Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SANTOALLA
TOPIC: CADASTRAL REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS making his offer of rebuttal testimony
again failed to include these two lots.
EN BANC
Page 1 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
Church to demonstrate that such although not in rebuttal, unless it has
possession had been interrupted, or that been kept back by a trick, and for the
it was merely possession through the purpose of deceiving the defendant and
tolerance of the Church. affecting his case injuriously." (1
Thompson on Trials, sec. 346.)1awph!l.net
Page 2 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
hacienda until the execution of the deed
of acceptance and the notification
EN BANC thereof to donor. This Court added:
G.R. No. L-48480 July 30, 1943
Page 3 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
dismiss Abellera's claim and bar him from In Haw Pia vs. Roman A. Cruz (G.R. No.
presenting evidence to prove his 48506), we declared that the Court of
ownership of these lots? First Instance in a cadastral proceeding
cannot appoint a receiver because its
jurisdiction is special and limited. We
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides: declined in that case to apply the new
Rules of Court by analogy.
The Rules of Court may be applied in The order appealed from is hereby
cadastral cases when two conditions are reversed. Petitioner herein shall in the
present: (1) analogy or need to supplement cadastral proceedings be allowed to
the cadastral law, and (2) practicability present evidence to prove his claim over
and convenience. the lots in question. With costs against
the adverse claimants who are respondents
herein. So ordered.
If the nature and objective of the
cadastral scheme are kept in view, a
motion to dismiss in a cadastral case on Yulo, C.J., Moran and Ozaeta, JJ. concur.
the ground of prior judgment would seem Separate Opinions
to be out of place. The Government
initiates a cadastral case, compelling
all claimants in a municipality to
litigate against one another regarding PARAS, J., dissenting:
their respective claims of ownership. By
this plan, all the private lands in a town
are registered in one single collective Years ago a judge of first instance said
proceeding. Thus, the piece-meal and that res adjudicata cannot be set up as a
isolated registration of lands, so defense in land registration proceedings.
inadequate in more ways than one, is On appeal this Court held:
avoided. The principal aim is to settle
as much as possible all disputes over land
and to remove all clouds over land titles, A final judgment in an ordinary civil case
as far a practicable, in a community. To determining the ownership of certain land
attain this purpose, the cadastral court is res adjudicata in a registration
should allow all claimants ample freedom proceedings when the parties and the
to ventilate whatever right they may property are the same as in the former
assert over real estate, permitting them, case. (Menor vs. Quintana, 56 Phil., 657.)
in keeping with the law of evidence, to
offer proofs in support of their
allegations. To countenance the contrary
This doctrine is a reiteration of that
opinion, by suppressing the presentation
laid down in Verzosa vs. Nicolas, 29
of evidence in support of claims, would
Phil., 425, and Santiago vs. Santos, 54
but serve to perpetuate conflicts over
Phil. 619, which stated:
land, for such stifled affirmations of
ownership will fester like wounds
unskillfully treated. No sufficient
leeway having been give all claimants to A decision in ejectment bars a loser from
demonstrate the strength and consistently opposing registration under Act No. 496
of their alleged rights, the stability of by the prevailing party.
decrees of title is jeopardized.
Page 4 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
When the same parties have heretofore I dissent because in my opinion Rule 132
litigated over the same land for the in connection with Rule 8 of the Rules of
recovery of real property, the judgment Court, instead of prohibiting, expressly
in that case (48 Phil., 567) constitutes authorizes the lower court in land
res adjudicata in proceedings for registration or cadastral proceedings to
registration of the land. A party cannot entertain a motion for dismissal on the
by varying the form of action escape the ground of res adjudicata or prescription.
operation of the principle that one and Of course the dismissal of petitioner's
the same cause of action shall not be claim will not necessarily or
twice litigated. automatically mean adjudication of title
to the individual respondents, but it will
certainly facilitate the consideration of
In a revindicatory actions it was declared their claims which cease to be contested.
that the plaintiffs had no right to the Prompt disposal of cases or such claims
land sued for. In a subsequent action some is the main purpose of the said rules. Let
of the former or successful plaintiffs there be no retrogression in the
sought to recover various portions of the application of sound rules and doctrines.
same land from certain individuals to whom
such portions had been deeded by the
principal defendant in the prior case. The decision in Abellera vs. Balanag (37
Held: Judgment in the first case was Phil. 865) is on the merits and not one
conclusive against the plaintiffs in the without prejudice to the filing of a new
second case. (Baguinguito vs. Rivera, 56 action against the same defendants. The
Phil., 423.) dispositive part reads as follows:
Page 5 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
A. SECTIONS 118-124 OF CA 141 land (Exhibit 4, Defendants' Folder of
Exhibits, p. 8).
THIRD DIVISION
vs.
On January 2, 1974, Severino, Teodoro,
THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE Roberto, Salvador, and Lauro, all
COURT and SIMEONA GAYAPANAO-NOVENARIO, surnamed Gayapanao, Raymunda Gayapanao-
respondents. Ramos and the heirs of Eleuterio Gayapanao
filed before the then Court of First
Instance of Oriental Mindoro Civil Case
No. R-317, a Complaint for Partition and
Accounting with Prayer for Appointment of
FERNAN, C.J.: Receiver against their sisters Gloria
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, Gayapanao-Saet and Simeona Gayapanao-
petitioners Severino Gayapanao and his Novenario (private respondent herein) who
siblings question the decision of the then were then occupying the subject homestead
Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC)1 in lot. Both defendants filed their Answer
AC-G.R. No. CV-59589, entitled "Severino to the complaint.
Gayapanao, et al. vs. Simeona Gayapanao-
Novenario" upholding the validity of the
sale of two (2) hectares of the ten- On March 11, 1975, the court a quo
hectare homestead land by their father in rendered a decision3 declaring as null and
favor of their sister Simeona Gayapanao- void Exhibit 4, the contract of sale
Novenario. between Simeona Gayapanao-Novenario and
her father Constantino Gayapanao for
having been executed within the five-year
Briefly, the facts of the case as found prohibitory period provided under Section
by the Appellate Court are as 118 of the Public Land Law,4 and at the
same time declaring as valid Exhibit 5,
follows:2 the deed of sale executed by Teodoro
Gayapanao in favor of his sister Gloria
Gayapanao-Saet covering the former's
. . . the 2-hectare land subject of this hereditary share in the homestead lot.
case is part and parcel of a homestead lot Accordingly, the lower court ruled as
registered in the name of Constantino follows:5
Gayapanao under Original Certificate of
Title No. 3625 (Exhibits B and 2,
Plaintiffs' Folder of Exhibits, p. 2). The WHEREFORE, in view of the above findings,
homestead application of the late judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
Constantino Gayapanao over the said lot
was approved on September 7, 1931 (Exhibit
C, Ibid., p. 5) and the final order of the A. Adjudicating unto plaintiffs
Director of Lands for the issuance of SEVERINO, ROBERTO, SALVADOR, LAURO,
patent was issued on December 10, 1937, RAYMUNDA and the heirs of ELEUTERIO, all
(Exhibit A, Ibid., p. 1). On July 13, surnamed Gayapanao and Simeona Gayapanao-
1939, the Homestead Patent Title was Novenario one-ninth 1/9 each of the
issued in the name of Constantino intestate estate of the deceased
Gayapanao married to Aurelia Maamo Constantino and Aurelia Maamo covered in
(Exhibit D, Ibid., p. 2). On November 15, and embraced by Original Certificate of
1938, the late Constantino Gayapanao Title No. 3625 and the remaining two-
executed a private deed entitled ninths (2/9) to Gloria Gayapanao-Saet,
Kasulatan ng Bilihan in favor of Serafin she having purchased the one-ninth (1/9)
Novenario and his wife, Simeona Gayapanao hereditary share of plaintiff Teodoro
over 20,000 square meters of the homestead Gayapanao;
Page 6 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
homesteader and who is the "continuity of
the personality of her father for all
B. Authorizing the herein parties to legal intents and purposes," such sale is
agree among themselves to cause the "not in contravention of the avowed policy
relocated survey of the entire land in of the State, which is to preserve and
question covered by Original Certificate keep to the homesteader and his family the
of Title No. 3625 so that their respective land granted to him by the State."8
shares may be properly delineated;
Page 7 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
The above provisions of law are clear and Court of Appeals, is REVERSED and SET
explicit. A contract which purports to ASIDE. The decision in Civil Case No. R-
alienate, transfer, convey or encumber 317 of the then Court of First Instance
any homestead within the prohibitory of Oriental Mindoro is REINSTATED. Costs
period of five (5) years from the date of against private respondent.
issuance of the patent is void from its
execution. In a number of cases, this
Court has held that such provision is SO ORDERED.
mandatory (De los Santos vs. Roman
Catholic Church of Midsayap, 94 Phil.
405).
Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and
Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.
Page 8 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
(b) ordering the Register of Deeds of Except in favor of the Government or any
Cotabato that homestead patent No. V-532 its branches, units, or institutions,
be returned to the Bureau of Lands for lands acquired under free patent or
cancellation; homestead provision shall not be subject
to encumbrance of alienation from the date
of the approval of the application and for
(c) ordering the Register of Deeds of a term of five years from and after the
Cotabato to cancel Certificate of Title date of issuance of the patent or grant,
No. V-17; and nor shall they become liable to the
satisfaction of any debt contracted prior
to the expiration of said period, but the
improvements or crops on the land may be
(d) declaring hereby reverted to the mortgaged or pledged to qualified
public domain as belonging to the Republic persons, association, or corporations.
of the Philippines the land covered by
said Certificate of Title No. V-17, with
costs against the defendants.
Section 124 of the same Act provides:
Page 9 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
hectares of the homestead land. Moreover, patent to the grantee, such alienation is
as found and held by the trial court: a sufficient cause for reversion to the
State of the whole grant. In granting a
homestead to an applicant, the law imposes
. . . as stated in Annex "A", the as a condition that the land should not
improvements on the land only consist of be encumbered, sold or alienated within
50 coconut, 5 mango trees, 1 nangka tree, five years from the issuance of the
bananas and other fruit trees. It is patent. The sale or alienation of part of
unbelievable that defendants Domingo the homestead violates that condition.
Colorado, Raymundo de Guzman, Inocencio
Padama, Ignacio Ramos and Leon de Guzman
would grant a loan of P11,000.00 for such The judgment appealed from is affirmed,
a small security as those improvements with costs against the appellants.
specified above. Then if it is true that
the transaction had between them is only
a loan, to be paid by instalment every Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes,
year, the defendants failed to produce any A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion
evidence that any instalment has ever been and Endencia, JJ., concur.
paid, taking into consideration that
already elapsed more than five (5) years
from that time up to the hearing of this
case.
FIRST DIVISION
The fact that the appellant Isabelo Garcia G.R. No. 104114 December 4, 1995
moved to the municipality of Bislig, LEE CHUY REALTY CORPORATION, petitioner,
province of Surigao, and abandoned his
homestead in Kiamba, Cotabato, is proof vs.
that he sold 19 hectares of his homestead.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND MARC REALTY AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
Appellants contended that, under section
50, Act No. 496, the operative act to
convey and affect lands registered BELLOSILLO, J.:
thereunder is the act of registration,
that inasmuch as the deed of sale Exhibit
A was never registered there was actually Is a judicial action to redeem coupled
no conveyance made of the 19 hectares of with consignation of the price within the
the homestead land, and that for that redemption period equivalent to a formal
reason there was no infringement of offer to redeem under Art. 1623 in
section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141. relation to Art. 1620 of the Civil Code?
To constitute a violation of the section Corollarily, is a formal offer to redeem
just referred to, it is enough that the accompanied with tender of payment a
homestead be encumbered or alienated condition precedent to the filing of an
within the prohibitive period of five action for the valid exercise of the right
years; it is not necessary that the of legal redemption? Plainly stated, is
encumbrance or alienation be registered the filing of the action with consignation
in the Office of the Register of Deeds. equivalent to a formal offer to redeem?
To uphold the appellants' contention
would defeat the very prohibition
established by law, for no party to a A valuable piece of land in Malhacan,
prohibited sale or conveyance would Meycauayan, Bulacan, with an area of
register such an illegal transaction. 24,576 square meters and covered by OCT
Besides, the vendees already, had taken No. 0-5290 is disputed by petitioner Lee
possession of the part sold to them. Chuy Realty Corporation (LEE CHUY REALTY)
and private respondent Marc Realty and
Development Corporation (MARC REALTY).
Even if only 19 out of the 23.21 hectares Originally the property was co-owned by
of the homestead land had been sold or Ruben Jacinto to the extent of one-sixth
alienated within the prohibitive period and Dominador, Arsenio, Liwayway, all
of five years from date of issuance of the surnamed Bascara, and Ernesto Jacinto who
Page 10 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
collectively owned the remaining five- On 22 November 1991 the Court of Appeals
sixths. rendered a decision reversing that of the
lower court and ruling that "a prior
tender or offer of redemption is a
On 4 February 1981 Ruben Jacinto sold his prerequisite or precondition to the
one-sixth pro-indiviso share to LEE CHUY filing of an action for legal redemption."
REALTY. The sale was registered on 30 It further ruled that "there must be
April 1981. On 5 May 1989 the Bascaras and tender of the redemption price within the
Ernesto Jacinto also sold their share to required period . . . because the policy
MARC REALTY. The sale was registered on of the law is not to leave the purchaser's
16 October 1989. title in uncertainty beyond the
established 30-day period." LEE CHUY
REALTY filed a motion for reconsideration
but it was denied hence the present
LEE CHUY REALTY claims that it was never petition.
informed of the existence of the sale
between MARC REALTY on one hand and the
Bascaras and Jacinto on the other, and
that on the contrary it was only upon MARC REALTY contends that prior tender of
inquiry from the Register of Deeds of payment is a condition precedent to the
Bulacan that the sale was brought to its filing of an action in court in order to
attention. MARC REALTY contends validly exercise the right of legal
otherwise. It insists that LEE CHUY REALTY redemption. LEE CHUY REALTY however
was verbally notified of the sale and was argues that the filing of the action
in fact given a copy of the deed of sale. itself is equivalent to a formal offer to
redeem, which is a condition precedent to
the valid exercise of the right of legal
redemption.
On 13 November 1989 LEE CHUY REALTY filed
a complaint for legal redemption against
MARC REALTY1 and consigned in court a
manager's check for 614,400. In its We sustain LEE CHUY REALTY. Arts. 1620 and
Amended Answer with Counterclaim with 1623 of the Civil Code on legal redemption
Motion to Dismiss, MARC REALTY insisted provide:
that the complaint be dismissed for
failure to state a cause of action there
being no allegation of prior valid tender Art. 1620. A co-owner of a thing may
of payment nor a prior valid notice of exercise the right of redemption in case
consignation. the shares of all the other co-owners or
of any of them are sold to a third person.
If the price of the alienation is grossly
On 26 December 1990 the trial court2 ruled excessive, the redemptioner shall pay
in favor of LEE CHUY REALTY holding that only a reasonable one.
there was a prior valid tender of payment
and consignation. It further decreed that
"(n)either a separate offer to redeem nor xxx xxx xxx
a formal notice of consignation are (sic)
necessary for the reason that the filing
of the action itself, within the period Art. 1623. The right of legal pre-
of redemption, is equivalent to a formal emption or redemption shall not be
offer to redeem."3 exercised except within thirty days from
the notice in writing by the prospective
vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may
On 1 February 1991 MARC REALTY filed a be. The deed of sale shall not be recorded
Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition with in the Registry of Property unless
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor
of Preliminary Injunction with this that he has given written notice thereof
Court. The petition however was referred to all possible redemptioners.
to the Court of Appeals pursuant to Sec.
9, B.P. Blg. 129.
MARC REALTY would apply the ruling in
Cabrera v. Villanueva4 and De la Merced
v. De Guzman5 where an offer to redeem was
Page 11 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
required for the exercise of the right of
redemption. On the other hand, LEE CHUY
REALTY anchors its claim on Tioseco v. In Hulganza v. Court of Appeals14 the
Court of Appeals,6 Tolentino v. Court of Court, citing previous decisions,
Appeals,7 and Belisario v. Intermediate declared that the formal offer to redeem,
Appellate Court.8 Specifically, in accompanied by a bona fide tender of the
Cabrera v. Villanueva9 we held that for redemption price, within the prescribed
the legal and effective exercise of the period is only essential to preserve the
right of legal redemption one must make right of redemption for future
the offer within the period set in Art. enforcement beyond such period of
1623. In other words, if no claim or offer redemption and within the period
is made within thirty (30) days from prescribed for the action by the statute
written notice, no action may be allowed of limitations. Where, as in the instant
to enforce the right of redemption. But case, the right to redeem is exercised
in Tolentino v. Court of Appeals,10 through judicial action within the
Tioseco v. Court of Appeals11 and reglementary period the formal offer to
Belisario v. Intermediate Appellate redeem, accompanied by a bona fide tender
Court12 we adopted the view that a formal of the redemption price, while proper, may
offer to redeem, accompanied by a bona be unessential. The filing of the action
fide tender of the redemption price, is itself is equivalent to a formal offer to
not essential where the right to redeem redeem.
is exercised through a judicial action
within the redemption period and
simultaneously depositing the redemption In sum, the formal offer to redeem is not
price. The formal offer to redeem a distinct step or condition sine qua non
accompanied by a bona fide tender of the to the filing of the action in Court for
redemption price prescribed by law is only the valid exercise of the right of legal
essential to preserve the right of redemption. What constitutes a condition
redemption for future enforcement even precedent is either a formal offer to
beyond the period of redemption. The redeem or the filing of an action in court
filing of the action itself within the together with the consignation of the
period of redemption is equivalent to a redemption price within the reglementary
formal offer to redeem. period.
A judicious scrutiny of the cases herein The doctrine in Tolentino, Tioseco and
cited impugns the impression of MARC Belisario cases was jettisoned by the
REALTY that they enunciate conflicting Court of Appeals on the ground that they
doctrines. On the contrary, we view them do not involve legal redemption by a co-
as complementing one another. The Court owner but by a mortgagor. It concluded
of Appeals erroneously concluded that a that the application of the rules on legal
prior tender or offer of redemption is a redemption by a co-owner differs from the
prerequisite or precondition to the legal redemption by a mortgagor. But the
filing of the action for legal redemption, law does not distinguish; neither should
notwithstanding prevailing jurisprudence we. For sure, the principle in the
holding that to avail of the right of aforecited cases is applicable regardless
redemption what is essential is to make of whether the redemptioner is a co-owner
an offer to redeem within the prescribed or a mortgagor. Public policy favors
period. There is actually no prescribed redemption regardless of whether the
form for an offer to redeem to be properly redemptioner is a co-owner or mortgagor,
effected. Hence, it can either be through although perhaps with unequal force and
a formal tender with consignation, or by effect since each is given a fixed but
filing a complaint in court coupled with different period. A co-owner desirous of
consignation of the redemption price exercising his right of legal redemption
within the prescribed period. What is is given a period of thirty (30) days from
condition precedent to a valid exercise notice of the sale within which to avail
of the right of legal redemption is either of the right to redeem.15 Under the free
the formal tender with consignation or the patent or homestead provisions of the
filing of a complaint in court. What is Public Land Act a period of five (5) years
paramount is the availment of the fixed from the date of conveyance is provided,16
and definite period within which to the five-year period to be reckoned from
exercise the right of legal redemption.13 the date of the sale and not from the date
Page 12 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
of registration in the office of the Original Certificate of Title No. P-
Register of Deeds.17 The redemption of 9053.[1]
extrajudicially foreclosed properties, on
the other hand, is exercisable within one
(1) year from the date of the auction sale On June 15, 1983, well within the five-
as provided for in Act No. 3135.18 year prohibitory period, Eusebio Borromeo
sold the land to Eliseo Maltos.[2]
DECISION
The Register of Deeds of Agusan del Sur
also filed an Answer, arguing that the
LEONEN, J.: deed of sale was presented for
Registration after the five-year
prohibitory period, thus, it was
The sale of a parcel of agricultural land ministerial on its part to register the
covered by a free patent during the five- deed.[8]
year prohibitory period under the Public
Land Act is void. Reversion of the parcel
of land is proper. However, reversion The heirs of Borromeo countered that good
under Section 101 of the Public Land Act faith was not a valid defense because the
is not automatic. The Office of the prohibitory period appeared on the face
Solicitor General must first file an of the title of the property.[9]
action for reversion.
Page 13 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
1. Whether or not the herein plaintiffs The trial court further held that since
are the legal heirs of the late Eusebio the sale was null and void, no title
Borromeo. passed from Eusebio Borromeo to Eliseo
Maltos.[24] The dispositive portion of
the trial court's Decision states:
2. Whether or not the sale of the disputed
property within the prohibitory period is
valid or binding.[11] WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the
complaint under consideration is hereby
ordered DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to
The trial court dismissed the Complaint costs.
on the ground of failure to state a cause
of action.[12] Also, the heirs of Borromeo
did not have a right of action because SO ORDERED.[25]
they were unable to establish their status
as heirs of the late Eusebio Borromeo.[13]
They may have declared themselves the On appeal, the heirs of Borromeo argued
legal heirs of Eusebio Borromeo, but they that they were able to prove their status
did not present evidence to prove their as heirs through the testimony of their
allegation.[14] Further, the mother, Norberta Borromeo.[26]
determination of their rights to
succession must be established in special
proceedings.[15]
The heirs of Borromeo also argued that the
trial court should have ordered the
"revival of [Original Certificate of
The trial court also ruled that "[t]he Title] No. P-9053 in the name of the Heirs
sale was null and void because it was of EUSEBIO BORROMEO."[27]
within the five (5) year prohibitionary
[sic] period"[16] under the Public Land
Act.[17] The defense of indefeasibility
of title was unavailing because the title The Court of Appeals[28] reversed the
to the property stated that it was Decision of the trial court and held that
"subject to the provisions of Sections since Eusebio Borromeo sold his property
118, 119, 121, 122 and 124"[18] of the within the five-year prohibitory period,
Public Land Act.[19] Since the property the property should revert to the
was sold within the five-year prohibitory state.[29] However, the government has to
period, such transfer "result[ed] in the file an action for reversion because
cancellation of the grant and the "reversion is not automatic."[30] While
reversion of the land to the public there is yet no action for reversion
domain."[20] instituted by the Office of the Solicitor
General, the property should be returned
to the heirs of Borromeo.[31] The
dispositive portion of the Court of
As to the defense of in pari delicto, the Appeals' Decision states:
trial court ruled against its
applicability,[21] citing Egao v. Court
of Appeals (Ninth Division).[22]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
instant Appeal is GRANTED. The Decision
of the court a quo in Civil Case No. 946
The rule of pari delicto non oritur action is hereby SET ASIDE and another one is
(where two persons are equally at fault entered (1) ordering Appellee ELISEO
neither party may be entitled to relief MALTOS to reconvey the property subject
under the law), admits of exceptions and matter of this litigation to Appellants
does not apply to an inexistent contract, upon the refund by the latter to Appellee
such as, a sale void ab initio under the ELISEO MALTOS the sum of P36,863.00, all
Public Land Act, when its enforcement or expenses for the reconveyance to be borne
application runs counter to the public by the buyer, ELISEO MALTOS, herein
policy of preserving the grantee's right Appellee and (2) ordering the Register of
to the land under the homestead law.[23] Deeds of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur to
(Citation omitted) cancel TCT No. T-5477 and revive OCT No.
P-9053.
Page 14 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
2006. In the same Resolution, this court
required the Maltos Spouses to file their
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished! Reply.[48]
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
for its information and appropriate
action and to inform this court within a
period of thirty (30) days from receipt In a Resolution dated March 28, 2007, this
hereof of the action done under the court required Attys. Ma. Cherell L. De
premises. Castro and Gener C. Sansaet, counsels for
the Maltos Spouses, to show cause why they
should not be disciplinarily dealt with
for their failure to file a Reply. They
SO ORDERED.[32] (Emphasis supplied) were also required to comply with the
Resolution dated September 25, 2006.[50]
This court, in a Resolution[45] dated July The Maltos Spouses further argue that it
5, 2006, required the heirs of Borromeo was error for the Court of Appeals not to
to file their Comment. apply the in pari delicto rule,
considering that the sale violated
Section 118[60] of the Public Land
Act.[61] Since both parties are at fault,
The heirs of Borromeo filed their it follows that Article 1412[62] of the
Comment,[46] which was noted by this court Civil Code applies.[63]
in a Resolution[47] dated September 25,
Page 15 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
of Midsayap, et al.,[67] this court stated
that the in pari delicto rule does not
In addition, the Maltos Spouses pray for apply if its application will have the
the reimbursement of the value of the effect of violating public policy.[68]
improvements on the property to prevent
unjust enrichment on the part of the heirs
of Borromeo.[64] The Maltos Spouses
enumerate the following circumstances to With regard to the claim for
show why they should be reimbursed: reimbursements, the heirs of Borromeo
argue that the Maltos Spouses did not
raise their claim for reimbursement in
their Answer to the Complaint. They are
a. EUSEBIO has already long received and now barred from claiming reimbursement
enjoyed the amount of the purchase price since this was not raised at the first
of the subject land from petitioners. instance.[69]
b. The value of the purchase price of Based on the arguments of the parties, the
PHP36,863.00 paid in 1983 have since then issues for resolution are:
greatly depreciated. If petitioners had
deposited that money in bank or loaned it
to another person instead of purchasing
EUSEBIO's property, it would have at least First, whether the Court of Appeals erred
earned some interest. However, the Court in reversing the Decision of the trial
of Appeals incorrectly assumed that the court and ordering the reconveyance of the
return of the purchase price would be property from petitioners Spouses Eliseo
sufficient compensation to the Maltos and Rosita Maltos to respondents
petitioners. heirs of Eusebio Borromeo;
c. The value of the improvements Second, whether the Court of Appeals erred
introduced by petitioners on the subject in not applying the doctrine of in pari
property is much greater than the purchase delicto; and
price that they initially paid on the
land. Petitioners estimate the value of
the improvements, including hundreds of Finally, whether the Court of Appeals
various fruit-bearing trees and four erred in ruling that petitioners Spouses
residential houses, to be at least Eliseo Maltos and Rosita Maltos are not
PHP900,000.00. Because of these entitled to reimbursement for the
improvements, not only can respondents improvements they introduced on the land.
sell the land at a much higher price, they
can even sell the improvements and profit
from them. It would be the height of II
injustice if all the petitioners would
receive in turning over the subject
property to the respondents is the
The five-year period prohibiting the sale
purchase price that was previously paid
of land obtained under homestead or free
EUSEBIO under the deed of sale.[65]
patent is provided under Section 118 of
the Public Land Act, which states:
Page 16 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
debt contracted prior to the expiration produces no effect whatsoever, just like
of said period; but the improvements or what transpired in this case. Clearly, it
crops on the land may be mortgaged] or is not within the competence of any
pledged to qualified persons, citizen to barter away what public policy
associations, or corporations. by law seeks to preserve.[79] (Citations
omitted)
Page 17 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
the Penal Code relative to the disposal
of effects or instruments of a crime shall
SECTION 124. Any acquisition, conveyance, be applicable to the things or the price
alienation, transfer, or other contract of the contract.
made or executed in violation of any of
the provisions of sections one hundred and
eighteen, one hundred and twenty, one
hundred and twenty-one, one hundred and This rule shall be applicable when only
twenty-two, and one hundred and twenty- one of the parties is guilty; but the
three of this. Act shall be unlawful and innocent one may claim what he has given,
null and void from its execution and shall and shall not be bound to comply with his
produce the effect of annulling and promise.
cancelling the grant, title, patent, or
permit originally issued, recognized or
confirmed, actually or presumptively, and ART. 1412. If the act in which the
cause the reversion of the property and unlawful or forbidden cause consists does
its improvements to the State. not constitute a criminal offense, the
following rules shall be observed:
Page 18 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
the policy behind the approval of the terror. In affording this remedy of
Public Land Act. The principle underlying restitution the object of the statute is
pari delicto as known here and in the to prevent breaches of the peace and
United States is not absolute in its criminal disorder which would ensue from
application. It recognizes certain the withdrawal of the remedy, and the
exceptions one of them being when its reasonable hope such withdrawal would
enforcement or application runs counter create that some advantage must accrue to
to an avowed fundamental policy or to those persons who, believing themselves
public interest. As stated by us in the entitled to the possession of property,
Rellosa case, "This doctrine is subject resort to force to gain possession rather
to one important limitation, namely, than to some appropriate action in the
[']whenever public policy is considered courts to assert their claims.[95]
advanced by allowing either party to sue
for relief against the transaction[']"
This court elucidated that:
Page 19 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
the sum of money should be returned.[105] interest. As against the vendor or his
In so ruling, this court cited Gonzalo v. heirs, the purchaser is no more entitled
Tarnate, Jr.[106] where it was explained to keep the land than any intruder. Such
that: is the situation of the appellants. Their
right to remain in possession of the land
is no better than that of appellee and,
. . . the application of the doctrine of therefore, they should not be allowed to
in pari delicto is not always rigid. An remain in it to the prejudice of appellee
accepted exception arises when its during and until the government takes
application contravenes well-established steps toward its reversion to the
public policy. In this jurisdiction, State.[108] (Emphasis supplied, citation
public policy has been defined as "that omitted)
principle of the law which holds that no
subject or citizen can lawfully do that
which has a tendency to hi injurious to In Binayug v. Ugaddan,[109] which
the public or against the public good." involved the sale of two properties
covered by a homestead patent,[110] this
Unjust enrichment exists, according to court cited jurisprudence showing that in
Hulst v. PR Builders, Inc., "when a person cases involving the sale of a property
unjustly retains a benefit at the loss of covered by the five-year prohibitory
another, or when a person retains money period, the property should be returned
or property of another against the to the grantee.[111]
fundamental principles of justice, equity
and good conscience." The prevention of
unjust enrichment is a recognized public
policy of the State, for Article 22 of the Applying the ruling in Santos and Binayug,
Civil Code explicitly provides that this court makes it clear that petitioners
"[e]very person who through an act of have no better right to remain in
performance by another, or any other possession of the property against
meins, acquires or comes into possession respondents.
of something at the expense of the latter
without just or legal ground, shall return
the same to him." It is wel I to note that Hence, the Court of Appeals did not err
Article 22 "is part of the chapter of the in ruling that while there is yet no
Civil Code on Human Relations, the action for reversion filed by the Office
provisions of which were formulated as of the Solicitor General, the property
basic principles to be observed for the should be conveyed by petitioners to
rightful relationship between human respondents.
beings and for the stability of the social
order; designed to indicate certain norms
that spring from the fountain of good III
conscience; guides for human conduct that
should run as golden threads through
society to the end that law may approach
Petitioners' argument that respondents
its supreme ideal which is the sway and
failed to establish their status as heirs
dominance of justice."[107]
is belied by their admissions during trial
and in their pleadings. Petitioners t know
the identity of Eusebio Borromeo's wife.
As the in pari delicto rule is not As quoted in the trial court's Decision,
applicable, the question now arises as to petitioners alleged in their Answer that:
who between the parties have a better
right to possess the subject parcel of
land. This issue was addressed in Santos:
[I]t was the late Eusebio Borromeo and his
wife who came along in Bayugan 2, San
Francisco, Agusan del Sur, requesting the
What is important to consider now is who said defendants to purchase their land
of the parties is the better entitled to because they badly need money and
the possession of the land while the notwithstanding the fact that they have a
government does not take steps to assert little amount and out of pity bought the
its title to the homestead. Upon annulment said land.[112]
of the sale, the purchaser's claim is
reduced to the purchase price and its
Page 20 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
In the Reply, respondents alleged: In any case, the Court of Appeals did not
err when it stated in its Resolution dated
April 7, 2006 that:
The allegation that the late Eusebio
Borrjomeo and his wife went to Bayugan II,
San Francisco, Agusan del Sur in order to With respect to Appellees' claim for the
sell the land to the defendant Eliseo reimbursement of the improvements on the
Maltos has no factual basis, the truth of land in question, they are hereby declared
the matter is that the late Eusebio to have lost and forfeited the value of
Borromeo, together with defendant Eliseo the necessary improvements that they made
Maltos went to Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat thereon in the same manner that Appellants
to secure the signature of the wife.[113] should lose the value of the products
gathered by the Appellees from the said
land.[118]
In addition, when petitioner Eliseo
Maltos was presented in court, he
identified the signatures of the The Court of Appeals cited Angeles, et at
witnesses on the deed of sale as the v. Court of Appeals, et al.[119] and
signatures of Eusebio Borromeo's Arsenal v. Intermediate Appellate
children, namely, Susan, Ana, and Nicolas Court.[120] In Angeles, this court
Borromeo.[114] discussed that:
Respondents' allegation that they are the The question that now poses is whether the
heirs of Borromeo is admitted by return of the value of the products
petitioners. Thus, the Court of Appeals gathered from the land by the defendants
did not err in ruling that "the fact that and the expenses incurred in the
Appellants [referring to respondents] are construction of the dike—all useful and
the spouse and children of the late necessary expenses—should be ordered to
EUSEBIO remains unrebutted."[115] be returned by the defendants to the
plaintiffs. While we believe that the rule
of in pari delicto should not apply to the
IV sale of the homestead, because such sale
is contrary to the public policy
enunciated in the homestead law, the loss
of the products realized by the defendants
With regard to the claim for and the value of the necessary
reimbursement, respondents argue that it improvements made by them on the land
was not raised as a counterclaim in the should not be excepted from the
Answer to the Complaint. application of the said rule because no
cause or reason can be cited to justify
an exception. It has been held that the
During trial, petitioner Eliseo Maltos rule of in pari delicto is inapplicable
testified that when he entered the land, only where the same violates a well-
there were around 100 trees, including established public policy.
coconut trees and a few banana trees. He
then planted additional coconut trees
which, at the time of the trial, were . . . .
already bearing fruit.[116] Petitioner
Eliseo Maltos' testimony was not rebutted
by respondents.
We are constrained to hold that the heirs
of the homesteader should be declared to
have lost and forfeited the value of the
The general rule is that "[a] compulsory products gathered from the land, and so
counterclaim . . . not set up shall be should the defendants lose the value of
barred."[117] Further, the computation of the necessary improvements that they have
the value of the improvements on the land made thereon.[121]
entails findings of fact.
Page 21 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
in 1957,[122] while the Complaint was disposed of to private individuals or
filed before the trial court in 1974.[123] corporations to the mass of public
The case was decided by this court in domain."[126]
1986.[124] Thus, Suralta had been in
possession of the property for
approximately 17 years before a Complaint The general rule is that reversion of
was filed. This court held that: lands to the state is not automatic, and
the Office of the Solicitor General is the
proper party to file an action for
The value of any improvements made on the reversion.
land and the interests on the purchase
price are compensated by the fruits the
respondent Suralta and his heirs received In Villacorta v. Ulanday,[127] defendant-
from their long possession of the appellee Vicente Ulanday admitted that
homestead.[125] his purchase of a parcel of land covered
by a homestead patent was made within the
five-year prohibitory period, but argued
Angeles and Arsenal both involved the sale that since the sale was in violation of
of a parcel of land covered by a homestead law,[128] the property should
patent within the five-year prohibitory automatically revert to the state.[129]
period. These cases also involved the This court held that reversion was not
introduction of improvements on the automatic, and government must file an
parcel of land by the buyer. appropriate action so that the land may
be reverted to the state.[130]
Page 22 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
alleged that Sola acquired the property would include "plaintiffs ownership of
in bad faith.[141] This court held that the contested lot prior to the issuance
Alvarico's allegation of bad faith was not of [the] free patent and certificate of
supported by evidence and that in any title[.]"[150]
case, "only the State can institute
reversion proceedings under Sec[tion] 101
of the Public Land Act."[142] This court Since an action for reversion presupposes
restated Section 101 of the Public Land that the property in dispute is owned by
Act: the state, it is proper that the action
be filed by the Office of the Solicitor
General, being the real party-in-
[A] private individual may not bring an interest.
action for reversion or any action which
would have the effect of canceling a free
patent and the corresponding certificate There is, however, an exception to the
of title issued on the basis thereof, such rule that reversion is not automatic.
that the land covered thereby will again Section 29 of the Public Land Act
form part of the public domain. Only the provides:
Solicitor General or the officer acting
in his stead may do so. Since [the] title
originated from a grant by the government,
its cancellation is a matter between the SECTION 29. After the cultivation of the
grantor and the grantee.[143] (Citations land has begun, the purchaser, with the
omitted) approval of the Secretary of Agriculture
and Commerce, may convey or encumber his
rights to any person, corporation, or
association legally qualified under this
The rule in Alvarico was cited in Cawis, Act to purchase agricultural public
et al. v. Hon. Cerilles, et al.[144] In lands, provided such conveyance or
Cawis, the validity of a sales patent and encumbrance does not affect any right or
original certificate of title over a interest of the Government in the land:
parcel of land in Baguio was And provided, further, That the
questioned.[145] This court denied the transferee is not delinquent in the
Petition[146] and ruled that the payment of any installment due and
Complaint was actually a reversion suit, payable. Any sale and encumbrance made
which can be filed only by the Office of without the previous approval of the
the Solicitor General or a person acting Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce
in its stead.[147] shall be null and void and shall produce
the effect of annulling the acquisition
and reverting the property and all rights
It was also discussed in Cawis that: to the State, and all payments on the
purchase price theretofore made to the
Government shall be forfeited. After the
The objective of an action for reversion sale has been approved, the vendor shall
of public land is the cancellation of the not lose his right to acquire agricultural
certificate of title an|l the resulting public lands under the provisions of this
reversion of the land covered by the title Act, provided he has the necessary
to the State| This is why an action for qualifications. (Emphasis supplied)
reversion is oftentimes designated asj an
annulment suit or a cancellation
suit.[148] In Francisco v. Rodriguez, et al,[151]
this court differentiated reversion under
Sections 29 and 101 of the Public Land
We clarify that the remedy of reversion Act.[152] This court explained that
is not the same as the remedy of reversion under Section 29 is self-
declaration of nullity of free patents and operative, unlike Section 101 which
certificate of title. In reversion, the requires the Office of the Solicitor
"allegations in the complaint would admit General to institute reversion
State ownership of the disputed proceedings.[153] Also, Section 101
land[,]"[149] while in an action for the applies in cases where "title has already
declaration of nullity of free patent and vested in the individual[.]"[154] The
certificate of title, the allegations Director of Lands sought to execute the
Page 23 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
Decision in Francisco v. Rodriguez which the Public Land Act. . . . However, the
petitioner Ursula Francisco opposed, disposition is merely provisional because
arguing that only 29 hectares were the applicant has still to comply with the
reverted to the state since she was in requirements prescribed by law before . .
possession of the remaining four . . any patent is issued. After the
hectares.[155] This court held that the requisites of the law are complied with
entire property reverted to the by the applicant to the satisfaction of
state.[156] This court also explained why the Director [of] Lands, the patent is
Francisco v. Rodriguez was covered by issued. It is then that the land covered
Section 29 and not Section 101 of the by the application may be considered
Public Land Act: "permanently disposed of by the
Government."[157] (Citations omitted)
Page 24 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
B. SECTION 7, ARTICLE XII, 1987 deed of conveyance. Under Article 1498 of
CONSTITUTION the Civil Code of the Philippines, “when
the sale is made through a public
instrument, the execution thereof shall
G.R. Nos. 113472-73. December 20, 1994.* be equivalent to the delivery of the
object of the contract, if from the deed
ONG CHING PO, YU SIOK LIAN, DAVID ONG and the contrary does not appear or cannot
JIMMY ONG, petitioners, clearly be inferred.” If what petitioners
meant was that private respondent never
vs. lived in the building constructed on said
COURT OF APPEALS and SOLEDAD PARIAN, land, it was because her family had
respondents. settled in Iloilo.
Page 25 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
Same; Documentary Evidence; Secondary died in January 1983; while petitioner Ong
Evidence; Order of Proof of Secondary Ching Po died in October 1986. The said
Evidence.—Secondary evidence is sale was evidenced by a notarized Deed of
admissible when the original documents Sale written in English. Subsequently,
were actually lost or destroyed. But prior the document was registered with the
to the introduction of such secondary Register of Deeds of Manila, which issued
evidence, the proponent must establish Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9260
the former existence of the document. The dated September 2, 1947 in the name of
correct order of proof is as follows: private respondent.
existence; execution; loss; contents.
This order may be changed if necessary in
the discretion of the court (De Vera v. According to private respondent, she
Aguilar, 218 SCRA 602 [1993]). entrusted the administration of the lot
and building to petitioner Ong Ching Po
when she and her husband settled in
Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; Persons who Iloilo. When her husband died, she
may testify as to the due execution of a demanded that the lot be vacated because
document.—The due execution of the she was going to sell it. Unfortunately,
document may be established by the person petitioners refused to vacate the said
or persons who executed it; by the person premises.
before whom its execution was
acknowledged; or by any person who was
present and saw it executed or who after On March 19, 1984, private respondent
its execution, saw it and recognized the filed a case for unlawful detainer against
signatures; or by a person to whom the petitioner Ong Ching Po before the
parties to the instrument had previously Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila,
confessed the execution thereof (De Vera Branch 26. The inferior court dismissed
v. Aguilar, supra). her case. The dismissal was affirmed by
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10,
Manila. The decision of the Regional Trial
PETITION for review on certiorari of a Court was, in turn, affirmed by the Court
decision of the Court of Appeals. of Appeals, which dismissed the petition.
The decision of the Court of Appeals
became final and executory.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the
Court.
Petitioners, on the other hand, claimed
that on July 23, 1946, petitioner Ong
Bautista, Salva, Arrieta, Salva for Ching Po bought the said parcel of land
petitioners. from Ong Joi Jong. The sale was evidenced
by a photo copy of a Deed of Sale written
Arthem Maceda Potian for private in Chinese with the letter head “Sincere
respondent. Trading Co.” (Exh. “B”). An English
translation of said document (Exh. “C”)
reads as follows:
QUIASON, J.:
Page 26 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
erected thereon, now belong (sic) to Mr. (1) When it gave full faith and credit to
Ong Ching Po unequivocally. And the the Deed of Sale (Exh. “A”) in favor of
purpose of this document is to precisely private respondent, instead of the Deed
serve as proof of the sale. of Sale (Exh. “B” and its translation,
Exh. “C”) in favor of petitioner Ong Ching
Po.
Addendum: I have acceded to the request (2) When it concluded that the acts of
of Mr. Ong Ching Po into signing another petitioners were not acts of ownership;
document in favor of Soledad Parian (She and
is the Filipino wife of Ong Yee, brother
of Ong Ching Po) for the purpose of (3) When it ruled that no express nor
facilitating the issuance of the new title implied trust existed between petitioners
by the City Register of Deeds and for the and private respondent (Rollo, pp. 17-
reason that he is not yet a Filipino. I 18).
certify to the truthfulness of this fact.
As stated by petitioners themselves, what
is in dispute “x x x is not so much as to
which between Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B”
Lot Seller: Ong Joi Jong” is more weighty, but whether this document
is what it purports to be (i.e., a deed
of conveyance in favor of Soledad Parian
(Exhibits for the plaintiff, p. 4) [private respondent]) or it was only
resorted to or executed as a subterfuge
because the real buyer (Ong Ching Po) was
On December 6, 1983, petitioner Ong Ching an alien and it was agreed upon between
Po executed a Deed of Absolute Sale Ong Ching Po and his brother (Ong Yee,
conveying to his children, petitioners Soledad Parian’s husband) that the land
Jimmy and David Ong, the same property be registered in the name of Soledad
sold by Ong Joi Jong to private respondent Parian in order to avoid legal
in 1947. On December 12, 1985, petitioners complications and to facilitate
Ong Ching Po, Jimmy Ong and David Ong registration and transfer and that the
filed an action for reconveyance and said title would be transferred by Soledad
damages against private respondent in the to Ong Ching Po or his successors-in-
Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Manila, interest and that she would be holding the
docketed as Case No. 85-33962. title in trust for him” (Rollo, pp. 19-
20).
Page 27 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
associations qualified to acquire or hold established, the same is null and void,
lands of the public domain in the it being contrary to law.
Philippines.”
Page 28 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
Undaunted, petitioners argue that if they Petitioners failed to adduce evidence as
cannot prove an express trust in writing, to the genuineness and due execution of
they can prove an implied trust orally. the deed of sale, Exhibit “B.”
While an implied trust may be proved
orally (Civil Code of the Philippines,
Art. 1457), the evidence must be The due execution of the document may be
trustworthy and received by the courts established by the person or persons who
with extreme caution, because such kind executed it; by the person before whom its
of evidence may be easily fabricated execution was acknowledged; or by any
(Salao v. Salao, 70 SCRA 65 [1976]). It person who was present and saw it executed
cannot be made to rest on vague and or who after its execution, saw it and
uncertain evidence or on loose, equivocal recognized the signatures; or by a person
or indefinite declarations (Cf. De Leon to whom the parties to the instrument had
v. Molo-Peckson, et al., 116 Phil. 1267 previously confessed the execution
[1962]). Petitioners do not claim that Ong thereof (De Vera v. Aguilar, supra).
Yee was not in a financial position to
acquire the land and to introduce the
improvements thereon. On the other hand,
Yu Siok Lian, the wife of petitioner Ong Petitioner Yu Siok Lian testified that she
Ching Po, admitted in her testimony in was present when said document was
court that Ong Yee was a stock-holder of executed, but the trial court rejected her
Lam Sing Corporation and was engaged in claim and held:
business.
Page 29 of 30
NATURAL RESOURCES│ COMPILED CASES│ STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA
It is markworthy that all the tax receipts
were in the name of private respondent and
her husband. The rental receipts were also
in the name of her husband.
SO ORDERED.
Petition dismissed.
Page 30 of 30