootheralternativebut RegisterofDeedsfortheCityandProvinceofDavaothe
Owner'sDuplicateofOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.
tosignthedocument.6
3019andthelattertocancelthesame;.
ThedefendantsMarcosMataandCodidiMataalso
"6. OrderingtheRegisterofDeedsfortheCityand
admittheexistenceofarecordintheRegistryofDeeds
regardingadocumentallegedlysignedbyhiminfavor ProvinceofDavaotocancelTransferCertificateofTitle
No.T140inthenameofFerminCaramJr.;
ofhiscodefendantFerminCaramJr.butdeniesthathe
eversignedthedocumentforheknewbeforehandthat "7. DirectingtheRegisterofDeedsfortheCityand
hehadsignedadeedofsaleinfavoroftheplaintiffand ProvinceofDavaotoissueatitleinfavorofClaroL.
thattheplaintiffwasinpossessionofthecertificateof Laureta,Filipino,residentofQuezonCity,upon
title;thatifeverhisthumbmarkappearedinthe presentationofthedeedexecutedbyMarcosMatain
documentpurportedlyalienatingthepropertyto hisfavor,ExhibitA,dulyacknowledgedbyhimand
FerminCaramJr.,hisconsentwasobtainedthrough approvedbytheSecretaryofAgricultureandNatural
fraudandmisrepresentationforthedefendantMatais Resources,and.
illiterateandignorantanddidnotknowwhathewas
signing;andthathedidnotreceiveaconsiderationfor "8. Dismissingthecounterclaimandcrossclaimof
thesaidsale.7 MarcosMataandCodidiMata,thecounterclaimof
Caram,Jr.,theanswerinintervention,counterclaimand
ThedefendantFerminCaramJr.filedhisansweron crossclaimoftheMansacas.
October23,1959allegingthathehasnoknowledgeor
informationaboutthepreviousencumbrances, "TheCourtmakesnopronouncementastocosts.
transactions,andalienationsinfavorofplaintiffuntil
"SOORDERED."
thefilingofthecomplaints.8
Thedefendantsappealedfromthejudgmenttothe
ThetrialcourtrenderedadecisiondatedFebruary29,
CourtofAppeals.10TheappealwasdocketedasCA
1964,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:9
G.R.NO.35721R.
"1. Declaringthatthedeedofsale,ExhibitA,
TheCourtofAppealspromulgateditsdecisionon
executedbyMarcosMatainfavorofClaroL.Laureta
January29,1968affirmingthejudgmentofthetrial
standsandprevailsoverthedeedofsale,ExhibitF,in
court.LexLib
favorofFerminCaramJr.;
Inhisbrief,thepetitionerassignsthefollowingerrors.
"2. Declaringasnullandvoidthedeedofsale
11
ExhibitF,infavorofFerminCaramJr.;
"I
"3. DirectingMarcosMatatoacknowledgethe
deedofsale,ExhibitA,infavorofClaroL.Laureta;. "THERESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSERREDIN
CONCLUDINGTHATIRESPEANDAPORTADERAWERE
49
ATTORNEYSINFACTOFPETITIONERCARAMFORTHE MatatestifiedthatheknowsAtty.Aportaderabutdid
PURPOSEOFBUYINGTHEPROPERTYINQUESTION. notknowCaram.12Thus,thesaleoftheproperty
couldhaveonlybeenthroughCaram'srepresentatives,
"II
IrespeandAportadera.Thepetitioner,inhisanswer,
"THERESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSERREDIN admittedthatAtty.Aportaderaactedashisnotary
CONCLUDINGTHATTHEEVIDENCEADDUCEDINTHE publicandattorneyinfactatthesametimeinthe
TRIALCOURTCONSTITUTELEGALEVIDENCEOFFRAUD purchaseoftheproperty.13
ONTHEPARTOFIRESPEANDAPORTADERA Thepetitionercontendsthathecannotbeconsidered
ATTRIBUTABLETOPETITIONER. tohaveactedinbadfaithbecausethereisnodirect
"III proofshowingthatIrespeandAportadera,hisalleged
agents,hadknowledgeofthefirstsaletoLaureta.This
"THERESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSCOMMITTED contentionisalsowithoutmerit.
GRAVEERROROFLAWINHOLDINGTHATKNOWLEDGE
OFIRESPEANDAPORTADERAOFAPRIOR TheCourtofAppeals,inaffirmingthedecisionofthe
UNREGISTEREDSALEOFATITLEDPROPERTY trialcourt,said:14
ATTRIBUTABLETOPETITIONERANDEQUIVALENTIN "Thetrialcourt,inholdingthatappellantCaram,Jr.was
LAWOFREGISTRATIONOFSAIDSALE. notapurchaseringoodfaith,atthetimeheboughtthe
"IV samepropertyfromappellantMata,onMay5,1947,
entirelydiscreditedthetestimonyofAportadera.Thusit
"THERESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINNOT statedinitsdecision:
HOLDINGTHATANACTIONFORRECONVEYANCEON
THEGROUNDOFFRAUDPRESCRIBESWITHINFOUR(4) 'ThetestimonyofAtty.Aportaderaquotedelsewherein
YEARS." thisdecisionishollow.Thereiseveryreasontobelieve
thatIrespeandhehadknownofthesaleofthe
Thepetitionerassailsthefindingofthetrialcourtthat propertyinquestiontoLauretaonthedayMataand
thesecondsaleofthepropertywasmadethroughhis Irespe,accompaniedbyLeoningMansaca,wenttothe
representatives,PedroIrespeandAtty.Abelardo officeofAtty.Aportaderaforthesaleofthesame
Aportadera.HearguesthatPedroIrespewasacting propertytoCaram,Jr.,representedbyIrespeas
merelyasbrokerorintermediarywiththespecifictask attorneyinfact.LeoningMansacawaswiththetwo
anddutytopayMarcosMatathesumofP1,000.00for IrespeandMatatoengagetheservicesofAtty.
thelatter'spropertyandtoseetoitthattherequisite Aportaderaintheannulmentofthesaleofhislandto
deedofsalecoveringthepurchasewasproperly Laureta.WhenLeoningMansacanarratedtoAtty.
executedbyMarcosMata;thattheidentityofthe Aportaderathecircumstancesunderwhichhisproperty
propertytobeboughtandthepriceofthepurchase hadbeensoldtoLaureta,hemusthaveincludedinthe
hadalreadybeenagreeduponbytheparties;andthat narrationthesaleofthelandofMata,forthetwo
theotherallegedrepresentative,Atty.Aportadera, propertieshadbeensoldonthesameoccasionand
merelyactedasanotarypublicintheexecutionofthe underthesamecircumstances.Evenasearlyas
deedofsale. immediatelyafterliberation,Irespe,whowasthe
witnessinmostofthecasesfiledbyAtty.Aportaderain
Thecontentionofthepetitionerhasnomerit.Thefacts
hiscapacityasProvincialFiscalofDavaoagainst
ofrecordshowthatMata,thevendor,andCaram,the
Laureta,musthaveknownonthepurchasesoflands
secondvendeehadnevermet.Duringthetrial,Marcos
50
madebyLauretawhenhewasregimentalcommander, ofCol.ClaroL.Laureta.16Addedtothisisthefactthat
oneofwhichwasthesalemadebyMata.Itwasnota atthetimeofthesecondsaleLauretawasalreadyin
merecoincidencethatIrespewasmadeguardianad possessionoftheland.IrespeandAportaderashould
litemofLeoningMansaca,atthesuggestionofAtty. haveinvestigatedthenatureofLaureta'spossession.If
AportaderaandattorneyinfactofCaram,Jr. theyfailedtoexercisetheordinarycareexpectedofa
buyerofrealestatetheymustsuffertheconsequences.
'TheCourtcannothelpbeingconvincedthatIrespe, Theruleofcaveatemptorrequiresthepurchasertobe
attorneyinfactofCaram,Jr.,hadknowledgeofthe
awareofthesupposedtitleofthevendorandonewho
priorexistingtransaction,ExhibitA,betweenMataand
buyswithoutcheckingthevendor'stitletakesallthe
Lauretaovertheland,subjectmatterofthislitigation, risksandlossesconsequenttosuchfailure.17
whenthedeed,ExhibitF,wasexecutedbyMatain
favorofCaram,Jr.Andthisknowledgehastheeffectof Theprinciplethatapersondealingwiththeownerof
registrationastoCaram,Jr.'(R.A.pp.123124). theregisteredlandisnotboundtogobehindthe
certificateandinquireintotransactionstheexistenceof
"WeagreewithHisHonor'sconclusiononthisparticular whichisnotthereintimated18shouldnotapplyinthis
point,ontwogroundsthefirst,thesameconcerns case.Itwasofcommonknowledgethatatthetimethe
mattersaffectingthecredibilityofawitnessofwhich soldiersofLauretatookthedocumentsfromMata,the
thefindingsofthetrialcourtcommandgreatweight, civilgovernmentofTagumwasnotyetestablishedand
andsecond,thesameisborneoutbythetestimonyof thattherewerenoofficialstoratifycontractsofsale
Atty.Aportaderahimself.(t.s.n.pp.187190,213215, andmakethemregistrable.Obviously,Aportaderaand
Restauro)." IrespeknewthatevenifMatapreviouslyhadsoldthe
EvenifIrespeandAportaderadidnothaveactual disputedpropertysuchsalecouldnothavebeen
knowledgeofthefirstsale,still,theiractionshavenot registered.cdrep
satisfiedtherequirementofgoodfaith.Badfaithisnot ThereisnodoubtthenthatIrespeandAportadera,
basedsolelyonthefactthatavendeehadknowledge actingasagentsofCaram,purchasedthepropertyof
ofthedefectorlackoftitleofhisvendor.Inthecaseof Matainbadfaith.Applyingtheprincipleofagency,
LeungYeevs.F.L.StrongMachineryCo.andWilliamson, Caram,asprincipal,shouldalsobedeemedtohave
thisCourtheld:15
actedinbadfaith.
"Onewhopurchasesrealestatewithknowledgeofa Article1544oftheNewCivilCodeprovidesthat:
defectorlackoftitleinhisvendorcannotclaimthathe
hasacquiredtitletheretoingoodfaith,asagainstthe "Art.1544. Ifthesamethingshouldhavebeensold
trueownerofthelandorofaninteresttherein,andthe todifferentvendees,theownershipshallbetransferred
samerulemustbeappliedtoonewhohasknowledge tothepersonwhomayhavefirsttakenpossession
offactswhichshouldhaveputhimuponsuchinquiry thereofingoodfaith,ifitshouldbemovableproperty.
andinvestigationasmightbenecessarytoacquainthim
withthedefectsinthetitleofhisvendor." "Shoulditbeimmovableproperty,theownershipshall
belongtothepersonacquiringitwhoingoodfaithfirst
Intheinstantcase,IrespeandAportaderahad recordeditintheRegistryofProperty.
knowledgeofcircumstanceswhichoughttohaveput
themoninquiry.BothofthemknewthatMata's "Shouldtherebenoinscription,theownershipshall
certificateoftitletogetherwithotherpaperspertaining pertaintothepersonwhoingoodfaithwasfirstinthe
tothelandwastakenbysoldiersunderthecommand possession;and,intheabsencethereof,totheperson
51
whopresentstheoldesttitle,providedthereisgood Philippinesas"insidiouswordsormachinationsofone
faith.(1973)". ofthecontractingparties"whichinducedtheotherto
enterintoacontract,and"withoutthem,hewouldnot
SinceCaramwasaregistrantinbadfaith,thesituation
haveagreedto."
isasiftherewasnoregistrationatall.19
TheseconddeedofsaleinfavorofCaramisnota
Thequestiontobedeterminednowis,whowasfirstin voidablecontract.Noevidencewhatsoeverwasshown
possessioningoodfaith?Apossessoringoodfaithis thatthroughinsidiouswordsormachinations,the
onewhoisnotawarethatthereexistsinhistitleor representativesofCaram,IrespeandAportaderahad
modeofacquisitionanyflawwhichinvalidatesit.20
inducedMatatoenterintothecontract.
Lauretawasfirstinpossessionoftheproperty.Heis
alsoapossessoringoodfaith.ItistruethatMatahad Sincetheseconddeedofsaleisnotavoidablecontract,
allegedthatthedeedofsaleinfavorofLauretawas Article1391,CivilCodeofthePhilippineswhich
procuredbyforce.21Suchdefect,however,wascured providesthattheactionforannulmentshallbebrought
when,afterthelapseoffouryearsfromthetimethe withinfour(4)yearsfromthetimeofthediscoveryof
intimidationceased,MarcosMatalostbothhisrightsto frauddoesnotapply.
fileanactionforannulmentortosetupnullityofthe
Moreover,Lauretahasbeenincontinuouspossession
contractasadefenseinanactiontoenforcethesame.
ofthelandsinceheboughtitinJune1945.
Anentthefourtherrorassigned,thepetitioner
contendsthattheseconddeedofsale,Exhibit"F"isa AmoreimportantreasonwhyLaureta'sactioncould
voidablecontract.Beingavoidablecontract,theaction nothaveprescribedisthatthesecondcontractofsale,
havingbeenregisteredinbadfaith,isnullandvoid.
forannulmentofthesameonthegroundoffraudmust
bebroughtwithinfour(4)yearsfromthediscoveryof Article1410oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippinesprovides
thefraud.Inthecaseatbar,Lauretaisdeemedtohave thatanyactionordefenseforthedeclarationofthe
inexistenceofacontractdoesnotprescribe.
discoveredthatthelandinquestionhasbeensoldto
CaramtohisprejudiceonDecember9,1947,whenthe InamemorandumofAuthorities22submittedtothis
DeedofSale,Exhibit"F"wasrecordedandenteredin CourtonMarch13,1978,thepetitionerinsiststhatthe
theOriginalCertificateofTitlebytheRegisterofDeeds actionofLauretaagainstCaramhasprescribedbecause
andanewCertificateofTitleNo.140wasissuedinthe thesecondcontractofsaleisnotvoidunderArticle
nameofCaram.Therefore,whenthepresentcasewas 140923oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippineswhich
filedonJune29,1959,plaintiff'scauseofactionhad enumeratesthekindsofcontractswhichareconsidered
longprescribed. void.Moreover,Article1544oftheNewCivilCodeof
Thepetitioner'sconclusionthattheseconddeedof thePhilippinesdoesnotdeclarevoidasecondsaleof
sale,"ExhibitF",isavoidablecontractisnotcorrect.In immovableregisteredinbadfaith.
orderthatfraudcanbeagroundfortheannulmentofa Thefactthatthesecondcontractisnotconsideredvoid
contract,itmustbeemployedpriortoorsimultaneous underArticle1409andthatArticle1544doesnot
totheconsentorcreationofthecontract.Thefraudor declarevoidadeedofsaleregisteredinbadfaithdoes
dolocausantemustbethatwhichdeterminesoristhe notmeanthatsaidcontractisnotvoid.Article1544
essentialcauseofthecontract.Dolocausanteasa specificallyprovideswhoshallbetheownerincaseofa
groundfortheannulmentofcontractisspecifically doublesaleofanimmovableproperty.Togivefull
describedinArticle1338oftheNewCivilCodeofthe effecttothisprovision,thestatusofthetwocontracts
52
mustbedeterminedandclarified.Onecontractmustbe
declaredvalidsothatonevendeemayexerciseallthe
rightsofanowner,whiletheothercontractmustbe
declaredvoidtocutoffallrightswhichmayarisefrom
saidcontract.Otherwise,Article1544willbe
meaningless.llcd
ThefirstsaleinfavorofLauretaprevailsoverthesalein
favorofCaram.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebydeniedandthe
decisionoftheCourtofAppealssoughttobereviewed
isaffirmed,withoutpronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
53
54
[G.R.Nos.9138384.May31,1991.] thevendorormortgagor.Hismererefusaltobelieve
thatsuchdefectexists,orhiswillfulclosingofhiseyes
SOCORROCOSTACRISOSTOMO,petitioner,vs.COURT tothepossibilityoftheexistenceofadefectinthe
OFAPPEALSandNORMASANJOSE,DIANAJ.TORRES,
vendor'sormortgagor'stitle,willnotmakehiman
respondents. innocentpurchaserormortgageeforvalue,ifit
Quiason,Makalintal,Barot,Torres,Ibarra&Sisonfor afterwardsdevelopsthatthetitlewasinfactdefective,
petitioner. anditappearsthathehadsuchnoticeofthedefectsas
wouldhaveledtoitsdiscoveryhadheactedwiththe
AugustoJ.SalasforDianaJ.Torres. measureofprecautionwhichmayberequiredofa
prudentmaninalikesituation;becauserespondent
SYLLABUS
Torreswasnotamortgageeingoodfaith,thereisno
1. REMEDIALLAW;EVIDENCE;FINDINGSOFFACT sufficientbasisfortheappellatecourttoorderthe
OFTHECOURTOFAPPEALS,GENERALLYUPHELDON notationoftheDeedofRealEstateMortgageinfavorof
APPEAL;EXCEPTION;CASEATBAR.Whileitissettled privaterespondentDianaTorresontheCertificateof
thatthejurisdictionoftheSupremeCourtincases titlewhichistobereissuedtohereinpetitioner.
broughttoitfromtheCourtofAppealsislimitedto
DECISION
reviewingandrevisingerrorsoflawimputedtothe
latter,thefindingsoffactoftheCourtofAppealsmay PARAS,Jp:
besetaside,amongothers,onthefollowinggrounds:".
..(2)theinferencemadeismanifestlymistaken;...(6) Thisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariofthe:(1)
thefindingsoffactoftheCourtofAppealsarecontrary decision*oftheCourtofAppealsdatedJuly31,1989
tothoseofthetrialcourt;..."Acarefulstudyofthe inCAG.R.CVNos.11816and11817,entitled"Socorro
recordsshowsthattheCourtofAppealserredinfinding CostaCrisostomovs.NormaSanJoseandDianaTorres",
thatprivaterespondentDianaTorresisamortgageein whichmodifiedthedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt,
goodfaithonthebasisoftheevidence. Branch154,Pasig,MetroManila,and(2)resolution
datedDecember11,1989,whichdeniedthemotionfor
2. CIVILLAW;AGENCY;PRINCIPALISBOUNDBY reconsideration.prLL
THENEGLIGENCEOFAGENT.Evenassumingthat
Torresdoesnotinfactknowthecircumstancesofthe Asgatheredfromtherecords,thefactsofthecaseare
sale,sheisboundbytheknowledgeofAtty.Martinezor asfollows:
bythelatter'snegligenceinherhaphazardinvestigation SocorroCostaCrisostomo(Crisostomoforshort)was
becausethenegligenceofheragentsisherown theregisteredownerofaresidentialhouseandlot
negligence(PCIBvs.Villalva,48SCRA37[1972]). knownasLotNo.6,Block60,locatedinMandaluyong,
3. LANDTITLESANDDEEDS;TORRENSSYSTEM;A MetroManilaandcoveredbyTransferCertificateof
PURCHASERORMORTGAGEECANNOTCLOSEHISEYES TitleNo.39286oftheRegisterofDeedsofPasig.
TOFACTSWHICHSHOULDPUTAREASONABLEMAN Crisostomohasoccupiedthepropertyeversinceshe
UPONHISGUARD;CASEATBAR.Itisawellsettled hadthehousebuiltandhasintroducedother
rulethatapurchaserormortgageecannotclosehis improvementsthereonlikefruitbearingtreesand
eyestofactswhichshouldputareasonablemanupon ornamentalplants(Rollo,Petition,p.9).LLjur
hisguard,andthenclaimthatheactedingoodfaith Sometimein1978,NormaSanJose(SanJoseforshort)
underthebeliefthattherewasnodefectinthetitleof
offeredtobuytheabovementionedparcelofland
55
includingthehousethereonforthesumofP300,000.00 ForCrisostomo'sprotection,SanJosesignedawritten
whichamountwasagreedupontobepaidfromthe undertakingfortheforfeitureoftheearnestmoneyin
proceedsofaloanthatwastobeobtainedbysaid theamountofP20,000.00infavorofhereinpetitioner
respondentSanJosefromabankusingpetitioner withacertificationthatthetitletothepropertywillbe
Crisostomo'stitleascollateral.Aspayment,SanJose returnedwithinone(1)monthafternoneffectivityof
issuedthree(3)postdatedFarEastBankandTrust itssale,dulyregisteredinpetitioner'sname.The
CompanychecksinthetotalamountofP300,000.00 aforementionedamountofP20,000.00wastheonly
(Ibid.,p.4). paymentCrisostomoeverreceivedfromSanJose(Ibid.).
LLjur
Crisostomoacceptedtheoffer,lenthertitletoSanJose
andonMay17,1978executedaDeedofAbsoluteSale UponCrisostomo'sinsistenceforthereturnofthetitle,
infavorofSanJose(Rollo,Petitioner'sMemorandum,p. SanJoseinformedCrisostomothatthetitlewasinthe
106). possessionofDianaJ.Torres,themortgagee(Rollo,
MemorandumforPetitioner,p.108).
OnMay22,1978,Crisostomo,uponSanJose'srequest,
executedanotherdeedofsaleoverthesameproperty SanJoseneverreturnedthesaidtitleasshehad
withtheunderstandingthatsaiddocumentwasforthe promisednordidsheevermakeanypaymenttothe
purposeofreducingSanJose'sregistrationfeesandtax petitioner(Ibid.).cdphil
liabilities(Ibid.).
CrisostomomadeawrittendemandtoDianaJ.Torres
OnMay26,1978,SanJoseregisteredtheseconddeed (Torresforshort)toreconveythesubjectpropertyto
ofabsolutesalewiththeRegistryofDeedsofPasig.At her.Thisdemandwasnotsatisfied(Ibid.).
thesametime,TransferCertificateofTitleNo.39286
wascancelled,andinitsplace,TransferCertificateof PetitionerwasthuscompelledtofileCivilCaseNo.
34356onSeptember3,1979againstSanJosebutthis
TitleNo.11835wasissued(Rollo,Petition,pp.1011).
waslateramendedtoincludeTorres(Ibid.).
AfterCrisostomogottiredofSanJose'sunfulfilled
promisestomakegoodthepostdatedchecks,the Ontheotherhand,SanJosefiledinanapparent
formerdecidedtoencashthepostdatedchecksafter attempttoforestalltheextrajudicialforeclosureand
theirmaturitydateswithFarEastBankandTrust publicauctionsalescheduledonSeptember18,1979,
Company.Unfortunately,thesamewerealldishonored CivilCaseNo.34489onSeptember17,1979against
respondentTorres.OnJanuary9,1980bothactions
andreturnedtoCrisostomowiththenotationofthe
wereconsolidatedonmotionofthepartiesandwere
Bankas"AccountClosed."(Ibid.).
jointlytriedthereafter(Ibid.).
UponinquirybyCrisostomo,SanJoserepliedthatwhen
herapplicationforaloanwithasecondbank,the InadecisiondatedMarch31,1986,theRegionalTrial
PhilippineCommercialandIndustrialBank,wasnot CourtofPasig,BranchCLIV(154)decidedinfavorofthe
approved,sheshiftedtoSecurityBankandTrust petitioner,thedispositiveportionofwhichdecision
Company.Soonenough,Crisostomodiscoveredthat reads:
SanJose'sloanapplicationwasdisapprovedbecause "WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedagainstthe
thecollateralwasinsufficientfortheamountofthe defendantsinfavoroftheplaintiffasfollows:
loanshewasborrowing(Ibid.).
InCivilCaseNo.34356
56
1) TheDeedofAbsoluteSaleexecutedbyplaintiff "WHEREFORE,thedecisionappealedfromishereby
overthepropertycoveredbyTransferCertificateof MODIFIEDinthattheDeedofRealEstateMortgagein
TitleNo.39286oftheRegisterofDeedsofPasig,Metro favorofappellantDianaTorresbenotedonthe
Manila,isherebyorderedrescinded; CertificateofTitlewhichistobereissuedtothe
appellee,and,appellantDianaTorresishereby
2) TransferCertificateofTitleNo.11835ofthe excludedfromindemnifyingtheappelleetheamounts
RegisterofDeedsofPasig,MetroManila,inthename representingmoraldamages,attorney'sfees,andcosts
ofdefendantNormaSanJoseisherebyordered
butisAFFIRMEDinallotherrespects.
cancelled;
SOORDERED."(Rollo,Annex"A",p.41)
3) DefendantNormaSanJoseisherebyorderedto
reconveythetitlecoveringsubjectpropertywithin Petitionerfiledamotion,forpartialreconsiderationof
twenty(20)daysfromthefinalityofthisjudgment; theappellatecourt'sdecisionbutthesamewasdenied
inaResolutiondatedDecember11,1989(Rollo,Annex
4) Defendantsarealsoherebyordered,jointlyand "B",p.45).
severally,topayplaintiff(a)theamountofP100,000.00
representingmoraldamages,(b)P20,000.00as Hence,thepetition.
attorney'sfees,and(c)thecosts;
TheCourtinitsresolutiondatedJune27,1990gavedue
5) Asaconsequenceoftherescissionofthesale, coursetothepetitionandrequiredbothpartiesto
plaintiffisorderedtoreturntheamountofP20,000.00 submittheirrespectivememoranda(Rollo,Resolution,
whichshereceivedasearnestmoney.However,this p.78).
amountshallbeoffsetagainsttheamountofdamages
assessedagainstdefendants; Theonlyissuetoberesolvedintheinstantcaseis
whetherornotprivaterespondentDianaTorresisa
6) TheDeedofRealEstateMortgageexecutedby mortgageeingoodfaith.
defendantNormaSanJoseinfavorofdefendantDiana
Torresisherebyorder(sic)nullified.TheRegisterof Thepetitionisimpressedwithmerit.
DeedsofPasig,MetroManilaisauthorizedtocancelthe WhileitissettledthatthejurisdictionoftheSupreme
annotationofsaidmortgageonthetitletobeissuedin CourtincasesbroughttoitfromtheCourtofAppealsis
favorofplaintiff. limitedtoreviewingandrevisingerrorsoflawimputed
tothelatter,thefindingsoffactoftheCourtofAppeals
InCivilCaseNo.34489
maybesetaside,amongothers,onthefollowing
1) DefendantNormaSanJoseisherebyorderedto grounds:"...(2)theinferencemadeismanifestly
paydefendantDianaTorrestheamountofP100,000.00. mistaken;...(6)thefindingsoffactoftheCourtof
Appealsarecontrarytothoseofthetrialcourt;..."
SOORDERED."(Rollo,Annex"A",pp.3738).
(Tolentinovs.DeJesus,56SCRA167[1974];Villamorvs.
TorresappealedtheabovestateddecisiontotheCourt CourtofAppeals,162SCRA574[1988];Layuganvs.
ofAppealswhichmodifiedthejudgmentofthetrial IntermediateAppellateCourt,167SCRA363[1988]).
courtinadecision,thedispositiveportionofwhich AcarefulstudyoftherecordsshowsthattheCourtof
readsasfollows:
AppealserredinfindingthatprivaterespondentDiana
Torresisamortgageeingoodfaithonthebasisofthe
evidence.
57
TherearestrongindicationsthatAtty.FlorMartinez, A ShecameathomethateveningwithNormaSan
thelawyerofDianaJ.Torres,themortgagee,knewof Jose.
thedefectofSanJose'stitle.
Q WherewereyouwhenAtty.Martinezand
Atty.MartinezisacloseacquaintanceofNormaSan NormaSanJosecametoyourhouse?
Jose,theirlongrelationshipdatingbackto1974(Rollo,
p.60).WhenthesubjectpropertywasofferedbySan A Iwasathome.
Joseascollateralforaloan,Atty.Martinezreferredher Q Didyouhaveanycompanionthere?
toaclient,DianaTorres.Forherpart,Torresinstructed
andauthorizedAtty.Martineztoviewandinspectthe A Iwaswithmymaid.
propertyaswellastoascertainthegenuinenessand
Q Beforethatdate,didyouhaveoccasiontomeet
authenticityofSanJose'stitle(HearingofOctober6,
Atty.Martinez?
1989,TSN,p.6;Rollo,p.113).Cdpr
A Yes.(sic)Thatwasmyfirsttimetomeether.
Whilefeigningignoranceoftheownerofsubject
property,sheadmittedlateroncrossexaminationthat Q Wasthereanyintroductionmadetoyou?
SocorroCrisostomowastheownerfromwhomSanJose
allegedlyboughttheproperty(HearingofApril20, A ShewasintroducedasaBankInspectorof
1983,TSN,pp.611). PrivateDevelopmentBankofMeycauayan,Bulacan.
(Emphasissupplied).
EvenmorepersuasiveisthefactthatwhenAtty.
MartinezpersonallyinspectedthepropertywithSan Q Whointroducedhertoyou?
JoseforherclientTorres,sheallowedherselftobe
A NormaSanJose.
introducedtoSocorroCrisostomowhowasthen
actuallyoccupyingthehouse,asaBankInspectorofthe Q Youmeanshewasintroducedtoyoutoinspect
DevelopmentBankofMeycauayan,Bulacanfromwhom thatpropertyinquestion?
theloanwasbeingobtained,obviouslytoconvince
Crisostomothattheprocedureisinaccordancewithher A Yes.
agreementwithSanJose.cdrep
Q Whywasthatsupposedinspectiontobemade
Thus,petitionerCrisostomoandAtty.FlorMartinez onbehalfoftheMeycauayanBank?
testifiedasfollowsinthetrialcourt:
A Sheclaimedthatthatwasthebankwhereinshe
TESTIMONYOFPETITIONERSOCORROCOSTA wasborrowingherloan.
CRISOSTOMO:
Q Inconnectionwiththatinspectionsupposedto
"Atty.Beltran bemade,whatwasthepurpose,ifyouknow?
Q DoyouknowAtty.Martinezhere,haveyou A Tofacilitateto(sic)processing,accordingto
evermetAtty.Martinez? them."(T.S.N.,pp.1617,Feb.5,1981).
A ImetherJune17,1978. xxxxxxxxx
Q WheredidyoumeetAtty.Martinez? OncrossexaminationofAtty.FlorMartinezbyAtty.
Beltran,shestated:
58
"xxxxxxxxx whyshewasthereinthepropertyoruntilwhenshe
wouldremaininthatplace?(Emphasissupplied)
Q Butyourvisitofthepremiseswaspurposelyfor
thebenefitofthisDianaTorres,amIright? A No,becauseitwouldbeunethicaltoaskthat
question,shebeingtheTiaCoringof(sic)theowner.
A Ofcourse,becausesheismyclient. (Emphasissupplied)(T.S.N.,pp.8185,April28,1983).
Q Andsointhatvisitofyours,yousawthe xxxxxxxxx
plaintiffherepersonally?
Finally,whenTorresherselfvisitedthepropertyshe
A Yes,Isawherthen. carefullyevadedseeingCrisostomopersonally,the
Q Andyouhadaconversationwithher? actualoccupantthereof,whocouldhaveeasily
enlightenedherastothetrueowner(Rollo,p.116).
A Ihad. Suchunnaturalbehaviorpointsmoreconvincinglyto
thefactthatshewasawarethatSanJosewasnotits
xxxxxxxxx
realowner.
Q WillyoupleasetelltheHonorableCourtwhat
InPhilippineNationalBankvs.CourtofAppeals(153
wasthemainpurposeofyourvisitatthepremises?
SCRA435[1987]),theSupremeCourthadtheoccasion
A Asthelawyeroftheprospectivemortgagee,I torulethatapersondealingwithregisteredlandhasa
wasdutyboundtomakeafairassessmentasto righttorelyuponthefactoftheTorrensCertificateof
whethertheproposedcollateral(sic)commensurateto Titleandtodispensewiththeneedofinquiringfurther,
theamountappliedfor.Inotherwords,itwasin exceptwhenthepartyconcernedhasactualknowledge
connectionwiththemortgage. offactsandcircumstancesthatwouldimpela
reasonablycautiousmantomakefurtherinquiries
xxxxxxxxx (Gonzalesvs.IntermediateAppellateCourt,157SCRA
587[1988]).llcd
Q Anddidyouinquirefromtheplaintiffwhywas
shethereatthemoment? EvenassumingthatTorresdoesnotinfactknowthe
circumstancesofthesale,sheisboundbythe
A ShewasintroducedtomeastheTiaCoring.
knowledgeofAtty.Martinezorbythelatter's
Q Andfromyourconversation,didyoucometo negligenceinherhaphazardinvestigationbecausethe
knowthattheplaintiffhere,SocorroCrisostomo,isthe negligenceofheragentsisherownnegligence(PCIBvs.
sameTiaCoringwhomshementionedtoyoushe Villalva,48SCRA37[1972]).
boughtthepropertyfrom?(Emphasissupplied)
Itisawellsettledrulethatapurchaserormortgagee
A Yes,thesameTiaCoringwhosoldtheproperty cannotclosehiseyestofactswhichshouldputa
toher.(Emphasissupplied). reasonablemanuponhisguard,andthenclaimthathe
actedingoodfaithunderthebeliefthattherewasno
xxxxxxxxx defectinthetitleofthevendorormortgagor.Hismere
refusaltobelievethatsuchdefectexists,orhiswillful
Q Andunderthesecircumstances,younever
closingofhiseyestothepossibilityoftheexistenceofa
inquiredfromtheplaintiffwhomyoupersonallysaw
defectinthevendor'sormortgagor'stitle,willnot
makehimaninnocentpurchaserormortgageefor
59
value,ifitafterwardsdevelopsthatthetitlewasinfact
defective,anditappearsthathehadsuchnoticeofthe
defectsaswouldhaveledtoitsdiscoveryhadheacted
withthemeasureofprecautionwhichmayberequired
ofaprudentmaninalikesituation(LeungYeevs.
StrongMachineryCo.,37Phil.644;RFCvs.Javillonar,57
O.G.39,September25,1961;C.N.Hodgesvs.DyBuncio
andCo.,Inc.,116Phil.595;Manacopvs.Cansino,61
O.G.21,August2,1965,1SCRA527;Gaticanavs.
Gaffud,27SCRA706[1969]).LexLib
Theappellatecourt,therefore,gravelyerredinthe
appreciationofevidenceonthegoodfaithofprivate
respondentDianaTorres.Consequently,because
respondentTorreswasnotamortgageeingoodfaith,
thereisnosufficientbasisfortheappellatecourtto
orderthenotationoftheDeedofRealEstateMortgage
infavorofprivaterespondentDianaTorresonthe
Certificateoftitlewhichistobereissuedtoherein
petitioner.prcd
PREMISESCONSIDERED,thedecisionoftherespondent
appellatecourtisREVERSEDandSETASIDE,andthe
decisionofthetrialcourtisREINSTATED.
SOORDERED.
60
61
[G.R.No.51457.June27,1994.] 2. ID.;ID.;ABSENCEOFHUSBAND'SCONSENT;
CONSEQUENCE.Evenassumingingratiaargumenti
LUCIAEMBRADOandORESTETORREGIANI,petitioners, thatLuciasignedthedocumentknowingthatitwasa
vs.COURTOFAPPEALS,PACIFICOCIMAFRANCA,
deedofsaleoftheproperty,thesalethereofbyLuciato
MARCOSSALIMBAGAT,EDAJIMENEZandSANTIAGO
EdaJimenezwithoutherhusband'sconformityshould
JIMENEZ,respondents. beconsideredvoidabinitiobeingcontrarytolaw.
SYLLABUS (Tolentino,CivilCodeofthePhilippineVo.1983,ed.,p.
453;seealsoLaUrbanav.villasor,59Phil.644(193
1. CIVILLAW;SALEOFLAND;TRANSFEROF Paras,CivilCodeofthePhilippines,Vol.1,ed.,p.5)
OWNERSHIP;WHENEFFECTED;CASEATBAR.While Since"(t)hewifecannotbindtheconjugalpartnership
weagreewithrespondentcourtthatLot564was withoutthehusband'sconsent,exceptincases
originallytheparaphernalpropertyofLucia,wecannot providedbylaw,"(Art.172,CivilCodeofthe
adoptitsconclusionthatbecauseLuciaandtheoriginal Philippines;asloTinitigv.TinitiganNo.L45411,30
ownersagreedin1941foritspurchaseandsale, October,100SCRA619,636)itfollowsthatLucia
ownershipwasalreadyacquiredbyLuciaatthat EmbradoTorregianicouldnot,byherself,validly
moment.UnderArt.1496oftheCivilCode,"ownership disposeofLot564withoutherhusband'sconsent.
ofthethingsoldisacquiredbythevendeefromthe Consequently,EdaJimenezlikewisecouldnothave
momentitisdeliveredtohiminanyoftheways acquiredownershipovertheland.Theissuanceofa
specifiedinarticles1497to1501,orinanyother certificateoftitleinfavorofEdaJimenezdidnotvest
mannersignifyinganagreementthatthepossessionis uponherownershipovertheproperty.Neitherdidit
transferredfromthevendortothevendee,"andunder validatetheallegedpurchasethereofwhichisnulland
Art.1498,"(w)henthesaleismadethroughapublic void.Registrationdoesnotvesttitle.Itismerely
instrument,theexecutionthereofshallbeequivalentto evidenceofsuchtitle.Ourlandregistrationlawsdonot
thedeliveryofthethingwhichistheobjectofthe givetheholderanybettertitlethanwhatheactually
contract,iffromthedeedthecontrarydoesnotappear has.(DeGuzmanv.CourtofAppeals,No.L46935,21
orcannotclearlybeinferred."Inthecaseatbar,the December1987,156SCRA701;Cruzv.Cobana,G.R.No.
VentaDefinitivaoverLot564infavorofLuciaEmbrado 56232,22June1984,129SCRA656)Beingnulland
wasexecutedbytheCarpitanoseson2July1946when void,thesaletoEdaJimenezandthetransferofthe
hermarriagetopetitionerOresteTorregianiwas propertyshemadetoSalimbagatandCimafranca
alreadysubsisting.Althoughownershipwasacquired producednolegaleffectswhatsoever.Quodnullumest,
duringthemarriageandhencepresumedconjugal,the nullumproduciteffectum.Therebeingnovalidtitleto
presumptionofconjugality(Art.160.Allpropertyofthe thelandthatEdaJimenezacquiredfromLucia,it
marriagepresumedtobelongtotheconjugal followsthatnotitletothesamelandcouldbeconveyed
partnership,unlessitisprovedthatitpertains bytheformertoSalimbagatandCimafranca.(Solid
exclusivitytothehusbandortothewife)was StateMultiProductsCorporationsv.CourtofAppeals,
successfullyovercomebythetermsoftheVenta G.R.No.83383,6May1991,196SCRA631.)
Definitivawhichcontainsapositiveassertionof
exclusiveownership,whichwasdulysupportedbythe 3. ID.;ID.;BUYERINGOODFAITH;RULE;CASEAT
testimonyofMatiasCarpitanos,oneoftheoriginal BAR.ItisworthytonotethatSalimbagatand
sellersofthelot.(TSN,10July1975,pp.3839;5859) Cimafranca,asbuyersofEdaJimenez,havenotproved
theirstatusaspurchasersingoodfaithandforvalueof
thelandwhich,inthefirstplace,EdaJimenezhadno
62
righttosell.Theburdenofprovingthestatusofa buildingattheexpenseofthepartnership;and,(b)the
purchaseringoodfaithandforvalueliesuponhimwho ownershipofthelandbyoneofthespouses.Vda.de
assertsthatstatus.Indischargingtheburden,itisnot Padillav.Paterno,No.L8748,26December1961,3
enoughtoinvoketheordinarypresumptionofgood SCRA678,691;seealsoVitug,J.C.,Compendiumof
faith,i.e.,thateveryoneispresumedtoactingood CivilLawandJurisprudence,1993ed.,p.67;Tolentino,
faith.Thegoodfaiththatishereessentialisintegral A.,CommentariesandJurisprudenceontheCivilCode
withtheverystatuswhichmustbeproved(Baltazarv. ofthePhilippines,Vol.I,1983ed.,pp.423424.The
CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.78728,8December1988, conditionshavebeenfullymetinthecaseatbench.
168SCRA354)....Theruleissettledthatabuyerof Thus,evenifLot564wasoriginallytheparaphernal
realpropertywhichisinthepossessionofpersons propertyofLuciaasevidentfromthe"VentaDefinitiva",
otherthanthesellermustbewaryandshould thesamebecameconjugalupontheconstructionofthe
investigatetherightsofthoseinpossession.Otherwise, residential/commercialbuildingin1958.
withoutsuchinquiry,thebuyercanhardlyberegarded
asabuyeringoodfaith.(Cardentev.Intermediate 5. REMEDIALLAW;EVIDENCE;ADMISSIBILITY;
AppellateCourt,G.R.No.73651,27November1987, NOTARIALDOCUMENT;RULEANDEXCEPTION;CASEAT
BAR.Whileitistruethatanotarizeddocumentis
155SCRA685,690691;andothercasescited).Whena
admissibleinevidencewithoutproofofitsdue
manproposestobuyordealwithrealty,hisfirstdutyis
toreadthepublicmanuscript,i.e.,tolookandseewho executionandisconclusiveastothetruthfulnessofits
contents,thisruleisnotabsoluteandmayberebutted
isthereuponit,andwhatarehisrights.Awantof
byevidencetothecontrary.(Mendezonav.Phil.Sugar
cautionanddiligencewhichanhonestmanofordinary
prudenceisaccustomedtoexerciseinmaking EstateDev.Co.,41Phil.475.[1921]).Inthiscase,itwas
clearlyshownthatEdaandSantiagoJimenezhadno
purchasesis,incontemplationoflaw,awantofgood
faith.Thebuyerwhohasfailedtoknowordiscoverthat sufficientmeansoflivelihoodandthattheyweretotally
thelandsoldtohimisintheadversepossessionof dependentontheirmotherLuciaforthesupportof
another,isabuyerinbadfaith.(J.M.Tuason&Co.,Inc., theirfamily.ThisfactstrengthenstheclaimofLuciathat
v.CourtofAppeals,No.L41233,21November1979,94 thepriceofthepropertywasfictitiousandthatEda
SCRA413,422423;seealsoAngelov.Pacheco,56Phil. Jimenezcouldnothavepaidthepriceofthepropertyas
70[1931];Andayav.Manansala,107Phil.1151[1960]). shewasfinanciallyincapabletodoso.Infact,Eda
Jimenezdidnotproveastohowsheobtainedthe
4. ID.;OWNERSHIP;CONJUGALPROPERTY;WHEN moneytopayforthepropertyshesupposedlybought
LANDONWHICHABUILDINGWASCONSTRUCTED fromLucia.Whenthesourceofthepurchasepriceis
BECOMESCONJUGAL;CASEATBAR.Thesecond "intriguing"andisnotconvincinglyshowntohavebeen
paragraphofArt.158oftheCivilCodeprovidesthat givenbythe"buyer"tothe"seller,"theclaimofthe
"[b]uildingsconstructed,attheexpenseofthe latterthatshesignedthedeedofsalewithouther
partnership,duringthemarriageonlandbelongingto consentmaybeupheld.(Barandav.Baranda,G.R.No.
oneofthespouses,alsopertaintothepartnership,but 73275,20May1987,150SCRA59).
thevalueofthelandshallbereimbursedtothespouse
DECISION
whoownsthesame."Underthisarticle,theland
becomesconjugalupontheconstructionofthebuilding BELLOSILLO,Jp:
withoutawaitingreimbursementbeforeoratthe
liquidationofthepartnershipupontheconcurrenceof LUCIAEMBRADOandORESTETORREGIANI,spouses,
twoconditions,towit:(a)theconstructionofthe filedthispetitionforreviewoncertiorarifromthe
63
decisionofrespondentCourtofAppeals1upholding P6,500.00,7andon1August1972,conveyed301
thevalidityoftheDeedofSaleoverLotNo.564 squaremetersofthesamelottoPacificoCimafranca8
executedbypetitionerLuciaEmbradoinfavorofprivate forP30,000.BothsalesweredulyannotatedonTCTNo.
respondentEdaJimenez.LLpr T17103.
LotNo.564isa366squaremeterlotsituatedin On25September1972,theTorregianisinstitutedinthe
DipologCityoriginallyownedbyJuan,Pastorand CourtofFirstInstance,nowRegionalTrialCourt,of
MatiasCarpitanos.On2July1946,aVentaDefinitiva,a ZamboangadelNorteanactionfordeclarationofnullity
notarizeddocumentwrittenentirelyinSpanish,was ofcontract,annulmentofsales,reconveyanceand
executedbytheCarpitanoswherebytheysoldLotNo. damages9againstthespousesSantiagoandEda
564to"Srta.LUCIAC.EMBRADO...soltera,con Jimenez,MarcosSalimbagatandPacificoCimafranca
residenciaydireccionpostalMunicipiodeDipolog, allegingthatthesaleoflot564byLuciaEmbradotoEda
ProvinciadeZamboanga."2Thedocumentprovided Jimenezwasvoidnotonlyforlackofconsiderationbut
thateventhoughthedeedwaspreparedandsignedon alsobecauseOresteTorregianididnotconsenttothe
2July1946,theeffectsofthedocumentwouldretroact sale,whichconsentwasnecessarybecauseLot564was
tothe15thdayofApril,thedatethelotandits conjugalproperty.Inaddition,thepetitionersclaimthat
improvementswereactuallysoldtoLuciaC.Embrado. Luciawasmisledintosigningthedeedofsalemarkedas
cdrep Exh."D"onthebeliefthatLot564wasmerelyintended
assecurityforaloanthattheJimenezspouseswere
ThesalewasregisteredandTransferCertificateofTitle thennegotiatingwiththeFirstInsularBankofCebu.
No.T993wasissuedon13February1948inthe SincetheJimenezspousesdidnotacquirevalidtitleto
nameofLuciaEmbradoalone,whowasbythenalready theland,thesubsequentsalesinfavorofSalimbagat
marriedtopetitionerOresteTorregianisince1943. andCimafrancawerewithoutlegaleffect.prLL
However,byvirtueofacourtorderinMisc.Sp.Proc.
No.2330ofthethenCourtofFirstInstanceof TheTorregianisweresustainedbytheCFIof
ZamboangadelNorte,theword"single"appearingin ZamboangadeNorte10whichheldthatthesaleofLot
TCTNo.T99wascanceledandreplacedon19October 564toEdaJimenezanditssubsequenttransfersto
1970bythephrase"marriedtoOresteTorregiani."the MarcosSalimbagatandPacificoCimafranca,whowere
Torregianisthenmadetheirconjugalabodeonthelot declaredbuyersinbadfaith,werevoidandofnoeffect.
andin1958constructedaresidential/commercial Morespecifically,thejudgment(a)declaredExhs."D,"
buildingthereon.4 "G"and"H"aswellasTCTNo.17103nullandvoidand
ofnoforceandeffect;(b)ordereddefendantsjointly
AsappearingfromadocumententitledAbsoluteDeed andseverallytopayplaintiffsthesumofP2,000.00as
ofSaledated1May19715,LuciaEmbradoTorregiani
actualdamagesandP1,500.00forattorney'sfees;(c)
soldLotNo.564,describedasher"ownparaphernal
orderedtheRegisterofDeedsofDipologCitytocancel
property,"toheradopteddaughter,hereinprivate TCTNo.17103inthenameofEdaJimenezandissue
respondentEdaJimenez,forthesumofP1,000.00. anotheroneinfavorofplaintiffLuciaEmbrado,married
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.T99wascanceledto toOresteTorregiani,andtocancelalltheannotations
givewaytoTCTNo.T171036inthenameofEda thereonemanatingfromthevoidtransfersinfavorof
Jimenez,marriedtoSantiagoJimenez. MarcosSalimbagatandPacificoCimafranca;(d)ordered
On6March1972,EdaJimenezsoldsixtyfive(65) defendantsEdaandSantiagoJimeneztoreturnto
squaremetersofLot564toMarcosSalimbagatfor defendantPacificoCimafrancathesumofP30,000.00
64
paidbyhimforthe301squaremetersandthehousein thatthepossessionistransferredfromthevendorto
question,andtodefendantMarcosSalimbagatthe thevendee,"andunderArt.1498,"(w)henthesaleis
P6,500.00paidbyhimforthe65squaremeters madethroughapublicinstrument,theexecution
occupiedbyComendadorClinicwithlegalinterestofsix thereofshallbeequivalenttothedeliveryofthething
percent(6%)untilfullypaid;and,(e)ordereddefendant whichistheobjectofthecontract,iffromthedeedthe
Cimafrancatopayplaintiffsalltherentshehasbeen contrarydoesnotappearorcannotclearlybeinferred."
collectingfromthelesseesofthefirstfloorofthehouse prLL
withlegalinterestthereonfromthetimehestarted
collectingthemuntilfullypaid,withcostsagainst Inthecaseatbar,theVentaDefinitivaoverLot564in
defendants.11 favorofLuciaEmbradowasexecutedbythe
Carpitanoseson2July1946whenhermarriageto
TheforegoingjudgmentwasreversedbytheCourtof petitionerOresteTorregianiwasalreadysubsisting.
AppealswhichheldthatsinceLuciaEmbradoactually Althoughownershipwasacquiredduringthemarriage
agreedwithJuan,PastorandMatiasCarpitanos,the andhencepresumedconjugal,thepresumptionof
originalowners,tothepurchaseofLot564on15April conjugality13wassuccessfullyovercomebytheterms
194112whenshewasnotyetmarried,thenthelot oftheVentaDefinitivawhichcontainsapositive
washerparaphernalpropertysinceasaleisconsidered assertionofexclusiveownership,whichwasduly
perfectedthemomentthepartiesagreeontheobject supportedbythetestimonyofMatiasCarpitanos,one
andcauseofthecontract.Inaddition,therespondent oftheoriginalsellersofthelot.14
courtdeclaredSalimbagatandCimafrancabuyersin
goodfaithsincethecontrarywasnotproved. However,adecisivefactappearswhichpreventsus
Consequently,thecomplaintinthetrialcourtwas fromultimatelyaffirmingthevalidityofhersaleofLot
ordereddismissedbyrespondentCourtofAppeals. 564toprivaterespondentEdaJimenez.Thetrialcourt
foundasafacttheconstructionin1958ofa
cdphil
residential/commercialbuilding15onsaidlotapartof
Three(3)issuesarehereininvolved:(a)whetherLot whichwasleasedtothirdpersonsandanotherpart
564wasparaphernalpropertyofLuciaEmbradoor servingastheTorregianis'conjugaldwelling.
conjugalwithherhusbandOresteTorregiani;(b)
whetherthesaleinfavorofEdaJimenezwasvalid;and, Althoughnoevidencewaspresentedonthesourceof
(c)whethervendeesMarcosSalimbagatandPacifico fundsusedintheconstructiontodeterminewhether
thesamewasconjugalorparaphernal,otherthanthe
Cimafrancawerebuyersingoodfaithsothatthesaleto
testimonyofTorregiani,16petitionersnevertheless
themwasvalid,hence,wouldbarreconveyance.
enjoyintheirfavorthepresumptionthatthefunds
Wesustainpetitioners.Whileweagreewith usedwereconjugal.17
respondentcourtthatLot564wasoriginallythe
ThesecondparagraphofArt.158oftheCivilCode
paraphernalpropertyofLucia,wecannotadoptits
providesthat"[b]uildingsconstructed,attheexpenseof
conclusionthatbecauseLuciaandtheoriginalowners
agreedin1941foritspurchaseandsale,ownershipwas thepartnership,duringthemarriageonlandbelonging
tooneofthespouses,alsopertaintothepartnership,
alreadyacquiredbyLuciaatthatmoment.UnderArt.
1496oftheCivilCode,"ownershipofthethingsoldis butthevalueofthelandshallbereimbursedtothe
acquiredbythevendeefromthemomentitisdelivered spousewhoownsthesame."Underthisarticle,the
tohiminanyofthewaysspecifiedinarticles1497to landbecomesconjugalupontheconstructionofthe
1501,orinanyothermannersignifyinganagreement buildingwithoutawaitingreimbursementbeforeorat
65
theliquidationofthepartnershipupontheconcurrence property,thesalethereofbyLuciatoEdaJimenez
oftwoconditions,towit:(a)theconstructionofthe withoutherhusband'sconformityshouldbeconsidered
buildingattheexpenseofthepartnership;and,(b)the voidabinitiobeingcontrarytolaw.21Since"(t)hewife
ownershipofthelandbyoneofthespouses.18The cannotbindtheconjugalpartnershipwithoutthe
conditionshavebeenfullymetinthecaseatbench. husband'sconsent,exceptincasesprovidedbylaw,"
Thus,evenifLot564wasoriginallytheparaphernal 22itfollowsthatLuciaEmbradoTorregianicouldnot,
propertyofLuciaasevidentfromthe"VentaDefinitiva", byherself,validlydisposeofLot564withouther
thesamebecameconjugalupontheconstructionofthe husband'sconsent.Consequently,EdaJimenezlikewise
residential/commercialbuildingin1958. couldnothaveacquiredownershipovertheland.The
issuanceofacertificateoftitleinfavorofEdaJimenez
Luciaclaimsthatshewasmisledbyherdaughterand didnotvestuponherownershipovertheproperty.
soninlawintosigningadeedofabsolutesaleintheir Neitherdiditvalidatetheallegedpurchasethereof
favorthinkingthatshewouldbehelpingthemobtaina whichisnullandvoid.Registrationdoesnotvesttitle.It
loanfromabankiftheycouldmortgagethepropertyas ismerelyevidenceofsuchtitle.Ourlandregistration
securityfortheirloan;thatalthoughshesignedthe lawsdonotgivetheholderanybettertitlethanwhat
deedofsale,shedidnotconsenttothesalenordidshe
heactuallyhas.23Beingnullandvoid,thesaletoEda
intendtoconveyortransferhertitletoEdaJimenez;
Jimenezandthetransferofthepropertyshemadeto
and,thatsheneverreceivedtheallegedamountof SalimbagatandCimafrancaproducednolegaleffects
P1,000.00asconsiderationforthesaleoftheproperty.
whatsoever.Quodnullumest,nullumproducit
LexLib
effectum.TherebeingnovalidtitletothelandthatEda
Whileitistruethatanotarizeddocumentisadmissible JimenezacquiredfromLucia,itfollowsthatnotitleto
inevidencewithoutproofofitsdueexecutionandis thesamelandcouldbeconveyedbytheformerto
conclusiveastothetruthfulnessofitscontents,this SalimbagatandCimafranca.24
ruleisnotabsoluteandmayberebuttedbyevidenceto
ItisworthytonotethatSalimbagatandCimafranca,as
thecontrary.19Inthiscase,itwasclearlyshownthat
buyersofEdaJimenez,havenotprovedtheirstatusas
EdaandSantiagoJimenezhadnosufficientmeansof
purchasersingoodfaithandforvalueofthelandwhich,
livelihoodandthattheyweretotallydependentontheir inthefirstplace,EdaJimenezhadnorighttosell.The
motherLuciaforthesupportoftheirfamily.Thisfact burdenofprovingthestatusofapurchaseringood
strengthenstheclaimofLuciathatthepriceofthe faithandforvalueliesuponhimwhoassertsthat
propertywasfictitiousandthatEdaJimenezcouldnot status.Indischargingtheburden,itisnotenoughto
havepaidthepriceofthepropertyasshewas invoketheordinarypresumptionofgoodfaith,i.e.,that
financiallyincapabletodoso.Infact,EdaJimenezdid everyoneispresumedtoactingoodfaith.Thegood
notproveastohowsheobtainedthemoneytopayfor faiththatishereessentialisintegralwiththevery
thepropertyshesupposedlyboughtfromLucia.When statuswhichmustbeproved.25
thesourceofthepurchasepriceis"intriguing"andis
notconvincinglyshowntohavebeengivenbythe Weagreewiththetrialcourtwhenitfoundthat
"buyer"tothe"seller,"theclaimofthelatterthatshe SalimbagatandCimafrancapurchasedthedisputedlot
signedthedeedofsalewithoutherconsentmaybe fromEdaandSantiagoJimenezwithknowledgeoffacts
upheld.20 andcircumstanceswhichshouldhaveputthemupon
suchinquiryandinvestigationasmightbenecessaryto
EvenassumingingratiaargumentithatLuciasignedthe
acquaintthemwiththedefectsinthetitleoftheir
documentknowingthatitwasadeedofsaleofthe
66
vendor.Apurchasercannotclosehiseyestofactswhich byLuciaTorregianiofthepropertytoEdaJimenezon1
shouldputareasonablemanonhisguardandthen May1971.TherecanbenodoubtthatSalimbagat's
claimthatheactedingoodfaithunderthebeliefthat daughterwasawareofthefactualbackgroundofthe
therewasnodefectinthetitleofthevendor.Hismere propertyandthepersonalcircumstancesoftheowners
refusaltobelievethatsuchdefectexists,orhiswillful thereofespeciallythattheyarealloccupyingthesame
closingofhiseyestothepossibilityoftheexistenceofa building.DuringthetimethatSalimbagatwasalready
defectinthevendor'stitlewillnotmakehiman interestedinbuyingtheproperty,itwouldhavebeen
innocentpurchaserforvalueifafterwardsitdevelops usualandpartofordinaryhumannatureforhimto
thatthetitleisinfactdefective,anditappearsthathe inquireaboutthepropertyfromhisdaughterwhowas
hadsuchnoticeofthedefectaswouldhaveledtoits livingverynearthesupposedowners.Consideringthat
discoveryhadheactedwiththemeasureofprecaution theTorregianiandJimenezfamiliesarenottotal
whichmayreasonablyberequiredofaprudentmanin strangerstoSalimbagat,itissafetoconcludethat
likesituation.26 Salimbagathadsomeknowledgeofthefinancialstatus
ofthesupposedvendorswhichshouldhaveputhimon
CimafrancaisacloserelativeofSantiagoJimenezandat guardbeforebuyingtheproperty.Moreover,the
thesametimegodfathertooneofhischildren.Assuch,
recordsshowthatthiswouldnothaveescapedthe
therecanbenodoubtthatCimafrancawasawareof
noticeofSalimbagatandCimafrancathatatthetimeof
thepersonalcircumstancesandfinancialstandingofthe thesaletothempetitionerswereinactualpossession
Jimenezspouses,includingtheirfinancialabilityto
ofthepropertywithSalimbagat'sdaughterrentinga
acquireanyproperty.Itwouldbeimpossiblefor
portionthereof.Forthatmatter,atthetimeofthesale
CimafrancanottoknowthatSantiagoJimenezwasonly toSalimbagatandCimafranca,petitionershadalready
twentytwoyearsold,aworkingstudentearningsix beenincontinuouspossessionofthepropertyfor
pesosperday27withawifeandthreechildrento fourteen(14)years,orsince1958.SantiagoJimenez
support.28Withthesefacts,thereiseveryreasonfor admittedthatafterhismarriageheandhiswifeEda
himtoinquirefurtherastohowEdaJimenezcameup livedandstayedwithherparents,hereinpetitioners,
withthesumofP1,000.00tobuytheproperty.When anddefendantonthemforsupport.31
thereisaclearshowingthatEdaJimenez,beingthe
transfereeofaregisteredproperty,isnotgainfully Beforebuyingtheproperty,SalimbagatandCimafranca
employedordidnothaveanindependentsourceof allegedlyinquiredfromtheofficeoftheRegisterof
incomeorisfinanciallyincapableofpayingthepriceof Deedsconcerningthegenuinenessofthecertificateof
thepropertyshebought,thisissufficienttoengender titleofEdaJimenez,andfromtheClerkofCourtofthe
doubtastowhetherEdavalidlyboughttheproperty CourtofFirstInstanceofDipologCityastowhetherthe
fromLucia.29 propertywasinvolvedinanylitigation.32However,
theyfailedtoinquirefrompetitionersastowhythey
OnthepartofSalimbagat,hehasbeenaresidentof weretheonesinactualpossessionoftheproperty.cdll
Dipologforaboutthirty(30)years.Hehasadaughter
rentingaportionofthebuildingwithherhusbandfor Theruleissettledthatabuyerofrealpropertywhichis
morethanayearpriortothesalebyEdaJimenezto inthepossessionofpersonsotherthanthesellermust
Salimbagaton6March1972.30Thismeansthatthe bewaryandshouldinvestigatetherightsofthosein
leaseofthebuildingbySalimbagat'sdaughteralready possession.Otherwise,withoutsuchinquiry,thebuyer
commencedwhileLuciaTorregianiwasstillthe canhardlyberegardedasabuyeringoodfaith.33
registeredownerandthiswaspriortotheallegedsale Whenamanproposestobuyordealwithrealty,his
67
firstdutyistoreadthepublicmanuscript,i.e.,tolook
andseewhoisthereuponit,andwhatarehisrights.A
wantofcautionanddiligencewhichanhonestmanof
ordinaryprudenceisaccustomedtoexerciseinmaking
purchasesis,incontemplationoflaw,awantofgood
faith.Thebuyerwhohasfailedtoknowordiscoverthat
thelandsoldtohimisintheadversepossessionof
another,isabuyerinbadfaith.34
ThefactthatLuciaEmbradoresidesinthepremises,
coupledwiththerelativelyyoungageandmeager
financialstandingoftheJimenezspouses,shouldhave
beensufficientforCimafrancatohesitateaccepting
Eda'stransfercertificateoftitleatitsfacevalue.
Cimafranca,afterdeliberatelyclosinghiseyestosucha
vitalinformation,isnowclaiminggoodfaith.For
obviousreasons,wecannotaccepthiscontention.We
thusdeclarehim,togetherwithMarcosSalimbagat,to
bepurchasersinbadfaithhencenotentitledto
protectionundertheTorrenssystemofregistration.
llcd
Lot564isnowregisteredinthenameofEdaJimenez
"marriedtoSantiagoJimenez"underTransfer
CertificateofTitleNo.T17103whichwasissued
pursuanttothe"AbsoluteDeedofSale"executedinher
favorbypetitionerLuciaEmbrado.Wehavealready
declaredsaiddeedofsaleasnullandvoidsinceits
object,Lot564,isconjugalpropertywhichwassoldby
LuciaEmbradowithoutherhusband'sconformity.The
presentvendees,MarcosSalimbagatandPacifico
Cimafranca,whoboughtthepropertyfromEdaJimenez
havefailedtopersuadeusthattheyacquiredthe
propertyingoodfaith.prcd
WHEREFORE,thedecisionofrespondentCourtof
Appealsdated26April1979isREVERSEDandSETASIDE
andtheDecisionofthethenCourtofFirstInstance
(nowRegionalTrialCourt)ofZamboangadelNorte
dated14June1976isREINSTATEDANDADOPTED
hereinasthedecisioninthiscase.
SOORDERED.
68
69
[G.R.No.L47491.May4,1989.] predecessor,DomingaBalanga,neverbelievedthatshe
hasarightandlegalclaimtotheoverlappedportion.
GALICANOGOLLOY,petitioner,vs.HONORABLECOURT
OFAPPEALS,JOSEVALDEZ,JR.,CONSOLACIONVALDEZ, 2. ID.;ID.;LONGINACTIONANDDELAYIN
LOURDESVALDEZ,SOLEDADVALDEZandBENNY ASSERTINGRIGHTTODISPUTEDLAND;DEFENSEOF
MADRIAGA,respondents. LACHESAVAILABLE.Consideringthatpetitionerand
hispredecessororpredecessorshavebeenin
CrispuloB.Ducusinforpetitioner. continuouspossessionintheconceptofanowner,for
CelsoM.Alviarforprivaterespondents. almostfifty(50)years(fromAugust15,1919,whenthe
propertywasregistered,uptoFebruary,1966,when
SYLLABUS theprivaterespondentscausedtheplacementoftwo
(2)monumentsinsidehisland),thelatteriftheyhave
1. LANDREGISTRATION;OVERLAPPINGOF
anyrightatalltotheoverlappedportion,areguiltyof
BOUNDARIES;POSSESSOROFLANDDISTURBEDHELD
laches.Althoughthedefenseofprescriptionis
RIGHTFULOWNER.Privaterespondentsandtheir
unavailingtothepetitionersbecause,admittedly,the
predecessororpredecessorsneverpossessed,much
titletoLotNo.5517isstillregisteredinthenameof
less,claimedtheoverlappedportions.Petitionerhas
respondent,stillthepetitionershaveacquiredtitletoit
beenalwaysinpossessionofthesameintheconceptof
byvirtueoftheequitableprincipleoflachesdueto
anowner,andhispossessionwasdisturbedonlyin
respondent'sfailuretoassertherclaimsandownership
February,1966,whentheprivaterespondentscaused
forthirtytwo(32)years.
tobeplacedtwo(2)monumentsinsidehisland.Itwill
berecalledthat,asperreportofSurveyorJovinoB. DECISION
Dauz(RecordonAppeal,pp.2128),private
respondents'land(TCT8565isLotNo.1,118218)was PARAS,Jp:
surveyedonMarch11,1913andoriginallytitledand Thisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariofthe
registeredonMarch1,1918inthenameofDominga September29,1977Decision*oftheCourtofAppeals
Balanga.Ontheotherhard,petitioner'sland(TCTNo. inCAG.R.No.L43359R,entitledGalicanoGolloyvs.
45764)isLotAofSubdivisionplan,Psd14013,a
JoseJ.ValdezJr.,et.al.,affirmingthejudgmentofthe
portionoflanddescribedinOCTNo.126)wassurveyed
thenCourtofFirstInstanceofTarlac;andthe
onMarch18,1918andsubsequentlytitledand November29,1977Resolutionofthesamecourt
registeredinthenameofAgustinGalloy.Thesaidlands,
denyingthemotionforreconsideration.
havingbeensurveyedandthereafterregistered,it
followsthatmonumentswereplacedthereinto Hereinpetitioner,formorethantwenty(20)years,has
indicatetheirrespectiveboundaries.Itishardly beentheregisteredownerandinpossessionofa
persuasivethatprivaterespondents'predecessor, 41,545squaremeterparceloflandcoveredbyTransfer
DomingaBalanga,believingthatshehasarightfulclaim CertificateofTitleNo.45764.TheSouthwestportionof
totheoverlappedportions,didnotmakeanymoveto thislandisboundedbyhereinprivaterespondents'land
questiontheplacementofthemonuments.Shecould whichiscoveredbyCertificateofTitleNo.8565.
haveeasilyobjectedtotheplacementandpointedout SometimeinFebruary,1966,privaterespondents
thattheplacementofthemonumentsexcludedthe subdividedtheirlandamongthemselves.Inthecourse
overlappedportionsfromherproperty.However,no ofthesubdivision,privaterespondentscausedtobe
suchobjectionwasmade.Thesefactscouldonlybe placedtwo(2)monumentsinsidetheSouthwest
construedtomeanthatprivaterespondents' portionofpetitioner'sland.Hence,petitionerfiledwith
70
thethenCourtofFirstInstanceofTarlac,presidedover (Nos.226,27,28and29,Ibid.);andthatthe
byJudgeArturoB.Santos,anactiontoquiettitle.The overlappingsareduetothedefectinthesurveyon
samewasdocketedthereinasCivilCaseNo.4312. petitioner'slandsinceitdidnotdulyconformwiththe
previouslyapprovedsurveyofLot1,113218underOCT
Privaterespondents,intheirfiledmotiontodismiss
8565(No.25,Ibid).Heendedhisreportbysubmitting
withcounterclaim,allegedthattheyneverencroached
thatprivaterespondents'land,TCTNo.8565,prevails
uponthelandholdingofpetitionerandnothinghas overpetitioner'sland,TCTNo.45764,sincetheformer
beenplacedonhislandwhichwouldcreateanycloud
wassurveyedandtitledahead.
thereon;andthatthetruthofthematterwasthatthey
merelysubdividedtheirownlandaccordingtotheirtitle OnJuly8,1968,petitionerfiledaMemorandum
andthereforetherewasnothingforpetitionertoquiet (RecordonAppeal,pp.2835).
orremovecloudonhistitle.
OnOctober21,1968,thetrialcourtruledinfavorof
InthepretrialofDecember12,1967,theparties privaterespondents.Thedecretalportionofthe
agreedthatinasmuchastheonlyissueindispute decision,reads:
referredultimatelytothequestionoftheboundariesof
"WHEREFORE,conformablytotheagreementofthe
theirrespectivelots,thesamemightberesolvedby
partiesduringthepretrialonDecember12,1967,this
appointingapublicsurveyoroftheBureauofLandsto
relocatethedisputedareawiththeendinviewof Courtrendersjudgmentinaccordancewiththe
aforesaidsurveyor'sReportandRelocationPlan;and
determiningthetrueandcorrectboundariesoftheir
parcels. theplaintiffandthedefendantsareaccordingly
directedtoabidebyandrespecttheboundaries
Thetrialcourt,inlinewiththeabovesaidagreement,in indicatedontherelocationplanofSurveyorDauzwhich
anOrderdatedDecember13,1968,orderedthe hefoundtobethetrueandcorrectboundariesofthe
DirectorofLandstoappointanimpartialpublicland propertiescoveredbyTCTNos.8567and45764ofthe
surveyortoconducttherelocationsurveyonthe landrecordsofTarlac.
disputedarea.prcd
"Forlackofproof,theclaimfordamagesbyplaintiff
OnMay20,1968,JovinoB.Dauz,Surveyorofthe andthedefendantsarebothdenied.
BureauofLands,DagupanCity,submittedhisReport
(RecordonAppeal,pp.2128,Rollo,p.34),whichstates "Nopronouncementoncosts.
insubstance,thatpetitioner'slandisLotAofthe "SOORDERED."(Rollo,p.14)
Subdivisionplan,Psd1413,beingaportionoftheland
describedinOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.126inthe Petitioner,afterhismotionforreconsiderationwas
nameofAgustinGolloy(No.11,RecordonAppeal,p. deniedbythetrialcourt,appealedthesaiddecision,
23);thatthelandtitledunderOCTNo.126was whichwasaffirmedbytheCourtofAppeals,ina
surveyedonMarch18,1918andsubsequentlytitled DecisionpromulgatedonSeptember29,1977(Rollo,
andregisteredonAugust15,1919(No.12,Ibid);that pp.2229).Amotionforreconsiderationwasfiled,but
ontheotherhand,privaterespondents'landisLotNo. thesamewasdeniedinaResolutionpromulgatedon
1,118218inthenameofDomingoBalanga,surveyed November29,1977(Ibid.,pp.3032).Hence,the
onMarch11,1913andoriginallytitledandregistered instantpetition.
onMarch1,1918(No.15,Ibid.);thatthereare
TheSecondDivisionofthisCourt,inaResolutiondated
overlappingsontheboundariesofthetwo(2)lands
January4,1978,resolvedtorequiretherespondentsto
71
comment(Ibid.,p.36);whichcommentwasfiledon haveeasilyobjectedtotheplacementandpointedout
February14,1978(Ibid.,pp.4142).Petitionersfileda thattheplacementofthemonumentsexcludedthe
replytheretoonMarch27,1978(Ibid.,p.47)in overlappedportionsfromherproperty.However,no
compliancewiththeresolutionofFebruary14,1978 suchobjectionwasmade.Thesefactscouldonlybe
(Ibid.,p.44).LLpr construedtomeanthatprivaterespondents'
predecessor,DomingaBalanga,neverbelievedthatshe
InaResolutiondatedApril5,1978theCourtgavedue hasarightandlegalclaimtotheoverlappedportion.
coursetothepetition(Ibid.,p.52).Petitionerfiledhis
Thereappearstobenoevidencetosupportclaimsof
BriefonJanuary10,1981(Ibid.,p.60).Private
repeateddemandsagainstpetitionertorefrainfrom
respondentshavingfailedtofiletheirbriefwithinthe cultivatingthecontestedportion,muchlessanaction
requiredperiod,thecasewasconsideredsubmittedfor filedincourttoenforcesuchdemands.
decisionwithoutprivaterespondents'briefinthe
resolutionofFebruary8,1981(Ibid.,p.66). Besides,consideringthatpetitionerandhispredecessor
orpredecessorshavebeenincontinuouspossessionin
Thesoleissueinthiscaseiswhobetweenthetwo theconceptofanowner,foralmostfifty(50)years
titleholdersisentitledtothelandindispute? (fromAugust15,1919,whenthepropertywas
Theinstantpetitionisimpressedwithmerit. registered,uptoFebruary,1966,whentheprivate
respondentscausedtheplacementoftwo(2)
Itmustbestatedthatprivaterespondentsandtheir monumentsinsidehisland),thelatteriftheyhaveany
predecessororpredecessorsneverpossessed,much rightatalltotheoverlappedportion,areguiltyof
less,claimedtheoverlappedportions.Petitionerhas laches.cdrep
beenalwaysinpossessionofthesameintheconceptof
anowner,andhispossessionwasdisturbedonlyin InthecaseofCaragayLaynovs.CourtofAppeals(133
February,1966,whentheprivaterespondentscaused SCRA718,723724[1984],thisCourtstated
tobeplacedtwo(2)monumentsinsidehisland.Itwill
"Ofsignificanceisthefact,asdisclosedbytheevidence,
berecalledthat,asperreportofSurveyorJovinoB. thatfortwenty(20)yearsfromthedateofregistration
Dauz(RecordonAppeal,pp.2128),private
oftitlein1947upto1967whenthissuitforrecoveryof
respondents'land(TCT8565isLotNo.1,118218)was possessionwasinstituted,neitherthedeceasedDE
surveyedonMarch11,1913andoriginallytitledand VERAuptothetimeofhisdeathin1951,norhis
registeredonMarch1,1918inthenameofDominga successorsininterest,hadtakenstepstopossessorlay
Balanga.Ontheotherhard,petitioner'sland(TCTNo. adverseclaimtothedisputedportion.Theymay,
45764)isLotAofSubdivisionplan,Psd14013,a thereforebesaidtobeguiltyoflachesaswould
portionoflanddescribedinOCTNo.126)wassurveyed effectivelyderailtheircauseofaction.Administrator
onMarch18,1918andsubsequentlytitledand ESTRADAtookinterestinrecoveringthesaidportion
registeredinthenameofAgustinGalloy.Thesaidlands,
onlywhenhenoticedthediscrepancyinareasinthe
havingbeensurveyedandthereafterregistered,it
InventoryofPropertyandinthetitle."
followsthatmonumentswereplacedthereinto
indicatetheirrespectiveboundaries.Itishardly "Theforegoingconclusiondoesnotnecessarilywreak
persuasivethatprivaterespondents'predecessor, havocontheindefeasibilityofaTorrenstitle.For,mere
DomingaBalanga,believingthatshehasarightfulclaim possessionofcertificateoftitleundertheTorrens
totheoverlappedportions,didnotmakeanymoveto Systemisnotconclusiveastotheholder'strue
questiontheplacementofthemonuments.Shecould ownershipofallthepropertydescribedthereinforhe
72
doesnotbyvirtueofsaidcertificatealonebecomethe
ownerofthelandillegallyincluded."
Inamorerecentcase,thecaseofLolavs.Courtof
Appeals(145SCRA439,449[1986]),thisCourtruled:
"Wealsoagreewiththepetitionersthatlaches
effectivelybarstherespondentfromrecoveringthelot
indispute.
"Althoughthedefenseofprescriptionisunavailingto
thepetitionersbecause,admittedly,thetitletoLotNo.
5517isstillregisteredinthenameofrespondent,still
thepetitionershaveacquiredtitletoitbyvirtueofthe
equitableprincipleoflachesduetorespondent'sfailure
toassertherclaimsandownershipforthirtytwo(32)
years.
"Thereareprecedentsforthisruling.Inthefollowing
cases,weupheldtheequitabledefenseoflachesand
ruledthatthelonginactionanddelayofthetitleholder
inassertinghisrightoverthedisputedlotbarshimfrom
recoveringthesame."
PREMISESCONSIDERED,thedecisionoftheCourtof
AppealsunderreviewisREVERSEDandSETASIDEanda
newonerenderedordering,privaterespondentsto
causethesegregationofthedisputedportionpresently
occupiedbythepetitionerGalicanoGolloyand
reconveythesametothelatterandafterthe
segregationtoordertheRegisterofDeedsofTarlacto
issueanewcertificateoftitlecoveringsaidportionin
favorofthepetitioner.
SOORDERED.
73
[G.R.No.52064.December26,1984.] MELENCIOHERRERA,Jp:
JULIANACARAGAYLAYNO,AssistedbyHerHusband, RespondentAppellateCourt,thentheCourtofAppeals,
BENITOLAYNO,petitioner,vs.HONORABLECOURTOF affirmedintotothejudgmentoftheformerCourtof
APPEALSandSALVADORESTRADAasAdministratorof FirstInstanceofPangasinan,BranchIII,atDagupan
theEstateoftheDeceased,MARIANODEVERA, adjudgingprivaterespondententitledtorecover
respondents. possessionofaparceloflandandorderingpetitioners,
asdefendantsbelow,tovacatethepremises.
PedroG.Peraltaforpetitioner. Petitioners,aspaupers,nowseekareversalofthat
AndresT.Gutierrezforprivaterespondent. judgment.
SYLLABUS Itwasestablishedbyarelocationsurveythatthe
DisputedPortionisa3,732squaremeterareaofa
1. CIVILLAW;LANDREGISTRATION;TORRENS biggerparcelofsugarandcoconutland(LotNo.1,Psu
TITLE;MEREPOSSESSIONTHEREOFNOTCONCLUSIVE 24206[CaseNo.44,GLRORec.No.117]),withatotal
ASTOHOLDER'STRUEOWNERSHIPOFALLPROPERTY areaof8,752squaremeters,situatedatCalasiao,
DESCRIBEDTHEREIN.Theforegoingconclusiondoes Pangasinan.TheentireparceliscoveredbyOriginal
notnecessarilywreakhavocontheindefensibilityofa CertificateofTitleNo.63,andincludestheadjoining
Torrenstitle.For,merepossessionofacertificateof Lots2and3,issuedon11September1947inthename
titleundertheTorrensSystemisnotconclusiveasto ofMarianoM.DEVERA,whodiedin1951without
theholderstrueownershipofalltheproperty issue.Hisintestateestatewasadministeredfirstbyhis
describedthereinforhedoesnotbyvirtueofsaid widowaslaterbyhernephew,respondentSalvador
certificatealonebecometheownerofthelandillegally Estrada.
included.ALandRegistrationCourthasnojurisdiction
todecreealottopersonswhohaveneverassertedany Petitioner,JULIANACaragay,andthedecedent,
rightofownershipoverlt. MarianoDEVERA,werefirstcousins,"bothorphans,
wholivedtogetherunderoneroofinthecareofa
2. ID.;PRESCRIPTION;ANACTIONTOQUIETTITLE commonaunt."
TOPROPERTYINONE'SPOSSESSIONIS
IMPRESCRIPTIBLE.Prescriptioncannotbeinvoked AsAdministratrix,DEVERA'swidowfiledinSpecial
againstJULIANAforthereasonthataslawfulpossessor ProceedingsNo.4058oftheformerCourtofFirst
andowneroftheDisputedPortion,hercauseofaction InstanceofPangasinan,BranchIII,anInventoryofall
forreconveyancewhich,ineffectseekstoquiettitleto propertiesofthedeceased,whichincluded"aparcelof
theproperty,fallswithinsettledjurisprudencethatan landinthepoblacionofCalasiao,Pangasinan,
actiontoquiettitletopropertyinone'spossessionis containinganareaof5,417squaremeters,moreor
imprescriptible(Sapto,etal.vs.Fabiana,103Phil.683, less,andcoveredbyTaxDeclarationNo.12664."
687[1958]).Herundisturbedpossessionoveraperiod
Becauseofthediscrepancyinareamentionedinthe
offiftytwo(52)yearsgaveheracontinuingrightto Inventoryas5,147squaremeters(asfiledbythe
seektheaidofaCourtofequitytodeterminethe widow),andthatinthetitleas8,752squaremeters,
natureoftheadverseclaimofathirdpartyandthe
ESTRADArepairedtotheDisputedPropertyandfound
effectonherowntitle. thatthenorthwesternportion,subsequentlysurveyed
DECISION tobe3,732squaremeters,wasoccupiedbypetitioner
spousesJulianaCaragayLaynoandBenitoLayno.
74
ESTRADAdemandedthattheyvacatetheDisputed TheevidencedisclosesthattheDisputedPortionwas
Portionsinceitwastitledinthenameofthedeceased originallypossessedopenly,continuouslyand
DEVERA,butpetitionersrefusedclaimingthattheland uninterruptedlyintheconceptofanownerbyJuan
belongedtothemand,beforethem,toJULIANA's Caragay,thedeceasedratherofJULIANA,andhadbeen
fatherJuanCaragay. declaredinhisnameunderTaxDeclarationNo.28694
beginningwiththeyear1921(Exhibit"2C"),later
ESTRADAtheninstitutedsuitagainstJULIANAforthe revisedbyTaxDeclarationNo.2298in1951(Exhibit"2
recoveryoftheDisputedPortion(CivilCaseNo.D2007) B").Uponthedemiseofherfatherin1914,JULIANA
whichsheresisted,mainlyonthegroundthatthe
adjudicatedthepropertytoherselfashissoleheirin
DisputedPortionhadbeenfraudulentlyormistakenly 1968(Exhibit"4")anddeclareditinhernameunderTax
includedinOCTNo.63,sothatanimpliedor DeclarationNo.22522beginningwiththeyear1959
constructivetrustexistedinherfavor.Shethen (Exhibit"2A"),latercancelledbyTDNo.3539in1966
counterclaimedforreconveyanceofpropertyinthe (Exhibit"2").Realtytaxeswerealsoreligiouslypaid
sensethattitlebeissuedinherfavor.LLphil from1938to1972(Exhibits"3A"to"3H").Tackingthe
Afterhearing,theTrialCourtrenderedjudgment previouspossessionofherfathertoherown,theyhad
orderingJULIANAtovacatetheDisputedPortion. beeninactual,open,continuousanduninterrupted
possessionintheconceptofownerforaboutfortyfive
Onappeal,respondentAppellateCourtaffirmedthe (45)years,untilsaidpossessionwasdisturbedin1966
Decisionintoto. whenESTRADAinformedJULIANAthattheDisputed
PortionwasregisteredinMarianoDEVERA'sname.
Beforeus,JULIANAtakesissuewiththefollowing
findingofrespondentCourt: Tosubstantiateherclaimoffraudintheinclusionofthe
DisputedPortioninOCTNo.68,JULIANA,anunlettered
"AlthoughSection102ofAct496allowsaPetitionto
woman,declaredthatduringhislifetime,DEVERA,her
compelatrusteetoreconveyaregisteredlandtothe
firstcousin,andwhomsheregardedasafatherashe
cestuiquetrust(Severinovs.Severino,44Phil.343;
wasmucholder,borrowedfromhertheTaxDeclaration
Escobarvs.Locsin,74Phil.86)thisremedyisnolonger
ofherlandpurportedlytobeusedascollateralforhis
availabletoJulianaCaragay.MarianodeVera'sland,Lot
loanandsugarquotaapplication;thatrelyingonher
1,Psu24206,wasregisteredonSeptember11,1947
cousin'sassurances,sheaccededtohisrequestandwas
(Exhibit'C')anditwasonlyonMarch28,1967whenthe
madetosignsomedocumentsthecontentsofwhich
defendantsfiledtheiroriginalanswerthatCaragay
shedidnoteverknowbecauseofherignorance;that
soughtthereconveyancetoherofthe3,732square
shediscoveredthefraudulentinclusionoftheDisputed
meters.Thus,herclaimforreconveyancebaseon
PortioninOCTNo.63onlyin1966whenESTRADAso
impliedorconstructivetrusthasprescribedafter10
informedherandsoughttoejectthem.
years(Banangavs.Soler,L15717,June30,1961;J.M.
Tuason&Co.vs.Magdangal,L15539,Jan.30,1962; Ofsignificanceisthefact,asdisclosedbytheevidence,
Alzonavs.Capunitan,4SCRA450).Inotherwords, thatfortwenty(20)yearsfromthedateofregistration
MarianodeVera'sOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.63 oftitlein1947upto1967whenthissuitforrecoveryof
(Exhibit'C')hasbecomeindefeasible."1 possessionwasinstituted,neitherthedeceasedDE
VERAuptothetimeofhisdeathin1951,norhis
Weareconstrainedtoreverse.
successorsininterest,hadtakenstepstopossessorlay
adverseclaimtotheDisputedPortion.Theymay,
75
thereforebesaidtobeguiltyoflachesaswould commissionoffraud,orthatoneshouldenrichhimself
effectivelyderailtheircauseofaction.Administrator attheexpenseofanother."3
ESTRADAtoolsinterestinrecoveringthesaidportion
JULIANA,whosepropertyhadbeenwrongfully
onlywhenhenoticedthediscrepancyinareasinthe
registeredinthenameofanother,butwhichhadnot
InventoryofPropertyandinthetitle.
yetpassedintothehandsofthirdparties,canproperly
InasmuchasDEVERAhadfailedtoassertanyrights seekitsreconveyance.
overtheDisputedPortionduringhislifetime,nordidhe
norhissuccessorsininterestpossessitforasingle "Theremedyofthelandownerwhosepropertyhas
beenwrongfullyorerroneouslyregisteredinanother's
moment;butthat,JULIANAhadbeeninactual,
nameis,afteroneyearfromthedateofthedecree,not
continuousandopenpossessionthereoftothe
exclusionofallandsundry,theinescapableinferenceis, tosetasidethedecree,but,respectingthedecreeas
incontrovertibleandnolongeropentoreview,tobring
fraudhavingbeenunsubstantiated,thatithadbeen
anordinaryactionintheordinarycourtofjusticefor
erroneouslyincludedinOCTNo.63.Themistakeis
confirmedbythefactthatdeducting3,732sq.ms.,the reconveyanceor,ifthepropertyhaspassedintothe
areaoftheDisputedPortionfrom8,752sq.ms.,the handsofaninnocentpurchaserforvalue,fordamages."
areaofLot1inOCTNo.63,thedifferenceis5,020sq. 4
ms.,whichcloselyapproximatestheareaof5,147sq. PrescriptioncannotbeinvokedagainstJULIANAforthe
ms.,indicatedintheInventoryofPropertyofDEVERA. reasonthataslawfulpossessorandownerofthe
Infact,thewidowbylimitingtheareainsaidInventory DisputedPortion,hercauseofactionforreconveyance
toonly5,147sq.ms.,ineffect,recognizedandadmitted which,ineffect,seekstoquiettitletotheproperty,falls
thattheDisputedPortionof3,132sq.ms.didnotform withinsettledjurisprudencethatanactiontoquiettitle
partofthedecedent'sestate. topropertyinone'spossessionisimprescriptible.5Her
Theforegoingconclusiondoesnotnecessarilywreak undisturbedpossessionoveraperiodoffiftytwo(52)
havocontheindefeasibilityofaTorrenstitle.For,mere yearsgaveheracontinuingrighttoseektheaidofa
possessionofacertificateoftitleundertheTorrens Courtofequitytodeterminethenatureoftheadverse
Systemisnotconclusiveastotheholder'strue claimofathirdpartyandtheeffectonherowntitle.6
ownershipofallthepropertydescribedthereinforhe Besides,underthecircumstances,JULIANA'srightto
doesnotbyvirtueofsaidcertificatealonebecomethe quiettitle,toseekreconveyance,andtoannulOCT.No.
ownerofthelandillegallyincluded.2ALand 63accusedonlyin1966whenshewasmadeawareofa
RegistrationCourthasnojurisdictiontodecreealotto claimadversetoherown.Itwasonlythenthatthe
personswhohaveneverassertedanyrightof statutoryperiodofprescriptionmaybesaidtohave
ownershipoverit.cdrep commencedtorunagainsther,followingthe
pronouncementinFajavs.CourtofAppeals,supra,a
"...Obviouslythen,theinclusionofsaidareainthe
casealmostidenticaltothisone.
titleofLotNo.8151isvoidandofnoeffectforaland
registrationCourthasnojurisdictiontodecreealotto "...Inasmuchasitisallegedinparagraph3ofFrial's
personswhohaveputnoclaiminitandwhohavenever complaint,thatFelipaFajahasbeeninpossessionofthe
assertedanyrightofownershipoverit.TheLand propertysince1945uptothepresentforaperiodof30
RegistrationActaswellastheCadastralActprotects years,hercauseofactionforreconveyance,whichin
onlytheholdersofatitleingoodfaithanddoesnot effectseekstoquiethertitletotheproperty,falls
permititsprovisionstobeusedasashieldforthe withinthatrule.Ifatall,theperiodofprescription
76
begantorunagainstFelipaFajaonlyfromthetimeshe Veracoveringtheremainingportionof5,0520square
wasservedwithcopyofthecomplaintin1975giving meters.Nocosts.cdll
hernoticethatthepropertyshewasoccupyingwas
SOORDERED.
titledinthenameofIndelecioFrial.Thereissettled
jurisprudencethatonewhoisinactualpossessionofa
pieceoflandclaimingtobeownerthereofmaywait
untilhispossessionisdisturbedorhistitleisattacked
beforetakingstepstovindicatehisright,thereasonfor
therulebeing,thathisundisturbedpossessiongives
himacontinuingrighttoseektheaidofacourtof
equitytoascertainanddeterminethenatureofthe
adverseclaimofthirdpartyanditseffectonhisown
title,whichrightcanbeclaimedonlybyonewhoisin
possession.Nobettersituationcanbeconceivedatthe
momentforUstoapplythisruleonequitythanthatof
hereinpetitionerswhosemother,FelipaFaja,asin
possessionofthelitigatedpropertyfornolessthan30
yearsandwassuddenlyconfrontedwithaclaimthat
thelandshehadbeenoccupyingandcultivatingall
theseyears,wastitledinthenameofathirdperson.
Weholdthatinsuchasituationtherighttoquiettitle
totheproperty,toseekitsreconveyanceandannulany
certificateoftitlecoveringit,accruedonlyfromthe
timetheoneinpossessionwasmadeawareofaclaim
adversetohisown,anditisonlythenthatthestatutory
periodofprescriptioncommencestorunagainstsuch
possessor."
WHEREFORE,thejudgmentunderreviewishereby
REVERSEDandSETASIDE,andanotheroneentered
orderingprivaterespondentSalvadorEstrada,as
AdministratoroftheEstateoftheDeceased,Mariano
deVera,tocausethesegregationofthedisputed
portionof3,732squaremetersformingpartofLotNo.
1,Psu24206,CaseNo.44,GLRORec.No.117,presently
occupiedbypetitionerJulianaCaragayLayno,andto
reconveythesametosaidpetitioner.Afterthe
segregationshallhavebeenaccomplished,theRegister
ofDeedsofPangasinanisherebyorderedtoissuea
newcertificateoftitlecoveringsaid3,732sq.m.
portioninfavorofpetitioner,andanothercertificateof
titleinfavoroftheEstateofthedeceased,Marianode
77
[G.R.No.L46573.November13,1986.] theintentionofthecontractingparties,thentheliteral
meaningofthestipulationsshallcontrolbutwhenthe
REV.FR.PABLOB.LOLAandMAXIMAB.LOLA, wordsappearcontrarytotheevidentintentionofthe
petitioner,vs.THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSand
parties,thelattershallprevailovertheformer,
DOLORESSANTILLANZABALA,respondents.
(Labasanvs.Lacuesta,supra).Inordertojudgethe
BenitoR.CuestaIforpetitioners. intentionoftheparties,theircontemporaneousand
subsequentactsshallbeprincipallyconsidered.
SYLLABUS LikewiseinthecaseofPhilippineNationalRailwaysvs.
CIRofAlbay,Br.I,(83SCRA569,576)weruled:"Onthe
1. REMEDIALLAW;EVIDENCE;PAROLEVIDENCE
otherhand,ifthedefendantsetuptheaffirmative
RULEEXCEPTIONTHERETOAPPLIEDINCASEATBAR.
defensethatthecontractmentionedinthecomplaint
Thereasonsrelieduponbytheappellatecourtin
doesnotexpressthetrueagreementoftheparties,
completelyreversingitspreviousdecisionarebasedon
thenparolevidenceisadmissibletoprovethetrue
thestrictapplicationoftheparolevidenceruleandsole
agreementoftheparties(Enriquezvs.Ramos,116Phil.
relianceonwhatiswrittenonthe"EscrituradeVenta
525,531;PhilippineSugarE.D.Co.vs.Philippines,62L.
Absolute".Acloserlookatthecircumstances
Ed.1177,247U.S.385;HeirsofDelaRama,vs.Talisay
surroundingtheexecutionofthedeedofsale,however,
SilayMillingCo.,54Phil.580,588;LandSettlementand
givesabetterunderstandingofwhatactuallytranspired
Dev.Corp.vs.GarciaPlantationCo.,Inc.,117Phil.761,
betweenthepartiesandwhatwastheirrealintention
765)."Weapplytheaboverulingstothecaseatbar.
whentheyenteredintothecontractofsale.Weare
constrainedtoapplytheexceptionto,ratherthanthe 2. ID.;ID.;RESPONDENT'SCLAIMONLOTOFFERED
generalruleonparolevidencefollowingthecaseof FORSALEUNFOUNDED.Thetrialcourtalsocorrectly
PremiereInsurance&SuretyCorporationvs. foundthattherespondent'sallegationthatshe
IntermediateAppellateCourt(141SCRA423,434): confrontedortriedtoconfrontpetitionerFr.Lolain
"Whileitisageneralrulethatparolevidenceisnot 1958and1966isunfoundedandunsubstantiated.To
admissibleforthepurposeofvaryingthetermsofa ourmind,evenassumingthattherespondentreally
contract,whenanissueissquarelypresentedthata foundthattherewasanencroachmentonherlotonly
contractdoesnotexpressthetrueintentionofthe in1958,itishighlyimprobablethatshewouldleteight
parties,courtswill,whenaproperfoundationislaid yearspassbeforeshewouldtrytoconfrontpetitioner
therefore,hearevidenceforthepurposeofascertaining againin1966andtwomoreyearsbeforesheactually
thetrueintentionoftheparties.Oncetheintentis filesanactionforrecoveryofpossession.Hence,the
clear,thenitshallprevailoverwhatonitsfacethe Courtisledtotheinevitableconclusionthatwhatthe
documentappearstobe.(Labasanvs.Lacuesta,86 respondentofferedtosellandwhatthepetitioners
SCRA16,22).Thecourtdoesnotreformthe acceptedareLotNos.1156and1157.
instrument.Itremainsasitwaswritten.However,the
courtreceivesevidencetofindouthowtheparties 3. CIVILLAW;LANDTITLESANDDEEDS;LACHES;
reallyboundthemselves.Thesecondexceptiontothe PRINCIPLEAPPLIEDINFAVOROFPOSSESSIONFOR
parolevidenceruleenablesthecourttoascertainthe FAILUREOFTITLEHOLDERTOASSERTOWNERSHIPFOR
intentoftheparties."InthecaseofSyvs.Courtof THIRTYTWOYEARS.Althoughthedefenseof
Appeals(131SCRA116,124),weruled:"Itisabasicand prescriptionisunavailingtothepetitionersbecause,
fundamentalruleintheinterpretationofcontractsthat admittedly,thetitletoLotNo.5517isstillregisteredin
ifthetermsthereofareclearandleavenodoubtasto thenameoftherespondent,stillthepetitionershave
78
acquiredtitletoitbyvirtueoftheequitableprincipleof withdeliberatebadfaith,alsooccupiedLotNo.5517
lachesduetotherespondent'sfailuretoasserther frontingSto.NioStreetbyconstructingabalconyand
claimandownershipforthirtytwo(32)years.Thereare partoftheirmainresidentialhousethereon,depriving
precedentsforthisruling.Inthecases,ofMiguelvs. therespondentoftheuseandemploymentofrentals;
Catalino(26SCRA234,238,239)andPabaletevs. thatthepetitionerswithfullknowledgethatthey
Echarri,Jr.(37SCRA518,521,522)weupheldthe boughtonlyLotNo.5516fromtherespondent
equitabledefenseoflachesandruledthatthelong maliciouslycausedhertosignanaffidavitoftransferof
inactionanddelayofthetitleholderinassertinghis realpropertytherebyunlawfullyeffectingthetransfer
rightoverthedisputedlotbarshimfromrecoveringthe ofTaxDeclarationNo.16187whichcoveredanother
same. parceloflandinthenameofrespondenttothe
petitionersallegingthereinanoccupationof"About
DECISION fouryearsago"beforesaidtransfer,whenintruthand
GUTIERREZ,JR.,Jp: infactthesaletookplacebarelyoneyearsixmonths
andtwentyninedaysearlierandthatinspiteof
Thispetitionforreviewoncertiorariasksustosetaside demandsmadebyher,thepetitionershaverefusedand
theresolutionoftheCourtofAppealswhichreversed stillrefusetovacateLotNo.5517.
itsoriginaldecisionandruledthatthelandindispute,
LotNo.5517belongstotheprivaterespondentas Intheiranswer,thepetitionersdeniedspecificallymost
evidencedbythelatter'soriginalcertificateoftitleover oftheallegationsofthecomplaintandaverredthat
thesaidproperty. whentherespondentofferedtopetitionerFr.PabloB.
Lolainwritingthesaleoftheresidentiallotlocatedat
Inacomplaintforrecoveryofrealpropertyand Sto.NioStreet,TaclobanCity,shenevermentioned
damagesfiledwiththethenCourtofFirstInstanceof anylotorlots;thatwhenLolaaskedfortheparticular
Leyte,privaterespondentDoloresS.Zabalaallegedthat descriptionofthesubjectofthesale,respondent
sheistheregisteredownerofaparceloflandsituated attachedinherletterasketchofthelandbeingoffered
inSto.NioStreet,TaclobanCity,coveredbyOriginal tohimforsale;thatfromthesketchheunderstoodthe
CertificateofTitle(OCT)No.10782,andmore offertoincludeanylotorlotsembodiedinthesketch
particularlydescribedasfollows: (whichincludedLotNo.5517);thathe,therefore,
acceptedtheofferandsentthemoneytothe
"LotNo.5517oftheCadastralSurveyofTacloban,with
respondentthroughhisnotarypublicwhoratifiedand
improvementssituatedinthemunicipalityofTacloban
acknowledgedthedocumentofsale;thatwhenthe
BoundedontheNEbyLotNo.4885;ontheSEbyLots
documentofsalewasmadeandexecuted,onlythe
Nos.5516and4884;ontheSWbyLotNo.5519;andon
respondentwaspresent;thatifthelatterdidnot
theNWbyCalleSto.Niocontaining164square
knowinglyincludeLotNo.5517whenitshouldhave
meters,moreorless."
beenincluded,sheshouldbecompelledtoexecutethe
thatbyvirtueof"EscrituradeVentaAbsoluta"executed properdeedofconveyanceinfavorofthepetitioners;
onJune29,1936,thepetitioners,Fr.PabloB.Lolaand thatmorethanthirty(30)yearshaveelapsedsincethe
hissisterMaximaB.Lola,boughtfromherLotNo.5516 documentofsalewasexecutedandpetitionerPabloB.
containing474squaremetersandadjoiningLot5517to Lolahasbeeninpossessionthereof,aswellastheland
theEast,whichthepetitionersimmediatelyoccupied describedintherespondent'scomplaint,whichformed
uponconsummationofthesale;thatwellawareofsuch partofthelatter'soffer,peacefully,publicly,adversely,
alienationcoveringonlyLotNo.5516,thepetitioners, andintheconceptofownerandthattherespondent
79
shouldbeestoppedfromassertinganyrightorrights 5517fromdefendantssoshedecidedtofilethepresent
aftershehadsleptonthemforthirty(30)years. action.
Aftertrialonthemerits,theCourtofFirstInstanceof "Ontheotherhand,defendantFr.Lolatestifiedthatin
Leyterenderedadecisiondismissingtherespondents' 1936whilehewastheparishpriestofBalangiga,Samar
complaint.Thedecisionisbasedonthefollowing (nowEasternSamar),herequestedAtty.Joaquin
findingsoffacts:LibLex Hacbang,hislawyerandcousin,tolookforhima
residentiallotinthiscity;thatAtty.Hacbangwiredback
"Onthewitnessstand,plaintiffDoloresSantillanZabala tohimthattherewasanofferofplaintiffforthesaleof
declaredthatsheownedLots5516and5517along
herlotalongSantoNioStreetofthiscity;thathe
SantoNioStreetofthisCity;thatthroughadeedof
receivedtwolettersfromplaintiffofferingthesaleofa
saleexecutedonJune29,1936,Exhibit"A"shesold lotalongSantoNio,thefirstbeingdatedMay20,1936
onlyLotNo.5516whichisintheinteriorandthisdid
andthesecondonedatedJuly8,1936(Exhibits"1","1
notincludeLotNo.5517whichadjoinsSantoNio
A","4"and"4A"Englishtranslations,Exhibits"1B"and
Street;thatLotNo.5517iscoveredbyO.C.TNo.1078 "4B");thatattachedtothefirstletterwasthesketch,
issuedinhernamebytheRegisterofDeedofLeyteon Exhibit"1A",showingthatthelandofferedforsalewas
April9,1934,Exhibit"B";thatLotNo.5516hasanarea alongSantoNioStreetontheNorth;thatupon
of474squaremeterswhileLotNo.5517hasanareaof receivingtheseletters,hesentbytelegraphictransfer
only164squaremeters;thataftertheexecutionofthe toAtty.HacbangtheamountofP600.00forthe
deedofsale,Exhibit"A",defendantFr.Lolatook purchaseoftheland;thatitwasonlyafterplaintiffhad
possessionofLotNo.5516whileshe(plaintiff)stopped filedthepresentcasethathediscoveredthattheparcel
livinginSantoNioStreet,TaclobanCity,and oflandofplaintiffalongSantoNioStreetasdescribed
transferredtoCebuCity;thatLotNo.5517wasleftto inthesketchsenttohimbyher,Exhibit"1A",involves
thecareofherbrother;thatherbrothernotifiedher
twolots,Nos.5516and5517;thatasofferedtohimby
thatahousewasconstructedonLotNo.5517by
plaintiffinherletters,hewasoftheimpressionthat
defendantFr.Lolathatbecauseofthisinformation,she
therewasonlyonelotoftheplaintiffalongSantoNio
cametoTaclobanCityin1958andshediscoveredthat
Street;thataftertheexecutionbyplaintiffofthedeed
defendantFr.LolawasoccupyingLotNo.5517;thatshe ofsalein1936,Exhibit"A",heintroduced
sawsaiddefendantregardingthematterbutthelatter improvementsthereinbystartingtoconstructahouse
merelysaid:`Youwillnotbuildahousenevermind, inMay,1938andthiswascompletedinDecemberof
becauseIwillhavetopayyoufortherental,'thatshe thesameyear;thatthebalconyofthehouseaswellas
didnotagreetosaidproposition,andinstead,said,`I aportionofthemainhouseitselfisconstructedonlot
willhavetostayhereinTacloban;'thatshethereafter 5517;andthatsinceaftertheexecutionofthedeedof
wentbacktoCebuand,becauseshewasverybusywith salein1936untilthefilingofthepresentcomplaint
herbusinessinCebu,shedidnotanymorebotherabout plaintiffhadneverdisturbedhiminhispossessionof
herlotinTaclobanCity;thatin1966,shecameagainto
theparceloflandinquestionalongSantoNioStreetof
Tacloban,butshewasnotabletoseedefendantFr.Lola
thisCity.
astherewasnobodyinhishouseandshedidnotknow
wherehewastransferred;thatshewentbacktoCebu "Itwouldseemfromthepleadingsandtheevidence
andcameagaintoTaclobanin1968toseeherlotand submittedbythepartiesthattheprincipalissue
thatshecouldnolongerinsistongettingbackLotNo. involvedinthiscaseiswhetherornotLotNo.5517was
deemedtohavebeensoldbyplaintifftodefendantFr.
80
LolawhentheformerexecutedonJune29,1936,the onlytheinteriorportionoftheplaintiff'spropertyand
deedofsaleinfavorofthelatter,Exhibit"A". notthatonealongSantoNioStreet.
xxxxxxxxx "Itissignificanttonotethatoncrossexamination,
plaintiff'sbrotherRamonSantillanadmittedthatatthe
"InthisconnectionitwouldappeartotheCourtthat timeofthesale,defendantFr.Loladidnotaskfora
whethersheherselforsomebodyelseinhersteadhad rightofwaytoSantoNioStreet.Thisisanindication
writtentheletters,thefactremainsthatplaintiffsentto thatsaidvendeeunderstoodallthetimethatwhathe
defendantFr.LolatheletterdatedMay20,1936, wasofferedforsaleandwhathehadpurchasedwas
offeringtoselltheparceloflandlocatedat17Sto.Nio
plaintiff'sStreet.Ontheotherhand,theCourtisofthe
Street,thiscity,Exhibits"4"and"4A"(English
opinionthatthepreponderanceofevidenceindicates
translation,Exhibit"4B")andthiswasfollowedupby that,contrarytoherclaimthatshetriedtoapproach
anotherletter,Exhibit"1"(Englishtranslation,Exhibit defendantFr.Lolain1958and1966andcomplained
"1B")whichwasaccompaniedbyasketchindicating
abouttheencroachmentofherlandbysaiddefendant,
thatthelandofferedforsalewasalongSantoNio plaintiffdidnotdoanythingatallregardingthelotin
StreetofthisCity,Exhibit"1A". questionuntilshefiledthepresentactionlastyear.
"ThisistheobservationoftheCourtfroman
"Asamatteroffact,fromJanuary28,1938,oralmost
examinationoftheletterswhicharewantingofany twoyearsaftertheexecutionofthedeedofsaleExhibit
indicationofhavingbeenfalsifiedbydefendantor "A,"plaintiffexecutedatransferor'saffidavitofthe
probablymadebythemforselfservingreasons.And
parceloflandinquestioninfavorofdefendantFr.Lola
nowthereseemstobenoclearexplanationfromeither ascoveredbytaxdeclarationNo.16187,Exhibit"2",
sidewhythedeedofsaleexecutedbytheplaintiffon andfromanexaminationthereof,itisclearthatthe
July29,1936,Exhibit"A",mentionsonlyLot5516. landinvolvedwasdeclaredinplaintiff'snameandisthe
However,consideringthatthesketch,Exhibit"1A",had onelocatedinSantoNioStreetofthiscityasitis
earlierbeensentbytheplaintifftodefendantFr.Lola,it boundedontheWestbysaidstreet.This,inthemindof
wouldseemsafetoconcludethatbothplaintiffand theCourt,wastantamounttoasignificationbyplaintiff
defendantFr.Lolawereuniformlyundertheimpression thatwhatshehadsoldtodefendantFr.Lolawasher
thatwhatwasbeingsoldbyhertothelatterwasherlot
landalongSantoNioStreet.
whichwasdirectlyadjoiningSantoNioStreet.
xxxxxxxxx
"TheCourtconsidersasabelatedafterthought
plaintiff'sprotestationthatwhatshereallyintendedto RespondentZabalaappealedtotheCourtofAppeals.
selltodefendantFr.Lolawasonlytheinteriorportion Theappellatecourtinitiallyaffirmedthedecisionofthe
ofherlandforthisisbeliednotonlybythesketchshe trialcourtwiththefurthermodificationthatthe
senttosaiddefendant,Exhibit"1A",butalsobyher respondentwasorderedtoexecutethenecessarydeed
subsequentinactionregardingLotNo.5517afterthe ofconveyancecoveringLotNo.5517infavorof
executionofthedeedofsale,despitethefactthat petitionerFr.PabloB.Lola.Theappellatecourtruled
defendantFr.Lolahadconstructedahouseextending thatwhileitistruethatthelandindisputeisstill
uptosaidlotalongSantoNioStreetofthisCity. registeredinthenameoftherespondentandtitle
Preciselythecourtfailstoseeanyreasonwhy theretomaynotbeacquiredbythepetitionersagainst
defendantFr.Lolawouldhavebeensatisfiedtoacquire theformerasregisteredowner,theequitabledefense
81
oflaches,inlieuofprescription,shouldbeappliedin Weagreewiththepetitionersandaffirmthefindingsof
theircase. thetrialcourtaswellastheinitialdecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.cdll
Therespondentfiledamotionforreconsideration.
Thereasonsrelieduponbytheappellatecourtin
Theappellatecourtreverseditselfandheldthe completelyreversingitspreviousdecisionarebasedon
respondenttobetheabsoluteownerofLotNo.5517, thestrictapplicationoftheparolevidenceruleandsole
coveredbyOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.10782.It relianceonwhatiswrittenonthe"EscrituradeVenta
orderedthepetitionerstovacatethedisputedpremises Absoluta."Acloserlookatthecircumstances
anddemolishwhateverimprovementsmayhave
surroundingtheexecutionofthedeedofsale,however,
encroachedonit.Thereversalwasbasedonthe
givesabetterunderstandingofwhatactuallytranspired
followingconclusions:(1)Therewasnoencumbrance betweenthepartiesandwhatwastheirrealintention
onthetitleofthedisputedlot;(2)Thedeedofabsolute
whentheyenteredintothecontractofsale.Weare
sale,"EscrituradeVentaAbsoluta"shouldbethesole
constrainedtoapplytheexceptionto,ratherthanthe
repositoryofthetermsandconditionsofthe generalruletoparolevidencefollowingthecaseof
agreementbetweenpetitionersandrespondentwith PremiereInsurance&SuretyCorporationv.
thesketchrelieduponbythepetitionerbeingmerely IntermediateAppellateCourt(141SCRA423,434)
evidenceof"anoffertosell,"(3)Thedeedwas whereweruled:
preparedbyAtty.Hacbang,thelawyerofpetitioners;
(4)Itisimprobableforthepetitionersnottohave "Whileitisageneralrulethatparolevidenceisnot
examinedthedeedofsale;and(5)TheTransferor's admissibleforthepurposeofvaryingthetermsofa
affidavitcontainsinaccuratestatements. contract,whenanissueissquarelypresentedthata
contractdoesnotexpressthetrueintentionofthe
Thepetitionersfiledamotionforreconsiderationbutit parties,courtswill,whenaproperfoundationislaid
wasdenied.Hence,thispetition. therefore,hearevidenceforthepurposeof
Thepetitionersmaintainthattheappellatecourtshould ascertainingthetrueintentionoftheparties.Oncethe
haveconsideredasevidenceofthesale,thefactthat intentisclear,thenitshallprevailoverwhatonitsface
thesaidsalewasperfectedbyawrittenoffer,andthe thedocumentappearstobe.(Labasanv.Lacuesta,86
writtenofferwhichwasacceptedbypetitionerFr.Lola SCRA16,22).Thecourtdoesnotreformthe
nevermentionedanylotorlots;andthefactthatthe instrument.Itremainsasitwaswritten.However,the
respondentsentanotherletterwithasketchmap courtreceivesevidencetofindouthowtheparties
showingthesubjectmatterofthesaletobeonlyone reallyboundthemselves.Thesecondexceptiontothe
singlelotabuttingSto.NioStreet,TaclobanCity. parolevidenceruleenablesthecourttoascertainthe
Furthermore,thepetitionersallegethatthetrue intentoftheparties."
intentiononthepartiestothe"EscrituradeVenta
Inthepresentcase,thepetitionersspecificallyraisethe
Absoluta"canbeseennotonlyfromthe
issuethatthesubjectofthedeedofsalewhichwas
aforementionedexhibitsbutalsofromthe finallydraftedonthebasisofthetitlewhichrespondent
contemporaneousactsoftherespondentafterthesale.
presentedtopetitionersdidnotembodythewholelot
Finally,thepetitionersinvokethedoctrineoflaches whichthepartiespreviouslyagreedupononthebasis
becauseoftheunexplaineddelay,inaction,andneglect
ofthewrittenofferandacceptancebytheparties,but
onthepartoftherespondenttoassertherclaimover onlyaportionthereof.Thepetitioner'scontentionis
thedisputedlotforoverthirty(30)years. substantiatedbythetwolettersoftherespondentto
82
petitionerFr.Lolawhichclearlyshowthatwhatthe leavingthepetitionersincontinuous,open,adverse,
respondentofferedcomprisednotonlyLotNo.5516 andpeacefuloccupationofthedisputedlotforthirty
butLotNo.5517aswell,thelatterbeingtheexterior two(32)years.Inallofthese32years,thepetitioners
portionofthewholelandandwhichlotabutsSto.Nio paidthetaxesontheentireproperty.
Street.
InthecaseofSamsonv.CourtofAppeals(41SCRA194,
Asidefromtherespondent'stwolettersthe 205),weruled;
authenticityofwhichshedidnoteventrytoimpugn,
thecircumstancesafterthesalealsoclearlyindicate "Thetaxreceiptsaccompaniedbyactualand
continuouspossessionofthesubjectparcelsoflandby
thattherespondentsoldthewholeparcelofland,
therespondentsandtheirparentsbeforethemfor
unmindfulatthattimeofthefactthatthelotwas
coveredbytwotitles.Again,inthecaseofSyv.Courtof morethanthirtyyearsqualifythemtoregistertitleto
thesaidsubjectparcelsofland.Weruledinthecaseof
Appeals(31SCRA116,124),weruled:
Republicv.CourtofAppeals,(131SCRA533)that:
"Itisabasicandfundamentalruleintheinterpretation
"'Whileitistruethatbythemselvestaxreceiptsand
ofcontractsthatifthetermsthereofareclearandleave
declarationsofownershipfortaxationpurposesarenot
nodoubtastotheintentionofthecontractingparties,
incontrovertibleevidenceofownershiptheybecome
thentheliteralmeaningofthestipulationsshallcontrol
butwhenthewordsappearcontrarytotheevident strongevidenceofownershipacquiredbyprescription
intentionoftheparties,thelattershallprevailoverthe whenaccompaniedbyproofofactualpossessionofthe
former.(Labasanv.Lacuesta,supra).Inordertojudge property.'"
theintentionoftheparties,theircontemporaneousand Thetrialcourtalsocorrectlyfoundthatthe
subsequentactsshallbeprincipallyconsidered. respondent'sallegationthatsheconfrontedortriedto
confrontpetitionerFr.Lolain1958and1966is
LikewiseinthecaseofPhilippineNationalRailwaysv.
unfoundedandunsubstantiated.Toourmind,even
CIRofAlbay,Br.I,(83SCRA569,576)weruled:prcd
assumingthattherespondentreallyfoundthatthere
"Ontheotherhand,ifthedefendantsetupthe wasanencroachmentonherlotonlyin1958,itishighly
affirmativedefensethatthecontractmentionedinthe improbablethatshewouldleteightyearspassbefore
complaintdoesnotexpressthetrueagreementofthe shewouldtrytoconfrontpetitioneragainin1966and
parties,thenparolevidenceisadmissibletoprovethe twomoreyearsbeforesheactuallyfilesanactionfor
trueagreementoftheparties(Enriquezv.Ramos,116 recoveryofpossession.Hence,theCourtisleadtothe
Phil.525,531;PhilippineSugarE.D.Co.v.Philippines, inevitableconclusionthatwhattherespondentoffered
62L.Ed.1177,247U.S.385;HeirsofDelaRamav. tosellandwhatthepetitionersacceptedareLotNos.
TalisaySilayMillingCo.,54Phil.580,588;Land 1156and1157.
SettlementandDev.Corp.v.GarciaPlantationCo.,Inc.,
117Phil.761,765)." Wealsoagreewiththepetitionersthatlaches
effectivelybarstherespondentfromrecoveringthelot
Weapplytheaboverulingstothecaseatbar.Asstated indispute.
earlier,asidefromtheletterswhichembodythetrue
intentionoftheparties,therecordsalsoshowthatafter Althoughthedefenseofprescriptionisunavailingtothe
theconsummationofthesale,therespondentexecuted petitionersbecause,admittedly,thetitletoLotNo.
atransferor'saffidavitwhichincludedthelotindispute. 5517isstillregisteredinthenameoftherespondent,
Moreimportant,therespondentmovedtoCebuCity, stillthepetitionershaveacquiredtitletoitbyvirtueof
83
theequitableprincipleoflachesduetothe atpartieswho,bytheirsilence,delayandinaction,
respondent'sfailuretoassertherclaimsandownership knowinglyinduceanothertospendtime,effortand
forthirtytwo(32)years.cdll expenseincultivatingtheland,payingtaxesandmaking
improvementsthereonfor30longyears,onlytospring
Thereareprecedentsforthisruling.Inthefollowing fromambushandclaimtitlewhenthepossessor's
cases,weupheldtheequitabledefenseoflachesand effortsandtheriseoflandvaluesofferanopportunity
ruledthatthelonginactionanddelayofthetitleholder tomakeeasyprofitathisexpense."...
inassertinghisrightoverthedisputedlotbarshimfrom
recoveringthesame. Pabaletev.EcharriJr.(37SCRA518,521,522)states:
Miguelv.Catalino(26SCRA234,238,239)states: "Uponacarefulconsiderationofthefactsand
circumstances,weareconstrainedtofind,however,
"Appellantsarelikewisecorrectinclaimingthatthesale thatwhilenolegaldefensetotheactionlies,an
ofthelandin1928byBacaquiotoCatalinoAgyapao, equitableoneliesinfavorofthedefendantandthatis,
defendant'sfather,isnullandvoidabinitio,forlackof theequitabledefenseoflaches.Weholdthatthe
executiveapproval(Mangayao,etal.v.Lasud,etal.,L
defenseofprescriptionoradversepossessionin
19252,29May1964)....
derogationofthetitleoftheregisteredownerDomingo
xxxxxxxxx Mejiadoesnotlie,butthatoftheequitabledefenseof
laches.Otherwisestated,weholdthatwhiledefendant
"Sincethe1928saleistechnicallyinvalid,Bacaquio maynotbeconsideredashavingacquiredtitlebyvirtue
remained,inlaw,theownerofthelanduntilhisdeath ofhisandhispredecessor'slongcontinuedpossession
in1943,whenhistitlepassedon,bythelawon for37years,theoriginalowner'srighttorecoverback
succession,tohisheirs,theplaintiffsappellants. thepossessionofthepropertyandthetitlethereto
fromthedefendanthas,bythelongperiodof37years
"Notwithstandingtheerrorsaforementionedinthe
andbypatentee'sinactionandneglectbeenconverted
appealeddecision,weareoftheopinionthatthe
intoastaledemand."(QuotingMejiadeLucasv.
judgmentinfavorofdefendantappelleeFlorendo
Gamponia,100Phil.277).
Catalinomustbesustained.Fordespitetheinvalidityof
hissaletoCatalinoAgyapao,fatherofdefendant xxxxxxxxx
appellee,thevendorBacaquiosufferedthelatterto
enter,possessandenjoythelandinquestionwithout "Thisdefenseisanequitableoneanddoesnotconcern
protest,from1928to1943,whenthesellerdied;and itselfwiththecharacterofthedefendant'stitle,but
theappellants,inturn,whilesucceedingthedeceased, onlywithwhetherornotbyreasonoftheplaintiff's
alsoremainedinactive,withouttakinganysteptorein longinactionorinexcusableneglectheshouldbe
vindicatethelotfrom1944to1962,whenthepresent barredfromassertingthisclaimatall,becausetoallow
suitwascommencedincourt.Evengrantingappellants' himtodosowouldbeinequitableandunjusttothe
propositionthatnoprescriptionliesagainsttheir defendant...."
father'srecordedtitle,theirpassivityandinactionfor WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyGRANTED.The
morethan34years(19281962)justifiesthedefendant
questionedresolutionoftheCourtofAppealsis
appelleeinsettinguptheequitabledefenseoflachesin
REVERSEDandSETASIDEandaNEWONEisENTERED
hisownbehalf.Asaresult,theactionofplaintiffs orderingtherespondenttoexecutethenecessarydeed
appellantsmustbeconsideredbarredandtheCourt ofconveyancecoveringLotNo.5517infavorofthe
belowcorrectlysoheld.Courtscannotlookwithfavor
84
petitioners.Thetemporaryrestrainingorderissuedin
thiscaseismadePERMANENT.
SOORDERED.
85
86
[G.R.No.L30240.March25,1988.] DOESNOTCHANGENATUREOFPUBLICLANDTO
PRIVATE.ContrarytorespondentZobel'sassertion,
REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINESasLessor,ZOILADE the1965finaljudgmentinfavoroftheRepublic
CHAVEZ,assistedbyherhusbandCol.IsaacChavez,
declaredasnullandvoid,notonlyTCTNo.9550,but
DEOGRACIASMERCADO,ROSENDOIBANEZand
also"othersubdivisiontitles"issuedovertheexpanded
GUILLERMOMERCADO,aspermitteesand/orLesseesof
areasoutsidetheprivatelandofHaciendaCalatagan
publicfishponds,petitioners,vs.HON.JUDGEJAIMEDE coveredbyTCTNo.722.Asshownattheoutset,after
LOSANGELESoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofBatangas,
respondentsorderedsubdivisionoftheHacienda
(BR.III,Balayan)[laterreplacedbyJUDGEJESUS
Calataganwhichenabledthemtoacquiretitlestoand
ARLEGUI]SHERIFFOFBATANGAS,ENRIQUEZOBELand "illegallyabsorb"thesubdividedlotswhichwere
THEREGISTEROFDEEDSATBALAYAN,BATANGAS, outsidethehacienda'sperimeter,theyconvertedthe
respondents. sameintofishpondsandsoldthemtothirdparties.But
SYLLABUS astheCourtstressedinthe1965judgmentandtime
andagaininothercases,"itisanelementaryprinciple
1. REMEDIALLAW;SPECIALCIVILACTION; oflawthatsaidareasnotbeingcapableofregistration,
CERTIORARI,GRANTOFPRELIMINARYMANDATORY theirinclusioninacertificateoftitledoesnotconvert
INJUNCTIONPRIORTOFINALHEARINGCONSTITUTES thesameintopropertiesofprivateownershiporconfer
GRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETION.RespondentJudge titleontheregistrant."
Arlegui,afterhesucceededJudgeAngelesaspresiding
judge,committedthegravestabuseofdiscretion, 3. REMEDIALLAW;EVIDENCE;BURDENOFPROOF;
when,insteadofgrantingthepreliminaryinjunction LIESWITHPARTYCLAIMINGTHATHISSUBDIVISION
soughtbytheRepublicanditscopetitionerstoenjoin TITLESWERENOTAMONGTHEUNLAWFULEXPANDED
respondentZobelfromusurpinglandsofthepublic SUBDIVISIONTITLESDECLAREDNULLANDVOID.
domaincoveredbyhisvoidedexpandedsubdivision Clearly,theburdenofproofliesonrespondentZobel
titles,hedismissedthecomplaintonJanuary12,1977 andothertransfereestoshowthathissubdivisiontitles
andalmostfouryearslateronDecember15,1981, arenotamongtheunlawfulexpandedsubdivisiontitles
withoutanytrial,grantedsaidrespondent'scounter declarednullandvoidbythesaid1965judgment.
prayerinhisAnswertothecomplaintinCivilCaseNo. RespondentZobelnotonlydidnotcontrovertthe
653fortheissuanceofamandatoryinjunctionupona Republic'sassertionthathistitlesareembracedwithin
P10,000.00bondtooustpetitionerRepublicandits thephrase"othersubdivisiontitles"orderedcancelled
permitteesand/orlesseesfromthepropertyandto butfailedtoshowthatthesubdivisiontitlesinhisname
deliverpossessionthereoftorespondentZobel.Itis coverlandswithintheoriginalareacoveredbyAyala's
settleddoctrinethatasapreliminarymandatory TCTNo.722(derivedfromOCTNo.20)andnotpartof
injunctionusuallytendstodomorethantomaintain thebeach,foreshoreandterritorialseabelongingand
thestatusquo,itisgenerallyimpropertoissuesuchan orderedrevertedtopublicdominionintheaforesaid
injunctionpriortothefinalhearingandthatitmay 1965judgment.
issueonlyincasesofextremeurgency,wheretheright 4. ID.;CIVILACTIONS;RESJUDICATA;NOT
isveryclear. APPLICABLEWHERECASESREFERTODIFFERENT
2. LANDTITLESANDDEEDS;TORRENSSYSTEMOF MATTERS.Hissecondgroundofresjudicatais
LANDREGISTRATION;INCLUSIONOFAREASNOT likewisedevoidoflogicandreason.Thefirstcase(the
CAPABLEOFREGISTRATIONINCERTIFICATEOFSALE 1965judgmentinCaseL20950)decreeingthe
87
reversiontopublicdominionofthepubliclandsand withintheoriginalperiodperhisOrdersofMarch3,
watersusurpedbyrespondent'sunlawfullyexpanded 1977andJune14,1977depictanincomprehensible
titlesandorderingthecancellationofallsuchtitlesand disregardofthecardinalprinciplethatproceduralrules
theirtransferscouldnotpossiblybeinvokedasres aresupposedtohelpandnothindertheadministration
judicatainthecaseatbaronrespondentZobel's ofjusticeandcrassindifference,ifnotoutrighthostility
untenablesubmissionthathisunlawfullyexpanded againstthepublicinterest.
titleswerenotspecificallymentionedinthe1965
judgment. 9. CONSTITUTIONALLAW;SUPREMECOURT;
COURTSITTINGENBANCMAYMODIFYORREVERSEA
5. LANDTITLESANDDEEDS;TORRENSSYSTEMOF DOCTRINEORPRINCIPLEOFLAWRENDEREDBYITINA
LANDREGISTRATION;INCONTESTABLEAND DIVISIONORSITTINGENBANC.Atanyrate,such
INDEFEASIBLECHARACTEROFTORRENSTITLEDOES dismissalofthecomplaintanddismissalonDecember
NOTOPERATEWHERELANDCOVEREDTHEREBYIS 17,1979ofthepetitionforcertiorarithereofbythe
PUBLIC.TheCourtinsaid1965judgmenthad Court'sSecondDivision,basedonpurelyproceduraland
stressedtheelementaryrulethatthegenerally technicalgrounds,doesnotandcannotinanywayhave
incontestableandindefeasiblecharacterofaTorrens anylegalsignificanceorprejudicetheRepublic'scase.
CertificateofTitledoesnotoperatewhentheland SuchdismissalbytheSecondDivisioncannotinanyway
coveredtherebyisnotcapableofregistration,asinthis affect,muchlessrendernugatory,thefinaland
case,beingpartofthesea,beach,foreshoreor executory1965judgmentinG.R.No.L20950reverting
navigablewaterorotherpubliclandsincapableof thepubliclandsandwaterstopublicdominion.Much
registration. moresowhenwetakeintoaccountthemandatory
provisionsofArticleVIII,Section4(3)ofthe1987
6. REMEDIALLAW;CIVILACTION;ESTOPPELAND Constitution(anditscounterpartArticleX,Section2(3)
LACHES;WILLNOTAPPLYWHEREGOVERNMENTSUES
ofthe1973Constitution)totheeffectthatonlythe
ASSOVEREIGN.Itshouldbenotedfurtherthatthe
SupremeCourtenbancmaymodifyorreversea
doctrineofestoppelorlachesdoesnotapplywhenthe
doctrineorprincipleoflaworrulinglaiddownbythe
Governmentsuesasasovereignorasserts
Courtinadecisionrenderedenbancorindivision.
governmentalrights,nordoesestoppelorlaches
validateanactthatcontraveneslaworpublicpolicy. 10. REMEDIALLAW;CIVILACTIONS;JUDGMENT
RENDEREDONISSUESFINALLYTERMINATED,NULLAND
7. ID.;ID.;RESJUDICATA;DISREGARDWHEREIT
VOID.Respondentjudge's"decision"onrespondent
WOULDSACRIFICEJUSTICETOTECHNICALITY.That
Zobel'scounterclaimanddeclaringhim,fouryearsafter
resjudicataistobedisregardedifitsapplicationwould dismissaloftheRepublic'scomplaint,asthetrueowner
involvethesacrificeofjusticetotechnicality.
ofthelandsunlawfullytitledinZobel'snameisproperly
8. JUDICIALETHICS;JUDGES;REFUSALTOGRANT beforetheCourtinthecaseatbar.Wedeclarethe
REPUBLICSIMPLE15DAYEXTENSIONTOFILEMOTION samenullandvoidforwantofjurisdictionoverthe
DEPICTSINCOMPREHENSIBLEDISREGARDOF subjectpropertieswhichwererevertedtopublic
PROCEDURALRULES.RespondentJudgeArlegui's dominioninthefinal1965judgmentwhichannulledall
refusaltogranttheRepublicasimple15dayextension expandedtitlesunlawfullysecuredbyrespondentsand
oftimetofileaMotionforReconsiderationonthe theirtransfereestopublicwatersandlands.
groundthatsuchmotionwasfiledonthelastday 11. ID.;COURTS;CANNOTINTERFEREWITHTHE
(followingaSunday)andhecouldnolongeractthereon FUNCTIONSOFADMINISTRATIVEBODIES;CASEATBAR.
88
AsinAirManila,Inc.v.CIRandseveralothercases,in TheCourt'sdecisioninsaidcasefoundthat
ordertoavoidfurtherintolerabledelayandfinallybring
torealitytheexecutionofthe1965judgmentthat "Wehavegoneovertheevidencepresentedinthiscase
andfoundnoreasontodisturbthefactualfindingsof
wouldenabletheStatetorecoveratlasttheestimated
thetrialcourt.Ithasbeenestablishedthatcertainareas
2,000hectaresoflandsandwatersofthepublic
originallyportionsofthenavigablewaterorofthe
domain,theCourtwillorderitsClerkofCourttoissue
directlythecorrespondingwritofexecutionof foreshoresofthebaywereconvertedintofishpondsor
soldbydefendantcompanytothirdpersons.Thereis
judgmentaddressedtothesheriffsofthelocality.We
alsonocontroversyastothefactthatthesaid
declarerespondentjudge'sgratuitous"disapproval"of
theResurveyPlanandReportdulyapprovedbythe defendantwasabletoeffectthesesalesafterithas
DirectorofLandsandthethenSecretaryofAgriculture obtainedacertificateoftitle(TCTNo.722)and
andNaturalResourcesasnullandvoidforbeingultra prepareda'compositeplan'whereintheaforesaid
viresandlackofjurisdictionoverthesame.Itiswell foreshoreareasappearedtobepartsofHacienda
recognizedprinciplethatpurelyadministrativeand Calatagan.Defendantsappellantsdonotdenythat
discretionaryfunctionsmaynotbeinterferedwithby thereisanexcessinareabetweenthosedelimitedas
boundariesofthehaciendainTCTNo.722andtheplan
thecourts.Ingeneral,courtshavenosupervisingpower
preparedbyitssurveyor.This,however,wasjustifiedby
overtheproceedingsandactionsoftheadministrative
departmentsofgovernment.Thisisgenerallytruewith claimingthatitcouldhavebeencausedbythesystem
(magneticsurvey)usedinthepreparationofthe
respecttoactsinvolvingtheexerciseofjudgmentor
originaltitles,and,anyway,theexcessinarea(536
discretion,andfindingsoffact.Thereshouldbeno
thoughtofdisregardingthetraditionallineseparating hectares,accordingtodefendants)iswithinthe
allowablemargingiventoamagneticsurvey.prLL
judicialandadministrativecompetence,theformer
beingentrustedwiththedeterminationoflegal "Butevenassumingforthesakeofargumentthatthis
questionsandthelatterbeinglimitedasaresultofits contentioniscorrect,thefactremainsthattheareasin
expertisetotheascertainmentofthedecisivefacts. dispute(thosecoveredbypermitsissuedbytheBureau
ofFisheries),werefoundtobeportionsofthe
DECISION
foreshore,beach,orofthenavigablewateritself.And,
TEEHANKEE,Jp: itisanelementaryprincipleoflawthatsaidareasnot
beingcapableofregistration,theirinclusionina
Themomentoftruthisfinallyathand.Itisabouttime
certificateoftitledoesnotconvertthesameinto
tocausetheexecutioninfavoroftheRepublicofthe propertiesofprivateownershiporconfertitleonthe
Philippinesofthe1965finalandexecutoryjudgmentof registrant."3
thisCourt(Republicvs.AyalayCia.)1affirmingthatof
theCFIofBatangasinCivilCaseNo.373thereofandto TheSolicitorGeneral'sMemorandum4furtherpoints
recoverfortheRepublicwhat"AyalayCia.,Haciendade out
Calataganand/orAlfonsoZobelhadillegallyexpanded
[in]theoriginalareaoftheirTCTNo.722(derivedfrom "...thatthemodusoperandiinsaidusurpation,i.e.
OCTNo.20)from9,652.583hectarestoabout12,000 grabbinglandsofthepublicdomain,wasexpressly
hectarestherebyusurpingabout2,000hectares madeofrecordinthecaseofDizonv.Rodriguez,13
SCRA704(April30,1965),whereitwasrecountedthat
consistingofportionsoftheterritorialsea,the
foreshore,thebeachandnavigablewatersproperly HaciendadeCalatagan,ownedbyAlfonsoandJacobo
belongingtothepublicdomain."2 Zobel,wasoriginallycoveredbyTCTNo.722,andthat
89
in1948,uponthecessationoftheirsugarmill issueawritofexecutionoftheaforesaid1965final
operations,thehaciendaownersconvertedthepier judgmentandorderinghimtoissuesuchwrit.The
(usedbyvesselsloadingsugar)whichstretchedto CourtdeniedreconsiderationonSeptember19,1967,
'about600metersofftheshoreintothenavigable butonasecondandsupplementalmotionfor
watersofthePagaspasBay'intoafishponddikeby reconsideration,itsetasidetheoriginaldecisionofJune
enclosing30and37hectaresofthebayonbothsidesof 30,1967anddismissedthepetitionformandamusand
thepierintheprocess. deniedexecution,peritsResolutionofOctober4,1971
byasplit632vote.7ThecourtdeniedtheRepublic,et
"Subsequently,in1949,theownersofthehacienda
al.'smotionsforreconsiderationbythesamesplit632
ordereditssubdivisionwhichenabledthemtoacquire voteperitsResolutionofApril11,1972.8An
titlestothesubdividedlotswhichwereoutsidethe undermannedCourtsubsequentlydeniedtheRepublic's
hacienda'sperimeter.Thus,thesesubdividedlots, copetitionerTolentino'ssecondmotionfor
whichwereconvertedintofishpondswereillegally reconsiderationforlackofnecessaryvotesperits
absorbedaspartofthehaciendaandtitledinthename ResolutionofApril27,1973.9
ofJacoboZobelwhichweresubsequentlysoldand
transferredtotheDizons,Gocosandothers.Insaid Parenthetically,thecomplexity,magnitudeand
Dizoncase,'thisHonorableCourtaffirmedthecourta persistenceofrespondents'maneuversaresetforthin
quo'sfindingsthatthesubdivisionplanwasprepared theseriesofdecisionsandextendedresolutionsand
notinaccordancewiththetechnicaldescriptioninTCT. majorityanddissentingopinionsreportedinthe
No.722butindisregardofit.'Andthatthe SupremeCourtReportsAnnotatedasperthecitations
appropriatedfishpondlots'areactuallypartofthe hereinabovegiven.Areadingofsaidreportstogether
territorialwatersandbelongtotheState.'" withtheMemorandumforGrantingofthePetitionat
bar(andgivingthecase'sbackgrounder)whichIhad
Butallthroughtheyears,asstressedintheRepublic's
circulatedintheCourtasagainsttheproposedcontrary
memorandum,"thetechnicalmaneuversemployedby
draftofJusticeEstanislaoA.Fernandez(whichdidnot
AyalaandZobel[ofwhichtheinstantpetitionisanoff
gaintheconcurrenceofthemajorityoftheCourtduring
shoot]...undercuttheRepublic'seffortstoexecute
hisseventeenmonthincumbencyfromOctober20,
theaforesaid1965finaljudgment"5torecoverthe 1973toMarch28,1975)showsthefullextent
estimated2,000hectaresofterritorialsea,foreshore, backgroundandscopeofthesemaneuvers,particularly
beachandnavigablewatersandmarshylandofthe thoseinthepresentcase.Forthesakeofbrevityand
publicdomain. conciseness,IattachthesaidMemorandumasAnnexA
Itmayseemincrediblethatexecutionofsuch1965final hereofandmakethesameanintegralpartofthis
judgmentinfavoroftheRepublicnolesscouldhave decision,insteadofreproducingthesameinthebodyof
beenthwartedfortwentythreeyearsnow.Butthe thisopinion.
Republic'sodysseyandtravailssince1965throughthe Pendingrespondents'maneuversinthisCourtfor
martiallawregimetonowarerecordedintheannalsof thwartingtheissuanceofawritforexecutionofthe
ourjurisprudence.Sufficeittopointoutthatupon aforesaid1965finaljudgmentfortheRepublic's
petitionoftheRepublicanditscopetitioners(as recoveryoflandandwatersofthepublicdomaininthe
permitteesand/orlesseesoftheRepublic),mandamus 1967mandamuscasebroughtbytheRepublic,supra,
wasissuedonJune30,1967byunanimousdecision theyintensifiedtheirmaneuverstodefeatthe
withoneabstentioninRepublicvs.DelosAngeles,6
Republic'sjudgmentforrecoveryofthepubliclandsand
overrulingthethereinrespondentjudge'srefusalto
90
waterswhentheygotthetrialjudge,notwithstanding (CivilCaseNo.653)isbarredbypriorjudgmentinCivil
thisCourt'sfinal1965judgmentforreversionofthe CaseNo.373(G.R.No.L20950,the1965finaljudgment
publiclands,toupholdtheirrefusaltorecognizethe infavoroftheRepublic),andarguingthat"ifTCTNos.T
rightsoftheRepublic'spublicfishpondspermittees 3699andT9262hadbeendeclarednullandvoidin
and/orlesseestothelandsleasedbytheRepublicto CivilCaseNo.373,theproperprocedurewouldbeto
them.Thus,theRepublicaslessorandsaid securetheproperexecutionofthedecisioninthesame
permittees/lesseesascopetitionersfiledthroughthen proceedingsandnotthruthefilingofanewcase."He
SolicitorGeneralAntonioP.BarredotheirAmended furthercontended"thatthereisanotheractionpending
ComplaintofAugust2,1967inCivilCaseNo.653 betweenthesamepartiesforthesamecause,"and
againsthereinrespondentEnriqueZobelasdefendant pointstotheabovementionedmandamuscase,G.R.
andtheRegisterofDeedsofBatangas.Assummarized No.L26112anentexecutionofCivilCaseNo.373asthe
bytheSolicitorGeneralinhisMemorandumofJune1, saidpendingcase.Hisaforesaidmotion,however,was
1984. deniedbythetrialcourtinitsorderofDecember13,
1967,andaccordinglyhewasrequiredtofilehis
RespondentZobelhadoustedZoiladeChavez,a answer.
government'sfishpondpermittee,fromaportionofthe
subjectfishpondlotdescribedasLot33ofPlanSwo Butinhisanswerwithcounterclaim,respondentZobel
30999(alsoknownasLots55and56ofsubdivisionTCT averred,amongothers,thatthesubjectTCTNos.3699
No.3699)bybulldozingthesame,andthreatenedto and9262registeredinhisnamearevalidandsubsisting
ejectfishpondpermitteesZoiladeChavez,Guillermo sinceinthedecisionunderG.R.No.L20950"onlyTCT
Mercado,DeograciasMercadoandRosendoIbaez No.T9550wasspecificallydeclaredasnullandvoid
fromtheirrespectivefishpondlotsdescribedasLots4, andnoother;"andthatwhenCivilCaseNo.373was
5,6and7andLots55and56,ofPlanSwo30999, docketed,respondentEnriqueZobel"wasandstillisat
embracedinthevoidsubdivisiontitlesTCTNo.3699 presentoneofthemembersandmanagingpartnersof
andTCTNo.9262claimedbysaidrespondent.Thus,on AyalayCia.,oneofthedefendantsinthesaidcivilcase,
August2,1967,theRepublicfiledanAmended and,therefore,privythereto."Hethenprayedforawrit
Complaintcaptioned"AccionReivindicatoriawith ofpreliminarymandatoryinjunctionrestoringtohim
PreliminaryInjunction"againstrespondentZobeland possessionofthesubjectland,andfurtherprayedfor
theRegisterofDeedsofBatangas,docketedasCivil judgmentorderingZoiladeChavezandGuillermo
CaseNo.653,forcancellationofZobel'svoid Mercadotovacatethepremisesinquestionandto
subdivisiontitlesTCTNo.3699andTCTNo.9262,and surrenderpossessionthereoftodefendantZobel.This
thereconveyanceofthesametothegovernment;to wasunfortunatelygrantedbyrespondentJudgeDelos
placeaforenamedfishpondpermitteesinpeacefuland AngelespertheimpugnedorderatbarofOctober1,
adequatepossessionthereof;torequirerespondent 1968.(AnnexD,petition).Hence,thefilingofthe
ZobeltopaybackrentalstotheRepublic;andtoenjoin instantpetition.
saidrespondentfromusurpingandexercisingfurther
OnMarch7,1969,theCourtissuedarestrainingorder
actsofdominionandownershipoverthesubjectland
inthecaseatbar,enjoiningrespondentjudgefrom
ofpublicdomain.cdrep
enforcingthewritofpreliminarymandatoryinjunction
RespondentZobel,however,filedaMotiontoDismiss untilfurtherorders.
AmendedComplaint,datedAugust16,1967,
WhileG.R.No.L26112(re:execution)andG.R.No.L
contendinginteraliathatsaidAmendedComplaint
30240(thecaseatbar)werepending,theRepublicfiled
91
itsmotionofJuly8,1970inCivilCaseNo.373,for JudgeTengco(inCivilCaseNo.373)affirmedbythis
authoritytoconductthenecessaryresurveyofthe Court(inG.R.No.L20950)."Italsostatedthat:"(E)ven
landsaffectedsoastoproperlysegregatefromAyala the(trialcourt's)orderofOctober27,1970aboutthe
andZobel'sprivatelandoriginallycoveredbyTCTNo. resurveymerelyheldtheremedytobeprematureuntil
722theareasoutsidethereofcomprisingabout2,000 thedecisioninthiscasehasbecomefinal.Ofcourse,it
hectaresofpublicland,beach,foreshoreandterritorial isunderstoodthatinsucheventuality,theresurvey
sea.AyalaandZobelvigorouslyopposedthesame, requestedbytheProvincialFiscalwouldbeinorderand
contendingagainthattheproperstepforthe assoonasthesameiscompleted,theproperwritof
governmentwastoaskforawritofexecution;thatno executionforthedeliveryofpossessionoftheportions
othersubdivisiontitles,besidesTCTNo.T9550were foundtobepubliclandshouldissue."(G.R.No.L26112,
reallydeclarednullandvoidinthe1965judgment;and 44SCRA255,262[1972])Thus,themajority'sdenialof
thatthelowercourtcouldnotmakearulingonthe themotionsforreconsiderationwasmadeexpressly
motionforresurvey"withoutrequiringthepresentation "withtheclarificationaforemadeoftherightsofthe
ofadditionalevidence,andthat,ineffect,wouldbe Republic."
tantamounttoreopeningacasewherethejudgmentis
[Note:MyattachedMemorandum,AnnexAhereof(at
alreadyfinalandexecutoryandthattheGovernment's
pages2to6thereof),quotesmoreextensivelythesame
failuretoseeka"clarificationofthedecisiontofindout
whatothertitlesshouldhavebeendeclarednulland pronouncementsoftheponente,JusticeVillamor,
void"precludesitfromdoingsonow,"sincethe speakingforthemajority,thattheResolutionsimply
cancelledoutthefinaldamageawardinfavorof
decisionisnowfinalandexecutory."Therespondent
judge,havingearlierdeniedexecutionofthe1965final intervenorTolentino,asgovernmentpermittee/lessee;
itcoversaswellsimilarpronouncementsfromJustice
judgment,issuedhisorderofOctober27,1970denying
theGovernment'smotionforauthoritytoconductsuch Makalintalinhisseparateconcurrencethat"The
prerequisiteresurvey. resolutioninnowayaffectstherightsofthe
Governmentasdeclaredinthedecision,"andJustice
AyalaandZobel'stechnicalmaneuverstoimpede Barredo'sseparateconcurrencethat"Iamsurethatthe
executionofthe1965finaljudgmentagainborefruit,as fivejusticeswhomIamjoiningindenyingPetitioner's
aboveindicated,whentheirsecondmotionfor motionforreconsiderationareasfirmasthethree
reconsiderationinG.R.No.L26112wasgrantedbya distinguisheddissentersintheresolutionnottoallow
splitCourtinaResolutiondatedOctober4,1971(41 thisCourttobeaninstrumentoflandgrabbingasthey
SCRA422).Asaresult,theearlierdecisionofJune30, areagainstthereversalorevenmodificationinany
1967directingtheissuanceofthewritofexecutionwas substantialdegreeofanyfinalandexecutoryjudgment
setasideandtheRepublic'spetitionforcertiorariand whetherofthisCourtoranyothercourtinthiscountry,
mandamusimpugningthelowercourt'squashaland and,thatifthereweresuchpossibilitiesinconsequence
denialofthewritofexecutionwasdismissed. oftheresolutionofOctober4,1971andthepresent
resolutionofdenial,theywouldnotgivetheirassentto
WhiletheCourt'snewmajoritydeniedtheRepublic's saidresolutions.Wearecertainthatindecidingagainst
motionforreconsiderationofaforesaidresolution,per
PetitionerTolentino,Wearenotcondoningnor
itsresolutionofApril11,1972,it,however,madethe permittingthatthelandsinquestionremainwiththe
importantmodificationthatsaiddenial"doesnot
DizonsorwiththeAyalas."
constituteadenialoftherightoftheRepublictothe
cancellationofthetitlesnullifiedbythedecisionof
92
Inmydissentingopinion,Iexpressedgratificationthat Arleguiwasintendedtonegatetheearlierresolutionin
thedissents(submittedbythenChiefJusticeRoberto G.R.No.L26112(44SCRA255,263)thatassoonas
Concepcionandmyself,bothconcurredinbyJustice resurvey"iscompletedtheproperwritofexecutionfor
J.B.L.Reyes)hadcontributedtotheoverriding thedeliveryofpossessionoftheportionsfoundtobe
clarification"thatthemajority'spositionalthoughit publiclandshouldissue;"
deniesreconsiderationandmaintainsreversalofthe
June30,1967decisionatbaristhattheGovernment Earlier,inCivilCaseNo.653,respondentZobelfiledon
maynowfinallyeffectreversionandrecoverpossession July10,1969aMotiontoSuspendFurtherHearing,etc.,
prayingthatthehearingsinsaidCivilCasebe
ofallusurpedareasofthepublicdomain'outside
(Ayala's)privatelandcoveredbyTCTNo722,which indefinitelysuspendeduntilthecaseatbarisresolved
includingthelotsinT9550(Lots360,362,363and182) bythisHonorableCourt.Hecontendedthattheissues
areherebyrevertedtopublicdominion.'(Paragraph[a] raisedinthecaseatbararetheveryissuespendingin
of1965judgment)."10 thecasebelow,CivilCaseNo.653,andthatthedecision
thattheCourtrendershere"wouldgreatlyaffectthe
AftersaidG.R.No.L26112wasfinallydisposedof, respectiveclaimsofsaidpartiesin(said)case."(G.R.No.
hereinpetitionerfiledinCivilCaseNo.373,a"Motion L46396,Record,pp.128130)
toResurvey."ThiswasgrantedinanOrderdated
August21,1973,aswellasintheOrdersofDecember Theaforesaidmotionwasfollowedbyrespondent
27,1973andFebruary26,1974,respectively.About Zobel'sMotionforImmediateResolutionofDefendant
three(3)yearslater,aReportontheResurveydated Movant'sMotiontoSuspend,etc.,datedAugust20,
August5,1977(Annex"A"toRepublic'sComment 1969.Anoppositiontheretowasfiledbyplaintiff
datedMarch30,1981),aswellasthe"FinalReport" thereinandareplywasfiledinturnbyrespondent
thereondatedSeptember2,1977andthe"Resurvey ZobelonJuly30,1969.Actingonthesaidmotions,the
trialcourtissuedanorderonSeptember2,1969giving
Plan"(Annexes"B"and"C",ibid.)wereapprovedbythe
thepartiescertainperiodstofiletheirpleadingsand
DirectorofLandsandtheSecretaryofAgricultureand
cancellingascheduledhearinguntilitshallhave
NaturalResources.TheResurveyfurtherconfirmedthe
resolvedthemotiontosuspend.Cdpr
uncontrovertedfactthatthedisputedareasinthecase
atbarformpartoftheexpandedareaalreadyreverted Sincethattime,however,thetrialcourtchosenot,or
topublicdominion. failed,toactformallyontheaforesaidmotionto
suspendhearings.Thenafterfive(5)years,withthe
UponapprovalofsaidResurveyPlanandReport,
trialcourtnowpresidedbyJudgeArlegui,respondent
petitionersubmittedthesametothetrialcourtinCivil
CaseNo.373.However,notwithstandingitsapprovalby ZobelflipfloppedandfiledaMotiontoDismissthecase
belowdatedJanuary14,1976,claimingallegedfailure
theDirectorofLands,andtheSecretaryofAgriculture
toprosecuteandresjudicata,whichwasvigorously
andNaturalResources,JudgeJesusP.Arlegui[whohad
beenassignedtorespondentJudgeDelosAngeles' opposedbyhereinpetitioner.JudgeArlegui,robotlike,
courtinBatangasuponthelatter'sretirement] nonethelessdismissedtheRepublic'scomplaintfor
arrogatinguntohimselfthefunctionwhichproperly Zobel'sallegedgroundsoffailuretoprosecuteforan
belongstotheDirectorofLands,disapprovedthesaid unreasonablelengthoftimeandresjudicataperhis
ReportandResurveyPlan,therebypreventing orderofJanuary12,1977.
executionofthesubdivision(a)ofthedecisioninCivil A35pagemotionforreconsiderationthereofwasfiled
CaseNo.373.Ineffect,suchdisapprovalbyJudge bypetitionerwithintheextendedperiodsoughtforin
93
anearliermotion.ThethenPresidingJudgeArlegui TemporaryRestrainingOrder"issuedonMarch7,1969,
summarilydeniedthemotionforextensionoftime andanothersupplementalmotion,onthegroundthat
earlierfiled,peritsorderofMarch3,1977. theinstantcasehasbecomemootandacademicbythe
dismissalofthecomplaintinCivilCaseNo.653inthe
The"MotionforReconsiderationofOrder"datedMarch
courtbelow.Thiswasrefutedbythehereinpetitioner
3,1977,and"SupplementtoMotionfor initsCommentdatedMarch30,1981.
ReconsiderationofOrder"datedMarch3,1977,were
similarlydeniedbyJudgeArleguiinhisorderdatedJune OnDecember15,1981,JudgeArleguiprecipitately
14,1977.PetitionerRepublicthuselevatedthematter renderedinCivilCaseNo.653adecisiononthe
tothisCourtbycertiorariandmandamuswhichwas CounterclaimofhereinrespondentZobel,declaringhim
docketedasG.R.No.L4639611andaskedthatitbe thetrue,absoluteandregisteredownerofthelands
consolidatedwiththecaseatbarwhichfromthe coveredbyTransferCertificateofTitleNos.3699,T
beginningwasassignedtotheCourtenbanc.However, 7702and9262(nowNo.10031)anddirectingthe
G.R.No.L46396wassomehowassignedtotheSecond Government'slicenseesandpermitteesoccupyingthe
DivisionoftheCourtwhichperemptorilydismissedthe sametovacatethelandsheldbythem.LLjur
petitionperitsminuteresolutiondatedDecember17,
1977,whichreads: Subsequently,onMarch9,1982,JudgeArleguiissueda
writofexecutioninCivilCaseNo.653,promptingthe
"Actingonthepetitionforcertiorariandmandamusin heirsofGuillermoMercadotofileinthiscaseanUrgent
thiscaseaswellasthecommentthereonoftheprivate MotiondatedMarch22,1982tostaythesame.Acting
respondentandthereplyofpetitionerandrejoinder ontheUrgentMotion,theCourtissuedanother
theretoofsaidrespondent,theCourtresolvedto restrainingorderdatedJune17,1982,emphasizingthe
DISMISSthepetition,consideringthatalthoughthe necessitythereforinthiswise:
motionforextensionoftimetofileamotionfor
reconsiderationofpetitionerdatedFebruary19,1977 "...theissuanceoftherestrainingordernowprayed
maybedeemedasfiledwithinthereglementaryperiod forbymovantsheirsofGuillermoMercadoisnecessary
forappeal,thesamedidnotsuspendsaidperiodwhich toretainthestatusquosincewhateverrightstheyhave
expiredonFebruary21,1977(Gibbsv.CourtofFirst areonlyinrepresentationofthepetitionerRepublic
whoclaimsthesaidlandsbyvirtueoftheirreversionto
InstanceofManila,80Phil.160,wheretheappeal,
albeitlatebyoneday,wasneverthelessallowedonthe thepublicdominionasspecificallyadjudgedbythis
courtinG.RNo.L26112."
groundthatunderthepeculiarcircumstancesofthe
caseshowingutmosteffortonthepartofappellantto RespondentZobelthenmovedforareconsideration
makethesameontime,therewasexcusableneglect, andliftingofaforesaidrestrainingorder.Theheirsof
whichdoesnotobtainhere)becausethepetitionfor intervenorZoiladeChavez,ontheotherhand,moved
extensionoftimeshouldnotinterrupttheperiodfixed forapreliminarymandatoryinjunctiontorestorethem
bylawforthetakingoftheappeal'onthegroundthat inpossessionofaportionofthelandindisputefrom
'theonlypurposeofsaidpetitionistoaskthecourtto wheretheyhadbeenoustedbyvirtueofthewritof
grantanadditionalperiodtothatfixedbylawtothat executionissuedinCivilCaseNo.653.
end.'(Alejandrov.Endencia,64Phil.321)."
InaConsolidatedCommentdatedSeptember30,1982,
SoonafterthedismissalofthepetitioninG.R.No. petitionerRepublicopposedthesaidmotionof
46396,respondentZobelfiledinthiscasea"Motionto respondentZobel,andatthesametimeconcurredwith
DismissPetition"and"ManifestationandMotiontoLift
94
themotionfiledbytheheirsofZoiladeChavezforthe inG.R.No.L20950;thatthedecisioninG.R.No.L
issuanceofawritofpreliminarymandatoryinjunction. 20950annulledonlyTCTNo.9550andnoother;thathe
cannotbeboundbythedecisioninsaidG.R.No.L
OnoraboutNovember8,1983,theheirsofintervenor
20950sincehewasnotapartythereto;thatthe
GuillermoMercadofiledan"UrgentMotionfor
dismissalofCivilCaseNo.653andoftheappeal
ContemptandIssuanceofaTemporaryRestraining
therefrombytheRepublichasquietedhisquestioned
Order,etc.,"asrespondentZobel'srepresentative,in titlesandhasrenderedtheinstantpetitionmootand
spiteoftherestrainingorderenjoiningthemfrom
academic;thatthedecisiononhiscounterclaiminCivil
enforcingthewritofexecution,hadbeguntoacquire
CaseNo.653declaringhimtobethetrueand
possessionofthelandinquestionbycuttingofftreesin registeredownerofthesubjectlandhadlongbecome
theundevelopedfishpondbeingleasedbyMercado finalandexecutory,andthatundertheprincipleofres
fromtheGovernment. judicatathepresentpetitionoughttobedismissed;and
OnNovember10,1983,theCourtissuedthe thatintervenorsMercadoandChavezhavenorightof
correspondingrestrainingorderprayedfor"enjoining possessionoverthelandinquestion.LexLib
respondentEnriqueZobelorhisdulyauthorized TheRepublic'spetitionispatentlymeritorious.
representativefromfurthercuttingoffthetreesinthe
undevelopedfishpondofGuillermoMercadohavingan 1. Ontheoriginalissueatbarbroughtagainst
areaoftwo(2)hectares,moreorless,andfromhauling respondentJudgeAngeles'issuanceofpreliminary
thebigtreesalreadycutoffcostingP10,000.00 mandatoryinjunctionperthequestionedOrderof
(ResolutiondatedNovember13,1983). October1,1968,petitionerRepublicanditsco
petitionerlicenseesaremanifestlyentitledtothe
OnoraboutNovember23,1983,theheirsofGuillermo restrainingordersissuedbytheCourtonMarch7,1969
Mercadofileda"SecondUrgentMotionforContempt enjoiningrespondentjudgefromenforcingthe
andaSecondRestrainingOrder,etc."since,inspiteof preliminarymandatoryinjunctionthathehadissued
theforegoingrestrainingorderissuedbythisCourt, thatwouldousttheRepublicanditslicenseesfromthe
respondentZobelandhisagentwerestillcuttingoffthe publiclandsinquestionandtransferpossessionthereof
treesinthedisputedareas. torespondentZobel;thatissuedonJune17,1982
OnDecember6,1983,afterthehearingenbancofthis enjoiningenforcementofrespondentJudgeArlegui's
caseonthemerits,aresolutionwasrenderedbythis writofexecutionissuedonMarch9,1982declaring
Court"toISSUEasecondtemporaryrestrainingorder withouttrialrespondentZobel(onhiscounterclaimto
enjoiningrespondentEnriqueZobelandhisagents, thedismissedcomplaint)asthetrueandregistered
representativesand/oranyotherpersonorpersons ownerofthelandscoveredbyTCTNos.3699,7702and
actingonhisbehalftodesistfromcuttingoffor 9262(now10031)anddirectingtheRepublic'slicensees
removinganytreeinthequestionedareaswhichwere tovacatethesame;andthatissuedonDecember6,
declaredrevertedtothepublicdomainandwhichare 1983afterthehearingonthemerits,"enjoining
claimedbytheRepublic,effectiveimmediatelyanduntil respondentEnriqueZobelandhisagents,
furtherordersbytheCourt." representativesand/oranyotherpersonorpersons
actingonhisbehalftodesistfromcuttingoffor
Againstthisbackground,respondentZobelnow removinganytreeinthequestionedareaswhichwere
contendsthathisTCTNo.3699andTCTNo.9262(now declaredrevertedtothepublicdomainandwhichare
T10031)arevalidandsubsistingassaidtitles"cannot claimedbytheRepublic."
beconsideredautomaticallyannulled"bythedecision
95
RespondentJudgeArlegui,afterhesucceededJudge (a) DeclaringasnullandvoidTransferCertificateof

Angelesaspresidingjudge,committedthegravest TitleNo.T9550(orExhibit"24")oftheRegisterof
abuseofdiscretion,when,insteadofgrantingthe DeedsoftheProvinceofBatangasandothersubdivision
preliminaryinjunctionsoughtbytheRepublicandits titlesissuedinfavorofAyalayCiaand/orHaciendade
copetitionerstoenjoinrespondentZobelfrom Calataganovertheareasoutsideitsprivateland
usurpinglandsofthepublicdomaincoveredbyhis coveredbyTCTNo.722,which,includingthelotsinT
voidedexpandedsubdivisiontitles,hedismissedthe 9550(lots360,362,363and182)areherebyreverted
complaintonJanuary12,1977andalmostfouryears topublicdominion."
lateronDecember15,1981,withoutanytrial,granted
saidrespondent'scounterprayerinhisAnswertothe Thisfinal1965judgmentrevertingtopublicdominion
complaintinCivilCaseNo.653fortheissuanceofa allpubliclandsunlawfullytitledbyrespondentZobel
mandatoryinjunctionuponaP10,000.00bondtooust andAyalaand/orHaciendaCalataganisnowbeyond
petitionerRepublicanditspermitteesand/orlessees question,revieworreversalbyanycourt,althoughas
fromthepropertyandtodeliverpossessionthereofto sadlyshownhereinabove,respondents'tacticsand
respondentZobel.Itissettleddoctrinethatasa technicalmaneuvershaveallthese23longyears
thwarteditsexecutionandtheRepublic'srecoveryof
preliminarymandatoryinjunctionusuallytendstodo
thelandsandwatersofthepublicdomain.
morethantomaintainthestatusquo,itisgenerally
impropertoissuesuchaninjunctionpriortothefinal RespondentZobelisboundbyhisadmissioninhis
hearingandthatitmayissueonlyincasesofextreme AnswertotheComplaintbelowthatwhenCivilCase
urgency,wheretherightisveryclear.12 No.373wasdocketed,he"wasandstillisatpresent
ContrarytorespondentZobel'sassertion,the1965final oneofthemembersandmanagingpartnersofAyalay
judgmentinfavoroftheRepublicdeclaredasnulland Cia,oneofthedefendantsinthesaidcivilcase,and,
therefore,privythereto."
void,notonlyTCTNo.9550,butalso"othersubdivision
titles"issuedovertheexpandedareasoutsidethe Clearly,theburdenofproofliesonrespondentZobel
privatelandofHaciendaCalatagancoveredbyTCTNo. andothertransfereestoshowthathissubdivisiontitles
722.Asshownattheoutset,13afterrespondents arenotamongtheunlawfulexpandedsubdivisiontitles
orderedsubdivisionoftheHaciendaCalataganwhich declarednullandvoidbythesaid1965judgment.
enabledthemtoacquiretitlestoand"illegallyabsorb" RespondentZobelnotonlydidnotcontrovertthe
thesubdividedlotswhichwereoutsidethehacienda's Republic'sassertionthathistitlesareembracedwithin
perimeter,theyconvertedthesameintofishpondsand thephrase"othersubdivisiontitles"orderedcancelled
soldthemtothirdparties.ButastheCourtstressedin butfailedtoshowthatthesubdivisiontitlesinhisname
the1965judgmentandtimeandagaininothercases, coverlandswithintheoriginalareacoveredbyAyala's
"itisanelementaryprincipleoflawthatsaidareasnot TCTNo.722(derivedfromOCTNo.20)andnotpartof
beingcapableofregistration,theirinclusionina thebeach,foreshoreandterritorialseabelongingand
certificateoftitledoesnotconvertthesameinto orderedrevertedtopublicdominionintheaforesaid
propertiesofprivateownershiporconfertitleonthe 1965judgment.
registrant."14Thisiscrystalclearfromthedispositive
portionorjudgmentwhichreads: 2. Theissuesatbarhavebeenexpandedbythe
parties,asshownbythevoluminousrecordsofthecase
WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedasfollows: (whichhaveexpandedto2,690pagesinthree
volumes),tocoverthequestionedactionsof
96
respondentJudgeArlegui(a)indismissingthe ofaTorrensCertificateofTitledoesnotoperatewhen
Republic'scomplaintinCivilCaseNo.653ofhiscourt thelandcoveredtherebyisnotcapableofregistration,
perhisOrderofJanuary12,1977(subjectoftheCourt's asinthiscase,beingpartofthesea,beach,foreshore
SecondDivision'sResolutionofDecember17,1979 ornavigablewaterorotherpubliclandsincapableof
dismissingtheRepublic'spetitionforreviewinCase registration.17Itshouldbenotedfurtherthatthe
G.R.No.L46396);and(b)hisdecisionofDecember15, doctrineofestoppelorlachesdoesnotapplywhenthe
1981,afteralmostfouryears,onrespondentZobel's Governmentsuesasasovereignorasserts
counterclaiminthesamecase,declaringhimthetrue governmentalrights,nordoesestoppelorlaches
andregisteredownerofthelandscoveredbysome validateanactthatcontraveneslaworpublicpolicy,18
threesubdivisiontitlesinhisname,15aswellas(c)the andthatresjudicataistobedisregardedifits
resurveyofthelandsaffectedsoastoproperly applicationwouldinvolvethesacrificeofjusticeto
segregatefromAyala'sexpandedTCTNo.722the technicality.19
estimated2,000hectaresofterritorialsea,foreshore
andnavigablewaters,etc.,ofthepublicdomainand RespondentJudgeArlegui'srefusaltograntthe
enforcementandexecutionofthe1965finaljudgment Republicasimple15dayextensionoftimetofilea
MotionforReconsiderationonthegroundthatsuch
revertingtheseusurpedpublicareastopublic
motionwasfiledonthelastday(followingaSunday)
dominion.16
andhecouldnolongeractthereonwithintheoriginal
3. Onthefirstquestionoftheprecipitatedismissal periodperhisOrdersofMarch3,1977andJune14,
oftheRepublic'scomplaintinthecasebelow,CivilCase 197720depictanincomprehensibledisregardofthe
No.653,therecordsshowrespondentjudge'sactionto cardinalprinciplethatproceduralrulesaresupposedto
havebeencapricious,arbitraryandwhimsical.Hisfirst helpandnothindertheadministrationofjusticeand
groundofnonprosecutionoftheactionbytheRepublic crassindifference,ifnotoutrighthostilityagainstthe
isbeliedbyhisveryOrderwhichshowsthatthe publicinterest.
proceedingshadbeensuspendedallthewhilesinceits
filingin1967uponinsistentmotionsofrespondent Atanyrate,suchdismissalofthecomplaintand
Zobel,againstpetitioner'svigorousopposition,thatit dismissalonDecember17,1979ofthepetitionfor
wasnecessaryasacuestionpreviatoawaittheCourt's certiorarithereofbytheCourt'sSecondDivision,based
resolutionofthecaseatbar. onpurelyproceduralandtechnicalgrounds,doesnot
andcannotinanywayhaveanylegalsignificanceor
Hissecondgroundofresjudicataislikewisedevoidof prejudicetheRepublic'scase.Suchdismissalbythe
logicandreason.Thefirstcase(the1965judgmentin SecondDivisioncannotinanywayaffect,muchless
CaseL20950)decreeingthereversiontopublic rendernugatory,thefinalandexecutory1965judgment
dominionofthepubliclandsandwatersusurpedby inG.R.No.L20950revertingthepubliclandsand
respondent'sunlawfullyexpandedtitlesendordering waterstopublicdominion.Muchmoresowhenwe
thecancellationofallsuchtitlesandtheirtransfers takeintoaccountthemandatoryprovisionsofArticle
couldnotpossiblybeinvokedasresjudicatainthecase VIII,Section4(3)ofthe1987Constitution(andits
atbaronrespondentZobel'suntenablesubmissionthat counterpartArticleX,Section2(3)ofthe1973
hisunlawfullyexpandedtitleswerenotspecifically Constitution)totheeffectthatonlytheSupremeCourt
mentionedinthe1965judgment.TheCourtinsaid enbancmaymodifyorreverseadoctrineorprincipleof
1965judgmenthadstressedtheelementaryrulethat laworrulinglaiddownbytheCourtinadecision
thegenerallyincontestableandindefeasiblecharacter renderedenbancorindivision.Cdpr
97
3. Respondentjudge's"decision"onrespondent floutingthisHonorableCourt'sdecisioninG.R.No.L
Zobel'scounterclaimanddeclaringhim,fouryearsafter 20950."21
dismissaloftheRepublic'scomplaint,asthetrueowner
WeheedtheRepublic'spleasthat
ofthelandsunlawfullytitledinZobel'snameisproperly
beforetheCourtinthecaseatbar.Wedeclarethe "ItbearsstressingthattheResurveyPlan(Annex'C',
samenullandvoidforwantofjurisdictionoverthe togetherwithAnnexes'A'and'B'ofRepublic's
subjectpropertieswhichwererevertedtopublic CommentdatedMarch30,1981,beingaReportonthe
dominioninthefinal1965judgmentwhichannulledall ResurveydatedAugust5,1977andthe'FinalReport'
expandedtitlesunlawfullysecuredbyrespondentsand datedSeptember2,1977,respectively)delineatingthe
theirtransfereestopublicwatersandlands. expandedareascoveredbysubdivisiontitlesderived
4. Astothethirdandmostimportantquestionof fromTCTNo.722hasbeenpreparedbyaCommittee
createdbytheSecretaryofAgricultureandNatural
finallyexecutingandenforcingthe1965judgmentin
ResourceswhereinAyalaand/orHaciendaCalatagan
favoroftheRepublicandrevertingallusurpedareasto
publicdominion,theSolicitorGeneralhascomplained wasrepresentedbyEngineerTomasSanchez,Jr.and
rightfullyinhisMemorandumthat"massusurpationof approvedbytheDirectorofLands.Welltorecallthat
publicdomainremainsunabated...foralmost(23) underG.R.No.26112(44SCRA255,263),this
yearsnowexecutionofthe1965finaljudgmentinG.R. HonorableCourt,inaResolutiondatedApril11,1972,
No.L20950,orderingthecancellationofthe declaredthatassoonassaidresurvey'iscompletedthe
subdivisiontitlescoveringtheexpandedareasoutside properwritofexecutionforthedeliveryofpossession
theprivatelandsofHaciendaCalatagan,isbeing oftheportionfoundtobepubliclandshouldissue.'
frustratedbyrespondentZobel,theAyalaand/or Thus:[Seepages35ofAnnex'A'hereoffortextof
HaciendaCalatagan.Asaconsequence,themass Resolution.]
usurpationoflandsofpublicdomainconsistingof "Byvirtueoftheaforesaidresolution,therefore,there
portionsoftheterritorialsea,theforeshore,beachand shouldnolongerbeanylegalimpedimentagainstthe
navigablewaterborderingBalayanBay,PagaspasBay executionofthefinaljudgmentinCivilCaseNo.373
andtheChinaSea,stillremainunabated.(T)heefforts (G.R.No.L20950),theissuanceofwhichispurely
ofAyalaandZobeltopreventexecutionofsaidfinal ministerialthedubiousdecisioninCivilCaseNo.653
judgmentareevidentfromtheheretoforementioned notwithstanding.Accordingly,togivelegalsignificance
technicalmaneuverstheyhaveresortedto.Inbrief, totheearlierdecisionandresolutionofthisHonorable
theymovedtoquashandsecuredthequashalofthe CourtinG.R.No.L20950and26112,respectively,and
writofexecution,succeededinopposingtheissuance toforecloseanyfurtherlegalobstacleonthematter,
ofanotherwritofexecution,opposedthemotionto wepraythisHonorableCourttodeclarethe
conductresurvey,opposedtheapprovalandsecureda proceedingsconductedbyrespondentjudgeinCivil
disapprovalofresurveyplan,movedtodismissandgot CaseNo.653nullandvoidabinitio,andtoconsiderthe
adismissalofCivilCaseNo.653,oustedgovernment resurveyplanassufficientbasisfortheimmediate
fishpondpermitteesfromthesubjectlandsand issuanceofthecorrespondingwritofexecutioninCivil
threatenedtoejecttheotherpermitteestherefrom, CaseNo.373.Foritisonlyuponsaidexecutionthatthe
andsecuredfromthelowercourtadeclarationof oftrevivedissuesofownershipandpossessionoverthe
validityoftheirvoidtitles.Also,inthiscase,respondent landinquestion,aswellasoverallotherlotscovered
Zobelistryingtopreventthecancellationofhisvoid bythesubdivisiontitlesoutsidetheprivateland
titlesbyresortingtofrivoloustechnicalitiesthus coveredbyTCTNo.722,maybefinallylaidtorest.
98
Indeed,underthefactsandcircumstancesobtainingin AsinAirManila,Inc.v.CIR24andseveralothercases,
thecaseatbar,executionofthefinaljudgmentinCivil inordertoavoidfurtherintolerabledelayandfinally
CaseNo.373islongoverdue."22 bringtorealitytheexecutionofthe1965judgmentthat
wouldenabletheStatetorecoveratlasttheestimated
Toallowrepetitionafterrepetitionofthemaneuvers 2,000hectaresoflandsandwatersofthepublic
hereinabovesetforthindetail,notwithstandingthe domain,theCourtwillorderitsClerkofCourttoissue
final1965judgmentinfavoroftheRepublic,andto directlythecorrespondingwritofexecutionof
protractfurtherthereturntotheRepublicofthe
judgmentaddressedtothesheriffsofthelocality.We
usurpedlandspertainingtothepublicdomainwouldbe
declarerespondentjudge'sgratuitous"disapproval"of
tosanctionalegalabomination.Asstatedbythelate theResurveyPlanandReportdulyapprovedbythe
ChiefJusticeRobertoConcepcion,tofrustratedelivery DirectorofLandsandthethenSecretaryofAgriculture
andreturnoftheusurpedlandstotheRepublicwould: andNaturalResourcesasnullandvoidforbeingultra
prLL viresandlackofjurisdictionoverthesame.Itiswell
"(1) Establishaprecedentfraughtwith recognizedprinciplethatpurelyadministrativeand
possibilitiestendingtoimpairthestabilityofjudicial discretionaryfunctionsmaynotbeinterferedwithby
decisionsandaffordingameanstoprolongcourt thecourts.Ingeneral,courtshavenosupervisingpower
proceedingsorjustifytheinstitutionofnewones, overtheproceedingsandactionsoftheadministrative
despitethefinalityofthejudgmentordecreerendered departmentsofgovernment.Thisisgenerallytruewith
inthemaincase,bysanctioningadeparturefromthe respecttoactsinvolvingtheexerciseofjudgmentor
clear,plainandnaturalmeaningofsaidjudgmentor discretion,andfindingsoffact.25Thereshouldbeno
decree; thoughtofdisregardingthetraditionallineseparating
judicialandadministrativecompetence,theformer
"(2) Contributetothefurtherincreaseofthe beingentrustedwiththedeterminationoflegal
steadilymountingnumberofcasespendingbeforeour questionsandthelatterbeinglimitedasaresultofits
courtsofjustice,andthusgenerategreaterdelayinthe expertisetotheascertainmentofthedecisivefacts.26
determinationofsaidcases,aswellasoffsettheeffect
oflegislativeandadministrativemeasurestaken WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrendered
someuponthesuggestionorinitiativeoftheSupreme
1. Annullingthequestionedmandatoryinjunction
Courttopromotetheearlydisposalofsuchcases; ofOctober1,1968issuedbyrespondentjudgeand
"(3) Impairanormalandlegitimatemeansto makingpermanenttherestrainingordersissuedbythe
implementtheconstitutionalmandateforthe Court;
protectionandconservationofournaturalresources 2. Declaringasnullandvoidthequestioned
andthepatrimonyofthenation;and decisionofDecember15,1981,aswellasthe
"(4) Promoteusurpationsofthepublicdomain,as correspondingwritofexecutionthereforehavingbeen
wellasthesimulationofsalesthereofbytheoriginal issuedbyrespondentjudgewithgraveabuseof
usurper,byexemptinghimfromresponsibilityfor discretionandwithoutjurisdiction,andforbeingin
damageswhichwouldnothavebeensustainedwere contraventionofthefinal1965decisioninCivilCaseNo.
itnotfortheirregularitiescommittedbyhimsolong 373asaffirmedinG.R.No.L20950;
ashehasconveyedthesubjectmatterthereoftoa 3. DeclaringtheResurveyPlandulyapprovedby
purchaserforvalue,ingoodfaith."23
theDirectorofLandsassufficientbasisforthe
99
executionofthefinaljudgmentintheaforesaidCivil Besidesdamagesandbackrentals,thecomplaint
CaseNo.373asaffirmedinG.R.No.L20950;and furtherprayedfortheissuanceofapreliminary
injunctionrestrainingZobelandhisagents"from
4. DirectingtheClerkofthisCourttoforthwith
usurpingandexercisingfurtheractsofdominionand
issuethecorrespondingwritofexecutioninthecaseat
ownershipoverthelandsubjectmatterofthis
barforCivilCaseNo.373oftheRegionalTrialCourt
litigation."
(formerlyCourtofFirstInstance)ofBatangas(Balayan
Branch)revertingtopublicdominionanddeliveringto TheRepublic'spositionissimple:Byvirtueofthis
thedulyauthorizedrepresentativesoftheRepublicall Court'sjudgmentinRepublicvs.Ayala(14SCRA259,
publiclandsandlots,fishponds,territorialbaywaters, May31,1965)affirming(withmodificationaffectingthe
rivers,manglares,foreshoresandbeaches,etc.as DizonsonlyastransfereesofAyala)thetrialcourt's
delineatedintheaforesaiddulyapprovedResurveyPlan judgmentinCivilCase373,allexpandedsubdivision
(Annex"C")andanysupplementalResurveyPlanas titlesofAyala(derivedfromitsTCTNo.722)coveringan
maybefoundnecessary*anddulyapprovedbythe estimatedexcessoffrom1,091hectaresto2,500
SecretaryofAgriculture. hectaresofthepublicdomain,includingover400
hectaresofthebeach,foreshoreandterritorialsea
ThisdecisionisIMMEDIATELYEXECUTORYandno whicharemanifestlynotcapableofprivate
motionforextensionoftimetofileamotionfor appropriationorregistration,weredeclarednulland
reconsiderationwillbegranted. void,asfollows:prLL
Yap,Fernan,Narvasa,MelencioHerrera,Gutierrez,Jr.,
"WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedasfollows:
Cruz,Paras,Feliciano,Gancayco,Bidin,Sarmientoand
Cortes,JJ.,concur. "(a) DeclaringasnullandvoidTransferCertificateof
TitleNo.T9550(orExhibit24)oftheRegisterofDeeds
PadillaandGrioAquino,JJ.,tooknopart.
oftheProvinceofBatangasandothersubdivisiontitles
ANNEX"A" issuedinfavorofAyalayCia.and/orHacienda
Calataganovertheareasoutsideitsprivateland
MEMORANDUMFORGRANTINGOFPETITION coveredbyTCTNo.722which,includingthelotsinT
9550(Lots360,362,363and182)areherebyreverted
Backgrounder
topublicdominion.
ThecasedirectlystemsfromCivilCaseNo.653ofthe
"xxxxxxxxx"
BatangascourtoffirstinstancefiledonAugust2,1967
bythenSolicitorGeneralnowJusticeAntonioP. (CFIjudgmentasaffirmedbySupremeCourt)
BarredoonbehalfoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesand
itscopetitionersascoplaintiffs(aspermitteesand/or TheRepublic'spositionissupportedbyalltheseriesof
lesseesofpublicfishponds)forthecancellationofTCT decisionsandextendedresolutionsrendered
Nos.3699and9262issuedinthenameofrespondent subsequently(toitsMay31,1965judgmentinthebasic
(defendant)EnriqueZobel(coveringthefishponds caseofRepublicvs.Ayala)bythisCourt:Decisionin
grantedinleasebytheRepublic)andforthe Republicvs.Angeles(20SCRA608,June30,1967)
reconveyanceofthepropertiescoveredinpartthereby issuingawritofmandamusorderingthecourtaquoto
andofotherpropertiesofthepublicdomaintothe enforcethejudgment;ResolutionofOctober4,1971
Republic,toenableittomaintainitscoplaintiffsin reversingonrespondents'secondandsupplemental
peacefulpossessionoftheirrespectivefishponds. motionforreconsiderationthedecisionofJune30,
100
1967anddismissingthepetitionformandamus(41 governmentpracticallywithanemptyvictory,sinceit
SCRA422);ResolutionofApril11,1972,denying looksasifrespondentjudgeisdeterminednottogive
petitioners'firstmotionforreconsideration(44SCRA fulleffecttotheannulmentofthetitlesreferredtoin
255)andResolutionofApril27,1973denying theaforementionedparagraph(a)ofJudgeTengco's
petitioners'secondmotionforreconsideration"forlack judgment.Infact,thesameapprehensivesuggestion
ofnecessaryvotes"1(unreportedinSCRA).1 maybegleanedfromthe'ReplytoOpposition'dated
January31,1972ofpetitionerTolentinowhereinthe
Althoughthewritofmandamusforexecutionof attentionofthisCourtisinvitedtoasubsequentorder
judgment(withapreliminaryresurveytodetermine
ofrespondentJudgeofOctober27,1970denyingthe
specificallybymetesandboundsthehugeexcessarea motionfiledbytheProvincialFiscalofBatangaspraying
encroachedandusurpedbyAyala'sexpanded forauthoritytoconductaresurveyofthelandsherein
subdivisiontitles)wasdeniedbythisCourtwhenthe inquestionpreparatorytoimplementingthesame
majorityofsixreversedtheoriginalunanimousdecision paragraphofJudgeTengco'sjudgmentalreadyreferred
ofJune30,1967,stilleventhemajoritymadeitclear to.
thatitsdisposition"doesnotaffectatalltheinterestsof
theRepublicbutonlythoseofintervenorTolentino..." "Wedonotbelievethereisrealgroundforsuchfear,
nomatterhowapparentitdoesappearthatprivate
Thus,theponente,JusticeVillamor,stressedthisforthe respondentsareverycautiousinseeingtoitthatthe
majorityintheResolutionofApril11,1972(inresponse implementationofJudgeTengco'sjudgmentdoesnot
tothepointraisedinthedissentingopinionthatthere gobeyondwhattheyfeelitwarrantsorcontemplates.
was"nojustificationfordenyingwritofexecutionfor Examinedobjectivelyandoverlookingtheirinfelicitous
cancellationofvoidtitles[ofAyala]andreversionof phraseology,Wecannotdiscernfromtheordersin
publiclandscoveredtherebytopublicdominion.The questionanyrepudiationbyJudgedelosAngelesofthe
writofmandamusshouldissueatleastforthispurpose
declarationofnullitynotonlyofTCTNo.9550,covering
asorderedintheoriginaldecisionofJune30,1967now
lots360,362,363and182,butalsoof'other
setaside,"asfollows:
subdivisiontitlesissuedinfavorofAyalayCia.and/or
"Atthisjuncture,itseemsnecessarytoclarifyapoint, HaciendaCalataganovertheareasoutsideitsprivate
whichsurprisinglyisnotraisedinthemotionfor landcoveredbyTCTNo.722...whicharehereby
reconsiderationoftheSolicitorGeneral,limitedasitis revertedtopublicdominion'perJudgeTengco's
toinvokingorreiteratingtheargumentsadvancedin decision.Surely,noonecandeducesucharepudiation
thedissentingopinionsoftheChiefJusticeandJustice fromthepositiveholdingintheorderofFebruary8,
Teehankeejustifyingtheaward,nottothegovernment 1966that'thereisnoneedofissuingawritofexecution
buttopetitionerTolentino,namely,theeffectofthe becausethedeclarationofnullityinitselfisalready
resolutionofOctober4,1971,upontherefusalofthe executory.'Onemightperhapsquestionthelegal
courtaquotoissue,peritsorderofFebruary8,1966, correctnessofsuchproposition,butitiscleartoUsthat
thewritofexecutionprayedforbytheRepublicforthe thereishereareaffirmationratherthanadenialofthe
implementationofparagraph(a)ofthedispositivepart rightsoftheGovernmentinthepremises,albeitHis
ofJudgeTengco'sdecisionofJune2,1962inCivilCase Honorcouldbemistakeninhisviewthatitwouldbe
No.373,thesaidresolutionhavingdeniedthepetition onlyafterprivaterespondentsandDizonhaverefused
forcertiorariandmandamusunqualifiedly.Itis orfailedtosurrendertheirtitlesforcancellationthat
suggestedinthemotionsforreconsiderationof 'resort'tothecourtwouldbeproper.Andwithrespect
petitionerTolentinothatsuchdenialleavesthe totheholdinginsaidorderthat'itisclearthatthe
101
Dizonsbeingpurchasersingoodfaithhavetherightto respondentJudgeexpresslymadethereservationfor
retainpossessionofallthelotscoveredbyTCTNo.9550 theRepublicto'resort'tothecourtshouldprivate
...,'itisobviousthatsuchwasthejudgmentofthis respondentsrefuseorfailtohavetheirtitlescancelled.
CourtinG.R.No.L20950,anditwouldhavebeena Incidentally,eventheorderofOctober27,1970about
manifesterrorofHisHonorhadheruledotherwise.Itis theresurveymerelyheldtheremedytobepremature
thusclearthatevenaftertheissuanceoftheorderof untilthedecisioninthiscasehasbecomefinal.Of
February8,1966,nothingadversetothegovernmentor course,itisunderstoodthatinsucheventuality,the
theRepublicwasbeingdonebyanyonethatwasnot resurveyrequestedbytheProvincialFiscalwouldbein
expresslyauthorizedbythefinalandexecutorydecision orderandassoonasthesameiscompletedtheproper
ofthisCourt. writofexecutionforthedeliveryofpossessionofthe
portionsfoundtobepubliclandshouldissue.
"ComingnowtotheorderofOctober27,1970,which,
incidentally,wasneverbroughttotheattentionofthis "WHEREFORE,andwiththeclarificationaforemadeof
CourtbeforeOctober4,1971,Wecannotseehowthe therightsoftheRepublic,themotionandsupplemental
samecanbecauseforapprehensiononthepartofthe motionforreconsiderationofpetitionerTolentinoare
RepublicbecauseasWereadthesame,itdoesnot deniedforlackofmerit.Themotionforreconsideration
actuallydenytherightofthegovernmenttoaresurvey; oftheSolicitorGeneral,whichisnomorethana
rather,itsimplyheldbasicallythat'itisonlywise, duplicationofPetitionerTolentino'smotionsinsupport
prudentandpropernottogiveduecoursetothe ofhisprivateclaimfordamages,islikewisedenied."2
instantmotion(toresurvey)which...istantamountto
givingduecoursetoamotionforexecutionevenbefore ThenJusticeMakalintalinhisseparateconcurrence
theSupremeCourthadruledonthematter'ofwhether stressedthat"Theresolutioninnowayaffectsthe
ornottograntthemandamusorderingthecourt'to rightsoftheGovernmentasdeclaredinthedecision."3
executethefinaldecisioninCivilCase373.'Andhaving JusticeBarredoinhisseparateconcurrenceevenmore
declareditselfwithoutauthoritytoactinthe vigorouslystressedalsothat
meanwhile,itstandstoreasonthatanythingelseit
mighthavesaidintheorderwhichcouldbeinterpreted "...Ifinanymannerthedispositiveportionofthe
asadverselyaffectingthegovernment'spositioninany resolutionofOctober4,1971denyingthemandamus
respectwouldbeofnoconsequence,thesamebeing didgiverisetoapprehensions,thepresentresolution
pureobiterdictum. shouldservetomakeitdefinitelyclearthatsuchdenial
cannotaffecttheGovernmentadversely.Iamsurethat
"Uponthesepremises,Weholdthateveniftheprayer thefivejusticeswhomIamjoiningindenying
forcertiorariandmandamusinthebasicpetitionherein Petitioner'smotionforreconsiderationareasfirmas
isdenied,stillitisclearthatwhatthisCourtisdisposing thethreedistinguisheddissentersintheresolutionnot
ofinthepresentcasedoesnotaffectatalltheinterests toallowthisCourttobeaninstrumentoflandgrabbing
oftheRepublicbutonlythoseofIntervenorTolentinoin astheyareagainstthereversalorevenmodificationin
relationtothelowercourt'sordersofJanuary18,1966, anysubstantialdegreeofanyfinalandexecutory
February2,1966andApril13,1966.Asalready judgmentwhetherofthisCourtoranyothercourtin
explained,theorderofFebruary8,1966doesnot thiscountry,and,thatifthereweresuchpossibilitiesin
constituteadenialoftherightoftheRepublictothe consequenceoftheresolutionofOctober4,1971and
cancellationofthetitlesnullifiedbythedecisionof thepresentresolutionofdenial,theywouldnotgive
JudgeTengcoaffirmedbythisCourt.Indeed,the theirassenttosaidresolutions.Wearecertainthatin
102
decidingagainstPetitionerTolentino,Wearenot constitutingportionsofpropertiescoveredbyTransfer
condoningnorpermittingthatthelandsinquestion CertificatesofTitleinthenameofthelatter[Zobel]but
remainwiththeDizonsorwiththeAyalas.WhatWesee allegedlycoveredbyfishpondpermitsand/or
veryclearlyisthattherespondentJudgehasnotdenied applicationsthereforinfavoroftheformer"(atpages2
anyrightoftheGovernment,andifhehasrefusedto 3)isincompleteasitgoesandomitsthreeessential
takedefiniteactionsofar,itisonlybecausehe factors:prLL
disagreeswiththeprocedureofexecutionpursuedby
1. ThemainprotagonistsarereallytheRepublicof
therepresentativesoftheGovernmentorisotherwise
thePhilippinesononeside(withChavezandMercado
awaitingthefinaljudgmentofthisCourtindeferenceto
itssuperiority."4 asitspermitteesand/orlessees)andZobelonthe
other;
Respondentcourt,however,insteadofgrantingthe
preliminaryinjunctionsoughtbytheRepublic,etal.to 2. Thelandsinquestionareallegedtobelandsof
thepublicdomaincoveredbyvoidexpanded
enjoinAyalafromusurpingthelandsofthepublic
domaincoveredbyAyala'svoidedexpandedsubdivision subdivisiontitleswrongfullysecuredbyAyala(Zobel's
titles,grantedZobel's(asAyala'stransfereeofsaidvoid predecessor)andwhichweredeclarednullandvoid
title)counterprayerinhisanswertothecomplaintfor andthelandsorderedrevertedtothepublicdomainby
theissuanceofamandatoryinjunctionuponaP10,000 thisCourt'sMay31,1965decisioninRepublicvs.Ayala,
bondperitsordersofOctober1and21,1968andof supra;and
February21,1969(denyingreconsideration)tooust 3. Thequestionatissueinthecasebelowisnot
petitionerRepublicanditspermitteesand/orlessees onemerelyofpossessionbutofownershipasfound
(particularlyChavezandMercado)fromthefishpondsin andheldbyrespondentcourtitselfinitsorderof
questionandtorestoreZobeltothepossessionthereof, December13,1967(AnnexB,petition)denyingZobel's
notwithstandingthatthecaseofaccionreivindicatoria motiontodismiss,inthiswise:"theissueintheinstant
filedbelowisstillpendingtrialonthemerits. caseisownership,thatis,whetherdefendantEnrique
Hence,thepresentpetitionforcertiorariasfiledon Zobel'sTransferCertificateofTitleNos.3699and9262
March3,1969filedbythenSolicitorGeneralnow canbeconsideredvalidasitisallegedbyplaintiffsthat
theyactuallycoverportionsoftheterritorialwatersof
JusticeFelixV.MakasiaronbehalfoftheRepublicand
itscopetitionersforthesettingasideofsuch thePhilippines."5
mandatoryinjunction.Asprayedfor,theCourtissued ReasonsforGrantingofPetition
onMarch7,1969arestrainingorderenjoiningthe
enforcementofrespondentcourt'smandatory Basicandfundamentalreasonsaboundformaintaining
injunction. thestatusquoandmaintainingthepossessionbythe
Republicofthelandsinlitigation(whichithasplaced
TheIssue withthelesseesorpermittees)ratherthanrespondent
TheissueasposedbyJusticeFernandez'draftis court'sarbitrarilytransferringpossessiontoZobelby
"whetheritistheprivatepetitioners(particularly mandatoryinjunctionwhileawaitingtrialonthemerits
ChavezandMercado)ortheprivaterespondentEnrique ofthecasebelow,amongthemthefollowing:
Zobel,whoatthisstageofCivilCaseNo.653ofthe 1. AswasstressedbytheSolicitorGeneralinhis
courtaquowhichisstillpendingtrialonthemeritshas commentofNovember23,1972onZobel'smotionfor
abetterrighttothepossessionofcertainareas modificationand/ordissolutionoftemporary
103
restrainingorderfiledonNovember2,1972(Rollo,p. October4,1971andApril11,1972inRepublicvs.
180),thepropertyhereininvolvedis"partofthepublic Angeles,supra;
domain;"thisCourthadinitsMay31,1965decision
b) Respondentcourt'sveryorderofOctober1,
affirmedtheBatangascourtoffirstinstancedecision
1968(AnnexD,petition)fortheissuanceofa
datedJune2,1962inCivilCaseNo.373"whichorders
mandatoryinjunctionjustifiedthesameonthepremise
thecancellationasnullandvoidofallexpanded
subdivisiontitlessecuredbyAyalayCia.overthe thatthejudgmentdeclaringAyala'sexpandedtitlesnull
originalareaofHaciendaCalataganasstatedinTCTNo. andvoid"cannotasyetbeexecutedbecausethe
matterofexecutionisstillthesubjectofamotionfor
722andthereversiontopublicdominionofthepublic
landsusurpedthereby...;""(I)tcannotbeover reconsiderationwhichisstillpendingintheSupreme
emphasizedthatportionsofthepublicdomainarenot Court."Thispremiseisnolongertrueforboththe
subjecttoprivateappropriationand,therefore,not majorityanddissentingopinionsinresolvingthemotion
registerableundertheTorrensSystem"(casescited); forreconsiderationleftnodoubtthatallsuchexpanded
andthat"itwouldcertainlybecondoninganillegalact titlesofAyalawereandarenullandvoidandcannotbe
iftheprivaterespondentmovantisallowedto honored;
perpetuatewhathehascommittedanaffrontandan c) Thus,SolicitorGeneralstressedthat"Thereis,
offenseagainsttheState.Whatisaskedforinthe tous,noquestionasitisobviousfromtherecord
instantmotionisaprayerwhich,ifgranted,wouldbeto thatthelotsorfishpondshereininvolvedwere
theprejudiceoftheGovernment."6 adjudgedasincludedinthose'othersubdivisiontitles'
TheCourtperitsresolutionofJanuary23,1973after outsideofTransferCertificateofTitleNo.722,andthat,
consideringthepleadingsofthepartiesconsequently asdescribed,thetransfercertificatesoftitle,inthe
"Resolvedtodenythemotionforlackofmerit."7 nameoftheprivaterespondentconcerningsaidlots
encroachuponandcoverrespublicae;"8
2. WhenZobelrenewedonDecember18,1973
undertheguiseofa"supplementalmemorandum"his d) TheplansubmittedbyZobel"merelyillustrates
motiontodissolvethesamerestrainingorder,the whathadbeenpreviouslysurveyedunderTCTNo.722.
SolicitorGeneralafterinvokingthisCourt'sprevious ..andthedifferentsurveysunderfishpondpermit
applications"andcannotovercomethisCourt'sfindings
resolutionofJanuary23,1973whichdenied"forlackof
merit"thesamereliefnowsoughtagain,underscored inRepublicvs.Ayalaaffirmingthoseofthecourtoffirst
instancedecisioninCivilCase373thatevenassuming
thefollowinginhisOppositionofJanuary4,1974:
tobetrueAyala'scontentionthatthefishpondpermit
a) Theallegedcopyofaplanandaerial applicationswereforareascoveredbyitsT.C.T.722,
photographsubmittedbyZobelasshowingthatthelots neverthelesstheareasindispute(coveredbypermits
possessedbycopetitionersChavezandMercadounder issuedtoChavez,Mercado,etal.whowerealsoparties
permitfromtheRepublic"areverywellwithinthe insaidCase373)"werefoundtobeportionsofthe
boundariesoftheparceloflandembracedinand foreshore,beachorofthenavigablewateritself.Andit
coveredby(Ayala's)TransferCertificateofTitleNo. isanelementaryprincipleoflawthatsaidareasnot
722"cannotservetooverturnthefinalandexecutory beingcapableofregistration,theirinclusionina
judgmentofthecourtoffirstinstanceinCivilCaseNo. certificateoftitledoesnotconvertthesameinto
373asaffirmedbythisCourt'sMay31,1965judgment propertiesofprivateownershiporconfertitleonthe
inRepublicvs.Ayalaanditssubsequentresolutionsof registrant."
104
3. Atanyrate,itappearsthatsuchmapandplan factithasbeenallegedthatplaintiffslesseeshave
raisequestionsoffactastotheactuallocationofthe introducedsubstantialimprovementsandincurred
fishpondsandpropertieswhichaccordingtothe expensesontheirleasedproperties."10
Republicarepartofthepublicdomainandwere
5. Theprevioussuccessfulactionforejectmentof
revertedtothepublicdominionundertheMay31,
ZobelagainstChavez,etal.onMay25,1960under
1965decisioninRepublicvs.AyalawhereinAyala's(and
Zobel'sassuccessortransferee)expandedsubdivision colorofhistorrenssubdivisiontitle(whichhadnotyet
titlesweredeclarednullandvoidwhileZobelas beenvoidedthenbythisCourt'sMay31,1965
judgmentinRepublicvs.Ayala)andwhichperhisown
defendantclaimsthecontraryinhisanswer.Asfaras
therecordshows,saidmapandplanhavenotyetbeen avermentswasexecutedwiththeousterofChavez,et
presentedtorespondentcourtwhichhasyettohold al.in1961patentlyhasnorelevancehere.Thesituation
trialonthemeritsofpetitioners'complaintbelow,but hascompletelychangedsincethisCourt'sMay31,1965
weresubmittedtothisCourtonlyonDecember18, judgmentvoidingofalltheexpandedsubdivisiontitles
1973withZobel'ssupplementalmemoandsecond ofAyalaandtheZobels(AlfonsoandJacob,fatherof
motiontodissolverestrainingorderlong(over4 respondentEnriquehere),wherebytheRepublicplaced
backtheChavezes,etal.inpossessionofthefishponds
years)afterthiscasewassubmittedfordecisionon
asitspermitteesandlessees.Suchleasesasofficialacts
June25,1969.
oftheGovernmenthavethepresumptionofregularity
ItiselementarythatthisCourtisnotatriernorevena andcannotbesummarily,prematurelyandcapriciously
revieweroffactsandcertainlycannotatthisstage setasidewithouttrialasrespondentcourthasdone.
considersuchmapandplanwhichhavenotyeteven
beenpresentedtothecourtbelow.prcd Furthermore,ifitbetruethattheChavezesetal.
forciblytookpossessionofthefishpondsinJune1966
4. Respondentcourtissuedthemandatory asperZobel'sbareallegationinhiscounterclaim,why
injunctiononthebasisofthecounterclaiminZobel's didhenotfileanactionforforcibleentrywithinone
answerthatcopetitionersChavezandMercado yearinsteadofjustmakingsuchanallegationinhis
allegedlydispossessedhimofthefishpondsand answerwithcounterclaimdatedJanuary12,1968?
propertiesinquestionbyhavingillegallyandforcibly
SincenoforcibleentrycasewasfiledbyZobel,itis
takenpossessionthereofinthefirstweekofJune,1966.
9Suchabareallegationiscontrarytotheadmitted obviousnowritofpreliminarymandatoryinjunctionto
restorehiminhisallegedpriorpossessioncanissue,
factsofrecord,aswitnessrespondentcourt'sown
orderofDecember13,1967,whereinindenyingZobel's sincetherequirementsofArticle53911forsuch
motiontodismiss,itmadeofrecordthattheRepublic's issuancearenotpresent.LexLib
copetitionersandprivateplaintiffs"wereentitledtobe Theinferencethatbyvirtueoftheousterin1961by
placedinpossession"ofthefishpondsas"lesseesofthe executionofthejudgmentofforcibleentryeffectedby
RepublicofthePhilippines,"asfollows: ZobelagainsttheChavezes,respondentcourt's
"Thethirdgroundisalsountenablebecausetheprivate mandatoryinjunctionissuedsevenyearslaterina
plaintiffsinthiscasebeinglesseesoftheRepublicofthe completelyseparatecaseforreivindicacionfiledbythe
Philippineswithregardstotheareascoveredby Republicasthejudiciallyrecognizedownerofthelands
ofthepublicdominionencroacheduponandusurped
TransferCertificatesofTitleNos.3699and9692,they
arethereforeentitledtobeplacedinpossession byZobel'sexpandedsubdivisiontitleswouldserve"to
thereofastheirapplicationshadbeendulyapproved,in reestablishandmaintainapreexistingcontinuing
105
relationbetweentheparties,recentlyandarbitrarily domainwhichaccompaniedtheirwrongfulissuance.
interruptedbythedefendant,thantoestablishanew Zobel'stitleshavetoundergothetestofscrutinyand
relation"12ismanifestlyuntenableandbaseless. surveyastowhethertheyfallundertheusurped
publicdomainorwithintheoriginalareaofHacienda
Athirdparty,theRepublic,hassteppedintothepicture
Calataganandthiscanonlybedeterminedafterdue
asthejudiciallyrecognizedownerofthepublicdomain
trialonthemeritswhichhasyettobeheld.
usurpedbyZobel'sexpandedtitles.TheChavezesare
dulyinpossessionofthefishpondsas 7. Respondentcourt,inissuingthedisputed
permittees/lesseesoftheRepublic(asrespondentcourt mandatoryinjunctionwhileawaitingtrialonthemerits
itselfrecognizesinitsorderofDecember13,1967, utterlydisregardingtheRepublic'srightsasjudicially
supraatpage10).Thereisno"continuingrelation recognizedowneroflandsofthepublicdomain
betweentheChavezesetalastheGovernment's usurpedbyZobel'sexpandedtitlesandorderingin
lesseesandZobelthatis"reestablishedand effectthattheRepublicanditspermittees/lesseesbe
maintained"byrespondentcourt'sarbitrarywritof oustedfromtheirlawfulpossessionofthefishponds
mandatoryinjunction. andthatpossessionberestoredtoZobeldespiteits
expressandcorrectfindinginitsDecember13,1967
6. Thewholepropofrespondentcourt's order(AnnexB)thattheissueinthecasebelowis
mandatorywrit,towit,thatthetitlesofZobelare ownership(betweentheRepublicofthePhilippinesand
presumedtobevalidandmustbehonoreduntil Zobel)andthattheprivatepetitionersareentitledto
judiciallyvoidedhasthusbeenshowntobebereftof possessionaslesseesofthegovernment)actedwith
basis,infactandinlaw. graveabuseofdiscretionandingrossviolationof
Ithasnobasisinfactbecauseasindisputablyshown elementaryandfundamentalprinciplesofinjunctions
above,allexpandedsubdivisiontitlesofAyalaandthe (manyofwhichprinciplesrespondentcourtcorrectly
Zobels(coveringanestimated1,091hectaresto2,500 citedinitsdisputedbasicorderofOctober1,1968,
hectaresofpubliclands)inexcessoftheoriginalareaof AnnexD,butunfortunatelyfailedtoapplycorrectlyand
HaciendaCalataganasstatedinTCT722weredeclared insteadmisapplied)astocallforthecorrectiveprocess
nullandvoid(notmerelyT9550whichcoveredonly ofcertiorari,asfollows:LexLib
theDizons'fishpondsinCivilCase373asZobelwould
aAmandatoryinjunctionwillnotissueinfavorofa
contendnowinhisanswerbelow,13contrarytothe partywhoserightsarenotclearandfreefromdoubtor
expressandundisputedholdingofbothmajorityand
areasyetundetermined;
minorityinthesupplementalcaseofRepublicvs.
Angeles,supra,atpages36)andthelandsordered bNoadvantagemaybeundulygiventoonelitigant
revertedtothepublicdominionunderthisCourt'sfinal totheprejudiceoftheother,henceacourtshouldnot
judgmentofMay31,1965inRepublicvs.Ayala. bypreliminaryinjunctiontransferthepropertyin
litigationfromthepossessionofonepartytoanother
Ithasnobasisinlawbecausetheburdenhasthus
wherethelegaltitleisindisputeandthepartyhaving
beenshiftedtoAyalaandtheZobelstoshowthattheir possession(theRepublic)assertsownershiptheretoby
subdivisiontitlesarenotamongtheexpandedtitles
rightofafinaldecisionoftheSupremeCourtandclaims
declarednullandvoid.Zobel'stitlesthereforedonot thelandsinvolvedaslandsofthepublicdomain.
enjoythepresumptionofvalidityaserroneously
presumedbyrespondentcourtinviewofthecongenital cTheprimarypurposeofapreliminaryinjunctionis
infirmityofusurpationofinalienablelandsofthepublic thepreservationofthestatusquo.Thecourtmustleave
106
thepartieswheretheyareuntilitisabletoholdtrial onthegroundthattherewasnoneedforexecution
anddeterminetheconflictingclaimsofownership "becausethedeclarationofnullityinitselfisalready
betweentheRepublicandZobel; executory"(supra,atpage4)and(2)TheRepublicfiled
mandamusforawritofexecutioninRepublicvs.
dRespondentcourt'smandatoryinjunction
Angeleswhichwasatfirstunanimouslygrantedbythis
prematurelyprejudgedtheRepublic'scomplaint
CourtinitsdecisionofJune30,1967butwhich
withouttrialorevidencebyarbitrarilyorderingthe underwentaseriesofmodificatoryresolutionsuntil
restorationofpossessionofthefishpondsinfavorof
April27,1973(supra,atpage2)butfinallyendedup
Zobel(whenZobelhadfailedtoevenfileaforcible
withthepronouncementthatsuchexecutionwould
entrycaseagainstpetitioners)andingrossdisregardof issueuponthefinalityofsaidApril27,1973resolution
thisCourt'sfinaldecisionsandresolutionsinRepublic shouldfurtherobstaclestowardskeepingAyalaandthe
vs.Ayala(1965)andRepublicvs.Angeles(1967)etseq., Zobel'sinpossessionoftheusurpedpubliclandscome
supra)alldeclaringthenullityofAyala'sandtheZobel's up(supra,atpage5).
expandedsubdivisiontitleswhichusurpedthepublic
domain; 8. Inthewriter'sdissentingopinionagainstthe
April11,1972resolution,heexpressedgratification
eContrarytothemistakenassumptioninJustice "thatthemajority'spositionalthoughitdenies
Fernandez'draft14thatthejudgmentinCivilCase373, reconsiderationandmaintainsreversaloftheJune30,
asaffirmedbythisCourt,waslimitedtodeclaringvoid 1967decisionatbaristhattheGovernmentmay
onlyTCTT9550ofAyala,thejudgmentproper,as nowfinallyeffectreversionandrecoverpossessionof
affirmedbythisCourt,clearlyandindisputablydeclared allusurpedareasofthepublicdomainoutside(Ayala's)
nullandvoidall"othersubdivisiontitles(ofAyala privatelandcoveredbyTCTNo.722,whichincluding
and/orHda.Calatagan)overtheareasoutsideits thelotsinT9550(Lots360,362,363and182)are
privatelandcoveredbyTCTNo.722which...are
herebyrevertedtopublicdominion(Paragraph(a)of
herebyrevertedtopublicdominion."(Supra,atpage2).
1965judgment)"15hereinabove.16
Respondentcourtthusviolatedthefundamentalrule Itwouldbeaterribleretrogressioniftheseringing
thatapartyshouldnotbedeprivedofpossessionuntil pronouncementsagainstfurtherfrustrationofreversion
thecourtispreparedtoadjudicatethecontroverted
ofthepubliclandsandwatersdecreedintheMay31,
rightinfavoroftheadverseparty(Zobel)anduntilthe 1965judgmentandfurtherretentionbyAyalaandthe
controvertedquestion(ofownership)isadjudicated,
Zobelsandtheirpurchasersandtransfereesofusurped
thestatusquoshouldbepreservedandthepartyin
publiclandsweretobenownegatedbysustainingthe
possession(theRepublicthroughitslessees,theprivate arbitrary,capriciousanduntenabledisputedordersof
plaintiffs)shouldnotbeousted.cdrep
respondentcourt.
ThequestionraisedbyZobelthatifallhisexpanded
(Inhissamedissentingopinion,thewriterdidrecount
titlesweredeclarednullandvoidinthe1962judgment
howuptothenanduptonow,AyalaandZobelasits
ofthelowercourtasaffirmedbythisCourt'sMay31, successorshavesuccessfullyblockedateveryturnthe
1965judgment,thenallthatpetitionershavetodoisto
Government'seffortstoenforcethe1965judgment,
havethatdecisionexecutedwithoutneedofthe contendingthattheproperstepisfortheGovernment
separateactionbelowwouldbewelltaken,wereitnot
toaskforexecutionofthejudgmentandyetopposing
fortwofactors:(1)TheRepublicdidseekexecutionof theGovernment'smotiontoresurveythelandsaffected
thejudgmentbutthelowercourthedgedandrefused todeterminethepreciseextentoftheirusurpationby
107
expansionoftheirtitlesoflandsandwatersofthe
publicdomainandtakingbelowactionsthatare
"diametricallytheoppositeofAyala'sposturebefore
thisCourtofavowedadherenceandsubmissiontothe
judgmentrevertingallitsusurpedlandstopublic
dominionanddeclaringnullandvoiditssubdivisionon
titlesthereto.")17
Itwouldbeincomprehensibleiftheclaimtothelands
andfishpondsinquestionaslandsofthepublicdomain
oftheRepublicofthePhilippinesitself,fullysupported
byfinaljudgmentsofthisSupremeCourtwerenottobe
givenfaithandcreditandweretobearbitrarily
disregarded(withouttrialandevidenceandonthebasis
ofmereassumptionsandconjecturesoffactmadeby
thisCourtontheverylismota,viz,whetherZobel's
expandedtitlesareforlandsofthepublicdomainduly
voidedbythisCourt's1965judgment)andinsteadthe
Republicwouldbearbitrarilyoustedofthepossession
thatitenjoysthroughitslesseesandthatpossession
transferredpendingtrialonthemeritstoprivate
respondentwhosepredecessor(Ayala)hasbeenfound
byfinaljudgmentofthisSupremeCourttobeausurper
byunlawfulexpandedsubdivisiontitlesofimmense
areasofinalienablelandsandwatersofthepublic
domain.
Thepetitionforcertiorarishouldthereforebegranted
andthetemporaryrestrainingorderissuedbytheCourt
againsttheenforcementofrespondentcourt'sdisputed
ordersshouldbemadepermanent.Withcostsagainst
privaterespondent.
108
[G.R.No.96259.September3,1996.] privaterespondents'titlewasderivedfromOCTNo.994
issuedonApril19,1917.InthecaseofPamintuanvs.
HEIRSOFLUISJ.GONZAGA,namelyROMANA, SanAgustin,thisCourtruledthatinacadastralcasethe
FERNANDO,PAZ,LUISAandLUISANTONIO,all
courthasnojurisdictioninanearlierlandregistration
surnamedGONZAGA,petitioners,vs.HON.COURTOF
caseandaseconddecreeforthesamelandisnulland
APPEALSandSPOUSESJOSELEELINandLILIASEVILLA, void.Itmustbeobservedthatthetitleofpetitioner
respondents. MWSSwasatransferfromTCTNo.36957whichwas
[G.R.No.96274.September3,1996.] derivedfromOCTNo.994registeredonMay3,1917.
Upontheotherhand,privaterespondents'titlewas
GUILLERMOY.MASCARIAS,petitioner,vs.HON. derivedfromthesameOCTNo.994butdatedApril19,
COURTOFAPPEALSandSPOUSESJOSELEELINandLILIA 1917.Wheretwocertificates(oftitle)purportto
SEVILLA,respondents. includethesameland,theearlierindateprevails....In
successiveregistrations,wheremorethanone
Feria,Feria,Lugtu&LaO'fortheHeirsofLuisGonzaga
certificateisissuedinrespectofaparticularestateor
BunyiandGamateroforG.Y.Mascarias interestinland,thepersonclaimingundertheprior
certificateisentitledtotheestateorinterest;andthe
JoseMarcellaforprivaterespondentsinG.R.No.96274. personisdeemedtoholdunderthepriorcertificate
whoistheholderof,orwhoseclaimisderiveddirectly
SYLLABUS
orindirectlyfromthepersonwhowastheholderofthe
LANDTITLESANDDEEDS;LANDREGISTRATION;THE earliestcertificateissuedinrespectthereof.Hence,in
COURTISBOUNDBYITSRULINGINMWSSVS.COURT pointofpriorityofpriorityofissuance,private
OFAPPEALS.Inthepresentcontroversy,judicial respondents'titleprevailsoverthatofpetitioner
adjudicationhingesonthequestionastowho,between MWSS.Lastly,acertificateisnotconclusiveevidenceof
petitionersandprivaterespondents,havethelegaland titleifitisshownthatthesamelandhadalreadybeen
validtitletothetwolots.Inresolvingthisquestion,we registeredandanearliercertificateforthesameisin
areboundbyourrulingintheaforecitedearliercaseof existence.Sincethelandinquestionhasalreadybeen
MWSS,notonlybecausethelatterinvolvedthesame registeredunderOCTNo.994datedApril19,1917,the
OCTNo.994andthesameCadastralSurveyofKaloocan subsequentregistrationofthesamelandonMay3,
CityunderCadastralCaseNo.34,butalsobecausewe 1917isnullandvoid."Weemphasizewithpetitioner
squarelydealtwithandruleduponthissameissuein Mascariaswhomaybeapurchaserforvalueandin
thecaseofMWSS.Inthatcasewehadruled:"Themain goodfaith,butwhosetitle,whichisonlyaderivativeof
issuetoberesolvedis:Incaseofoverlappingtitles, thevoidOCTNo.994datedMay3,1917,couldnot
whichtitleshouldprevail.Itisthecontentionof possiblybeofforceandeffectmorethanitsparent
petitionerMWSSthatsinceitsTCTNo.41028was title.Certainlythespringcannotrisehigherthanits
issuedin1940whiletheTCTNo.15167ofprivate source.
respondentswasissuedonlyin1978,petitioner'stitle
DECISION
prevailsoverthatofprivaterespondents'inpointof
priorityofissuance.Wedonotagree.Although HERMOSISIMA,JR.,Jp:
petitioner'stitlewasissuedin1940,itwillbenotedthat
petitioner'stitleoverLots2693and2695bothwithan Assailedintheseconsolidatedpetitionsisthedecision1
areaof599squaremeterswasbasedontheCadastral oftheCourtofAppeals2intheexerciseofitsreview
SurveyofKaloocanCity,CadastralCaseNo.34,while jurisdictionoveracaseforannulmentofTorrenstitle
109
and/orquietingoftitlewithdamages3filedbeforethe 66whichareidenticalwithlotnos.3619and3620
thenCourtofFirstInstance,nowtheRegionalTrial embracedbythetitlesissuedinthenamesofEugenio,
CourtofCaloocanCity.4 GonzagaandpetitionerMascarias.
Thereweretwo(2)defendantsinthesaidcase,namely, WenoteonthefaceofTCTNo.C26086thatthesame
LuisJ.Gonzaga,nowdeceased,andpetitioner isatransferfromOriginalCertificateofTitle(OCT)No.
GuillermoY.Mascarias.Thelatter'sappealfromthe 994whichwasregisteredonApril19,1917pursuantto
hereinassaileddecisionwasdocketedasG.R.No. DecreeNo.36455.Thecourtaquomadethefollowing
96274,whiletheformerwassubstitutedbyhisheirs findingsoffactasregardsthecircumstancesofthat
whoseappealfromthesamedecisionwasdocketedas transfer,asfollows:
G.R.No.96259.Consideringthatthetwoappealsraised
thesamequestionsandissuesandinvolvedthesame "...plaintiff[privaterespondent]purchasedthetwo
lotsdescribedasLotsNo.65and66fromFelicidad
privaterespondents,weorderedthemconsolidated
uponpetitionerMascarias'motion.5 Rivera,BenitoRiveraandVictoriaRivera,thelegalheirs
ofBartolomeRivera,asevidencedbyadeedofabsolute
Theirreconcilableconflictbetweenpetitionersand sale...whichwasregisteredonAugust2,1979,under
privaterespondentscentersontwoparcelsofland TransferCertificateofTitleNo.26086...
whichtheyeachclaiminfullexclusiveownership.
xxxxxxxxx
WegatherfromtherecordsthatoneJoseEugeniohad
oncebeentheregisteredowneroflotnos.3619and BartolomeRiveraandhiscoplaintiffsinCivilCaseNo.
3620oftheCadastralSurveyofCaloocanunder C424arethesuccessorsininterestsofMariadela
TransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)No.17519.Sometime ConcepcionVidal,andinaDecision,datedDecember
in1960,Eugeniosoldthetwolotstodeceased 29,1965,renderedbytheCourtofFirstInstanceofRizal
inCivilCaseNo.C424,anactionforpartitionand
defendantLuisJ.Gonzaga.6Consequently,Eugenio's
accounting...itorderedthepartitionfortheplaintiffs
TCTNo.17519wascancelled,andtheRegistryofDeeds
fortheProvinceofRizalissuedonNovember29,1960, ofthepropertiesdescribedunderOriginalCertificates
ofTitlesNos.982,983,984,985and994.[italics
TCTNo.813387inthenameofGonzaga.On
September28,1981,Gonzagasoldthetwolotsto supplied]
petitionerMascarias.8Followingtheconveyance, InCivilCaseNo.4557,thethenCourtofFirstInstanceof
Gonzaga'sTCTNo.81338wascancelled,andissuedin Rizal,underPresidingJudgeCeciliaMuozPalma,
thenameofMascariaswasTCTNo.480789covering orderedtheRegisterofDeedsofRizaltocancelthe
thesametwolots. nameofMariadelaConcepcionVidalfromOriginal
Equallyborneoutbytherecords,however,isthefact CertificateofTitleNo.994andsubstituteinlieuthereof
thatanothersubsistingTorrenstitlecoversthesame thenameofBartolomeRiveraandhiscoplaintiffs.
twolotssubjectofthesalebetweenEugenioand Evidently,BartolomeRivera,thepredecessorininterest
GonzagaandthatbetweenGonzagaandpetitioner ofhereinplaintiffsappearsascoownerintheOriginal
Mascarias.ThisothertitleisTCTNo.C2608610inthe CertificateofTitleNo.994..."11
nameofprivaterespondentLiliaSevilla,marriedtoJose
Seelin,issuedonAugust2,1979bytheRegistryof Thepresentcontroversyarosewhenprivate
DeedsforMetroManila,DistrictIII.TCTNo.C26086 respondentsfiledonOctober14,1981,acomplaintfor
coversanumberoflots,amongthem,lotnos.65and annulmentofGonzaga'sTorrenstitleinsofarasit
110
embracedlotnos.3619and3620whichareidentical AsindubitablyshowninaDeedofAbsoluteSaledated
withthosedescribedinprivaterespondents'owntitle January14,1977...plaintiffs[privaterespondents]
aslotnos.65and66.Beforethecourtaquo,Gonzaga acquiredthetwopropertiesinquestion,togetherwith
interposedananswerassertingthatsincehehad otherseveralparcelsofland,fromFelicidadRivera,
alreadysoldandconveyedthesubjectlotson BenitoRiveraandVictoriaRivera,thelegalheirsofone
September28,1981topetitionerMascarias,private BartolomeRivera.
respondentsnolongerhaveanycauseofactionagainst
BartolomeRiveraandothercoplaintiffsarethe
him.Consequently,privaterespondentsfiledan
successorsinintereststotheundividedshareofMaria
amendedcomplainttoincludepetitionerMascariasas
partydefendant. ConcepcionVidalinseveralparcelsoflandunder
OriginalCertificatesofTitlesNos.982,983,984,985,
Boththecourtaquoandtherespondentappellate and994,asdulyestablishedinthetwoDecisions
courtrecognizethatthetwoconflictingTCTswere renderedinCivilCaseNo.C424andinCivilCaseNo.C
derivedfromonecommonOCT,viz.,OCTNo.994. 1796bytheCourtofFirstInstanceofRizal...
However,whileboththecourtaquoandthe
respondentappellatecourtfoundthatOCTNo.994was Asmaybeseen,MariaConcepcionVidalwasoneofthe
registeredonMay3,1917,wefindthatontheone originalcoownersofthepropertiesregisteredunder
hand,petitioners'titlesindicateoriginalregistrationto theOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.994,issuedbythe
havebeenmadeonMay3,1917,butontheother LandRegistrationCourtinLandRegistrationCaseNo.
hand,privaterespondents'titleindicatesoriginal 4429,pursuanttoDecreeNo.36455...
registrationtohavebeenmadeonApril19,1917. Thus,insaidDecision...datedDecember29,1965,it
Thecourtaquoresolvedtheconflictingclaimsinfavor orderedapartitionofthesubjectpropertiesamongthe
ofprivaterespondents.Itratiocinatedinthiswise: plaintiffsbeingthesuccessorsininterestofMaria
ConcepcionVidal.
"Asmattersstand,theCourtisoncemorecalledupon
todeterminewhichoftheconflictingtitlesisvalid. ItbearsemphasisthatinsaidDecisionofDecember29,
1965...itstates,inpart,towit:
Letusexaminethehardfacts.
'...ThisundividedshareofMariadelaConcepcion
Adeepeningscrutinyovertheevidenceinrecordbares Vidal,consistingof1189/1000percentofthe
arelevantdistinctionbetweenplaintiffs'[private propertiesdescribedinOriginalCertificatesofTitleNos.
respondents']anddefendants'[petitioners']titlesasto 982,983,984,985and994,hasneverbeensoldor
theirorigin.Asmaybeseen,defendants'[petitioners'] disposedofbysaidMariadelaConcepcionVidal,and
titleswereregisteredunderCadastralProceedingsin therefore,hersaidsharenowbelongstotheherein
CadastralCaseNo.34,CadastralRecordNo.1606, plaintiffswhoarethesurvivingheirsofthesaidMaria
CadastralSurveyofCaloocan. delaConcepcionVidalandentitledtosaidundivided
shareinthefollowingproportions:BartolomeRivera,
Whereas,astheCourtfinds,plaintiffs'[private 1/3of1189/1000percent...Theseplaintiffs,
respondents']titlewasderivedfromtheOriginal
therefore,arenowcoownersoftheparcelsofland
CertificateofTitleNo.994,issuedinLandRegistration
describedinOriginalCertificatesofTitleNos.982,983,
CaseNo.4429,pursuanttoDecree36455in1917. 984,985and994,intheaforestatedproportionsand
entitledtodemandthepartitionofsaidproperties.'
(italicssupplied)
111
Evidently,thesaleofthepropertybyJoseEugenioto CaloocanCitytocancelGonzaga'sTCTNo.81338and
defendantLuisGonzagaonNovember29,1960hasno petitionerMascarias'TCTNo.48079,thesamebeing
validbasis. nullandvoid.
InfinalfocusistheCourtOrderissuedbytheCourtof Petitionersappealedthatdecisiontotherespondent
FirstInstanceofRizal...inCivilCaseNo.C1796 court.Petitionersreiteratedspecificerrorsallegedly
orderingtheissuanceofatransfercertificateoftitlein committedbythecourtaquo,especiallyasregards
favorofplaintiffs[privaterespondents]overseveral appreciationofthedocumentdenominatedasReport
parcelsoflandincludingthetwolotsinquestion. andRecommendationissuedbytheLandRegistration
Commission(LRC).Saiddocumentwasformallyoffered
xxxxxxxxx
bypetitionerMascarias13buthadbeenapparently
Consideringthefindingsandthedispositiveportionof ignoredbythecourtaquoandconsideredoflittle
theDecisionofthethenCourtofFirstInstance...to probativevaluebyrespondentcourtforbeingamere
theeffectthattherebeingnovalidgroundwhythe xeroxcopy.InthatReportandRecommendation,the
torrenstitleshouldnotbeissuedtothepetitioners... LRCconcludedthatalltitlesemanatingfromBartolome
[privaterespondents],consideringthedeedofsale RiveraunderOCTNo.994havebeenissuedthrough
executedbyVictoria,BenitoandFelicidadallsurnamed fraudandmisrepresentationessentiallybecauseMaria
Rivera...infavorofpetitioners[privaterespondents] delaConcepcionVidal,indicatedontheLRCrecordsto
weredulyacknowledgedbeforeanotarypublicandthe havediedattheageofonlynine(9)yearsold,couldnot
samefoundtoberegularandindueform,thereby havepossiblybornechildren,amongthem,Severowho
divestingthelandinfeesimpleform,theregistered issaidtobetheascendantofBartolomeRiverafrom
ownerBartolomeRiveraorhisheirsinfavorof whoseheirs,inturn,privaterespondentspurchasedthe
petitioners...[privaterespondents]their subjectlots.
correspondingtechnicaldescriptionshavingbeen Likewiserebuffedbytherespondentcourt,petitioners
approvedandverifiedbytheBureauofLands,this filedamotionforreconsideration,whichwashowever
Courtfindsplaintiffs'[privaterespondents']rightsand deniedinaresolution14datedNovember13,1990.
titleoverthepropertiesinquestionindubitably
established. TherespondentCourtofAppeals,inaffirmingthe
findingsandrulingofthecourtaquo,gavenarya
True,itisthatdefendant'[petitioners']titlewasissued significancetotheaforecitedLRCReportand
byaCadastralCourtinCadastralCaseNo.34,G.L.R.O. Recommendation.Itruled:
CadastralRecordNo.1106,whichwasundeniably
subsequenttotheLandRegistrationCaseNo.4429of "WhileWeagreewithappellants'[petitioners']thesis
1917...butwellsettledinacatenna[sic]ofcasesis thattheirrespectivetitlesarevalid,thesame
thedoctrinethatinacadastralcasetheCourthasno observationmustlikewisebeextendedasregards
jurisdictiontodecreeagaintheregistrationofland appellee[privaterespondent]Sevilla'stitle,thecontrary
alreadydecreedinanearlierlandregistrationcaseand viewnothavingbeenadequatelysubstantiatedthrough
aseconddecreeforthesamelandisNULLandVOID." relevantandcompetentevidence.Thisbenefitofthe
12 doubtstandsnotwithstandingthexeroxedcopyofthe
LandRegistrationCommission'spurported"Reportand
Accordingly,thecourtaquorenderedjudgment Recommendation"...theappended[sic]copy
declaringprivaterespondents'TCTNo.C26086asvalid
purportedlytobethatoftheCommission'sreportwas
andlegalandorderingtheRegisterofDeedsof
112
merelyaxeroxcopyandneveracertifiedtruecopy judicataagainstthewholeworld(GreyAlbavs.Dela
thereofasexpresslymandatedbySections25and26, Cruz,17Phil.49),hereinappellants[petitioners]
Rule132,oftheRevisedRulesofCourtasreiteratedin included."15
Section7,Rule130,oftheRevisedRulesofEvidence.
Petitionersnowcomebeforeusseekingareversalof
Moreover,worthnotingisthefactthatsaidxeroxcopy
theaforeciteddecisionsofthetrialcourtandthe
borenosignaturesofthesupposedofficialswho
executedthesame...Nowonderthecourtaquodid respondentappellatecourtonthebasisofthefollowing
issues:
notbothertolendanyweighttothispieceofevidence,
notwithstandingthefailureofSevillatointerposea "(1) Whetherornotthetrialcourtmayinvalidate
timelyobjectionthereto.Thelackofobjectionmay transfercertificateoftitlewhichhave[sic]been
makeanyincompetentevidenceadmissible...But previouslycancelled.
admissibilityofevidenceshouldnotbeequatedwith
weightofevidence...Failuretoobjecttothe (2) Whetherornotthereisacauseofaction
presentationofincompetentevidencedoesnotgive againstLuisGonzaga.
probativevaluetotheevidence....
(3) Whetherornottherespondentcourtshould
Grantingarguendo,thattheLandRegistration ruleonMascariasmotiontoholdinabeyance.
CommissionissuedsuchareportonFebruary2,1981,
(4) WhetherornotSevilla'spetitiontoorderthe
Webelievethatthesamesuffersfromacongenital
CityRegisterofDeedsofCaloocanCitytoissueTransfer
infirmityasitcouldnothavepossiblyoverruledthefinal
CertificateofTitleintheNameofthePetitionerincase
decisionsofthevariousbranchesofthethenCourtof
#C1796inCFIRizalBranch32CaloocanCityisa
FirstInstanceofRizalinCivilCaseNo.C424,enjoining
proceedinginrem.
BartolomeRiveraandhiscoheirstopartitionthe
propertiesdescribedunderOCTNos.982,983,984, (5) WhetherornotLuisGonzagawasbarredfrom
985,and994...CivilCaseNo.4557,orderingthe questioningthetitleofSevillaforhisfailuretofilea
cancellationofthenameofMariadelaConcepcion petitionforreviewwithinoneyearfromthedecreeof
VidalfromOCTNo.994andsubstituteinlieuthereof registrationissuedinfavorofSevilla."16
thenameofBartolomeRiveraandhiscoheirs;andin
LandRegistrationCaseNo.1796,inwhichthesubject Unfortunatelyneithercanweaccordpetitionersthe
realtywasorderedtoberegisteredinthenameof relieftheyseek.Infact,wemustaffirmthedecisions
hereinappellee[privaterespondent]....Incidentally, assailedinthispetition,forweareconfrontedwith
LRCNo.1796,dealtwithaLandRegistrationcasewhich factsthatareexactlythesameasthosethatwehave
isaproceedinginrem,dealingwithatangibleres,and passedandruleduponinthecaseofMetropolitan
maybeinstitutedandcarriedtojudgmentwithout WaterworksandSewerageSystems(MWSS)vs.Courtof
personalserviceupontheclaimantswithinthestateor Appeals.17
noticebymailtothoseoutsideofit....Jurisdictionis
Theantecedentfactsofthatcaseareasfollows:
securedbythepowerofthecourtovertheres...
Accordingly,inaregistrationproceeding,suchasLRC "JoseB.Dimsonwastheregisteredownerofaparcelof
1796,institutedwithorwithoutopposition,the landsituatedinBalintawak,KalookanCity...and
judgmentofthecourtconfirmingthetitleofthe coveredbyTCTNo.C15167whichwasregisteredon
applicant...[privaterespondent]andorderingits June8,1978.SaidparceloflandwasoriginallyLot28of
registrationinhis[sic]nameconstitutes,whenfinal,res theMaysiloEstate(LRC5268)coveredbyOriginal
113
CertificateofTitle(OCT)No.994whichwasregistered 29,1940andbasedontheCadastralSurveyofKalookan
onApril19,1917pursuanttoDecreeNo.36455issued City,CadastralCaseNo.34.Itappearedthatbothlots
inLandRegistrationCaseNo.4429. coveredorincludedtheparcelsoflandownedbyJose
B.Dimson...ItfurtherappearedonthefaceofTCTNo.
ItappearsthatoneoftheoriginalownersofOCTNo.
41028thatitwasatransferfromTCTNo.36957which
994wasthelateMariaConcepcionVidalmarriedto
wasderivedfromOCTNo.994datedMay3,1917."18
PioquintoRivera.AmongthefourchildrenwasSevero
RiverayVidalwhodiedin1907leavingBartolome Inthepresentcontroversy,judicialadjudicationhinges
Riveraasthesolesurvivingheir. onthequestionastowho,betweenpetitionersand
privaterespondents,havethelegalandvalidtitletothe
BartolomeRiveraexecutedaDeedofTransferand
twolots.Inresolvingthisquestion,weareboundbyour
ConveyanceinfavorofJoseB.Dimsonwherebyhe rulingintheaforecitedearliercaseofMWSS,notonly
agreedtotransfertwentyfivepercent(25%)of
becausethelatterinvolvedthesameOCTNo.994and
whateverlandheisentitledinLot28andLots25,26, thesameCadastralSurveyofKaloocanCityunder
27and29,allofwhicharecoveredbyOCTNo.994. CadastralCaseNo.34,butalsobecausewesquarely
Inanactionforpartitionandaccountingdocketedas dealtwithandruleduponthissameissueinthecaseof
CivilCaseNo.C424filedbyBartolomeRiveraandhis MWSS.Inthatcasewehadruled:
coheirs,thethenCourtofFirstInstanceofRizal "Themainissuetoberesolvedis:Incaseofoverlapping
renderedadecisiondatedDecember29,1965ordering titles,whichtitlesshouldprevail.
thepartitionofthepropertiesdescribedinOCTNos.
994,983,984and985amongBartolomeRiveraandhis ItisthecontentionofpetitionerMWSSthatsinceits
coheirsbeingcoownersandsuccessorsininterestof TCTNo.41028wasissuedin1940whiletheTCTNo.
thelateMariaConcepcionVidal. 15167ofprivaterespondentswasissuedonlyin1978,
petitioner'stitleprevailsoverthatofprivate
InanorderdatedJune13,1966,thethenCourtofFirst
respondents'inpointofpriorityofissuance.
InstanceofRizalapprovedtheDeedofTransferand
ConveyanceexecutedbyBartolomeRiverainfavorof Wedonotagree.
JoseB.DimsonoverLot28anddirectedtheRegisterof
Althoughpetitioner'stitlewasissuedin1940,itwillbe
DeedsofRizaltocancelthenameofMariaConcepcion
VidalfromOCTNo.994andtosubstitutethenamesof notedthatpetitioner'stitleoverLots2693and2695
bothwithanareaof599squaremeterswasbasedon
BartolomeRiveraandhiscoheirs.
theCadastralSurveyofKaloocanCity,CadastralCase
InaverifiedpetitiondocketedasSpecialProceedings No.34,whileprivaterespondents'titlewasderived
No.732filedbyJoseB.Dimson,thevalidityofthecourt fromOCTNo.994issuedonApril19,1917.Inthecase
OrderdatedJune13,1966wasconfirmed.... ofPamintuanvs.SanAgustin,thisCourtruledthatina
cadastralcasethecourthasnojurisdictioninanearlier
xxxxxxxxx
landregistrationcaseandaseconddecreeforthesame
Ontheotherhand,MetropolitanWaterworksand landisnullandvoid.
SewerageSystem(MWSS,forbrevity)claimedthatitis ItmustbeobservedthatthetitleofpetitionerMWSS
theregisteredownerofLots2693and2695,bothwith
wasatransferfromTCTNo.36957whichwasderived
anareaof599squaremeterscoveredbyTCTNo.41028 fromOCTNO.994registeredonMay3,1917.Uponthe
issuedbytheRegisterofDeedsofKalookanCityonJuly
otherhand,privaterespondents'titlewasderivedfrom
114
thesameOCTNo.994butdatedApril19,1917.Where
twocertificates(oftitle)purporttoincludethesame
land,theearlierindateprevails....Insuccessive
registrations,wheremorethanonecertificateisissued
inrespectofaparticularestateorinterestinland,the
personclaimingunderthepriorcertificateisentitledto
theestateorinterest;andthepersonisdeemedtohold
underthepriorcertificatewhoistheholderof,or
whoseclaimisderiveddirectlyorindirectlyfromthe
personwhowastheholderoftheearliestcertificate
issuedinrespectthereof.Hence,inpointofpriorityof
issuance,privaterespondents'titleprevailsoverthatof
petitionerMWSS.
Lastly,acertificateisnotconclusiveevidenceoftitleifit
isshownthatthesamelandhadalreadybeen
registeredandanearliercertificateforthesameisin
existence.Sincethelandinquestionhasalreadybeen
registeredunderOCTNo.994datedApril19,1917,the
subsequentregistrationofthesamelandonMay3,
1917isnullandvoid."19
WeempathizewithpetitionerMascariaswhomaybe
apurchaserforvalueandingoodfaith,butwhosetitle,
whichisonlyaderivativeofthevoidOCTNo.994dated
May3,1917,couldnotpossiblybeofforceandeffect
morethanitsparenttitle.Certainlythespringcannot
risehigherthanitssource.
WHEREFORE,theconsolidatedpetitionsarehereby
DISMISSED.Costsagainstpetitioners.
SOORDERED.
115
[G.R.No.67451.September28,1987.] 3) TCTsNos.333982and333985,issuedonJuly
27,1971inthenameofQuezonCityDevelopmentand
REALTYSALESENTERPRISE,INC.andMACONDRAY FinancingCorporation,derivedfromOCTNo.8931
FARMS,INC.,petitioners,vs.INTERMEDIATEAPPELLATE
whichwasissuedonJuly27,1971pursuanttoLRCCase
COURT(SpecialThirdCivilCasesDivision),HON.
No.P206,GLRORecordNo.N31777.
RIZALINABONIFACIOVERA,asJudge,CourtofFirst
InstanceofRizal,BranchXXIII,MORRISG.CARPO, OnDecember29,1977,MorrisCarpofiledacomplaint
QUEZONCITYDEVELOPMENTANDFINANCING withtheCourtofFirstInstanceofRizal,BranchXXIII,
CORPORATION,andCOMMISSIONEROFLAND presidedoverbyJudgeRizalinaBonifacioVera
REGISTRATION,respondents. (hereafterreferredtoasVeraCourt),for"declarationof
nullityofDecreeNo.N63394andTCTNo.20408."
DECISION NameddefendantswereRealtySalesEnterprise,Inc.,
CORTES,Jp: MacondrayFarms,Inc.andtheCommissionerofLand
Registration.Subsequently,however,Carpowithdrew
Thelitigationovertheownershipoftheparcelsofland hiscomplaintasagainstthelastnameddefendant,and
whicharethesubjectofthispetitionstartedin1927 theanswerfiledonbehalfofsaidgovernmentofficial
whenanapplicationfortheirregistrationunderthe wasorderedstrickenofftherecord.Thecomplaint
TorrensSystemwasfirstfiled.Inthepresentpetition allegedthatTCTNo.20408,aswellasOCTNo.1609
forreviewRealtySalesEnterprise,Inc.(hereafter fromwhichitwasderived,isanullityastheCFIofRizal,
referredtoasRealty)andMacondrayFarms,Inc. BranchVI,thenpresidedoverbyJudgeAndresReyes
(hereafterreferredtoasMacondray)seekareversalof (hereafterreferredtoastheReyesCourt)whichissued
theResolutionofMay2,1984oftheIntermediate theorderdatedMay21,1958directingtheissuanceof
AppellateCourt,andanaffirmanceoftheCourtof adecreeofregistration,wasnotsittingasaland
AppealsDecisionofDecember29,1982.Cdpr registrationcourt,butasacourtofordinaryjurisdiction.
ItwasfurtherallegedthattheoriginalrecordsofLRC
Two(2)adjacentparcelsoflandlocatedinAlmanza,Las
CaseNo.657,GLRORecordNo.29882whichwasthe
Pias,MetroManila,havinganaggregateareaof
basisfortheissuanceofsaidorderofMay21,1958,
373,868sq.m.,situatedinthevicinityoftheAyala
werelostand/ordestroyedduringWorldWarIIand
AlabangProjectandBFHomesParaaquearecovered
werestillpendingreconstitution;hence,theReyes
bythree(3)distinctsetsofTorrenstitlestowit:
Courthadnoauthoritytoordertheissuanceofa
1) TCTNo.20408,issuedonMay29,1975inthe certificateoftitle.LLjur
nameofRealtySalesEnterprise,Inc.,whichwasderived
RealtyandMacondrayallegedintheiranswerthatthe
fromOCTNo.1609,issuedonMay21,1958,pursuant
ReyesCourtwasactingasacourtoflandregistration
toDecreeNo.N63394inLRCCasesNos.657,758and
andinissuingtheorderofMay21,1958,wasactually
976,GLRORecordNos.N29882,N33721andN43516,
performingapurelyministerialdutyfortheregistration
respectively.
courtinCaseNo.657,GLRORecordNo.29882(andthe
2) TCTNo.303961issuedonOctober13,1970in twoothercases,CasesNos.758and976,withwhich
thenameofMorrisG.Carpo,whichwasderivedfrom saidcasehadbeenjointlytriedanddecided)whichon
OCTNo.8629,issuedonOctober13,1970pursuantto August19,1935hadrenderedadecisionadjudicating
decreeNo.N131349inLRCCaseNo.N11M(N6217), thetwo(2)lotsinquestiontoEstanislaoMayuga(father
GLRORecordNo.N32166. ofDominadorMayuga,predecessorininterestof
116
RealtyandMacondray),whichdecisionwasupheldby asitwasraisingonlyquestionsoflaw.After
theCourtofAppeals.Itwasallegedthatitisthetitleof respondentsfiledtheircommentstosaidpetition,this
Carpowhichisnullandvoid,havingbeenissuedovera CourtpassedaresolutiondatedOctober19,1981
parceloflandpreviouslyregisteredundertheTorrens referringthecasetotheCourtofAppeals"inaidofits
Systeminfavorofanother. appellatejurisdictionforproperdeterminationonthe
meritsoftheappeal."
Withleaveofcourt,RealtyandMacondrayfiledathird
partycomplaintagainsttheQuezonCityDevelopment InitsdecisiondatedDecember29,1982,theCourtof
andFinancingCorporation(hereafterreferredtoas Appeals,throughitsNinthDivision,withJusticePatajo
QCDFC)andtheCommissionerofLandRegistration asponente,concurredinbyJusticesGopengcoand
allegingthatTCTsNos.333982and333985inthename Kapunan,setasidethedecisionofthetrialcourtand
ofQCDFCalsocoveredthesameparcelsoflandsubject renderedanewoneupholdingthevalidityofthetitlein
ofthedisputebetweenCarpoandthetwo thenameofRealtySalesEnterprise,Inc.anddeclaring
corporations,RealtyandMacondray.Theythusprayed nullandvoidthetitlesinthenameofCarpoandQCDFC.
thatDecreeNo.N135938issuedonJuly22,1971,OCT
No.8931issuedonJuly27,1971,aswellasTCTsNos. Carpofiledamotionforreconsiderationwiththe
333982and333985derivedfromOCTNo.8931be appellatecourt.Inthemeantime,byvirtueand
declarednullandvoid. pursuanttoBatasPambansaBlg.129,ortheJudiciary
ReorganizationActof1980,theCourtofAppealswas
Initsanswertothethirdpartycomplaint,QCDFC reorganizedintotheIntermediateAppellateCourt(IAC).
assertedthevalidityofitsowntitleallegingthatitisthe Asaconsequence,therewasarerafflingofcasesand
titleinthenameofRealtywhichisnullandvoid.QCDFC thecasewasassignedtotheSecondSpecialCases
alsofiledafourthpartycomplaintagainstCarmelino Divisionwhich,however,returnedtherecordsofthe
Alvendia,EsperanzaAlvendia,FelicisimoAlvendia, caseforanotherrerafflingtotheCivilCasesDivisions
JosefinaAlvendia,JacintoG.Miranda,RosaG.Miranda, asitdeemeditselfwithoutauthoritytoactonacivil
IsabelG.Miranda,andFelicianoG.Miranda,alleging caseinviewoftheallocationofcasestothedifferent
thatitboughtsaidparcelsoflandfromthem.Itprayed divisionsoftheIACunderSection8ofBP129.Thecase
thatintheeventofanunfavorablejudgmentagainstit, wasthenassignedtotheThirdCivilCasesDivision,
fourthpartydefendantsbeorderedtoreimbursethe composedofJusticesdelaFuente,Coquia,Zosaand
purchasepricewhichthecorporationpaidtothem. Bartolome.
However,QCDFCfailedtoprosecuteitscase,andthe
fourthpartycomplaintwasdismissedforlackof JusticesCoquiaandBartolomeinhibitedthemselves,
interest. andJusticesCamilonandBidinwereassignedtothe
ThirdCivilCasesDivision.
Afterhearing,theVeraCourtrenderedjudgmenton
OnMay2,1984,theIAC,throughitsSpecialThirdCivil
January20,1981,sustainingthetitleofMorrisG.Carpo
CasesDivision,withJusticeZosaasponente,concurred
tothetwo(2)lotsinquestionanddeclaringthetitlesof
RealtySalesEnterprise,Inc.andQCDFCnullandvoid. inbyJusticesCamilonandBidin,promulgatedits
ResolutiongrantingCarpo'smotionforreconsideration,
OnMarch20,1981,RealtyfiledaPetitionforCertiorari reversingandsettingasidethedecisionofDecember
withthisCourtdocketedasG.R.No.L56471 29,1982,andaffirmingthedecisionofthetrialcourt.
questioningthedecisionofthelowercourt.Italso Hence,thispetitiondocketedasG.R.No.67451.
askedthatitbeallowedtoappeardirectlytothisCourt
Petitionersassignthefollowingerrors:
117
I. RESOLUTIONmerely"RESOLVEDtoreturntherecords
ofthecase...forrerafflingandreassignment...in
TheSPECIALTHIRDCIVILCASESDIVISIONofthe viewoftheallocationofcasestothedifferentDivisions
IntermediateAppellateCourt(forbrevity,referredto
oftheIntermediateAppellateCourtunderSection8of
hereinasSPECIALDIVISION)whichpromulgatedthe
BP129."
disputedRESOLUTIONofMay2,1984hadnolegal
standingundertheprovisionsofBatasPambansaBlg. III.
129and,assuch,notvestedwithjurisdictionand
adjudicatorypowertopronounceanydecisionoffinal TheSPECIALDIVISIONbyconfirmingtheappealed
resolutionfortheCourt. judgmentofthelowercourtineffectsanctionedthe
contemptibledisregardoflawandjurisprudence
II. committedbyJudgeVera,whichcallforanexerciseof
thepowerofsupervision;
OntheassumptionthattheSPECIALDIVISIONislegally
vestedwithjurisdictionandadjudicatorypowersunder IV.
theprovisionsofBP129,itdecidedquestionsof
substancecontrarytolawandtheapplicabledecisions TheSPECIALDIVISIONdidstateinitsRESOLUTIONof
oftheSupremeCourtbecause: May2,1984adeliberatefalsehood,namely,thatMorris
G.Carpoisapurchaseringoodfaithandforvaluewhen
(a) TheSPECIALDIVISION'sResolutionofMay2, thereisabsolutelynoevidence,whetherwrittenor
1984amountedtoadenialtothePetitionersoftheir testimonial,thatwaspresentedbyCarpo,orbyanyone
righttoappealandjudicialreviewoverfundamental elsethathewas,infact,apurchaserforvalueandin
issuesoflawdulyraisedbythemintheirPetitionfor goodfaithamaterialmatterwhichwasneither
ReviewonCertiorari(G.R.No.56471),asauthorizedby allegednorreferredtointhecomplaintandinallthe
theConstitution(Art.X,sec.5(2)(e),theprovisionsof pleadings,norcoveredbyanyoftheexhibitspresented
theJudiciaryActof1948andRule42,Sec.2oftheRules byallofthepartieshereinandsolelyonthebasesof
ofCourt;and whichthecaseatbarwassubmittedbythepartiesfor
considerationanddecision.
(b) ByitsRESOLUTIONofMay2,1984,itruledthat
thedecisionoftheCourtofAppealscouldnothave 1. TosupporttheircontentionthattheSpecial
gainedthenatureofaproperandvalidjudgment"as ThirdCivilCasesDivisionoftheIntermediateAppellate
thelatterhadnopowertopassupontheappealed CourtwhichpromulgatedtheResolutionofMay2,1984
judgmentoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofRizal(the hadnolegalstandingundertheprovisionsofBP129
VeraCourt),asappealandnotcertiorariwastheproper and,assuch,notvestedwithjurisdictionand
remedy; adjudicatorypower,petitionersciteSections4and8of
BP129,towit:
Furthermore,thesaidSPECIALDIVISIONgrossly
departedfromtheacceptedandusualcourseofjudicial Sec.4. Exerciseofpowersandfunctions.The
proceedingsbygivingapervertedandobviously IntermediateAppellateCourtshallexerciseitspowers,
unjustifiedandillogicalinterpretationofthe functionsandduties,throughten(10)divisions,each
RESOLUTIONofJuly25,1983,oftheNinthDivisionof composedoffivemembers.TheCourtmaysitenbanc
theCourtofAppeals,holdinganddeclaringthat"ithas onlyforthepurposeofexercisingadministrative,
ineffecterasedorcancelledthevalidityof(the ceremonialorothernonadjudicatoryfunctions.
DECISIONofDecember29,1982),whenthesaid
118
Sec.8. GroupingofDivisions.Oftheten(10) Thiscontentionhasnomerit.Areadingofthelawwill

divisionsoftheCourt,four(4)divisions,tobeknownas readilyshowthatwhatBP129prohibitsisappointment
CivilCasesDivisions,shalltakecognizanceofappealsin fromoneclassofdivisionstoanotherclass.For
civilcasesoriginatingfromtheRegionalTrialCourt;two instance,aJusticeappointedtotheCriminalCases
(2)divisions,tobeknownasCriminalCasesDivisions,of DivisionscannotbeassignedtotheCivilCasesDivisions.
appealsincriminalcasesoriginatingfromtheRegional
TrialCourts:andfour(4)divisions,tobeknownas JusticeBidinwasreassignedfromtheFourthCivilCases
Division,whileJusticeCamilonwasreassignedfromthe
SpecialCasesDivisions,oforiginalactionsorpetitions,
SecondCivilCasesDivision.Thetwothereforecome
petitionsforreview,andappealsinallothercases,
includingthosefromadministrativeagencies,exceptas fromthesameclassofdivisionstowhichtheywere
providedinSection9hereof. appointed.
Thus,thereassignmentofJusticesBidinandCamilonto
ExceptwithrespecttothePresidingAppellateJustice,
formtheSpecialThirdCivilCasesDivisioninviewofthe
theappointmentofamemberofthecourtshall
specificallyindicatewhetheritisfortheCivilCases voluntaryinhibitionoftwo(2)"regular"members,is
Divisions,theCriminalCasesDivisions,ortheSpecial stillwithinlegalbounds.Otherwise,asituationwould
CasesDivisionsoftheCourt.NomemberoftheCourt havearisenwherearegulardivisioncouldnotdecidea
appointedtoanyofthethreeclassesofdivisionsshall particularcasebecausesomemembersthereof
beassignedtoanyoftheotherclassesofdivisions, inhibitedthemselvesfromparticipatinginsaidcase.
exceptwhenauthorizedbytheSupremeCourt,upon 2. Thesecondassignederrorinvolvesa
recommendationoftheIntermediateAppellateCourt determinationofthecorrectnessoftherulingoftheIAC
enbanc,iftheexigenciesoftheservicesorequire.... thattheCADecisionofDecember29,1982couldnot
(emphasissupplied) havegainedthenatureofaproperandvalidjudgment
Asofficiallyconstituted,theThirdCivilCasesDivision (sinceappealandnotcertiorariwastheproperremedy)
wascomposedofJusticeB.S.delaFuente,asChairman. andthattheResolutionofJuly25,1983hadineffect
JusticesJorgeCoquia,MarianoZosa,andFloreliana erasedorcancelledthevalidityofsaidDecision.
Bartolome,asMembers.Inview,however,ofthe TheIACsaidinitsResolutionofMay2,1984:
voluntaryinhibitionofJusticesCoquiaandBartolome
fromtakingpartinthecase,JusticesBidinandCamilon SaidresolutionofJuly25,1983,toOurview,was
werereassignedtotheThirdCivilCasesDivisiontoform effectivelyanacknowledgmentbytheDivisionthat
theSpecialThirdCivilCasesDivision.cdrep promulgateditthattheearlierDecisiondated
December29,1982renderedinaSpecialCivilAction
PetitionersarguethatthesocalledSpecialThirdCivil caseforcertiorari,CAG.R.No.SP13530,wasnot
CasesDivision,notbeingoneoftheten(10)Divisionsof appropriateandbeyondtheauthorityoftheNinth
theCourtdulyvestedwithjurisdiction,hadno DivisionoftheCourtofAppealstopromulgate.Thesaid
adjudicatorypowers.Itisalsoallegedthatthe ResolutionwasactuallyastatementthattheNinth
reassignmentofJusticesBidinandCamilonisviolative DivisionoftheCourtofAppealshadoversteppedits
oftheinjunctionagainstappointmentofanappellate boundsbyreviewingincertiorariproceedingsadecision
Justicetoaclassofdivisionsotherthanthattowhichhe inapurelycivilcasethatshouldhavepassedthrough
isappointed.(Petition,pp.2126.) theprocessesofanordinaryappeal.Wearenotaware
ofanylegaldoctrinethatpermitsanappellatecourtto
treatapetitionforreviewoncertiorariuponpurely
119
questionsoflaw,suchasthatfiledbypetitioners CourtofAppealsdecisionbecauseappealandnot
herein,asanordinaryappeal.Neithercanwefindany certiorariwastheproperremedy."Precisely,petitioners
legalbasisorjustificationfortheeliminationbythe broughtthecasetothisCourtonappeal,albeitbyway
appellatecourtoftheessentialrequisitesthen ofcertiorari.
prescribedforthevalidityofanappeal,suchasthe
RespondentCarpocitedauthoritiesholdingthat
submissionofaformalnoticeofappeal,anappealbond
andapprovedrecordonappeal.Withoutanyofthese certiorariisnotasubstituteforappeal.Thosecasesare
notinpoint.Theyrefertothespecialcivilactionof
mandatoryrequisites,theappealcouldnothavebeen
certiorariunderRule65,andnottoappealbywayof
deemedperfectedandoughttohavebeendismissed
outright. certiorariunderRule45.
TheCourtdoesnotagree. Similarly,theIACSpecialCivilCasesDivisionerredin
interpretingtheResolutiondatedJuly25,1983ofthe
Therearetwomodesbywhichcasesdecidedbythe SecondSpecialCasesDivision(towhichthecasewas
thenCourtsofFirstInstanceintheiroriginaljurisdiction assignedafterthereorganizationunderBP129)as
maybereviewed:(1)anordinaryappealeithertothe having"erasedorcancelled"thevalidityoftheDecision
SupremeCourtortotheCourtofAppeals,or(2)an oftheNinthDivision.AperusalofsaidResolutionshows
appealoncertioraritotheSupremeCourt.Tothelatter thatitmerelymadeclarificationaboutthenatureofthe
categorybelongcasesinwhichonlyerrorsorquestions caseandwhyitshouldbereassignedtotheCivilCases
oflawareinvolved.Eachofthesemodeshavedifferent DivisionoftheIAC.Therewasnottheslightest
proceduralrequirements.prLL implicationthatit"erasedorcancelled"thevalidityof
theDecisionoftheNinthDivision.
Asstatedearlier,RealtyoriginallyfiledaPetitionfor
CertiorariwiththisCourtdocketedasG.R.No.L56471 EventheIACSpecialThirdCivilCasesDivisionimpliedly
questioningthedecisionoftheVeraCourt,andasking admittedthevalidityoftheDecisionoftheNinth
thatitbeallowedtoappealdirectlytothisCourtasit DivisionwhenitgrantedCarpo'smotionfor
wasraisingonlyquestionsoflaw.However,thisCourt reconsideration.Itwouldhavebeenincongruousto
referredthecasetotheCourtofAppeals"inaidofits grantamotiontoreconsideradecision,reverseandset
appellatejurisdictionforproperdeterminationonthe itaside,ifinthefirstplaceitdidnothaveanyvalidity.It
meritsoftheappeal." wouldhavebeennecessaryonlytodeclareitsinvalidity.
ItmaythusbeobservedthateventhisCourttreated 3. Inthethirdassignederror,Petitionerscontend
thepetitionfirstfiledasanappeal,andnotasaspecial thattheVeraCourt,andtheIACSpecialThirdCivilCases
civilactionforcertiorari.Afterall,apetitionforreview Division,erredinupholdingthevalidityofthetitlein
bycertiorariisalsoaformofappeal.(Peoplev. thenameofCarpoanddeclaringnullandvoidthetitles
Resuello,L30165,August22,1969,69SCRA35). inthenamesofRealtyandofQCDFC.
ThismodeofappealunderRule42isintheformand ThebasisofthecomplaintfiledbyCarpo,whichwasthe
procedureoutlinedinRule45which,unlikeordinary samebasisfortherulingsoftheVeraCourtandtheIAC
appeals,doesnotrequireanoticeofappeal,anappeal SpecialDivision,isthattheReyesCourthadno
bondandarecordonappeal. authoritytoissuetheorderofMay21,1958directing
theissuanceofadecreeofregistrationinfavorof
ThusitwaserrorfortheIACtoholdthattheDecisionof Mayuga,predecessorininterestofRealty,asitwasnot
theVeraCourt"cannotbepasseduponanymoreinthe sittingasalandregistrationcourtandalsobecausethe
120
originalrecordsofLRCCaseNo657,RecordNo.N Onappeal,theabovedecisionoftheCFIwasaffirmed
29882werelostand/ordestroyedduringWorldWarII bytheCourtofAppealsinitsdecisiondatedNovember
andwerestillpendingreconstitution. 17,1939thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
UnderActNo.496,LandRegistrationAct,(1902)as Portodaslasconsideracionesexpuestas,confirmamos
amendedbyActNo.2347(1914),jurisdictionoverall ladecisionapeladaencuantoadjudicaaEstanislao
applicationsforregistrationoftitletolandwas Mayugaloslotes,1,2y3desuplanoyqueequivalena
conferredupontheCourtsofFirstInstanceofthe loslotes,4,5y6delplanodeBaltazary4y5delplano
respectiveprovincesinwhichthelandsoughttobe deGuico.
registeredissituated.
xxxxxxxxx
Jurisdictionoverlandregistrationcases,asinordinary
actions,isacquireduponthefilingincourtofthe Guicofiledapetitionforreviewoncertioraribeforethis
applicationforregistration,andisretaineduptothe Court,butthepetitionwasdismissedandtheCourtof
endofthelitigation.Theissuanceofadecreeof Appealsdecisionwasaffirmed(SeeGuicov.SanPedro,
72Phil.415[1941]).
registrationisbutastepintheentirelandregistration
process;andassuch,doesnotconstituteaseparate Beforehecouldsecureadecreeofregistrationinhis
proceeding. name,Estanislaodied.
Inthecaseatbar,itappearsthatitwasEstanislao OnMay13,1958DominadorMayuga,sonofEstanislao,
Mayuga,fatherofDominadorMayuga,predecessorin filedapetitionwiththeReyesCourtdocketedasCase
interestofRealty,whooriginallyfiledonJune24,1927 No.2689allegingthathewastheonlyheirofthe
aregistrationproceedingdocketedasLRCCaseNo.657, deceasedEstanislaoMayugaandprayingforthe
GLRORecordNo.N29882intheCourtofFirstInstance issuanceofadecreeofregistrationovertheproperty
ofRizaltoconfirmhistitleoverparcelsofland adjudicatedinfavorofEstanislao.Atthispoint,it
describedasLots1,2,and3,PlanPsu47035.(Lots2 cannotbeoveremphasizedthatthepetitionfiledby
and3arethesubjectoftheinstantlitigationamong DominadorisNOTadistinctandseparateproceeding
Carpo,RealtyandQCDFC.)CaseNo.657wasjointly from,butacontinuationof,theoriginalland
triedwithtwoothercases,LRCCaseNo.976,GLRO registrationproceedingsinitiatedbyEstanislaoMayuga,
RecordNo.43516filedbyEduardoGuicoandLRCCase FlorentinoBaltazarandEduardoGuico.Inthesame
No.758,GLRORecordNo.33721filedbyFlorentino vein,theReyesCourt,asBranchVIoftheCourtofFirst
Baltazar,asthethreecasesinvolvedidenticalparcelsof InstanceofRizal,wascontinuingintheexerciseof
land,andidenticalapplicants/oppositors. jurisdictionoverthecase,whichjurisdictionwasvested
OnAugust19,1935theCFIRizalactingasaland intheCFIRizaluponfilingoftheoriginalapplications.
registrationcourtissuedaconsolidateddecisiononthe cdrep
threecases,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads: OnMay21,1958theReyesCourtissuedanorder
Enmeritosdetodoloexpuesto,seordenaelregistrode grantingthepetitionofDominadorMayugaand
directingtheCommissionerofLandRegistrationto
loslotes,1,2y3delplanoPsu47035anombrede
issueadecreeofregistrationoverLots1,2and3of
EstanislaoMayuga,desestimandooposicionde
FlorentinoBaltazaryEduardoGuicoconrespectoa PlanPsu47035,substitutingthereinasregistered
dichoslotes... ownerDominadorMayugainlieuofEstanislao.
121
RespondentCarpo,however,contends,thatsincethe proceduresforthereconstitutionofrecordsinthe
recordsofLRCCaseNo.657werenotproperly JusticeofthePeaceCourts,fromSec.48toSec.53;for
reconstituted,thentherewasnopendingland thereconstitutionofrecordsintheSupremeCourt,now
registrationcase.AndsincetheReyesCourtwasacting includingtheCourtofAppeals,fromSec.54toSec.74;
withoutapendingcase,itwasactingwithout forthereconstitutionofrecordsintheofficeofthe
jurisdiction.(RespondentCarpo'sMemorandum,pp.2 RegisterofDeeds,fromSec.75toSec.90andforthe
8.) reconstitutionofdestroyedrecordsintheCourtsof
FirstInstance,fromSec.1toSec.47,underwhich
HecitesthecaseofVillegasv.Fernando(L27347,April sections,Sec.29isobviouslycomprehended.
29,1969,27SCRA1119)wherethisCourtsaidthat
uponfailuretoreconstitutepursuanttolaw,"the Thewholetheoryofreconstitutionistoreproduceor
partiesaredeemedtohavewaivedtheeffectsofthe replacerecordslostordestroyedsothatsaidrecords
decisionrenderedintheirfavorandtheironly maybecompleteandcourtproceedingsmaycontinue
alternativeistofileanactionanewfortheregistration fromthepointorstagewheresaidproceedingsstopped
intheirnamesofthelotsinquestion,"citingthecaseof duetothelossoftherecords.Thelawcontemplates
Ambatv.DirectorofLands,(92Phil.567[1953])and differentstagesforpurposesofreconstitution....
othercases.ThebasisofsaidrulingisSection29ofAct
No.3110,AnActtoprovideanadequateprocedurefor ...(S)ection4coversthestagewereacivilcasewas
thereconstitutionoftherecordsofpendingjudicial pendingtrialintheCourtofFirstInstanceatthetime
proceedingsandbooks,documents,andfilesofthe therecordwasdestroyedorlost;section6evidently
officeoftheregisterofdeeds,destroyedbyfireor referstothestagewherethecasehadbeentriedand
otherpubliccalamities,andforotherpurposes. decidedbutwasstillpendingintheCourtofFirst
Instanceatthetimetherecordwasdestroyedorlost;
However,theAmbatcase,insofarasitruledonthe section64coversthestagewherethecasewaspending
effectoffailuretoreconstituterecordsonthestatusof intheSupremeCourt(orCourtofAppeals)atthetime
thecaseinitsentirety,wasmodifiedinthecaseof therecordwasdestroyedorlost.*
Nacuav.deBeltran,(93Phil.595[1953]),wherethis
Courtsaid: Iftherecordsuptoacertainpointorstagearelostand
theyarenotreconstituted,thepartiesandthecourt
(W)eareinclinedtomodifytheruling(intheAmbat shouldgobacktothenextprecedingstagewhere
case)inthesensethatSection29ofActNo.3110 recordsareavailable,butnotbeyondthat;otherwiseto
shouldbeappliedonlywheretherecordsintheCourt ignoreandgobeyondthestagenextprecedingwould
ofFirstInstanceaswellasintheappellatecourtwere bevoidingandunnecessarilyignoringproceedings
destroyedorlostandwerenotreconstituted,butnot whicharedulyrecordedanddocumented,tothegreat
wheretherecordsoftheCourtofFirstInstanceare prejudicenotonlyofthepartiesandtheirwitnesses,
intactandcomplete,andonlytherecordsinthe butalsoofthecourtwhichmustagainperforceadmit
appellatecourtwerelostordestroyed,andwerenot pleadings,ruleuponthemandthentrythecaseand
reconstituted.Onereasonforthisviewisthatsection decideitanew,allofthese,whentherecordsupto
29ofAct3110isfoundamongthesectionsand saidpointorstageareintactandcomplete,and
provisionsdealingwiththereconstitutionofrecordsin uncontroverted.
theCourtofFirstInstanceinpendingcivilcases,special
proceedings,cadastralcasesandcriminalcases.Astudy xxxxxxxxx
ofAct(No.)3110...willshowthatthereareseparate
122
...(T)orequirethepartiestofiletheiractionanewand 111Phil.947[1961],1SCRA1294;HeirsofCristobal
incurtheexpensesand(suffer)theannoyanceand Marcosv.DeBanuvar,134Phil.257[1968],25SCRA
vexationincidenttothefilingofpleadingsandthe 316).Therearehoweverauthenticcopiesofthe
conductofhearings,asidefromthepossibilitythat decisionsoftheCFIandtheCourtofAppeals
someofthewitnessesmayhavediedorleftthe adjudicatingLots1,2and3ofPlanPsu47035to
jurisdiction,andalsotorequirethecourttoagainrule EstanislaoMayuga.Moreover,thereisanofficialreport
onthepleadingsandhearthewitnessesandthen ofthedecisionofthisCourtaffirmingboththeCFIand
decidethecase,whenallalongandallthetimethe theCAdecisions.Afinalorderofadjudicationformsthe
recordoftheformerpleadingsofthetrialandevidence basisfortheissuanceofadecreeofregistration.
anddecisionarethereandarenotdisputed,allthis
shouldappeartobenotexactlylogicalorreasonable,or ConsideringthattheReyescourtwasactuallyinthe
fairandjusttotheparties,includingthetrialcourt exerciseofitsjurisdictionasalandregistrationcourt
whichhasnotcommittedanynegligenceorfaultatall. whenitissuedtheorderdirectingtheissuanceofa
decreeofregistration,"substitutingthereinas
TherulinginNacuaismoreinkeepingwiththespirit registeredownerDominadorMayuga,inlieuofthe
andintentionofthereconstitutionlaw.Asstated originaladjudicatee,EstanislaoMayuga,basedonthe
therein,"Act3110wasnotpromulgatedtopenalize affidavitofselfadjudication,subjecttotheprovisions
peopleforfailuretoobserveorinvokeitsprovisions.It ofSec.4,Rule74oftheRulesofCourt,"whichorderis
containsnopenalsanction.Itwasenactedrathertoaid inconsonancewiththerulingofthisCourtintheGuico
andbenefitlitigants,sothatwhencourtrecordsare decision,andthedecisionsoftheCFIRizalandtheCA
destroyedatanystageofjudicialproceedings,instead datedAugust19,1935andNovember17,1939,
ofinstitutinganewcaseandstartingalloveragain,they respectively,Weupholdthevalidityofsaidorderand
mayreconstitutetherecordslostandcontinuethe rulethatJudgeVerawaswithoutjurisdictiontosetit
case.Iftheyfailtoaskforreconstitution,theworstthat aside.
canhappentothemisthattheylosetheadvantages
4. InupholdingthetitleofCarpoasagainstthose
providedbythereconstitutionlaw"(e.g.havingthe
ofRealtyandQCDFC,theSpecialDivisionalsoreliedon
caseatthestagewhentherecordsweredestroyed).
cdll Carpo'sbeinganinnocentpurchaserforvalue.
ApplyingthedoctrineintheNacuadecisiontoLRCCase WhetherornotCarpoisaninnocentpurchaserfor
valuewasneverraisedasanissueinthetrialcourt.A
No.657,thepartiestheretodidnothavetocommence
perusaloftherecordsofthecaserevealsthatnofactual
anewactionbutonlyhadtogobacktothepreceding
stagewhererecordsareavailable.Thelandregistration basisexiststosupportsuchaconclusion.EvenCarpo
himselfcitesnofactualproofofhisbeinganinnocent
caseitselfremainedpendingandtheCourtofFirst
purchaserforvalue.Hemerelyreliesonthe
InstanceofRizalcontinuedtohavejurisdictionoverit.
presumptionofgoodfaithunderArticle527oftheCivil
Therecordsweredestroyedatthatstageofthecase Code.Cdpr
whenallthatremainedtobedonewastheministerial
Itissettledthatoneisconsideredaninnocent
dutyoftheLandRegistrationOfficetoissueadecreeof
registration(whichwouldbethebasisfortheissuance purchaserforvalueonlyif,relyingonthecertificateof
title,heboughtthepropertyfromtheregisteredowner,
ofanOriginalCertificateofTitle)toimplementa
judgmentwhichhadbecomefinal(SeeGovernmentv. "withoutnoticethatsomeotherpersonhasarightto,
Abural,39Phil.996[1919]at1002;Sta.Anav.Menla, orinterestin,suchpropertyandpaysafullandfair
123
priceforthesame,atthetimeofsuchpurchase,or Moreover,itisnotdisputedthatthetitleinthenameof
beforehehasnoticeoftheclaimorinterestofsome DominadorMayuga,fromwhomRealtyderiveditstitle,
otherpersonsintheproperty."(Cuiv.Henson,51Phil. wasissuedin1958,ortwelveyearsbeforetheissuance
606[1928],Fulev.DeLegare,117Phil.367[1963],7 ofthetitleinthenameoftheBaltazarsin1970.
SCRA351.)Heisnotrequiredtoexplorefartherthan
Inthisjurisdiction,itissettledthat"(t)hegeneralruleis
whattheTorrenstitleuponitsfaceindicates.(Fulev.De
Legare,supra.) thatinthecaseoftwocertificatesoftitle,purportingto
includethesameland,theearlierindateprevails...In
CarpoboughtthedisputedpropertyfromtheBaltazars, successiveregistrations,wheremorethanone
theoriginalregisteredowners,byvirtueofadeed certificateisissuedinrespectofaparticularestateor
executedbeforeIluminadaFigueroa,NotaryPublicof interestinland,thepersonclaimingundertheprior
ManiladatedOctober9,1970.However,itwasonly certificateisentitledtotheestateorinterest;andthat
later,onOctober13,1970,thatthedecreeof personisdeemedtoholdunderthepriorcertificate
registrationinfavoroftheBaltazarswastranscribedin whoistheholderof,orwhoseclaimisderiveddirectly
theRegistrationBookfortheProvinceofRizalandthat orindirectlyfromthepersonwhowastheholderofthe
anOriginalCertificateofTitlewasissued.Itwasonthe earliestcertificateissuedinrespectthereof.."(Legarda
samedayOctober13,1970,thatthedeedevidencing andPrietov.Saleeby,31Phil.590[1915]at595596;
thesalebetweentheBaltazarsandCarpowasinscribed Garciav.CA,Nos.L48971and49011,January22,1980,
intheRegistryofProperty,andtheOriginalCertificate 95SCRA380.)
ofTitlewascancelledasTransferCertificateofTitleNo.
303961inthenameofCarpowasissued.(Exhibit12, TCTNo.20408,derivedfromOCT1609,istherefore
Rollo,pp.270273.)cdrep superiortoTCTNo.303961,derivedfromOCT8629.
Thus,atthetimeofsaletherewasasyetnoTorrens 5. Foritspart,respondentQuezonCity
titlewhichCarpocouldhaverelieduponsothathemay DevelopmentandFinancingCorporation(QCDFC)
qualifyasaninnocentpurchaserforvalue.Notbeinga allegesthatithasbeenimproperlyimpleadedasthirty
purchaserforvalueandingoodfaith,heisinnobetter partydefendantinasmuchasRealty'sallegedcauseof
positionthanhispredecessorsininterest. actionagainstitisneitherforcontribution,indemnity,
subrogationoranyotherreliefinrespectofCarpo's
TheBaltazars,predecessorsininterestofCarpoare claimagainstRealty.ItlikewiseallegesthatRealtyhad
heirsofFlorentinoBaltazar,anoppositorintheoriginal nocauseofactionagainstitsincethethirdparty
applicationfiledbyEstanislaoMayugain1927.As complaintdidnotallegethatQCDFCviolatedanylegal
statedearlier,theCFIRizalconfirmedthetitleof rightofRealty.QCDFCalsoassailstheVeraCourt
EstanislaotoLots1,2and3ofPlanPsu47035 decisioninthatitdeclaresQCDFCdirectlyliableto
"desestimandooposiciondeFlorentinoBaltazar...con CarpoandnottoRealty.
respetoadichoslotes..."Assuchsuccessorsof
Inthefirstplace,QCDFCdidnotappealfromthe
Florentino,theycouldnotpretendignoranceofthe
landregistrationproceedingsoverthedisputedparcels decisionoftheVeraCourt,norfromthedecisionofthe
CourtofAppealsdatedDecember29,1982,norfrom
oflandearlierinitiatedbyEduardoGuico,Florentino
BaltazarandEstanislaoMayuga,aswellasthedecisions theresolutionoftheIACSpecialThirdCivilCases
DivisiondatedMay2,1984allofwhichvoided
renderedtherein.
QCDFC'stitletothedisputedproperty.Hence,said
124
decisions/resolutionhavebecomefinalandexecutory instead,andbyfilingthethirdpartycomplaintagainst
asregardsQCDFC.LexLib QCDFC,Realtywassimilarlyaskingthecourttoremove
cloudsfromitsowntitle.Actionsofsuchnatureare
Moreover,evenasthisCourtagreeswithQCDFCthat
governedbyArticles476to481,QuietingofTitle,Civil
thethirdpartycomplaintfiledagainstitbyRealtywas
Code(RepublicActNo.386),andRule64,Declaratory
procedurallydefectiveinthatthereliefbeingsoughtby
ReliefandSimilarRemedies,RulesofCourt.
thelatterfromtheformerisnotinrespectofCarpo's
claim,policyconsiderationsandthefactual Suitstoquiettitlearenottechnicallysuitsinrem,nor
circumstancesofthecasecompelthisCourtnowtorule arethey,strictlyspeaking,inpersonam,butbeing
aswellonQCDFC'sclaimtothedisputedproperty.** againstthepersoninrespectoftheres,these
ToruleonQCDFC'sclaimnowistoavoidmultiplicityof proceedingsarecharacterizedasquasiinrem.
suitsandtoputtoresttheseconflictingclaimsoverthe (McDanielv.McElvy,108So.820[1926].)Thejudgment
property.Afterall,QCDFCwasaffordedfull insuchproceedingsisconclusiveonlybetweenthe
opportunity,andexerciseditsright,toproveitsclaim parties.(Sandejasv.Robles,81Phil.421[1948]).
overtheland.Itpresenteddocumentaryaswellas
testimonialevidence.Itwasevenpermittedtofilea Therulinginthiscaseisthereforewithoutanyprejudice
fourthpartycomplaintwhich,however,wasdismissed tothisCourt'sfinaldeterminationofG.R.No.L46953.
sinceitfailedtoprosecuteitscase. WHEREFORE,theResolutionofMay2,1984ofthe
IntermediateAppellateCourtandtheDecisionof
QCDFCderiveditstitlefromCarmelinoAlvendiaet.al.,
theoriginalregisteredowners.OriginalCertificateof January20,1981oftheCFIRizalBranchXXIII,areSET
TitleNo.8931inthenameofSpousesCarmelino ASIDEandtheDecisionofDecember29,1982ofthe
Alvendia,et.al.wasissuedonJuly27,1971,orthirteen CourtofAppealsisAFFIRMED.
(13)yearsaftertheissuanceofMayuga'stitlein1958. SOORDERED.
SinceRealtyisclaimingunderTCTNo.1609whichwas
issuedearlierthanOCTNo.8931fromwhichQCDFC's
titlewasderived,Realty'stitlemustprevailoverthatof
QCDFC.
6. Duringthependencyofthiscase,Petitioners
filedamanifestationallegingthatthecaseatbaris
closelyconnectedwithG.R.No.L46953,JoseN.
Mayugaetal.v.TheCourtofAppeals,Macondray
Farms,Inc.,RealtySalesEnterprise,Inc.,et.al.,and
movedforconsolidationofthetwocasesinvolvingas
theydothesameproperty.ByResolutionofAugust29,
1984,thisCourtdeniedthemotionforconsolidation.
Inthisconnection,itmustbeemphasizedthatthe
actionfiledbyCarpoagainstRealtyisinthenatureof
anactiontoremovecloudsfromtitletorealproperty.
Byassertingitsowntitletothepropertyinquestionand
askingthatCarpo'stitlebedeclarednullandvoid
125
[G.R.No.L43679.October28,1980.] discoveredthatthelandsold,believedtobeonlynine
hectares,wasactuallynineteenhectares.Consequently,
LEONARDON.AZARCONandROSACAJUCOM onOctober7,1960,Dr.Cajucomexecuted,infavorof
AZARCON,plaintiffsappellants,vs.LEOPOLDO
JulianVallarta,Sr.,a"WaiverandQuitclaim"overthe
VALLARTA,LUIST.VALLARTA,JULIANT.VALLARTA,
excesstenhectares,nowindispute,inconsiderationof
CORAZONVALLARTAandEMILIOLORENZO(Husband),
theamountofP5,000.00.4Thelandreferredtoinsaid
defendantsappellees. documentwasthatdescribedinPsu171661,asurvey
DECISION planpreparedforDr.CajucomonNovember7,1958,
withanareaof106,632squaremeters.Asubsequent
MELENCIOHERRERA,Jp: surveyonSeptember6,1959(psu177178)disclosedan
actualareaof102,704sq.ms.afterdeductingtheareas
AppealcertifiedtothisTribunalin1976bytheCourtof
coveredbyirrigationcanals.
Appealsonaquestionoflawinthattheissueisthe
constructionorinterpretationplaceduponpleadings Ontheotherhand,evidencefortheappellants
anddocumentaryevidenceorthecorrectnessofthe AzarconsalsoshowthatonOctober20,1959,ayear
conclusionsdrawntherefrom. beforetheaforementionedwaiver,Dr.Cajucom
executeda"DeedofAbsoluteSale"ofthesamelandin
TheplaintiffsarethespousesROSACajucomAzarcon
favoroftheAzarcons,intheamountofP20,000.00.The
andLeonardoN.Azarcon,hereinafterreferredtoasthe
documentalsoreferredtothesameplanPsu171661
appellantsAzarcons.ThedefendantsareLeopoldo
andrecitedthatthepropertywasunregisteredlandand
Vallarta,LuisT.Vallarta,JulianT.Vallarta,Corazon
thatitwasthe"paraphernal"propertyofDr.Cajucom
VallartaandherhusbandEmilioLorenzo,whoshall
havingbeeninheritedbyhimfromhisfatherNicolas
collectivelybecalledtheappelleesVallartas.
SarenasCajucom.5
Thecontroversycentersaroundaparcelofirrigated
In1961,appellantROSAfiledaFreePatentApplication
ricelandsituatedatSitioBagnoy,SanJuandeDios,
overthedisputedproperty.6Insupportofher
Aliaga,NuevaEcija,ofapproximatelytenhectares,
application,ROSApresentedtheaffidavitsofAntonio
previouslyownedbyDr.JoseV.Cajucom,fatherof
Puno,AntoniodelaCruz,BrunoSantosandEmilio
appellantROSACajucomAzarcon.Itusedtobecovered
Sanguesaattestingtotheactualoccupationand
bytwotitles,namely,OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.P
cultivationofthelandindisputesince1934byherself
28151inthenameofappellantsAzarcons,andOriginal
and/orherpredecessorsininterest.7TheFreePatent
CertificateofTitleNo.O30932previouslyinthe
ApplicationwasapprovedonFebruary26,1961and
namesoftheappelleesVallartas,butnowcoveredby
FreePatentEntryNo.18504wasthereafterissuedby
severalTransferCertificatesofTitleintheirindividual
theDirectorofLands.8
names.3
OnMay8,1961,theRegisterofDeedsofNuevaEcija
EvidencefortheappelleesVallartasshowsthaton
issuedOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.P2815inthe
March14,1932,Dr.JoseV.CajucomsoldtoJulian
nameoftheAzarcons.
VallartaSr.,andhisfirstwifeFranciscaTrinidad,parents
oftheVallartas,aparcelofagriculturallandofnine GoingbacktotheVallartas,theirevidencefurther
hectaressituatedinSitioBagnoy,SanJuandeDios, disclosesthatonMay12,1964,JulianVallarta,Sr.sold
Aliaga,NuevaEcija.TheVallartasclaimthatina hisonehalfportionofthedisputedpropertytohis
resurveymadeonSeptember6,1959,theirparents childrenbyhisfirstwifewhodiedin1959,namely,
126
Jaime,Julian,Jr.,Francisca,Luis,Corazon,Librada, waswithoutprejudicetothefilingoftheproperaction
Cesar,Roberto,MarianoandLeopoldo,allsurnamed beforethecompetentCourt.14
Vallarta,intheamountofP10,000.00.9
Thus,onMay6,1968,theAzarconsfiledtheinstant
Sometimein1965,theVallartaheirs,including ComplaintforCancellationandAnnulmentofTitleswith
appellees,filedwiththeCourtofFirstInstance,Branch theCourtaquo,whichtheVallartastraversedand
III,NuevaEcija,anapplicationforregistrationofthe controverted,andwitheachsetoflitigantsasserting
disputedproperty(LRCRec.No.N26618).The thevalidity,superiority,andindefeasibilityoftheir
oppositionoftheDirectorofLandsandtheDirectorof respectivetitles.
Forestryhavingbeenwithdrawn,decisionwasrendered
Withouttrialandonlyonthebasisofmemorandaand
onApril18,1966affirmingthetitleoftheVallartaheirs
andorderingregistrationintheirnames.10 documentaryevidencesubmitted,thelowerCourt
renderedaDecisioninfavoroftheVallartason
Conformablythereto,onJuly18,1966,theRegisterof
December27,1969,thedispositiveportionofwhich
DeedsofNuevaEcijaissuedOriginalCertificateofTitle
No.03093inthenameoftheaforementionedVallarta reads:
heirs.Cdpr "WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavorof
thedefendantsandagainsttheplaintiffs,anddeclaring
Later,thedisputedpropertywassubdividedandthe
appelleeshereinsecuredforthemselvesTransfer plaintiff'sFreePatentNo.167650and/orOCTNo.P
2815oftheLandRecordsofNuevaEcijanullandvoid,
CertificatesofTitleintheirnamesaspreviously
andorderingtheRegisterofDeedsofthisProvinceto
mentioned.Appelleesalsosecuredthecorresponding
TaxDeclarationsintheirnames11andpaidrealestate cancelthesame,atplaintiff'sexpense."
taxesontheproperty12from19661969,aswellas Dissatisfiedwiththejudgmentandwiththedenialof
irrigationfeesfrom19561963fullyandpartiallyforthe theirMotionforReconsideration,theAzarconselevated
years19641968.13 thecasetotheCourtofAppeals,whichcertifiedthe
Theresultantsituationthenisa10hectareirrigated sametothisCourt.
ricelandsoldsuccessivelybyitspreviousownertothe TheAzarconsascribethefollowingerrorstothelower
twosetsofopposingpartiesherein,andcoveredbytwo Court:
distinctoriginalcertificatesoftitleintheirrespective
favor. "I. ...inholdingthatthelandcoveredbytheFree
PatentTitleoftheplaintiffsappellantsistheprivate
TheAzarconlettersofdemandtovacate,datedMarch propertyofJoseV.CajucomSr.andnotapartofthe
5and22,1968,havingbeenignoredbytheVallartas,on publicdomain;
March18,1969,appellantsAzarconsfiledapetition
withtheCourtofFirstInstance,BranchIII,ofNueva "II. ...inholdingthatFreePatentNo.16750issued
EcijainLRCNo.26618forthecancellationofthe onMay8,1961andregisteredintheRegistryofDeeds
Vallartatitles.Onamotiontodismissfiledbythe ofNuevaEcijaonJuly18,1961underOriginal
Vallartasandwithoutgoingintothemeritsofthecase, CertificateofTitleNo.P2815isundersection91ofCA
theCourtdismissedthesameonthegroundthatit 141,ipsofactocancelledisnullandvoid;
couldnotentertaininthesameregistration
"III. ...inholdingthatthedefendantsarethe
proceedingsapetitionwhereitsdecisionhadlong
ownersandinactualpossessionofthelandinquestion
becomefinalandexecutory.Thedismissal,however,
127
sinceMarch141932thesamehavingbeensoldbyJose thesecondworldwarisfurtherattestedbythefactthat
V.CajucominfavorofJulianVallarta; asearlyasMarch14,1932thesameownerhad
disposedofhisprivatepropertytodefendant's
"IV. ...inconsideringthattheLandTitleno.3093of
predecessorsandreaffirmedbyhimonOctober7,1960
thedefendantsissuperiortotheFreePatentTitleof
(Exh.'3').Pursuanttotheabovecitedcases,wherea
theplaintiffsappellants;
person,whoobtainedfreepatent,knowinglymadea
"V. ...innotconsideringthecounterclaimfiledby falsestatementofmaterialandessentialfactsinhis
defendantsforwhichtheypaidnodocketfeetothe application,bystatingthatthelandappliedforwaspart
clerkofcourtacollateralattacktothetitleofthe ofthepublicdomainnotoccupiedorclaimedbyany
plaintiffsappellants. otherperson,wheninfact,thesamehadformally
belongedtoanotherashisprivatepropertyfromwhom
Theforegoingtakeissuewiththefollowingfindingsof heallegedtohaveacquiredit,itwasheldthatin
thetrialCourt: accordancewithSection91ofCom.ActNo.141histitle
isipsofactocancelled,andconsequently,renderednull
"Inviewoftheexistenceoftwodistincttitlesoverthe
andvoid.
sameproperty,itisthusclearthattheonlyissuetobe
resolvedbythisCourtis:whichofthetwotitlesmust "Anotherfetalmisrepresentationinplaintiffs'
prevail,isitFreePatentNo.167690oftheplaintiffsor applicationwhichlegallyresultsinthenullityoftheir
OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.03093(nowTransfer freepatentaretheirstatementsthattheyandtheir
CertificateofTitlesNos.67396,67397,80934and predecessorswereinactualpossessionofthelandsince
80936)ofthedefendants? 1926andthattheyhavepaidcontinuouslysinceJuly4,
1926therealestatetaxthereof,bothofwhichare
"Uponconsiderationoftheapplicablelawsand
contrarytotheevidenceadducedinthiscase.Asto
jurisprudence,theCourtdecidestheforegoingissuesin
possession,thedefendantsortheirpredecessorswere
favorofthedefendants.
incontinuouspossessionofthedisputedlandsince
"Afreepatentwhichpurportstoconveylandtowhich March14,1932.Infact,itwasonlyonMarch5,1968
thegovernmentdidnothaveanytitleatthetimeofits whenplaintiffsattempted,totakeoversaidpossession.
issuancedoesnotvestanytitleinthepatenteeas Thesameistrueonthematterofpaymentsofthe
againstthetrueowner(Suvavs.Ventura,40Off.Gaz., realtytax(Exhs.BC,plaintiffs;Exhs.5to18,inclusive,
pp.4748,4thSupp.,Aug.2341,Ct.App;Ramosov. defendant).
Obligado,70Phil.86;DirectorofLandsv.Reyes,69Phil.
"Ontheotherhand,theCourtfindsnodefect,fatalor
497;Vitalvs.Anora,G.R.No.L4176,February29,
otherwise,indefendants'titles,muchlessanylegal
1952).PlaintiffswerefullyawarethatonFebruary26,
groundtonullifythem.Onthecontrary,Original
1961whentheirapplicationwasapproved,thelandin
CertificateofTitleNo.03093wasobtainedbythemin
questionwasnotapartofthepublicdomainastobe
adecisionofthisCourt(BranchIII)inL.R.C.Rec.No.N
disposablebytheDirectorofLands,becauseasearlyas
26618onApril18,1966,withouttheplaintiffsopposing
October20,1959,byvirtueoftheirExh.'A'theyknew
theregistrationthereofandwithnooppositiononthe
toowellthatthelandwasoftheprivateownershipof
partoftheDirectorofLands(Exh.'2').Atanyrate,said
thepatentees'fatherJoseV.Cajucomfromwhomthey
titleisnowindefeasibleandincontestable."15
allegedlyboughtthesameforP20,000.00.Thatsaid
landwasnolongerapartofthepublicdomainbutof Wefindtheforegoingconclusionsdrawnbythetrial
theprivateownershipofJoseV.Cajucomevenbefore Courtfromthedocumentaryevidencesubmittedbythe
128
partiestobeinorder.Thedocumentofsaleinfavorof saidcounterclaimwasacollateralattackontheAzarcon
theAzarconsexecutedonOctober20,1959explicitly title.Onthecontrarythevalidityofbothtitlesofthe
recitesthatthelandsoldwastheexclusivepropertyof opposingpartieswasdirectlyandsquarelyputinissue
thevendor,Dr.JoseCajucom,whohadinheriteditfrom andformedthecruxofthecontroversy.LLjur
hisfather.Indeed,ifitwerenotprivatepropertybut
WecannotbutdecrythecarelessnessoftheBureauof
stillpublicland,hecouldnothavedisposedofitinfavor
ofJulianVallarta,Sr.asearlyas1932.Thatwas LandsinhavingissuedtheFreePatentinROSA'sfavor.
Surely,amorediligentsearchintotheirrecordswould
obviouslythereasonwhyboththeDirectorofLands
haverevealedthetruecharacterofthedisputed
andtheDirectorofForestrywithdrewtheirrespective
oppositionstotheapplicationforregistrationfiledby propertyasprivateland.Itshouldalsobenotedthatin
theVallartas.Nothavingbeenpartofthepublic thevoluntaryregistrationproceedingsfiledbythe
domain,theGovernmentwasbereftoftitletoconvey Vallartas(LRCRec.No.N26618),theDirectorofLands,
toanyapplicant.Again,ROSA'sallegationinsupportof throughtheProvincialFiscalwhorepresentedhim,
herapplicationforFreePatentregardingherpossession shouldhaveknownoftheFreePatentpreviouslyissued
was,infact,amisrepresentation,becausetheVallartas andshouldhaveinformedtheCourtaccordingly.Had
morevigilancebeenexercisedbyagovernmentagency
hadbeeninpossessionsincethesalein1932andhad
continuedinsuchoccupancy,asshownbythedemand entrustedspecificallywiththetaskofadministeringand
bytheAzarconsin1968,reiteratedintheirComplaint, disposingofpubliclands,thepresentlitigationcould
havebeenaverted.
thattheVallartasvacatethedisputedproperty.
Wearefullycognizantofthewellsettledrulethat WHEREFORE,thejudgmentappealedfrom,beingin
wheretwocertificatesoftitleareissuedtodifferent conformitywithlaw,isherebyaffirmed.
personscoveringthesamelandinwholeorinpart,the Costsagainstplaintiffsappellants.
earlierdatemustprevailasbetweentheoriginal
parties,andincaseofsuccessiveregistrationwhere SOORDERED.
morethanonecertificateisissuedoverthelandthe

personholdingunderthepriorcertificateisentitledto
thelandasagainstthepersonwhoreliesonthesecond
certificate.16Thispresupposes,however,thatthe
priortitleisavalidone.Where,asinthecaseatbar,it
isevidentthatthepriortitleoftheAzarconssuffers
fromaninherentinfirmity,sucharulecannotbe
invokedintheirfavor.
Finally,theAzarcons'contentionthatappellees'
counterclaimassailingtheAzarcontitleshouldhave
beenconsideredbythetrialCourtasmerelya
permissivecounterclaimforwhichtheyshouldhave
beenmadetopaydocketingfees,isuntenable.Itisa
compulsorycounterclaim,whichcouldhavebeen
barredifnotsetup.Accordingly,nofeesthereforneed
havebeenpaid.Norcanitbesuccessfullyarguedthat
129
[G.R.No.L18861.June30,1964.] ItappearsthatGavinoAmpostaappliedwiththe
DirectorofLandsfortheissuanceofahomestead
DEVELOPMENTBANKOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiff patentoveraparceloflandsituatedatBalanga,Bataan.
appellant,vs.LAZAROMANGAWANG,ETAL.,
Pendingactiononhisapplication,cadastralproceedings
defendantsappellees. wereinstitutedbythegovernmentinsaidmunicipality
JesusA.Avanceaforplaintiffappellant. whereinAmpostafiledananswerprayingforthe
adjudicationofthesamelandinhisfavorwhichwas
PabloQ.Ilayafordefendantsappellee. designatedthereinasLotNo.1633.OnMarch8,1920,
thecadastralcourtrendereddecisionawardingtheland
SYLLABUS
toAmposta.Sincenoadviceonthismatterwasgiven
1. LANDREGISTRATION;TWOTITLESOVERSAME eithertotheBureauofLandsortotheGovernor
PARCELOFLANDISSUEDTOONEPERSON;VALIDITY. General,thelatteronNovember29,1920,issuedin
Wheretwocertificatesoftitleoverthesameparcelof favorofAmpostaHomesteadPatentNo.2388covering
landwereregularlyissuedtothesameperson,one thesameland,andonNovember29,1920,Original
undertheHomesteadLawandanotherunderthe CertificateofTitleNo.100wasissuedtohimbythe
CadastralAct,andtheownerofsaidtitles,taking GovernorGeneral.
advantageofthesituation,soldthelandtotwo
OnDecember20,1922,thecadastralcourtissueda
differentpersonssurrenderingtoeachpurchaserthe
decreeofregistrationofthelandinfavorofAmposta
pertinentcertificateoftitle,bothsaidpurchasershaving
pursuanttothedecisionrenderedinthecadastralcase,
actedingoodfaithandhavingregisteredtheirtitleson
andonJuly5,1924,OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.2668
therespectivedatesofthetwosales,itisheldthatthe
wasissuedtohimcoveringthesameproperty.
salefirstmadeandregisteredisthevalidone,
consideringthatwhenthesubsequentsalewasmade OnNovember24,1941,Ampostasoldthelandto
bytheformerowner,hehadnothingmoretoselleven SantosCamachosurrenderingtohimOriginalCertificate
ifthetitlehesurrenderedtothesubsequentvendeesis ofTitleNo.100,andbecauseofthistransfersaidtitle
oneissuedcoveringthesameproperty. wascancelledandTransferCertificateofTitleNo.5506
wasissuedinthenameofCamacho.OnNovember18,
2. ID.;DOUBLESALEOFLAND;TITLEFIRST
1946,SantosCamachosoldthelandtoBonifacio
REGISTEREDVALID.Whereapersonsellsthesame
CamachoasaresultofwhichTransferCertificateof
landtotwodifferentpersonswhoareunawareofthe
TitleNo.248wasissuedtothelatter.OnApril28,1948,
flawthatliesinitstitle,thelawadjudicatesthe
BonifacioCamachomortgagedthelandtothe
propertytothepurchaserwhofirstregistersthe
RehabilitationFinanceCorporation(nowDevelopment
transactioninhisnameintheregistryofproperty.
BankofthePhilippines),andhavingfailedtopaythe
DECISION loanasagreeduponthelandwassoldatpublicauction
tosaidbankasthehighestbidder.Theperiodof
BAUTISTAANGELO,Jp: redemptionhavingelapsedwithoutCamachobeing
abletoredeemtheproperty,afinaldeedofsalewas
ThisisanappealfromadecisionoftheCourtofFirst
executedinfavorofthebank,andTransferCertificate
InstanceofBataandeclaringtheMangawangbrothers
ofTitleNo.6961wasissuedinitsnameonJune29,
ownersofLotNo.1633oftheBalangacadastre.
1957.
130
Meanwhile,oronJune11,1947,GavinoAmpostaagain persons,thecontentionofappelleeswouldbecorrectit
soldthesamepropertytoLazaroandArsenio beinginlinewiththeseveraldecisionsrenderedbythis
MangawangforthesumofP2,500.00,thevendees Court.1Butthecaseatbarisdifferent.Heretwo
executingamortgageonthelandtosecurethe certificatesoftitlewereissuedtoGavinoAmpostaover
paymentofthebalance.OnMarch17,1948,the thesameparcelofland,oneundertheHomesteadLaw
vendeespaidthebalanceofthepurchaseprice,andan andanotherundertheCadastralAct.Saidtitleswere
absolutedeedofsalewasexecutedintheirfavor.In regularlyissuedandontheirfacebothappeartobe
connectionwiththistransaction,Ampostasurrendered valid,andundersuchpredicamentitbehoovesAmposta
tothevendeesthetitlethatwasissuedtohiminthe tochoosewhichofthemhewouldprefer,ashecould
cadastralcase,whichwaslatersubstitutedbyTransfer notvalidlymakeuseofbothofthem.ButthisAmposta
CertificateofTitleNo.1098issuedinthenameofthe didnotdo.Onthecontrary,hetookadvantageofthe
vendees. situationbysellingthelandtotwodifferentpersons
surrenderingtoeachpurchaserthepertinentcertificate
Asaconsequenceoftheirpurchaseoftheland,the oftitle.Thequestionthenthatarisesis:Whoofthetwo
Mangawangbrotherstookpossessionthereof,and buyersshouldbeconsideredastherightfulownerof
uponlearningofthistransfer,theDevelopmentBankof
theland?
thePhilippines,whichasalreadystatedbecamethe
owneroftheproperty,commencedthepresentaction Onthisscore,itisimportanttoconsiderthefactsthat
againstthemintheCourtofFirstInstanceofBataanto ledtothesaleofthelandtothepartiesherein.Note
recoveritspossessionanddamages.Inthiscase,the thatAmpostafirstsoldthelandtoSantosCamachoon
partiessubmittedastipulationoffacts,andonthe November24,1941,whoregistereditinhisnameon
strengththereof,thecourtaquorendereddecision thesamedate.Andsevenyearsthereafter,oronMarch
awardingthelandtotheMangawangbrothers. 17,1948,Ampostaagainsoldthelandtothe
Seasonably,thebankappealedtothisCourt. Mangawangbrothers,whoalsoregistereditintheir
nameonthesamedate.Sincebothpurchasers
Appelleescontendthattheirrightoverthepropertyin apparentlyhaveactedingoodfaith,asthereisnothing
litigationshouldberespectedbecausethecertificateof
intheevidencetoshowthattheydidotherwise,We
titletheyareholdingisderivedfromthatissued cannotbutconcludethatthesalemadebyAmpostato
pursuanttoadecisionrenderedbyacadastralcourt, SantosCamachoisthevalidoneconsideringthatwhen
whilethetitlebeingheldbyappellantwasmerelybased AmpostasoldthesamelandtotheMangawang
onthetitleissuedinanadministrativeproceeding, brothershehadnothingmoretosellevenifthetitlehe
uponthetheorythatajudicialtitleisdeemedpreferred surrenderedtothemisoneissuedcoveringthesame
tooneissuedadministratively.Theyfurthercontend property.Inlegalcontemplation,therefore,Amposta
thatsincethedecisionwhichgaverisetotheirtitlewas soldapropertyhenolongerowned,andhencethe
renderedonMarch8,1920,whichbecomefinalthirty transactionislegallyineffective.
daysthereafter,theirrightoverthelandmustbe
deemedvestedonsaiddatewhereasthetitleof Ontheotherhand,thecaseunderconsiderationcan
appellantismerelyaderivationoftheoneissuedto alsobeviewedunderadifferentangle.Itcanalsobe
AmpostaonNovember29,1920,orsevenmonthsafter treatedasoneofdoublesale,whereapersonsellsthe
thedecisionrenderedinthecadastralcase. samelandtotwodifferentpersonswhoareunawareof
theflawthatliesinitstitle,andwherethelaw
Thereisnodoubtthatifthetwooriginalcertificatesof
adjudicatesthepropertytothepurchaserwhofirst
titlewereissuedondifferentoccasionstotwodifferent
131
registersthetransactioninhisnameintheregistryof
property.2Andapplyingthisprinciple,wecannotbut
concludethatthetitleshouldlikewisebeadjudicatedto
appellantwhosepredecessorininterestacquiredand
registeredthepropertymuchaheadinpointoftime
thantheappellees.Verily,thetitleacquiredbythe
latterisinvalidandineffective,contrarytothefinding
ofthecourtaquo.
WHEREFORE,thedecisionappealedfromisreversed.
WeherebydeclareappellantownerofLotNo.1633of
theBalangacadastreandupholdthevalidityofTransfer
CertificateofTitleNo.6961issuedinitsfavor.Transfer
CertificateofTitleNo.1098issuedinthenameof
appelleesisherebyorderedcancelled.No
pronouncementastocosts.
Bengzon,C.J.,Padilla,Concepcion,Reyes,J.B.L.,
Paredes,RegalaandMakalintal,JJ.,concur.
Labrador,BarreraandDizon,JJ.,tooknopart.
132
133
[G.R.No.L17955.May31,1962.] trustforthelatter,andtheactionbythelatterto
recoverthepropertydoesnotprescribe.
PILARLAZAROVDA.DEJACINTO,ETAL.,petitioners,vs.
SALUDDELROSARIOVDA.DEJACINTO,ETAL., DECISION
respondents.
DIZON,Jp:
[G.R.No.L17957.May31,1962.]
ThepresentactionfiledintheCourtofFirstInstanceof
SALUDDELROSARIOVDA.DEJACINTO,ETAL., BulacanbyPilarLazaroVda.deJacintoandherson,
petitioners,vs.PILARLAZAROVDA.DEJACINTO,ETAL., MelchorJacinto,Jr.,againstSaluddelRosarioVda.de
respondents. Jacintoandherchildren,isforthereconveyanceto
themofaparceloflandlocatedinbarrioSto.Rosario,
AntonioBarredoforpetitioners. Paombong,Bulacan,withanareaof5.4574hectares,
AlfredoV.GranadosandEdmundoR.Jacintofor coveredoriginallybyOCTNo.12515andatpresentby
respondents. TCTNo.5380issuedbytheRegisterofDeedsofBulacan
inthenameofthenowdeceasedPedroJacinto.
SYLLABUS
Theircomplaintalleged,insubstancethattheland
1. REGISTRATIONOFTITLETOLAND;COOWNER subjectmatterthereofwasaportionofabiggerparcel
WHOWITHBREACHOFTRUSTOBTAINED allottedtotheirpredecessorininterest,Melchor
REGISTRATIONOFLANDORDEREDTORECONVEY; Jacinto,Sr.,whentheestateofthedeceasedspouses
TORRENSTITLECANNOTSHIELDHIM.Eveninthe AndresJacintoandMariaC.Santoswaspartitioned,and
absenceoffraudinobtainingregistrationorevenafter thatMelchor'ssurvivingbrother,Pedro,predecessorin
thelapseofoneyearaftertheissuanceofadecreeof interestofthedefendants,hadsucceededinregistering
registration,acoowneroflandwhoappliedforand itinhisnamethroughfraudandwithbreachoftrust,to
secureditsadjudicationandregistrationinhisname theirprejudice.
knowingthatithadnotbeenallottedtohiminthe
partition,maybecompelledtoconveythesameto Thedefendantsdeniedtheallegationsofthecomplaint
whoeverreceiveditintheapportionment,solongasno andfurtherallegedthattheirpredecessorininterest
innocentthirdpartyhadacquiredrightstherein,the hadacquiredownershipofthepropertyinlitigationby
meantime,foravaluableconsideration(Paletvs. virtueoftheprovisionsofAct496and/orby
Tejedor,55Phil.790798).Indeed,anyruletothe prescription.
contrarywouldsanctionone'senrichmentatthe
Afterduetrialtheactionwasdismissed.Onappealto
expenseofanother.Publicpolicydemandsthata theCourtofAppeals,however,thelatterreversedthe
personguiltyoffraudor,atleast,ofbreachoftrust, decisionandrenderedjudgmentasfollows:
shouldnotbeallowedtouseaTorrenstitleasashield
againsttheconsequenceofhisownwrongdoing "INVIEWOFALLTHEFOREGOING,wefindthatthe
(Cabanosvs.RegisterofDeeds,etc.,40Phi.620; errorsassignedarewelltaken.Thedecisionappealed
Severinovs.Severino,41Phil.343). from,notbeinginconformitywiththeevidenceandthe
lawonthematter,shouldbe,asitisherebyreverseand
2. ID.;ID.;ACTIONTORECOVERDOESNOT anotherentereddeclaringtheplaintiffsappellants
PRESCRIBE.Acoheirwho,throughfraud,succeedsin ownersofthelanddescribedintheircomplaintand
obtainingacertificateoftitleinhisname,tothe designatedasLotNo.5,planS.C.No.11075(underTCT
prejudiceofhiscoheir,isdeemedtoholdthelandin
134
No.5830)oftheRegisterofDeedsofBulacan,and Thepracticalresultoftheresurveyasfoundbythe
orderingthedefendantsappellees,uponfinalityofthis CourtofAppealswasthataportionoflot2described
decision,toreconveythesameofsaidplaintiffs inExhibitB,whichwassubsequentlyoneofthe
appellants.Wefindthatappellants'claimfordamages propertiesallottedtotheheirsofMelchor,was
areabandonedbythemintheirappeal,andthat segregatedtherefromandwasdesignatedaslot5in
appellees'counterclaim,isunmeritorious.Costsistaxed Exh.C.Aftertheresurvey,Pedroappliedtoregister,and
againstthedefendantsappellees,proportionately." succeededinhavinglot5andotherproperties
registeredinhisname,forwhichreasonOCTNo.12515
Fromtheabovedecisionbothpartiesappealedby
wasissuedcoveringthreelotsnumbered2,4and5.Lot
certiorari.TheappealofPilarLazaroandhersonisnow 2wassubsequentlysold,sotheoriginalcertificateof
G.R.No.L17955,andthatSaluddelRosarioand titlewascancelledandTCTNo.5830wasissued.
childrenisG.R.No.L17957.
FromalltheevidenceofrecordtheCourtofAppeals
ThereisnodisputeandtheCourtofAppealsso foundthatPilarLazaroandherson"werealwaysofthe
foundthatthelandinquestionoriginallybelongedto belief,untilthelatterpartof1953,thathe(Pedro)
thenowdeceasedspousesAndresJacintoandMariaC. deliveredtothemallthatwhichwererightfullytheirs";
Santos,bothofwhomdiedintestatesurvivedbytheir thattheydiscoveredtheshortageonlywhenPilar
childrennamedMelchor,Sr.(husbandofPilarLazaro lessthanoneyearbeforetheactionwasfiled
andfatherofMelchor,Jr.)andPedro(husbandofSalud decidedtoselltheparcelofmorethan11hectaresthat
delRosarioandfatherofhercoparties).Melchor,Sr. shewassupposedtohavereceivedfromherbrotherin
alsodiedintestatebeforetheestateofthisparents law;thatitwasonlythenthatsherealizedforthefirst
couldbepartitioned.Aftertheestatewaspartitioned timethattheparceldeliveredtoherhadonlyanareaof
(ExhibitA),theirsurvivingson,Pedro,besidesreceiving 5.8829hectares.Thecourtfurtherfoundthattheland
hisshare,continuedadministeringthepropertieswhich
inquestionwasnotthesameparcelallottedtoPedro
correspondedtotheheirsofhisdeceasedbrother.
Jacinto,andlocatedinthesamebarrio,whichhadan
AmongstthemwasaricelandlocatedinbarrioSto.
areaofalittleoverthreehectaresonly.
Rosario,Paombong,withanareaof11hectares,34ares
and3centiares,PedroJacintohimself,accordingto Onthebasisofthefactsstatedabovewhicharenow
ExhibitA,receivedaspartofhissharearicelandinthe finalandbeyondreviewtheCourtofAppealsmade
samebarrio,butwithanareaof3hectares,57aresand thefollowingconsiderations:
69centiaresonly.
"Itisnotalsocontrovertedthatuponasurveyofthe
Intheyear1926PedroJacintodeliveredtothewidow property(itemNo.1ofExhibit"A",whichshouldhave
ofhisdeceasedbrotherthepropertiesthat anareaof11.3403hectares),whenshouldhaveanares
correspondedtothelatter.Thisdelivery,accordingto of11.3403hectares),whenappellantPilarLazaroVda.
theCourtofAppeals,wasmadeonly"inpaper"because deJacintodecidedtosellfour(4)hectaresofthe
Pedrodidnotmakeanactualdeliveryoftheproperties supposed11.3403hectares,therewaslacking54,574
butlimitedhimselftotellinghissisterinlawthatthere squaremeterstherefromwhichincidentally
were"Kasamas"workingforher.Oneyearthereafter, correspondedexactlytoLotNo.5,itemNo.2ofTCTNo.
althoughthepropertiescomposingtheestateofhis 5830,inthenameofPedroJacinto.Appelleesclaim,
deceasedparentshadalreadybeensurveyedsinceJune however,thatthesupposed11,3403hectares
10,1913,asshownbyExhibitB,Pedrocausedthemto appearinginExhibit"A",couldhavebeenshortof
beresurveyed,thisresultinginthedrawingofExhibitC. 54,574squaremetersandthatthe3.5769hectares
135
appearinginthereceiptExhibit"1",itemNo.3thereof, "ImpliedTrustshavebeensaidtobethosewhichare
couldhavebeenreally5.5474hectares,whichisnotthe raisedbylegalimplicationfromthefactsand
lotinquestion.Thestrikingcoincidenceinthearea circumstancesofthecase,toeffectthepresumed
disputedandthatregisteredinthenameofappellees' intentionofthepartiesortosatisfydemandsofjustice
predecessorininterest,morethancatchestheeye. ortoprotectagainstfraud(65C.J.222),orthose
Underthepartition,theappellantsweretoreceiveas enforcedbyequitybecausemorality,justice,
oneoftheproperties,11.3403hectaresofriceland.This conscience,andfairdealingdemandthattherelation
beingthecase,therearenotreasonsdiscernibleinthe beestablished(supra).ThenewCivilCodeprovides
recordswhy,afteranactualsurveyofthesaidproperty, that,'Ifpropertyisacquiredthroughmistakeorfraud,
54,574metersshouldbelackingtherefrom.Itcouldnot thepersonobtainingitis,byforceoflaw,considereda
besaidthatthesaidthattheareawasjustaproductof trusteeofanimpliedtrustforthebenefitoftheperson
acalculation.WhenExhibit"A"wasexecuted,the fromwhomthepropertycomes"(Art.1456).Thatthere
boundarieswereplainlyindicatedthereon.Asamatter wasfraudonthepartofPedroJacintoinregisteringthe
offact,Exhibit"A"designatedthenumberofhectares, propertyinhisnametotheprejudiceoftheappellants
aresandcentiares,whichisindicativeofthepreciseness isrevealedbytherecords.ItwillbeseenthatonExhibit
oftheareatobedeliveredtotherespectiveheirs.The "C",theamendedsurveyofthepropertieswhichPedro
factthatthelackingmeasurementfitsexactlywithLot JacintoandMelchorJacinto,Sr.inheritedfromtheir
No.5ofPedroJacintounderTCTNo.5830,warrantsthe parents,changesweremade.Thisresurveywasdoneat
conclusionthatPedroJacintohaddeprivedthe theinstanceofPedroJacinto,inspiteofthefactthaton
appellantshereinoftheirjustshare...." June10,1913,thesamepropertieswerealready
surveyed,dividedanddelineated(Exhibit"B").The
"Therearesufficientproofstoshowthatfraudwas
boundariesofLot5asappearinginExhibit"G"(the
practicedbyPedroJacintoagainsttheappellants amendedplan)arethesameasthoseappearingin
herein.WhenPedrosupposedlydeliveredtheproperty, Exhibit"B"minusthedesignationasLot5andits
hediditonlyinpaper,withoutbringingplaintiffPilar segregationfromthegreatermassofLot2.InExhibit
Lazarotothepremises,althoughhetoldherthatthere "E"or"I",areceiptofthepropertiesinheritedbyPedro
were"kasamas"workingforher.OnDecember15, JacintofromhisfatherAndres,nopropertycoincidein
1927,PedroJacintocausedthatthepropertiesbe boundarieswiththepropertiesgiventoPedro.Under
resurveyed,whichresultedinthedrawingofExhibit theabovesetoffacts,itisquiteevidentthatthe
"C",whichineffectamendedExhibit"B".PartofLot2
propertyinquestionrightfullybelongedtotheplaintiffs
wassegregatedandhadbeendesignedasLot5in
andthatanimpliedtrustwascreatedbetweenthe
Exhibits"C".AndthisLot5hasanareaexactlyequalto plaintiffsandtheappellees'fatherPedroJacinto."(pp.
theareawhichwasfoundlackinginthe11.3403
910,decision)
hectaresbelongingtotheplaintiffsappellants."(pp.67
&9,decision) TheheirsofPedroJacintonowcontrolthattheCourtof
Appealserredinapplyingtothiscasethelawofimplied
Asaresultoftheforegoing,theCourtofAppealsheld
orconstructivetrusts,and,inholdingthat,underthe
thatPedroJacintomustbedeemedtohaveregistered
factsofthecase,therightoftheheirsofMelchor
thelandinquestionasatrusteeforandinbehalfofthe Jacintotorecoverthepropertyinquestionis
widowandsonofhisdecreasedbrother.Thepertinent imprescriptible.Wefindthesecontentionstobe
portionofitsdecisionreadsasfollows: withoutmerit.
136
ThefollowingfindingsoffactmadebytheCourtof Lastly,theclaimoftheheirsofPedroJacintothatthe
Appealscannotnowbequestioned"(1)afterthe latterhadacquiredownershipofthepropertyin
partitionoftheestateofthedeceasedspousesAndres litigationbyprescription,islikewiseuntenable.Aswe
JacintoandMariaC.Santos,PedroJacinto,their haverecentlyheldinJuan,etal.vs.Zuiga,G.R.No.L
survivingson,continuedadministeringtheproperties 17044,April28,1962,anactiontoenforceatrustis
allottedtotheheirsofhisdeceasedbrother;(2)when imprescriptible.Consequently,acoheirwho,through
hedeliveredtheshareofthelatter,hewithheld fraud,succeedsinobtainingacertificateoftitleinhis
deliveryoftheparcelofmorethan11hectaresallotted, nameoftheprejudiceofhiscoheirs,isdeemedtohold
amongothers,tohisaforesaidcoheirs;(3)oneyear thelandintrustforthelatter,andtheactionbythem
thereafterhecausedtheportionwithheldfromcoheirs torecoverthepropertydoesnotprescribe.
toberegisteredinhisname;(4)thewidowandsonof
hisdeceasedbrotherdidnotknowthattheparcelof Ontheotherhand,intheirappealPilarLazaroandher
landdeliveredtothembytheircoheirwasshortof5 soncontendthattheCourtofAppealserredinholding
hectares,45aresand74centiares,andsaidparties thattheyhadabandonedtheirclaimfordamages.We
"werealwaysofthebelief,untilthelatterpartof1953, alsofindthistobewithoutmerit.
thathe(Pedro)deliveredtothemallthatwhichwere Asstatedheretofore,theCourtofFirstInstanceof
rightfullytheirs".Inviewofthesefacts,itwouldbe Bulacan,afterthetrial,dismissedthiscaseandthe
againstreasonandgoodconsciencenottoholdthat plaintiffs(PilarLazaroVda.deJacintoandherson)
PedroJacintocommittedabreachoftrustwhich appealedtotheCourtofAppeals.Inrendering
enabledhimtosecureregistrationofthelandin judgmentthelattercourtheldthatsaidappellantshad
questiontotheprejudiceofhiscoheirs.Therefore,inan abandonedtheirclaimfordamages,presumably
actionlikethepresent,hemaybeorderedtomake becauseoftheirfailuretomakeintheirbriefan
reconveyanceofthepropertytopersonrightfully assignmentoferrortotheeffectthattheCourtofFirst
entitledtoit.Infact,ithasbeenheldthateveninthe Instancehaderredinnotawardingthemdamages.Itis
absenceoffraudinobtainingregistration,orevenafter nowtheircontentionthathavingappealedfromthe
thelapseofoneyearaftertheissuanceofadecreeof dismissal,theywerenolongerindutyboundtomakea
registration,acoowneroflandwhoappliedforand separatespecificassignmentoferrorregardingthe
secureditsadjudicationandregistrationinhisname court'sfailuretoawarddamages,becausetheirrightto
knowingthatithadnotbeenallottedtohiminthe themwasentirelydependeduponthefavorable
partition,maybecompelledtoconveythesameto resolutionoftheassignmentoferrorsmadeintheir
whoeverreceiveditintheapportionment,solongasno briefassailingthedismissal.Thisargumentlosesforce
innocentthirdpartyhadacquiredrightstherein,inthe uponconsiderationofthefactthattheirrighttohave
meantime,foravaluableconsideration(Paletvs. thereconveyancewasonething,thetheirrightto
Tejedor,55Phil.790798).Indeed,anyruleofthe damages,another.Therecouldbereconveyancein
contrarywouldsanctionone'senrichmentatthe theirfavor,withoutthisnecessarilyentitlingthemto
expenseofanother.Publicpolicydemandsthata damages,asforinstance,iftheyproducednoevidence
personguiltyoffraudor,atleast,ofbreachoftrust, toprovethem,orthatproduceddoesnotsufficiently
shouldnotbeallowedtouseaTorrenstitleasashield provetheclaim.Itseemsclear,therefore,thatitwas
againsttheconsequencesofhiswrongdoing(Cabanos theirdutyasappellantstobringupbeforetheCourtof
vs.RegisterofDeeds,etc.,40Phil.620;Severinovs. Appeals,byspecificassignmentoferror,thisparticular
Severino,41Phil.343). question.
137
WHEREFORE,thedecisionappealedfrombeingin
accordancewithlaw,thesameisherebyaffirmed,with
costs.
Padilla,Labrador,Concepcion,Reyes,J.B.L.andBarrera,
JJ.,concur.
BautistaAngeloandParedes,JJ.,tooknopart
138
[G.R.No.91797.August7,1992.] toinflictsubstantialinjusticeandirreparableinjury
uponOrtigaswhichwouldbecompelledtodoallover
WIDOWS&ORPHANSASSOCIATION,INC.,petitioner, againwhatithaddoneatleasttwicebeforetoprove
vs.COURTOFAPPEALSandORTIGAS&COMPANY
ithasindefeasibletitletothelandcoveredbyTCTNos.
LIMITEDPARTNERSHIP,respondents. 77652and77653.Theresultinginjusticeandinjury
Quijano&Padillaforpetitioner. wouldnotbelimitedtoOrtigas,butwouldengulfmany
thousandsofpresentregisteredprivateownersof
JoseS.Songcoforprivaterespondents. TransferCertificatesofTitlecoveringthethousandsof
hectaresoflandembracedbyDecreeNo.1425.The
SYLLABUS
gravesocialimplicationsofpermittingacloudtoarise
1. REMEDIALLAW;EVIDENCE;SECONDARY onallthoseTransferCertificatesofTitlebyourfailure
EVIDENCE;ADMISSIBILITYINEVIDENCEOFCERTIFIED totakeintoaccountourowndecisionsinearliercases,
TRUECOPYOFORIGINALCERTIFICATEOFTITLE.After canscarcelybecontemplated.
carefulreexaminationoftheevidenceofrecordand
3. ID.;APPEAL;DOCTRINEINDIOQUINOVS.IAC,
applicablerulesofevidence,theCourtconsidersthat
179SCRA163,THATFACTUALFINDINGSBASEDON
theword"secondaryevidence"wasinaccurate.The
EVIDENCEPRESENTEDEXPARTEASAPPENDICESTO
copyofOCTNo.351offeredbyOrtigaswasacertified
MOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONREJECTEDBY
truecopyoftheoriginalthereoffoundinthe
SUPREMECOURTNOTAPPLICABLETOCASEATBAR.
RegistrationBookoftheRegisterofDeedsofRizal.The
InholdingthattheCourtofAppealsshouldnothave
admissibilityofsuchacopyincourtproceedingsisan
resolvedthefactualissuesconsideringthenatureof
exceptiontotheordinaryruleonsecondaryevidence;
certiorarijurisdiction,theCourtreliedonDioquinov.
suchadmissibilityisinfactmandatedbySection47of
IntermediateAppellateCourt.InDioquino,thisCourt
ActNo.496(TheLandRegistrationAct).UndertheLand
rejectedthefactualfindingsmadebytheCourtof
RegistrationActwhichwasinforceatthetimeOCTNo.
Appealsinthecourseofresolvingapetitionforreview
351wasissued,theoriginalthereoffoundinthe
filedunderSection22,B.P.Blg.129,because,interalia,
RegistrationBookoftheRegisterofDeedsofRizalwas
thosefactualfindingswerebasedonevidence
anofficialtranscriptofDecreeNo.1425,withrespectto
Presentedexparteasappendicestoamotionfor
thelandcoveredbysuchdecreesituatedinthe
reconsiderationfromthedecisionofthetrialcourt.
ProvinceofRizal.Thus,OCTNo.351constitutesdirect
Consideringthatnoevidencehadbeenpresentedby
proofoftheexistenceofDecreeNo.1425uponwhich
eitherpartyintheprincipalproceedings,eitherbefore
theOrtigasTCTs(Nos.77652and77653)arebased.
theMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtorbeforetheRegional
2. ID.;ID.;JUDICIALNOTICE;SUPREMECOURT TrialCourt,theCourtinDioquinoconcludedthatthe
BOUNDTOTAKEJUDICIALNOTICEOFCASELAWAND CourtofAppeals'powertoresolveissuesoffactunder
ITSRECORDS;CASEATBAR.TheResolutionsofthe Section9,paragraph2,B.P.Blg.129,wasmisapplied
SupremeCourtintheNavarroandDelRosariocases, becausetheopposingpartyhadnorealopportunityto
disposedofthosecasesontheirmeritsbyaffirmingthe rejecttheevidencesubmittedexpartebyitsopponent.
pertinentdecisionsoftheCourtofAppeals.Those CarefulexaminationoftheDioquinocaseshowsthat
Resolutionsarepartofthecaselawandtherecordsof thefactstherearesodifferentfromthoseofthe
thisCourtitselfofwhichweareboundtotakejudicial presentcaseastorenderourholdinginDioquino
notice.Wearecertainlynotatlibertytodisregardthem inapplicablehere.Here,theCourtofAppealshad
inanycase.Sotodisregardourowndecisionswouldbe conductedhearingsonfour(4)occasions,duringwhich
139
itrequiredbothpartiestopresentevidencetoestablish clients)ononehandandWidoraontheother;both
theirrespectivecontentionsonOrtigas'righttoawrit partiessoughttoquestionthevalidityofDecreeNo.
ofpreliminaryinjunction.Atthesehearings,both 1425anditsparticularderivativeshereinvolved(TCT
partiesreproducedbeforetheCourtofAppealsthe Nos.77652and77653),insofarastheDecreehad
sameevidencetheyhadadducedbeforethetrialCourt adjudicatedinfavorofOrtigasownershipoflandbeing
duringthe9yearlonghearingsonOrtigas'motionto claimedbyNavarroandWidora.Thiscircumstance
dismiss,whichevidencetendedtosupporttheir makesthempriviesinlawforpurposesoftheoperation
respectivecontentionsonthederivationofOrtigas's oftheruleonconclusivenessofjudgment.
TCTs.Thus,theacceptanceofexparteevidencewhich Furthermore,itmustbeobservedthatWidoraisbound
theCourtrejectedinDioquino,neveroccurredinthe bytherulinglaiddownintheCia.Agricolacaseof1906
instantcase.Moreover,thedeterminationofwhether thatOrtigas(throughitspredecessorininterest)isthe
aninferiorcourthadarbitrarilydisregarded registeredowneroflandcomprisingtheHaciendade
preponderantevidenceofrecordadducedinprotracted Mandaloyonbecausethefactualmattersresolvedin
hearingsbeforeit,isapropersubjectofinquirybyan theNavarrocaseshowthatthelandcoveredby
appellatecourtinacertiorariproceeding. Widora'sapplicationformspartofthatvasttractofland
adjudicatedtoOrtigas'predecessorininterestinthe
4. ID.;EFFECTOFJUDGMENTS;MINUTE
1906decision....Oncemore,itisapparentthatthe
RESOLUTIONOFSUPREMECOURT;EFFECT; factualmatterswhichWidoraseekstolitigateinG.R.
CONCLUSIVENESSOFJUDGMENT;SUBSTANTIAL No.91797havealreadybeenresolvedintheDel
IDENTITYOFPARTIES;EXPLAINED;CASEATBAR.The Rosariocase.Sincethesubjectmatterofthe
decisionofJudgeApostolwasaffirmedinitsentiretyby controversyinDelRosarioandinG.R.No.91797are
Gaviola,J.oftheCourtofAppeals.Asnotedearlier,
identical(parcelsoflandcoveredbyTCTNos.77652
FelipeNavarro'spetitionforreviewoftheGaviola and77653),thecauseofactionofWidorainG.R.No.
decisionwasdeniedbytheSupremeCourtforlackof 91797isidenticaltothatofthepetitionersinDel
merit.TheCourt'sminuteresolutionisajudgmenton Rosario,i.e.,thepetitionersinDelRosariocontested
themeritsforthepurposeofapplyingtheprinciplesof Ortigas'claimofownershipoverthelandfromwhich
barbypriorjudgmentandconclusivenessofjudgment.. theywerebeingejected,whichisofcoursethesame
..Underthedoctrineofconclusivenessofjudgment, claimofownershipembodiedinOrtigas'oppositionto
thesefactualmattersestablishedinG.R.No.50156are Widora'slandregistrationapplicationoverthesame
bindingonWidoraandcannolongerberelitigatedbyit landintheinstantcase.ItfollowsthatWidorainG.R.
inG.R.No.91797.Bothcases,toacertainextent, No.91797mustalsobedeemedprivyinlawofthe
involvethesamesubjectmatter(i.e.,theparcelsofland petitionersinDelRosario(fortheytooassailedthe
describedinOrtigas'TCTNos.77652and77653.
validityofDecreeNo.1425anditsparticular
Ortigas'causeofactioninG.R.No.50156consistedof
derivatives,TCTNos.77652and77653).Accordingly,
thefraudulentsalesofitspropertymadebyFelipe thefactualandlegalmattersresolvedwithfinalityin
Navarroinbehalfofhis"owner"clients.Thatdiffers theDelRosariocase,whicharedeterminativeofthe
somewhatfromOrtigas'causeofactioninG.R.No. meritsofWidora'sapplicationforlandregistrationin
91797,whichconsistsoftheadverseclaimofownership G.R.No.91797mustbeconsidered,asintheNavarro
assertedbyWidoraoverOrtigas'property,manifested case,asabartothegrantoftheWidoraapplication
throughthefillingofWidora'sapplicationforland undertheruleonconclusivenessofjudgment.
registration.Butmoreimportantly,thereisa
substantialidentitybetweenFelipeNavarro(andhis
140
5. ID.;ID.;BARBYPRIORJUDGMENT;NOT ruleisthatlackofjurisdictionwhichrendersanaction
EVADEDBYVARYINGFORMOFACTIONORADOPTING dismissiblemaybedeterminedbythecourtseizedwith
DIFFERENTMODEOFPRESENTINGCASE.Inthecase itmotuproprio,andmayberaisedbyaparty,atany
atbar,Widoraisrelyinguponthesamesupposed stageoftheproceedingsevenonappeal....Waiverof
SpanishtitleTitulodePropiedadNo.4136.We resadjudicata,certainlyincasesliketheonebeforeus,
believeandsoholdthattheResolutionofthisCourtin cannotcasuallybeassumedtohavebeenmade.What
G.R.No.69343,holdingthatallegedSpanishtitlehad isinvolvedhereisnotanacademicdoctrineoflawbut
becomebereftofanyprobativevalueisresadjudicata veryvaluablepropertyrights,sovaluablethatatleast
inrespectofthepresentcase.Putalittledifferently, thricebefore,variouspersonsorgroupsofpersons
theprincipleofbarbypriorjudgmentprecludesany (includingWidora,forthesecondtime)haveattempted
reliancebyWidorainthecaseatbaronthatfantastic tousurptitletheretobyassailingthesametwo(2)TCTs.
Spanishtitleconsideringtheessentialidentitiesof Ortigastenaciouslyfoughtoffthoseeffortsatleast
partiesandidentityofsubjectmatterandofcauseof three(3)timesbefore,fromthetrialcourtthruthe
actionbetweenCivilCaseNo.Q22410andLRCCase CourtofAppealstoourownCourt,eachlitigation
No.Q336.WeshouldaddthatWidora'sprayerfor stretchingouttomanyyears.Inthissituation,onlythe
alternativereliefintheformofconfirmationof mostexplicitanddeliberatestatement,inunmistakable
imperfecttitleoverthelandcoveredbyitsapplication language,willsufficetoconstitutewaiver;thatis
forregistration,isimmaterial.Thatalternativereliefis certainlynotpresenthere.Whatisclaimedhereis
alsopremiseduponWidora'sclaimthatOrtigashad merelyimpliedorpresumedwaiver,whichhasbeen
fraudulentlyregisteredthelandinits(Ortigas)own expresslydeniedbyOrtigas.YetasLantin,J.ofthe
namesuchthatthelandremainedpresumptivelypublic respondentCourtofAppealsobserved,asfarbackas27
land.Thefirmlyentrenchedruleisthatapartycannot June1979,initsmotionforreconsiderationofthetrial
evadetheapplicationoftheprincipleofbarbyprior court'sorderof20April1979denyingitsmotionto
judgmentbysimplyvaryingtheformoftheactionorby dismiss,Ortigashadalreadybroughttotheattentionof
adoptingadifferentmodeofpresentingitscase. thetrialcourtthefactthatitsassailedtitleshadbeen
upheldbyCourtsofFirstInstanceandappellatecourts
6. ID.;ID.;RESJUDICATA;WAIVERTHEREOFNOT inpriorcases.Moreover,duringtheproceedingson
CASUALLYASSUMED;INCASEATBAR,DEFENSESOF Ortigas'motiontodismiss,theGovernmentitself,
RESADJUDICATARELATINGTOJURISDICTIONMAYBE throughtheLandRegistrationCommission,hadadvised
RAISEDATANYSTAGEOFPROCEEDINGSOR
thetrialcourtthatthe156hectareparcelWidorawas
DETERMINEDBYCOURTMOTUPROPRIO.Webelieve
seekingtoregisterwere"coveredbyvalidand
andsoholdthattherewasnosuchwaiverofres subsistingtitlesinthenameofOrtigas."
adjudicatabyOrtigasinthecaseatbar.Itismost
importanttonote,inthefirstplace,thatthedefenseof 7. CIVILLAW;LANDREGISTRATION;
resadjudicatapleadedbyOrtigasinthiscaserelates INDEFEASIBILITYANDINCONTROVERTIBILITYOF
ultimatelytothejurisdictionofthelandregistration TORRENSTITLE.Finally,asheldintheCourtof
courttotryLRCNo.Q336.TheCourtofAppeals AppealsdecisionwhichweaffirmedinG.R.No.50156,
correctlystressedthatOrtigashavingshownthatthe theTorrenstitlesofOrtigasservedasevidenceofits
landappliedforbyWidoraisalreadyregisteredin indefeasibletitleoverthepropertycoveredtherebyand
Ortigas'name,thelandregistrationcourtsimplyhadno theybecameincontrovertibleoneyearafterentryof
jurisdictiontodecreetheregistrationofthatsameland thefinaldecreeofregistrationfromwhichtheywere
inthenameofsomeotherperson.Thewellestablished derivedin1906.TheSupremeCourt'saffirmanceofthis
141
rulinginfactconstitutesaholdingthatthelandcovered present.Otherwise,thisCourtmightasawellsitastrier
bythesetitles(particularlyTCTNos.77652and77653) offacts.
havebeendulybroughtundertheTorrensSystemof
2. ID.;ID.;SECONDARYEVIDENCE;ADMISSIBILITY
landregistrationandthatthiscircumstanceprevented
INEVIDENCEOFCERTIFIEDTRUECOPYOFORIGINAL
thelandregistrationcourthearingWidora'sapplication
CERTIFICATEOFTITLE;INCASEATBAR,CERTIFIEDTRUE
inLRCNo.Q336fromacquiringjurisdictionoverthe
landcoveredbythatapplication. COPYOFOCT351NOTADMISSIBLEFORSTATED
PURPOSE;REASONTHEREFOR.Respondentnext
BIDIN,J.,dissenting: arguesthattheCourtofAppealscommittednoerrorin
admittingasevidenceOCT351onthegroundthatSec.
1. REMEDIALLAW;EVIDENCE;JUDICIALNOTICE;
47ofAct496itselfdeclaresittobeadmissibleinall
NOTPROPERINCASEATBAR.Indisposingofthe courts.SaidSectionprovides:"Sec.47.Theoriginal
controversybeforeus,theCourtresolved,theissueon
certificateintheregistrationbook,anycopythereof
thebasisoffactswhicharenotextantintherecordsof dulycertifiedunderthesignatureoftheclerk,orofthe
thecase(GRNo.97197).Thisisquiteunprecendented. registerofdeedsoftheprovinceorthecitywherethe
Invokingtheconceptofjudicialnotice,theCourt landissituatedandthesealofthecourt,andalsothe
consideredcertainfactswhichledittoruleinfavorof owner'sduplicatecertificateshallbereceivedas
respondentOrtigas.Isubmitthatthese"facts", evidenceinallcourtsofthePhilippineIslandsandshall
substantialastheyare,shouldnothavebeen beconclusiveastoallmatterscontainedthereinexcept
consideredbytheCourtforthesimplereasonthatthey sofarasotherwiseprovidedinthisAct."Followingthe
werenotevenallegedbyrespondentitselfnordothey lineofrespondent'sargument,OCT351shouldnot
appearontherecordsbeforeus.Insodoing,itismy havebeenadmittedand/orconsideredasproofthat
submissionthattheCourtoverstretchedtheconceptof TCTNos.77652and77653werederivedfromit(OCT
judicialnotice.Theimmutableruleonburdenofproof
351).ThisisbecausethesaidTCTsthemselvesshow
isthateachpartymustprovehisownaffirmative thattheywerederivednotfromOCT351butfrom
allegations(Sec.1,Rule131)bytheamountofevidence
otherOCTsstatedabove.ToadmitOCT351asthe
requiredbylawwhichispreponderanceofevidencein
supposedoriginofTCTNos.77652and77653atthis
civilcases.Thatiswhythedecisionsoughttobe stageoftheproceedingwouldineffectbedisregarding
reconsidered,remandedthecasetothetrialcourtfor theofficialentriesmadethereinwhichindicatethat
furtherproceedings.Attheriskofbeingrepetitious,I saidTCTswerederivativesofOCTNos.19,334,336&
wouldliketoemphasizethatthefactsnarratedinthe 337.Theseentriesareconclusive,sothelawsays.
Resolutionweregatheredsubstantiallyfromsources Consequently,Ortigas,contentionthatTCTNos.77652
outsideoftherecordsofthecase....Butwhatismore and77653arederivativesofOCT351hasnolegto
disturbingisthefactthattheponenciabasedits standon.
decisiononevidentiaryfactsnotborneoutbythe
records.Theponenciamadeanumberofreferencesto 3. ID.;APPEAL;QUESTIONSOFFACTBEYOND
therecordshadintheCourtofAppealswhich, PROVINCEOFSUPREMECOURT;CASEATBAR.The
unfortunately,doesnotappearontherecords issueinthiscaseiswhetherthe156hectareparcelof
presentedbeforethisCourtofresolution.This,I landappliedfor,locatedatUgongNorte,QuezonCity,is
believe,amountedtooverextendingtheconceptof coveredbyOrtigasTCTNos.77652and77653,oris
judicialnotice.Isubmitthatitisnotthedutyofthis alienableanddisposablelandascontendedby
Courttosupplywhatthepartylitigantshavefailedto petitionerandcertifiedbytheBureauofLandsandthe
142
BureauofForestry.Thesearequestionsoffactsand and77653)donotsupportitscontentionthatthesaid
questionsoffactsarebeyondtheprovinceofthisCourt TCTswerederivativesofOCT351.
(PLDTv.NationalTelecommunicationsCommission,190
5. CIVILLAW;LANDREGISTRATION;CORRECTION
SCRA717[1990]).
OFENTRIESINTRANSFERCERTIFICATESOFTITLE;
4. ID.;EFFECTOFJUDGMENTS;RESJUDICATA; ENTRIESINCERTIFICATESOFTITLEBINDINGAND
WHENVALIDASADEFENSE;WHENDEEMEDWAIVED; CONCLUSIVEUPONCOURTS;CASEATBAR.The
CASEATBAR.Itismyconsideredopinionthatthe procedureadoptedbytherespondentCourtofAppeals
defenseofresjudicatamustbeseasonablypleadedin inarrivingatitsconclusionthatTCTNos.77652and
ordertobevalid,(Fernandezv.deCastro,48Phil123 77653werederivedfromOCT351contrarytowhatis
[1925];seealsoDelValv.DelVal,29Phil534[1915]) statedinthefacesofsaidTCTs,findsnosupportinlaw
andifnotsetupasadefenseorgroundofobjection asitamountedtoacorrectionand/oralterationofthe
seasonably,thedoctrineofresjudicataisdeemed TCTsinviolationoftheexistingapplicablelaw.Under
waived(Alvarezv.CourtofAppeals,158SCRA401 theSec.112ofAct496(nowSec.108ofPD1529),no
[1988];Vergarav.Rugue,78SCRA312[1977];Phil.Coal certificateoftitlemaybeamendedoralteredexceptby
MinersAssn.v.CebuPortlandCement,10SCRA784 orderoftheproperregionaltrialcourt.Thepetitionfor
[1964]).Whereresjudicatawasraisedasadefenseonly thepurposemustbefiledbeforetheregionaltrial
inthemotionforreconsideration,thesamewas court,sittingasalandregistrationcourt,andentitledin
deemedwaived(Pulidov.Pablo,117SCRA16[1982]). theoriginalcaseinwhichthedecreeofregistrationwas
Here,respondentraisedthedefenseofresjudicataonly entered.Certainly,theCourtofAppeals,inacertiorari
initsmemorandumsubmittedafterfilingitsmotionfor andinjunctionproceeding,cannotarrogateuntoitself
reconsiderationofthedecisiondatedAugust28,1991, thatpowerlodgedexclusivelywiththelandregistration
whichmotion,asstatedearlier,didnotevencontain courtwithoutrunningafoulwiththesaidprovisionof
anyreferencetothecasesnowbelatedlysetupasa law.Asstatedearlier,thecorrectionoftheentriesin
defensebyrespondentinitsmemoranduminsupport thetransfercertificatesoftitleshouldbeeffected
ofitsmotionforreconsideration.Respondent's beforetheRegionalTrialCourtsittingasaland
invocationofresjudicatahavingbeenmadetoolatein registrationcourtwhichhasoriginaljurisdictionover
theday,thesamemustbeconsideredashavingbeen thesamepursuanttoSec.112ofAct496(nowSec.108,
waived(Sec.8,Rule15andSec.5,Rule16).Inany PD1529).Foraslongastheseentriesappearinthe
event,aperusalofthecasesbelatedlyrelieduponby transfercertificatesoftitle,theyarebindingand
respondentasdefense(resjudicata)wouldreadily conclusiveuponthecourt(Sec.47,Act.496).Otherwise
disclosethatOCT351,theallegedoriginofTCTNos. stated,theseentries,untilascertainedtobeerroneous
77652and77653,wasnotthesubjectmatterofsaid inanappropriateproceedingbeforetheland
casesmuchlesspasseduponinthedispositionofsaid registrationcourt,arebindingandconclusiveinall
cases.TheissueoftheapplicabilityofOCT351tothe courtsincludingtherespondentCourtofAppealsand
caseatbarisevenmorecompoundedbythefactthat thisCourt.InasmuchasOrtigasinsiststhatthesubject
TCTNos.776752and77653donot,ontheirfaces, parceloflandiscoveredbyOCT351underDecree
reflectthattheiroriginisOCT351asclaimedby 1425,whileitsownTransferCertificateofTitleNos.
respondent.Onthecontrary,saidTCTstracetheirorigin 77652and77653statethattheyarederivativesofOCT
toOCTNos.19,334,336and337andhence,nottoOCT Nos.19,334,336and337,itfollowsthatTransfer
351.Otherwisestated,Ortigas,evidence(TCTs77652 CertificatesofTitleNos.77652and77653donot
embracethesubjectparcelofland,notbeing
143
derivativesofOCT351.TheentriesintheTCTsof theirfaces(i.e.,OCTNos.19,336,337and344)andto
Ortigascannotbedismissedasmereerrorssincethe giveOrtigasanopportunitytoshowthecontrary.6
saidentriesareconclusive.Hence,thenecessityof
Fornine(9)years,from1979until1988,hearingswere
remandingthecasetothecourtaquoforresolutionof
heldwherethepartiesadducedevidenceinsupportof
thefactualissuesintheexerciseofitsoriginal
theirrespectivecontentions.7
jurisdiction.NeitherthisCourtnottherespondentCourt
ofAppealscaninitiallymakethecorrection,iftherebe Inanorderdated30March1988,thetrialcourtdenied
any. Ortigas'motiontodismiss,holdingthatitsTCT'swere
apparentlynotderivedfromtheOCT'smentionedon
RESOLUTION
theirfacesanddidnotappeartohavebeenbasedonan
FELICIANO,Jp: existingoriginaldecreeofregistration.8
On27August1974,petitionerWidows'andOrphans Ortigas'motionforreconsiderationhavingbeendenied,
Association,Inc.("Widora")institutedLandRegistration andthetrialcourthavingsetthecaseforhearingonthe
Case("LRC")No.Q336beforeBranch4oftheCourtof merits,Ortigasfiledapetitionforcertiorariwithprayer
FirstInstanceofQuezonCity(nowBranch83ofthe forawritofpreliminaryinjunctionwiththepublic
RegionalTrialCourt,sameCity).Widoraappliedfor respondentCourtofAppealson10July1989.9
originalregistrationoftitleoveraparcelofland
describedinPlanLRC(SWO)15352,allegingthatsaid Inadecisiondated27November1989,theCourtof
propertyiscoveredbyTituloPropiedadNo.4136dated Appealsgaveduecoursetothepetitionandnullified
25April1894,supposedlyissuedinthenameofone, thetrialcourt'sorderof30March1988.ItheldthatTCT
deceased,MarianoSanPedroyEsteban.1Inan Nos.77652and77653werederivedfromOCTNo.351,
amendedapplication,Widorastatedthattheland whichinturnwasbasedonDecreeofRegistrationNo.
1425issuedinfavorofOrtigas'predecessorininterest
appliedforwassituatedatMalitlitUgong,QuezonCity,
in1905,inG.L.R.O.RecordNo.917whichhadbeen
withanareaof156hectares.2
triedbytheLandRegistrationCourtofManila.The
On13October1978,privaterespondentOrtigas&Co. CourtofAppealsdismissedLRCNo.Q336becausethe
LimitedPartnership,Inc.("Ortigas")filedanopposition landsubjectthereofwasalreadyregisteredinfavorof
totheapplication.3Thispleadingwasfollowedbya Ortigas,withtheresultthatthetrialcourthadno
motiontodismissdated23October1978.4 jurisdictionoverthesubjectmatteroftheaction.10
Inasupplementaryreportdated14November1978, Itsmotionforreconsiderationhavingbeendenied,
theCommissionerofLandRegistrationinformedthe Widorafiledthepresentpetitionforreviewwiththe
trialcourtthatthelandsoughttoberegisteredwas Courton22March1990.Inadecisiondated28August
"identicallythesame"asthatcoveredbyLot7of 1991,theCourt'sThirdDivisionsetasidethedecisionof
TransferCertificateofTitle("TCT")No.77652andofLot theCourtofAppealsandreinstatedtheorderofthe
8ofTCTNo.77653,bothofwhichwereissuedand trialcourtdated30March1988.
standinginthenameofOrtigas.5
TheCourt'sThirdDivisionheldthattheCourtofAppeals
Inanorderdated20April1979,thetrialcourtsetthe erredinmakingfactualfindingsdeterminativeof
caseforhearingtoenableWidoratoproveitsassertion Widora'sapplicationonthebasisof"secondary
thatTCTNos.77652and77653werenotderivedfrom evidence"offeredbyOrtigas,inunilaterallycorrecting
theOriginalCertificatesofTitle("OCT")referredtoon entriesintheOrtigasTorrenstitlesandheldthatthe
144
controversyregardingtheauthenticityofsaidtitles beenadjudicatedbytheCourtwithfinalityandarenow
shouldberesolvedin"fullblown"hearingsbeforethe mattersofjudicialnotice.12
trialcourt.11
InthisResolution,theCourtwilladdressthisprincipal
Hence,thepresentMotionforReconsiderationfiledby argumentofOrtigasaswellastheargumentconcerning
Ortigas.llcd thecharacterofevidencesubmittedbyOrtigasbefore
thetrialcourt.
ExaminationoftheCourt'sDecisionof28August1991
showsthattwo(2)considerationsledtheCourtto I.
remandthiscasetothetrialcourttohearWidora's
applicationforlandregistrationonthemerits. InholdingthattheCourtofAppealsshouldnothave
resolvedthefactualissuesconsideringthenatureof
Firstly,theCourtwasapparentlynotentirelycertain certiorarijurisdiction,theCourtreliedonDioquinov.
thatthelandcoveredbyWidora'sapplicationwas IntermediateAppellateCourt.13InDioquino,thisCourt
alreadyregisteredundertheTorrenssysteminOrtigas' rejectedthefactualfindingsmadebytheCourtof
name,suchthatitappearedprudenttoconducta"full Appealsinthecourseofresolvingapetitionforreview
blown"trialonthemeritstoclearupthatmatter, filedunderSection22,B.P.Blg.129,because,interalia,
considering:(1)Ortigasarguedthatitsownershipofthe thosefactualfindingswerebasedonevidence
landwhichisthesubjectofWidora'sapplicationwas presentedexparteasappendicestoamotionfor
confirmedbyDecreeNo.1425issuedinG.L.R.O.Record reconsiderationfromthedecisionofthetrialcourt.
No.917oftheLandRegistrationCourtofManilain Consideringthatnoevidencehadbeenpresentedby
1905;however,Widora'sevidencetendedtoshowthat eitherpartyintheprincipalproceedings,eitherbefore
DecreeNo.1425adjudicatedtoOrtigasonlyseventeen theMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtorbeforetheRegional
(17)hectaresoflandsituatedinSta.Ana,Manila,while TrialCourt,theCourtinDioquinoconcludedthatthe
Widora'sapplicationrelatedtoonehundredfiftysix CourtofAppeals'powertoresolveissuesoffactunder
(156)hectaresoflandsituatedinQuezonCity;and(2)it Section9,paragraph2,B.P.Blg.129,wasmisapplied
appearedthatOrtigas'TCTNos.77652and77653carry becausetheopposingpartyhadnorealopportunityto
someerroneousstatementsontheirface,relatingto rejecttheevidencesubmittedexpartebyitsopponent.
"theirsourceormotherOriginalCertificateofTitle 14
(OCT)"lendingsomecredencetoWidora'scontention
thatthegenuinenessofthoseTCTswasdubious. CarefulexaminationoftheDioquinocaseshowsthat
thefactstherearesodifferentfromthoseofthe
ThesecondconsiderationwasthefeelingthattheCourt presentcaseastorenderourholdinginDioquino
ofAppealsshouldnothaveresolvedthesefactual inapplicablehere.Here,theCourtofAppealshad
uncertaintiesbyusing"secondary"evidenceofferedby conductedhearingsonfour(4)occasions,duringwhich
Ortigas,consideringthelimitednatureofcertiorari itrequiredbothpartiestopresentevidencetoestablish
jurisdiction,sinceTorrenstitlesareconclusiveontheir theirrespectivecontentionsonOrtigas'righttoawrit
faceandanyinaccuraciesofentriesthereonaretobe ofpreliminaryinjunction.Atthesehearings,both
correctedonlybytheproperlandregistrationcourt. partiesreproducedbeforetheCourtofAppealsthe
sameevidencetheyhadadducedbeforethetrialCourt
IntheMotionforReconsiderationandintheoral duringthe9yearlonghearingsonOrtigas'motionto
hearingonthatMotion,Ortigasinvitedourattentionto dismiss,whichevidencetendedtosupporttheir
theexistenceofpreviouslydecidedcasesshowingthat
respectivecontentionsonthederivationofOrtigas's
thefactualuncertaintieswehadnotedhadalready
145
TCTs.15Thus,theacceptanceofexparteevidence admissibilityisinfactmandatedbySection47ofAct
whichtheCourtrejectedinDioquino,neveroccurredin No.496(TheLandRegistrationAct).20UndertheLand
theinstantcase.Moreover,thedeterminationof RegistrationActwhichwasinforceatthetimeOCTNo.
whetheraninferiorcourthadarbitrarilydisregarded 351wasissued,theoriginalthereoffoundinthe
preponderantevidenceofrecordadducedinprotracted RegistrationBookoftheRegisterofDeedsofRizalwas
hearingsbeforeit,isapropersubjectofinquirybyan anofficialtranscriptofDecreeNo.1425,withrespectto
appellatecourtinacertiorariproceeding.LLjur thelandcoveredbysuchdecreesituatedinthe
ProvinceofRizal.21
II.
Thus,OCTNo.351constitutesdirectproofofthe
InarrivingatitsconclusionthatTCTNos.77652and
existenceofDecreeNo.1425uponwhichtheOrtigas
77653areproperderivativesofOCTNo.351,whichin TCTs(Nos.77652and77653)arebased.Webelieve
turnhadbeenissuedpursuanttoDecreeNo.1425,the furtherthattheCourtofAppealswasjustifiedinrelying
CourtofAppealshadreliedon(a)acertifiedtruecopy upontheplottingpreparedbyEngineerCarlosAngeles
ofOCTNo.351;(b)surveyplanspreparedbyOrtigas' andhistestimonyexplainingthesignificancethereof,
GeodeticEngineer,Mr.CarlosAngeles,whichwere notwithstandingthesecondarynatureofthatplotting
basedonplottingsoftheboundariesofparcelsofland andtestimony.For,aswillbeseenshortly,the
appearingintheNoticeofInitialHearinginG.L.R.O. authenticityandcorrectnessofthesesurveyplansand
RecordNo.917andinthetechnicaldescriptionfoundin ofEngineerAngeles'sexplanationthereofhadalready
thebodyofOCTNo.351,and,inTCTNos.77652and beenjudiciallysustainedinpreviouslydecidedcases.
77653;and(c)thetestimonyofEngineerAngelesthat
theseplottingsshowedthatthelandcoveredbythe III.
TCTswasinsidethelargerparceloflandcoveredbythe
OCT,whichinturnwasinsidethemuchlargerparcelof InitsMotionforReconsiderationanditssupporting
land(TheHaciendadeMandaloyon)adjudicatedto memorandum,Ortigasarguedthattheseemingfactual
Ortigas'predecessorininterestbyDecreeNo.1425 uncertaintiesrelatingtoitsTCTswhichhadimpelledthe
issuedinG.L.R.O.RecordNo.917.16Asnotedearlier, Courttoorderaremandofthiscasetothetrialcourt,
theaboveevidencehadbeenpresentedbyOrtigas hadalreadybeenresolvedwithfinalityinpreviously
decidedcaseandarenowmattersofjudicialnotice.
beforethetrialcourtduringtheprolongedhearingson
itsmotiontodismiss.TheCourtdescribedtheabove Wehavereviewedtheunderlyingrecordcarefullyand
evidenceas"secondary"innatureandnotedthat mustconcludethatthisclaimofOrtigasisimpressed
Ortigasdidnotestablishthedueexecutionand withconsiderablemerit.Whenevidenceofrecordin
subsequentlossoftheoriginaldocuments,asrequired theinstantcaseisconsideredtogetherwiththefindings
bytheRuleonSecondaryEvidence.17Aftercarefulre andconclusionsembodiedinpreviouslydecidedcases,
examinationoftheevidenceofrecordandapplicable thefactualuncertaintiesinitiallyfearedbytheCourtare
rulesofevidence,theCourtconsidersthattheword dissipated.Intruth,resolutionoftheseuncertainties
"secondaryevidence"wasinaccurate.ThecopyofOCT resultsfromtheapplicationoftheprincipleofres
No.351offeredbyOrtigaswasacertifiedtruecopyof adjudicataandofitstwo(2)componentconcepts,i.e.,
theoriginalthereoffoundintheRegistrationBookof conclusivenessofjudgmentandbarbypriorjudgment.
theRegisterofDeedsofRizal.18Theadmissibilityof
suchacopyincourtproceedingsisanexceptiontothe Asearlyas1906,inCia.AgricoladeUltramarv.
ordinaryruleonsecondaryevidence;19such Domingo,etal.,22thisCourtaffirmedonappealthe
trialcourt'sconfirmationofthetitleofLaCompania
146
AgricoladeUltramarasregisteredownerunderthe establishedthatthelandregistrationapplicationofLa
TorrensSystemoftheHaciendadeMandaloyon.Such CompaniaAgricoladeUltramarovertheHaciendade
confirmation.referringtotitleoveraspecificthing,has MandaloyonwasgrantedunderDecreeNo.1425,
nowacquiredimmutabilityandincontestability.23 actuallyissuedunderG.L.R.O.RecordNo.917bythe
Thus,inOrtigasv.Hon.Ruiz,24theCourtruledthat LandRegistrationCourtofManilain1905,thevery
theOrtigas&Co.Ltd.Partnershipwasthesuccessorin sameDecreeaffirmedbythisCourtinits1906decision.
interestofLaCompaniaAgricoladeUltramarandcan TheCourtofAppealsnotedthatOrtigashadestablished
invokethebenefitsoftheCourt's1906ruling,underthe thispropositionbyofferinganextantportionofDecree
doctrineofthelawofthecase,todefeatanactionfor No.1425coveringlandwithintheterritorialjurisdiction
annulmentofsomeofitstransfercertificatesoftitleon oftheCityofManila,which"coincideswithaportionof
thegroundofallegedfraud.25 theentirevasttractoflandembracedbythetechnical
descriptionappearinginthenoticeofinitialhearing
TheCourtnotedinits1906decisionthattheidentity publishedintheManilaAmericanand(in)La
andareaoftheHaciendadeMandaloyonwerenot Democracia(EnglishandSpanishlanguagenewspapers
disputedbytheoppositorsinthelandregistration ofgeneralcirculationexistingin1904,certifiedtrue
Proceeding.26Neitherwasthevalidityoftheland
copiesofwhichwereofferedinevidencebyOrtigas)
registrationproceedingthereinimpugnedbysaid
andwasdistinctlyshowninamaporsketchplottedby
oppositors.HencetheCourthadnooccasionthereto Mr.CarlosAngeles,GeodeticEngineer."29
discussthedetailedmattersdealtwithbelow.cdphil
Bywayofbackground,theNavarrocaseinvolvedasuit
However,inatleasttwosubsequentcasescitedby forinjunctioninstitutedbyOrtigason11February1972
Ortigas,theSupremeCourthadoccasiontoaffirm beforeBranch16oftheCourtofFirstInstanceofRizal
decisionsrenderedbytheCourtofAppeals,basedon [docketedasCivilCaseNo.Q16265]inordertorestrain
factsadducedbeforetheCourtsofFirstInstance,
acertainFelipeNavarrofromfraudulentlyselling
clarifyingthesematters.Thelegalconclusionsdrawnin
portionsofitspropertytoinnocentthirdpersons.Felipe
thesetwocases,aswellasthefactualfindingsonwhich
Navarrowasallegedlytheattorneyinfactofthe
theywerebased,supplementedtheCia.Agricolaruling
physicaloccupantsofa17,955squaremeterparcelof
anddemonstratethatthelandregistrationcourt landownedbyOrtigasandboundedbyAmadoT.Reyes
hearingWidora'sapplicationinLRCNo.Q336,could St.,HarapinngBukasSt.andLunaSt.,SanJuan,Manila.
nothaveacquiredjurisdictionoverthelandsubjectof FelipeNavarroansweredthecomplaintbyimpugning
theapplication,sincethatlandisalreadyregistered thevalidityoftheTorrenstitlesheldbyOrtigasoverthe
undertheTorrenssystem(TCTNos.77652and77653) entireHaciendadeMandaloyon,situatedpartiallyin
andinfactformedpartofalargertractoflandsimilarly Manila,partiallyinQuezonCityandpartiallyinPasig,30
previouslybroughtundertheTorrenssysteminthe because,amongotherthings,theywereallegedly
nameofOrtigas'predecessorininterest. declaredvoidinadecisionrenderedbyBranch15ofthe
IV. CourtofFirstInstanceofRizalinCivilCaseNo.7
M(10339).31
Inthefirstofthesecases,FelipeC.Navarrov.Ortigas&
Co.Ltd.Partnership,27thisCourtaffirmedin1979by Aftertrial,CFIJudgeSergioApostolrejectedNavarro's
wayofaminuteresolutionthedecisionoftheCourtof contentioninadecisiongrantinginjunctiondated16
AppealsinC.A.G.R.No.53125Rdated13December December1972,holdingthattheOrtigastitleswere
1978.28Inthatdecision,theCourtofAppeals
147
indefeasible,beingbasedonDecreeNo,1425issuedin knownasG.L.R.O.RecordNo.917withCompania
1905.32 AgricoladeUltramaraspetitioner.cdphil
BeforereachingtheconclusionthattheOrtigastitles xxxxxxxxx
hadbecomeindefeasible,JudgeApostolsatisfied
himselfastotheexistenceoforiginalDecreeof Defendant,however,contendsthatbecausethedecree
RegistrationNo.1425,issuedin1905inG.L.R.O.Record inthatcasecouldnolongerbefoundintheexpediente
No.917,fromwhichthesetitleswerederived: ofthecase,DecreeNo.1425,thedecreenumber
appearinginthetitlesissuedunderG.L.R.O.RecordNo.
"Thereseemstobenoquestionthatthereexistsinthe 917,isnonexistentandfictitious.
docketsoftheGeneralLandRegistrationOfficeacase
knownasG.L.R.O.RecordNo.917withLaCompania Torebutthiscontentionofthedefendant,plaintiff
AgricoladeUltramaraspetitioner.Therecordofsaid presentedthefollowingevidence:
caseis,however,nolongercomplete.Copiesofthe 1. Acertifiedxeroxcopyofpage18oftheBookof
applicationforregistration,plan,technicaldescription, Decrees,Bk.I;
decisionanddecreecannolongerbefound.However,
theexpedienteofthecasestillcontainsdocuments 2. Acertifiedxeroxcopyofpage19ofthegame
whichreflectpartoftheproceedingsthattranspired book;
therein,amongwhichare:
3. AcertifiedxeroxcopyofDecreeNo.1425
1. 'MocionPidientoSeDejaSinEfectoALa insofarasitcoverstheareaslocatedinManila;
Rebeldia',datedApril13,1905;
4. Acopyoftheletteroftransmittalfromthe
2. 'DecisiononMotiontoVacateGeneralDefault' ClerkofCourttotheRegisterofDeedsofManiladated
datedMarch29,1905: August15,1907signedby(ClerkoftheLand
RegistrationCourt)A.K.Jonesrequestingthata
3. 'MinutesofthesessionoftheLandRegistration separatetitlebeissuedforeachparceloflandcovered
CourtpresidedbytheHonorableAuxiliaryJudgeJames byDecreeNo.1425;and
Rossonthe29thdayof,March,1905inG.L.R.O.Record
No.917; 5. AcertificationissuedbyAlbertoH.Lingayo,
ChiefSurveyoroftheLandRegistrationCommissionto
4. 'MinutesofthesessionoftheLandRegistration theeffectthatintheindexcardofordinarycaseskept
CourtpresidedbytheHonorableAuxiliaryJudgeJames intheLandRegistrationCommission,LaCompania
Rossonthe29thday(sic)ofMarch,1905inG.L.R.O. AgricoladeUltramarappearstobethepetitionerin
RecordNo.917; G.L.R.O.RecordNos.699,875and917andthatDecree
5. 'MocionEmmendadoPidiendoSeDejasin Nos.240,696and1425wereissuedonAugust9,1904,
September14,1905andApril26,1905,respectivelyin
EfectoALaSentenciaPorRebeldia'and
thesecasesas(shownby)theDecreeBookofOrdinary
6. 'MocionPidiendoSeDejaSinEfectoALa CasesoftheCommission.
Rebeldia.
ThisCourtfindsthatthereisnothinginExhibit'7',`384'
Theforegoing,thecourtbelieves,establishesbeyond or'CCCC'(evidenceofdefendantNavarro)fromwhichit
doubtthattherewassuchalandregistrationcase maybeinferredthatDecreeNo.1425isnonexistentor
fictitious.Onthecontrary,thewordingsofthese
148
certificationsimplythatsuchadecreedidexistbutthe 'Q. Ithasbeenpointedout,Mr.Angelesthatthe

samecannolongerbefoundintheexpedienteof presenttitlesoftheplaintiffOrtigasandCompany
G.L.R.O.RecordNo.917becauseitwaslostduringthe LimitedPartnershipnowindicatethattheselands
war.33(Citationsofevidenceomitted,emphasis coveredbythesetitleswereoriginallyregisteredin
supplied) OriginalCertificateofTitles337,19,336and334.Were
youabletotracehowtheseentriesappearedinthese
JudgeApostolalsoestablishedthattheOrtigastitles titles?
coveredalargetractoflanddescribedinthetechnical
descriptionappearingintheinitialnoticeofhearingin A. InTransferCertificateNo.77652and77653,it
G.L.R.O.RecordNo.917: isindicatedatthebottomofthetitlethatitcamefrom
OriginalCertificateofTitleNos.337,19,336,337(sic)
"Allthesetitlesweretracedbacktotheirrespective and344.Wefoundoutthat19couldnothavebeena
OriginalCertificatesofTitle,whichwereissuedunder
sourcebecauseitisinAntipolo,Rizal.Now,wetraced
G.L.R.O.RecordNos.699,875and917.Finally,it backthistitletoshowwherethaterroris,andthenwe
(Ortigas)provedthatthelandsinquestionareall foundoutthatitshouldhavebeen13,asindicatedin
embracedbythelanddescribedinthenoticeofthe TransferCertificateofTitlesNos.443880,27111,44381
initialhearinginG.L.R.O.RecordNo.917aspublishedin and44382.So19isjustameretopographical(sic)error.
theManilaAmericanandLaDemocracia(Exhibit
'NNNN'),andDecreeNo.1425."34(Emphasis Q. HowaboutTransferCertificateofTitleNo.699?
supplied)
A. 699isaG.L.R.O.RecordNumber,whichwas
Exhibit'NNNN'(abovecitedbyJudgeApostol)inturn typedonthetitle.'
wasbasedonthemapplottingspreparedbyGeodetic
EngineerCarlosAngelesofsaidtechnicaldescriptionsas Tobetterillustratethis,plaintiff'switnesstracedthese
errorsinadiagramwhichhepreparedandwhichwas
theyappearedincertifiedtruecopiesoftheManila
markedasExhibit'YYYY'.LibLex
AmericanandLaDemocracia.35
ItshouldalsobeobservedthatJudgeApostolhadnoted ThisCourtissatisfiedthattheerrorinthestatementof
thesourcesofplaintiff'stitleswas,asshownbyExhibit
aninaccuracyinthedesignationofthesourcetitlesof
'YYYY',merelytypographical.Besides,theseerrorsdo
TCTNos.77652and77653similartothatnotedby
Widorainthiscase,butJudgeApostolheldthatthis notgointothevalidityofplaintiff'stitles.Andtheyhave
allbeentracedtotheirrespectiveOriginalCertificates
inaccuracydidnoteffectthevalidityofthetitles:
ofTitle."36(Citationsofevidenceomitted;emphasis
"Finally,defendantquestionsthefactthatsomeof supplied)
plaintiff'sTransferCertificatesofTitle,particularly
TransferCertificatesofTitleNos.73884,77652,71436 ThedecisionofJudgeApostolwasaffirmedinits
entiretybyGaviola,J.oftheCourtofAppeals.37As
Aand77653,showthattheywereoriginallyregistered
notedearlier,FelipeNavarro'spetitionforreviewofthe
underOriginalCertificatesofTitleNos.19,313(sic),
336,334(sic)and699whereasOriginalCertificateof GavioladecisionwasdeniedbytheSupremeCourtfor
lackofmerit.38TheCourt'sminuteresolutionisa
TitleNo.19coverslandwhichislocatedinAntipolo.
judgmentonthemeritsforthepurposeofapplyingthe
Plaintiff'switness,thesurveyorCarlosAngeles,
however,explainedthisasfollows: principlesofbarbypriorjudgmentandconclusiveness
ofjudgment.39
149
Thefactualmattersraised,controverted,litigatedand Furthermore,itmustbeobservedthatWidoraisbound
establishedinG.R.No.50156(Navarrov.Ortigas)which bytherulinglaiddownintheCia.Agricolacaseof1906
arerelevanttothepresentcaseareasfollows:1)the thatOrtigas(throughitspredecessorininterest)isthe
inaccuraciesinthesourcingofthemothertitlesofTCT registeredowneroflandcomprisingtheHaciendade
Nos.77652and77653didnotimpairtheirprobative Mandaloyonbecausethefactualmattersresolvedin
valueasevidenceofOrtigas,ownershipovertheland theNavarrocaseshowthatthelandcoveredby
describedintheirtechnicaldescriptions;2)theRegistry Widora'sapplicationformspartofthatvasttractofland
ofDeedsofManilawasthesourceofanoriginalcopyof adjudicatedtoOrtigas'predecessorininterestinthe
DecreeNo.1425totheextentthatthatDecreecovered 1906decision.
propertysituatedinManila;butthisDecree,inits
entirety,reallycoversmuchmore,i.e.,theentire Finally,asheldintheCourtofAppealsdecisionwhich
HaciendadeMandaloyon;3)theextantsourcesofthe weaffirmedinG.R.No.50156,theTorrenstitlesof
boundariesoftheHaciendadeMandaloyonarethe Ortigasservedasevidenceofitsindefeasibletitleover
technicaldescriptionsthereofappearingintheinitial thepropertycoveredtherebyandtheybecame
noticeofhearinginG.L.R.O.RecordNo.917;and4)the incontrovertibleoneyearafterentryofthefinaldecree
ofregistrationfromwhichtheywerederivedin1906.
landdescribedinandcoveredbyTCTNos.77652and
42TheSupremeCourt'saffirmanceofthisrulinginfact
77653formedpartoftheHaciendadeMandaloyon.
constitutesaholdingthatthelandcoveredbythese
Underthedoctrineofconclusivenessofjudgment, titles(particularlyTCTNos.77652and77653)have
thesefactualmattersestablishedinG.R.No.50156are beendulybroughtundertheTorrensSystemofland
bindingonWidoraandcannolongerberelitigatedbyit registrationandthatthiscircumstancepreventedthe
inG.R.No.91797.40Bothcases,toacertainextent, landregistrationcourthearingWidora'sapplicationin
involvethesamesubjectmatter(i.e.,theparcelsofland LRCNo.Q336fromacquiringjurisdictionovertheland
describedinOrtigas'TCTNos.77652and77653. coveredbythatapplication.43
Ortigas'causeofactioninG.R.No.50156consistedof
thefraudulentsalesofitspropertymadebyFelipe V.
Navarroinbehalfofhis"owner"clients.Thatdiffers Inthesecondpreviouslydecidedcase,DelRosario,et.
somewhatfromOrtigas'causeofactioninG.R.No. al.v.Ortigas&Co.Ltd.Partnership,44theSupreme
91797,whichconsistsoftheadverseclaimofownership CourtaffirmedthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsin
assertedbyWidoraoverOrtigas'property,manifested A.C.G.R.CVNo.61356dated29December1983,45
throughthefillingofWidora'sapplicationforland holdingthatvariousOrtigasTCT's,includingTCTNos.
registration.Butmoreimportantly,thereisa 77652and77653,overlappingvariousportionsof
substantialidentitybetweenFelipeNavarro(andhis seventyhectareparceloflandsituatedinUgongNorte,
clients)ononehandandWidoraontheother;both PasigandBagumbayan,QuezonCityhadbecome
partiessoughttoquestionthevalidityofDecreeNo. indefeasibleandcouldnolongerbeimpugnedbythe
1425anditsparticularderivativeshereinvolved(TCT physicaloccupantsoftheoverlappingproperty.46
Nos.77652and77653),insofarastheDecreehad
adjudicatedinfavorofOrtigasownershipoflandbeing Bywayofbackground,thisDelRosariocaseoriginated
claimedbyNavarroandWidora.Thiscircumstance asCivilCaseNo.7M(10339)beforeBranch15ofthe
makesthempriviesinlawforpurposesoftheoperation CFIofRizal.In1967,two(2)groupsofoccupantsofthe
oftheruleonconclusivenessofjudgment.41 disputedproperty,facedwithfinalandexecutory
judgmentsforejectmentobtainedbyOrtigas,instituted
150
thisDelRosariocaseasaclasssuittoimpugnthe Mandaloyon,basedonplottingsofthetechnical
validityofOrtigas'Torrenstitles.Thetheoryofthe descriptionsappearingintheinitialnoticeofhearingin
plaintiffswasthatG.L.R.O.RecordNo.917,andits G.L.R.O.RecordNo.917,offeredandmarkedasExhibit
incidents,werevoidabinitioforallegedlackofnotice 43ANewTrial.54JudgeAlcantaranotedthatthese
ofinitialhearing,amongotherreasons.Inadecision plottingswerequiteadequateforthepurposeof
dated31March1970,JudgeVivencioRuizruledinfavor identifyingthelandregisteredinCia.Agricola'snamein
oftheplaintiffsanddeclaredtheOrtigasTCTsnulland 1906:cdrep
void.
"Plaintiffs[DelRosario,etal.]alsoattemptedtoshowas
JudgeRuiz'decisionwas,however,nullifiedonpetition pertechnicaldescriptionpublishedintheManila
forcertiorari,prohibitionandmandamusbytheCourt AmericanandLaDemocracia,apolygondoesnotclose
ofAppealsinitsdecisiondated12November1971in suchthatonecannotgivetheexactareaoftheland
C.A.G.R.No.00039R.47TheCourtofAppealsalso soughttoberegistered.Theyclaimthattheplan
decreedaremandofthecasefornewtrialbasedon submittedbysaidSurveyorCarlosAngelesis'doctored'
Ortigas'newlydiscoveredevidence.48Thisdecision becauseithadaclosedpolygon.Inthisconnection,it
wasaffirmedbytheSupremeCourtinG.R.No.L34440 shouldbeemphasizedthattheHaciendaMandaloyonis
byaResolutiondated4April1972.49 avasttractoflandhavinganareaof4,000hectares
withnaturalboundariesconsistingofriversandcreeks
Inadecisiondated3November1973,CFIJudgeArsenio asshownintheplanExh.'3ANewTrial.Itsnatural
Alcantara(towhomthecasewasremanded)rendereda boundariesaretheMarikinaRiver,PasigRiver,SanJuan
decisiononnewtrialupholdingandconfirming,among River,DilimanCreekandEsterodeBuaya,etc.Indeed,
others,"thevalidityofDecreeNo.1425,issuedin boundarieswhicharenaturalandfixedsuchascreeks
Expediente917andalltitlesemanatingtherefrom." andrivers,notthearea,shouldgovernindetermining
ThisdecisionwasaffirmedinitsentiretybytheCourtof
theidentityofthelandsoughttoberegistered.And
AppealsinACG.R.No.CV61356,asnotedearlier.50In
evenconcedingthatthemagneticsurveyemployedin
turn,thisCourtofAppealsdecisionwasaffirmedbythe
surveyingthedisputedpropertyin1904waserroneous,
SupremeCourtinG.R.No.66110inaResolution
yet'mistakeinsurveyisnotagroundforalterationof
denyingDelRosario'spetitionforreviewforlackof decreeofregistration.'Infact,plaintiffs'[DelRosario]
meritdated16February1985.51 witness,GeodeticEngineerPedroSamson,readily
ItshouldbenotedthatOrtigas'evidenceandargument admittedthatthepropertiesbeingclaimedbythemare
establishingtheexistenceandregularityofthe insidetheareadescribedinthenotices."55(Citations
proceedingsinG.L.R.O.RecordNo.917andofDecree omitted;emphasissupplied)
No.1425fromwhichitscontrovertedTCTswere
Exhibit43ANewTrialsubmittedintheDelRosariocase
derived,firstadoptedintheNavarrocase,werelikewise
showedtheboundariesandlocationoftheentire
usedandsustainedagainintheDelRosariocase,52and HaciendaMandaloyon.AnnexPsubmittedinthe
are,byandlarge,thesameevidenceandargument presentWidoracaseshowsthesameentireHacienda
submittedbyOrtigastoresolvethesameallegedfactual MandaloyonandisidenticalwithExhibit43ANew
uncertaintyraisedforthethirdtimeinthiscase.53 Trial.InthepresentWidoracase,Ortigasalsosubmitted
IntheDelRosariocase,GeodeticEngineerCarlos AnnexK1toshowthelocationandboundariesofthe
Angelesagaindrewandofferedinevidenceamap landcoveredbyTCTNos.77652and77653.Whenthe
indicatingthefullextentoftheHaciendade mapwhichisAnnexK1isplacedsidebysidewith(or
151
ontopof)themapofthewholeHaciendaMandaloyon judgment.Widora'sapplicationforregistrationinthe
whichisExhibit43ANewTrialandAnnexP,theAnnex presentcase(LRCNo.Q336),essentiallyrestsonan
K1mapcoincideswithaportionoftheExhibit43A allegedSpanishtitle:"TitulodePropiedadNo.4136,"
map.Inotherwords,thelotscoveredbyTCTNos. dated25April1894,saidtobeissuedinthenameof
77652and77653whicharemappedinAnnexK1 oneMarianoSanPedroyEsteban,supposedlycovering
constitutedaportionoftheHaciendaMandaloyon. landofunimaginablylargeproportions:173,000
TheseExhibitsalsoshowthattheparcelsofland hectaresinBulacan,NuevaEcija,Rizal,QuezonCity,
coveredbyTCTNos.77652and77653arelocatedwest CaloocanCityandPasayCity.56
oftheMarikinariver,whichriverwasestablishedinDel
Rosariotobetheeasternnaturalboundaryofthe Backin10December1976,oronlytwo(2)yearsafter
HaciendadeMandaloyon. WidorahadfiledLRCNo.Q336,oneJustinoBenitoand
Widoracommencedanothercase,CivilCaseNo.Q
Thus,oncemore,itisapparentthatthefactualmatters 22410beforetheCFIofQuezonCity.Benitoclaimed
whichWidoraseekstolitigateinG.R.No.91797have therethathewascoadministratoroftheintestate
alreadybeenresolvedintheDelRosariocase.Sincethe estateofDonMarianoSanPedroyEsteban,andthat
subjectmatterofthecontroversyinDelRosarioandin partofthisestatewaslandcoveredbythesupposed
G.R.No.91797areidentical(parcelsoflandcoveredby Spanishtitle,includingapieceoflandsituatedinUgong
TCTNos.77652and77653),thecauseofactionof Norte,PasigandBagumbayan,QuezonCity,whichland
WidorainG.R.No.91797isidenticaltothatofthe wascoveredbyTCTNos.77652and77653issuedin
petitionersinDelRosario,i.e.,thepetitionersinDel Ortigas'name.BenitoandWidora,therefore,soughtin
RosariocontestedOrtigas'claimofownershipoverthe Q22410toannulthoseTCTsforcoveringlandallegedly
landfromwhichtheywerebeingejected,whichisof previouslyownedbytheDonMarianoSanPedroy
coursethesameclaimofownershipembodiedin EstebanestateasevidencedbythesupposedTitulode
Ortigas'oppositiontoWidora'slandregistration PropiedadNo.4136,andsubsequentlysoldorassigned
applicationoverthesamelandintheinstantcase.It bytheestatetoWidora.57
followsthatWidorainG.R.No.91797mustalsobe
OrtigasmovedtodismisstheBenitoWidoracomplaint,
deemedprivyinlawofthepetitionersinDelRosario
(fortheytooassailedthevalidityofDecreeNo.1425 arguinginteralia,thattheallegedSpanishtitlerelied
anditsparticularderivatives,TCTNos.77652and uponbyBenitoandWidorahadalreadybeendivested
77653).Accordingly,thefactualandlegalmatters ofprobativevalueasevidenceoflandownership,by
resolvedwithfinalityintheDelRosariocase,whichare P.D.No.892.Ortigas'motiontodismisswassustained
determinativeofthemeritsofWidora'sapplicationfor onthatgroundbythetrialcourtinadecisiondated28
landregistrationinG.R.No.91797mustbeconsidered, February1978.58
asintheNavarrocase,asabartothegrantofthe ThatdecisionofthetrialcourtinQ22410wasaffirmed
Widoraapplicationundertheruleonconclusivenessof onappealbytheCourtofAppealsinC.A.G.R,No.CV
judgment. 64424inadecisionwrittenbyJurado,J.,dated31May
VI. 1984.TheCourtofAppeals,thus,affirmedthetrial
court'srulingthattheSpanishtitlerelieduponby
ThereisanotherimportantelementofWidora'sclaim BenitoandWidorawasnolongeranygood.59
beingassertedinthepresentproceedingswhichis
precludedbyboththeprincipleofbarbyprior Widora(butnotBenito)wentonaPetitionforReview
judgmentandtheprincipleofconclusivenessof beforetheSupremeCourt,inG.R.No.69343.ThisCourt
152
affirmedthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsina Ortigas'name,thelandregistrationcourtsimplyhadno
minuteresolutiondated6February1985.Entryoffinal jurisdictiontodecreetheregistrationofthatsameland
judgmentwasmadeon29March1985.60 inthenameofsomeotherperson.Thewellestablished
ruleisthatlackofjurisdictionwhichrendersanaction
Asnoted,inthecaseatbar,Widoraisrelyinguponthe
dismissiblemaybedeterminedbythecourtseizedwith
samesupposedSpanishtitleTitulodePropiedadNo. itmotuproprio,andmayberaisedbyaparty,atany
4136.WebelieveandsoholdthattheResolutionofthis stageoftheproceedingsevenonappeal.62
CourtinG.R.No.69343,holdingthatthatalleged
Spanishtitlehadbecomebereftofanyprobativevalue WithparticularreferencetotherulingthatWidora's
isresadjudicatainrespectofthepresentcase.Puta allegedTitulodePropiedadNo.4136wasbereftof
littledifferently,theprincipleofbarbypriorjudgment probativevalue,wenotethattheBenitoWidoracase
precludesanyreliancebyWidorainthecaseatbaron reachedfinality(intheSupremeCourt)onlyin1985,
thatfantasticSpanishtitleconsideringtheessential whentheproceedingsinthemotiontodismissfiledby
identitiesofpartiesandidentityofsubjectmatterand OrtigasinLRCNo.Q336werealreadyinanadvanced
ofcauseofactionbetweenCivilCaseNo.Q22410and stage.
LRCCaseNo.Q336.prLL
Inthesecondplace,theResolutionsoftheSupreme
WeshouldaddthatWidora'sprayerforalternative CourtintheNavarroandDelRosariocases,disposedof
reliefintheformofconfirmationofimperfecttitleover thosecasesontheirmeritsbyaffirmingthepertinent
thelandcoveredbyitsapplicationforregistration,is decisionsoftheCourtofAppeals.ThoseResolutionsare
immaterial.Thatalternativereliefisalsopremisedupon partofthecaselawandtherecordsofthisCourtitself
Widora'sclaimthatOrtigashadfraudulentlyregistered ofwhichweareboundtotakejudicialnotice.63We
thelandinits(Ortigas)ownnamesuchthattheland arecertainlynotatlibertytodisregardtheminany
remainedpresumptivelypublicland.Thefirmly case.Sotodisregardourowndecisionswouldbeto
entrenchedruleisthatapartycannotevadethe inflictsubstantialinjusticeandirreparableinjuryupon
applicationoftheprincipleofbarbypriorjudgmentby Ortigaswhichwouldbecompelledtodoalloveragain
simplyvaryingtheformoftheactionorbyadoptinga whatithaddoneatleasttwicebeforetoproveithas
differentmodeofpresentingitscase.61 indefeasibletitletothelandcoveredbyTCTNos.77652
and77653.Theresultinginjusticeandinjurywouldnot
VII. belimitedtoOrtigas,butwouldengulfmanythousands
Weconsiderfinallythequestionofwhetherornotthe ofpresentregisteredprivateownersofTransfer
defenseofresadjudicatahasbeenwaivedbyOrtigasby CertificatesofTitlecoveringthethousandsofhectares
failuretopleadthatdefenseseasonablyinits oflandembracedbyDecreeNo.1425.Thegravesocial
oppositionormotiontodismissinLRCNo.Q336. implicationsofpermittingacloudtoariseonallthose
TransferCertificatesofTitlebyourfailuretotakeinto
Webelieveandsoholdthattherewasnosuchwaiver accountourowndecisionsinearliercases,canscarcely
ofresadjudicatabyOrtigasinthecaseatbar.Itismost becontemplated.
importanttonote,inthefirstplace,thatthedefenseof
resadjudicatapleadedbyOrtigasinthiscaserelates Inthethirdplace,waiverofresadjudicata,certainlyin
ultimatelytothejurisdictionofthelandregistration casesliketheonebeforeus,cannotcasuallybe
courttotryLRCNo.Q336.TheCourtofAppeals assumedtohavebeenmade.Whatisinvolvedhereis
correctlystressedthatOrtigashavingshownthatthe notanacademicdoctrineoflawbutveryvaluable
landappliedforbyWidoraisalreadyregisteredin propertyrights,sovaluablethatatleastthricebefore,
153
variouspersonsorgroupsofpersons(includingWidora, BenitoWidoracase,aswellastheCompaniaAgricola
forthesecondtime)haveattemptedtousurptitle casetoshowthatitsregisteredtitleoverthedisputed
theretobyassailingthesametwo(2)TCTs.Ortigas landhadbecomeindefeasible.68Further,Ortigas
tenaciouslyfoughtoffthoseeffortsatleastthree(3) specificallypleadednotonlytheCompaniaAgricolaand
timesbefore,fromthetrialcourtthrutheCourtof theBenitoWidoracasesbutalsothedecisionsinthe
AppealstoourownCourt,eachlitigationstretchingout Navarro,DelRosarioandRuizcasesinitspetitionfor
tomanyyears.Inthissituation,onlythemostexplicit certiorari,prohibitionandmandamusbeforetheCourt
anddeliberatestatement,inunmistakablelanguage, ofAppeals,69Weaccordinglyfinditextremelydifficult
willsufficetoconstitutewaiver;thatiscertainlynot tosupposethattherewasimpliedorpresumedwaiver
presenthere.Whatisclaimedhereismerelyimpliedor hereofthedefenseofresadjudicata.llcd
presumedwaiver,whichhasbeenexpresslydeniedby
Ortigas.YetasLantin,J.oftherespondentCourtof FORALLTHEFOREGOING,weholdthattheMotionfor
Appealsobserved,asfarbackas27June1979,inits ReconsiderationshouldbeasitisherebyGRANTED;
motionforreconsiderationofthetrialcourt'sorderof thatourDecisiondated28August1991ishereby
20April1979denyingitsmotiontodismiss,Ortigashad RECONSIDEREDandSETASIDE;thatWidora'sPetition
forReviewintheinstantcaseisherebyDENIEDforlack
alreadybroughttotheattentionofthetrialcourtthe
ofmerit.TheRegionalTrialCourt'sorderof30March
factthatitsassailedtitleshadbeenupheldbyCourtsof
FirstInstanceandappellatecourtsinpriorcases.64 1988isherebySETASIDEandthatcourtishereby
ORDEREDtodismissimmediatelyLRCCaseNoQ336.
Moreover,duringtheproceedingsonOrtigas'motionto
TheDecisionandResolutionoftheCourtofAppeals
dismiss,theGovernmentitself,throughtheLand
RegistrationCommission,hadadvisedthetrialcourt dated27November1989and25January1990,
respectively,areherebyAFFIRMEDintoto.Costs
thatthe156hectareparcelWidorawasseekingto
registerwere"coveredbyvalidandsubsistingtitlesin againstpetitioner.
thenameofOrtigas."65 Gutierrez,Jr.,Davide,Jr.andRomero,JJ.,concur.
Finally,therecordoftheinstantcaseshowsthatOrtigas
pleadedasaspecialandaffirmativedefensebarby
priorjudgmentinitsveryfirstOppositiondated13
October1978toWidora'sapplicationinLRCQ336.66
ThatdefensewaselaboratedbyOrtigasinitsmotionto
dismissdated23October1978,whereitstressedthat
thelandappliedforwasalreadyregisteredinitsname
undertheTorrenssystemandthatsuchprevious
registrationofitstitleamountstoresadjudicatabinding
uponthewholeworld.67Duringtheprotracted
hearingsonitsmotiontodismissbeforethetrialcourt,
OrtigasspecificallypleadedourdecisionintheBenito
Widoracasewhichbythehadattainedfinality,ina
Memorandumdated28October1986asabarto
furtherproceedingsinthecaseatbar.Initsmotionfor
reconsiderationofthetrialcourt'sorderdenyingthe
motiontodismiss,Ortigasagainspecificallypleadedthe
154
155
[G.R.No.L18210.December29,1966.] Code).Inlegalcontemplation,discoverymustbe
reckonedtohavetakenplacefromthetimethe
LAURENTIOARMENTIA,plaintiffappellant,vs.ERLINDA documentwasregisteredintheofficeoftheregisterof
PATRIARCA,FLORENCIASOMECIERA,JULIANA
deeds,becauseregistrationisnoticetothewhole
ARMENTIA,JOSESOMECIERAandSOFRONIOFLORES,in
world.Inthecaseatbar,actionwascommenced
hiscapacityastheRegisterofDeedsfortheprovinceof
beyondthefouryearperiod.
Iloilo,defendantsappellees.
5. JURISDICTION;ACTIONTOOBTAINSHAREINAN
CesarT.Martinforplaintiffappellant. INHERITANCE;JUDICIALNOTICETAKENOFTHE
BenjaminM.Morenofordefendantsappellees. AMOUNTOFPLAINTIFF'SSHAREINASEWING
MACHINE;CASEATBAR.Judicialnoticemaybetaken
SYLLABUS ofthefactthatplaintiff'sshareinasewingmachine,
whichwasnotthesubjectofthedisputedsale,doesnot
1. SALES;VALIDITYOFSALEEXECUTEDBYA
exceedP5,000.Hisseparateactionifanyhehad
MINOR.Minorityofthevendeeatthetimeofthe
toobtainsaidshare,shouldhavebeeninstitutedinthe
saledoesnotmakethecontractvoid,but,atworst,
MunicipalCourt.
merelyannullablebyhim.
REYES,J.B.L.,J.,concurring:
2. ID.;VALIDITYOFSALENOTAFFECTEDBY
SUBSEQUENTACTSOFVENDOR;CASEATBAR.The 1. INTESTATEESTATE;RIGHTOFINTESTATEHEIRS;
factthatthevendor,afterthesale,notonlyrepaired INTESTATEHEIRSCANCONTESTCONVEYANCES
thepropertysold,butalsocontinuedpossessionofthe WITHOUTORWITHAFICTITIOUSCONSIDERATION.
premisesandpaidtaxesthereonuntilherdemise,did Heirsintestatehavelegalstandingtocontestthe
notrenderthesalevoid. conveyancebythedeceasedifthesamewasmade
withoutanyconsiderationorforafalseorfictitious
3. ID.;ANNULMENTOFSALE;LACKOFCAUSEOF
considerationbecauseundertheCivilCodeofthe
ACTIONBYPLAINTIFFWHOISNOTOBLIGEDUNDERTHE
Philippines,contractswithacausethatdidnotexistat
CONTRACT;CASEATBAR.Plaintiff,whowasa
thetimeofthetransactionareinexistentandvoidfrom
brotherofthevendor,isnotaforcedheirofthelatter,
thebeginning(Art.1409,Par.3).Thesameistrueof
and,therefore,isnotobligedprincipallyorsubsidiarily
contractsstatingafalsecause(consideration)unless
underthecontractofsale.Asthevendordidnot
thepersonsinterestedinupholdingthecontractshould
transmittohimbydeviseorotherwiseanyrightstothe
provethatthereisanothertrueandlawful
propertysubjectofthesale,but,onthecontrary,
considerationthereof(Ibid.,Art.1353).
voluntarilydisposedofit,withoutimpairingany
legitimeordefraudinganycreditor,hehasnocauseof, 2. CONTRACTS;CONSIDERATION;CONVEYANCE
actiontoannulortorescindthesale. WITHOUTORWITHAFICTITIOUSCONSIDERATION
DOESNOTREMOVETHEPROPERTYFROMTHE
4. ID.;ID.;ID.;PERIODFORFILINGANACTION
PATRIMONYOFTHETRANSFEROR.Ifacontracthas
BASEDONFRAUD;FROMWHATTIMEDISCOVERYOF
nocauseofconsiderationorthecauseisfalseand
FRAUDISRECKONED;CASEATBAR.Butevenifa
fictitious(andnohiddencauseisproved)theproperty
rightofactionbeconceded,plaintiff'scauseofactionis
allegedlyconveyedneverreallyleavesthepatrimonyof
timebarredforthesameispremisedonfraud,andthe
thetransferor,anduponthelatter'sdeathwithouta
actionshouldhavebeenfiledwithinfouryearsfromthe
testamentthepropertywouldpasstothetransferor's
discoveryofthefraud(Article1146[1]and1391,Civil
156
heirsintestateandberecoverablebythemorbythe 6. ID.;ID.;WHERECONVEYANCEISBYWILLS,
Administratorofthetransferor'sestate. FORMALITIESREQUIREDBYLAWMUSTBEOBSERVED.
Wheretheconveyanceisbywayoflastwilland
3. ID.;ID.;ID.;HEIRSMAYRECOVERPROPERTYAS
testament,theformalitiesordainedbylawmustbe
PARTOFDECEASEDESTATE.Theplaintiffsmay
necessarilyobserved(Art.804etseq.)and,inaddition,
recoverthepropertyconveyedwithoutconsideration thewillmustbejudiciallyallowedorprobated(Art.838
onthegroundthatthepropertyinquestionisstillpart CivilCode).
ofthetransferor'sestatenotonthefactthatthe
gratuitousconveyancewasmadeinfraudofcreditors. 7. ID.;ID.;SALEWITHOUTORWITHAFICTITIOUS
CONSIDERATIONNULLANDVOID;NOTITLEPASSESTO
4. ID.;ID.;ID.;EXTENTOFOWNER'SRIGHTTO
THEPURCHASER.Asaleofpropertywouldnotvest
DISPOSEOFHISPROPERTY;LAWPROTECTS ownershipinthetransfereeifitisestablishedthatthe
TRANSFERORSOFPROPERTYCONVEYED transferwasreallygratuitousandtheallegedpriceis
GRATUITOUSLY.Theownerofpropertyhastheright nonexistent.Sucha"sale"wouldeitherbevoidforlack
toconveyittoanotherperson,eitherfora ofanessentialrequisite,oradisguiseddonation,that
consideration(onerouscontract)oroutofsheer wouldnotbeoperativeunlesstheformalities
liberality(gratuitoustransfer).Putitmustnotbe prescribedforavaliddonationareobserved.Iftheyare
overlookedthatwhilethelawdoesnotlimitthe not,thennotitlepassestothetransferee,regardlessof
owner'srighttoconveyawaypropertyinexchangeof thevoluntaryaccomplishmentofthedeedof
suchlawfulconsiderationashedeemsadequate, conveyancebythetransferorbecausethenakedintent
gratuitoustransfersarebynomeansuntrammeled.The toconvey,withouttherequiredsolemnities,doesnot
lawlookswithsuspicionatgratuitousconveyancesand sufficeforgratuitousalienations,evenasbetweenthe
subjectstheirvaliditytotheobservanceofspecific partiesinterse.
formalitiesprescribedbylawdesignedtoassurethat
thenatureoftheconveyanceiswellunderstoodand DECISION
thatitisnotdoneimpulsively,withoutduedeliberation.
SANCHEZ,Jp:
5. ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;FORMSOFGRATUITOUS
TRANSFERS;REQUISITESFORTHEIRVALIDITY.The PlaintiffLaurentioArmentia,andJulianaandMarta
lawrecognizestwoformsofgratuitousconveyances:(1) Armentia,werebrotherandsistersofthefullblood.
intervivosbywayofdonation;and(2)mortiscausaby JoseSomecieraistheacknowledgednaturalsonoftheir
wayoflastwillandtestament.Ineithercase,the deceasedmother.DefendantFlorenciaSomecieraisa
validityofthetransferofownershipissubordinatedto daughterofJoseSomeciera.DefendantErlinda
theobservanceoftheformalitiesprescribedbylawso PatriarcaisagranddaughterofJulianaArmentia.Marta
that,wherelandsortenementsareconveyed,a ArmentiawasmarriedtoGregorioBuenowhodied
sometimein1942.
donationanditsacceptancemustappearinapublic
document,withtheacceptancedulynotifiedtothe Bynotarialdocument,AnnexAofthecomplaint,dated
donor(Art.749,CivilCode)andincaseofmovables, July22,1955,MartaArmentiadidtwothings:First,she
theremustbeatleastaprivatewriting,unlessthe adjudicatedtoherselfaparcelofland[Lot6582,
donationisaccompaniedbysimultaneousdeliveryof Pototancadastre,(Iloilo)]withtheimprovements
thedonatedchattel(Art.748,CivilCode). thereon,coveredbyTransferCertificateofTitle21323
andwhichsheinheritedfromherdeceasedhusband
pursuanttoSection1,Rule74ofthe1940Rulesof
157
Court;1andsecond,forandinconsiderationofP99.00, Patriarca,FlorenciaSomeciera,JoseSomecieraand
whichsheacknowledgedtohavereceivedfromErlinda JulianaArmentia".4
Patriarca,13yearsofage,single,andFlorencia
Thecomplaintwindsupwiththeprayerthatthedeed
Someciera,20yearsofage,single,shesoldtothemthe
ofsalebe"declaredinexistentorinthealternative
propertyjustmentioned.Theforegoingdocumentwas,
annulled";thatplaintiffLaurentioArmentiaand
onJuly22,1955,recordedintheregistryofdeeds.
Whereupon,Torrenstitle21323wascanceledby defendantJulianaArmentia,asheirsofMartaArmentia,
bedeclaredownersofthelandindispute;thatthe
TransferCertificateofTitle18797inthenamesof
RegisterofDeedsbedirectedtocancelTorrenstitle
ErlindaPatriarcaandFlorenciaSomeciera.
18797inthenamesofErlindaPatriarcaandFlorencia
MartaArmentiadiedintestateandwithoutforcedheirs Someciera,and,inlieuthereof,toissueanewtitlein
onMay28,1960.OnSeptember17,1960,Laurentio thenamesofLaurentioArmentiaandJulianaArmentia;
Armentiacommencedsuit2againstErlindaPatriarca thatthehouseandlotandsewingmachinebe
andFlorenciaSomecieraasprincipaldefendants.3The partitionedandplaintiff'ssharebedeliveredtohim;
complaint,asamended,andreamended,avers:That andthatshouldpartitionnotbefeasible,said
thesalemadebyMartainfavorofErlindaandFlorencia propertiesbesoldandplaintiffgivenhisshare.
"isnullandvoidbecauseitissimulatedandfictitious
andifnotnullandvoiditisvoidablebecausethesaid Thecomplaintwasmetbydefendant'smotionto
defendantswereminorsatthetimethecontractwas dismissupontwogrounds:(1)lackofcauseofaction
executedandcouldnotthenhavegiventheirconsent and(2)prescription.
tothesale";that"thesaidsalewasfraudulently OnNovember21,1960,overplaintiff'sopposition,the
executed,andafterthesupposedsale,MartaArmentia lowercourtdismissedthecaseforthereasonthat
remainedinpossessionofthehouseandlot,asowner plaintiff'sactiontoannulthesalehadprescribed.A
payingthetaxesonthelanduntilshedied";that"even movetoreconsiderwasthwartedbythecourtinits
assuminghypotheticallythattherewasconsiderationin orderofDecember17,1960.
thesupposedsale,theconsiderationwasgrossly
inadequate";that"plaintiffonlycametoknowofthe Thecaseisnowbeforeusonplaintiff'sappealinforma
supposedsaleinAnnexAoneweekbeforethesuitwas pauperis.
filed";that"atthetimeoftheallegedsaleinAnnexA",
1. Plaintiff'sattackisprimarilydirectedatthesale.
the"housewasalreadystandingontheland",andthat
Plaintiffchargesthatthecontractthereforwas
"afteritsexecutionMariaArmentiarepairedthe
fraudulentlyexecuted,butinthesamebreadth
house";andthat"thedefendantsErlindaPatriarca,
characterizesitassimulatedandfictitious.These
FlorenciaSomeciera,JulianaArmentiaandJose
statementsarebutconclusionsoflaw.Controlling,of
Somecieraarepersonallypossessingthelandandthe
course,isthestatementofultimatefacts.5
houseinquestion".Thecomplaintfurtheraversthat
MartaArmentiaalsolefta"Singer"sewingmachine. Letusthenlookatthefactualrecitals.Particularly
Paragraph8thereofsaysthatsaidsewingmachineis strikingisthefactthatplaintiffdoesnotdisputethe
"nowinthepossessionofErlindaPatriarcaand selfadjudicationmadebyMartaArmentiainthedeed.
FlorenciaSomeciera".However,paragraph20ofthe PlaintiffdoesnotimpugnthegenuinenessofMarta's
verysamecomplaintspeaksofsaidsewingmachineas signaturethereon.Hesolelyputsinissuethatportionof
"nowinthepossessionofthedefendantsErlinda thedocumentwherethesaleappearstohavebeen
madetoErlindaPatriarcaandFlorenciaSomeciera.
158
Todrivehomehisavermentofnullity,plaintiff contract.MartaArmentiadidnottransmittohimby
summonstohisaidthefollowingcircumstances:Atthe deviseorotherwiseanyrightstotheproperty,the
timeofthesale,thevendeeswerestillminorsandthe subjectthereof.Onthecontrary,Martavoluntarily
considerationwasgrosslyinadequate;afterthesale, disposedofit.Nocreditorsaredefrauded;thereare
MartaArmentiarepairedthehouse,continued none.Nolegitimesareimpaired.Therefore,plaintiffhas
possessionofthepremises,paidthetaxesthereonuntil nocauseofactiontoannulortorescindthesale.
herdemise.
InpointisConcepcionvs.Sta.Ana,87Phil.787.The
Hypotheticallyadmittingthetruthoftheseallegations, factstheremaywellbeanalogizedwiththoseofthe
theconclusionisirresistiblethatthesaleismerely present.IntheConcepcioncase,plaintiffMonico
voidable.BecauseMartaArmentiaexecutedthe Concepcionwastheonlysurvivinglegitimatebrotherof
document,andthisisnotcontrovertedbyplaintiff. PerpetuaConcepcion,whodiedwithoutissueand
Besides,thefactthatthevendeeswereminors,makes withoutleavinganywill.Inherlifetime,ormore
thecontract,atworst,annullablebythem.Thenagain, precisely,onJune29,1945,saidPerpetuaConcepcion,
inadequacyofconsiderationdoesnotimplytotalwant "inconnivancewiththedefendantandwithintentto
ofconsideration.Withoutmore,thepurportedactsof defraudtheplaintiff,soldandconveyedthreeparcelsof
MartaArmentiaafterthesaledonotindicatethatsaid landforafalseandfictitiousconsiderationtothe
salewasvoidfromthebeginning. defendant,whosecuredtransfercertificatesoftitleof
saidlandsissuedunderhername;andthatthe
Thesumtotalofalloftheseisthat,inessence, defendanthasbeeninpossessionofthepropertiessold
plaintiff'scaseisbottomedonfraud,whichrendersthe sincethedeathofPerpetuaConcepcion,thereby
contractvoidable. causingdamagestotheplaintiffintheamountofnot
2. Mayplaintiffannulthesaleonthetheoryof lessthantwohundred(P200)pesos."6Onmotionto
fraud? dismiss,thelowercourtthrewthecomplaintoutof
courtuponthegroundthat"theplaintiffisnotaparty
PlaintiffwasbutabrotherofthedeceasedMarta tothedeedofsaleexecutedbyPerpetuaConcepcionin
Armentia.True,heisanintestateheirofMarta;buthe favorofthedefendant";thatevenontheassumption
isnotaforcedheir.Upontheotherhand,Martawas "thattheconsiderationofthecontractisfictitious,the
freetodisposeofherpropertiesthewayshelikedit. plaintiffhasnorightofactionagainstthedefendant";
Shehadneitherascendantsnordescendants. thatunderArticle1302oftheoldCivilCode,"theaction
toannulacontractmaybebroughtbyanyperson
ByArticle1397oftheCivilCode,"[t]heactionfor
principallyorsubsidiarilyboundthereby:"that"plaintiff
annulmentofcontractsmaybeinstitutedbyallwhoare
isnotboundbythedeedofsaleexecutedbythe
therebyobligedprincipallyorsubsidiarily".Thismustbe
deceasedinfavorofthedefendant";andthathehas
construedinconjunctionwithArticle1311ofthesame
"noobligationsunderthedeed."
codeprovidingthat"[c]ontractstakeeffectonly
betweentheparties,theirassignsandheirsexceptin Thefollowingreproducedinhaecverbafromthe
casewheretherightsandobligationsarisingfromthe Concepcionopinionisilluminating:
contractarenottransmissiblebytheirnature,orby
stipulationorbyprovisionoflaw",andthat"theheiris "(2) Astotheappellant'ssecondandlast
notliablebeyondthevalueofthepropertyhereceived contention,underthelawactiontoannulacontract
fromthedecedent".Plaintiffisnotaforcedheir.Heis enteredintowithalltherequisitesmentionedinarticle
notobligedprincipallyorsubsidiarilyunderthe 12617whenevertheyaretaintedwiththevicewhich
159
invalidatetheminaccordancewithlaw,maybebrought wasvoluntarilymadebythedeceasedtosaid
notonlybyanypersonprincipallyboundorwhomade defendant.Asthedeceasedhadnoforcedheir,shewas
them,butalsobyhisheirtowhomtherightand freetodisposeofallherpropertiesasabsoluteowner
obligationarisingfromthecontractaretransmitted. thereof,withoutfurtherlimitationthanthose
Henceifnosuchrights,actionsorobligationshavebeen establishedbylaw,andtherighttodisposeofathing
transmittedtotheheir,thelattercannotbringan involvestherighttogiveorconveyittoanother
actiontoannulthecontractinrepresentationofthe withoutanyconsideration.Theonlylimitation
contractingpartywhomadeit.InWolfsonvs.Estateof establishedbylawonherrighttoconveysaid
Martinez,20Phil.,340,thisSupremeCourtquotedwith propertiestothedefendantwithoutanyconsideration
approvalthejudgmentoftheSupremeCourtofSpainof is,thatshecouldnotdisposeofortransferherproperty
April18,1901,inwhichitwasheldthat'hewhoisnota toanotherinfraudofhercreditors.Andthiscourt,in
partytoacontract,oranassigneethereunder,ordoes Solisvs.ChuaPuaHermanos(50Phil.636),throughMr.
notrepresentthosewhotookparttherein,hasunder JusticeStreet,heldthat'avoluntaryconveyance,
articles1257and13028oftheCivilCodenolegal withoutanyconsiderationwhatever,isprimafaciegood
capacitytochallengethevalidityofsuchcontract.'And asbetweentheparties,andsuchaninstrumentcannot
inIrlandavs.Pitargue(22Phil.383)weheldthat'the bedeclaredfraudulentasagainstcreditorsinthe
testamentaryorlegalheircontinuesinlawasthe absenceofproof,thattherewasatthetimeofthe
juridicalpersonalityofhispredecessorininterest,who executionoftheconveyanceacreditorwhocouldbe
transmittohimfromthemomentofhisdeathsuchof defraudedbytheconveyance,27C.J.,470'.
hisrights,actionsandobligationsasarenot
extinguishedthereby'. xxxxxxxxx
Thequestiontoberesolvedis,therefore,whetherthe "Thereasonwhyaforcedheirhastherighttoinstitute
deceasedPerpetuaConcepcionhastransmittedtothe anactionofrescissionisthattherighttothelegitimeis
similartoacreditofacreditor.AsthesameSpanish
plaintiffanyrightarisingfromthecontractunder
author[Manresa]correctlystatesincommentingon
considerationinorderthathecanbringanactionto
article12919oftheCivilCode.'Therightsofaforced
annulthesalevoluntarilymadebyhertothedefendant
withafalseconsideration. heirtothelegitimeareundoubtedlysimilartoacredit
ofacreditorinsofarastherightstothelegitimemay
Weareoftheopinionandsohold,thatthelate bedefeatedbyfraudulentcontracts,andaresuperior
PerpetuaConcepcionhasnottransmittedtothe tothewillofthoseboundtorespectthem.Inits
plaintiffanyrightarisingfromthecontractof judgmentofOctober28,1897,theSupremeCourtof
conveyanceorsaleofherlandstothedefendant,and Spainheldthattheforcedheirsinstitutedassuchby
thereforetheplaintiffcannotfileanactiontoannul theirfathertothelatter'stestamenthavethe
suchcontractasrepresentativeofthedeceased. undeniablerighttoinstituteanactiontoannul
contractsenteredintobythefathertotheirprejudice.
Accordingtothecomplaintthedeceased,inconnivance Asitisseentheactioniscalledactionofnullity,butitis
withthedefendantandwithintenttodefraudthe ratheranactionofrescissiontakingintoaccountthe
plaintiff,(thatis,inordernottoleavetheproperties purposeforwhichitisinstitutedandtheconfusionof
abovementioneduponherdeathtotheplaintiff)sold ideasthathasprevailedinthismatter.Thedoctrinewe
andconveyedthemtothelatter,forafalseand shallexpoundincommentingonarticles1302and1306
fictitiousconsideration.Itis,thereforeobvious,thatthe
conveyanceorsaleofsaidpropertiestothedefendant
160
10willconfirmwhatwehavejuststated'.(Manresa
CodigoCivil,4thedition,Vol.8,pp.667and668.)"11
OuropinioninConcepcionneednofurtherelaboration.
Itwouldsufficetosaythatplaintiffherehasnocauseof
action.
3. Butevenifarightofactionbeconceded,
plaintiff'scasefailsjustthesame.Anactiontoannula
contractbasedonfraudmustbefiledwithinfouryears
fromthediscoverythereof.12Inlegalcontemplation,
discoverymustbereckonedtohavetakenplacefrom
thetimethedocumentwasregisteredintheofficeof
theregisterofdeeds.For,thefamiliarruleisthat
registrationisnoticetothewholeworld,including
plaintiff.13Asaforestated,thedocumentinquestion
wasrecordedonJuly22,1955.Actionwasstartedonly
onSeptember17,1960.Thefouryearperiodhas
elapsed.And,plaintiff'scauseofaction,ifany,istime
barred.
4. Allthatremainsisthesmallitemofplaintiff's
shareinthe"Singer"sewingmachinewhichwasnotthe
subjectofthesaleaforesaid.TheCourtmaywelltake
judicialnotice14ofthefactthatsuchsharedoesnot
exceedP75,000.15Plaintiff'sseparateactionifany
hehadtoobtainsaidshare,shouldhavebeen
addressedtotheMunicipalCourt.
Premisedontheforegoingconsiderations,theappealed
orderofNovember21,1960dismissingthesecond
amendedcomplaintis,asitshouldbe,affirmed.No
costs.Soordered.
Concepcion,C.J.,Dizon,Regala,Makalintal,Bengzon,J.
P.,ZaldivarandCastro,JJ.,concur.
161
[G.R.No.107112.February24,1994.] NewCivilCodeisnotapplicableprimarilybecausethe
contractdoesnotinvolvetherenditionofserviceora
NAGATELEPHONECO.,INC.(NATELCO)ANDLUCIANO personalprestationanditisnotforfutureservicewith
M.MAGGAY,petitioners,vs.THECOURTOFAPPEALS
futureunusualchange.Instead,therulinginthecase
ANDCAMARINESSURIIELECTRICCOOPERATIVE,INC.
Occea,etal.v.Jabson,etc,etal.,(G.R.No.L44349,
(CASURECOII),respondents.
October29,1976,73SCRA637)whichinterpretedthe
SYLLABUS article,shouldbefollowedinresolvingthiscase.
Besides,saidarticlewasneverraisedbythepartiesin
1. CIVILLAW;OBLIGATIONANDCONTRACTS;RULE theirpleadingsandwasneverthesubjectoftrialand
WHEREAPERSONBYHISCONTRACTCHARGESHIMSELF evidence.Article1267speaksof"service"whichhas
WITHANOBLIGATIONPOSSIBLETOBEPERFORMED. becomesodifficult.Takingintoconsiderationthe
ThecaseofReyesv.Caltex(Philippines),Inc.enunciated rationalebehindthisprovision,theterm"service"
thedoctrinethatwhereapersonbyhiscontract shouldbeunderstoodasreferringtothe"performance"
chargeshimselfwithanobligationpossibletobe oftheobligation.Inthepresentcase,theobligationof
performed,hemustperformit,unlessitsperformance privaterespondentconsistsinallowingpetitionersto
isrenderedimpossiblebytheactofGod,bythelaw,or useitspostsinNagaCity,whichistheservice
bytheotherparty,itbeingtherulethatincasethe contemplatedinsaidarticle.Furthermore,abare
partydesirestobeexcusedfromperformanceinthe readingofthisarticlerevealsthatitisnota
eventofcontingenciesarisingthereto,itishisdutyto requirementthereunderthatthecontractbeforfuture
providethebasisthereforinhiscontract.Withthe servicewithfutureunusualchange.Accordingto
enactmentoftheNewCivilCode,anewprovisionwas SenatorArturoM.Tolentino,Article1267statesinour
includedthereinnamely,Article1267whichprovides: lawthedoctrineofunforeseenevents.Thisissaidtobe
"Whentheservicehasbecomesodifficultastobe basedonthediscreditedtheoryofrebussicstantibusin
manifestlybeyondthecontemplationoftheparties,the publicinternationallaw;underthistheory,theparties
obligormayalsobereleasedtherefrom,inwholeorin stipulateinthelightofcertainprevailingconditions,
part."InthereportoftheCodeCommission,the andoncetheseconditionsceasetoexistthecontract
rationalebehindthisinnovationwasexplained,thus: alsoceasestoexist.Consideringpracticalneedsandthe
"Thegeneralruleisthatimpossibilityofperformance demandsofequityandgoodfaith,thedisappearanceof
releasestheobligor.However,itissubmittedthatwhen thebasisofacontractgivesrisetoarighttoreliefin
theservicehasbecomesodifficultastobemanifestly favorofthepartyprejudiced.
beyondthecontemplationoftheparties,thecourt
shouldbeauthorizedtoreleasetheobligorinwholeor 3. ID.;ID.;POTESTATIVECONDITION;MEANING
inpart.Theintentionofthepartiesshouldgovernandif THEREOF;APPLICATIONINCASEATBAR.A
itappearsthattheserviceturnsouttobesodifficultas potestativeconditionisacondition,thefulfillmentof
tohavebeenbeyondtheircontemplation,itwouldbe whichdependsuponthesolewillofthedebtor,in
doingviolencetothatintentiontoholdtheobligorstill whichcase,theconditionalobligationisvoid.Basedon
responsible."Inotherwords,fairandsquare thisdefinition,respondentcourt'sfindingthatthe
considerationunderscoresthelegalprecepttherein. provisioninthecontract,towit:"(a)Thatthetermor
periodofthiscontractshallbeaslongasthepartyof
2. ID.;ID.;"SERVICE"UNDERART.1267REFERSTO thefirstpart(petitioner)hasneedfortheelectriclight
THEPERFORMANCEOFANOBLIGATION;CASEATBAR. postsofthepartyofthesecondpart(private
PetitionersassertearnestlythatArticle1267ofthe respondent)..."isapotestativecondition,iscorrect.
162
However,itmusthaveoverlookedtheotherconditions bythelaw,orbytheotherparty,itbeingtherulethat
inthesameprovision,towit:"...itbeingunderstood incasethepartydesirestobeexcusedfrom
thatthiscontractshallterminatewhenforanyreason performanceintheeventofcontingenciesarising
whatsoever,thepartyofthesecondpart(private thereto,itishisdutytoprovidethebasisthereforinhis
respondent)isforcedtostop,abandoned(sic)its contract.LibLex
operationasapublicserviceanditbecomesnecessary
toremovetheelectriclightpost(sic);"whicharecasual WiththeenactmentoftheNewCivilCode,anew
conditionssincetheydependonchance,hazard,orthe provisionwasincludedthereinnamely,Article1267
whichprovides:
willofathirdperson.Insum,thecontractissubjectto
mixedconditions,thatis,theydependpartlyonthewill "Whentheservicehasbecomesodifficultastobe
ofthedebtorandpartlyonchance,hazardorthewillof manifestlybeyondthecontemplationoftheparties,the
athirdperson,whichdonotinvalidatethe obligormayalsobereleasedtherefrom,inwholeorin
aforementionedprovision. part."
4. ID.;PRESCRIPTIONOFACTIONS;RULEON InthereportoftheCodeCommission,therationale
WRITTENCONTRACT.Article1144oftheNewCivil behindthisinnovationwasexplained,thus:
Codeprovides,interalia,thatanactionuponawritten
contractmustbebroughtwithinten(10)yearsfromthe "Thegeneralruleisthatimpossibilityofperformance
timetherightoftheactionaccrues.Clearly,theten(10) releasestheobligor.However,itissubmittedthatwhen
yearperiodistobereckonedfromthetimetherightof theservicehasbecomesodifficultastobemanifestly
actionaccrueswhichisnotnecessarilythedateof beyondthecontemplationoftheparties,thecourt
executionofthecontract.Ascorrectlyruledby shouldbeauthorizedtoreleasetheobligorinwholeor
respondentcourt,privaterespondent'srightofaction inpart.Theintentionofthepartiesshouldgovernandif
arose"sometimeduringthelatterpartof1982orin itappearsthattheserviceturnsouttobesodifficultas
1983whenaccordingtoAtty.LuisGeneral,Jr....,he tohavebeenbeyondtheircontemplation,itwouldbe
wasaskedby(privaterespondent's)BoardofDirectors doingviolencetothatintentiontoholdtheobligorstill
tostudysaidcontractasitalreadyappeared responsible."2
disadvantageousto(privaterespondent).(Private
Inotherwords,fairandsquareconsideration
respondent's)causeofactiontoaskforreformationof
underscoresthelegalprecepttherein.
saidcontractshouldthusbeconsideredtohavearisen
onlyin1982or1983,andfrom1982toJanuary2,1989 NagaTelephoneCo.,Inc.remonstratesmainlyagainst
whenthecomplaintinthiscasewasfiled,ten(10)years theapplicationbytheCourtofAppealsofArticle1267
hadnotyetelapsed." infavorofCamarinesSurIIElectricCooperative,Inc.in
thecasebeforeus.Stateddifferently,theformerinsists
DECISION
thatthecomplaintshouldhavebeendismissedfor
NOCON,Jp: failuretostateacauseofaction.prLL
ThecaseofReyesv.Caltex(Philippines),Inc.1 Theantecedentfacts,asnarratedbyrespondentCourt
enunciatedthedoctrinethatwhereapersonbyhis ofAppealsare,asfollows:
contractchargeshimselfwithanobligationpossibleto
PetitionerNagaTelephoneCo.,Inc.(NATELCO)isa
beperformed,hemustperformit,unlessits
telephonecompanyrenderinglocalaswellaslong
performanceisrenderedimpossiblebytheactofGod,
distanceserviceinNagaCitywhileprivaterespondent
163
CamarinesSurIIElectricCooperative,Inc.(CASURECOII) Afterthecontracthadbeenenforcedforoverten(10)
isaprivatecorporationestablishedforthepurposeof years,privaterespondentfiledonJanuary2,1989with
operatinganelectricpowerserviceinthesamecity. theRegionalTrialCourtofNagaCity(Br.28)C.C.No.
891642againstpetitionersforreformationofthe
OnNovember1,1977,thepartiesenteredintoa contractwithdamages,onthegroundthatitistooone
contract(Exh."A")fortheusebypetitionersinthe sidedinfavorofpetitioners;thatitisnotinconformity
operationofitstelephoneservicetheelectriclightposts withtheguidelinesoftheNationalElectrification
ofprivaterespondentinNagaCity.Inconsideration
Administration(NEA)whichdirectthatthereasonable
therefor,petitionersagreedtoinstall,freeofcharge,
compensationfortheuseofthepostsisP10.00per
ten(10)telephoneconnectionsfortheusebyprivate post,permonth;thataftereleven(11)yearsof
respondentinthefollowingplaces: petitioners'useoftheposts,thetelephonecables
"(a) 3unitsTheMainOfficeof(private strungbythemthereonhavebecomemuchheavier
respondent); withtheincreaseinthevolumeoftheirsubscribers,
worsenedbythefactthattheirlinemenboreholes
(b) 2UnitsTheWarehouseof(private throughthepostsatwhichpointsthosepostswere
respondent); brokenduringtyphoons;thatapostnowcostsasmuch
asP2,630.00;sothatjusticeandequitydemandthat
(c) 1UnitTheSubStationof(private
thecontractbereformedtoabolishtheinequities
respondent)atConcepcionPequea;
thereon.prLL
(d) 1UnitTheResidenceof(private
Assecondcauseofaction,privaterespondentalleged
respondent's)President;
thatstartingwiththeyear1981,petitionershaveused
(e) 1UnitTheResidenceof(private 319postsinthetownsofPili,Canaman,Magaraoand
respondent's)ActingGeneralManager;& Milaor,CamarinesSur,alloutsideNagaCity,without
anycontractwithit;thatattherateofP10.00perpost,
(f) 2UnitsTobedeterminedbytheGeneral petitionersshouldpayprivaterespondentfortheuse
Manager.3 thereofthetotalamountofP267,960.00from1981up
tothefilingofitscomplaint;andthatpetitionershad
Saidcontractalsoprovided:
refusedtopayprivaterespondentsaidamountdespite
"(a) Thatthetermorperiodofthiscontractshallbe demands.
aslongasthepartyofthefirstparthasneedforthe
Andasthirdcauseofaction,privaterespondent
electriclightpostsofthepartyofthesecondpartit
complainedaboutthepoorservicingbypetitionersof
beingunderstoodthatthiscontractshallterminate
theten(10)telephoneunitswhichhadcauseditgreat
whenforanyreasonwhatsoever,thepartyofthe
inconvenienceanddamagestothetuneofnotlessthan
secondpartisforcedtostop,abandoned[sic]its
P100,000.00
operationasapublicserviceanditbecomesnecessary
toremovetheelectriclightpost;"(sic)4 Inpetitioners'answertothefirstcauseofaction,they
averredthatitshouldbedismissedbecause(1)itdoes
Itwaspreparedbyorwiththeassistanceoftheother
notsufficientlystateacauseofactionforreformation
petitioner,Atty.LucianoM.Maggay,thenamemberof
ofcontract;(2)itisbarredbyprescription,thesame
theBoardofDirectorsofprivaterespondentandatthe
havingbeenfiledmorethanten(10)yearsafterthe
sametimethelegalcounselofpetitioner.
executionofthecontract;and(3)itisbarredby
164
estoppel,sinceprivaterespondentseekstoenforcethe 1977,saidpostshavebecomeheavilyloadedin1989.
contractinthesameaction.Petitionersfurtheralleged LLphil
thattheirutilizationofprivaterespondent'spostcould
(2) Engr.AntonioBorja,Chiefofprivate
nothavecausedtheirdeteriorationbecausetheyhave
respondent'sLineOperationandMaintenance
alreadybeeninuseforeleven(11)years;andthatthe
Department,declaredthatthepostsbeingusedby
valueoftheirexpensesfortheten(10)telephonelines
longenjoyedbyprivaterespondentfreeofchargeare petitionerstotalled1,403asofApril17,1989,192of
whichwereinthetownsofPili,Canaman,andMagarao,
farinexcessoftheamountsclaimedbythelatterfor
alloutsideNagaCity(Exhs."B"and"B1");that
theuseoftheposts,sothatiftherewasanyinequity,it
wassufferedbythem. petitioners'cablesstrungtothepostsin1989aremuch
biggerthanthoseinNovember,1977;thatin1987,
Regardingthesecondcauseofaction,petitioners almost100postsweredestroyedbytyphoonSisang:
claimedthatprivaterespondenthadaskedfor around20postswerelocatedbetweenNagaCityand
telephonelinesinareasoutsideNagaCityforwhichits thetownofPiliwhilethepostsinbarangayConcepcion,
postswereusedbythem;andthatifpetitionershad NagaCitywerebrokenatthemiddlewhichhadbeen
refusedtocomplywithprivaterespondent'sdemands boredbypetitioner'slinementoenablethemtostring
forpaymentfortheuseofthepostsoutsideNagaCity, biggertelephonelines;thatwhilethecostperpostin
itwasprobablybecausewhatisduetothemfrom 1977wasonlyfromP700.00toP1,000.00,theircostsin
privaterespondentismorethanitsclaimagainstthem. 1989wentupfromP1,500.00toP2,000.00,depending
onthesize;thatsomelinesthatwerestrungtothe
Andwithrespecttothethirdcauseofaction, postsdidnotfollowtheminimumverticalclearance
petitionersclaimed,interalia,thattheirtelephone requiredbytheNationalBuildingCode,sothatthere
servicehadbeencategorizedbytheNational werecasesin1988where,becauseofthelowclearance
TelecommunicationCorporation(NTC)as"veryhigh" ofthecables,passingtruckswouldaccidentallytouch
andof"superiorquality." saidcablescausingthepoststofallandresultingin
Duringthetrial,privaterespondentpresentedthe brownoutsuntiltheelectriclineswererepaired.
followingwitnesses: (3) DarioBernardez,ProjectSupervisorandActing
(1) DioscoroRagragio,oneofthetwoofficialswho GeneralManagerofprivaterespondentandManagerof
signedthecontractinitsbehalf,declaredthatitwas RegionVofNEA,declaredthataccordingtoNEA
petitionerMaggaywhopreparedthecontract;thatthe guidelinesin1985(Exh."C"),fortheusebyprivate
understandingbetweenprivaterespondentand telephonesystemsofelectriccooperatives'posts,they
petitionerswasthatthelatterwouldonlyusetheposts shouldpayaminimummonthlyrentalofP4.00per
inNagaCitybecauseatthattime,petitioners'capability post,andconsideringtheescalationofpricessince
wasverylimitedandtheyhadnoexpectationof 1985,electriccooperativeshavebeenchargingfrom
expansionbecauseoflegalsquabbleswithinthe P10.00toP15.00perpost,whichiswhatpetitioners
company;thatprivaterespondentagreedtoallow shouldpayfortheuseoftheposts.
petitionerstouseitspostsinNagaCitybecausethere
(4) EngineerAntonioMacandog,DepartmentHead
weremanysubscribersthereinwhocouldnotbeserved oftheOfficeofServicesofprivaterespondent,testified
bythembecauseoflackoffacilities;andthatwhilethe
onthepoorservicerenderedbypetitioners'telephone
telephonelinesstrungtothepostswereverylightin lines,likethetelephoneintheirComplaintsSection
whichwasusuallyoutofordersuchthattheycouldnot
165
respondtothecallsoftheircustomers.Incaseof (c) Petitioners'linemenhavestrungonlysmall

disruptionoftheirtelephonelines,itwouldtaketwoto messengerwirestomanyofthepostsandtheyneed
threehoursforpetitionerstoreactivatethem onlysmallholestopassthrough;and
notwithstandingtheircallsontheemergencyline.
(d) DocumentsexistingintheNTCshowthatthe
(5) Finally,Atty.LuisGeneral,Jr.,private stringingofpetitioners'cablesinNagaCityare
respondent'scounsel,testifiedthattheBoardof accordingtostandardandcomparabletothoseofPLDT.
Directorsaskedhimtostudythecontractsometime Theaccidentsmentionedbyprivaterespondent
duringthelatterpartof1982orin1983,asithad involvedtrucksthatwereeitheroverloadedorhad
appearedverydisadvantageoustoprivaterespondent. loadsthatprotrudedupwards,causingthemtohitthe
Notwithstandinghisrecommendationforthefilingofa cables.
courtactiontoreformthecontract,theformergeneral
(3) Concerningthesecondcauseofaction,the
managersofprivaterespondentwantedtoadoptasoft
intentionofthepartieswhentheyenteredintothe
approachwithpetitionersaboutthematteruntilthe
termofGeneralManagerHenryPascualwho,after contractwasthatthecoveragethereofwouldinclude
failingtosettlethematteramicablywithpetitioners, thewholeareaservicedbypetitionersbecauseatthat
finallyagreedforhimtofilethepresentactionfor time,theyalreadyhadsubscribersoutsideNagaCity.
reformationofcontract. Privaterespondent,infact,hadaskedfortelephone
connectionsoutsideNagaCityforitsofficersand
Ontheotherhand,petitionerMaggaytestifiedtothe employeesresidingthereinadditiontotheten(10)
followingeffect: telephoneunitsmentionedinthecontract.Petitioners
havenotbeenchargingprivaterespondentforthe
(1) ItistruethathewasamemberoftheBoardof installation,transfersandreconnectionsofsaid
Directorsofprivaterespondentandatthesametime telephonessothatnaturally,theyusethepostsfor
thelawyerofpetitionerwhenthecontractwas thosetelephonelines.
executed,butAtty.GaudiosoTena,whowasalsoa
memberoftheBoardofDirectorsofprivate (4) Withrespecttothethirdcauseofaction,the
respondent,wastheonewhosawtoitthatthe NTChasfoundpetitionerscableinstallationstobein
contractwasfairtobothparties. accordancewithengineeringstandardsandpractice
andcomparabletothebestinthecountry.
(2) Withregardtothefirstcauseofaction:
Onthebasisoftheforegoingcountervailingevidenceof
(a) Privaterespondenthastherightunderthe
theparties,thetrialcourtfound,asregardsprivate
contracttouseten(10)telephoneunitsofpetitioners respondentsfirstcauseofaction,thatwhilethe
foraslongasitwisheswithoutpayinganythingtherefor contractappearedtobefairtobothpartieswhenitwas
exceptforlongdistancecallsthroughPLDToutofwhich enteredintobythemduringthefirstyearofprivate
thelattergetonly10%ofthecharges.LLpr respondentsoperationandwhenitsBoardofDirectors
(b) Inmostcases,onlydropwiresandnot didnotyethaveanyexperienceinthatbusiness,ithad
telephonecableshavebeenstrungtotheposts,which becomedisadvantageousandunfairtoprivate
postshaveremainederectuptopresent; respondentbecauseofsubsequenteventsand
conditions,particularlytheincreaseinthevolumeof
thesubscribersofpetitionersformorethanten(10)
yearswithoutthecorrespondingincreaseinthenumber
166
oftelephoneconnectionstoprivaterespondentfreeof "WHEREFORE,inviewofalltheforegoing,decisionis
charge.Thetrialcourtconcludedthatwhileinanaction herebyrenderedorderingthereformationofthe
forreformationofcontract,itcannotmakeanother agreement(Exh.A);orderingthedefendantstopay
contractfortheparties,itcan,however,forreasonsof plaintiff'selectricpolesinNagaCityandinthetownsof
justiceandequity,orderthatthecontractbereformed Milaor,Canaman,MaragaoandPili,CamarinesSurand
toabolishtheinequitiestherein.Thus,saidcourtruled inotherplaceswheredefendantNATELCOuses
thatthecontractshouldbereformedbyordering plaintiff'selectricpoles,thesumofTEN(P10.00)PESOS
petitionerstopayprivaterespondentcompensationfor perplaintiff'spole,permonthbeginningJanuary,1989
theuseoftheirpostsinNagaCity,whileprivate andorderingalsotheplaintifftopaydefendant
respondentshouldalsobeorderedtopaythemonthly NATELCOthemonthlyduesofallitstelephones
billsfortheuseofthetelephonesalsoinNagaCity.And includingthoseinstalledattheresidenceofitsofficers,
takingintoconsiderationtheguidelinesoftheNEAon namely;Engr.JoventinoCruz,Engr.AntonioBorja,Engr.
therentalofpostsbytelephonecompaniesandthe AntonioMacandog,Mr.JesusOpianaandAtty.Luis
increaseinthecostsofsuchposts,thetrialcourt General,Jr.beginningJanuary,1989.Plaintiff'sclaimfor
opinedthatamonthlyrentalofP10.00foreachpostof attorney'sfeesandexpensesoflitigationand
privaterespondentusedbypetitionersisreasonable, defendants'counterclaimarebothherebyordered
whichrentalitshouldpayfromthefilingofthe dismissed.Withoutpronouncementastocosts."llcd
complaintinthiscaseonJanuary2,1989.Andinlike
Disagreeingwiththeforegoingjudgment,petitioners
manner,privaterespondentshouldpaypetitioners
appealedtorespondentCourtofAppeals.Inthe
fromthesamedateitsmonthlybillsfortheuseand
transfersofitstelephonesinNagaCityatthesamerate decisiondatedMay28,1992,respondentcourt
affirmedthedecisionofthetrialcourt,5butbasedon
thatthepublicarepaying.cdll
differentgroundstowit:(1)thatArticle1267ofthe
Onprivaterespondent'ssecondcauseofaction,the NewCivilCodeisapplicableand(2)thatthecontract
trialcourtfoundthatthecontractdoesnotmention wassubjecttoapotestativeconditionwhichrendered
anythingabouttheusebypetitionersofprivate saidconditionvoid.Themotionforreconsiderationwas
respondent'spostsoutsideNagaCity.Therefore,the deniedintheresolutiondatedSeptember10,1992.6
trialcourtheldthatforreasonofequity,thecontract Hence,thepresentpetition.
shouldbereformedbyincludingthereintheprovision
thatfortheuseofprivaterespondent'spostsoutside Petitionersassignthefollowingpertinenterrors
NagaCity,petitionersshouldpayamonthlyrentalof committedbyrespondentcourt:
P10.00perpost,thepaymenttostartonthedatethis 1) inmakingacontractforthepartiesbyinvoking
casewasfiled,oronJanuary2,1989,andprivate Article1267oftheNewCivilCode;
respondentshouldalsopaypetitionersthemonthly
duesonitstelephoneconnectionslocatedoutsideNaga 2) inrulingthatprescriptionoftheactionfor
CitybeginningJanuary,1989. reformationofthecontractinthiscasecommenced
fromthetimeitbecamedisadvantageoustoprivate
Andwithrespecttoprivaterespondent'sthirdcauseof respondent;and
action,thetrialcourtfoundtheclaimnotsufficiently
proved. 3) inrulingthatthecontractwassubjecttoa
potestativeconditioninfavorofpetitioners.
Thus,thefollowingdecretalportionofthetrialcourt's
decisiondatedJuly20,1990:
167
PetitionersassertearnestlythatArticle1267oftheNew ofthepartiesisnotexpressedtherein,thenthe
CivilCodeisnotapplicableprimarilybecausethe instrumentmaybereformedattheinstanceofeither
contractdoesnotinvolvetherenditionofserviceora partyiftherewasmutualmistakeontheirpart,orby
personalprestationanditisnotforfutureservicewith theinjuredpartyifonlyhewasmistaken.cdphil
futureunusualchange.Instead,therulinginthecase
Here,plaintiffappelleedidnotallegeinitscomplaint,
Occea,etal.v.Jabson,etc,etal.,7whichinterpreted
thearticle,shouldbefollowedinresolvingthiscase. nordoesitsevidenceprove,thattherewasamistake
onitspartormutualmistakeonthepartofbothparties
Besides,saidarticlewasneverraisedbythepartiesin
whentheyenteredintotheagreementExh."A",and
theirpleadingsandwasneverthesubjectoftrialand
evidence. thatbecauseofthismistake,saidagreementfailedto
expresstheirtrueintention.Rather,plaintiff'sevidence
InapplyingArticle1267,respondentcourtrationalized: showsthatsaidagreementwaspreparedbyAtty.
LucianoMaggay,thenamemberofplaintiff'sBoardof
"Weagreewithappellantthatinorderthatanaction
Directorsanditslegalcounselatthattime,whowas
forreformationofcontractwouldlieandmayprosper, alsothelegalcounselfordefendantappellant,sothat
theremustbesufficientallegationsaswellasproofthat aslegalcounselforbothcompaniesandpresumably
thecontractinquestionfailedtoexpressthetrue withtheinterestsofbothcompaniesinmindwhenhe
intentionofthepartiesduetoerrorormistake, preparedtheaforesaidagreement,Atty.Maggaymust
accident,orfraud.Indeed,inembodyingtheequitable haveconsideredthesamefairandequitabletoboth
remedyofreformationofinstrumentsintheNewCivil sides,andthiswasaffirmedbythelowercourtwhenit
Code,theCodeCommissiongaveitsreasonsasfollows: foundsaidcontracttohavebeenfairtobothpartiesat
'Equitydictatesthereformationofaninstrumentin thetimeofitsexecution.Infact,therewereno
orderthatthetrueintentionofthecontractingparties complaintsonthepartofbothsidesatthetimeofand
maybeexpressed.Thecourtsbythereformationdonot aftertheexecutionofsaidcontract,andaccordingto
attempttomakeanewcontractfortheparties,butto 73yearoldJustinodeJesus,VicePresidentandGeneral
maketheinstrumentexpresstheirrealagreement.The managerofappellantatthetimewhosignedthe
rationaleofthedoctrineisthatitwouldbeunjustand agreementExh."A"initsbehalfandwhowasoneof
inequitabletoallowtheenforcementofawritten thewitnessesfortheplaintiff(sic),bothparties
instrumentwhichdoesnotreflectordisclosethereal compliedwithsaidcontract'fromtheverybeginning'
meetingofthemindsoftheparties.Therigorofthe (p.5,tsn,April17,1989).
legalisticrulethatawritteninstrumentshouldbethe
Thattheaforesaidcontracthasbecomeiniquitousor
finalandinflexiblecriterionandmeasureoftherights unfavorableordisadvantageoustotheplaintiffwiththe
andobligationsofthecontractingpartiesisthus
expansionofthebusinessofappellantandtheincrease
temperedtoforestalltheeffectsofmistake,fraud,
inthevolumeofitssubscribersinNagaCityand
inequitableconduct,oraccident.'(pp.5556,Reportof environsthroughtheyears,necessitatingthestringing
CodeCommission) ofmoreandbiggertelephonecablewiresbyappellant
Thus,Articles1359,1361,1362,1363and1364ofthe toplaintiff'selectricpostswithoutacorresponding
NewCivilCodeprovideinessencethatwherethrough increaseintheten(10)telephoneconnectionsgivenby
mistakeoraccidentonthepartofeitherorbothofthe appellanttoplaintifffreeofchargeintheagreement
partiesormistakeorfraudonthepartoftheclerkor Exh."A"asconsiderationforitsuseofthelatter's
typistwhopreparedtheinstrument,thetrueintention electricpostsinNagaCity,appear,however,undisputed
168
fromthetotalityoftheevidenceonrecordandthe [sic]notexpecttobeabletoexpandbecauseofthe
lowercourtsofound.Anditwasforthisreasonthatin legalsquabblesgoingonintheNATELCO.So,evenat
thelater(sic)partof1982or1983(orfiveorsixyears thattimethereweresomanysubscribersinNagaCity
afterthesubjectagreementwasenteredintobythe thatcannotbeservedbytheNATELCO,soasamatter
parties),plaintiff'sBoardofDirectorsalreadyasked ofpublicserviceweallowedthemtosue(sic)ourposts
Atty.LuisGeneralwhohadbecometheirlegalcounsel withintheNagaCity.'(p.8,tsnApril3,1989)
in1982,tostudysaidagreementwhichtheybelieved
Ragragioalsodeclaredthatwhilethetelephonewires
hadbecomedisadvantageoustotheircompanyandto
strungtotheelectricpostsofplaintiffwereverylight
maketheproperrecommendation,whichstudyAtty.
Generaldid,andthereafter,healreadyrecommended andthatveryfewtelephonelineswereattachedtothe
totheBoardthefilingofacourtactiontoreformsaid postsofCASURECOIIin1977,saidpostshavebecome
contract,butnoactionwastakenonAtty.General's 'heavilyloaded'in1989(tsn,id.).
recommendationbecausetheformergeneralmanagers Intruth,asalsocorrectlyfoundbythelowercourt,
ofplaintiffwantedtoadoptasoftapproachin despitetheincreaseinthevolumeofappellant's
discussingthematterwithappellant,until,duringthe subscribersandthecorrespondingincreaseinthe
termofGeneralManagerHenryPascual,thelatter, telephonecablesandwiresstrungbyittoplaintiff's
afterfailingtosettletheproblemwithAtty.Luciano electricpostsinNagaCityforthemore10yearsthat
Maggaywhohadbecomethepresidentandgeneral theagreementExh."A"ofthepartieshasbeenin
managerofappellant,alreadyagreedforAtty.General's effect,therehasbeennocorrespondingincreaseinthe
filingofthepresentaction.Thefactthatsaidcontract ten(10)telephoneunitsconnectedbyappellantfreeof
hasbecomeiniquitousordisadvantageoustoplaintiffas chargetoplaintiff'sofficesandotherplaceschosenby
theyearswentbydidnot,however,giveplaintiffa plaintiff'sgeneralmanagerwhichwastheonly
causeofactionforreformationofsaidcontract,forthe considerationprovidedforinsaidagreementfor
reasonsalreadypointedoutearlier.Butthisdoesnot appellant'suseofplaintiff'selectricposts.Notonlythat,
meanthatplaintiffiscompletelywithoutaremedy,for appellantevenstartedusingplaintiff'selectricposts
webelievethattheallegationsofitscomplaintherein outsideNagaCityalthoughthiswasnotprovidedforin
andtheevidenceithaspresentedsufficientlymakeout theagreementExh."A"asitextendedandexpandedits
acauseofactionunderArt.1267oftheNewCivilCode telephoneservicestotownsoutsidesaidcity.Hence,
foritsreleasefromtheagreementinquestion.LibLex whileveryfewofplaintiff'selectricpostswerebeing
xxxxxxxxx usedbyappellantin1977andtheywereallintheCity
ofNaga,thenumberofplaintiff'selectricpoststhat
Theunderstandingofthepartieswhentheyentered appellantwasusingin1989hadjumpedto1,403,192of
intotheAgreementExh."A"onNovember1,1977and whichareoutsideNagaCity(Exh."B").Addtothisthe
theprevailingcircumstancesandconditionsatthetime, destructionofsomeofplaintiff'spolesduringtyphoons
weredescribedbyDioscoroRagragio,thePresidentof likethestrongtyphoonSisangin1987becauseofthe
plaintiffin1977andoneofitstwoofficialswhosigned heavytelephonecablesattachedthereto,andthe
saidagreementinitsbehalf,asfollows: escalationofthecostsofelectricpolesfrom1977to
1989,andtheconclusionisindeedineluctablethatthe
'Ourunderstandingatthattimeisthatwewillallow agreementExh."A"hasalreadybecometooonesided
NATELCOtoutilizethepostsofCASURECOIIonlyinthe infavorofappellanttothegreatdisadvantageof
CityofNagabecauseatthattimethecapabilityof
plaintiff,inshort,thecontinuedenforcementofsaid
NATELCOwasverylimited,asamatteroffactwedo
169
contracthasmanifestlygonefarbeyondthe obligation.Inthepresentcase,theobligationofprivate
contemplationofplaintiff,somuchsothatitshould respondentconsistsinallowingpetitionerstouseits
nowbereleasedtherefromunderArt.1267oftheNew postsinNagaCity,whichistheservicecontemplatedin
CivilCodetoavoidappellant'sunjustenrichmentatits saidarticle.Furthermore,abarereadingofthisarticle
(plaintiff's)expense.AsstatedbyTolentinoinhis revealsthatitisnotarequirementthereunderthatthe
commentariesontheCivilCodecitingforeigncivilist contractbeforfutureservicewithfutureunusual
Ruggiero,'equitydemandsacertaineconomic change.AccordingtoSenatorArturoM.Tolentino,10
equilibriumbetweentheprestationandthecounter Article1267statesinourlawthedoctrineof
prestation,anddoesnotpermittheunlimited unforeseenevents.Thisissaidtobebasedonthe
impoverishmentofonepartyforthebenefitofthe discreditedtheoryofrebussicstantibusinpublic
otherbytheexcessiverigidityoftheprincipleofthe internationallaw;underthistheory,theparties
obligatoryforceofcontracts(IVTolentino,CivilCodeof stipulateinthelightofcertainprevailingconditions,
thePhilippines,1986ed.,pp.247248).LexLib andoncetheseconditionsceasetoexistthecontract
alsoceasestoexist.Consideringpracticalneedsandthe
Wetherefore,findnothingwrongwiththerulingofthe demandsofequityandgoodfaith,thedisappearanceof
trialcourt,althoughbasedonadifferentandwrong
thebasisofacontractgivesrisetoarighttoreliefin
premise(i.e.,reformationofcontract),thatfromthe
favorofthepartyprejudiced.
dateofthefilingofthiscase,appellantmustpayforthe
useofplaintiff'selectricpostsinNagaCityatthe Inanutshell,privaterespondentintheOcceacase
reasonablemonthlyrentalofP10.00perpost,while filedacomplaintagainstpetitionerbeforethetrial
plaintiffshouldpayappellantforthetelephonesinthe courtprayingformodificationofthetermsand
sameCitythatitwasformerlyusingfreeofcharge conditionsofthecontractthattheyenteredintoby
underthetermsoftheagreementExh."A"atthesame fixingthepropersharesthatshouldpertaintothemout
ratebeingpaidbythegeneralpublic.Inaffirmingsaid ofthegrossproceedsfromthesalesofsubdividedlots.
ruling,wearenotmakinganewcontractfortheparties Weorderedthedismissalofthecomplaintthereinfor
herein,butwefinditnecessarytodosoinordernotto failuretostateasufficientcauseofaction.We
disruptthebasicandessentialservicesbeingrendered rationalizedthattheCourtofAppealsmisappliedArticle
bybothpartieshereintothepublicandtoavoidunjust 1267because:
enrichmentbyappellantattheexpenseofplaintiff,said
arrangementtocontinueonlyuntilsuchtimeassaid "...respondent'scomplaintseeksnotreleasefromthe
partiescanrenegotiateanotheragreementoverthe subdivisioncontractbutthatthecourt'render
samesubjectmattercoveredbytheagreementExh. judgmentmodifyingthetermsandconditionsofthe
"A".Oncesaidagreementisreachedandexecutedby contract...byfixingthepropersharesthatshould
theparties,theaforesaidrulingofthelowercourtand pertaintothehereinpartiesoutofthegrossproceeds
affirmedbyusshallceasetoexistandshallbe fromthesalesofsubdividedlotsofsubjectsubdivision'.
Thecitedarticle(Article1267)doesnotgrantthecourts
substitutedandsupersededbytheirnewagreement...
(the)authoritytoremake,modifyorrevisethecontract
."8
ortofixthedivisionofsharesbetweenthepartiesas
Article1267speaksof"service"whichhasbecomeso contractuallystipulatedwiththeforceoflawbetween
difficult.Takingintoconsiderationtherationalebehind theparties,soastosubstituteitsowntermsforthose
thisprovision,9theterm"service"shouldbe covenantedbythepartiesthemselves.Respondent's
understoodasreferringtothe"performance"ofthe complaintformodificationofcontractmanifestlyhasno
170
basisinlawandthereforestatesnocauseofaction. Petitioners'assertionthatArticle1267wasneverraised
Undertheparticularallegationsofrespondent's bythepartiesintheirpleadingsandwasneverthe
complaintandthecircumstancesthereinaverred,the subjectoftrialandevidencehasbeenpasseduponby
courtscannoteveninequitythereliefsought."11 respondentcourtinitswellreasonedresolution,which
wehereunderquoteasourown:
TherulingintheOcceacaseisnotapplicablebecause
weagreewithrespondentcourtthattheallegationsin "First,wedonotagreewithdefendantappellantthatin
privaterespondent'scomplaintandtheevidenceithas applyingArt.1267oftheNewCivilCodetothiscase,we
presentedsufficientlymadeoutacauseofactionunder havechangeditstheoryanddecidedthesameonan
Article1267.We,therefore,releasethepartiesfrom issuenotinvokedbyplaintiffinthelowercourt.For
theircorrelativeobligationsunderthecontract. basically,themainandpivotalissueinthiscaseis
However,ourdispositionofthepresentcontroversy whetherthecontinuedenforcementofthecontract
doesnotendhere.Wehavetotakeintoaccountthe Exh."A"betweenthepartieshas,throughtheyears
possibleconsequencesofmerelyreleasingtheparties (since1977),becometooiniquitousordisadvantageous
therefrom:petitionerswillremovethetelephone totheplaintiffandtooonesidedinfavorofdefendant
wires/cablesinthepostsofprivaterespondent, appellant,sothatasolutionmustbefoundtorelieve
resultingindisruptionoftheiressentialservicetothe plaintifffromthecontinuedoperationofsaid
public;whileprivaterespondent,inconsonancewith agreementandtopreventdefendantappellantfrom
thecontract12willreturnallthetelephoneunitsto furtherunjustlyenrichingitselfatplaintiff'sexpense.It
petitioners,causingprejudicetoitsbusiness.Weshall isindeedunfortunatethatdefendanthadturneddeaf
notallowsucheventuality.Rather,werequire,as earstoplaintiff'srequestsforrenegotiation,
orderedbythetrialcourt:1)petitionerstopayprivate constrainingthelattertogotocourt.Butalthough
respondentfortheuseofitspostsinNagaCityandin plaintiffcannot,aswehaveheld,correctlyinvoke
thetownsofMilaor,Canaman,MagaraoandPili, reformationofcontractasaproperremedy(there
CamarinesSurandinotherplaceswherepetitioners havingbeennoshowingofamistakeorerrorinsaid
useprivaterespondent'sposts,thesumoften(P10.00) contractonthepartofanyofthepartiessoastoresult
pesosperpost,permonth,beginningJanuary,1989; initsfailuretoexpresstheirtrueintent),thisdoesnot
and2)privaterespondenttopaypetitionerthemonthly meanthatplaintiffisabsolutelywithoutaremedyin
duesofallitstelephonesatthesameratebeingpaidby ordertorelieveitselffromacontractthathasgonefar
thepublicbeginningJanuary,1989.Thepeculiar beyonditscontemplationandhasbecomehighly
circumstancesofthepresentcase,asdistinguished iniquitousanddisadvantageoustoitthroughtheyears
furtherfromtheOcceacase,necessitatesexerciseof becauseoftheexpansionofdefendantappellant's
ourequityjurisdiction.13Bywayofemphasis,we businessandtheincreaseinthevolumeofits
reiteratetherationalizationofrespondentcourtthat: subscribers.AndasitisthedutyoftheCourtto
cdll administerjustice,itmustdosointhiscaseinthebest
wayandmanneritcaninthelightoftheprovenfacts
"...Inaffirmingsaidruling,wearenotmakinganew andthelaworlawsapplicablethereto.cdphil
contractforthepartiesherein,butwefinditnecessary
todosoinordernottodisruptthebasicandessential Itissettledthatwhenthetrialcourtdecidesacasein
servicesbeingrenderedbybothpartieshereintothe favorofapartyonacertainground,theappellatecourt
publicandtoavoidunjustenrichmentbyappellantat mayupholdthedecisionbelowuponsomeotherpoint
theexpenseofplaintiff...."14 whichwasignoredorerroneouslydecidedbythetrial
171
court(GarciaValdezv.Tuazon,40Phil.943;Relativov. partiesintheirpleadings(Corderov.Cabral,L36789,
Castro,76Phil.563;Carillov.SalakdePaz,18SCRA July25,1983,123SCRA532)....'
467).Furthermore,theappellatecourthasthe
Webelievethattheaboveauthoritiessufficetoshow
discretiontoconsideranunassignederrorthatisclosely
thatthisCourtdidnoterrinapplyingArt.1267ofthe
relatedtoanerrorproperlyassigned(Paternov.Jao
NewCivilCodetothiscase.Defendantappellant
Yan,1SCRA631;Hernandezv.Andal,78Phil.196).It
hasalsobeenheldthattheSupremeCourt(andthis stressesthattheapplicabilityofsaidprovisionisa
questionoffact,andthatitshouldhavebeengiventhe
Courtaswell)hastheauthoritytoreviewmatters,even
opportunitytopresentevidenceonsaidquestion.But
iftheyarenotassignedaserrorsintheappeal,ifitis
foundthattheirconsiderationisnecessaryinarrivingat defendantappellantcannothonestlyandtruthfully
ajustdecisionofthecase(SauraImport&ExportCo., claimthatit(did)not(have)theopportunitytopresent
Inc.v.Phil.InternationalSuretyCo.andPNB,8SCRA evidenceontheissueofwhetherthecontinued
143).Foritisthematerialallegationsoffactinthe operationofthecontractExh."A"hasnowbecometoo
complaint,notthelegalconclusionmadethereinorthe onesidedinitsfavorandtooiniquitous,unfair,and
prayer,thatdeterminestherelieftowhichtheplaintiff disadvantageoustoplaintiff.Asheldinourdecision,the
abundantandcopiousevidencepresentedbyboth
isentitled,andtheplaintiffisentitledtoasmuchrelief
partiesinthiscaseandsummarizedinsaiddecision
asthefactswarrantalthoughthatreliefisnot
specificallyprayedforinthecomplaint(Rosalesv.Reyes establishedthefollowingessentialandvitalfactswhich
ledustoapplyArt.1267oftheNewCivilCodetothis
andOrdoveza,25Phil.495;Cabigaov.Lim,50Phil.844;
case:Cdpr
Baguiorov.Barrios,77Phil.120).Toquoteanoldbut
veryilluminatingdecisionofourSupremeCourtthrough xxxxxxxxx."15
thepenofAmericanjuristAdamC.Carson:
Ontheissueofprescriptionofprivaterespondent's
'Underoursystemofpleadingitisthedutyofthe actionforreformationofcontract,petitionersallege
courtstogranttherelieftowhichthepartiesareshown thatrespondentcourt'srulingthattherightofaction
tobeentitledbytheallegationsintheirpleadingsand "aroseonlyaftersaidcontracthadalreadybecome
thefactsprovenatthetrial,andthemerefactthatthey disadvantageousandunfairtoitduetosubsequent
themselvesmisconstruethelegaleffectsofthefacts eventsandconditions,whichmustbesometimeduring
thusallegedandprovenwillnotpreventthecourtfrom thelatterpartof1982orin1983..."16iserroneous.
placingthejustconstructionthereonandadjudicating Inreformationofcontracts,whatisreformedisnotthe
theissuesaccordingly.'(Alzuav.Johnson,21Phil.308) contractitself,buttheinstrumentembodyingthe
AndinthefairlyrecentcaseofCaltexPhil.Inc.v.IAC, contract.Itfollowsthatwhetherthecontractis
disadvantageousornotirrelevanttoreformationand
176SCRA741,theHonorableSupremeCourtalsoheld:
therefore,cannotbeanelementinthedetermination
'Werulethattherespondentcourtdidnotcommitany oftheperiodforprescriptionoftheactiontoreform.
errorintakingcognizanceoftheaforesaidissues,
althoughnotraisedbeforethetrialcourt.Thepresence Article1144oftheNewCivilCodeprovides,interalia,
thatanactionuponawrittencontractmustbebrought
ofstrongconsiderationofsubstantialjusticehasledthis
Courttorelaxthewellentrenchedrulethat,except withinten(10)yearsfromthetimetherightofthe
questionsonjurisdiction,noquestionwillbe actionaccrues.Clearly,theten(10)yearperiodistobe
entertainedonappealunlessithasbeenraisedinthe reckonedfromthetimetherightofactionaccrues
courtbelowanditiswithintheissuesmadebythe whichisnotnecessarilythedateofexecutionofthe
172
contract.Ascorrectlyruledbyrespondentcourt,private premisesandcanmeetandpaysaidincreases'was
respondent'srightofactionarose"sometimeduringthe recentlyheldbytheSupremeCourtinLimv.C.A.,191
latterpartof1982orin1983whenaccordingtoAtty. SCRA150,citingthemuchearliercaseofEncarnacionv.
LuisGeneral,Jr....,hewasaskedby(private Baldomar,77Phil.470,asinvalidforbeing'apurely
respondent's)BoardofDirectorstostudysaidcontract potestativeconditionbecauseitleavestheeffectivity
asitalreadyappeareddisadvantageousto(private andenjoymentofleaseholdrightstothesoleand
respondent)(p.31,tsn,May8,1989).(Private exclusivewillofthelessee.'FurtherheldtheHighCourt
respondent's)causeofactiontoaskforreformationof intheLimcase:llcd
saidcontractshouldthusbeconsideredtohavearisen
onlyin1982or1983,andfrom1982toJanuary2,1989 'Thecontinuance,effectivityandfulfillmentofa
whenthecomplaintinthiscasewasfiled,ten(10)years contractofleasecannotbemadetodependexclusively
hadnotyetelapsed."17 uponthefreeanduncontrolledchoiceofthelessee
betweencontinuingthepaymentoftherentalsornot,
Regardingthelastissue,petitionersallegethatthereis completelydeprivingtheownerofanysayinthe
nothingpurelypotestativeabouttheprestationsof matter.Mutualitydoesnotobtaininsuchacontractof
eitherpartybecausepetitioner'spermissionforfreeuse leaseofnoequalityexistsbetweenthelessorandthe
oftelephonesisnotmadetodependpurelyontheir lesseesincethelifeofthecontractisdictatedsolelyby
will,neitherisprivaterespondent'spermissionforfree thelessee.'
useofitspostsdependentpurelyonitswill.llcd
TheabovecanalsobesaidoftheagreementExh."A"
ApartfromapplyingArticle1267,respondentcourt betweenthepartiesinthiscase.Thereisnomutuality
citedanotherlegalremedyavailabletoprivate andequalitybetweenthemundertheaforequoted
respondentundertheallegationsofitscomplaintand provisionthereofsincethelifeandcontinuityofsaid
thepreponderantevidencepresentedbyit: agreementismadetodependaslongasappellant
needsplaintiff'selectricposts.Andthisispreciselywhy,
"...webelievethattheprovisioninsaidagreement since1977whensaidagreementwasexecutedandup
'(a) Thatthetermorperiodofthiscontractshallbe to1989whenthiscasewasfinallyfiledbyplaintiff,it
aslongasthepartyofthefirstpart[hereinappellant] coulddonothingtobereleasedfromorterminatesaid
hasneedfortheelectriclightpostsofthepartyofthe agreementnotwithstandingthatitscontinued
secondpart[hereinplaintiff]itbeingunderstoodthat effectivityhasbecomeverydisadvantageousand
thiscontractshallterminatewhenforanyreason iniquitoustoitduetotheexpansionandincreaseof
whatsoever,thepartyofthesecondpartisforcedto appellant'stelephoneserviceswithinNagaCityand
stop,abandoned[sic]itsoperationasapublicservice evenoutsidethesame,withoutacorresponding
anditbecomesnecessarytoremovetheelectriclight increaseintheten(10)telephoneunitsbeingusedby
post[sic]';(Emphasissupplied) plaintifffreeofcharge,aswellasthebadandinefficient
serviceofsaidtelephonestotheprejudiceand
isinvalidforbeingpurelypotestativeonthepartof inconvenienceofplaintiffanditscustomers...."18
appellantasitleavesthecontinuedeffectivityofthe
aforesaidagreementtothelatter'ssoleandexclusive Petitioners'allegationsmustbeupheldinthisregard.A
willaslongasplaintiffsisinoperation.Asimilar potestativeconditionisacondition,thefulfillmentof
provisioninacontractofleasewhereintheparties whichdependsuponthesolewillofthedebtor,in
agreedthatthelesseecouldstayontheleased whichcase,theconditionalobligationisvoid.19Based
premises'foraslongasthedefendantneededthe
173
onthisdefinition,respondentcourt'sfindingthatthe
provisioninthecontract,towit:
"(a) Thatthetermorperiodofthiscontractshallbe
aslongasthepartyofthefirstpart(petitioner)has
needfortheelectriclightpostsofthepartyofthe
secondpart(privaterespondent)..."LLjur
isapotestativecondition,iscorrect.However,itmust
haveoverlookedtheotherconditionsinthesame
provision,towit:
"...itbeingunderstoodthatthiscontractshall
terminatewhenforanyreasonwhatsoever,thepartyof
thesecondpart(privaterespondent)isforcedtostop,
abandoned(sic)itsoperationasapublicserviceandit
becomesnecessarytoremovetheelectriclightpost
(sic);"
whicharecasualconditionssincetheydependon
chance,hazard,orthewillofathirdperson.20Insum,
thecontractissubjecttomixedconditions,thatis,they
dependpartlyonthewillofthedebtorandpartlyon
chance,hazardorthewillofathirdperson,whichdo
notinvalidatetheaforementionedprovision.21
Nevertheless,inviewofourdiscussionsunderthefirst
andsecondissuesraisedbypetitioners,thereisno
reasontosetasidethequestioneddecisionand
resolutionofrespondentcourt.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyDENIED.The
decisionoftheCourtofAppealsdatedMay28,1992
anditsresolutiondatedSeptember10,1992are
AFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
174
[G.R.No.76148.December20,1989.] OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.06836onSeptember17,
1970.
ELISEOCARO,CARLOSCARO,BENITOCARO,CARMEN
CARO,BATAYOLAANDLORENZOCARO,petitioners,vs. 3. ID.;ESTOPPELBYLACHES;CONSIDERABLE
HON.COURTOFAPPEALS,SERAFINV.RONZALES,JOSE DELAYINASSERTINGONE'SRIGHTPERSUASIVEOFTHE
RONZALES,JR.ANDGEMMERONZALES,respondents. LACKOFMERITOFHISCLAIM.Itisclear,therefore,
thatasearlyas1948,EpifanioCarowasalreadyaware
ResurreccionS.Salvillaforpetitioners. oftheadverseclaimoftheprivaterespondents.He
Tirol&Tirolforprivaterespondents. shouldhavebeenvigilantofhisrightastheallegedly
newownerofthequestionedland.Whathedidwasthe
SYLLABUS reverse,hesleptonhisrightsforanumberofyears.In
therecentcaseofBagtasv.CourtofAppeals,etal.,G.R.
1. CIVILLAW;OWNERSHIP;BASISFORANACTION
No.50732,August10,1989,Weheldthatconsiderable
FORRECONVEYANCE.Anactionforreconveyance
delayinassertingone'srightbeforeacourtofjusticeis
hasitsbasisinSection53,paragraph3ofPresidential
stronglypersuasiveofthelackofmeritofhisclaim,
DecreeNo.1529,whichprovides:"Inallcasesof
sinceitishumannatureforapersontoenforcehisright
registrationprocuredbyfraud,theownermaypursue
whensameisthreatenedorinvaded.Thus,heis
allhislegalandequitableremediesagainsttheparties
estoppedbylachesfromquestioningtheownershipof
tosuchfraudwithoutprejudice,however,totherights
thequestionedland.
ofanyinnocentholderofthedecreeofregistrationon
theoriginalpetitionorapplication,...."Thisprovision 4. ID.;ESTOPPELINPAIS;CASEOF.Thereisalso
shouldbereadinconjunctionwithArticle1456ofthe estoppelinpaisinthiscasebecauseEpifanioCarofiled
CivilCode,whichprovides:"Article1456.Ifpropertyis hisanswerwithrespecttoLotNo.54onlywhile
acquiredthroughmistakeorfraud,theperson PurificacionVillanuevafiledheranswerwithrespectto
obtainingitis,byforceoflaw,consideredatrusteeof LotNo.55(seeTijam,etal.v.Sibonghanoy,etal.,G.R.
animpliedtrustforthebenefitofthepersonfrom No.L21450,April15,1968,23SCRA29).Inaddition,
whomthepropertycomes."Thelawtherebycreates thetrialcourtobserved(pp.414415,Records):"The
theobligationofthetrusteetoreconveytheproperty TaxDeclarationofthelandboughtbyEpifanioCaro,
andthetitletheretoinfavorofthetrueowner. Exhibit4,statesthatitsadjacentownerontheeastis
Pascual(sic)Lacsonwhoisthegrandmotherofthe
2. ID.;ACTIONFORRECONVEYANCEOF
defendants.Whensaidlandwasdeclaredinthename
FRAUDULENTLYREGISTEREDREALPROPERTY;
ofEpifanioCaroin1969,theadjacentownerontheEast
PRESCRIPTIVEPERIODFORFILINGTHEREOF.
isstillPascualaLacson,ExhibitE.TheTaxDeclarationof
CorrelatingSection53,paragraph3ofPresidential
thelandboughtbyEpifanioCarofromtheheirsof
DecreeNo.1529andArticle1456oftheCivilCodewith
CustodiaJalandoni,Exhibit8showsthatthelandin
Article1144(2)oftheCivilCode,theprescriptiveperiod
questionisnotanadjacentproperty.Thesameistrue
forthereconveyanceoffraudulentlyregisteredreal
withtheTaxDeclarationofthelandboughtbyEpifanio
propertyisten(10)yearsreckonedfromthedateofthe
CarofromtheheirsofRafaelGaylan,Exhibit9.This
issuanceofthecertificateoftitle.Inthepresentcase,
clearlyshowsthatLotNo.55whichoriginallybelonged
therefore,inasmuchasCivilCaseNo.10235wasfiledon
toPascualaLacsonisadifferentanddistinctparcelfrom
June4,1975,itwaswellwithintheprescriptiveperiod
thelandsboughtbyEpifanioCarofromSimeonGallego,
often(10)yearsfromthedateoftheissuanceof
175
fromtheheirsofCustodiaJalandoniandfromtheheirs describedparceloflandwasthendeclaredfortaxation
ofRafaelGaylen(sic)." purposesunderTaxDeclarationNo.6437.Thislandwas
lateronsoldbySimeonGallegotoEpifanioCaroin
DECISION
1948.OnMay15,1962,TrinidadCastem,Rolando
MEDIALDEA,Jp: IranayaandEribertoIranayasoldaparceloflandwhich
theyinheritedfromCustodiaJalandoni,situatedinthe
Thisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariofthedecision poblacionofJordan,SubProvinceofGuimaras,withan
oftheCourtofAppealsinACG.R.CVNo.01016 areaof1,011squaremetersandboundedontheNorth
entitled,"EpifanioCaro,PlaintiffAppellantv.SerafinV. byJordanRiver;ontheEastbyRomanCatholic
Ronsales,etal.,DefendantsAppellees,"datedJanuary ArchbishopofJaro;ontheSouthbyRafaelGaylan;and
28,1986affirmingthedecisionoftheCourtofFirst ontheWestbyJordanRiver,toEpifanioCaro.Theland
Instance(nowRegionalTrialCourt)ofIloilo;andits wasthendeclaredfortaxationpurposesunderTax
resolutiondatedSeptember11,1986denyingthe DeclarationNo.4135.Inthesameyear,EpifanioCaro
motionforreconsideration.prLL boughtanotherparceloflandfromtheheirsofRafael
Gaylan,situatedinthepoblacionofJordan,Sub
Thesubjectmatterofthepresentcontroversyisa260
ProvinceofGuimaras,withanareaof1,750square
squaremeterparceloflandwhich,accordingto
metersandboundedontheNorthandEastbytheheirs
petitioners,isincludedintheparceloflandpurchased
ofCustodiaJalandoni;ontheSouthbySimeonGallego;
bytheirpredecessor,EpifanioCaro,fromSimeon
andontheWestbyJordanRiver,anddeclaredfor
Gallego;butcontradictedbytheprivaterespondentsby
taxationpurposesunderTaxDeclarationNo.3638.
claimingitastheirownevidencedbyacertificateof
prLL
titleissuedintheirfavor.Wegatheredfromtherecords
thatthequestionedlandistheeasternportionallegedly In1963,EpifanioCarohadthosethree(3)parcelsof
includedintheparceloflandpurchasedfromSimeon landsurveyedandwerethendesignatedasLotNo.54.
Gallego.Thetrialcourtruledinfavoroftheprivate WhenBlasGonzalesconductedthesurvey,heprepared
respondentsonthegroundsofestoppel,absenceof aplan.EpifanioCarowasgivenacopyoftheplanand
fraudintheregistrationofthequestionedlandand hejustkeptit.Duringthatsurvey,EpifanioCaropointed
prescription.Thisrulingwasaffirmedbytherespondent theboundariesofhisparcelsoflandtothesurveyteam.
court.Likewise,Weaffirm,basedonthefirsttwo Theseparcelsoflandwererelocatedin1968bythe
groundsbutnotonthegroundofprescription.LibLex SirilanSurveyingCompanyandPlanPsu207820was
prepared.TheparcelsoflandofEpifanioCarowere
Theantecedentfactsareasfollows:
denominatedasLotNo.54andthelandclaimedbythe
ItappearsthatonMay14,1946,SimeonGallego privaterespondentsSerafinV.Ronzales,JoseRonzales,
boughtaparceloflandfromLoretoMartinez, Jr.andGemmeRonzalesasLotNo.55.EpifanioCaro
PresentacionJereza,HermenigildoJereza,MariaLuz hadthethreelotsconsolidatedafterthesurveyinto
NeleJerezaandMariaElenaJereza,situatedwithinthe onelot,andTaxDeclarationNo.7688wasissued.
poblacionofJordan,SubProvinceofGuimaraswithan Duringthecadastralproceeding,EpifanioCarofiledan
areaof5,031squaremetersandboundedontheNorth answerforLot54.Thereisnoshowingwhetherornota
byJordanRiver,JoaquinGalveandCustodiaJalandoni; titlewasissuedtohim.prLL
ontheEastbyRomanCatholicChurchandthe
Ontheotherhand,theprivaterespondentsclaimthat
MunicipalityofJordan;ontheSouthbyGraciana
thequestionedlandwasformerlyownedbyPascuala
Martinez;andontheWestbyJordanRiver.Theabove
176
LacsonandwasdeclaredinhernameunderTax respondentCourtofAppeals.Themotionfor
DeclarationNo.4234.PascualaLacsonwasmarriedto reconsiderationwasdenied.Hence,thepresentpetition
DomingoRonzales.LongbeforeWorldWarII,private forreviewoncertiorari.
respondentsandtheirpredecessorsininteresthad
Theissuesmaybelimitedtothefollowing:
beenlivingonthequestionedland.WhenEpifanioCaro
boughtaparceloflandfromSimeonGallego,Jose 1) WhetherornottheactioninCivilCaseNo.
Ronzales,Sr.,hisbrotherSerafinRonzalesandsister 10235hasprescribed;
GemmeRonzales,childrenofDomingoRonzalesand
PascualaLacson,werealreadylivinginahouseofsemi 2) Whetherornotfraudattendedtheissuanceof
strongmaterialsonthequestionedland. OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.06836;and
Sometimein1964,anothersurveywasconducted.The 3) Whetherornottheplaintiffinsaidcivilcase
parcelsoflandclaimedbyEpifanioCarowere wasinestoppel.
denominatedasLotNo.54andthelandclaimedbythe
Petitionerscontendthatsinceprivaterespondentsdo
privaterespondentswasdenominatedasLotNo.55.
notownthequestionedland,theyaremeretrustees
EpifanioCarofiledananswerforLotNo.54and
andthisbeingthecase,prescriptiondoesnotlieinan
PurificacionRonzales,motherofprivaterespondent
actionforreconveyance.
JoseRonzales,Jr.filedananswerforLotNo.55.No
otherpersonorpersonsfiledananswerforLotNo.55. Inthisregard,thetrialcourtheld(p.413,Records):
Consequently,OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.06836
wasissuedinthenamesoftheprivaterespondents,in "Anactionforreconveyanceonthegroundoffraud
equalsharesof1/3portioneachonSeptember17, prescribesinfour(4)yearsfromthetimeofthedecree
1970. ofregistration,forthereasonthattheregistrationof
thedecreeconstitutesconstructivenoticetothewhole
InJune,1973,thespousesEpifanioCaroandPazCaro world(Geronav.deGuzman,G.R.No.19060,May29,
filedanejectmentcaseagainstAugustoChavez,Naciso 1964,citingthecasesofJ.M.TuasonandCo.vs.
Galila,TimoteoParreno,RamonAranduqueandRafael Magdangal,G.R.No.15539,June30,1962;Abdonv.
Galotera,involvingLotNos.56,59and60.In1974,the Abella,C.A.G.R.No.29846R,August31,1964)."
spousesfiledanejectmentandillegaldetainercase
againstRamonAranduque,TimoteoParrenoand Affirming,therespondentcourtsaid(p.29,Rollo):
AugustoChavez,involvingLotNo.54.
"...,evenifatrustrelationshiphadexisted,therightto
OnJune4,1975,EpifanioCarofiledacomplaintbefore seekreconveyanceprescribedten(10)yearsafter1948
theCourtofFirstInstanceofIloilo(CivilCaseNo.10235) whenEpifanioCarowasinformedbythewifeofJose
forcancellationofCertificateofTitleNo.06836, Ronzalesthatsheinheritedthelandfromher
reconveyance,recoveryofpossessionanddamageson grandmother(delaCernavs.delaCerna,72SCRA515;
thegroundoffraud.Duringthependencyofthecase, Alzonavs.Calupitan,4SCRA450;Carantesvs.Courtof
EpifanioCarodied,sohewassubstitutedbyhisheirs, Appeals,76SCRA516).Sincethereisnotrust
namely,EliseoCaro,CarlosCaro,BenitoCaro,Carmen relationshipbetweentheancestorsofandbetween
CaroBatayolaandLorenzoCaro. plaintiffsanddefendants,thesameactionprescribedin
4yearsfromtheissuanceoftitleonSeptember17,
OnNovember22,1982,thetrialcourtdismissedthe 1970,becausethecomplaintwasfiledonlyonJune4,
complaint.Onappeal,thedismissalwasaffirmedbythe
177
1975,asruledbythelowercourt(delaCernavs.dela xxxxxxxxx'
Cerna,72SCRA515)."
"Anactionforreconveyancebasedonanimpliedor
Wedisagree.ThecaseofLiwalugAmerol,etal.v.Molok constructivetrustmustperforceprescribeintenyears
Bagumbaran,G.R.No.L33261,September30,1987, andnototherwise.AlonglineofdecisionsofthisCourt,
154SCRA396illuminatedwhatusedtobeagrayarea andofveryrecentvintageatthat,illustratesthisrule.
ontheprescriptiveperiodforanactiontoreconveythe Undoubtedly,itisnowwellsettledthatanactionfor
titletorealpropertyand,corollarily,itspointof reconveyancebasedonanimpliedorconstructivetrust
reference: prescribesintenyearsfromtheissuanceoftheTorrens
titleovertheproperty.Theonlydiscordantnote,it
"....ItmustberememberedthatbeforeAugust30,
seems,isBalbinvs.Medalla,whichstatesthatthe
1950,thedateoftheeffectivityofthenewCivilCode, prescriptiveperiodforareconveyanceactionisfour
theoldCodeofCivilProcedure(ActNo.190)governed
years.However,thisvariancecanbeexplainedbythe
prescription.Itprovided:
erroneousrelianceonGeronavs.deGuzman.Butin
'SEC.43. Othercivilactions;howlimited.Civil Gerona,thefraudwasdiscoveredonJune25,1948,
actionsotherthanfortherecoveryofrealpropertycan henceSection43(3)ofActNo.190,wasapplied,the
onlybebroughtwithinthefollowingperiodsafterthe newCivilCodenotcomingintoeffectuntilAugust30,
rightofactionaccrues: 1950asmentionedearlier.Itmustbestressed,atthis
juncture,thatArticle1144andArticle1456,arenew
'xxxxxxxxx provisions.TheyhavenocounterpartsintheoldCivil
CodeorintheoldCodeofCivilProcedure,thelatter
'3. Withinfouryears:...Anactionforreliefonthe
beingthenresortedtoaslegalbasisofthefouryear
groundoffraud,buttherightofactioninsuchcase
prescriptiveperiodforanactionforreconveyanceof
shallnotbedeemedtohaveaccrueduntilthediscovery
titleofrealpropertyacquiredunderfalsepretenses."
ofthefraud;
AnactionforreconveyancehasitsbasisinSection53,
'xxxxxxxxx'
paragraph3ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1529,which
"Incontrast,underthepresentCivilCode,wefindthat provides:
justasanimpliedorconstructivetrustisanoffspringof
"Inallcasesofregistrationprocuredbyfraud,the
thelaw(Art.1456,CivilCode),soisthecorresponding
ownermaypursueallhislegalandequitableremedies
obligationtoreconveythepropertyandthetitle
againstthepartiestosuchfraudwithoutprejudice,
theretoinfavorofthetrueowner.Inthiscontext,and
however,totherightsofanyinnocentholderofthe
visavisprescription,Article1144oftheCivilCodeis
decreeofregistrationontheoriginalpetitionor
applicable.
application,...."
'Article1144. Thefollowingactionsmustbebrought
ThisprovisionshouldbereadinconjunctionwithArticle
withintenyearsfromthetimetherightofaction
1456oftheCivilCode,whichprovides:
accrues:
"Article1456. Ifpropertyisacquiredthroughmistake
(1) Uponawrittencontract;
orfraud,thepersonobtainingitis,byforceoflaw,
(2) Uponanobligationcreatedbylaw; consideredatrusteeofanimpliedtrustforthebenefit
ofthepersonfromwhomthepropertycomes."
(3) Uponajudgment.
178
Thelawtherebycreatestheobligationofthetrusteeto "Q Andwhatwastheiranswer,ifany,toyour

reconveythepropertyandthetitletheretoinfavorof demand?
thetrueowner.CorrelatingSection53,paragraph3of
"A Theypromisedmethattheywillalsopaythe
PresidentialDecreeNo.1529andArticle1456ofthe
rent,orifIwishtosellthelandtothem,theywillbuy
CivilCodewithArticle1144(2)oftheCivilCode,supra,
thesame.ButItoldthemthatIwillnotselltheland.
theprescriptiveperiodforthereconveyanceof
fraudulentlyregisteredrealpropertyisten(10)years "Q Now,sinceyoutoldthemthatyoudidnotwant
reckonedfromthedateoftheissuanceofthe toselltothemtheportionofthelandoccupiedbytheir
certificateoftitle.Inthepresentcase,therefore, bighouse,whatdidthey,ifany,suggesttoyou
inasmuchasCivilCaseNo.10235wasfiledonJune4, regardingtheiroccupancyoftheland?
1975,itwaswellwithintheprescriptiveperiodoften
(10)yearsfromthedateoftheissuanceofOriginal "ATTY.ALINIO:
CertificateofTitleNo.06836onSeptember17,1970.
Wewouldlikenowtoobjecttothislineof
Unfortunatelyforthepetitioners,however,Weagree questioningbecausethisisirrelevant,immaterial,and
withtherespondentcourtandthetrialcourtthatthe impertinent,notbeingraisedinthecomplaint.Notone
privaterespondentsdidnotemployanyfraudin oftheissuesinthiscase.
securingtitletothequestionedland.Aperusalofthe
"ATTY.GRIJALVO:
pertinentportionsofthedepositionofEpifanioCaro
supportsthisfinding,towit: Subjecttotheobjection,witnessmayanswer.
"ATTY.TANEO: "WITNESS:
"Q Now,atthetimeyouboughtthislandfrom "A. Theytoldmethattheywilljustpaytherent.
SimeonGallegoin1948,whowasresidinginthatshack?
"ATTY.TANEO:
A Therewasnomoreshack,buttherewasabig
house. "Q Didyouagree?
"Q Andwhowasresidingonthatbighouse? "A Iagreed.Iconsented,buttheymerelypromised

andpromisedtome,buttheydidnotpayanything.
"A Joseandhiswifeandchildren,andhissister.
"Q Inotherwordsyoumeanthatafterthey
"Q Sinceaccordingtoyouatthetimeyoubought suggestedtorentthelandandyouagreed,youmade
thislandfromSimeonGallegotherewasalreadythat severaldemandsfromthemtopaytherentals?
bighouseoccupiedbyJoseRonzalesandhiswife,their
childrenandsister,didyoumakeanydemandfrom "A Yes,sir,Idemandedfromthemtherentals.But
themtovacatethepremisessinceyouhavealready laterwhenIdemandedfromthemthepaymentofthe
purchasedthelandfromSimeonGallego? rent,theytoldmethatitisnotmylandbeingoccupied
bytheirhouse,butitisthelandofthemunicipality.
"A IinformedthemthatIhavealreadyboughtthe
lotfromSimeonGallego,andIdemandedfromthem "Q Aroundhowmanytimesdidyoudemandfrom
rentalofthehouse,becausetheirhousewasalready themforthepaymentoftherentals?
thereatthetimeIboughttheland.
"A Twotimes.
179
"Q Andonthesecondtimeyoudemandedforthe "A IknowitbecauseonePurittoldmethatshe

paymentofrentalsandtheydidnotstillpay,whatwas inheritedthesamefromhergrandmother.
theirreason,ifany?
"Q ThisPurityouarementioning,areyoureferring
"ATTY.ALINIO: toPurificacionVillanuevaRonsaleswhoisthewidowof
JoseRonsales?
Objection,becausethewitnesshasalready
answeredthesameorsimilarquestions. "A Yes,sir.
"ATTY.TANEO: "Q WhenwasthiswhenthisPuritmentionedto

youaboutthisLot55?
Thewitnessstatedthathemadearoundtwo
demandsforthepaymentofrentals.Whenhemade "A WhenIboughtsaidland."(pp.215216,
thedemandlateraftertherewasanagreementthat Records).
theywouldjustpaytherental,theyreasonedoutthat
Itisclear,therefore,thatasearlyas1948,EpifanioCaro
thelandoccupiedbytheirhouseisaportionoftheland
wasalreadyawareoftheadverseclaimoftheprivate
ofthemunicipality.Sincethewitnessstatedthatthere
wasaseconddemand,thepurposenowofthepending respondents.Heshouldhavebeenvigilantofhisright
astheallegedlynewownerofthequestionedland.
questionisiftherewasanyotherreasonstatedby
them. Whathedidwasthereverse,hesleptonhisrightsfora
numberofyears.IntherecentcaseofBagtasv.Courtof
"ATTY.GRIJALVO: Appeals,etal.,G.R.No.50732,August10,1989,We
heldthatconsiderabledelayinassertingone'sright
Subjecttotheobjection,witnessmayanswer.
beforeacourtofjusticeisstronglypersuasiveofthe
"WITNESS: lackofmeritofhisclaim,sinceitishumannaturefora
persontoenforcehisrightwhensameisthreatenedor
"A Theywillnotpay,becauseaccordingtothem invaded.Thus,heisestoppedbylachesfrom
thelandonwhichtheirhousestandsisaportionofthe questioningtheownershipofthequestionedland.Not
landownedbythemunicipality.Butactuallyitismy onlythat.Thereisalsoestoppelinpaisinthiscase
own,andthemunicipalityhasnothingtodowithit." becauseEpifanioCarofiledhisanswerwithrespectto
(pp.207212,Records) LotNo.54onlywhilePurificacionVillanuevafiledher
answerwithrespecttoLotNo.55(seeTijam,etal.v.
"xxxxxxxxx
Sibonghanoy,etal.,G.R.No.L21450,April15,1968,23
"ATTY.TANEO: SCRA29).Inaddition,thetrialcourtobserved(pp.414
415,Records):
"Q ThelasttimeyoustatedthatyouknowLotNo.
55.WhenforthefirsttimedidyouknowaboutthisLot "TheTaxDeclarationofthelandboughtbyEpifanio
55? Caro,Exhibit4,statesthatitsadjacentowneronthe
eastisPascual(sic)Lacsonwhoisthegrandmotherof
A IknowthislotforthefirsttimewhenIbought thedefendants.Whensaidlandwasdeclaredinthe
thislotfromSimeonGallego. nameofEpifanioCaroin1969,theadjacentowneron
theEastisstillPascualaLacson,ExhibitE.TheTax
"Q Atthattimedidyouknowthatthislotalready
DeclarationofthelandboughtbyEpifanioCarofrom
bearsLotNo.55?
theheirsofCustodiaJalandoni,Exhibit8showsthatthe
180
landinquestionisnotanadjacentproperty.Thesame "Q DidyounotinquirefromSimeonGallegoofthe

istruewiththeTaxDeclarationofthelandboughtby boundariesofthechurchfromhim?
EpifanioCarofromtheheirsofRafaelGaylan,Exhibit9.
"A BeforethatIknewthattheboundariesofthe
ThisclearlyshowsthatLotNo.55whichoriginally
lotofLoretaMartinezwasthemunicipalbuilding,a
belongedtoPascualaLacsonisadifferentanddistinct
roadandachurch.
parcelfromthelandsboughtbyEpifanioCarofrom
SimeonGallego,fromtheheirsofCustodiaJalandoni "Q Now,beforeyoupurchasedthepropertyfrom
andfromtheheirsofRafaelGaylen(sic)." SimeonGallegodidyounotalsoaskthehelpof
somebodytoexaminethetaxdeclarationinthename
WhileWecommiseratewiththepetitionersbecauseof
ofSimeonGallego?
EpifanioCaro'slackofformaleducationstill,his
negligenceandbelatedactionwereundoubtedlythe "A No,becauseIalreadyknewthatlotwasowned
rootcauseofthepresentcontroversy: byMartinez.
"Q IsthisthesamesurveyplanwhichMr.Gonzales "Q Andtherefore,Igatherfromyouthatyourelied
gaveyou? onyourknowledge,ownknowledgewhenyou
"A ThatistheonebutIhavenotreaditbecauseI purchasedthelandfromSimeonGallegoaboutthe
donotunderstandEnglishorSpanishbecauseIhave boundariesoftheland?
nevergonetoschool(p.217,Records)." "A IreliedonmyownknowledgebecauseIknowit
fullywell.
xxxxxxxxx
"Q Youdidnot,yousaid,anymoreexaminethetax
Q Now,whenthecadastralsurveywasconducted,
didyoutakeoccasiontoverifyalsothecadastralsurvey declaration?
ofyourlot? "A IdidnotbotherbecauseIknewthatthelotwas
"A IdidnotbotheranymorebecauseIentrusted ownedbyMartinez.
everythingtothem(p.232,Records)." "Q DidyouinquirealsofromtheMartinezesthe
xxxxxxxxx boundariesoftheirlots?
"A IdidnotbotherbecauseIknewfullywell
"Q Now,whenyoupurchasedthelotfromSimeon
becausesince1909Iwasalreadythereinthechurch
GallegobecauseyousaidyoucouldnotreadEnglishnor
Spanish,didyouaskthehelpofsomebodyelseto (pp.251253,Records)."
explaintoyouthedocument? ACCORDINGLY,thepetitionisherebyDENIED.The
"A Ihavenotaskedthehelpofanybody. decisiondatedJanuary28,1986andtheresolution
datedSeptember11,1986oftherespondentCourtof
"Q Inotherwordsyoudidnotreadnorunderstand AppealsareAFFIRMEDsubjecttotheMODIFICATION
thesaleinyourfavorexecutedbySimeonGallego? regardingprescription.
"A Ihaveconfidenceinhimbecauseitwas SOORDERED.

preparedbythefatherofthemayor.

181
182
[G.R.No.156357.February18,2005.] beforeNotaryPublicGregorioA.Uriartewhonotarized
thedeedofsaleoverthepropertyexecutedbyProtacio
ENGR.GABRIELV.LEYSON,DR.JOSEFINAL.POBLETE,FE TabalinfavorofSimeonNovalonJanuary5,1959.We
LEYSONQUA,CARIDADV.LEYSONandESPERANZAV.
notethattherespondentsfailedtoadduceinevidence
LEYSON,petitioners,vs.NACIANSINOBONTUYANand anyreceiptsofrealpropertytaxpaymentsmadeonthe
MAURECIAB.BONTUYAN,respondents. propertyundertheirnames,whichwouldhavefortified
Bathan&AssociatesLawFirmforpetitioners. theirclaimthattheyweretheownersoftheproperty.
TEHIaA
GinesN.Abellanaforrespondents.
2. ID.;ID.;CERTIFICATEOFTITLE;NOTSUBJECTTO
SYLLABUS COLLATERALATTACK;COLLATERALATTACKONATITLE
DISTINGUISHEDFROMDIRECTATTACK.Anentthe
1. CIVILLAW;LANDREGISTRATION;PARTIES
thirdandfourthassignmentsoferror,wedonotagree
CLAIMINGTHATTHEYACQUIREDTHEPROPERTYIN
withtherulingoftheCAthatthepetitionersfailedto
GOODFAITHANDFORVALUABLECONSIDERATION
directlyattackthevalidityofOCTNo.01619.TheCA
HAVETHEBURDENOFPROVINGTHESAME;CASEAT
failedtoconsiderthefactthat,intheirrespective
BAR.Therespondents,asplaintiffsinthecourta
answerstothecomplaint,thepetitionersinserted
quo,wereburdenedtoprovetheirclaimintheir
thereinacounterclaimwhereintheyrepleadedallthe
complaintthatGregorioBontuyanwastheownerofLot
materialallegationsintheiraffirmativedefenses,that
No.17150andthattheyacquiredthepropertyingood
GregorioBontuyansecuredOCTNo.01619through
faithandforvaluableconsiderationfromhim.However,
fraudanddeceitandprayedforthenullification
therespondentsfailedtodischargethisburden.The
thereof.WhileSection47ofActNo.496providesthata
evidenceonrecordshowsthatCalixtoGabudsoldthe
certificateoftitleshallnotbesubjecttocollateral
propertytoProtacioTabalonFebruary14,1948,and
attack,theruleisthatanactionisanattackonatitleif
thatthelattersoldthepropertytoSimeonNovalon
itsobjectistonullifythesame,andthuschallengethe
January5,1959.SimeonNovalthensoldthepropertyto
proceedingpursuanttowhichthetitlewasdecreed.
LourdesLeysononMay22,1968.Therespondents
Theattackisconsidereddirectwhentheobjectofan
failedtoadduceanyevidencetoprovethatLourdes
actionistoannulorsetasidesuchproceeding,orenjoin
Leyson,orevenSimeonNoval,soldthepropertyto
itsenforcement.Ontheotherhand,anattackisindirect
GregorioBontuyan,ortoanyoftherespondentsfor
orcollateralwhen,inanactiontoobtainadifferent
thatmatter.SinceGregorioBontuyanwasnotthe
relief,anattackontheproceedingisneverthelessmade
owneroftheproperty,hecouldnothavesoldthesame
asanincidentthereof.Suchactiontoattackacertificate
tohissonNaciansinoBontuyanandthelatter'swife,
oftitlemaybeanoriginalactionoracounterclaimin
therespondentsherein.AstheLatinadagegoes:NEMO
whichacertificateoftitleisassailedasvoid.A
DATQUODNONHABET.GregorioBontuyancouldnot
counterclaimisconsideredanewsuitinwhichthe
feignignoranceofSimeonNoval'sownershipofthe
defendantistheplaintiffandtheplaintiffinthe
property,consideringthatthelatterwashissoninlaw,
complaintbecomesthedefendant.Itstandsonthe
andthathe(GregorioBontuyan)wastheonewho
samefootingandistobetestedbythesamerulesasif
receivedtheowner'scopyofT.D.No.100356covering
itwereanindependentaction.Furthermore,sinceall
thepropertyunderthenameofSimeonNoval.Atthe
theessentialfactsofthecaseforthedeterminationof
dorsalportionofthesaidtaxdeclaration,therewas
thetitle'svalidityarenowbeforetheCourt,torequire
evenanannotationthatthepropertywastransferred
thepartytoinstitutecancellationproceedingswouldbe
toSimeonNovalasshownbythedeedofsaleexecuted
183
pointlesslycircuitousandagainstthebestinterestof attackedbeforetakingstepstovindicatehisright,the
justice. reasonfortherulebeing,thathisundisturbed
possessiongiveshimacontinuingrighttoseektheaid
3. ID.;ID.;ACTIONFORRECONVEYANCE
ofacourtofequitytoascertainanddeterminethe
PRESCRIBESINTENYEARS;POINTOFREFERENCE. natureoftheadverseclaimofathirdpartyandits
TheCA,likewise,erredinholdingthattheactionofthe effectonhisowntitle,whichrightcanbeclaimedonly
petitionerstoassailOCTNo.01619andTCTNo.1392 byonewhoisinpossession.TcCSIa
andforthereconveyanceofthepropertycoveredby
thesaidtitlehadalreadyprescribedwhentheyfiled 5. ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;STATUTORYPERIODOF
theiranswertothecomplaint.Caselawhasitthatan PRESCRIPTIONCOMMENCESTORUNAGAINSTTHE
actionforreconveyanceprescribesintenyears,the POSSESSORFROMTHETIMEHEWASMADEAWAREOF
pointofreferencebeingthedateofregistrationofthe ACLAIMADVERSETOHISOWN.Similarly,inthecase
deedorthedateofissuanceofthecertificateoftitle ofDavidv.Malay,thesamepronouncementwas
overtheproperty.Inanactionforreconveyance,the reiteratedbytheCourt:...Thereissettled
decreeofregistrationishighlyregardedas jurisprudencethatonewhoisinactualpossessionofa
incontrovertible.Whatissoughtinsteadisthetransfer pieceoflandclaimingtobeownerthereofmaywait
ofthepropertyoritstitle,whichhasbeenwrongfullyor untilhispossessionisdisturbedorhistitleisattacked
erroneouslyregisteredinanotherperson'sname,toits beforetakingstepstovindicatehisright,thereasonfor
rightfulorlegalowner,ortoonewhohasabetterright. therulebeing,thathisundisturbedpossessiongives
himacontinuingrighttoseektheaidofthecourtof
4. ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;ACTIONFORRECONVEYANCE equitytoascertainanddeterminethenatureofthe
BASEDONFRAUDISIMPRESCRIPTIBLEWHERETHE adverseclaimofathirdpartyanditseffectonhisown
PLAINTIFFISINPOSSESSIONOFTHEPROPERTYSUBJECT title,whichrightcanbeclaimedonlybyonewhoisin
OFTHEACTS.However,inaseriesofcases,this
possession.Nobettersituationcanbeconceivedatthe
Courtdeclaredthatanactionforreconveyancebased
momentforUstoapplythisruleonequitythanthatof
onfraudisimprescriptiblewheretheplaintiffisin
hereinpetitionerswhose...possessionofthelitigated
possessionofthepropertysubjectoftheacts.InVda.
propertyfornolessthan30yearsandwassuddenly
deCabrerav.CourtofAppeals,theCourtheld:...[A]n confrontedwithaclaimthatthelandshehadbeen
actionforreconveyanceofaparceloflandbasedon occupyingandcultivatingalltheseyears,wastitledin
impliedorconstructivetrustprescribesintenyears,the thenameofathirdperson.Weholdthatinsucha
pointofreferencebeingthedateofregistrationofthe situationtherighttoquiettitletotheproperty,toseek
deedorthedateoftheissuanceofthecertificateof itsreconveyanceandannulanycertificateoftitle
titleovertheproperty,butthisruleappliesonlywhen coveringit,accruedonlyfromthetimetheonein
theplaintifforthepersonenforcingthetrustisnotin possessionwasmadeawareofaclaimadversetohis
possessionoftheproperty,sinceifapersonclaimingto own,anditisonlythenthatthestatutoryperiodof
betheownerthereofisinactualpossessionofthe
prescriptioncommencestorunagainstsuchpossessor.
property,asthedefendantsareintheinstantcase,the
Theparamountreasonforthisexceptionisbasedon
righttoseekreconveyance,whichineffectseeksto
thetheorythatregistrationproceedingscouldnotbe
quiettitletotheproperty,doesnotprescribe.The usedasashieldforfraud.Moreover,toholdotherwise
reasonforthisisthatonewhoisinactualpossessionof
wouldbetoputpremiumonlandgrabbingand
apieceoflandclaimingtobetheownerthereofmay
transgressingthebroaderprincipleinhumanrelations
waituntilhispossessionisdisturbedorhistitleis
184
thatnopersonshallunjustlyenrichhimselfatthe CalixtoGabudwastheownerofaparceloflandlocated
expenseofanother. inBarangayAdlawon,Mabolo,CebuCity,whichwas
declaredfortaxationpurposesunderTaxDeclaration
6. ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;RECONVEYANCEOF
(T.D.)No.03276Rin19452withthefollowing
PROPERTY,PROPERINCASEATBAR.Inthepresent
boundaries:
case,LourdesLeysonand,afterherdeath,the
petitioners,hadbeeninactualpossessionofthe North CalixtoGabud East MarceloCosido
property.Thepetitionerswerestillinpossessionofthe
propertywhentheyfiledtheiranswerstothecomplaint South PedroBontuyan West Asuncion
Adulfo.3
whichcontainedtheircounterclaimsforthenullification
ofOCTNo.01619andTCTNo.1392,andforthe Becauseoftheconstructionofaprovincialroad,the
consequentreconveyanceofthepropertytothem.The propertywasdividedintotwoparcelsoflandcovered
reconveyanceisjustandproperinordertoputastop byT.D.No.03276RandT.D.No.01979R.OnFebruary
totheunendurableanomalythatthepatenteesshould 14,1948,GabudexecutedaDeedofAbsoluteSale4
haveaTorrenstitleforthelandwhichtheyandtheir overthepropertycoveredbyT.D.No.03276R,aswell
predecessorsneverpossessedandwhichhasbeen astheotherlotcoveredbyT.D.No.01979R,infavorof
possessedbyanotherintheconceptofanowner. ProtacioTabal,marriedtoLeodegariaBontuyan.Onthe
7. ID.;DAMAGES;ATTORNEY'SFEES;PARTIES'BAD basisofthesaiddeed,T.D.No.03276Rwascancelled
byT.D.No.13615RinthenameofProtacioTabal
FAITHINFILINGTHESUITASUFFICIENTBASISFORTHE
effective1949.5OnJanuary5,1959,Tabalexecuteda
AWARDTHEREOF.Theawardofattorney'sand
appearancefeesisbetterlefttothesounddiscretionof DeedofSale6overthepropertycoveredbyT.D.No.
thetrialcourt,andifsuchdiscretioniswellexercised,as 13615RinfavorofSimeonNoval,marriedtoVivencia
inthiscase,itwillnotbedisturbedonappeal.Withthe Bontuyan,daughterofGregorioBontuyan,forP800.00.
trialandtheappellatecourts'findingsthatthe T.D.No.13615RwascancelledbyT.D.No.100356in
respondentswereinbadfaith,thereissufficientbasis thenamesofthespousesNoval.7GregorioBontuyan
toawardattorney'sandappearancefeestothe receivedacopyofthesaidtaxdeclarationinbehalfof
petitioners.Haditnotbeenforthefilingofabaseless thespousesNoval.8Thelattertaxdeclarationwasthen
cancelledbyT.D.No.008876underthesamenames
suitbytherespondentsagainstthepetitioners,the
latterwouldnothavesoughttheservicesofcounselto effective1967.9
defendtheirinterestsandrepresenttheminthiscase. Subsequently,thepropertywassurveyedbyCadastral
AHTICD LandSurveyorMauroU.GabrielonJanuary22,1964.
DECISION TheplansurveywasapprovedonSeptember30,1966.
10ThepropertycoveredbyT.D.No.008876was
CALLEJO,SR.,Jp: identifiedasLotNo.17150ofCebuCadastreNo.12,
whilethepropertycoveredbyT.D.No.01979Rwas
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorarioftheDecision identifiedasLotNo.13272.OnMay22,1968,the
1oftheCourtofAppeals(CA),aswellasitsResolution spousesNovalexecutedaDeedofAbsoluteSale11
inCAG.R.CVNo.64471denyingthemotionfor overthetwolotscoveredbyT.D.No.008876infavorof
reconsiderationofthesaiddecision. LourdesV.LeysonforP4,000.00.LourdesLeysontook
TheAntecedents possessionofthepropertyandhaditfenced.Despite
thesaidsale,T.D.No.008876wascancelledbyT.D.No.
185
21267effective1974.12Thereafter,T.D.No.21267was OnMarch30,1981,thespousesBontuyanexecuteda
cancelledbyT.D.No.2382113which,inturn,was RealEstateMortgageoverLotNo.17150coveredby
cancelledbyT.D.No.0117455effective1980.14In OCTNo.01619infavoroftheDevelopmentBankof
1989,thelatterwascancelledbyanewtaxdeclaration, thePhilippines(DBP)assecurityforaloanof
T.D.No.0100100646.Allthesetaxdeclarationswere P11,200.00.24NaciansinoBontuyanhadearlier
inthenamesofthespousesNoval.15 executedanaffidavitthatthepropertywasnot
tenanted.Shortlythereafter,thespousesBontuyanleft
Meanwhile,LourdesLeysonpaidfortherealtytaxes
thePhilippinesandresidedintheUnitedStates.
overtheproperty.However,thetaxdeclarationissued
Meanwhile,LourdesLeysondiedintestate.HSaEAD
thereoncontinuedtobeunderthenamesofthe
spousesNoval.16 ThespousesBontuyanreturnedtothePhilippinesin
1988toredeemthepropertyfromDBPonlytodiscover
Despitehisknowledgethatthepropertyhadbeen
thatthereweretenantslivingonthepropertyinstalled
purchasedbyhissoninlawanddaughter,thespouses
byEngineerGabrielLeyson,oneofthelateLourdes
Noval,GregorioBontuyan,whowasthen91yearsold, Leyson'schildren.Despitebeinginformedthatthesaid
filedanapplicationwiththeBureauofLandsforafree spousesownedtheproperty,thetenantsrefusedto
patentoverLotNo.17150onDecember4,1968.He vacatethesame.Thetenantsalsorefusedtodeliverto
allegedthereinthatthepropertywaspubliclandand thespousestheproducefromtheproperty.The
wasneitherclaimednoroccupiedbyanyperson,17and spousesBontuyanredeemedthepropertyfromDBPon
thathefirstentereduponandbegancultivatingthe September22,1989.DHSACT
samein1918.Thus,onNovember19,1971,FreePatent
No.510463wasissuedoverLotNo.17150inhisfavor, OnFebruary12,1993,JoseBontuyan,NievesAtilano,
onthebasisofwhichOriginalCertificateofTitle(OCT) PacificoBontuyan,VivenciaNovalandNaciansino
No.01619wasissuedtoandunderhisnameonMarch Bontuyan,thesurvivingheirsofGregorioBontuyan,
21,1974.18Anotherparcelofland,LotNo.13272,was executedanExtrajudicialSettlement25ofthelatter's
alsoregisteredunderthenameofGregorioBontuyan estateandadjudicatedLotNo.13272infavorof
underOCTNo.01618.HethendeclaredLotNo.17150 Naciansino.Basedonthesaiddeed,T.D.No.01001
fortaxationpurposesunderT.D.No.13596effective 00877wasissuedtoandunderthenameofNaciansino
1974.19OnFebruary20,1976,GregorioBontuyan overthesaidpropertystarting1994.
executedaDeedofAbsoluteSale20overLotNo.17150
OnJune24,1993,NaciansinoBontuyan,through
infavorofhisson,NaciansinoBontuyan.jur2005cd
counsel,wroteEngr.GabrielLeyson,demandingthathe
OnApril28,1980,GregorioBontuyan,then103years befurnishedwithallthedocumentsevidencinghis
old,executedanotherDeedofAbsoluteSale21overLot ownershipoverthetwolots,LotsNos.17150and
Nos.13272and17150,coveredbyOCTNo.01618and 13272.26Engr.Leysonignoredtheletter.EIcSTD
OCTNo.01619,respectively,infavorofNaciansino
ThespousesBontuyan,thereafter,filedacomplaint
BontuyanforP3,000.00.Onthebasisofthesaiddeed,
OCTNo.01619wascancelledbyTCTNo.1392inthe againstEngr.LeysonintheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)of
CebuCityforquietingoftitleanddamages.They
nameofNaciansinoBontuyanonDecember2,1980.22
GregorioBontuyandiedintestateonApril12,1981.23 allegedthattheywerethelawfulownersofthetwolots
andwhentheydiscovered,upontheirreturnfromthe
ASCTac
UnitedStates,thatthepropertywasoccupiedand
cultivatedbythetenantsofEngr.Leyson,they
186
demandedtheproductionofdocumentsevidencingthe twolotstoProtacioTabal,whosoldthesametoSimeon
latter'sownershipoftheproperty,whichwasignored. Noval,marriedtoVivenciaBontuyan,oneofthe
SDHAEC childrenofGregorioBontuyan;SimeonNovallatersold
thepropertytoLourdesLeysononMay22,1968who,
ThespousesBontuyanprayedthat,afterdue
forthwith,tookpossessionthereofasowner;and
proceedings,judgmentberenderedintheirfavor,thus: GregorioBontuyanwasissuedafreepatentoverthe
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,itismost propertythroughfraud.Engr.Leysonconcludedthat
respectfullyprayedofthisHonorableCourttorender thesaidpatent,aswellasOCTNo.01619andTCTNo.
judgmentagainstthedefendantandinfavorofthe 1392,werenullandvoidandthattheplaintiffsacquired
plaintiffs,towit: notitleovertheproperty.CaEIST
(a) Confirmingtheownershipoftheplaintiffson Engr.Leysoninterposedacounterclaimagainstthe

thelotsinquestion;SEHDIC spousesBontuyanandrepleadedasanintegralpart
thereofallthematerialallegationsinhisaffirmative
(b) Orderingdefendanttopaytheplaintiffsthe defense.Heprayedthat,afterdueproceedings,
amountofTwentyThousandPesos(P20,000.00)asthe judgmentberenderedinhisfavor,thus:AcSHCD
shareoftheplaintiffsoftheproduceofthelotsin
question;SaDICE a) DismissingPlaintiffs'complaintforfailureto
includeindispensableparties;
(c) Orderingdefendanttopayplaintiffsthesumof
P50,000.00asreimbursementofattorney'sfeesandthe b) DeclaringtheDefendantandhisfour(4)sisters,
furthersumofP500.00asappearancefeeeverytime namely,Dr.JosefinaL.Poblete,Mrs.FeL.Qua,
thecaseiscalledfortrial; EsperanzaLeysonandCaridadLeysonasthetrueand
legalownersandpossessorsoftheparcelsoflandin
(d) Orderingthedefendanttopayplaintiffsthe issue;
sumofP50,000.00asmoraldamagesandexemplary
damagesmaybefixedbythecourt; c) DeclaringOCTNo.01619inthenameof
GregorioBontuyanandTCTNo.1392inthenameof
(e) Orderingdefendanttopayplaintiffsthesumof NaciansinoBontuyannullandvoidandtoorderthe
P5,000.00asactualexpensesforthepreparationand RegisterofDeedstocancelthesameandissuenew
filingofthecomplaint; onesinfavoroftheDefendantGabrielV.Leysonandhis
four(4)sisters,namely:Dr.JosefinaL.Poblete,Mrs.Fe
(f) Orderingdefendanttopaythecosts;and
L.Qua,EsperanzaV.LeysonandCaridadV.Leyson;
SDHAEC
d) AndontheCounterclaim,toorderPlaintiffsto
(g) Grantingtoplaintiffssuchotherreliefsand
paytheDefendantthefollowingsums:
remediesjustandequitableinthepremises.27CDHcaS
d1) P50,000.00asattorney'sfeesandappearance
Inhisanswertothecomplaint,Engr.Leysonaverred,by
feeofP1,000.00perhearing;aSACED
wayofaffirmativedefenses,thatthetwolotswerebut
portionsofaparceloflandownedbyCalixtoGabud, d2) P500,000.00asmoraldamages;
coveredbyT.D.No.03276R,andwassubdividedinto
twoparcelsoflandbecauseoftheconstructionofa d3) P20,000.00asexemplarydamages;
provincialroadontheproperty;Gabudlatersoldthe d4) P10,000.00asexpensesoflitigation.
187
Defendantfurtherpraysforsuchotherreliefsjustand d3) P50,000.00asexemplarydamages;TaDCEc

equitableinthepremises.28HAEDIS
d4) P15,000.00asexpensesoflitigation.
Induecourse,theotherchildrenofLourdesLeyson,
namely,Dr.JosefinaL.Poblete,FeLeysonQua,Caridad Defendantfurtherpraysforsuchotherreliefsjustand
V.LeysonandEsperanzaV.Leyson,wereallowedto equitableinthepremises.29TcEDHa
interveneasdefendants.Theyfiledtheiranswerin Intheirreply,thespousesBontuyanaverredthatthe
interventionwhereintheyadopted,intheir counterclaimofthedefendantsforthenullityofTCT
counterclaim,paragraphs7to26oftheansweroftheir No.1392andthereconveyanceofthepropertywas
brother,Engr.Leyson,theoriginaldefendant.They barredbylachesandprescription.
prayedthat,afterduehearing,judgmentberenderedin
theirfavorasfollows: OnJanuary21,1999,thetrialcourtrenderedjudgment
infavoroftheLeysonheirsandagainstthespouses
Wherefore,thisHonorableCourtisprayedtorender Bontuyan.Thefalloofthedecisionreads:
judgmentinfavoroftheDefendantandthe
DefendantsinInterventionandagainstthePlaintiffsas WHEREFORE,foregoingconsideredjudgmentishereby
follows:AIDSTE rendereddismissingplaintiff'scomplaintfordearthof
evidencedeclaringthedefendantandtheintervenors
a) PromissoryPlaintiffs'complaintforfailureto asthetrueandlegalownersandpossessorsofthe
includeindispensablepartiesandforlackofcauseof subjectparcelsofland;declaringOCTNo.01619inthe
action; nameofGregorioBontuyanandTCTNo.1392inthe
b) DeclaringtheDefendantandhisfour(4)sisters, nameofNaciansinoBontuyannullandvoid;ordering
namely:Dr.JosefinaL.Poblete;Mrs.FeL.Qua, theRegisterofDeedstocancelOCTNo.01619andTCT
EsperanzaLeysonandCaridadLeysonasthetrueand No.1392andissuenewonesinfavorofdefendant
legalownersandpossessorsoftheparcelsoflandin GabrielLeysonandintervenorsJosefinaPoblete,Fe
issue;HSCcTD Qua,EsperanzaLeysonandCaridadLeyson;ordering
plaintifftopaydefendantandintervenorsthefollowing:
c) DeclaringOCTNo.01619inthenameof HSIaAT
GregorioBontuyanandTCTNo.1392inthenameof
NaciansinoBontuyannullandvoidandtoorderthe a) P50,000.00 attorney'sfees;
RegisterofDeedstocancelthesameandissuenew b) 1,000.00 perappearance;
onesinfavoroftheDefendantGabrielV.Leysonandhis
four(4)sisters,namely:Dr.JosefinaL.Poblete,Mrs.Fe c) 100,000.00 moraldamagesfordefendant
L.Qua,EsperanzaV.LeysonandCaridadV.Leyson; andintervenors;
d) OntheCounterclaim,Plaintiffsshouldpaythe d) 10,000.00 exemplarydamages;and

Defendantsthefollowingsums:AIaHES
e) 10,000.00 litigationexpenses.
d1) P50,000.00asattorney'sfeesandappearance
SOORDERED.30cTECHI
feeofP1,000.00perhearing;
ThetrialcourtheldthatSimeonNovalhadsoldthelots
d2) P500,000.00asmoraldamagestoeach
toLourdesLeysononMay22,1968,whothusacquired
Intervenor;
titleovertheproperty.
188
ThespousesBontuyanappealedthedecisiontotheCA NACIANSINOBONTUYAN,DESPITETHEAPPELLATE
whichaffirmed,withmodification,thedecisionofthe COURT'SAFFIRMINGTHEFINDINGSOFTHETRIAL
RTC.TheappellatecourtheldthattheLeysonheirs COURTTHATFRAUDWASCOMMITTEDBYGREGORIO
weretheownersofLotNo.13273,whilethespouses BONTUYAN(RESPONDENTS'PREDECESSORIN
BontuyanweretheownersofLotNo.17150.TheCA INTEREST)INACQUIRINGTITLEOVERTHESUBJECT
ruledthattheansweroftheLeysonheirstothe PROPERTIES.32TEHIaA
complaintconstitutedacollateralattackofOCTNo.0
FourthAssignmentofError
1619whichwasproscribedbylaw.TheLeysonheirs
filedamotionforreconsiderationofthedecision THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERRED
insofarasLotNo.17150wasconcerned,contending WHENITRULEDTHATRECONVEYANCEOFTITLEOFLOT
thattheircounterclaimforthenullificationofOCTNo. 17150COVEREDBYOCTNO.01619ANDPRESENTLY
01619containedintheiranswerconstitutedadirect COVEREDBYTCTNO.1392,INFAVOROFPETITIONERS
attackonthesaidtitle.TheCAdeniedthemotion. HADPRESCRIBED.33aIHSEc
cTDIaC
FifthAssignmentofError
TheLeysonheirsthenfiledapetitionforreviewwith
thisCourtandmadethefollowingassignmentsoferror: THEAPPELLATECOURTGRAVELYERREDINNOT
GRANTINGATTORNEY'SFEESANDAPPEARANCEFEES
FirstAssignmentofError DESPITERESPONDENTS'FRAUDINACQUIRINGTITLE
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSCOMMITTED OVERTHESUBJECTPROPERTIES.34DcHaET
ERRORWHENITRULEDTHATTHENULLITYORTHE Onthefirsttwoassignmentsoferrors,thepetitioners
VALIDITYOFOCTNO.01619CANNOTBERULEDUPON averthatthecounterclaimintheiranswertothe
INTHESEPROCEEDINGSBROUGHTBYTHE complaintconstitutedadirectattackofthevalidityof
RESPONDENTSFORTHEQUIETINGOFTHEIRTITLE. OCTNo.01619.Theymaintainthattheappellate
DSIaAE court'srelianceontherulingofthisCourtin
SecondAssignmentofError Cimafranciav.IntermediateAppellateCourt35was
misplaced.Theyassertthatwhatiscontrollingisthe
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERRED rulinginProLineSportsCenter,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals
WHENITRULEDTHATPETITIONERS'ANSWERWITH 36whereinthisCourtheldthatthecounterclaimofthe
COUNTERCLAIM,PRAYINGFORTHECANCELLATIONOF petitionersthereinconstitutedadirectattackona
PLAINTIFFS'TORRENSCERTIFICATEISAMERE certificateoftitle.Thepetitioners,likewise,cited
COLLATERALATTACKONTHETITLE.31TADaCH Section55ofActNo.496,asamended,tobuttresstheir
stance.Theypleadthattheiranswertothecomplaint
ThirdAssignmentofError shouldbeliberallyconstruedsoastoaffordthem
THEAPPELLATECOURTGRAVELYERREDWHENIT substantialjustice.TIDaCE
MODIFIEDTHEDECISIONOFTHEREGIONALTRIAL Ontheotherhand,therespondentsassertthatthe
COURTDATEDJANUARY21,1999BYRULINGTHAT decisionoftheCAiscorrect.TheyclaimthatLotNo.
PETITIONERSAREDECLAREDTHEOWNERSOFLOT 17150wasstillpubliclandwhenLourdesLeyson
13273BUTRESPONDENTSAREDECLAREDTHEOWNERS
purchasedthesamefromSimeonNoval,andthatthe
OFLOT17150UNDEROCTNO.01619ANDPRESENTLY propertybecameprivatelandonlywhenFreePatent
COVEREDBYTCTNO.1392INTHENAMEOF
189
No.510463wasissuedtoandunderthenameof claimthattheyweretheownersoftheproperty.We
GregorioBontuyan.HCDaAS agreewiththefindingsoftheCA,thus:
Weagreewiththecontentionofthepetitionersthat ThiscaseinvolvestwoparcelsoflandLot17150and
theCAerredinnotnullifyingOCTNo.01619andTCT Lot13273.Lot17150isregisteredundertheTorrens
No.1392andorderingtherespondentstoreconveythe Systemunderthenamesofplaintiffsappellants,while
propertycoveredbythesaidtitletothepetitioners. Lot13273remainedtobeunregistered.DSITEH
Therespondents,asplaintiffsinthecourtaquo,were Inthiscase,recordsshowthatdefendantappelleeand
burdenedtoprovetheirclaimintheircomplaintthat intervenorsappelleesarethetrueownersofthe
GregorioBontuyanwastheownerofLotNo.17150and subjectlots.Theyhaveintheirfavortaxreceipts
thattheyacquiredthepropertyingoodfaithandfor coveringthesubjectlotsissuedsince1945.
valuableconsiderationfromhim.37However,the
respondentsfailedtodischargethisburden.The While,indeed,taxreceiptsanddeclarationsarenot
evidenceonrecordshowsthatCalixtoGabudsoldthe incontrovertibleevidenceofownership,such,however,
ifaccompaniedwithopen,adverse,continuous
propertytoProtacioTabalonFebruary14,1948,38and
possessionintheconceptofanowner,asinthiscase,
thatthelattersoldthepropertytoSimeonNovalon
constituteevidenceofgreatweightthatpersonunder
January5,1959.39SimeonNovalthensoldthe
propertytoLourdesLeysononMay22,1968.40The whosenametherealtaxesweredeclaredhasaclaimof
respondentsfailedtoadduceanyevidencetoprove rightovertheland.ADTEaI
thatLourdesLeyson,orevenSimeonNoval,soldthe Further,defendantappelleeandintervenorsappellees
propertytoGregorioBontuyan,ortoanyofthe presentedbeforethetrialcourttheDeedofAbsolute
respondentsforthatmatter.SinceGregorioBontuyan SaledatedFebruary14,1948,executedbyCalixto
wasnottheowneroftheproperty,hecouldnothave Gabud,conveyingthesubjectlotsinfavorofProtacio
soldthesametohissonNaciansinoBontuyanandthe Tabal.Thedeedisanotarialdocument.
latter'swife,therespondentsherein.AstheLatinadage
goes:NEMODATQUODNONHABET.Gregorio LikewisepresentedistheDeedofAbsoluteSaleofthe
BontuyancouldnotfeignignoranceofSimeonNoval's subjectlotsdatedJanuary5,1959,executedbyProtacio
ownershipoftheproperty,consideringthatthelatter TabalinfavorofspousesSimeonNovalandVivencia
washissoninlaw,andthathe(GregorioBontuyan) Bontuyan.Thedocumentis,likewise,anotarial
wastheonewhoreceivedtheowner'scopyofT.D.No. document.aAcDSC
100356coveringthepropertyunderthenameof
Defendantappelleeandintervenorsappelleesalso
SimeonNoval.41Atthedorsalportionofthesaidtax
presentedtheDeedofAbsoluteSaleofthesubjectlots
declaration,therewasevenanannotationthatthe
datedMay22,1968,executedbyspousesSimeonNoval
propertywastransferredtoSimeonNovalasshownby
andVivenciaBontuyaninfavorofLourdesLeyson.The
thedeedofsaleexecutedbeforeNotaryPublicGregorio
deedisanotarialdocument.
A.Uriartewhonotarizedthedeedofsaleoverthe
propertyexecutedbyProtacioTabalinfavorofSimeon Anotarialdocumentisevidenceofthefactsinclear,
NovalonJanuary5,1959.42Wenotethatthe unequivocalmannerthereinexpressed.Ithasinits
respondentsfailedtoadduceinevidenceanyreceipts favorthepresumptionofregularity.Itisadmissiblein
ofrealpropertytaxpaymentsmadeontheproperty evidencewithoutnecessityofpreliminaryproofastoits
undertheirnames,whichwouldhavefortifiedtheir authenticityanddueexecution.CAScIH
190
Thereexist(sic)notraceofirregularityinthetransfers (defendantappellee'spredecessorininterest).Thus,
ofownershipfromtheoriginalowner,CalixtoGabud,to GregorioBontuyanmusthaveknownthatatthetime
defendantappelleeandintervenorsappellees.EaICAD whenheappliedforfreepatentonDecember1968,the
subjectlotswerealreadysoldonMay1968byhis
Plaintiffsappellants,ontheotherhand,offeredno
daughterVivenciaBontuyaninfavorofLourdesLeyson,
convincingevidenceastohowtheirpredecessorin
predecessorininterestofdefendantsappellees.
interest,GregorioBontuyan,acquiredthesubjectlots. DAHEaT
PlaintiffsappellantspresentedonlytheFreePatentand
OCTNo.01619,coveringLotNo.17150,issuedinthe Moreover,recordsfurthershowthatGregorio
nameofGregorioBontuyan.cdasia BontuyansoldtwiceLot[No.]17150toplaintiffs
appellants.Thefirstwasin1976andtheotherwasin
AstoLotNo.13273,Wefindnosufficientreasonwhy 1980.Plaintiffsappellantsofferednoreasonable
defendantappelleeandintervenorsappelleesshould
explanationwhyGregorioBontuyanhave(sic)tosell
bedisturbedintheirownershipandpossessionofthe
twiceLotNo.17150infavorofplaintiffsappellants.
same.43TcDIEH EHSAaD
Ascopiouslyshownbytherecord,GregorioBontuyan
Asfoundbythetrialcourt,thesearebadgesofbad
filedhisapplicationforafreepatentwiththeBureauof
faithwhichaffectthevalidityofthetitleofGregorio
LandsonDecember4,1968ingrossbadfaith,thereby Bontuyanoverthesubjectlots.ICHcTD
defraudingLourdesLeysonofthesaidpropertythrough
deceit.GregorioBontuyanfalselydeclaredinthesaid Weareawarethatthetorrenssystemdoesnotcreate
application:(a)thatheentereduponandcultivatedthe orvesttitle.Itonlyconfirmsandrecordstitlealready
propertysince1918andthatthepropertywasnot existingandvested.Itdoesnotprotectausurperfrom
claimedoroccupiedbyanyperson;and(b)thatLotNo. thetrueowner.Itcannotbeashieldforthecommission
17150waslocatedinSirao,CebuCity,when,infact,the offraud.Itdoesnotpermitonetoenrichhimselfatthe
propertywaslocatedinAdlawon,CebuCity.Lourdes expenseofanother.Whereonedoesnothaveany
Leysonwasnotnotifiedofthesaidapplicationand rightfulclaimoverarealproperty,thetorrenssystemof
failedtofileanyoppositionthereto.GregorioBontuyan registrationcanconfirmorrecordnothing.45SAHEIc
wasthenabletosecureFreePatentNo.510463on
November19,1971andOCTNo.01619onMarch21, ThefindingsoftheCAaffirmedthefindingsofthetrial
1974.Itappearsinthesaidtitlethattheproperty's courtinitsdecision,thus:
locationwasindicatedas"Sirao,CebuCity."44Indeed, Afterhavingthoroughlyanalyzedtherecordsandthe
theCAdeclaredthatGregorioBontuyanhadacquired evidencesadducedduringthetrialofthiscase,this
titletothepropertythroughfraud: Courtisconvincedandsincerelybelievesthatthelotsin
However,astoLotNo.17150,Wefindthatdespitethe questionwereoriginallyownedbyCalixtoGabudas
fraudcommittedbyGregorioBontuyan(plaintiffs evidencedbyT.D.[No.]03276RmarkedasExh."1."In
appellants'predecessorininterest)inacquiringhistitle 1945,thisconsistedofonlyonelotinAdlawon,Cebu
overthesaidlot,ownershipoverthesaidlotshouldbe City,astherewasnoprovincialroadyet.Howeverin
adjudgedinfavorofplaintiffsappellants.2005cdasia 1948,thesaidparceloflandwasdividedintotwo
becauseaprovincialroadwasconstructedpassing
Records,indeed,showthat,atthetimewhenGregorio throughit.Hence,T.D.[No.]03276RandT.D.[No.]
BontuyanappliedforFreePatent,GregorioBontuyan 01979RwereissuedtoCalixtoGabud.OnFebruary16,
waslivingwithhisdaughter,VivenciaBontuyan 1948,CalixtoGabudsoldthesaidparcelsoflandto
191
spousesProtacioTabalandLudegaria(sic)Bontuyanas Bontuyanin1976and1980,respectively,whereinboth
evidencedbyanAbsoluteDeedofSale,Exh."2."On DeedsofSalewerenotarizedbydifferentNotary
January5,1959,spousesProtacioTabalandLudegaria Publics,(Exhs."10"&"16").46
(sic)Bontuyan,inturn,soldthesameparcelsoflandto
ConsideringthatLourdesLeysonwasinactual
spousesSimeonNovalandVivenciaBontuyanas
possessionoftheproperty,therespondentscannot,
evidencedbyaDeedofSale,Exh."4."Itisnoteworthy
tomentionatthispointintimethatVivenciaBontuyan likewise,claimthattheywereingoodfaithwhen
GregorioBontuyanallegedlysoldthepropertytothem
isoneofthedaughtersofGregorioBontuyan,the
onApril28,1980.HAICTD
fatherofhereinplaintiffNaciansinoBontuyan.InMay
1968,spousesSimeonNovalandVivenciaBontuyan Anentthethirdandfourthassignmentsoferror,wedo
soldthesubjectparcelsoflandtoLourdesvs.(sic) notagreewiththerulingoftheCAthatthepetitioners
Leyson,themotherofhereindefendantasevidenced failedtodirectlyattackthevalidityofOCTNo.01619.
byaDeedofSalemarkedasExh."6."Itisquite TheCAfailedtoconsiderthefactthat,intheir
perplexingforthecourttoimaginethatGregorio respectiveanswerstothecomplaint,thepetitioners
Bontuyan,fatherofhereinplaintiff,whowasthen insertedthereinacounterclaimwhereintheyrepleaded
residingwithspousesSimeonNovalandVivencia allthematerialallegationsintheiraffirmativedefenses,
Bontuyanat179CSanJosedelaMontaa,Mabolo, thatGregorioBontuyansecuredOCTNo.01619
CebuCity,asreflectedinhisapplicationforFreePatent throughfraudanddeceitandprayedforthe
(Exhs."8"&"26")datedDecember4,1968was nullificationthereof.CAaDTH
unawareofthesaleofthesubjectparcelsoflandmade
byhisdaughterVivenciaBontuyanandspouseSimeon WhileSection47ofActNo.496providesthata
NovaltoLourdesLeyson.Itisevidentthat,afterthesale certificateoftitleshallnotbesubjecttocollateral
fromspousesNovaltoLourdesLeysoninMay1968, attack,theruleisthatanactionisanattackonatitleif
GregorioBontuyanappliedforFreePatentforthesame itsobjectistonullifythesame,andthuschallengethe
parcelsoflandinDecember1968claimingtohave proceedingpursuanttowhichthetitlewasdecreed.
cultivatedthelandsince1918,statingthereinthe Theattackisconsidereddirectwhentheobjectofan
locationasSiraoandnotAdlawonwhichisthetrueand actionistoannulorsetasidesuchproceeding,orenjoin
correctlocation.SiraoandAdlawonaretwodifferent itsenforcement.Ontheotherhand,anattackisindirect
barangayswhicharenotevenadjacenttoeachother.In orcollateralwhen,inanactiontoobtainadifferent
fact,asborneoutbyExh."25,"itisseparatedby relief,anattackontheproceedingisneverthelessmade
BarangayGuba.In1974,FreePatentNo.510463and asanincidentthereof.47Suchactiontoattacka
OCT#01619wasissuedtoGregorioBontuyancovering certificateoftitlemaybeanoriginalactionora
subjectproperty,thelocationofwhichisinBarangay counterclaiminwhichacertificateoftitleisassailedas
Siraoinconsonancetohisapplication.Gregorio void.Acounterclaimisconsideredanewsuitinwhich
Bontuyan'sapplicationforFreePatentoversubject thedefendantistheplaintiffandtheplaintiffinthe
parcelsoflandhadraisedinthemindofthisCourt complaintbecomesthedefendant.Itstandsonthe
reasonablebadgesofbadfaithonhispartasthe samefootingandistobetestedbythesamerulesasif
subjectparcelsoflandwerealreadysoldbyhis itwereanindependentaction.48Furthermore,sinceall
daughterVivenciaBontuyanandspouseSimeonNoval theessentialfactsofthecaseforthedeterminationof
toLourdesLeyson.Anotherbadgeofbadfaithisraised thetitle'svalidityarenowbeforetheCourt,torequire
inthemindofthisCourtwhenhe(Gregorio)soldthe thepartytoinstitutecancellationproceedingswouldbe
subjectparcelsoflandtwicetohissonNaciansino
192
pointlesslycircuitousandagainstthebestinterestof seektheaidofacourtofequitytoascertainand
justice.49TAacIE determinethenatureoftheadverseclaimofathird
partyanditseffectonhisowntitle,whichrightcanbe
TheCA,likewise,erredinholdingthattheactionofthe
claimedonlybyonewhoisinpossession.aCSHDI
petitionerstoassailOCTNo.01619andTCTNo.1392
andforthereconveyanceofthepropertycoveredby Similarly,inthecaseofDavidv.Malay,52thesame
thesaidtitlehadalreadyprescribedwhentheyfiled pronouncementwasreiteratedbytheCourt:ECTAHc
theiranswertothecomplaint.AaSCTD
...Thereissettledjurisprudencethatonewhoisin
Caselawhasitthatanactionforreconveyance actualpossessionofapieceoflandclaimingtobe
prescribesintenyears,thepointofreferencebeingthe ownerthereofmaywaituntilhispossessionisdisturbed
dateofregistrationofthedeedorthedateofissuance orhistitleisattackedbeforetakingstepstovindicate
ofthecertificateoftitleovertheproperty.Inanaction hisright,thereasonfortherulebeing,thathis
forreconveyance,thedecreeofregistrationishighly undisturbedpossessiongiveshimacontinuingrightto
regardedasincontrovertible.Whatissoughtinsteadis seektheaidofthecourtofequitytoascertainand
thetransferofthepropertyoritstitle,whichhasbeen determinethenatureoftheadverseclaimofathird
wrongfullyorerroneouslyregisteredinanother partyanditseffectonhisowntitle,whichrightcanbe
person'sname,toitsrightfulorlegalowner,ortoone claimedonlybyonewhoisinpossession.Nobetter
whohasabetterright.50SAcCIH situationcanbeconceivedatthemomentforUsto
applythisruleonequitythanthatofhereinpetitioners
However,inaseriesofcases,thisCourtdeclaredthat
whose...possessionofthelitigatedpropertyforno
anactionforreconveyancebasedonfraudis lessthan30yearsandwassuddenlyconfrontedwitha
imprescriptiblewheretheplaintiffisinpossessionof claimthatthelandshehadbeenoccupyingand
thepropertysubjectoftheacts.InVda.deCabrerav. cultivatingalltheseyears,wastitledinthenameofa
CourtofAppeals,51theCourtheld: thirdperson.Weholdthatinsuchasituationtheright
...[A]nactionforreconveyanceofaparcelofland toquiettitletotheproperty,toseekitsreconveyance
basedonimpliedorconstructivetrustprescribesinten andannulanycertificateoftitlecoveringit,accrued
years,thepointofreferencebeingthedateof onlyfromthetimetheoneinpossessionwasmade
registrationofthedeedorthedateoftheissuanceof awareofaclaimadversetohisown,anditisonlythen
thecertificateoftitleovertheproperty,butthisrule thatthestatutoryperiodofprescriptioncommencesto
appliesonlywhentheplaintifforthepersonenforcing runagainstsuchpossessor.DCSETa
thetrustisnotinpossessionoftheproperty,sinceifa Theparamountreasonforthisexceptionisbasedon
personclaimingtobetheownerthereofisinactual thetheorythatregistrationproceedingscouldnotbe
possessionoftheproperty,asthedefendantsareinthe usedasashieldforfraud.53Moreover,tohold
instantcase,therighttoseekreconveyance,whichin
otherwisewouldbetoputpremiumonlandgrabbing
effectseekstoquiettitletotheproperty,doesnot
andtransgressingthebroaderprincipleinhuman
prescribe.Thereasonforthisisthatonewhoisin relationsthatnopersonshallunjustlyenrichhimselfat
actualpossessionofapieceoflandclaimingtobethe
theexpenseofanother.54HCaEAT
ownerthereofmaywaituntilhispossessionisdisturbed
orhistitleisattackedbeforetakingstepstovindicate Inthepresentcase,LourdesLeysonand,afterher
hisright,thereasonfortherulebeing,thathis death,thepetitioners,hadbeeninactualpossessionof
undisturbedpossessiongiveshimacontinuingrightto theproperty.Thepetitionerswerestillinpossessionof
193
thepropertywhentheyfiledtheiranswerstothe
complaintwhichcontainedtheircounterclaimsforthe
nullificationofOCTNo.01619andTCTNo.1392,and
fortheconsequentreconveyanceofthepropertyto
them.Thereconveyanceisjustandproperinorderto
putastoptotheunendurableanomalythatthe
patenteesshouldhaveaTorrenstitleforthelandwhich
theyandtheirpredecessorsneverpossessedandwhich
hasbeenpossessedbyanotherintheconceptofan
owner.55AaITCH
Onthefifthassignmentoferror,weruleforthe
petitioners.Theawardofattorney'sandappearance
feesisbetterlefttothesounddiscretionofthetrial
court,andifsuchdiscretioniswellexercised,asinthis
case,itwillnotbedisturbedonappeal.56Withthetrial
andtheappellatecourts'findingsthattherespondents
wereinbadfaith,thereissufficientbasistoaward
attorney'sandappearancefeestothepetitioners.Had
itnotbeenforthefilingofabaselesssuitbythe
respondentsagainstthepetitioners,thelatterwould
nothavesoughttheservicesofcounseltodefendtheir
interestsandrepresenttheminthiscase.
INLIGHTOFALLTHEFOREGOING,thepetitionis
GRANTED.TheDecisionoftheCourtofAppeals
declaringtherespondentstheownersofLotNo.17150
coveredbyOCTNo.01619andTCTNo.1392;and
settingasidetheawardofattorney'sfeesinfavorofthe
petitionersbytheRegionalTrialCourtareREVERSED
ANDSETASIDE.HDTSIE
TheCourtherebyAFFIRMStheownershipofthe
petitionersofLotNo.17150.OCTNo.01619andTCT
No.1392coveringthesaidlotareherebynullified.The
RegisterofDeedsisORDEREDtocancelTCTNo.1392
andtoissueanothertitleoverthepropertyinfavorof
thepetitionersascoownersthereof.Thetrialcourt's
awardofP50,000.00forattorney'sfeestothe
petitionersisAFFIRMED.Nopronouncementasto
costs.
SOORDERED.IaHDcT
194
195
[G.R.No.96829.December9,1991.] 2. ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;PRESCRIPTIVEPERIODISTEN
YEARSFROMISSUANCEOFTITLE.Wewere
EMILIANOS.CASIPITandANTONIAC.CASIPITVDA.DE categoricalinthecaseofCaro,etal.v.CourtofAppeals,
BEATO,petitioners,vs.HON.COURTOFAPPEALS,
etal.,G.R.No.76148,December20,1989,180SCRA
(FORMERSECONDDIVISION),SPOUSESSEVERINOB.
401citingthecaseofLiwalugAmerol,etal.,v.Molok
DIAZandZENAIDAALZONADIAZ,ROSABEATOVDA.DE
Bagumbaruan,G.R.No.L33261,September30,1987,
DIAZ,FORTUNATOS.BEATO,JUANITAA.BEATO, 154SCRA396thattheprescriptiveperiodforthe
FELICIDADA.BEATO,ARCADIOA.BEATO,PACIENCIAA. reconveyanceoffraudulentlyregisteredrealpropertyis
BEATO,AVELINOK.BEATO,ANTONIAK.BEATO,NILDA
ten10yearsreckonedfromthedateoftheissuanceof
K.BEATO,THEREGISTEROFDEEDSFORTHEPROVINCE thecertificateoftitle.
OFLAGUNA,ANDTHEPROVINCIALASSESSOROF
LAGUNA,respondents. 3. ID.;SALES;PURCHASERINGOODFAITH;
DEFINITION;CASEATBAR.Apurchaseringoodfaith
RoldanM.Noynayforpetitioners.
isonewhobuysthepropertyofanotherwithoutnotice
RamonC.Casanoforprivaterespondents. thatsomeotherpersonhasarightto,orinterestin,
suchpropertyandpaysafullandfairpriceforthe
SYLLABUS same,atthetimeofsuchpurchase,orbeforehehas
noticeoftheclaimorinterestofsomeotherpersonin
1. CIVILLAW;MODESOFACQUIRINGOWNERSHIP;
theproperty(Vda.deRecintov.Inciong,etal.,G.R.No.
PRESCRIPTION;ACTIONFORRECONVEYANCEBASEDON
L26083,May31,1977,77SCRA196citingCuiand
FRAUDISSUBJECTTOPRESCRIPTION.Thereisno
Jovenv.Henson,51Phil.606andFulev.DeLegare,7
disputethatanactionforreconveyancebasedonavoid
SCRA351).Inconsonancewiththisdefinition,private
contractisimprescriptible(Castillo,etal.v.Madrigal,et
respondentsDiazspouseswerepurchasersingood
al.,G.R.No.62650,June27,1991.However,Wesimply
faith.Theyboughtthepropertyofprivaterespondents
cannotapplythisprincipletothepresentcasebecause
Beatoswithoutnoticethatsomeotherpersonhasa
theactionfiledbypetitionersbeforethetrialcourtwas
rightto,orinterestin,thequestionedpropertyandpaid
1)forreconveyancebasedonfraudsincetheownership
thefullpricethereforatthetimeofsuchpurchase.
ofprivaterespondentsoverthequestionedproperty
wasallegedlyestablishedon"falseassertions, DECISION
misrepresentationsanddeceptiveallegations";and2)
forrescissionofthe"KasulatanngPagmamanaat MEDIALDEA,Jp:
Paghahati."Besides,asagainstsaidCertificationissued
Thisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariseeking
bytheBureauofLandsdatedMarch18,1987,which reversaloftheadversedecisionofpublicrespondent
petitionersharpon,istheexplicitCertificationofFriar CourtofAppealsdatedAugust22,1990,inC.AG.R.CV
LandsAgencyNo.2ofthesameBureaudatedJune17, No.22671,entitledEmilianoS.Casipit,etal.v.Spouses
1951,that"...accordingtotherecordsofthisOffice, SeverinoB.DiazandZenaidaAlzonaDiaz,etal.,"which
LotNo.144oftheSANTAROSA(DETACHED)ESTATE, affirmedthedismissalofpetitioners'complaintbythe
wasdeededunderPatentNo.31464datedFebruary23, RegionalTrialCourtofCalamba,Lagunaandordered
1933inthenameofGabrielBeatoofSinalhan,Sta. themtovacatethequestionedpropertyandpayto
Rosa,Laguna."Thus,theactionforreconveyancebased privaterespondentsrentals,damagesandattorney's
onfraudfiledbypetitionersbeforethetrialcourtis fees;anditsresolutiondatedJanuary11,1991,which
subjecttoprescription.
deniedpetitioners'motionforreconsideration.
196
Theantecedentfacts,asfoundbythetrialcourtare,as Beato(Exhibit"7B").OnSeptember20,1963,TCTNo.
follows: RT7880wascancelledbyTCTNo.T27996inthename
oftheheirsofGabrielBeato(Exhibit"8")whichwasin
OnJuly21,1919,UrbanoCasipit,fatherofpetitioner
turncancelledbyTCTNo.T27997inthenameof
EmilianoS.Casipit,boughtLotNo.144(questioned
privaterespondentsDiazspouses(Exhibit"9").
property)locatedatSinalhan,Sta.Rosa,Laguna,
containinganareaof661squaremetersfromthe In1965,petitionerAntoniaC.CasipitVda.deBeatoand
government(Exhibit"2").OnJune7,1923,heassigned JulianAlmadorerectedtheirrespectivehousesona
hisrightstothequestionedpropertytoGabrielBeato portionofthequestionedproperty.OnOctober8,
(Exhibit"3")duetohis(UrbanoCasipit)defaultin 1981,acriminalcomplaintforviolationofP.D.No.772
payingtheinstallmentsduethereon(Exhibits"2A"and (PenalizingSquattingandOtherSimilarActs)wasfiled
"2B").In1932,TaxDeclarationNo.7233overthe beforetheMunicipalCourtofSta.Rosa,Lagunaagainst
questionedproperty(Exhibit"4")wasissuedinthe thembyprivaterespondentSeverinoB.Diaz(Exhibit
nameofGabrielBeato.OnFebruary23,1933,Patent "5").Thiscomplaintwasdismissedattheinstanceof
No.31464overthequestionedpropertywasissuedby thefiscalonMarch26,1985becausethequestioned
FriarLandsAgencyNo.2inhisname(Exhibit"3A").On propertyisnotamongtheareasapprovedforinclusion
October7,1945,GabrielBeatodied. intheslumimprovementandresettlementprogramof
thegovernmentthus,saiddecreedoesnotapply
In1945,TaxDeclarationNo.2561(Exhibit"C")overthe (Exhibit"5A").OnJune6,1985,acomplaintfor
questionedpropertywasissuedinthenameof ejectment(CivilCaseNo.1601)wasfiledagainst
petitionerEmilianoS.Casipit,butcoveringanareaof petitionerAntoniaC.CasipitVda.deBeatobyprivate
330squaremetersonly.OnFebruary9,1949,hepaid respondentsDiazspousesbeforetheMunicipalTrial
realestatetaxesthereonfortheyears1945to1949.He CourtofSta.Rosa,Laguna(Exhibit"6").
alsopaidtaxesthereonfortheyears1950and1954
(Exhibit"B").LibLex OnApril27,1987,acomplaintwasfiledbypetitioners
againstprivaterespondentsDiazspouses,RosaBeato
OnNovember25,1961,theheirsofGabrielBeato Vda.deDiazandFortunataS.Beatomainlyforrecovery
namely,Ricardo,Rosa,Narciso,FortunataandDomingo, ofownershipoverthequestionedpropertybeforethe
allsurnamedBeato,executedadocumententitled
RegionalTrialCourtofBian,Laguna(pp.114,
"KasulatanngPagmamanaatPaghahati"whereinthey Records).OnJune23,1987(pp.8498,Records)and
adjudicatedtothemselvesthepropertiesofGabriel
April15,1988(pp.173188,Records),thecomplaint
Beato.Inthesamedocument,theysoldtoprivate
wasamended.Theejectmentcase(CivilCaseNo.1601)
respondentsspousesSeverinoB.DiazandZenaida wasthensuspendedduetothefilingofthepresent
AlzonaDiazthequestionedproperty(Exhibits"F"and case.Intheircomplaint,itwasallegedthatpetitioner
"1").Atthetimeofthesale,therewasnooccupanton
EmilianoS.Casipitisthetrueandlawfulownerofthe
thequestionedpropertyandpetitionerEmilianoS. questionedpropertybyvirtueofcontinuous,
Casipitwasthenresidinginanadjoininglot. uninterrupted,peaceful,openandpublicpossessionin
OnJanuary6,1962,NarcisoBeatofiledbeforethe theconceptofownersince1930.Petitionerswere
CourtofFirstInstanceofLagunaaPetitionfor deprivedofownershipthereofbytheBeatosthrough
ReconstitutionofTitles,whichwasgrantedonJuly17, NarcisoBeato,whofiledaPetitionforReconstitutionof
1963.OnAugust30,1963,TCTNo.RT7880overthe TitlesinthenameofGabrielBeato,usingfictitious
questionedpropertywasissuedinthenameofGabriel documents.PetitionersthereforeprayedthatTCTNo.
197
RT7880andothersucceedingtitlesbecancelled,as continuouspossessionofLotNo.144sincetime
wellasTaxDeclarationNo.7192(sic)andsucceeding immemorialareselfserving;(2)TaxDeclarationNo.
taxdeclarations;thatthequestionedpropertybe 2661(Exhibit'C')inthenameofEmilianoCasipithas
reconveyedtothem;thatthedocumententitled, been(sic)issuedonlyin1945anddoesnotindicatethe
"KasulatanngPagmamanaatPaghahati,"insofarasit previoustaxdeclarationitcancelled.Likewise,itonly
includedthequestionedpropertyberescinded;and covers330squaremetersofLotNo.144.Ontheother
thatprivaterespondentsbeorderedtopaydamages hand,taxdeclarationNo.7233(Exhibit'4')inthename
andattorney'sfees. ofGabrielBeatowasissuedin1932anditcoversthe
wholeofLotNo.144;(3)thetestimonyofAntonia
Privaterespondentsdisputedtheseallegationsintheir CasipitthatherfatherEmilianoCasipitinheritedfrom
answerandbywayofcounterclaim,prayedfor UrbanoCasipitthelandcoveredbytaxdeclarationNo.
petitionersandallpersonsderivingtitlefromthemto 2661cannotovercometheancientdocuments
vacatethequestionedproperty,andtopayreasonable introducedbythedefendantsshowingthatUrbano
rentals,moralandexemplarydamagesandattorney's Casipitafterdefaultinginthepaymentofinstallments
fees.cdll duethegovernmentassignedin1923hisrightsoverLot
OnJuly11,1989,thetrialcourtrenderedjudgment,the No.144toGabrielBeato(Exhibits'2A','2B'and'3');
dispositiveportionofwhich,reads(p.571,Records): and(4)thepossessionbytheplaintiffsofaportionof
LotNo.144cannotripened(sic)intoownership,for
"INVIEWOFTHEFOREGOING,judgmentisrenderedin landregisteredundertheTorrensSystemmaynotbe
favorofthedefendantsandagainsttheplaintiffsand acquiredbyprescriptionoradversepossession.
theSecondAmendedComplaintisdismissed.Further,
theplaintiffsareorderedtopayjointlyandseverallythe "Manifestly,thedefendantshaveabetterrightoverLot
SpousesSeverinoDiazandZenaidaDiaztheamountof No.144thantheplaintiffs.Besides,thecauseofaction
P6,000.00asattorney'sfees.Withcostsagainstthe oftheplaintiffsbeingbasedonfraud,hasprescribedfor
plaintiffs. itmustbefiledwithinfour(4)yearsafterthecauseof
actionarose.Theissuanceofthereconstitutedtitle
"SOORDERED." overLotNo.144anditsregistrationintheofficeofthe
RegisterofDeedsofLaguna,in1973(sic)isthestarting
Insupportofthisruling,thetrialcourtratiocinated(pp.
datefortheprescriptiveperiodtocommence.
569571,Records):
"Anentthesecondissue,theCourtfindsnojustifiable
"Itmustbenotedthattheplaintiffs'claimofownership
reasontoorderthecancellationofTCTNo.(T27997)T
overLotNo.144isbasedontheirallegedcontinuous
13161,sincetheplaintiffshavefailedtoprovethatthey
possessionofthesameandonTaxDeclarationNo.
aretheownersofthelandcoveredbythesaidtitle.The
2561(Exhibit'C')inthenameofEmilianoCasipit,aswell
factthatthePetitionforReconstitutionofTitleswas
asonthereceiptsshowingpaymentsofrealestate
grantedbytheCourtofFirstInstanceofLagunainLRC
taxesfortheyearsstarting1945to1949,1950and
RecordNo.23313andsuchorderhavingbecomefinal
1964.
andexecutory,itisnowconclusiveonGabrielBeato's
"Suchclaimsoftheplaintiffscannotbesustainedbythe titleoverLotNo.144.LLjur
Courtforthefollowingreasons:(1)thetestimoniesof
"Astothethirdissue,therecordsshowthatthe
AntoniaCasipitandClaraCasipitCalderontotheeffect
plaintiffs'(sic)havemiserablyfailedtopresentevidence
thattheyandtheirpredecessorininteresthavebeenin
toestablishbadfaithonthepartofthedefendants
198
SeverinoDiazandZenaidaDiaz.Onthecontrary, Inaffirmingthetrialcourt'sdecision,respondentcourt
ZenaidaDiazdeclaredthatwhentheyboughtLotNo. expounded(pp.2729,Rollo):
144nobodywasresidingthereonandthatEmiliano
"...Tomakeitworse,onitsfacethetaxdeclaration
Casipitwasthenlivingattheadjoininglot.Therefore,
(No.2561)appearstohavebeencancelledbyprovincial
saiddefendantsarebuyersingoodfaithandforvalue,
formNo.183in1966.Thereafter,noothertax
forgoodfaithispresumedunlessthecontraryisshown.
declarationoranyproofofownershipwasissuedinthe
"Regardingthelastissue,definitely,theplaintiffsare nameofplaintiffsappellants.
notentitledtodamages,attorney'sfeesandcosts,
"Thepaymentofrealtytaxesbyplaintiffsappellantsdo
however,thedefendantsSeverinoDiazandZenaida
notgiveanyaddedweighttotheirclaimofownership
Diazare.TheDiazessince1985havebeentryingto
ejectfromthelandinquestiontheplaintiffsbuthave ofthelotindispute.Thisissoconsideringthedoctrine
that'paymentoflandtaxesisnotanevidenceof
beenunsuccessful.Forthisreason,theDiazesare
ownershipoftheparceloflandforwhichpaymentis
entitledtoactualdamagesandattorney'sfees.
Unfortunately,theDiazeshavenotpresented made.'(Reyesvs.Serra,93SCRA472;DirectorofLands
competentevidencetoprovetheactualdamagesthey vs.C.A.,133SCRA701).Duringthepretrialor
sustainedalthoughastoattorney'sfeestheyare November2,1988,thepartiesagreed,amongother
entitledtotheamountofP5,000.00.TheCourtcannot things
awardmoraldamagesinfavoroftheDiazessinceno '5. ThatEmilianoCasipitonFebruary9,1949paid
bedfaithormalicehasbeenprovenonthepartofthe thelandtaxesforlot144fortheyears1945,1946,
plaintiffs." 1947,1948and1949;andonAugust5,1950paidthe
BothpartiesappealedtopublicrespondentCourtof landtaxesforthesaidlotfor1950andonOctober13,
Appeals.Petitionersquestionedthedismissaloftheir 1954paidthelandtaxesforthesaidlotfor1954.'(pp.
complaintbythetrialcourtwhereasprivate 492493,rec.).prLL
respondentsquestionedthefailureofsaidcourtto "Admittedly,therefore,itwouldappearthatplaintiff
grantthemtheirprayerforreasonablerentals,actual appellantspaidrealtytaxesforthelandindisputeonly
andmoraldamages.OnAugust22,1990,respondent 3timesandnomore.Certainlythatkindofpayment
courtresolvedtheappealinfavorofprivate cannotconveytheideaofownership.
respondents,thedispositiveportionofwhich,reads(p.
32,Rollo): "...Then,therecordshowsthatonOctober8,1981,
SeverinoDiazfiledchargesofantisquattingagainst
"WHEREFORE,theappealeddecisiondismissingthe CasipitandAlmadovar.OnJune6,1985,theDiaz
complaintshouldbeasitisherebyAFFIRMED.Onthe spousesagainfiledanejectmentsuitagainstAntonia
counterclaimofdefendants,judgmentishereby Casipit.Theseundisputedfactswoulddisprovethe
renderedorderingplaintiffstovacatelotNo.144,and claimoftheplaintiffsappellantstouninterrupted
topaythereasonablerentalintheamountofP300.00 possessionthatwouldhaveripenedtoownership.
fromOctober,1981untiltheyshouldhavevacatedthe
(sic)premises;topaymoraldamagesintheamountof "xxxxxxxxx.
P30,000.00,andattorney'sfeesintheamountof
"...Plaintiffsappellants,...,failedtoexplainhow
P5,000.00.Nocosts.
EmilianoCasipitacquiredarightover112oflot144....
"SOORDERED."
199
"...Then,taxdeclaration7232(sic)showsonitsdorsal NOVEMBER25,1961WITHINTHEKNOWLEDGEOF
sidethatitwastheveryfirstororiginaltaxdeclaration PRIVATERESPONDENTSDIAZESMAKINGTHEMAS
issuedforlot144,asshownbythenotation:'New'. BUYERSINBADFAITHANDBESIDESTHESAID
Thereafter,inthesameyear,taxdeclaration142(sic) 'KASULATANNGPAGMAMANAATPAGHAHATI'HASTO
wasissuedinthenameoftheheirsofGabrielBeato, BEDECLAREDNULLANDVOIDABINITIO.cdll
and,unliketaxdeclaration2561ofCasipit,clearly
statedthatiswascancellingtaxdeclaration7232(sic)in "ThirdAssignmentofError
thenameofGabrielBeato." "THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSHASGRAVELY
ABUSEDITSDISCRETIONINPROMULGATINGITS
OnJanuary11,1991,themotionforreconsideration
RESOLUTIONORANNEX'B'ANDITSDECISIONOR
wasdenied(p.17,Rollo).Hence,thepresentpetition.
ANNEX'E'ORDERINGTHEEJECTMENTOFTHE
Petitionersassignaserrorscommittedbyrespondent PETITIONERSFROMTHEPREMISESANDAWARDOF
courtthefollowing(pp.78,Rollo): DAMAGESANDATTORNEY'SFEESASSAIDORDEROF
EJECTMENTISEQUIVALENTTOVIOLATIONOFTHE
"FirstAssignmentofError
CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTOFDUEPROCESSOFLAWAND
"THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSHASGRAVELY THERIGHTTOBEHEARDWHICHTHEPETITIONERSARE
ERREDWHENITDENIEDTHEMOTIONFOR ENTITLEDASPETITIONEREMILIANOCASIPITISNOTA
RECONSIDERATIONFILEDBYTHEPETITIONERSASTHE PARTYTOSAIDEJECTMENTSUITANDTHETRIALCOURT
ISSUESRAISEDTHEREINWERENOTSQUARELYAND FINDSNOEVIDENCETOWARRANTEJECTMENT."
THOROUGHLYTHRESHEDOUTINTHEQUESTIONED TheyallegethatpursuanttotheCertificationissuedby
RESOLUTIONPROMULGATEDONJANUARY11,1991AS theBureauofLands(Exhibit"D")thatPatentNo.31464
THECERTIFICATIONISSUEDBYTHEBUREAUOFLANDS overthequestionedpropertyhasnotbeenissuedto
ORANNEX'F'OREXHIBIT'D'HASPROBATIVEVALUETO
GabrielBeato,the"KasulatanngPagmamanaat
BEGIVENFULLCREDENCEASTHESAMEHASBEEN
Paghahati"isthereforeavoidcontract.Thisbeingthe
ADMITTEDBYTHEPRIVATERESPONDENTSAND case,theactiontakenbypetitionersisimprescriptible.
THEREBYDECLARINGASNULLANDVOIDTHE
PrivaterespondentsDiazspouseswerebuyersinbad
'KASULATANNGPAGMAMANAATPAGHAHATI'OR faithbecausetheyhadfullknowledgethatEmiliano
EXHIBIT'1'EXECUTEDONNOVEMBER25,1961FOR Casipithasbeeninactualpossessionintheconceptof
WHICHREASONTHEACTIONOFPETITIONERSIS ownerofthequestionedpropertyandpaidthereal
IMPRESCRIPTIBLE. propertytaxesthereon.PrivaterespondentZenaida
"SecondAssignmentofError AlzonaDiaztestifiedthat(pp.4648,tsn,March20,
1989):
"THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERRED
INPROMULGATINGITSRESOLUTIONORANNEX'B' "ATTY.NOYNAY:
WHENITDENIEDTHEMOTIONFORRECONSIDERATION
"xxxxxxxxx
OFPETITIONERSASTHEQUESTIONED'KASULATANNG
PAGMAMANAATPAGHAHATIEXECUTEDON "Q. So,whenwasthatyear,ifyoustillremember
NOVEMBER25,1961CANNOTBEMADEASBASISIN whenEmilianoCasipitcamefromlot144?
CANCELLINGRECONSTITUTEDTRANSFERCERTIFICATE
OFTITLENO.RT7880WHICHWASRECONSTITUTED
ONLYONAUGUST30,1963ANDNONEXISTINGON
200
"A. Isawin1948,thatismyfirstyearinteaching,I actionfiledbypetitionerbeforethetrialcourtwas1)

sawthehouseofEmilianoCasipitsituatedonthatLot forreconveyancebasedonfraudsincetheownershipof
144. privaterespondentsoverthequestionedpropertywas
allegedlyestablishedon"falseassertions,
"xxxxxxxxx.
misrepresentationsanddeceptiveallegations"(p.182,
"Q. So,inotherwords,Mrs.witnessbefore1948 Records);and2)forrescissionofthe"Kasulatanng
youhaveseenthehouseofEmilianoCasipitinlot144? PagmamanaatPaghahati"(pp.173,187,Records).
Besides,asagainstsaidCertificationissuedbythe
"A. Yes,sir." BureauofLand(Exhibit"D")datedMarch18,1987,
whichpetitionersharpon,istheexplicitCertificationof
Likewise,privaterespondentsDiazspouseswereaware
FriarLandsAgencyNo.2ofthesameBureaudatedJune
thattheBeatoshadnotitleoverthequestioned
17,1951,that"...accordingtotherecordsofthis
propertyasofNovember25,1961whenthe"Kasulatan
Office,LotNo.144oftheSANTAROSA(DETACHED)
ngPagmamanaatPaghahati"wasexecutedbecause
ESTATE,wasdeededunderPatentNo.31464dated
TCTNo.RT7880wasissuedonlyonAugust30,1963.
February23,1933inthenameofGabrielBeatoof
ThiswasrevealedbyZenaidaDiazinhertestimony(pp.
Sinalhan,Sta.Rosa,Laguna."Thus,theactionfor
4646,supra):cdrep
reconveyancebasedonfraudfiledbypetitionersbefore
"ATTY.NOYNAY: thetrialcourtissubjecttoprescription.Inthisregard,
respondentcourtsharesthesameviewasthetrial
"xxxxxxxxx. courtthat(p.29,Rollo):
"Q. So,whenyouansweredawhileagothatduring "...TheissuanceofthereconstitutedtitleoverlotNo.

thetimewhenthisKasulatanwasexecutedin1901and 144anditsregistrationintheofficeoftheRegisterof
whichaccordingtoyou,youwereshowntitlesbythe DeedsofLagunain1973(sic)isthereckoningpointfor
Beatos'isnot(sic)correct? theprescriptiveperiodtocommence.The4yearperiod
withinwhichtofilethiscaseforcancellationoftitle
"WITNESS:
basedonfraudmustbedonewithin4yearsafterthe
"A. Atthattime,sir,therewasnotitleyet. causeofactionarose.Here,morethan4yearshas
elapsed."(italicssupplied).
Theejectmentofpetitionersfromthequestioned
propertyandtheawardofdamagesandattorney'sfees WewerecategoricalinthecaseofCaro,etal.v.Court
areviolativeofdueprocessoflawbecausepetitioner ofAppeals,etal.,G.R.No.76148,December20,1989,
EmilianoS.Casipitisnotapartytotheejectmentsuit 180SCRA401citingthecaseofLiwalugAmerol,etal.v.
beforethetrialcourt(CivilCaseNo.1601). MolokBagumbaran,G.R.No.L33261,September30,
1987,154SCRA396thattheprescriptiveperiodforthe
Thepetitionisnotimpressedwithmerit. reconveyanceoffraudulentlyregisteredrealpropertyis
ten(10)yearsreckonedfromthedateoftheissuanceof
Thereisnodisputethatanactionforreconveyance
thecertificateoftitle.WeevensaidinthecaseofHeirs
basedonavoidcontractisimprescriptible(Castillo,et
ofMariaRevillezaVda.deVega,etal.v.Courtof
al.v.Madrigal,etal.,G.R.No.62650,June27,1991;
Appeals,etal.,G.R.No.93507,July12,1991that:llcd
Baranda,etal.v.Baranda,etal.,G.R.No.73275,May
20,1987,150SCRA59).However,Wesimplycannot "...,afternumerousilluminatingdecisionsbythis
applythisprincipletothepresentcasebecausethe Court,nobodycansuccessfullyclaimignoranceofthe
201
rulethatanactionforreconveyancebasedonan otherpersonintheproperty(Vda.deRecintov.Inciong,
impliedorconstructivetrustprescribesinten(10)years etal.,G.R.No.L26083,May31,1977,77SCRA196
..." citingCuiandJovenv.Henson,61Phil.606andFulev.
DeLegare,7SCRA351).Inconsonancewiththis
Conformablywiththesesettledjurisprudence,the
definition,privaterespondentsDiazspouseswere
prescriptiveperiodforpetitioners'actionfor purchasersingoodfaith.Theyboughtthepropertyof
reconveyanceisten(10)yearsfromAugust30,1963, privaterespondentsBeatoswithoutnoticethatsome
thedateoftheissuanceofTCTNo.RT7880(Exhibit"7 otherpersonhasarightto,orinterestin,the
B").Obviously,Ourdiscussiononthissubjectmatteris
questionedpropertyandpaidthefullpricethereforat
notbeneficialtopetitionersbecausetheyfiledthe thetimeofsuchpurchase.Inaddition,respondent
actionforreconveyanceonlyonApril27,1987. courtsaid(pp.2930,Rollo):
WhileprivaterespondentZenaidaAlzonaDiazsawthe
"TheDiazspouseswhoboughtthelandinquestion
houseofpetitionerEmilianoS.Casipitonthe
fromtheBeatosarebuyersingoodfaith.Wefindno
questionedpropertybefore1948,atthetimeofthe needforanextendeddiscussiononthisissue,
sale,therewasnooccupantonthequestionedproperty consideringthatplaintiffsappellantsfailedtoshowa
andhe(EmilianoS.Casipit)wasthenresidinginan bettertitletothelotthanthatofthedefendants
adjoininglot(supra).Whenshetestifiedthattherewas appelleesBeatos.However,Weshalldwellbrieflyon
notitleyetwhenthe"KasulatanngPagmamanaat thismatterifonlytoeraseanydoubtastothegood
Paghahati"wasexecutedin1961,shewasreferringto titleoftheDiazesoverthepropertywhichtheynow
thereconstitutedtorrenstitlethereon.Theother own.WhentheDiazesboughtthepropertyinquestion
portionsofhertestimonywhichwereconveniently foravaluableconsideration,theywereshownthe
deletedbypetitionersread(pp.4545,tsn,March20, Beatos'documentswhichshowandprovehowthe
1989): latteracquiredownershipthereof.Theseconsistedof
"Q. In1961,youmeantosaythattheBeatoshad Exhibits2,2A,3,and4,whichareallancient
alreadytoldyouthattheyhavealreadyareconstituted documents.Then,whentheDiazspousespurchasedthe
titleovertheportionthatwassoldtoyou? lotinquestion,therewasnohouseorstructurebuilt
thereon,noranyonelivinginthepremises.Underthe
"A. Noneyet,sir. circumstance,theDiazspousescannotbeimputedwith
noticeofthisadverseclaimoftheplaintiff(sic)orany
"Q. What(sic)isitthatyouwereanswering(sic)
flaw,assumingthereisany,inthetitleofthevendors."
Atty.Noynaythatyouweretoldaboutthe
cdll
reconstitutedtitle?
Regardingthelastallegationofpetitioners,Weadopt
"A. MyhusbandandIwereinformedthattheywill
respondentcourt'sreasoningthereon(pp.3132,Rollo):
fileapetitionforreconstitutiononLotNo.(sic)132,134
and144." "...,thehereindefendantsappellantsareentitledto
lot144,andthus,ineffect,plaintiffsappelleesare
Apurchaseringoodfaithisonewhobuystheproperty
unlawfullyoccupyingportionsofthesaidlot.Thetrial
ofanotherwithoutnoticethatsomeotherpersonhasa
courtthusmayawardactual(sic)damagesineverycase
rightto,orinterestin,suchpropertyandpaysafulland
whereapropertyrighthasbeeninvaded(Article2222
fairpriceforthesame,atthetimeofsuchpurchase,or
oftheNewCivilCode).DefendantappellantZenaida
beforehehasnoticeoftheclaimorinterestofsome
Diaztestifiedthatthereasonablerentalforthearea
202
occupiedbyAntonio(sic)CasipitisP300.00amonth(p. complaintforejectment.TheDiazes,therefore,being
40,tsn;Mar.20,1987(sic)).ThistestimonyofDiazwas thelawfulownersofthepropertyindispute,andinthis
unrebutted.ItisalsounrebuttedthatonOctober8, case,theissueofpossessionhavingbeenproperly
1981,SeverinoDiazfiledacriminalcomplaintagainst ventilated,shouldbeawardedimmediatepossessionof
Antonio(sic)CasipitandJulianAlmadovarforviolation theproperty.Thisisnecessaryinordertofinishonce
ofP.D.772,butwasdismissedbytheprosecutingfiscal andforallthecontroversybetweenthedefendants
onthegroundthatthesaidlawappliestourbanland appellantsandtheplaintiffsappellees.Toleavethe
only.AndonJune5,1987(sic),acomplaintfor issueofejectmentinthehandsoftheMunicipalTrial
ejectmentwasfiledbytheDiazesagainstAntonia Courtwhereacomplainthasbeenpending,wouldbeto
CasipitbeforetheMunicipalTrialCourtwhichwas denycompleterelieftodefendantsappellants.Itisbest
suspendedduetothefilingofthisinstantcase.Thus, tograntthereliefprayer(sic)for,thatofejectment,in
October8,1981,shouldbethereckoningpointforthe thecaseatbar,inordertoavoidmultiplicityofsuits.It
ward(sic)ofP300.00amonthintheformofreasonable willnotonlysavethepartiesandthecourttherigors
rentalstocompensatetheDiazesforthelossof andexpensesofmultiple(sic)litigations,butalsoavoid
enjoymentofpropertythatlawfullybelongstothem. theremoteprobabilitythattheremightbeconflicting
decisionsrelativetooneandthesameissue."
"Anawardofmoraldamagesisjustifiedsincethe
evidenceindicate(sic)badfaithinthefilingofthis ACCORDINGLY,thepetitionisherebyDENIED.The
complaintbyplaintiffsappellees.Apparently,plaintiffs decisionoftheCourtofAppealsdatedAugust22,1990
appelleesarenotevenconvincedofthevalidityoftheir anditsresolutiondatedJanuary11,1991are
claimsincetheypermittedaperiodofmorethan30 AFFIRMED.
yearstolapsebeforetheywenttocourt.Itwouldseem
thatthiscomplaintfiledbyplaintiffsappelleeswas SOORDERED
merelyanafterthoughtinordertocounteractthe Narvasa,C.J.,Cruz,FelicianoandGrioAquino,JJ.,
ejectmentsuitfiledbydefendantsappellantsDiazeson concur.
June6,1985.Thenumerouscourtcasesrelativetothe
lotindisputehavecausedtheDiazessleeplessnights
andthustheyshouldbeentitledtomoraldamagesin
[G.R.No.71110.November22,1988.]
theamountofP30,000.00.
PAZVILLAGONZALO,ESTELAVILLAGONZALO,AIDA
"InordertogivecompleterelieftotheDiazes,plaintiffs
VILLAGONZALO,HERMINIAVILLAGONZALO,
appelleesmustvacatethelotindispute.True,thereis
GWENDOLYNVILLAGONZALO,JENSINEVILLAGONZALO
nowapendingejectmentcaseintheMunicipalTrial
andLEONILAVILLAGONZALO,petitioners,vs.
CourtofSta.Rosa,Laguna.However,thependencyof
INTERMEDIATEAPPELLATECOURTandCECILIAA.
thesaidejectmentcaseshouldnotconstituteabarto
VILLAGONZALO,respondents.
thegrantofthereliefprayedforbyappellantsDiazesin
theiranswer,i.e.,tovacatethepremises.Inthecaseat JulioL.FalconeandMakilitoB.Mahinayforpetitioners.
bar,theissueofownershiphasineffectsettledthe
issueofpossessionwhichwouldbelitigateduponinthe AdelinoB.Sitoyforprivaterespondent.
ejectmentsuit.Thetrialcourttookintoaccountthefact
SYLLABUS
thatappellantsDiazesfirstfiledacriminalcomplaint
againstplaintiffappelleesin1981;and,in1985,a
203
1. CIVILLAW;PROPERTY;EXTINCTIVE VillagonzaloandFelicisimaAbellaVillagonzalohereby
PRESCRIPTION;ACTIONFORRECONVEYANCEOFREALTY orderingthecancellationofTransferCertificateofTitle
BASEDONANIMPLIEDTRUSTPRESCRIBESIN10YEARS. No.4259nameofCeciliaA.Villagonzaloandordering
Itisnowwellsettledthatanactionforreconveyance theRegisterofDeedsofOrmocCitytoissueanother
ofrealpropertytoenforceanimpliedtrustshall TransferCertificateofTitleinthenameofspousesJuan
prescribeaftertenyears,sinceitisanactionbased C.VillagonzaloandFelicisimaA.Villagonzalo,Filipinos,
uponanobligationcreatedbylaw,andtherecanbeno oflegalage,residentsofCebuCitynowdeceasedand
doubtastoitsprescriptibility. survivedbythepresentplaintiffsanddefendants,each
ofwhomuponpaymentoftheinheritancetaxeswith
2. ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;PRESCRIPTIVEPERIODTOLLED theBIR,shallbeentitledto1/9shareoftheland,
FROMTHEDATEADVERSETITLETOTHEPROPERTYIS subjecttoclaimsbyotherheirsandcreditorswithina
ASSERTEDBYTHEPOSSESSORTHEREOF.The periodoftwo(2)yearsasprovidedforbytheRulesof
prescriptiveperiodoftenyearsiscountedfromthe Court,andfurtherorderingthepartitionofthesaid
dateadversetitletothepropertyisassertedbythe landwithinaperiodofninety(90)daysfromthefinality
possessorthereof.Inthecaseatbar,thatassertionof ofthisdecisionandifthepartiescannotagreeonthe
adversetitle,whichconsequentlywasarepudiationof
partitionthisCourtmayappointacommissionerto
theimpliedtrustforthepurposeofthestatuteof
partitionthesamewithoutpronouncementastocosts."
limitations,tookplacewhenTransferCertificateofTitle 2
No.4259wasissuedinthenameofprivatepetitioner
onJuly18,1962. thereindefendantappealedtotheformerIntermediate
AppellateCourtwhich,inadecision3oftheSecond
3. ID.;ID.;ACTIONTOENFORCEANIMPLIED CivilCasesDivisioninACG.R.No.65128,reversedthe
TRUST;MAYBEBARREDNOTONLYBYPRESCRIPTION appealedjudgmentanddismissedthecomplaintfor
BUTALSOBYLACHES.Theruleinthisjurisdictionis
reconveyance.
thatanactiontoenforceanimpliedtrustmaybebarred
notonlybyprescriptionbutalsobylaches,inwhich AsfoundbytherespondentCourt
caserepudiationisnotevenrequired.Whetherthe
trustisresultingorconstructive,itsenforcementmay "ThefactsinthisregardshowthatonFebruary22,
1961,JuanC.Villagonzalo,thepredecessorininterest
bebarredbylaches.
oftheparties,purchasedLotNo.7429oftheOrmoc
DECISION Cadastre,situatedatBarrioDolores,Municipalityof
Ormoc,containinganareaof97,213sq.meterscovered
REGALADO,Jp: byTransferCertificateofTitleNo.24611oftheRegister
Fromadecisionrenderedinfavorofhereinpetitioners, ofDeedsofOrmocCity,fromtheHeirsofRoman
asplaintiffs,againsthereinprivaterespondent,as MatuguinaforP1,500.00(ExhibitsAand6,Folderof
defendant,inanactionforreconveyanceinthethen Exhibits,pp.1,15).Itwasmadetoappearhoweverthat
CourtofFirstInstanceofLeyte,1whichreads: thesalewasinthenameofhisdaughter,defendant
CeciliaVillagonzalo,whowassingle,sinceheborrowed
"Wherefore,decisionisherebyrenderedinfavorofthe fromherthesumofP500.00tocompletethefull
plaintiffsandagainstdefendantdeclaringLotNo.7429 paymentofthepriceofthelot.Consequently,TCTNo.
oftheOrmocCadastre,situatedatBo.Dolores,Ormoc 4259wasissuedinthenameofdefendantCeciliaA.
City,withanareaof97,213ameters,moreorless,as Villagonzaloastheregisteredowner(Exhibit5,Ibid.,p.
theconjugalpropertyofthedeceasedspouses,Juan 15)onJuly18,1962.ThecomplaintwasfiledonApril2,
204
1975thirteen(13)yearsaftertheissuanceofTransfer acquisitiveprescription,thatgoodfaithandjusttitleare
CertificateofTitleNo.4259onthesubjectlandinthe essentialrequisitesinthiscase.
nameofthedefendantCeciliaVillagonzalo."4
Therespondentcourtiscorrectandcertiorarimustbe
Onsuchfactualmoorings,therespondentcourt,now denied.
theCourtofAppeals,heldthattherightofactionof
thereinplaintiffsappellees,petitionersherein,had Itisnowwellsettledthatanactionforreconveyanceof
prescribedforthereasonsthatfollow.5 realpropertytoenforceanimpliedtrustshallprescribe
aftertenyears,6sinceitisanactionbaseduponan
Itratiocinatedthatwhenprivaterespondentobtained obligationcreatedbylaw,7andtherecanbenodoubt
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.4259inhernameshe astoitsprescriptibility.8
therebyexcludedhereinpetitionersfromtheestateof
theirdeceasedpredecessorininterestand, Itislikewiseestablishedthatsaidperiodoftenyearsis
consequently,shesetupatitletothelandadverseto countedfromthedateadversetitletothepropertyis
them.Theregistrationofthedeedofsalewiththe assertedbythepossessorthereof.Inthecaseatbar,
thatassertionofadversetitle,whichconsequentlywas
RegisterofDeeds,soitopined,wasconstructivenotice
arepudiationoftheimpliedtrustforthepurposeofthe
tothewholeworldofdefendant'sadverseclaimtothe
statuteoflimitations,tookplacewhenTransfer
property,therebyrepudiatinganyfiduciaryortrust
relationshipinvolved.Itanchoreditsconclusionon CertificateofTitleNo.4259wasissuedinthenameof
privatepetitioneronJuly18,1962.Assuccinctlybut
doctrinalholdingsthatanactionforreconveyance
pithilyresolvedinVda.dePamavs.Pama,etal.:9
basedonanimpliedorconstructivetrustprescribesin
tenyearscountedfromthedatewhenadversetitleis "...Consideringthesettleddoctrinethatanactionfor
assertedbythepossessoroftheproperty. reconveyanceofrealpropertybaseduponconstructive
orimpliedtrustprescribesinten(10)yearscounted
Prescindingtherefromintothefieldoflaches,
fromthedateadversetitleisassertedbythepossessor
respondentcourtfurthernotedthatbecauseofthe
neglectandinactionofthepresentpetitioners,the oftheproperty(Diazvs.Gorricho,103Phil.261;
privaterespondentwastherebymadetofeelsecurein Candelariavs.Romero,109Phil.100;J.M.Tuazonvs.
herbeliefthatshehadrightlyacquiredthe Magdangal,114Phil.42);thatwhenrespondent
controvertedlandandthatnolegalactionwouldbe GuillermoPamacausedtheregistrationonJune18,
filedagainsther.Shewasthusinducedtospendtime, 1956oftheaffidavitofadjudicationdeclaringhimselfto
moneyandeffortforthecultivationofthelandandthe bethesoleheirofthelateMateoPamaandobtained
paymentofthetaxesthereon.Itthenfurtherrestedits TransferCertificateofTitleNo.T4006inhisownname,
conclusionontheestablishedprinciplethatinaction hetherebyexcludedpetitionersfromtheestateofthe
andneglectofapartytoassertarightcanconvertwhat deceasedMateoPamaand,consequently,setupatitle
adversetothem;thatsuchregistrationconstitutes
couldotherwisebeavalidclaimintoastaledemand.
constructivenoticetopetitionersoftherespondent's
PetitionershavecomebeforeUscontendingthattheir adverseclaimtotheproperty(Carantesvs.Courtof
actionwasseasonablyfiledbecauseprivate Appeals,76SCRA514,523;Geronavs.deGuzman,11
respondent'sregistrationofthelandinhernamewas SCRA153,157);anditappearingthatpetitionersfiled
notarepudiationoftheimpliedtrustcreatedbetween theircomplaintforreconveyanceonlyonApril28,1969,
herandtheirfather;and,confusingextinctivefor ortwelve(12)years,ten(10)monthsandten(10)days
aftertheircauseofactionhadaccruedonJune18,
205
1956;thisCourtresolvedtodismissthispetitionandto
affirmthequestionedorderdismissingpetitioner's
complaint...."10
Thereisalsoevidenceofrecordthatasfarbackas
1961,privaterespondentrefusedtogiveanysharein
theproduceofthelandtopetitioners;thatin1963she
mortgagedthepropertyinherownname;andthatin
1969,sheleasedthesametooneRamonValera,
withoutthepetitionerstakingpreventiveorretaliatory
legalaction.11
Theruleinthisjurisdictionisthatanactiontoenforce
animpliedtrustmaybebarrednotonlybyprescription
butalsobylaches,inwhichcaserepudiationisnoteven
required.12Whetherthetrustisresultingor
constructive,itsenforcementmaybebarredbylaches.
13Petitionerswere,therefore,correctlyfaultedfor
theirunjustifiedinaction.
WHEREFORE,thejudgmentoftherespondentCourtis
herebyAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
206
[G.R.No.83383.May6,1991.] 4. ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;APPROVALBYTHESECRETARY
OFAGRICULTUREANDCOMMERCE,INDISPENSABLE
SOLIDSTATEMULTIPRODUCTSCORPORATION, FORVALIDITY.Uponthepaymentofthefinal
petitioner,vs.THECOURTOFAPPEALS(FormerSixth
installmenttogetherwithallaccruedinterests,the
Division),ANDTHEINTESTATEESTATEOFANTENORS.
governmentshallthenissueafinaldeedofconveyance
VIRATA,andtheDEVELOPMENTBANKOFTHE
infavorofthepurchaser.However,thesaleofsuchfriar
PHILIPPINES,respondents. landsshallbevalidonlyifapprovedbytheSecretaryof
AntonioM.Chavezforpetitioner. InteriorasprovidedinActNo.1120.Laterlaws,
however,requiredthatthesaleshallbeapprovedby
RodolfoM.DelaRosaforrespondentIntestateEstateof theSecretaryofAgricultureandCommerce.Inshort,
AntenorS.Virata. theapprovalbytheSecretaryofAgricultureand
Commerceisindispensableforthevalidityofthesale.
SYLLABUS
5. ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;ABSENCETHEREOFMADE
1. CIVILLAW;FRIARLANDSACT;FRIARLANDS;
THESUPPOSEDSALEVOIDABINITIO.Therewasno
PURPOSEOFPURCHASE.Itisclearfromthe
allegationnorproofthatthesalewaswiththeapproval
provisionsofSection12and18ofActNo.1120and
oftheSecretaryofAgricultureandCommerce.The
Section2ofCommonwealthActNo.32asamendedby
absenceofsuchapprovalmadethesupposedsalenull
CommonwealthActNo.316thatfriarlandswere
andvoidabinitio.
purchasedbythegovernmentforsaletoactualsettlers
andoccupantsatthetimesaidlandsareacquiredby 6. ID.;TORRENSSYSTEMOFLANDREGISTRATION;
thegovernment. REGISTRATIONDOESNOTVESTTITLEBUTISAMERE
EVIDENCEOFTITLEOVERPROPERTY.Registration
2. ID.;ID.;ID.;SALE;REQUISITES.TheBureauof
doesnotvesttitle.Itismerelyevidenceofsuchtitle
Landsshallfirstissueacertificatestatingthereinthat
overaparticularproperty.Ourlandregistrationlawsdo
thegovernmenthasagreedtosellthelandtosuch
notgivetheholderanybettertitleuponthanthatwhat
settleroroccupant.Thelatterthenshallacceptthe
heactuallyhas(DeGuzman,etal.v.CourtofAppeals,
certificateandagreetopaythepurchasepricesofixed
G.R.NoL46935,December21,1987,156SCRA701;
andintheinstallmentsandattheinterestspecifiedin
Cruzv.Cabana,No.56232,June22,1984,129SCRA
thecertificate.
656).
3. ID.;ID.;ID.;SALE;CERTIFICATEOFSALE,
7. ID.;ID.;ONEYEARPRESCRIPTIVEPERIOD;LAPSE
NATUREANDCONDITION.Theconveyanceexecuted
OFPERIODDOESNOTRENDERTITLE
infavorofabuyerorpurchaser,orthesocalled
INCONTROVERTIBLEWHEREACQUISITIONOF
certificateofsale,isaconveyanceoftheownershipof
PROPERTYWASINVIOLATIONOFLAW.Althougha
theproperty,subjectonlytotheresolutorycondition
periodofoneyearhasalreadyexpiredfromthetime
thatthesalemaybecancelledifthepriceagreedupon
thecertificateoftitlewasissuedtoMabiniLegaspi
isnotpaidforinfull.Thepurchaserbecomestheowner
pursuanttotheallegedsalefromthegovernment,said
upontheissuanceofthecertificateofsaleinhisfavor
titledoesnotbecomeincontrovertiblebutisnulland
subjectonlytothecancellationthereofincasetheprice
voidsincetheacquisitionofthepropertywasin
agreeduponisnotpaid(Pugedav.Trias,No.L16925,
violationoflaw.
March31,1962,4SCRA849).
207
8. ID.;PRESCRIPTIONOFACTIONS;ACTIONTO CANCELLEDORCORRECTED.Ifapersonhappenedto
QUIETTITLE,IMPRESCRIPTIBLE.Anactiontoquiet obtainpropertybymistakeortotheprejudiceof
titleisimprescriptible(Coronelv.Intermediate anotherwithorwithoutbadfaith,thecertificateoftitle
AppellateCourt,No.70191,October29,1987,155 whichmayhavebeenissuedtohimunderthe
SCRA270). circumstancesmayandshouldbecancelledor
corrected.
9. ID.;ID.;ACTIONFORRECONVEYANCE;
PRESCRIPTIONDOESNOTLIEWHERETHEACTIONIS DECISION
PREDICATEDONTHEFACTTHATTHECONVEYANCE
COMPLAINEDOFWASVOIDABINITIO.Inactionsfor MEDIALDEA,Jp:
reconveyanceofpropertypredicatedonthefactthat Thisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariofthedecision
theconveyancecomplainedofwasvoidabinitio,a oftheCourtofAppealswhichaffirmedthedecisionof
claimofprescriptionoftheactionwouldbeunavailing thetrialcourtdismissingthecomplaintfiledby
(Corpus,etal.v.Beltran,etal.,97Phil.722;Agnev. petitionerforquietingoftitleanddeclaringAntenor
DirectorofLands,G.R.L40399,February6,1990,181 Virataasthetrueandlawfulownerofthedisputed
SCRA793). property.
10. ID.;FRIARLANDSACTS;FRIARLANDS;SALE; Theantecedentfactsareasfollows:
SUBSEQUENTTITLESISSUEDPURSUANTTOAVOID
SALE,WITHNOLEGALEFFECT.Beingnullandvoid, OnSeptember28,1982,petitioner,adomestic
thesalemadetoMabiniLegaspiandthesubsequent corporation,filedanactionforquietingoftitleagainst
titlesissuedpursuanttheretoproducednolegaleffects therespondentestateofVirataallegingthatitisthe
whatsoever.Quodnullumestnullumproduciteffectum registeredownerofaparceloflandlocatedatImus,
(Agnev.DirectorofLands,supra).Therebeingnotitle Cavite,withanareaof48,182sq.meters,coveredby
tothelandthatMabiniLegaspiacquiredfromthe CertificateofTitleNo.T80889oftheRegisterofDeeds
government,itfollowsthatnotitletothesameland ofCavite,whichwasissuedonFebruary24,1976;that
couldbeconveyedbytheformertorespondentVirata. Virata,duringhislifetimethrutheuseoffraud,caused
theissuanceofCertificateofTitleNo.T11520RT1660
11. ID.;TORRENSSYSTEMOFLANDREGISTRATION; onSeptember1,1959thruanadministrative
THELAWPROTECTSTHELAWFULHOLDEROF reconstitutionofanonexistentoriginaltitlecovering
REGISTEREDTITLEOVERTHETRANSFEREEBEREFTOF thesameparcelofland;thatbyreasonofthesaid
ANYTRANSMISSIBLERIGHTS.Evenassumingthat reconstitutionandsubsequentissuanceofTCTNo.T
respondentViratawasapurchaseringoodfaithandfor 11520RT1660,therenowexistsacloudonthetitleof
value,thelawis,asbetweentwopersonsbothofwhom petitioner.
areingoodfaithandbothinnocentofanynegligence,
thelawmustprotectandpreferthelawfulholderof Asgatheredbytherespondentappellatecourtandtrial
registeredtitleoverthetransfereeofavendorbereftof court,theevidenceforthepetitionerconsistsofthe
anytransmissibleright(Baltazarv.CourtofAppeals, following:
G.R.78728,December8,1988,168SCRA354).
"PursuanttotheprovisionsofActNo.32,asamended,
12. ID.;POSSESSION;IFAPERSONOBTAINED JulianPearandasubmittedwiththeBureauofLands,
PROPERTYBYMISTAKETOTHEPREJUDICEOF thruitsDistrictLandOfficeatRosario,Cavitean
ANOTHER,CERTIFICATEOFTITLEISSUEDSHOULDBE applicationdatedNovember22,1968,inaverified
208
IndorsementdatedNovember25,1968,topurchasea "BysecondIndorsementdatedDecember16,1968,
friarlandwhichwassubscribedandsworntobefore HiginioP.Sunico,Chief,LandManagementDivision,
ManuelCupino,ActingDistrictLandOfficer(Exh.'D'). actingforandinbehalfoftheDirectorofLands,
TheapplicationcoversLotNo.7449oftheImusFriar forwardedtotheSecretaryofAgricultureandNatural
LandsEstate,situatedatBarrioMolino,Bacoor,Cavite, Resources,theapplicationofJulianPearanda,
containinganareaof4hectares,81aresand82 recommendingthatLotNo.7449besoldtosaid
centares.Saidapplicationwasaccompaniedbya applicantwithoutpublicauctionforasumofP1,198.00
'SALAYSAY'(Exhibit'A')signedandsworntobyone (Exh.'I')andbya3rdIndorsementdatedDecember16,
MabiniLegaspibeforesaidDistrictLandOfficerCupino, 1969,theapplicationofJulianPearandawasreturned
purportingtotransferto,andtowaiveinfavorof,Julian bytheSecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalResources,
Pearanda,alltherightsofexecutortoLotNo.7449. totheDirectorofLands,Manila,approvingthatsale
withoutauction,toJulianPearanda,ofLotNo.7449.
"Followingtheroutineincasesofthisnature,District Pursuanttothisapproval,theDirectorofLands
LandOfficerCupinoreferredtoLandInvestigator authorizedtheDistrictLandOfficer,Rosario,Cavite,to
AlbertoBuhainforinvestigationandinaverified sellwithoutauctiontoJulianPearanda,anddirecting
IndorsementdatedNovember25,1968,said
thatthesalescontractshouldbeexecutedsoonest(Exh.
investigatormadeaReport(Exh.'B')ontheresultofhis
'I').TheDirectorofLandsandJulianPearanda
investigation,toDistrictLandOfficerCupino,District executed,therefore,SalesContractNo.V447(Exh.'K'),
LandOfficeNo.1118,BureauofLands,Rosario,Cavite,
onFebruary28,1969,foraconsiderationofP1,198.00,
certifyingthatapplicantJulianPearandaistheactual
tobepaidinten(10)monthlyinstallments,thefirst
occupantofLotNo.7449,hasintroduced installmentofP290.00havingbeenpaiduponexecution
improvementsconsistingofuplandriceandother
ofthesalescontractandthepaymentoftheP1,198.00
seasonalcrops;thatPearanda'soccupationoftheland wasfullypaidonAugust6,1969(Exh.'O').
isderivedthroughavoluntaryassignmentofrightof
theformeroccupant,MabiniLegaspi,andthatthesame "Thecontractpriceofthelandhavingbeenpaidby
isfreefromclaimsandconflictsandthatthesaid Pearanda,UndersecretaryofAgricultureandNatural
applicanthasestablishedhisrightsoverthesubject ResourcesIsocelesPascual,onAugust13,1969,issued
land,inviewofwhich,saidinvestigatorrecommended thefinaldeedofconveyanceofLotNo.7449(Exh.'8')in
thatsaidlotbeawardedtoapplicantJulianPearanda favorofJulianPearandaandthesaiddeedof
accordingtolaw.LexLib conveyancecontainsthephysicalandtechnical
descriptionofthelotinquestion(SeeExh.'S1').
"Thereafter,theReporthavingbeensubmittedto
Cupino,thelatterdirectedinvestigatorBuhainto "xxxxxxxxx
prepareanInformationSheet(Exh.'G'upto'G3')and
CupinomadetheAppraisalReport(Exh.'E2').The "OnthebasisofsaidDeedofConveyanceNo.10431,
aboverequirementshavingbeenaccomplished,District theRegisterofDeedsofCaviteissuedonNovember14,
LandOfficerCupinoforwardedPearanda'sapplication 1969infavorofJulianPearandaTCTNo.T39631(Exh.
totheDirectorofLands,thrutheChief,Land 'Z6')whichonitsfaceshowsittohavecomefroma
ManagementDivision,recommendingdispositionofLot directtransferfromOCTNo.1002,andonFebruary17,
No.7449bemadeinaccordancewiththefindingsofhis 1976,theplaintiff,bywayofaDeedofAbsoluteSale
office,toJulianPearanda,pursuanttotheprovisions (Exh.'Z')boughtsaidLotNo.7449asaconsequenceof
which,TCTNo.T39631wascancelledandnewTCTNo.
ofC.A.ofNo.32,asamended.
209
T80889wasissuedonFebruary24,1976tothe locatedatBacoor,Cavite(Exh.2).Accordingly,the
plaintiff,SolidStateMultiProductsCorporation.LLjur RegisterofDeedsofCaviteissuedTCTNo.A2188to
MabiniLegaspiwhoheldownershipofthepropertyup
"PlaintiffSolidStateMultiProductsCorporation
toDecember6,1957whenheexecutedaDeedofSale
enrolledLotNo.7449withtheissuanceofTax
transferringittoAntenorS.Virata(Exh.6).Thedeed
DeclarationNo.20893whichwassupersededbyTax wasregisteredwiththeRegistryofDeedsonDecember
DeclarationNo.10973andcontinuedtoreligiouslypay 10,1957...Onthesameday,December10,1957,the
therealtytaxesascoveredbyreceiptsoftaxpayments RegisterofDeedsissuedTCTNo.11520(Exh.12)to
(Exh.'8'for1977andExh.'719'for1984)andthe
AntenorVirata...
subjectpropertyisinitsactualpossessionsinceits
acquisitionfromPearandauptothepresent."(pp. "However,onJune7,1959,theProvincialCapitol
109112,Rollo(EmphasisOurs). buildingofCavitewhichhousedtheRegistryofDeeds
wasburned,destroyinglandrecordsandtitlesinsaid
Ontheotherhand,respondentViratadeniedthe registryamongwhichweretherecordsrelatingtoLot
allegationsinthecomplaintandpresentedevidenceto No.7449.
provehisclaimovertheland.Theappellatecourtand
trialcourtmadethefollowingfindings: "OnSeptember1,1959,theRegistryofDeeds
administrativelyreconstitutedtheoriginalofTCTNo.T
"...onMarch20,1943,theDirectorofLands,Mr.Jose 11520basedonowner'sduplicatecertificate(Exh.12)
F.Dans,gaveauthoritytosellatpublicauctionLotNo.
andrenumberedthesameasTCTNo.(T11520)RT
7449oftheImusEstate,containinganareaof4.8182 1660.
hectaresatthepriceofnotlessthanitsappraisedvalue
ofP290.00(Exh.X83).AccordinglyonApril20,1943, "xxxxxxxxx
theBureauofFriarLandsAgentSeveroRiveraissueda
"TheexistenceofTCTNo.80889issuedinthenameof
NoticefixingthepublicauctionofLotNo.7449,among
appellantonFebruary24,1976cametotheknowledge
others,onMay5,1943at10:00a.m.(Exh.1).Onsaid
date,MabiniLegaspi(appelleeVirata'spredecessorin ofAntenorViratainAugust1978whenhereceiveda
interest)submittedawinningbidofP290.00andpaid subpoenafromtheNationalBureauofInvestigation
P29.00(10%ofthepurchaseprice)andevenissued (NBI)inconnectionwithitsinvestigationofthe
BureauofLandsOfficialReceiptNo.77735datedMay5, conflictinglandtitlesonLotNo.7449.Viratapresented
1943(Exh.7).Thesubsequentinstallmentswerepaid MabiniLegaspiashiswitness.NBIAgentManuelC.
onJanuary14,1944,April24,1944,August17,1944, DionisiotookthesworntestimonyofMabiniLegaspion
andSeptember20,1944intheamountsofP29.00, August27,1978(Exh.10)andsubmittedawritten
P29.00,87.00andP116.00,respectively.Thepayments report(Exhs.9to9H)ofhisinvestigationonOctober
wereevidencedbyOfficialReceiptsNos.78396, 27,1978.MabiniLegaspiinhersworntestimony(Exh.
10)declaredthatsheacquiredLot7449duringthe
788392,784704and78466(Exhs.7A,7B,7CandV).
Japaneseoccupationandinsupportofheracquisition,
"OnDecember12,1944,theBureauofLands,through shepresentedtoNBIagentDionisiothecarbonor
Mr.VicenteTordesillas,sentalettertotheRegisterof duplicateoriginalofthenoticeofpublicauctionandthe
DeedsatImus,Cavite,requestingtheissuanceofthe lettersdatedDecember12,1944ofVicenteTordesillas
correspondingcertificatesoftitletoeightpersons, oftheBureauofLandstotheRegisterofDeeds
amongwhomwasMabiniLegaspi,specifyingwith requestingtheissuanceofacertificateoftitleinfavor
respecttohimLotNo.7449withanareaof4.8182 ofMabiniLegaspi,whichdocumentsweresubstituted
210
onthesameoccasionwithxeroxcopies(Exh.1and2) ProductsCorporationisnullandvoidandofnoforce
alsomarkedasExhibits10Cand10D,respectively, andeffectandis,therefore,orderedcancelled;
afteracomparisonwiththeduplicateoriginals.Legaspi
"d. Sentencingtheplaintifftopaythecostsofthe
alsopresentedtheoriginalsofthereceiptsofpayment
proceeding.
shemadetotheBureauofLands,whichwere
substitutedwithxeroxcopies(Exhs.7,7A,7Band7C, "SOORDERED."(p.70,Rollo).
alsomarkedasExhibits10E,10F,10Gand10Hafter
comparisonwiththeoriginal.She(Mabini)alsotestified Notsatisfiedwiththedecisionofthetrialcourt,the
onthesaleofthelotinfavorofAntenorVirataon petitionerappealedtotheCourtofAppeals.OnJuly13,
December6,1957,presentingasproofthereof,the 1987,therespondentappellatecourtrenderedits
duplicateorcarbonoriginaloftheAbsoluteDeedof decisionaffirmingthedecisionofthetrialcourt.
SaleofAgriculturalLand,whichwaslikewise,
Hence,thispetitionwasfiledwiththepetitioner
substitutedwithxeroxcopies(Exhs.6to6F,inclusive,
assigningthefollowingerrors:
alsomarkedExh.11).cdphil
"THERESPONDENTCOURTGROSSLYERREDWHENIT
"MabiniLegaspitestifiedthattheoriginalsofExhibits1
IGNOREDTHEBASICCONSIDERATIONTHATTHE
and2gotlost.Shesaidsheplacedthedocumentson
CONTESTEDPROPERTYCAMEFROMTHEFRIARLANDS
thetableinherhouseafterreturningfromtheNBI
ESTATETHEDISPOSITIONOFWHICHISGOVERNEDBY
investigation,thinking'allthewhilethatthose
SPECIALLAWSSPECIFYINGTHEDISPOSITIONOFWHICH
documentswillbeuselessbecauseIhadmyproperty
ISGOVERNEDBYSPECIALLAWSSPECIFYINGTHE
sold.'(Tsn.,p.17,December19,1984).Shedenied
REQUIREMENTSFORITSACQUISITIONFROMTHE
havingsoldthelandtoJulianPearanda,no(r)having
GOVERNMENTTHROUGHSALE,WHICHSALE,WHICH
waivedherrightoverthelandinhisfavor(tsn.,p.12,
LAWANDSPECIALREQUIREMENTSSHOULDSERVEAS
March18,1985)."(pp.113116,Rollo).
THEMEASUREAGAINSTWHICHTHEEVIDENCEOFTHE
OnJune15,1985,thetrialcourtrendereditsdecision, PARTIESTOTHISCASESHOULDBEWEIGHED,SUCH
thedispositiveportionofwhichreads: GROSSERRORLEADINGTHEAPPELLATECOURTTO
"WHEREFORE,bypreponderanceofevidence,judgment (A) ERRONEOUSLYINFERTHEEXISTENCEAND/OR

isherebyrenderedfordefendantVirataandagainstthe DUEISSUANCEOFTHESUPPOSEDTCTNO.A2188(IN
plaintiff,towit: THENAMEOFPRIVATERESPONDENTSPREDECESSOR
ININTEREST),FROMDOCUMENTSTHATCAMEAFTER
"a. Dismissingthecomplaintwhichstatesnocause WEREBASEDONSUCHTCTNO.A2188,CLEARLY
ofaction; BEGGINGTHEISSUEWHICHISPRECISELYWHETHEROR
"b. RecognizingthatdefendantVirataisthetrue NOTTHETRANSFERCERTIFICATEOFTITLEWASINFACT
ISSUEDINCOMPLIANCEWITHTHEFRIARLANDSACT
andlawfulownerofthelandcoveredbyTransfer
ANDCA32TOCOVERTHEPROPERTYINQUESTION;
CertificateofTitleNo.(T11520)RT1660oftheRegister
ofDeedsoftheProvinceofCaviteandholdingthatthe (B) ERRONEOUSLYBASEITSDECISIONINFAVOROF
sameisvalid; PRIVATERESPONDENTONTCTsISSUEDBYTHE
REGISTEROFDEEDSINSPITEOFTHEFACTTHATITIS
"c. DeclaringthatTransferCertificateofTitleNo.T
80889inthenameofplaintiff,theSolidStateMulti THEBUREAUOFLANDSUNDERTHEDIRECTIONOFTHE
SECRETARYOFAGRICULTUREANDCOMMERCE
211
(NATURALRESOURCES)WHICHDISPOSESFRIARLANDS PetitionercontendsthatActNo.1120,otherwiseknown
ANDNOTTHEREGISTEROFDEEDSWHOSERECORDS astheFriarLandsActprovidestheprocedureforthe
CANBENOBETTERTHANTHERIGHTITHAS saleanddispositionofthefriarlandstoprivatepersons;
REGISTERED; thatpursuantthereto,theacquisitionbypetitioner's
predecessorininterestJulianPearandaofthe
(C) ERRONEOUSLYDISREGARDTHEPATENTIN disputedLot7449,whichwasformerlypartofthefriar
ADMISSIBILITYOFTHEDOCUMENTARYEVIDENCE landsestate,wasincompliancewithalllegalrequisites
OFFEREDBYTHEPRIVATERESPONDENTTHEORIGINALS laiddowninActNo.1120,forthevalidityofthesaleby
OFWHICHWERENEVERPRESENTEDBEFORETHETRIAL thegovernmentinfavorofPearandaofsuchfriar
COURT; lands.cdll
(D) ERRONEOUSLYIGNORETHELACKOF ItalsoarguesthatthesaleofLotNo.7449to
PROBATIVEVALUEOFSUCHDOCUMENTARYEVIDENCE,
respondent'spredecessor,MabiniLegaspi,andthe
SUCHLACKOFPROBATIVEVALUEBEINGPATENTON
issuanceofacertificateoftitleinherfavorwasin
THEFACEOFSUCHDOCUMENT; violationoftheFriarLandsActastherewasnorequired
(E) ERRONEOUSLYIGNORETHEVERITYTHATTHE approvalbytheSecretaryofAgricultureandNatural
DOCUMENTARYEVIDENCECOULDSUPPORTNOMORE Resources.
THANTHEFACTTHATTHERESPONDENT'S Thereisnodisputeherethatthelandinvolvedinthis
PREDECESSORININTERESTHADMERELYA caseisafriarlandandthatthelawswhichare
QUESTIONABLEINCHOATEANDINCOMPLETERIGHTTO
applicableareActNo.1120,knowastheFriarLands
ACQUIRETHEPROPERTYINQUESTION,WHICH Act,providingfortheadministrationandtemporary
QUESTIONABLEINCHOATEANDINFACTUNCOMPLETED leasingandsaleofcertainhaciendasandparcelsof
RIGHTCANNOTPREVAILOVERTHETITLEOF land,commonlyknownasfriarlands,and
PETITIONER'SPREDECESSORININTERESTWHOWAS CommonwealthActNo.32datedSeptember15,1936
THEACTUALPOSSESSORTHATAPPLIEDFORTHE asamendedbyCommonwealthActNo.316datedJune
PURCHASEOFTHELAND,EVERYNEEDEDSTEPFORTHE 9,1938,whichprovidedforthesubdivisionandsaleof
PURCHASEHAVINGBEENPASSEDUPONAND alltheportionsofthefriarlandsestatesremaining
RECORDEDBYTHEBUREAUOFLANDSWHOSE
undisposedof.
RECORDSSHOWONEANDONLYTITLEISSUEDOVER
THELAND,THATIS,THETITLEOFTHEPETITIONER'S Sec.12ofActNo.1120providesinpart:
PREDECESSORININTEREST."(pp.20,22,Rollo)
"...theChiefoftheBureauofPublicLandsshallgive
Wefindthepetitionimpressedwithmerit. thesaidsettlerandoccupantacertificatewhichshall
setforthindetailthattheGovernmenthasagreedto
Sincetheassignederrorswereinterrelated,itwouldbe selltoeachsettlerandoccupanttheamountoflandso
wellforthisCourttodiscussthemjointly. heldbyhimatthepricesofixedpayableasprovidedin
Petitionerdoesnotquestionthefactualfindingsmade thisActattheOfficeoftheChiefoftheBureauofPublic
bytherespondentappellatecourtandsupportedbythe Lands...andthatuponthepaymentofthefinal
records(p.22,Rollo).Itdoesnothoweveracceptthe installmenttogetherwithallaccruedinterestthe
legalconclusionmadebytheappellatecourtandtrial Governmentwillconveytosuchsettlerandoccupant
courtthattheregisteredtitleofprivaterespondentto thesaidlandsoheldbyhimbyproperinstrumentof
thelandshouldprevailoveritsowntitle. conveyance,whichshallbeissuedandbecomeeffective
212
inthemannerprovidedinsectiononehundredand cancellationthereofincasethepriceagreeduponisnot
twentytwooftheLandRegistrationAct." paid(Pugedavs.Trias,No.L16925,March31,1962,4
SCRA849.)
Also,Sec.18ofthesameActprovides:
Uponthepaymentofthefinalinstallmenttogetherwith
"NoleaseorsalemadebytheChiefoftheBureauof allaccruedinterests,thegovernmentshallthenissuea
PublicLandsundertheprovisionsofthisActshallbe finaldeedofconveyanceinfavorofthepurchaser.
validuntilapprovedbytheSecretaryoftheInterior." However,thesaleofsuchfriarlandsshallbevalidonly
(Emphasisours) ifapprovedbytheSecretaryofInteriorasprovidedin
Similarly,Sec.2ofC.A.No.32,asamendedbyC.A.No. ActNo.1120.Laterlaws,however,requiredthatthe
316providesinpart: saleshallbeapprovedbytheSecretaryofAgriculture
andCommerce.Inshort,theapprovalbytheSecretary
"...Thepersonswho,atthetimeofthesubdivision ofAgricultureandCommerceisindispensableforthe
surveyareactualandbonafideoccupantsofany validityofthesale.
portionoftheFriarLandsEstates,notexceedingten
hectares,shallbegivenpreferencetopurchasethe Itisundisputedthatpetitioner'spredecessor,Julian
portionoccupiedataprivatesaleandatapricetobe PearandawastheactualoccupantofLot7449when
fixedinsuchcase,bytheDirectorofLands,subjectto hefiledhisapplicationtopurchasethesaidloton
theapprovaloftheSecretaryofAgricultureand November22,1968;thatonDecember16,1989,the
Commerce,aftertakingintoconsiderationitslocation, SecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalResources
quality,andanyothercircumstancesasmayaffectits approvedthesaleofthelotwithoutauctionto
value,theprovisionsofsectiontwelveofActNumbered Pearanda;thatasalescontractwasexecutedbetween
Elevenhundredandtwenty,asamended,tothe theDirectorofLandsandPearandaonFebruary28,
contrary,..."(Emphasisours) 1969foraconsiderationofP1,198.00payablein10
monthlyinstallments;thatuponthefullpaymentofthe
Itisclearfromtheforegoingprovisionsthatthefriar price,theUndersecretaryofAgricultureandNatural
landswerepurchasedbythegovernmentforsaleto ResourcesissuedthefinaldeedofconveyanceofLot
actualsettlersandoccupantsatthetimesaidlandsare No.7449infavorofPearanda.Subsequently,the
acquiredbythegovernment.TheBureauofLandsshall RegisterofDeedsofCaviteissuedTCTNo.33631inthe
firstissueacertificatestatingthereinthatthe nameofPearanda,andwhenthelattersoldtheland
governmenthasagreedtosellthelandtosuchsettler topetitioner,TCTNo.39631wascancelledandTCTNo.
oroccupant.Thelatterthenshallacceptthecertificate T80889wasissuedinfavorofthelatter.
andagreetopaythepurchasepricesofixedandinthe
installmentsandattheinterestspecifiedinthe Clearly,thepurchaseofthefriarlandmadeby
certificate.prcd Pearandawasincompliancewithlaw.Theexecution
ofthesalescontractvestedtherightofownershipin
Theconveyanceexecutedinfavorofabuyeror Pearandaovertheland.Thereisnodoubtwhatsoever
purchaser,orthesocalledcertificateofsale,isa thatthesaidsalewasvalidasitwasapprovedbythe
conveyanceoftheownershipoftheproperty,subject SecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalResources.Hence,
onlytotheresolutoryconditionthatthesalemaybe thesalemadebyPearandainfavorofthepetitioner
cancelledifthepriceagreeduponisnotpaidforinfull. transferredtheownershipofthelandinfavorofthe
Thepurchaserbecomestheownerupontheissuanceof latterresultingintheproperissuanceofTCTNo.T
thecertificateofsaleinhisfavorsubjectonlytothe 80889initsname.
213
Ontheotherhand,theantecedentsleadingtothe lands.Foronething,MabiniLegaspiallegedly
acquisitionoftitlebyrespondentVirataareclearly purchasedthelandinasaleatpublicauction,which
shownintherecords.Thelatter'spredecessor,Mabini procedureisnowhereprovidedinActNo.1120orin
LegaspiboughtLot7449inasalebypublicauctionheld C.A.32,asamendedbyC.A.316.Thelawsexpressly
onMay5,1943conductedbytheBureauofLandsand statethatanactualoccupantofthelandshallpurchase
friarlandsagentSeverinoRivera,andpaidthepurchase thelotoccupiedbyhimataprivatesaleandnotina
pricethereofininstallmentsin1943;thatonDecember saleatpublicauction(Sec.2,C.A.32asamended).
12,1944,theBureauofLandssentalettertothe Further,neitherwasthereanydeedofconveyance
RegisterofDeedsofCaviterequestingtheissuanceof issuedtoLegaspibythegovernmentafterthefull
certificatesoftitletoseveralpersonsincludingMabini paymentoftheinstallmentsonthedisputedlot.
Legaspi,inwhosefavorTCTA2188wasissued;that
subsequentlyonDecember6,1957,shesoldthe Highlysignificantatthispointisthefactthattherewas
disputedlandtorespondentVirata,whichwas neitherallegationnorproofthatthesalewaswiththe
evidencedbyadeedofsaleregisteredwiththeRegistry approvaloftheSecretaryofAgricultureandCommerce.
ofDeedsofCaviteonDecember10,1957;thatonthe Theabsenceofsuchapprovalmadethesupposedsale
nullandvoidabinitio.Withoutthecertificateofsaleto
samedate,TCTNo.11520wasissuedinthenameof
provethetransferoftheownershipofthelandfrom
Virata.Duetothefirewhichguttedthebuildinghousing
theRegistryofCaviteonJune7,1959,thelatter thegovernmenttoMabiniLegaspiandwithoutthe
requiredapprovalofthesalebytheSecretaryof
administrativelyreconstitutedtheoriginalofTCTNo.
AgricultureandCommerce,WefindthatMabiniLegaspi
11520onSeptember1,1959,basedontheowner's
duplicatecertificateandrenumberedthesameasTCT didnotinanymanneracquireownershipovertheland
in1943.Theownershiportitleoverthefriarland,
No.1120RT1660.Cdpr
specificallyLotNo.7449remainedinthegovernment
Apparently,thesaleofthelottoMabiniLegaspi untilPearanda,petitioner'spredecessor,lawfully
occurredmuchearlierthanthedateofacquisitionof acquiredownershipoverthesamelotonFebruary28,
samelotbypetitioner'spredecessor,andtheevidence 1969byvirtueofasalescontractexecutedinhisfavor.
presentedbyrespondentVirataindicatesthatthe
latter'spredecessorpaidthepurchasepriceofLotNo. TheissuanceofacertificateoftitleinfavorofMabini
7449oninstallments. Legaspididnotvestownershipuponherovertheland
nordiditvalidatetheallegedpurchaseofthelot,which
Nowhereintheevidencefortherespondentorinthe isnullandvoid.Timeandagain,ithasbeenheldthat
recordsofthiscasehowever,wouldshowthata registrationdoesnotvesttitle.Itismerelyevidenceof
certificateofsalewaseverissuedbytheBureauof suchtitleoveraparticularproperty.Ourland
Lands,whichwouldvestownershipandtitleoverthe registrationlawsdonotgivetheholderanybettertitle
landinfavorofMabiniLegaspi.Theexistenceofthe thanthatwhatheactuallyhas(DeGuzman,etal.vs.
officialreceiptsshowingpaymentofthepriceofthe CourtofAppeals,G.R.L46935December21,1987,156
landbyLegaspidoesnotprovethatthelandwaslegally SCRA701;Cruzvs.Cabana,No.56232,June22,1984,
conveyedtoherwithoutanycontractofsalehaving 129SCRA656).llcd
beenexecutedbythegovernmentinherfavor.Viewed
fromallangles,theacquisitionofthelotbyLegaspiwas Althoughaperiodofoneyearhasalreadyexpiredfrom
highlyirregularandvoid,andnotincompliancewith thetimethecertificateoftitlewasissuedtoMabini
Legaspipursuanttotheallegedsalefromthe
theproceduremandatedbylawforthesaleoffriar
government,saidtitledoesnotbecome
214
incontrovertiblebutisnullandvoidsincethe Ourunavoidableconclusioninthiscaseisthatthetitle
acquisitionofthepropertywasinviolationoflaw. ofpetitionerundertheTorrenslandsystemshouldbe
Further,thepetitionerhereinisinpossessionofthe upheldconsideringthatnopreviousvalidtitletothe
landindispute.Hence,itsactiontoquiettitleis samelandexisted.
imprescriptible(Coronelvs.IntermediateAppellate
ACCORDINGLY,thepetitionisherebyGRANTEDandthe
Court,No.70191,October29,1987,155SCRA270).In
onecase,thisCourtruledthatanadverseclaimantofa decisionoftherespondentCourtofAppealsdatedJuly
registeredlandwhoisinpossessionthereofforalong 13,1987isherebyREVERSED.PetitionerSolidState
MultiProductsCorporationisherebydeclaredthetrue
periodoftimeisnotbarredfrombringinganactionfor
reconveyancewhichineffectseekstoquiettitletothe ownerofthelandcoveredbyTransferCertificateof
propertyagainstaregisteredownerrelyingupona TitleNo.T80889.TheRegisterofDeedsofCaviteis
Torrenstitlewhichwasillegallyorwrongfullyacquired orderedtocancerTransferCertificateofTitleNo.(T
(CaragayLaynovs.CourtofAppeals,133SCRA718).In 11520)RT1660inthenameofrespondentAntenor
actionsforreconveyanceofpropertypredicatedonthe Virata.
factthattheconveyancecomplainedofwasvoidab SOORDERED.
initio,aclaimofprescriptionoftheactionwouldbe
unavailing(Corpus,etal.vs.Beltran,etal.,97Phil.722; Narvasa,Cruz,GancaycoandGrioAquino,JJ.,concur.
Agnevs.DirectorofLands,G.R.L40399,February6,

1990,181SCRA793).Beingnullandvoid,thesalemade

toMabiniLegaspiandthesubsequenttitlesissued
pursuanttheretoproducednolegaleffectswhatsoever.
Quodnullumest,nullumproduciteffectum(Agnevs.
DirectorofLands,supra).Therebeingnotitletothe
landthatMabiniLegaspiacquiredfromthe
government,itfollowsthatnotitletothesameland
couldbeconveyedbytheformertorespondentVirata.
EvenassumingthatrespondentViratawasapurchaser
ingoodfaithandforvalue,thelawis,asbetweentwo
personsbothofwhomareingoodfaithandboth
innocentofanynegligence,thelawmustprotectand
preferthelawfulholderofregisteredtitleoverthe
transfereeofavendorbereftofanytransmissiblerights
(Baltazarvs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.78728,December8,
1988,168SCRA354,emphasisours).Furtherifaperson
happenedtoobtainpropertybymistakeortothe
prejudiceofanotherwithorwithoutbadfaith,the
certificateoftitlewhichmayhavebeenissuedtohim
underthecircumstancesmayandshouldbecancelled
orcorrected.
215
216
[G.R.No.121658.March27,1998.] ofprescriptionasthetrialcourtruledthattheactionfor
reconveyanceofrealpropertyongroundoffraudmay
NESTORLACSAMANA,*ELDORADOPLANTATION,INC., befiledwithinfour(4)yearswhereastheCourtof
LBJDEVELOPMENTCORPORATIONandCONRADC.
Appealsruledthatthepresentactionhadnotyet
LEVISTE,petitioners,vs.COURTOFAPPEALS,ESTER prescribedsinceactionstodeclarethenullityofavoid
GAITOSROBLES,LEONGAITOSROBLESandDULCE contractwasimprescriptible.TcDHSI
CLARAROBLES,respondents.
TheCourtaffirmedthedecisionofrespondent
MinervaC.Genoveaforpetitioners. appellantcourt.Ontheissueofprescription,itruled
EvenerJ.Villasantaforprivaterespondents. thatthepresentactionhasnotyetprescribedbecause
therighttofileanactionforreconveyanceonthe
SYNOPSIS groundthatthecertificateoftitlewasobtainedby
meansofafictitiousdeedofsaleisvirtuallyanaction
LeonRoblesandAmparoRoblesweretheregisteredco
forthedeclarationofitsnullity,whichactiondoesnot
ownersinequalsharesofLotNo.13535situatedinBo.
prescribe.
Inosloban,LipaCity.OnApril26,1965,Amparosoldher
onehalfundividedsharetoElDoradoCorp.(ElDorado). Neithercanthedefenseoflachesbesustained.The
Consequently,TCTNo.15261wasissuedinthenames Courtcannotseehowprivaterespondentsmaybe
ofElDoradoandLeonRoblesascoowners.On consideredguiltyoflaches.Itshouldbenotedthat
September24,1969,LeonRobles,whowasthen privaterespondents,uponlearningthattherelevant
residinginSanFrancisco,California,U.S.A.,died portionofLotNo.13535wasnolongerregisteredinthe
survivedbyhiswifeEsterGaitosRoblesandchildren nameofLeon,immediatelycausedaninvestigationto
Leon,Jr.andDulceClaraashissoleheirs.However,ina bemadeforthepurposeoffindingouttheauthorand
DeedofAbsoluteSaledatedJuly22,1971,LeonRobles thecircumstancesbehindtheexecutionofthefictitious
purportedlywiththemaritalconsentofhiswifesoldhis 1971DeedofAbsoluteSale.Thus,inlessthantwo(2)
onehalfundividedshareinthesaidlottooneNestor monthsafteritwasdiscoveredbytheNationalBureau
Lacsamana.Nineyearslater,oronJanuary22,1980, ofInvestigationthatNestorLacsamanawasinfacta
theDeedofAbsoluteSalewasregisteredintheRegistry fictitious/nonexistentperson,privaterespondents
ofDeedsofLipaCity.OnJuly22,1980,Nestor throughtheirattorneyinfactPetroniloGaitos
LacsamanapurportedlysoldhisonehalfsharetoLBJ institutedonNovember11,1983,thepresentaction,
DevelopmentCorp.(LBJ).AndonJanuary26,1982LBJ i.e.,barelythree(3)yearsandnine(9)monthsafterthe
becametheowneroftheentirelotwhenElDoradosold fraudulentregistrationonJanuary22,1980.Thus,itis
itsonehalfsharetoitssistercompanyLBJ. said,theconceptoflachesisnotconcernedwiththe
lapseoftimebutonlywiththeeffectofunreasonable
OnNovember11,1983,thesurvivingheirsofLeon
lapse.
Roblesfiledacomplaintagainstthehereinpetitioners.
DefendantsLBJandElDoradoinvokedthedefenseof PetitionersurgedtheCourttorulethatLBJwasabuyer
prescriptionand/orlachesandallegedthatLBJwasa ingoodfaith.ButtheCourtcannot.Besidesbeinga
buyeringoodfaithandforvalue. factualfindingsharedbyboththetrialcourtandthe
CourtofAppealsthatitwasnot,supportedbythe
Thetrialcourtruledinfavoroftheplaintiffs.TheCourt
evidenceonrecord,itisconclusiveupontheCourt.
ofAppealsaffirmedthefindingsandconclusionsofthe
trialcourt,withtheonlydifferenceasregardstheissue ThepetitionisDENIED.CIAHDT
217
SYLLABUS boththetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealsthatitwas
not,andsupportedbytheevidenceonrecord,itis
1. CIVILLAW;PRESCRIPTION;ACTIONFOR conclusiveuponus.
RECONVEYANCEBASEDONVOIDCONTRACT
IMPRESCRIPTIBLE.Weaffirmthedecisionofthe 4. ID.;ID.;ID.;RIGHTTORELYONTORRENSTITLE;
respondentcourt.Ontheissueofprescription,we NOTAPPLICABLEINCASEATBAR.Therulethata
agreethatthepresentactionhasnotyetprescribed persondealingwithregisteredlandhastherighttorely
becausetherighttofileanactionforreconveyanceon ontheTorrenstitlewillnotapplywhensuchpersonhas
thegroundthatthecertificateoftitlewasobtainedby actualknowledgeoffactsthatwouldimpelareasonably
meansofafictitiousdeedofsaleisvirtuallyanaction cautiousmantomakeaninquiry.Hecannotclosehis
forthedeclarationofitsnullity,whichactiondoesnot eyestosuchfactsandlaterclaimthatheactedingood
prescribed.Hence,thefactthattheallegedsaletook faith.Thus,LBJisnotentitledtothemantleof
placein1971andtheactiontohaveitdeclaredvoidor protectionaccordedbytheTorrensSystemof
inexistentwasfiledin1983isofnomoment.To registrationwhichprotectsonlythetitleholderingood
reiterate,anactionforreconveyancebasedonavoid faith.Ithasneverbeencreatedasashieldtofraud.
contractisimprescriptible.THADEI THIAaD
2. ID.;LACHES;NOTAPPLICABLEINTHECASEAT DECISION
BAR.Neithercanthedefenseoflachesbesustained.
BELLOSILLO,Jp:
Wecannotseehowprivaterespondentsmaybe
consideredguiltyoflaches.Itshouldbenotedthat ThisisapetitiontoreviewthedecisionoftheCourtof
privaterespondents,uponlearningthattherelevant AppealsaffirmingthatoftheRegionalTrialCourtinan
portionofLotNo.13535wasnolongerregisteredinthe actionbyprivaterespondentsagainstpetitionersfor
nameofLeon,immediatelycausedaninvestigationto reconveyanceandcancellationofcertificatesoftitle.1
bemadeforthepurposeoffindingouttheauthorand
thecircumstancesbehindtheexecutionofthefictitious LeonRoblesandhisnieceAmparoRobleswerethe
1971DeedofAbsoluteSale.Thus,inlessthantwo(2) registeredcoownersinequalsharesofLotNo.13535,a
monthsafteritwasdiscoveredbytheNationalBureau 56,864squaremeterpieceoflandsituatedinBo.
ofInvestigationthatNestorLacsamanawasinfacta Inosloban,LipaCity,coveredbyOCTNo.0363Rissued
fictitious/nonexistentperson,privaterespondents on3March1965bythelocalRegisterofDeeds.2
throughtheirattorneyinfactPetroniloGaitos
On26April1965Amparosoldheronehalf()
institutedonNovember11,1983,thepresentaction,
undividedsharetoElDoradoCorporation(ELDORADO).
i.e.,barelythree(3)yearsandnine(9)monthsafterthe
Consequently,OCTNo.0363RwascancelledandTCT
fraudulentregistrationonJanuary22,1980.Thus,itis
No.15261issuedinthenamesofELDORADOandLeon
said,theconceptoflachesisnotconcernedwiththe
Roblesascoowners.cdtai
lapseoftimebutonlywiththeeffectofunreasonable
lapse. On24September1969LeonRobles,whowasthen
residinginSanFrancisco,California,U.S.A.,died
3. ID.;SALES;BUYERINGOODFAITH;FINDINGSOF
survivedbyhiswifeEsterGaitosRoblesandchildren
LOWERCOURTANDCOURTOFAPPEALSASSUPPORTED
LeonJr.andDulceClaraashissoleheirs.However,ina
BYEVIDENCECONCLUSIVE.Weareurgedby
DeedofAbsoluteSaledated22July1971,LeonRobles
petitionerstorulethatLBJwasabuyeringoodfaith.
purportedlywiththemaritalconsentofhiswifeEster
Wecannot.Besidesbeingafactualfindingsharedby
218
soldhisonehalf()undividedshareinLotNo.13535to No.15261initsnameandthatofLeonRoblesthus
oneNestorLacsamana.Nine(9)yearslater,oron22 pavingthewayfortheissuanceofanewTCTinthe
January1980,theDeedofAbsoluteSalewasregistered nameofNestorLacsamanaascoownerinplaceofLeon
intheRegistryofDeedsofLipaCitybyonePhilipNeri Robles.
Gonzales.Consequently,TCTNo.15261inthenamesof
DefendantsLBJandELDORADOinvokedthedefenseof
ELDORADOandLeonRobleswascancelledandTCTNo.
46245issuedinthenamesofELDORADOandNestor prescriptionand/orlachesandallegedthatLBJwasa
buyeringoodfaithandforvalue.However,their
Lacsamana.
defenseswererejectedbythecourtaquowhichruled
On22July1980,NestorLacsamanapurportedlysoldhis thatthecomplaintfiledbyplaintiffson11November
onehalf()sharetoLBJDevelopmentCorporation 1983,i.e.,almostthree(3)yearsandnine(9)months
(LBJ)representedbyitsPresident,ConradC.Leviste.A fromthedateofregistrationofthequestionedDeedof
certainRolandoLumanglasregisteredthedeedofsale AbsoluteSaleon22January1980wastimelyfiledsince
intheRegistryofDeedsresultinginthecancellationof actionsforreconveyanceofrealpropertyongroundof
TCTNo.46245andtheissuanceofTCTNo.47475inthe fraudmaybefiledwithinfour(4)yearsfromits
namesofELDORADOandLBJ. discovery.
On26January1982LBJbecametheowneroftheentire Asregardsthesecondissue,thetrialcourtruledthat
LotNo.13535whenELDORADOsolditsonehalfshare LBJwasnotaninnocentpurchaserbecausefactsexisted
forP30,000.00.Consequently,TCTNo.47475was whichshouldhaveputitoninquiryastopossible
cancelledandTCTNos.49915to49990wereissuedin defectsinthetitleofLacsamana,e.g.,whilethe
thenameofLBJconformablywithanapproved questionedDeedofAbsoluteSalepurportedlyexecuted
consolidatedsubdivisionplan. inManilastatedthatLeonandEsterRoblespersonally
appearedbeforeNotaryPublicEngracioS.Concepcion
On11November1983Ester,LeonJr.andDulceClara, andpresentedtheirResidenceCertificatesissuedin
allsurnamedRobles,assurvivingheirsofLeonRobles, Makati,thesamedocumentshowedthatthespouses
filedacomplaintwiththeRegionalTrialCourtofLipa wereresidingat69522ndAvenue,SanFrancisco,
City3againstNestorLacsamana,ELDORADO,LBJand California,U.S.A.,anddidnotindicatethattheywere
ConradC.Levistefortherecoveryoftheonehalf
temporarilystayinginthePhilippinesatthetimeofits
undividedshareofLeoninLotNo.13535andthe execution;and,theDeedofAbsoluteSalewas
cancellationofTCTNos.49915to49990.Thecomplaint registeredintheOfficeoftheRegisterofDeedsofLipa
allegedthatthesignatureofLeonRoblesintheDeedof
Cityonlyin1980,orafterthelapseofmorethaneight
AbsoluteSaledated22July1971infavorofdefendant (8)years.Additionally,thecourtfoundthatLeonRobles
NestorLacsamanawasaforgeryasLeonwasalready
andRomanPayumo,oneofthesupposedinstrumental
deadatthetimeoftheallegedsale;thatdefendantLBJ,
witnessestothedeedofsale,werealreadydeadatthe
acorporationownedandcontrolledbytheLeviste timeoftheexecutionofthesale;4thatNestor
familywithdefendantConradC.LevisteasitsPresident, Lacsamanawasanonexistentperson;5and,thatEL
wasnotabuyeringoodfaithsincefactsexistedwhich DORADO,LeonRobles'coowneratthetimeofthe
shouldhaveputitonguardastodefectsinthetitleof allegedsaleinfavorofLacsamana,andLBJ,towhom
Lacsamana;and,thatdefendantELDORADO,likewise LacsamanapurportedlysoldLeon'sonehalfshare,were
ownedandcontrolledbytheLevistefamilywithConrad bothcorporationsownedandcontrolledbytheLeviste
C.LevisteasPresident,participatedinthefraudby
familywithdefendantConradC.Levisteasitscommon
surrenderingtheonlycoowner'sduplicatecopyofTCT
219
President.6Thus,onthebasisoftheforegoing,the presentactionhadnotyetprescribedsinceactionsto
courtaquorenderedjudgmentinfavorofplaintiffs7 declarethenullityofavoidcontractwas
thedispositiveportionofwhichread imprescriptible.
WHEREFORE,theCourtholdsthatdefendantLBJ Petitionersinsistthattheactioninstitutedbyprivate
DevelopmentCorporationisnotapurchaseringood respondentshasalreadyprescribed,butevenifithas
faith.Accordingly,theCourtherebyorderstheRegister not,itisalreadybarredbylachesandreiteratetheir
ofDeedsofLipaCitytocancelallthepresenttitles positionthatLBJwasabuyeringoodfaith.
coveringtheparceloflandformerlycoveredbyTransfer
Weaffirmthedecisionofrespondentappellatecourt.
CertificateofTitleNo.T47475inthenamesof
Ontheissueofprescription,weagreethatthepresent
defendantsElDoradoPlantation,Inc.,andLBJ
DevelopmentCorporationandtoreinstateTransfer actionhasnotyetprescribedbecausetherighttofilean
actionforreconveyanceonthegroundthatthe
CertificateofTitleNo.T15261inthenamesofLeon
certificateoftitlewasobtainedbymeansofafictitious
RoblesandElDoradoPlantation,Inc.
deedofsaleisvirtuallyanactionforthedeclarationof
Intheeventthatreconveyanceofthepropertyinvolved itsnullity,whichactiondoesnotprescribe.10Hence,
isnotpossibleduetoanysubsequenttransferofthe thefactthattheallegedsaletookplacein1971andthe
propertytothirdpersonsorpersonsnotpartiestothis actiontohaveitdeclaredvoidorinexistentwasfiledin
suit,theCourtherebyordersdefendantLBJ 1983isofnomoment.11Toreiterate,anactionfor
DevelopmentCorporationtopayplaintiffsthepresent reconveyancebasedonavoidcontractis
fairmarketvalueofplaintiffs'onehalf()shareinthe imprescriptible.12
property,whichfairmarketvalueshallbedetermined
byanappraisertobeagreeduponbytheparties,andin Neithercanthedefenseoflachesbesustained.We
caseofdisagreementthepartiesshallrecommendto cannotseehowprivaterespondentsmaybeconsidered
theCourttheappraisersoftheirchoicewhoshall guiltyoflaches.Itshouldbenotedthatprivate
appraisethepropertyjointlyandsubmitthe respondents,uponlearningthattherelevantportionof
correspondingreportforapprovalorresolutionofthe LotNo.13535wasnolongerregisteredinthenameof
Court. Leon,immediatelycausedaninvestigationtobemade
forthepurposeoffindingouttheauthorandthe
TheCourtfurtherordersdefendantsLBJDevelopment circumstancesbehindtheexecutionofthefictitious
Corporation,ElDoradoPlantation,Inc.,andConrad 1971DeedofAbsoluteSale.Thus,inlessthantwo(2)
Levistetopayjointlyandseverallyplaintiffsattorney's monthsafteritwasdiscoveredbytheNationalBureau
feesinthesumofTwentyThousandPesos(P20,000.00), ofInvestigationthatNestorLacsamanawasinfacta
sincethelatterwascompelledtoinstitutethiscaseto fictitious/nonexistentperson,13privaterespondents
protecttheirinterests,andtopaythecostsofsuit.8 throughtheirattorneyinfactPetroniloGaitos
institutedon11November1983,thepresentactioni.e.,
TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthefindingsand
barelythree(3)yearsandnine(9)monthsafterthe
conclusionsofthetrialcourtonappealbyELDORADO, fraudulentregistrationon22January1980.Thus,itis
LBJandConradC.Leviste.9Theydifferedonlyinsofar
said,theconceptoflachesisnotconcernedwiththe
astheissueofprescriptionwasconcerned.Insteadof lapseoftimebutonlywiththeeffectofunreasonable
theperiodoffour(4)yearsforfilingactionsfor
lapse.14
reconveyanceongroundoffraudcitedbythetrial
court,respondentappellatecourtruledthatthe
220
WeareurgedbypetitionerstorulethatLBJwasabuyer Therulethatapersondealingwithregisteredlandhas
ingoodfaith.Wecannot.Besidesbeingafactualfinding therighttorelyontheTorrenstitlewillnotapplywhen
sharedbyboththetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppeals suchpersonhasactualknowledgeoffactsthatwould
thatitwasnot,andsupportedbytheevidenceon impelareasonablycautiousmantomakeaninquiry.18
record,itisconclusiveuponus.15 Hecannotclosehiseyestosuchfactsandlaterclaim
thatheactedingoodfaith.19Thus,LBJisnotentitled
Three(3)reasons,atleast,militateagainstpetitioner tothemantleofprotectionaccordedbytheTorrens
LBJ'sclaimofgoodfaith.First,ConradC.Leviste,
Systemofregistrationwhichprotectsonlythetitle
PresidentofLBJ,claimedthatthecompanycameto
holderingoodfaith.Ithasneverbeencreatedasa
knowofthedisputedpropertythroughitsdriverJovito shieldtofraud.20
LacsamanawhoallegedlyintroducedhisnephewNestor
Lacsamanaasitsownerwhowasinterestedinselling WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionis
hisshareintheproperty.Onthispoint,without DENIED.ThequestioneddecisionofrespondentCourt
necessarilyunderestimatingthecapacityofdriver ofAppealsdated20July1995inCAG.R.CVNo.38246
Jovito'snephewNestortoownonehalfofa5.6hectare affirmingthatoftheRegionalTrialCourtofLipaCity
parcelofland,Leviste'scuriosityshouldhavebeen dated8April1992isAFFIRMED,withcostsagainst
arousedjustthesameastohowNestorcametoown petitioners.
hisportionoftheproperty.Therecordsfailtodisclose
anyinquiry,formalorinformal,todeterminehow SOORDERED.Cdtai
Nestoracquiredhisportion.Second,NestorLacsamana
allegedlypresentedacopyofTCTNo.46425inhis
nameandthatofELDORADOascoowners.However,it
isafactthat,astestifiedtobyRegisterofDeeds
AntonioEscutin,theonlycoowner'sduplicatecopyof
TCTNo.46425wasissuedtoELDORADO,LBJ'ssister
company.16Third,thefictitious1971DeedofAbsolute
SaleinfavorofNestorLacsamana,therootofthe
issuanceofTCTNo.46245,wasonlyregisteredmore
thaneight(8)yearslater.17
Giventheattendantcircumstances,inadditiontothe
defectsofthe1971DeedofAbsoluteSalefoundbythe
trialcourtandaffirmedbyrespondentCourtofAppeals,
petitionerLBJcannotclaimtobeabuyeringoodfaith.
ButevenifweconcedethatpetitionerLBJwasinnocent
ofthefraudperpetratedagainstprivaterespondents,
therecordsaboundwithfactswhichshouldhave
impelledittoinvestigatedeeperintothetitleof
Lacsamana,moresowhensucheffortwouldnothave
entailedadditionalhardship,nay,wouldhavebeen
quiteeasy,sincethetitledcoownerofLacsamanais
LBJ'sownsistercompanyELDORADO.
221
222
[G.R.No.L11285.May16,1958.] ofAmericanjurisprudence(madeapplicableinthis
jurisdictionbyArt.480ofthenewCivilCode)that
VICENTESAPTO,LAUREANASAPTOandDORA actionstoquiettitletopropertyinthepossessionofthe
(BAGONA),plaintiffsappellants,vs.APOLONIA
plaintiffareimprescriptible(44Am.Jur.p.47;Cooper
FABIANA,defendantappellee.
vs.Rhea,39L.R.A.930;InlandEmpireLandCo.vs.Grant
RodolfoA.TaAsanforappellants. County,138Wash.439,245Pac.14).
NapoleonB.Nideaforappellee. DECISION
SYLLABUS REYES,J.B.L.,Jp:
1. SALE;ASBETWEENTHEPARTIES,SALEISVALID Sapto(Moro),nowdeceased,wastheregisteredowner
ANDBINDINGEVENWITHOUTREGISTRATION; ofaparceloflandlocatedinAlambre,Toril,DavaoCity,
PURPOSESOFREGISTRATION.Asbetweentheparties underTransferCertificateofTitleNo.T5701(028)of
toasale,registrationisnotnecessarytomakeitvalid theRegisterofDeedsofDavaoCity.WhenSaptodied,
andeffective,foractualnoticeisequivalentto helefthischildrenSamuel,Constancio,andRamonas
registration."Thepurposeofregistrationismerelyto heirsofthepropertyinquestion.Ramonpredeceased
notifytheinterestsofstrangerstoagiventransaction, histwobrothers,leavingnootherheirs.OnJune6,
whomaybeignorantthereof,andthenonregistration 1931,SamuelandConstancioSaptoexecutedadeedof
ofthedeedevidencingsaidtransactiondoesnotrelieve saleofaportionoffourhectaresoftheland
thepartiestheretooftheirobligationthereunder." aforementionedinfavorofdefendantApolonio
(Casicavs.Villaseca,L9590,April30,1957).Inthesale Fabiana,inconsiderationoftheamountofP245.00.The
inquestion,norightofinnocentthirdpersonshaving salewasdulyapprovedbytheProvincialGovernorof
beeninvolved,theconveyancebetweentheappellee Davao,butwasneverregistered.Possessionoftheland
andhisvendors,althoughnotregistered,isvalidand conveyedwas,however,transferredtoFabianaandthe
bindinguponthelatteraswellasuponhisheirs. latterhasbeeninthepossessionthereoffrom1931up
tothepresent.
2. ID.;ID.;DELIVERYOFPOSSESSION
CONSUMMATESTHESALE;WHENACTIONFOR Thereafter,ConstancioSaptodiedwithoutanyissue,
CONVEYANCEEQUIVALENTTOQUITETITLE.Inthe SamuelSaptomarriedoneDora(Bagoba)anduponhis
caseatbar,noenforcementofthecontractisneeded, deathwassurvivedbyhiswidowandtwochildren,
sincethedeliveryofpossessionofthelandsold LaureanaandVicenteSapto.OnOctober19,1954,the
consummatedthesaleandtransferredtitletothe widowandchildrenofSamuelSaptofiledthisactionin
purchaser,registrationofthecontractnotbeing theCourtofFirstInstanceofDavaofortherecoveryof
indispensableasbetweentheparties.Actuallythe theparceloflandsoldbytheirpredecessorsto
actionforconveyancewasonetoquiettitle,i.e.,to defendantApolonioFabianain1931.Aftertrial,the
removethecloudcastuponappellee'sownershipby lowercourtheldthatalthoughthesalebetweenSamuel
therefusaloftheappellantstorecognizethesalemade andConstancioSaptoanddefendantin1931wasnever
bytheirpredecessors.Thisactionaccruedonlywhen registered,itwasvalidandbindinguponthepartiesand
appellantsinitiatedtheirsuittorecovertheland. thevendors'heirs,andorderedtheplaintiffstoexecute
thenecessarydeedofconveyanceindefendant'sfavor
3. ID.;ID.;ACTIONTOQUITETITLE,WHENNOT anditsannotationinthecertificateoftitle.Fromthis
PRESCRIPTIBLE.Furthermore,itisanestablishedrule judgment,plaintiffsappealedtothisCourt.
223
Theissueiswhetherthedeedofsaleexecutedby herein.Thepropertyhasremainedandstillisinthe
appellants'predecessorsinfavoroftheappelleeover possessionofthevendeeofappellants'predecessors,
thelandinquestion,althoughneverregistered,isvalid hereinappellee.Itis,therefore,clearthatthe
andbindingonappellantsandoperatedtoconveytitle conveyancebetweenappelleeandhisvendorsisvalid
andownershiptotheappellee. andbindinguponthelatter,andisequallybindingand
effectiveagainsttheheirsofthevendors,herein
Thequestionisnotnew.Inalonglineofcasesalready appellants.Toholdotherwisewouldmakeofthe
decidedbythisCourt,wehaveconsistentlyinterpreted
Torrenssystemashieldforthecommissionoffraudby
sec.50oftheLandRegistrationActprovidingthat"no
thevendorsorhisheirs(Gustilovs.Maravilla,48Phil.,
deed...shalltakeeffectasaconveyanceorbindthe 442),whowouldthenbeabletoreconveythesame
land,butshalloperateonlyasacontractbetweenthe propertytootherpersons.
partiesandasevidenceofauthoritytotheclerkor
registerofdeedstomakeregistration"inthesensethat Appellantsciteseveralcaseswhereinwehaveheldthat
asbetweenthepartiestoasaleregistrationisnot undertheTorrenssystem,registrationistheoperative
necessarytomakeitvalidandeffective,foractual actthatgivesvaliditytothetransferorcreatesalien
noticeisequivalenttoregistration(ObrasPiasvs. upontheland.Theauthoritiescitedrefer,however,to
DeveraIgnacio,17Phil.,45;Gustilovs.Maravilla,48 casesinvolvingconflictingrightsoverregistered
Phil.,442;Quimsonvs.Surez,45Phil.,901;Winkleman propertyandthoseofinnocenttransfereeswhorelied
vs.Veluz,43Phil.,609;Galasinaovs.Austria,51Off. onthecleantitlesofthepropertiesinquestion.These
Gaz.No.6,2874;Carillovs.Salak,91Phil.,265)."The caseshave,therefore,nobearingontheinstantcase,
peculiarforceofatitleunderActNo.492",wesaidin wheretheappelleehasalwaysremainedinthe
Medinavs.ImazandWarnerBarnes&Co.,27Phil.,314 possessionofthelandinquestionandnosubsequent
(syllabus),"isexhibitedonlywhenthepurchaserhas transferthereoftootherpersonshasbeenmadeeither
soldtoinnocentthirdpartiesthelanddescribedinthe byappellantsortheirpredecessorsininterest.
conveyance.Generallyspeaking,asbetweenvendor
Theappellantsaverthatitwaserrortorequirethemto
andvendee,thesamerightsandremediesexistin
executeadeedofconveyanceinfavoroftheplaintiff
relationtolandnotsoregistered".InGalanzavs.Nuesa,
95Phil.,713,weheldthat"registrationisintendedto appellee,andarguethatthelatter'sactiontoobtainit
protectthebuyeragainstclaimsofthirdpersonsarising hadlongprescribed,twentyyearshavingelapsedsince
fromsubsequentalienationsbythevendor,andis theoriginalsale.Thiscontentionmustbeoverruled,
certainlynotnecessarytogiveeffectasbetweenthe beingpredicatedontheassumptionthatthe
partiestotheirdeedofsale".Andintherecentcaseof reconveyanceissoughtbywayofperformanceofthe
Casicavs.Villaseca,G.R.No.L9590,April30,1957,we contractofsaleenteredintoin1931.Noenforcement
reiteratedthat"thepurposeofregistrationismere]yto ofthecontractisinfactneeded,sincethedeliveryof
notifyandprotecttheinterestsofstrangerstoagiven possessionofthelandsoldhadconsummatedthesale
andtransferredtitletothepurchaser,registrationof
transaction,whomaybeignorantthereof,andthenon
thecontractnotbeingindispensableasbetweenthe
registrationofthedeedevidencingsaidtransaction
parties.Actuallytheactionforconveyancewasoneto
doesnotrelievethepartiestheretooftheirobligations
thereunder". quiettitle,i.e.,toremovethecloudcastuponappellee's
ownershipbytherefusaloftheappellantstorecognize
Norightofinnocentthirdpersonsorsubsequent thesalemadebytheirpredecessors.Thisaction
transfereesofthepropertyinquestionisinvolved accruedonlywhenappellantsinitiatedtheirsuitto
224
recoverthelandin1954.Furthermore,itisan
establishedruleofAmericanjurisprudence(made
applicableinthisjurisdictionbyArt.480oftheNewCivil
Code)thatactionstoquiettitletopropertyinthe
possessionoftheplaintiffareimprescriptible(44Am.
Jur.p.47;Coopervs.Rhea,39L.R.A.930;Inland
EmpireLandCo.vs.GrantCounty,138Wash.439,245
Pac.14).
"Theprevailingruleisthattherightofaplaintifftohave
histitletolandquieted,asagainstonewhoisasserting
someadverseclaimorlienthereon,isnotbarredwhile
theplaintifforhisgrantorsremaininactualpossession
oftheland,claimingtobeownersthereof,thereason
forthisrulebeingthatwhiletheownerinfeecontinues
liabletoanaction,proceeding,orsuitupontheadverse
claim,hehasacontinuingrighttotheaidofacourtof
equitytoascertainanddeterminethenatureofsuch
claimanditseffectonhistitle,ortoassertanysuperior
equityinhisfavor.Hemaywaituntilhispossessionis
disturbedorhistitleisattackedbeforetakingstepsto
vindicatehisright.Buttherulethatthestatuteof
limitationsisnotavailableasadefensetoanactionto
removeacloudfromtitlecanonlybeinvokedbya
complaintwhenheisinpossession.Onewhoclaims
propertywhichisinthepossessionofanothermust,it
seems,invokehisremedywithinthestatutoryperiod."
(44Am.Jur.,p.47)
Wherefore,thejudgmentappealedfromisaffirmed.
Costsagainstappellants.Soordered.
Paras,C.J.,Bengzon,Montemayor,Reyes,A.,Bautista
Angelo,Labrador,Concepcion,EndenciaandFelix,JJ.,
concur.
225
226
[G.R.No.L9335.October31,1956.] thesaleoffreepatentsisforaperiodofsevenyears
(section35,ActNo.926);afterthatperiodoftimea
CONCORDIAMEJIADELUCAS,plaintiffappellee,vs. patenteewouldbefreetodisposeoftheland.Within
ANDRESGAMPONIA,defendantappellant.
sevenyearsfromtheconveyancetheoriginalpatentee
PedroC.Floresforappellee. maybringanactiontorecoverbackhisproperty.Inthe
presentcase,theaction,torecoverbacktheproperty
LuisC.Ranonforappellant. soldwasfiledafterthelapseof37years.Itwas
certainlynaturalforthepurchasertohaveassumed
SYLLABUS
thattheoriginalpatenteegaveuphisrighttorecover
1. REGISTEREDLANDACQUISITIONOFTITLEBY backthepropertyandacquiescedinvendee'srightand
PRESCRIPTION,PROHIBITED;WHENREGISTERED title.Thesuccessorininterestoftheoriginalpurchaser
OWNERBARREDFROMRECOVERINGPOSSESSIONOF mustalsohavebelievedingoodfaiththatthepatents
PROPERTY;APPLICATIONOFEQUITABLEPRINCIPLEOF andhissuccessorsininterestwerereconciledtothe
LACHES.Whilethedefendantmaynotbeconsidered ideaofallowingthepropertytostayinthehandsofthe
ashavingacquiredtitledbyvirtueofhisandhis purchasertowhomthelandwassoldandinthehands
predecessors'longcontinuedpossession(37years)the ofhissuccessorsininterest.
originalowner'srighttorecoverbackthepossessionof
DECISION
thepropertyandthetitletheretofromthedefendant
had,bythelatter'slongperiodofpossessionandby LABRADOR,Jp:
patentee'sinactionandneglect,beenconvertedintoa
staledemand. AppealfromthejudgmentoftheCourtofFirstInstance
ofNuevaVizcaya,HonorableJosedeVenecia,presiding,
2. ID.;ID.;ID.;EQUITABLEDEFENSEOFLACHES, andappealeddirectlytothiscourtasjudgmentwas
ELEMENTSOF.Theequitabledefenserequiresfour renderedonastipulationoffactsandonlyquestionsof
elements:(1)conductonthepartofthedefendant,or lawareraisedintheappeal.
ofoneunderwhomheclaims,givingrisetothe
situationofwhichcomplaintismadeandforwhichthe Bythestipulationofthepartiesitappearsthaton
complaintseeksaremedy;(2)delayinassertingthe March13,1916,freepatentNo.3699wasissuedover
complaint'srights,thecomplainthavinghadknowledge thelandsubjectoftheactioninthenameofDomingo
ornoticeofthedefendantsconductandhavingbeen Mejia.ThispatentwastranscribedintheOfficeofthe
affordedanopportunitytoinstituteasuit;(3)lackof RegisterofDeedsofNuevaVizcayaonJuly26,1916and
knowledgeornoticeonthepartofthedefendantthat certificateoftitleNo.380issuedinthenameof
thecomplainantwouldasserttherightonwhichhe DomingoMejia.OnMarch24,1916,aftertheissuance
baseshissuit;and(4)injuryorprejudicetothe ofthepatentbutbeforetheregistrationofthesame,
defendantintheeventreliefisaccordedtothe patenteeDomingoMejiadeededthelandtoZacarias
complaint,orthesuitisnotheldtobebarred.(GoChi Ciscar,whoimmediatelytookpossessionthereofand
Gun,etal.vs.CoChe,etal.,96Phil.,622). enjoyeditsfruits.Uponhisdeaththepropertywas
includedinthedistributionofhisestateand
3. FREEPATENTS;SALEOFSALE;SALEWITHIN adjudicatedtoRoqueSanchez.RoqueSanchezinturn
SEVENYEARPERIOD,PROHIBITEDPERIODWITHIN soldthelandonJanuary21,1940toAndresGamponia,
WHICHORIGINALPATENTEEMAYBRINGACTIONTO defendantherein.Sanchezwasinpossessionand
RECOVERPROPERTYSOLD.Theprohibitionagainst enjoymentofthelandfromthetimeheacquireditby
227
inheritancefromCiscaruptothetimehesolditto laches.Otherwise,stated,weholdthatwhiledefendant
defendantAndresGamponia,thelatterhasalso maynotbeconsideredashavingacquiredtitlebyvirtue
possessedandenjoyedthepropertyfromthetimehe ofhisandhispredecessors'longcontinuedpossession
boughtittodate. for37years,theoriginalowner'srighttorecoverback
thepossessionofthepropertyandthetitlethereto
DomingoMejia,uponhisdeath,leftnodescendantsor
fromthedefendanthas,bythelongperiodof37years
ascendantsandhisonlysurvivingkinwashisbrother andbypatentee'sinactionandneglect,beenconverted
PedroMejia.PedroMejiaisnowalsodeadandis
intoastaledemand.
survivedbyhisdaughterConcordiaMejiadeLucas,
plaintiffherein.Upontheabovefactsthecourtaquo InGoChiGun,etal.,vs.CoCho,etal.,(96Phil.,622)we
heldthatthesalebythepatenteetoZacariasCiscaris heldthattheequitabledefenseoflachesrequiresfour
nullandvoid,asthesalewasmadeonly11daysafter elements:(1)conductonthepartofthedefendant,or
theissuanceofapatentinviolationoftheprovisionsof ofoneunderwhomheclaims,givingrisetothe
section35ofActNo.926.TheCourtfurtherheldthat situationofwhichcomplaintismadeandforwhichthe
sincethelandisregisteredlandnotitleinderogationto complaintseeksaremedy;(2)delayinassertingthe
thatoftheregisteredownercouldhavebeenacquired complainant'srights,thecomplainanthavinghad
eitherbyZacariasCiscarorhissuccessorsininterest, knowledgeornotice,ofthedefendant'sconductand
namely,RoqueSanchezanddefendantAndres havingbeenaffordedanopportunitytoinstituteasuit,
Gamponia. (3)lackofknowledgeornoticeonthepartofthe
defendantthatthecomplainantwouldasserttheright
Themaindefensepresentedintheanswer,isthat onwhichhebaseshissuit;and(4)injuryorprejudiceto
plaintiff'srightofactionhasalreadyprescribedby thedefendantintheeventreliefisaccordedtothe
virtueofthepossessionofthelandbythedefendant complainant,orthesuitisnotheldtobebarred.
andhispredecessorsininterestforaperiodof37years.
Thisdefensewasoverruledbythecourtaquoonthe Allthefourelementsmentionedabovearepresentin
groundthatasthelandisregistered,withacertificate thecaseatbar.Thefirstelementispresentbecauseon
oftitleinthenameofpatenteeDomingoMejia,title March24,1916DomingoMejiasoldthelandwhichwas
theretomaynotbeacquiredbythedefendantandhis coveredbyafreepatenttitledatedMarch13,1916and
predecessorsininterestagainstsaidregisteredowner. saidsaleorconveyancewasmadeinviolationof
ThisrulingisevidentlybasedonSection46oftheLand Section35ofthePublicLandAct.Thesecondelementis
RegistrationAct,whichprovidesthat"notitleto alsopresentbecausefromthedateofthesaleon
registeredlandinderogationtothatoftheregistered March24,1916thepatenteeandvendorDomingo
ownershallbeacquiredbyprescriptionoradverse Mejiacouldhaveinstitutedtheactiontoannulthe
possession. conveyanceandobtainbackthepossessionand
ownershipoftheland,butnotwithstandingthe
Uponacarefulconsiderationofthefactsand apparentinvalidityofthesale,neitherpatenteenorhis
circumstances,weareconstrainedtofind,however, successorsininterest,hisbrother,orthelatter's
thatwhilenolegaldefensetotheactionlies,an daughter,plaintiffherein,whoshouldhaveknownof
equitableoneliesinfavorofthedefendantandthatis, theinvalidityofthesalebecauseitisamatteroflaw
theequitabledefenseoflaches.Noholdthatthe andhadalltheopportunitytoinstituteanactionforthe
defenseofprescriptionoradversepossessionin annulmentofthesale,institutednosuittoannulthe
derogationofthetitleoftheregisteredownerDomingo
saleortorecoverthelandforaperiodof37years.
Mejiadoesnotlie,butthatoftheequitabledefenseof
228
Againthedefendantandhispredecessorsininterest, theoriginalsalewouldentailuponsomanysuccessive
theoriginalvendeeandpurchaserZacariasCiscar,as owners,theequitableprinciplenowstandsupasabar.
wellasvendee'ssuccessorsininterest,RoqueSanchez,
"Thereasonuponwhichtheruleisbasedisnotalone
andlater,AndresGamponia,neverexpectedor
thelapseoftimeduringwhichtheneglecttoenforce
believedthattheoriginalpatenteeorhissuccessorsin
therighthasexisted,butthechangesofcondition
interestwouldbringanactiontoannulthesale.These
circumstancesconstitutethethirdelementoflaches. whichmayhavearisenduringtheperiodinwhichthere
hasbeenneglect.Inotherwords,whereacourtof
Thefourthelementisalsopresent,notonlybecause
equityfindsthatthepositionofthepartieshasto
ZacariasCiscarpaidforthelandbutthissamelandwas
dividedamongtheheirsofZacariasCiscarinthe changethatequitablereliefcannotbeaffordedwithout
proceedingsforthesettlementofhisestate(CivilCase doinginjustice,orthattheinterveningrightsofthird
No.301oftheCourtofFirstInstanceofNuevaVizcaya) personsmaybedestroyedorseriouslyimpaired,itwill
andRoqueSanchez,towhomthelandwasadjudicated, notexertitsequitablepowersinordertosaveonefrom
soldthepropertyforP800tothepresentdefendant theconsequencesofhisownneglect."(PennMutual
AndresGamponia.AllofthesetransferfromZacarias LifeInc.Co.,etal.,vs.CityofAustinetal.,U.S.962.)
Ciscartohisheirs,toRoqueSanchezandtodefendant Ineffect,theprincipleisoneofestoppelbecauseit
AndresGamponia,actswhichcoveredaperiodof37 preventspeoplewhohavesleptontheirrightsfrom
years,wouldallhavetobeundoneandtherespective prejudicingtherightsofthirdpartieswhohaveplaced
rightsandobligationsofthepartiesaffectedadjusted, relianceontheinactionoftheoriginalpatenteeandhis
unlessthedefenseissustained. successorsininterest.
Itistobenotedthatalltheabovecomplicationswould Theequitabledefenseoflacheshasbeenheldtoexist
neverhadbeenoccasionedhadtheoriginalpatentee inthisjurisdictionforperiodslessthantheperiodinthe
andhissuccessorsininterestnotsleptontheirrights caseatbar.ThusinthecaseofGonzalesvs.Directorof
formorethanageneration.Addtothisthefactthatthe Lands,52Phil.895,itwasheldinacadastralcasethat
originalconveyancemadebythepatenteeisnot theownerofalotwhofailedtoappearinthe
absolutelynullandvoid.Theprohibitionagainstthe proceedings,asaresultofwhichhislandwasdeclared
saleoffreepatentsisforaperiodofsevenyears publicproperty,whobringsanaction10yearslater,is
(Section35,ActNo.926);afterthatperiodoftimea guiltyoflachesandinexcusablenegligenceandhis
patenteewouldbefreetodisposeoftheland.Within actionunderSection513oftheCodeofCivilProcedure
sevenyearsfromtheconveyancetheoriginalpatentee cannolongerbemaintained.Inanothercasewherethe
couldhavebroughtanactiontorecoverbackhis plaintiffloanedmoneytoacoupleandwhenthewife
property.Sincenothingofthissortwasdonebyhim,it diedandtheconjugalpropertiesdividedbetweenher
wascertainlynaturalforthepurchasetohaveassumed heirsandherhusband,thevendordidnotpresenthis
thattheoriginalpatenteegaveuphisrighttorecover claimagainsttheestateandonlydidsofouryearslater
backthepropertyandacquiescedinvendee'srightand againstthewidower,itwasheldthatthelenderwas
title.Thesuccessorininterestoftheoriginalpurchaser guiltyoflachesinsofarastheestateofthedeceased
mustalsohavebelievedingoodfaiththatthepatentee spouseisconcernedbecauseitwouldbeinequitable
andhissuccessorsininterestwerereconciledtothe andunjusttopermithimtoreviveanyclaimswhichhe
ideaofallowingthepropertytostayinthehandsofthe mayhavehad,whichclaimshedidnotpresentduring
successorsininterest.Bythisinactionforaperiodof37 thedistributionoftheestateofthedeceasedwife.
yearstotheconsequentprejudicethatannulmentof (Yapticovs.MarinaYulo,etal.,57Phil.,818).Inathird
229
case(Kambalvs.DirectorofLands,62Phil.,293),
cadastralproceedingsforcompulsoryregistrationof
certainparcelsoflandinCotabatowereinstituted.
Theseproceedingsincludedtwolandsbelongingtothe
petitioner.Petitionerfailedtoclaimsaidlandsinsaid
proceedingsandin1917thetitlestothelandsofthe
petitionerwerecancelled.Petitionerallegesthathe
cametoknowbyaccidentofthecancellationofhis
titlesintheyear1933or1935.Itwasheldthatbecause
ofthelapseof16yearsfromthedatethedecisionwas
renderedinthesaidregistrationcasetothefilingofthe
petition,noreliefcanbegrantedthepetitionerashe
hasbeenguiltyoflaches.Inthethreecasesdecided
previouslybythisCourt,theperiodsofinactionwere
from10to16years.Inthecaseatbaritwasafull
periodof37years.
Thejudgmentappealedfromisherebyreversedand
oneisherebyenteredabsolvingthedefendantfromthe
action.Withoutcosts.
Paras,C.J.,Padilla,Montemayor,BautistaAngelo,
Concepcion,Reyes,J.B.L.,EndenciaandFelix,JJ.,
concur.
230
[G.R.No.138660.February5,2004.] petitionforintervention,whichtheCourthadalready
denied,constitutedforumshoppingandconsideredas
HEIRSOFTRINIDADDELEONVDA.DEROXAS, anabuseoftheCourt'sprocessesequivalenttodirect
petitioners,vs.COURTOFAPPEALSandMAGUESUN
contempt.Thegeneralruleisthatacorporationandits
MANAGEMENTANDDEVELOPMENTCORPORATION, officersandagentsmaybeheldliableforcontempt.
respondents.
SYLLABUS
AbelloConcepcionRegalaandCruzforpetitioners.
1. REMEDIALLAW;SPECIALCIVILACTIONS;
PonceEnrileReyesandManalastasforMaguesunMgt., CONTEMPTOFCOURT;DEFINEDANDCONSTRUED.
etc. InHalili,etal.vs.CIR,etal.,thisCourtexplainedthe
R.A.S.DizonLawOfficeforMeycauayanControl,etc. conceptofcontemptofcourt:Contemptofcourtisa
defianceoftheauthority,justiceordignityofthecourt;
SYNOPSIS suchconductastendstobringtheauthorityand
administrationofthelawintodisrespectortointerfere
TheSupremeCourtawardedthesubjecttwoparcelsof
withorprejudicepartieslitigantortheirwitnesses
landtothehereinpetitionersinapreviousdecision
duringlitigation(12Am.Jur.389,citedin14SCRA813).
whichbecamefinalandexecutory.MeycauayanCentral
Contemptofcourtisdefinedasadisobediencetothe
RealtyCorporation(Meycauayan),claimingtobea
Courtbyactinginoppositiontoitsauthority,justiceand
purchaseringoodfaith,wantedtoretainownershipof
someportionsofthesubjectland.Hence,afterits
motionforinterventionwasdeniedbytheCourtand
tendstobringtheauthorityofthecourtandthe
theirderivativetitleswerecancelledbytheRegisterof
administrationoflawintodisreputeorinsomemanner
DeedsofTagaytayCity,itfiledacomplaintfor
toimpedethedueadministrationofjustice(17C.J.S.4).
reconveyance,damagesandquietingoftitleagainst
petitionersandseveralothers.Thecomplaintfiledwas
almostanexactreproductionofthepetitionfor
interventionitpreviouslyfiledbeforetheSupreme
Court.Asaresult,petitionerfiledthispetitiontocitefor
indirectcontempttheofficersofMeycauayan.DHTCaI
TheSupremeCourtfoundMeycauayan'sexecutivevice DirectorofPrisons,58Phil.271;InreKelly,35Phil.944;
presidentguiltyofindirectcontempt.Also,theCourt CommissionerofImmigrationvs.Cloribel,20SCRA
foundthatMeycauayancommittedforumshoppingand 1241;Montalbanvs.Canonoy,38SCRA1).
thusMeycauayananditsexecutivevicepresidentwere Meycauayan'scontinuingresistancetothisCourt's
guiltyofdirectcontempt.AccordingtotheCourt, judgmentisanaffronttotheCourtandtothesovereign
Meycauayan'sdefiancetoitsdecisionandresolutionby dignitywithwhichitisclothed.Meycauayan's
filinganactionforreconveyanceinvolvingthesame persistentattemptstoraiseissueslongsincelaidtorest
parcelsoflandwhichtheCourtpreviouslydecidedwith byafinalandexecutoryjudgmentofnolessthanthe
finalityconstitutedindirectcontemptundertheRulesof highesttribunalofthelandconstitutecontumacious
CivilProcedure.Inthisconnection,theCourtalsoheld defianceoftheauthorityofthisCourtandimpedethe
thatMeycauayan'sactoffilingacomplaintfor speedyadministrationofjustice.EAHDac
reconveyanceraisingthesameissuesasitdidinits
231
2. ID.;CIVILPROCEDURE;JUDGMENT;RES 3. CIVILLAW;PROPERTY;PURCHASEROFLAND
JUDICATA;ELEMENTS;CONSTRUED.Wellsettledis MUSTGOBEYONDCERTIFICATEOFTITLEWHERETHE
therulethatwhenacourtofcompetentjurisdictionhas SAMEISINPOSSESSIONOFAPERSONOTHERTHANTHE
triedanddecidedarightorfact,solongasthedecision VENDOR;RATIONALE.Wherethelandsoldisinthe
remainsunreversed,itisconclusiveonthepartiesand possessionofapersonotherthanthevendor,the
thoseinprivitywiththem.MoresowheretheSupreme purchasermustgobeyondthecertificatesoftitleand
CourthasalreadydecidedtheissuesincetheCourtis makeinquiriesconcerningtherightsoftheactual
thefinalarbiterofalljusticiablecontroversiesproperly possessor.Indeed,onewhobuyspropertywithfull
broughtbeforeit.AsheldinBuayav.Stronghold knowledgeoftheflawsanddefectsofthetitleofhis
InsuranceCo.,Inc.:...Anexistingfinaljudgmentor vendorandofapendinglitigationovertheproperty
decreerendereduponthemerits,withoutfraudor gamblesontheresultofthelitigationandisboundby
collusion,byacourtofcompetentjurisdictionacting theoutcomeofhisindifference.Apurchasercannot
uponamatterwithinitsauthorityisconclusiveofthe closehiseyestofactswhichshouldputareasonable
rightsofthepartiesandtheirprivies.Thisrulingholdsin manonguardandthenclaimthatheactedingoodfaith
allotheractionsorsuits,inthesameoranyother believingthattherewasnodefectinthetitleofthe
judicialtribunalofconcurrentjurisdiction,touchingon vendor.SDATEc
thepointsormattersinissueinthefirstsuit....Courts
willsimplyrefusetoreopenwhathasbeendecided. 4. REMEDIALLAW;ACTIONS;FORUMSHOPPING;
DEFINED.Forumshoppingistheactofaparty
Theywillnotallowthesamepartiesortheirpriviesto
againstwhomanadversejudgmenthasbeenrendered
litigateanewaquestion,onceithasbeenconsidered
anddecidedwithfinality.Litigationsmustendand inoneforum,seekinganotherandpossiblyfavorable
terminatesometimeandsomewhere.Theeffectiveand opinioninanotherforumotherthanbyappealor
efficientadministrationofjusticerequiresthatoncea specialcivilactionofcertiorari.Thereisalsoforum
judgmenthasbecomefinal,theprevailingpartyshould shoppingwhenapartyinstitutestwoormoreactions
notbedeprivedofthefruitsoftheverdictby basedonthesamecauseontheexpectationthatoneor
subsequentsuitsonthesameissuesfiledbythesame theothercourtmightlookwithfavorontheparty.
parties.Thisisinaccordancewiththedoctrineofres 5. ID.;SPECIALCIVILACTIONS;CONTEMPTOF
judicatawhichhasthefollowingelements:(1)the COURT;CORPORATION,ITSOFFICERSANDAGENTS
formerjudgmentmustbefinal;(2)thecourtwhich MAYBEHELDLIABLEFORCONTEMPT.Thegeneral
renderedithadjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterand ruleisthatacorporationanditsofficersandagentsmay
theparties;(3)thejudgmentmustbeonthemerits; beheldliableforcontempt.Acorporationandthose
and(4)theremustbebetweenthefirstandthesecond whoareofficiallyresponsiblefortheconductofits
actions,identityofparties,subjectmatterandcausesof affairsmaybepunishedforcontemptindisobeying
action.Theapplicationofthedoctrineofresjudicata judgments,decrees,orordersofacourtmadeinacase
doesnotrequireabsoluteidentityofpartiesbutmerely withinitsjurisdiction.ACaDTH
substantialidentityofparties.Thereissubstantial
identityofpartieswhenthereiscommunityofinterest 6. ID.;ID.;ID.;PENALTY.UnderSection1of
orprivityofinterestbetweenapartyinthefirstanda Rule71oftheRulesofCourt,directcontemptis
partyinthesecondcaseevenifthefirstcasedidnot punishablebyafinenotexceedingtwothousandpesos
impleadthelatter. (P2,000)orimprisonmentnotexceedingten(10)days,
orboth,ifcommittedagainstaRegionalTrialCourtora
courtofequivalentorhigherrank.Hence,Meycauayan
232
anditsExecutiveVicePresidentJuanM.Lamson,Jr.are nowformingpartoftheRecordsofLRCNo.TG373,is
eachfinedP2,000fordirectcontemptofcourtfor awardedtohereinpetitionerTrinidaddeLeonvda.de
forumshopping. Roxasandherheirs,hereinsubstitutedaspetitioners.
UponfinalityofthisDecision,theLandRegistration
DECISION
AuthorityisherebydirectedtoISSUEwithreasonable
CARPIO,Jp: dispatchthecorrespondingdecreeofregistrationand
certificateoftitlepursuanttoSection39ofPresidential
TheCase DecreeNo.1529.2
Thisisapetitiontociteforindirectcontemptthe On22May1997,MeycauayanfiledaPetitionfor
officersofMeycauayanCentralRealtyCorporation InterventioninG.R.No.118436.Meycauayanalleged
("Meycauayan")fordefyingthefinalandexecutory thaton14May1992,itpurchasedthreeparcelsofland
DecisionandResolutionofthisCourtinG.R.No.118436 fromMaguesunwhichformpartoftheproperty
entitled"HeirsofManuelA.RoxasandTrinidaddeLeon awardedtotheheirsofTrinidaddeLeonVda.DeRoxas
Vda.DeRoxasv.CourtofAppealsandMaguesun RoTasheirs").Meycauayancontendedthatsinceitisa
Management&DevelopmentCorporation"("G.R.No. purchaseringoodfaithandforvalue,theCourtshould
118436").1cSIADH affordittheopportunitytobeheard.Meycauayan
contendsthattheadversedecisioninG.R.No.118436
TheAntecedents
cannotimpairitsrightsasapurchaseringoodfaithand
ThispetitionstemsfromacasefiledbyTrinidaddeLeon forvalue.
Vda.DeRoxastosetasidethedecreeofregistration
On25June1997,thisCourtdeniedthePetitionfor
overtwounregisteredparcelsoflandinTagaytayCity
Intervention.ThisCourtalsodeniedtheMotionfor
grantedtoMaguesunManagementandDevelopment
ReconsiderationfiledbyMaguesun.Thus,on21August
Corporation("Maguesun")beforetheRegionalTrial
1997,theDecisiondated21March1997inG.R.No.
Courtonthegroundofactualfraud.Thetrialcourt
118436becamefinalandexecutory.
dismissedthepetitiontosetasidethedecreeof
registration.Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsdeniedthe On13April1998,theLandRegistrationAuthority
petitionforreviewandaffirmedthefindingsofthetrial ("LRA")submittedaReporttotheRegionalTrialCourt
court.On21March1997,thisCourtreversedthe ofTagaytayCity,Branch18("landregistrationcourt"),
appellatecourt'sdecisioninG.R.No.118436.The inLRCaseNo.TG373,prayingthatthelandregistration
dispositiveportionreads: court:
WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisherebyGRANTED. a) OrdertheLRAtocancelDecreeNo.N197092in
TheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinC.A.G.R.CVNo. thenameofMaguesuntoenableittoissueanother
38328("TrinidaddeLeonVda.deRoxasv.Maguesun decreeinfavoroftheheirsofManuelA.Roxasand
Management&DevelopmentCorporation,etal.") TrinidaddeLeonVda.deRoxas;
promulgatedonDecember8,1994isherebyREVERSED
ANDSETASIDE.Accordingly,registrationoftitleover b) OrdertheRegisterofDeedstocancelOCTNo.
thesubjectparcelsofland,describedinPlanAS04 0515andallitsderivativetitles;and
000108,LotNos.7231and7239,withanareaof3,461
c) OrdertheissuanceoftheDecreewithrespect
and10,674squaremeters,respectively,asshownand tothedecisionoftheSupremeCourtdated21March
supportedbythecorrespondingtechnicaldescriptions
1997.
233
Meycauayanfiledwiththelandregistrationcourta intendedthatthesameparceloflandshallbecovered
"MotionForLeaveToInterveneAndForPeriodOfTime bymorethanonecertificateoftitle.
ToFileOppositionToTheReportDatedMarch25,1998
c) Whetheranorderfromthetrialcourtis
FiledByTheLRAAndToFileComplaintinIntervention."
necessarybeforetheLRAcancomplywiththeSupreme
On4June1998,theRoxasheirsfiledaMotionfor CourtdecisiondirectingtheLRA"toissuewith
ClarificationwiththisCourtraisingthefollowingissues: reasonabledispatchthecorrespondingdecreeof
DCcTHa registrationandcertificateoftitle"infavoroftheRoxas
heirs?
a) Whetheritisnecessaryforthetrialcourttofirst
ordertheLRA"tocancelDecreeNo.N197092inthe On23June1998,theRoxasheirsfiledaSupplementto
nameofMaguesunManagementandDevelopment MotionforClarification,thepertinentportionsofwhich
Corporationtoenable(theLRA)toissueanotherdecree are:
infavoroftheHeirsofManuelA.RoxasandTrinidadde
LeonVda.deRoxas"?Oristhatordernecessarily 1. Inpetitioners'MotionforClarification,oneof
includedinthedispositiveportionoftheSupremeCourt theitemssoughttobeclarifiediswhetherthe
decisiondirectingtheLRA"toissuewithreasonable derivativetitles(i.e.,thetitlesderivedfromMaguesun
ManagementandDevelopmentCorporation's
dispatchthecorrespondingdecreeofregistrationand
certificateoftitle"infavoroftheRoxasheirs?Please ["Maguesun"]OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.0515and
issuedtoMeycauayanCentralRealtyCorp.)shouldbe
notethatthisnecessaryimplicationisaconsequenceof
canceled,togetherwithMaguesun'scertificatesoftitle,
theSupremeCourtfindingthatthedecreeinfavorof
Maguesunwaswrongfullyissuedbecauseitwas"not sothatnewdecreeofregistrationandcertificateoftitle
entitledtotheregistrationdecree"asithadno canbeissuedtopetitioners,asorderedinthedecision
registrabletitle,since"ZenaidaMelliza(fromwhom ofthisHonorableCourtdated21March1997,which
Maguesunsupposedlyboughtthelots)conveyedno hasbecomefinalandexecutory?
titleoverthesubjectparcelsoflandtoMaguesun 2. FromthePetitionforInterventionfiledby
Corporationasshewasnottheownerthereof." MeycauayanCentralRealtyCorporation
b) Whetheranorderfromthetrialcourtis ("Meycauayan")withthisHonorableCourton22May
necessaryfor"theRegisterofDeedsconcernedto 1997,thefollowingstatements,amongothers,are
cancelOCTNo.0515andallits,derivativetitles"?Oris alleged:
thatordernecessarilyincludedinthedispositive a. "ThatonMay14,1992,theintervenor
portionoftheSupremeCourtdecisiondirectingtheLRA purchasedforvalueseveralparcelsofrealproperty
toissuethecorrespondingdecreeofregistrationand fromprivaterespondentMaguesunManagementand
certificateoftitleinfavoroftheRoxasheirs, DevelopmentCorp.coveredbyTCTNos.24294,24295
consideringthattheoriginalcertificateoftitleissuedto and24296containinganareaof2,019squaremeters
Maguesunwasbasedonanillegaldecreeofregistration each,moreorless."
asfoundbythisHonorableCourt.Further,the
unconditionalorderoftheSupremeCourttoLRAto b. "Thatpriortopayingtheagreedpurchaseprice
issuethecorrespondingcertificateoftitletotheRoxas infulltorespondentMaguesun,aninvestigationwith
heirsnecessarilyimpliesthattheOCTissuedto theTagaytayCityOfficeoftheRegisterofDeedswas
Maguesunanditsderivativetitlesshallbecanceled,for madetodetermineandascertaintheauthenticity,
itcannot[be]assumedthattheSupremeCourt
234
statusandconditionofthetitlesofMaguesunoverthe TagaytayCity,didintervenorcometoknowofthe
aforesaidproperties."EHCaDS existenceofacaseinvolvingthepropertiessoldtoitby
respondentMaguesunonMay14,1992."
c. "Thatinvestigationmadebytheintervenorwith
theOfficeofRegisterofDeedsofTagaytayCityshowed 3. Meycauayan'sPetitionforInterventionwas
thatinallthecertifiedtruecopiesofthetitlestothe deniedbythisHonorableCourtinitsResolutiondated
propertiesabovementionedwhichwereregisteredin 25June1997,adenialthathassincebecomefinaland
thenameofMaguesun,thelastentrywhichappeared executory.However,asstatedinpetitioners'Motionfor
wasthefollowing,towit:...". Clarification,Meycauayancommittedtheproscribedact
offorumshoppingbyfilingwiththetrialcourtamotion
d. "Appearingthatthepropertiestobepurchased
forleavetointerveneraisingagaintheissueofits
bythehereinintervenorfromrespondentMaguesun allegedownershipofportionsoftheland.
havenoexistingliensand/orencumbrancesand
consideringthatthepropertiesdonotappeartobethe 4. InordertosettleonceandforallMeycauayan's
subjectofapendingcasewhichwouldaffectthetitles allegationthatitwasabuyeringoodfaith,andtoshow
ofthosewhomaysubsequentlypurchasethesame,the thatitsderivativetitlesshouldbedeclaredvoidand
hereinintervenorproceededtopay,infull,thetotal canceledbythisHonorableCourt,petitionerswillshow
amountofONEMILLIONFIVEHUNDREDTHOUSAND hereinthatthesaletoMeycauayanwasspuriousor,at
PESOS(P1,500,000.00)toMaguesun.Immediately theveryleast,itwasabuyerinbadfaith.
thereafter,Maguesun,throughitsdulyauthorized
InaResolutiondated29July1998,thisCourtacted
officer,executedthecorrespondingDeedsofAbsolute
Sale." favorablyontheRoxasheirs'MotionforClarification
anditsSupplement.Thepertinentportionsofthe
e. "Thatafterthecorrespondingtaxesand/orfees Resolutionread:IDcTEA
werepaidbyhereinintervenor,theaforementioned
Uponcarefulconsiderationofthepointsmadeby
TCTNos.T24294,24295and24296,werecanceledand
inlieuthereof,newtitlesinthenameofintervenor petitionersintheirmotions,thisCourtfindsthesame
meritoriousand,hence,aclarificationisinorder.We,
wereissuedbytheRegisterofDeedsofTagaytayCity."
therefore,declarethatourdirectiveontheLRAtoissue
f. "ThatonMarch25,1997,anofficerofthe withreasonabledispatchthecorrespondingdecreeof
intervenorcorporationwasinformedofanewspaper registrationandcertificateoftitlealsoincludes,aspart
reportstating,inbigboldletters,thefollowingsub thereof,thecancellation,withoutneedofanorderof
headline,towit: thelandregistrationcourt,ofDecreeNo.N197092,as
wellasOCTNo.0515,andallitsderivativetitles.Thisis
SCRULESONROXASFAMILYLANDROWINTAGAYTAY" anecessaryconsequenceoftheCourt'searlierfinding
g. "ThePresidentofhereinintervenorrightafter thattheforegoingdocumentswereillegallyissuedin
securedfromtheTagaytayCityOfficeoftheRegisterof thenameofrespondent.ButinlightofSection39of
Deedscertifiedtruecopiesoftorrenstitlesoverits PresidentialDecreeNo.1529(the"Property
TagaytayCityproperties." RegistrationDecree"),DecreeNo.N197092which
originatedfromtheLRAmustbecancelledbytheLRA
h. "Thatonlythen,afteritsecuredcertifiedtrue itself.Onaccountofthiscancellation,itisnow
copiesofthetitlesmentionedinthepreceding incumbentupontheLRAtoissueinlieuofthecancelled
paragraphfromtheOfficeoftheRegisterofDeedsof decreeanewoneinthenameofpetitionersaswellas
235
thecorrespondingoriginalcertificateoftitle. T25690andT27390.3TCTNos.T25688,T25689,T
CancellationofOCTNo.0515,ontheother,hand, 25690andT27390werederivativetitlesalreadyinthe
properlydevolvesupontheRegisterofDeedswho, nameofMeycauayan.
underSection40ofP.D.No.1529,hasearlierentereda
On5April1999,theRoxasheirsfiledaMotionfor
copythereofinhisrecordbook.OCTNo.0515having
IssuanceofWritofPossessionwiththelandregistration
beennullified,alltitlesderivedtherefrommustalsobe
consideredvoiditappearingthattherehadbeenno court.
interveningrightsofaninnocentpurchaserforvalue On20April1999,MeycauayanfiledaComplaintfor
involvingthelotsindispute. reconveyance,damagesandquietingoftitlewiththe
trialcourtentitled"MeycauayanCentralRealtyCorp.v.
ACCORDINGLY,theCourtherebyresolvestoGRANT
petitioners'MotionforClarificationtogetherwiththe HeirsofManuelA.RoxasandTrinidaddeLeonVda.de
Roxas,MaguesunManagementandDevelopment
Supplementthereto.Forthisreason,thedispositive
Corp.,RegisterofDeedsofTagaytayCity,CityAssessor
portionofourdecisiondatedMarch21,1997is
clarified,thus: ofTagaytayCityandLandRegistrationAuthority."4The
Complaintisalmostanexactreproductionofthe
First,theRegisterofDeedsshallCANCELOCTNo.0515 PetitionforInterventionfiledbyMeycauayanbefore
andallitsderivativetitles,namely,TCTNos.T25625,T thisCourt.TheComplaintprayedforjudgment:DSETac
25626,T25627,T25628,T25688,T25689,andT
1. OrderingthedefendantsLandRegistration
25690,thelatterthreebeingalreadyinthenameof
MeycauayanRealtyandDevelopmentCorporation(also AuthorityandtheRegisterofDeedsofTagaytayCityto
designatedas"MeycauayanCentralRealty,Inc."and cancelthetitlesanddecreeofregistrationtheyissued
"MeycauayanRealtyCorporation"). inlieuofTCTNos.25688,25689,25690and27390
registeredinthenameofplaintiffMeycauayanCentral
Thereafter,theLandRegistrationAuthorityshall: RealtyCorporationandreconveysaidpropertiestothe
plaintiffcorporationbyreinstatingthesaidcancelled
(a) CANCELDecreeNo.N197092originallyissued titlesorifthesamenotbepossible,causetheissuance
inthenameofMaguesunManagementand
ofnewdecreesandtitlesthereto;
DevelopmentCorporationwithoutneedofanorder
fromthelandregistrationcourt;and 2. OrderingthedefendantCityAssessorof
TagaytayCitytoreinstatetheAssessmentsforreal
(b) ISSUEwithreasonabledispatchanewdecreeof
estatetaxesitpreviouslycancelledcoveringthe
registrationandaneworiginalcertificateoftitle(OCT)
propertiesofplaintiff;
infavorofpetitionerspursuanttoSection39of
PresidentialDecreeNo.1529.(Emphasisadded) 3. OrderingthedefendantsRoxasandMaguesun
tojointlyandsolidarilypaytheplaintiffactualand/or
On11December1998,thelandregistrationcourt
compensatorydamagesinthetotalamountofFIVE
issuedanorderdenyingtheLRAReportdated25March
HUNDREDTHOUSANDPESOS(P500,000.00);
1998andtheMotionforLeavetoIntervenefiledby
MeycauayansincetheSupremeCourtResolutionof29 4. OrderingthedefendantsRoxasandMaguesun
July1998hadrenderedthemmoot. tojointlyandsolidarilypaytheplaintifftheamountof
TWOHUNDREDTHOUSANDPESOS(P200,000.00)as
TheRegisterofDeedsofTagaytayCitythencanceled andbywayofnominaldamages;
TCTNos.T25626,T25627,T25628,T25688,T25689,
236
5. OrderingthedefendantsRoxasandMaguesun certiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtwiththe
tojointlyandsolidarilypaytheplaintiffexemplary CourtofAppealsassailingthetrialcourt'sdismissalof
damagesintheamountofTWOHUNDREDTHOUSAND thecomplaint.
PESOS(P200,000.00);
Meanwhile,theRoxasheirsfiledon2June1999this
6. OrderingthedefendantsRoxasandMaguesun petitiontociteforindirectcontempttheofficersof
tojointlyandsolidarilypaytheplaintiffAttorney'sfees Meycauayan.
intheamountofONEHUNDREDTHOUSANDPESOS
(P100,000.00);and TheIssues
7. OrderingthedefendantsRoxasandMaguesun Thepartiesraisedthefollowingissues:
tojointlyandsolidarilypaytheplaintiffthecostsofsuit. 1. WhetherthisCourt'sDecisionandResolutionin
5 G.R.No.118436bindMeycauayan;EIaDHS
On6May1999,Meycauayanfileda"Special 2. WhetherMeycauayan'sactoffilingwiththe
AppearanceQuestioningCourtJurisdictionand trialcourtacomplaintforreconveyance,damagesand
OppositiontotheMotionforIssuanceofWritof quietingoftitleinvolvingparcelsofland,whichwere
PossessionAgainstMeycauayanCentralRealty thesubjectofthisCourt'sDecisionandResolutionin
Corporation"withthelandregistrationcourt. G.R.No.118436,constitutesindirectcontemptunder
On2September1999,thelandregistrationcourtissued Section3,Rule71oftheRulesofCivilProcedure;and
anorder,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads: 3. WhetherMeycauayanisguiltyofforum
shopping.
WHEREFORE,inthelightoftheforegoing,letaWritof
PossessionbeissuedagainstMaguesunManagement TheCourt'sRuling
andDevelopmentCorporationinthesecases.However,
insofarasMeycauayanCentralRealtyisconcerned,leta Thepetitionismeritorious.WefindMeycauayan's
resolutionofthemotionfiledbythemovantshereinbe ExecutiveVicePresidentJuanM.Lamson,Jr.guiltyof
deferreduntiltheSupremeCourthadresolvedwith indirectcontempt.WealsofindthatMeycauayan
finalitythepetitionforcontemptofhereinmovantin committedforumshopping,andthusMeycauayanand
G.R.No.138660. itsExecutiveVicePresidentJuanM.Lamson,Jr.are
guiltyofdirectcontempt.
On7March2000,thetrialcourtdismissedforlackof
meritMeycauayan'scomplaintforreconveyance, TheRoxasheirsallegethatthefollowingactsof
damagesandquietingoftitle.Thetrialcourtheldthat Meycauayanconstituteindirectcontemptunder
(1)thenullityofOCTNo.0515,whichisthesourceof Section3,Rule71oftheRulesofCivilProcedure:(1)
Meycauayan'stitles,isnowresjudicata;(2)the Meycauayan'sdefianceofthefinalandexecutory
complaint'sprayerforthetrialcourttoannulthe DecisionandResolutionofthisCourtinG.R.No.
decisionoftheSupremeCourtinG.R.No.118436is 118436;(2)itsactoffilingpleadingsbeforetheland
beyondthetrialcourt'sjurisdiction;and(3) registrationcourttopreventexecutionoftheDecision
Meycauayanisguiltyofforumshopping.6Thetrial andResolution;(3)itsactoffilingaComplaintraising
courtlikewisedeniedMeycauayan'sMotionfor thesameissuesinitsPetitionforInterventionwhich
ReconsiderationinanOrderdated20June2000.7On thisCourthadalreadydeniedandurgingthetrialcourt
24August2000,Meycauayanfiledapetitionfor toignoreandcountermandtheordersofthisCourt.
237
Ontheotherhand,Meycauayanallegesthatthe 71oftheRulesofCivilProcedure.Section3(d)ofRule
DecisioninG.R.No.118436,doesnotbindMeycauayan 71reads:
becauseitwasnotapartyinthecase.Accordingto
Meycauayan,theDecisioninG.R.No.118436maybe SEC.3. Indirectcontempttobepunishedaftercharge
andhearing.Afterachargeinwritinghasbeenfiled,
enforcedagainstMaguesunbutnotagainst
andanopportunitygiventotherespondentto
Meycauayanwhichisastrangertothecase.
Meycauayaninsiststhatasapurchaseringoodfaith commentthereonwithinsuchperiodasmaybefixedby
thecourtandtobeheardbyhimselforcounsel,a
andforvalueitsrightscannotbeprejudicedbythe
personguiltyofanyofthefollowingactsmaybe
allegedfraudulentacquisitionbyMaguesunofthe
subjectproperties.Meycauayan,therefore,isnotliable punishedforindirectcontempt:ASICDH
forcontemptofcourtforfilinganactionfor xxxxxxxxx
reconveyance,quietingoftitleanddamages.
(d) Anyimproperconducttending,directlyor
TheissueofwhethertheDecisioninG.R.No.118436 indirectly,toimpede,obstruct,ordegradethe
bindsMeycauayanwasalreadyaddressedbythisCourt administrationofjustice;
whenitdeniedMeycauayan'sPetitionforIntervention.
Furthermore,thisCourt'sResolutiondated29July1998 InHalili,etal.v.CIR,etal.,8thisCourtexplainedthe
clarifiedtheDecisiondated21March1997byordering conceptofcontemptofcourt:
theRegisterofDeedstoCANCELOCTNo.0515andall
Contemptofcourtisadefianceoftheauthority,justice
itsderivativetitles,namely,TCTNos.T25625,T25626,
ordignityofthecourt;suchconductastendstobring
T25627,T25628,T25688,T25689,andT25690,the
theauthorityandadministrationofthelawinto
latterthreealreadyinthenameofMeycauayanRealty
disrespectortointerferewithorprejudiceparties
andDevelopmentCorporation(alsodesignatedas
litigantortheirwitnessesduringlitigation(12Am.Jur.
"MeycauayanCentralRealty,Inc."and"Meycauayan
389,citedin14SCRA813).
RealtyCorporation").ThisCourtalsofoundthatthere
hadbeennointerveningrightsofaninnocentpurchaser Contemptofcourtisdefinedasadisobediencetothe
forvalueinvolvingthelotsindispute. Courtbyactinginoppositiontoitsauthority,justiceand
IndirectContempt
Meycauayan'sobstinaterefusaltoabidebytheCourt's tendstobringtheauthorityofthecourtandthe
DecisioninG.R.No.118436hasnobasisinviewofthis administrationoflawintodisreputeorinsomemanner
Court'sclearpronouncementtothecontrary.Thefact toimpedethedueadministrationofjustice(17C.J.S.4).
thatthisCourtspecificallyorderedthecancellationof
Meycauayan'stitlestothedisputedparcelsoflandin
theResolutiondated29July1998shouldhavelaidto
resttheissueofwhethertheDecisionandResolutionin
G.R.No.118436isbindingonMeycauayan.Clearly,
Meycauayan'sdefianceofthisCourt'sDecisionand
Resolutionbyfilinganactionforreconveyance,quieting
DirectorofPrisons,58Phil.271;InreKelly,35Phil.944;
oftitleanddamagesinvolvingthesameparcelsofland
CommissionerofImmigrationvs.Cloribel,20SCRA
whichthisCourtalreadydecidedwithfinality
1241;Montalbanvs.Canonoy,38SCRA1).
constitutesindirectcontemptunderSection3(d),Rule
238
Meycauayan'scontinuingresistancetothisCourt's (3)thejudgmentmustbeonthemerits;and(4)there
judgmentisanaffronttotheCourtandtothesovereign mustbebetweenthefirstandthesecondactions,
dignitywithwhichitisclothed.9Meycauayan's identityofparties,subjectmatterandcausesofaction.
persistentattemptstoraiseissueslongsincelaidtorest 14Theapplicationofthedoctrineofresjudicatadoes
byafinalandexecutoryjudgmentofnolessthanthe notrequireabsoluteidentityofpartiesbutmerely
highesttribunalofthelandconstitutecontumacious substantialidentityofparties.15Thereissubstantial
defianceoftheauthorityofthisCourtandimpedethe identityofpartieswhenthereiscommunityofinterest
speedyadministrationofjustice.10 orprivityofinterestbetweenapartyinthefirstanda
partyinthesecondcaseevenifthefirstcasedidnot
Wellsettledistherulethatwhenacourtofcompetent impleadthelatter.16HcSCED
jurisdictionhastriedanddecidedarightorfact,solong
asthedecisionremainsunreversed,itisconclusiveon TheCourtruledinG.R.No.118436thatMeycauayan's
thepartiesandthoseinprivitywiththem.11Moreso predecessorininterest,Maguesun,committedactual
wheretheSupremeCourthasalreadydecidedtheissue fraudinobtainingthedecreeofregistrationofthe
sincetheCourtisthefinalarbiterofalljusticiable subjectproperties.TheDecisioninG.R.No.118436
controversiesproperlybroughtbeforeit.12Asheldin bindsMeycauayanundertheprincipleof"privityof
Buayav.StrongholdInsuranceCo.,Inc.:13 interest"sinceitwasasuccessorininterestof
Maguesun.Meycauayan,however,insiststhatitwasa
...Anexistingfinaljudgmentordecreerendered purchaseringoodfaithbecauseithadnoknowledgeof
uponthemerits,withoutfraudorcollusion,byacourt anypendingcaseinvolvingthelots.Meycauayanclaims
ofcompetentjurisdictionactinguponamatterwithin thatthetrialcourthadalreadycanceledthenoticeoflis
itsauthorityisconclusiveoftherightsoftheparties pendensonthetitleswhenitpurchasedthelotsfrom
andtheirprivies.Thisrulingholdsinallotheractionsor Maguesun.InitsMemorandum,Meycauayanstresses
suits,inthesameoranyotherjudicialtribunalof
thattoensuretheauthenticityofthetitlesandthe
concurrentjurisdiction,touchingonthepointsor
annotationsappearingonthetitles,particularlythe
mattersinissueinthefirstsuit.
cancellationofthenoticeoflispendens,Meycauayan
xxxxxxxxx checkedwiththeRegisterofDeedsandtheRegional
TrialCourtofTagaytayCity.17SinceMeycauayan
Courtswillsimplyrefusetoreopenwhathasbeen checkedwiththeRegionalTrialCourtofTagaytayCity,
decided.Theywillnotallowthesamepartiesortheir Meycauayanthenhadactualknowledge,beforeit
priviestolitigateanewaquestion,onceithasbeen purchasedthelots,ofthependingcaseinvolvingthe
consideredanddecidedwithfinality.Litigationsmust lotsdespitethecancellationofthenoticeoflispendens
endandterminatesometimeandsomewhere.The onthetitles.
effectiveandefficientadministrationofjusticerequires
thatonceajudgmenthasbecomefinal,theprevailing Furthermore,asfoundbythisCourtinG.R.No.118436,
partyshouldnotbedeprivedofthefruitsoftheverdict theRoxasfamilyhasbeeninpossessionoftheproperty
bysubsequentsuitsonthesameissuesfiledbythe uninterruptedlythroughtheircaretaker,JoseRamirez
sameparties. whoresidedontheproperty.18Wherethelandsoldis
inthepossessionofapersonotherthanthevendor,the
Thisisinaccordancewiththedoctrineofresjudicata purchasermustgobeyondthecertificatesoftitleand
whichhasthefollowingelements:(1)theformer makeinquiriesconcerningtherightsoftheactual
judgmentmustbefinal;(2)thecourtwhichrenderedit possessor.19Meycauayanthereforecannotinvokethe
hadjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterandtheparties;
239
rightofapurchaseringoodfaithandcouldnothave SEC.7. Punishmentforindirectcontempt.Ifthe

acquiredabetterrightthanitspredecessorininterest. respondentisadjudgedguiltyofindirectcontempt
ThisCourthasalreadyrejectedMeycauayan'sclaimthat committedagainstaRegionalTrialCourtoracourtof
itwasapurchaseringoodfaithwhenitruledinG.R.No. equivalentorhigherrank,hemaybepunishedbyafine
118436thattherehadbeennointerveningrightsofan notexceedingthirtythousandpesosorimprisonment
innocentpurchaserforvalueinvolvingthelotsin notexceedingsix(6)monthsorboth....ITESAc
dispute.AsheldinHeirsofPaelv.CourtofAppeals:20
Inthiscase,MeycauayanExecutiveVicePresidentJuan
InthecaseofSantiagoLandDevelopmentCorporation M.Lamson,Jr.causedthepreparationandthefilingof
vs.CourtofAppeals(G.R.No.106194,276SCRA674 thePetitionforInterventioninG.R.No.118436andthe
[1997]),petitionermaintainedthatasapurchaser ComplaintforReconveyance,DamagesandQuietingof
pendenteliteofthelandinlitigation,ithadarightto Titlewiththetrialcourt.23JuanM.Lamson,Jr.signed
interveneunderRule12,Section2.Werejectedthis theverificationandcertificationofnonforumshopping
positionandsaidthat"sincepetitionerisnotastranger forthePetitionforInterventionandtheComplaintfor
totheactionbetweenQuisumbingandthePNB, Reconveyance,DamagesandQuietingofTitle."Even
petitionerinfacthavingsteppedintotheshoesofPNB thoughajudgment,decree,ororderisaddressedtothe
inamannerofspeaking,itfollowsthatitcannotclaim corporationonly,theofficers,aswellasthecorporation
anyfurtherrighttointerveneintheaction."Asinthe itself,maybepunishedforcontemptfordisobedience
instantPetition,itwasarguedthatthedenialofthe toitsterms,atleastiftheyknowinglydisobeythe
MotiontoIntervenewouldbeadeniallikewiseofdue court'smandate,sincealawfuljudicialcommandtoa
process.Butthis,too,wasstruckdowninSantiagoLand corporationisineffectacommandtotheofficers."24
whereweheldthat"petitionerisnotreallydenied Thus,forimproperconducttendingtoimpedethe
protection.Itisrepresentedintheactionbyits orderlyadministrationofjustice,MeycauayanExecutive
predecessorininterest."Indeed,sincepetitionerisa VicePresidentJuanM.Lamson,Jr.shouldbefinedten
transfereependentelitewithnoticeofthepending thousandpesos(P10,000).25
litigationbetweenReyesandprivaterespondent
DirectContempt
Carreon,petitionerstandsexactlyintheshoesofReyes
andisboundbyanyjudgmentordecreewhichmaybe Meycauayan'sactoffilingaComplaintfor
renderedfororagainstthelatter. Reconveyance,QuietingofTitleandDamagesraising
Indeed,onewhobuyspropertywithfullknowledgeof thesameissuesinitsPetitionforIntervention,which
theflawsanddefectsofthetitleofhisvendorandofa thisCourthadalreadydenied,alsoconstitutesforum
pendinglitigationoverthepropertygamblesonthe shopping.Forumshoppingistheactofapartyagainst
whomanadversejudgmenthasbeenrenderedinone
resultofthelitigationandisboundbytheoutcomeof
forum,seekinganotherandpossiblyfavorableopinion
hisindifference.21Apurchasercannotclosehiseyesto
factswhichshouldputareasonablemanonguardand inanotherforumotherthanbyappealorspecialcivil
thenclaimthatheactedingoodfaithbelievingthat actionofcertiorari.Thereisalsoforumshoppingwhen
therewasnodefectinthetitleofthevendor.22 apartyinstitutestwoormoreactionsbasedonthe
samecauseontheexpectationthatoneortheother
Forthepenaltyforindirectcontempt,Section7ofRule courtmightlookwithfavorontheparty.26
71oftheRulesofCourtprovides:
Inthiscase,theCourthadalreadyrejected
Meycauayan'sclaimonthesubjectlotswhentheCourt
240
deniedMeycauayan'sPetitionforInterventioninG.R. THOUSANDPESOS(P10,000).Furthermore,wefind
No.118436.TheCourtruledthattherehadbeenno MeycauayanCentralRealtyCorporationandits
interveningrightsofaninnocentpurchaserforvalue ExecutiveVicePresidentJuanM.Lamson,Jr.GUILTYof
involvingthelotsindispute.TheDecisionofthisCourt DIRECTCONTEMPTforforumshoppingandFINEthem
inG.R.No.118436isalreadyfinalandexecutory.The TWOTHOUSANDPESOS(P2,000)each.TheCourtwarns
filingbyMeycauayanofanactiontorelitigatethetitle themthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaroffense
tothesameproperty,whichthisCourthadalready shallmeritamoreseverepenalty.SCIcTD
adjudicatedwithfinality,isanabuseofthecourt's
SOORDERED.
processesandconstitutesdirectcontempt.

Section5ofRule7oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthat
"iftheactsofthepartyorhiscounselclearlyconstitute
willfulanddeliberateforumshopping,thesameshallbe
agroundforsummarydismissalwithprejudiceandshall
constitutedirectcontempt,aswellasacausefor
administrativesanctions."ThefactthatMeycauayandid [G.R.No.L23712.April29,1968.]
mentioninitscertificationofnonforumshoppingits
REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,vs.
attempttointerveneinG.R.No.118436,whichthis
RAMONARUIZ,DOMINGOPINTO,BONIFACIOPINTO,
Courtdenied,27doesnotnegatetheexistenceof
VICTORIAPINTO,MARIAPINTO,ETAL.,defendants
forumshopping.Thisdisclosuredoesnotexculpate
appellants.
Meycauayanfordeliberatelyseekingafriendlierforum
foritscaseandrelitigatinganissuewhichthisCourt SolicitorGeneralArturoA.Alafriz,AssistantSolicitor
hadalreadydecidedwithfinality.28 GeneralIsidroG.Borromeo,Asst.AntonioG.Ibarra,
SolicitorCrispinV.BautistaandSpecialAttorneyOswald
Thegeneralruleisthatacorporationanditsofficers
D.Agcaoiliforplaintiffappellee.
andagentsmaybeheldliableforcontempt.A
corporationandthosewhoareofficiallyresponsiblefor SilvestreBr.Bellofordefendantsappellants.
theconductofitsaffairsmaybepunishedforcontempt
indisobeyingjudgments,decrees,orordersofacourt SYLLABUS
madeinacasewithinitsjurisdiction.29
1. PUBLICLANDACT;HOMESTEAD;PROHIBITORY
UnderSection1ofRule71oftheRulesofCourt,direct PROVISIONAGAINSTALIENATIONORENCUMBRANCE,
contemptispunishablebyafinenotexceedingtwo MANDATORYANDARESOLUTORYCONDITIONTOTHE
thousandpesos(P2,000)orimprisonmentnot APPROVALOFTHEGRANTOFPATENT.Byexpress
exceedingten(10)days,orboth,ifcommittedagainsta provisionofSection118CommonwealthAct141,any
RegionalTrialCourtoracourtofequivalentorhigher transferoralienationofahomesteadgrantwithinfive
rank.Hence,Meycauayan30anditsExecutiveVice yearsfromtheissuanceofthepatentisforbidden,
PresidentJuanM.Lamson,Jr.areeachfinedP2,000for makingsaidalienationnullandvoidandconstitutinga
directcontemptofcourtforforumshopping. causeforreversionofthehomesteadtotheState.In
otherwords,itisthetransgressionofthelawthat
WHEREFORE,wefindMeycauayanCentralRealty nullifiesandrendersthedeedofconveyancenulland
Corporation'sExecutiveVicePresidentJuanM.Lamson, voidandwithouteffect;notviceversa.
Jr.GUILTYofINDIRECTCONTEMPTandFINEhimTEN
241
2. ID.;ID.;POLICYOFTHESTATECANNOTBE REYES,J.B.L.,Actg.C.J.p:
INVOKEDTOCONDONEVIOLATIONOFPUBLICLAND
ACT.Itmaylikewisebestatedthatwhilethe ThisisanappealfromthedecisionoftheCourtofFirst
InstanceofIsabela(initsCivilCaseNo.Br.II419),
prohibitionagainstalienationofthelandgrantis
orderingthecancellationofOriginalCertificateofTitle
designedtopreserveitwithinthefamilyofthe
No.I1600,substitutedbyTransferCertificateofTitle
homesteaderandtopromotesmalllandownershipin
thiscountry,itisequallytruethatthispolicyofthe No.T7196,issuedinthenamesofthereindefendants
heirsofCayetanoPinto,anddeclaringthereversionto
Statecannotbeinvokedtocondoneaviolationofthe
theStateofthelandcoveredthereof.
PublicLandActandwithholdenforcementofthe
provisiondirectingthereversionofthepropertytothe Duringthehearingofthecaseinthelowercourt,the
grantorincaseofsuchviolation.Fortheprohibitory partiessubmittedthefollowingstipulationoffacts:
provisionagainstanyalienationorencumbranceofthe
landgrantisnotonlymandatory,butisconsidereda "1. Thattheplaintiff(RepublicofthePhilippines)
conditionattachedtotheapprovalofeveryapplication. institutedthepresentactionfiledwiththeCourton
October12,1958forthereversionoftheentireland
3. ID.;ID.;CONVEYANCEMADEBYADECEASED containinganareaof23hectares,97aresand57
HOMESTEADERBINDINGUPONHISHEIRS.Thereis hectares,coveredbyHomesteadPatentNo.22711,
nomeritinthepropositionthattheheirsshouldnotbe grantedonJune13,1933correspondingtoOriginal
madetosufferonaccountofaviolationoflaw CertificateofTitleNo.I1600,issuedonJuly7,1933as
committedbytheirpredecessor.Theheirsmaynotbe perAnnex'1'oftheComplaintinthenameofCayetano
consideredinnocentthirdpartiesbecausethereisa Pinto,whodiedin1945;
privityofinterestbetweenthemandtheirpredecessor.
Theyonlysucceedtowhateverrightshehadhimself "2. ThatonMay28,1937theregisteredowner,
andwhatisvalidandbindingagainsthimisalsovalid CayetanoPinto,marriedtoRamonaRuiz,soldaportion
andbindingagainstthem.(Cruzvs.Buenaventura,84 of3hectaresoflandcoveredbyOriginalCertificateof
Phil.,82). TitleNo.I1600infavorofJacoboPinto,marriedto
HerminiaTinonas,forthesumofofP500.00asper
4. ID.;ID.;PATENTREGISTEREDUNDERTHELAND Annex'3'oftheComplaint;
REGISTRATIONACT,STILLSUBJECTTOTHE
PROHIBITIONAGAINSTALIENATIONAND "3. ThattheDeedofSaleexecutedbythedeceased
ENCUMBRANCE.Whereagranteeisfoundnot CayetanoPintoinfavorofJacoboPintowhodied
entitledtoholdandpossessthelandinfeesimple,by sometimein1950,wasneverregisteredintheOfficeof
reasonofhishavingviolatedSection118ofthePublic theRegisterofDeedsofIsabela,norannotatedatthe
LandLaw,theCourtmayproperlyorderits backoftheOriginalCertificateofTitleNoI1600,as
reconveyancetotheState,althoughthepropertyhas couldbeverifiedinAnnex'1'oftheComplaint;
alreadybeenbroughtundertheoperationofthe
"4. ThatRamonaRuizandherchildrenexecutedan
TorrensSystem.Therightofthegovernmenttobringan
extrajudicialpartitionoftheentirelandonOctober12,
appropriateactionforreconveyanceisnotbarredby
1951whichwasregisteredonFebruary2,1956,reason
thelapseoftimetheStatuteofLimitationsdoesnot
fortheissuanceofTransferCertificateofTitleNo.T
runagainsttheState.
7196,asperAnnex'2'oftheComplaint;
DECISION
242
"5. ThatonJune29,1956,thewidowHerminia P4,000.00andthemortgagedinstrumentwas

TinonasandheirsofthelateJacoboPintofiledan registeredintheOfficeoftheRegisterofDeedsof
actionagainstthewidowRamonaRuizandheirsofthe IsabelaandannotatedatthebackoftheTransfer
lateCayetanoPintofortheconveyanceoftheportion CertificateofTitleNo.T7196,onApril24,1956,asper
of3hectares,soldandconveyedbythelateCayetano Annex2oftheComplaint."
PintoinfavorofthelateJacoboPintoonMay28,1937,
whichcasewasdocketedintheCourtofFirstInstance Basedupontheforegoingstipulation,thecourtruled
thattheexecutionbythehomesteaderCayetanoPinto
ofIsabela(SecondBranch)asCivilCaseNo.Br.II90;
ofthedocument,Exhibit"C",withintheprohibited5
"6. ThatonAugust5,1958theCourtofFirst yearperiodfromtheissuanceofthepatent,beingin
InstanceofIsabela,SecondBranch,renderedadecision violationofSection118ofCommonwealthAct141,
Annex'4'oftheComplaint,declaringthattheDeedof producedtheeffectofannullingandcancelingthesaid
SaleexecutedbythedeceasedCayetanoPintoinfavor patentandthuscausedthereversiontotheStateofthe
ofthedeceasedJacoboPinto(Annex3)nullandvoidab propertytherebycovered.
initio,forbeinginviolationofSection116ofthePublic
LandLawanddismissedthecomplaintwithcosts Defendantsinterposedthepresentappeal,raisingas
againsttheplaintiffs; mainissuetheallegedlackofcauseofactionofthe
complaint.Itisnowclaimedthat(1)thedocument,
"7. ThatfromthedecisionoftheCourtofFirst ExhibitC,executedbyCayetanoPintowasnota
InstanceofIsabela,SecondBranch,mentionedinthe consummatedcontractofsale,butamereunilateral
nextprecedingparagraph,theplaintiffsappealedtothe promisetosellwithoutconsiderationand,
SupremeCourtonSeptember4,1958,whichappeal consequently,wasunenforceableandwithouteffect;
wasdismissedonNovember6,1959,thereby (2)assumingthecontracttobeoneofsalewithinthe
terminatingCivilCaseNo.Br.II90oftheSecondBranch prohibited5yearperiodand,therefore,nullandvoid,
oftheCourtofFirstInstanceofIsabela,wherebythe thenunderArticle1409oftheCivilCode,saidcontract
appealeddecisionbecamefinalandexecutory; isinexistentandwithouteffectandCayetanoPintocan
notbeconsideredtohavecommittedanyviolationof
"8. ThatbeforetheappealoftheplaintiffsinCivil thePublicLandlawatall;(3)toorderthereversionof
CaseNo.Br.II90hasbeenperfectedandtherecord
thelandtothegovernmentwouldrendernugatorythe
elevatedtotheSupremeCourt,theplaintiffsinthe policyoftheStatetopromotethespreadofsmallland
aboveentitledcasefiledtheinstantactionagainstthe
ownershipandpresencelandgrantsinthehandsofthe
widowandheirsofthelateCayetanoPinto,namely:
underprivileged;(4)theviolationofCommonwealthAct
RamonaRuiz,DomingoPinto,BonifacioPinto,Victoria 141byCayetanoPinto,iftherewasany,cannotaffect
Pinto,MariaPinto,RufinaPinto,JesusaPintoand
therightsofhisheirs,particularlyofhiswidow,who
TeodoroPintoonOctober12,1958forcancellationof
allegedlyowned1/2oftheland;(5)theOriginal
theOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.I1600andTransfer CertificateofTitleNo.I1600inthenameofCayetano
CertificateofTitleNoT7196andthereversionofthe PintohavingbeencanceledandsubstitutedbyTransfer
landcoveredbythesaidtitlestotheState;and CertificateofTitleNo.T7196,issuedinthenamesof
"9. ThatonApril23,1956,theregisteredownersin hiswidowandheirsofFebruary2,1956,toordertheir
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.T7196mortgagedthe cancellationandthereversionofthepropertytothe
entireparceloflandcoveredthereintothePhilippines governmentwouldbecontrarytotheprinciple
NationalBank,SantiagoBranch,tosecurealoanof underlyingtheTorrensSystemand(6)theprohibition
243
underSection118ofCommonwealthAct141 logicalconclusion,thisargumentwouldmeanthatno
contemplatesofthealienationorencumbranceofthe violationoflawcouldbepunished.
entirelandgrantandnotmerelyofaportionthereof
Thiscaseisactuallynonecessityforlogicalreasoning;
liketheoneinthepresentcase.
byexpressprovisionofSection118ofCommonwealth
Thereisnomerittothisappeal. Act141,anytransferoralienationofahomesteadgrant
withinfiveyearsfromtheissuanceofthepatentis
Appellantscannotbeheardtoquestionthenatureof forbidden,makingsaidalienationnullandvoid,1and
thedocument,Exhibit"C",executedbytheir constitutingacauseforreversionofthehomesteadto
predecessorininterest.Itappearsonrecordthatin
theState.2Inotherwords,itwasthetransgressionof
theirmotiontodismissthecomplaintfiledinthecourt
thelawthatnullifiesandrendersthedeedof
below,appellants,asthereindefendants,averred conveyancenullandvoidandwithouteffect;notvice
amongothers:"Whileitistrueasallegedinthe
versa.Inexistenceinlawmerelysignifiesthattheact
complaintthatonMay28,1937,thelateCayetano
cannotbetakenintoaccountassourceofrightsor
Pintoexecutedanabsolutedeedofsaleoveraportion obligationsforpartiesaswellasstrangers;asifithad
ofthreehectares,oftheparceloflandcoveredby neverexisted.Certainly,thelawcannotdestroyorwipe
OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.I1600,infavorofone outphysicalexistence,andithasneverattemptedtodo
JacoboPinto..."(p.51,RecordonAppeal)And,when so.
theaforesaidmotionwasdenied,defendants
appellantsadmittedintheiranswertheallegationof Itmaylikewisebestatedthatwhiletheprohibition
thecomplaintthat,"...onMay28,1937,fouryears againstthealienationofthelandgrantisdesignedto
afterthelateCayetanoPintohadbeengrantedthesaid preserveitwithinthefamilyofthehomesteaderandto
homesteadpatent,heexecutedanabsolutedeedof promotesmalllandownershipinthiscountry,itis
saleoveraportionof3hectaresoftheparcelcovered equallytruethatthispolicyoftheStatecannotbe
byOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.I1600infavorofone invokedtocondoneaviolationofthePublicLandAct
JacoboPinto."(pp.3,93,RecordonAppeal).The andwithholdenforcementoftheprovisiondirectingthe
stipulationoffacts,submittedbythepartiesand reversionofthepropertytothegrantorincaseofsuch
approvedbythecourt,likewisestatedthatCayetano violation.3For,theprohibitoryprovisionagainstany
Pinto"soldaportionof3hectaresoflandcoveredby alienationorencumbranceofthelandgrantisnotonly
OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.I1600infavorofJacobo mandatory,4butisconsideredaconditionattachedto
Pinto,marriedtoHerminiaTinonas,forthesumof theapprovalofeveryapplication.5
P500.00"(p.121,RecordonAppeal).Bydefendants'
ownadmissionsinthelowercourt,therefore,the NeitheristheremeritinthepropositionthatCayetano
Pinto'sheirsshouldnotbemadetosufferonaccountof
characterofExhibitCasadeedofsaleexecutedalmost
aviolationoflawcommittedbytheirsaidpredecessor.
fouryearsaftertheissuanceofthepatenttothe
homesteaderCayetanoPintohasbecomeasettled Inapreviouscasewhereinthesamecontentionwas
matter,whichtheycannotnowdisputeonappeal. made,thisCourtruled:
"Oneotherpointremainstobeexplainedandthatis
Wealsofindaserroneousappellants'argumentthat
becausethedeedofsalewasnullandvoid,thenitmay whetherthepartiesplaintiffsinthiscase,thewidow
andchildrenofthedeceasedhomesteaderJoseLagon,
betreatedasnothavingeverexisted,withtheresult
thatthegranteeCayetanoPintocannotbeconsidered canbeconsideredasboundbythesalemadebythe
tohaveviolatedthePublicLandLaw.Carriedtoits husbandandwhethertheycanclaimtobethirdparties
244
astowhomregistrationshouldbeconsideredasthe possessinfeesimpletheland,byreasonofhishaving
operativeactofconveyance.Astothewidow,thesale violatedSection118ofthePublicLandLaw,thecourt
wasexecutedbyJoseLagoninhiscapacityas mayproperlyorderitsreconveyancetothegrantor,
administratoroftheconjugalpartnership.JoseLagon althoughthepropertyhasalreadybeenbroughtunder
wastheagentoftheconjugalpartnership,ofwhichthe theoperationoftheTorrensSystem.6And,thisrightof
widowisapartner,andundergeneralprinciplestheact thegovernmenttobringanappropriateactionfor
oftheauthorizedagentistheactofthepartners reconveyance(orreversion)isnotbarredbythelapse
themselves(2AmericanJurisprudence,169,276).Itis oftime;theStatuteofLimitationsdoesnotrunagainst
not,therefore,necessarythatthewidowhadactual theState.7
noticeofthesale,andthecannotbeconsideredathird
personorpartyinrelationthereto.Thesalemadeby Asregardstheclaimofappellantsthatreversionofthe
thehusbandisbindingonher.(Cruzvs.Buenaventura, homesteadmaybeorderedonlyifthealienationcovers
84Phil.12,46Off.Gaz.,6032). thewholeareaandnotmerelyaportionthereof,we
declaredinanothercase:
"AsrespectthechildrenofJoseLagon,theother
plaintiffsappellees,theymaynotbeconsideredthird "Evenifonly19outofthe23.21hectaresofthe
partiesbecausethereisaprivityofinterestbetween homesteadlandhadbeensoldoralienatedwithinthe
themandtheirfather.Theyonlysucceedtowhatever prohibitiveperiodoffiveyearsfromdateofissuanceof
rightstheirfatherhadandwhatisvalidandbinding thepatenttothegrantee,suchalienationisasufficient
againsthimisalsovalidandbindingagainstthem." causeforreversiontotheStateofthewholegrant.In
(Galasinaoetal.vs.Austria,97Phil.82,8687). grantingahomesteadtoanapplicant,thelawimposes
asaconditionthatthelandshouldnotbeencumbered,
Everypenaltyorsanction,infact,carrieswithitsome soldoralienatedwithinfiveyearsfromtheissuanceof
hardshipforthefamilyoftheoffender;thatispartof thepatent.Thesaleoralienationofpartofthe
thepenalty'sbuiltindeterrence.Onlythattheoccasion homesteadviolatesthatcondition."(Republicvs.
toreflectonitisbefore,andnotafter,violatingthelaw. Garcia,L11597,May27,1959).
Similarly,thecourtbelowcommittednoerrorin Wefoundnoabuseofdiscretioninthelowercourt's
orderingthereversiontoplaintiffofthelandgrant denialofdefendants'motionforpostponementofthe
involvedherein,notwithstandingthefactthatthe hearingofJanuary14,1964,itappearingthatthe
originalcertificatetitlebasedonthepatenthadbeen partiesbythenhadalreadysubmittedastipulationof
cancelledandanothercertificateissuedinthenamesof facts(uponwhichthedecisionnowunderconsideration
thegrantee'sheirs.AsheldbythisCourtinthecaseof wasbased),andthatthemanypostponementsofthe
Campaneroetal.vs.Coloma,L11908,January30, hearingwhichdelayedearlyterminationofthecase
1960,theprincipleofconclusivenessofthetitleofa werepreviouslysecuredattheinstanceofcounselfor
registeredowner,"althoughsoundasappliedtoland saiddefendants.
registeredundertheLandRegistrationActthrough
judicialproceedings,cannotdefeattheexpresspolicyof WHEREFORE,thedecisionappealedfrombeingin
accordancewithlaw,thesameisherebyaffirmed;
theStateprohibitingthealienationandencumbranceof
landsofthepublicdomainacquiredunderthe defendantsappellantsareorderedtorecoveryto
plaintiffappelleethelandcoveredbyTransfer
provisionsofthePublicLandActwithinfiveyearsfrom
andafterthedateoftheissuanceofthepatent."Thus, CertificateofTitleNo.T7196oftheRegistryofDeeds
whereagranteeisfoundnotentitledtoholdand ofIsabela.Costsagainstappellants.
245
Dizon,Makalintal,Bengzon,J.P.,Zaldivar,Sanchez,
Castro,AngelesandFernando,JJ.,concur.
Concepcion,C.J.,isonofficialleave
246
247
248
249

Part 2 LTD Cases 11.2.16

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Part 2 LTD Cases 11.2.16

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PersonalCopyofCynthiaV.

"3) thereimbursementtothespousesFuleand Apurchaseringoodfaithisonewhobuyspropertyof

(DirectorofLandsvs.Addison,49Phil.,19).However, "Art.1434. Whenapersonwhoisnottheownerof

rightofapurchaseringoodfaithandcouldnothave SEC.7. Punishmentforindirectcontempt.Ifthe

ProvinceofDavao;thatLaureta'swordsandrequests "4. DirectingClaroL.Lauretatosecuretheapproval

RespondentJudgeArlegui,afterhesucceededJudge (a) DeclaringasnullandvoidTransferCertificateof

Sec.8. GroupingofDivisions.Oftheten(10) Thiscontentionhasnomerit.Areadingofthelawwill

certificationsimplythatsuchadecreedidexistbutthe 'Q. Ithasbeenpointedout,Mr.Angelesthatthe

respondtothecallsoftheircustomers.Incaseof (c) Petitioners'linemenhavestrungonlysmall

Thelawtherebycreatestheobligationofthetrusteeto "Q Andwhatwastheiranswer,ifany,toyour

"Q Andwhowasresidingonthatbighouse? "A Iagreed.Iconsented,buttheymerelypromised

"Q Andonthesecondtimeyoudemandedforthe "A IknowitbecauseonePurittoldmethatshe

"ATTY.TANEO: "Q WhenwasthiswhenthisPuritmentionedto

landinquestionisnotanadjacentproperty.Thesame "Q DidyounotinquirefromSimeonGallegoofthe

"A Ihaveconfidenceinhimbecauseitwas SOORDERED.

(a) Confirmingtheownershipoftheplaintiffson Engr.Leysoninterposedacounterclaimagainstthe

Defendantfurtherpraysforsuchotherreliefsjustand d3) P50,000.00asexemplarydamages;TaDCEc

d) OntheCounterclaim,Plaintiffsshouldpaythe d) 10,000.00 exemplarydamages;and

"A. Isawin1948,thatismyfirstyearinteaching,I actionfiledbypetitionerbeforethetrialcourtwas1)

"Q. So,whenyouansweredawhileagothatduring "...TheissuanceofthereconstitutedtitleoverlotNo.

"WHEREFORE,bypreponderanceofevidence,judgment (A) ERRONEOUSLYINFERTHEEXISTENCEAND/OR

rightofapurchaseringoodfaithandcouldnothave SEC.7. Punishmentforindirectcontempt.Ifthe

"5. ThatonJune29,1956,thewidowHerminia P4,000.00andthemortgagedinstrumentwas

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen