Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

Even assuming that Sola acquired title tot eh disputed property in bad faith, only the State can

institute REVERSION
PROCEEDINGS under Sec. 101 of the Public Land Act. Thus:

Sec. 101. All actions for reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall
be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines.

In other words, a private individual may not bring an action for reversion or any action which would have the effect
of canceling a free patent and the corresponding certificate of title issued on the basis thereof, suh that the land
covered thereby will again form part of the public domain.

Only the Solicitor General of the officer acting in his stead may do so. Since Sola's title originated from a grant by
the government, its cancellation is a matter between the grantor and the grantee. Clearly then, Alvarico has no
standing at all to question the validity of Sola's title. It follows that he cannot recover the property because to begin
with, he has not shown that he is the rightful owner thereof.

Anent Alvarico's contention that it was the intention of Fermina Sola for Amelita Sola to hold the property in trust
for him, we held that if this was really the intention of Fermina, then this should have been clearly stated in the
Deed of Self-Adjudication executed in 1983, in the Deed of Donation executed in 1984, or in a subsequent
instrument. Absent any persuasive proof of that intention in any written instrument, we are not prepared to accept
Alvarico's bare allegation concerning the donor's state of mind.

ALVARICO vs. SOLA GR 138953

December 10, 2016Uncategorized

FACTS: Fermina was an awardee and a winning bidder of a land auctioned by the Bureau of Lands. In 1983, she
executed a Deed of Self-Adjudication and Transfer of rights over said land in favor of the Respondent who agreed to
assume all the obligations, duties and conditions regarding the patent application thereon. Said document of
transfer was duly filed with the Bureau of Lands and the latter approved such transfer of rights granting the
amendment of application from Fermina to Respondent. Consequently, an OCT was issued to Respondent in 1984.

Thereafter, Petitioner filed an action for reconveyance against Respondent before the RTC claiming that Fermina
donated the subject land to him in 1984 and thereafter, he took possession of the same in 1985. As such, it has the
effect of withdrawing the earlier transfer to Respondent.

Respondent countered that the donation to the Petitioner was void because Fermina was no longer the owner of
the subject land when she allegedly donated it to the Petitioner in 1984. Besides, such alleged donation lacks the
approval of Bureau of Lands.

RTC ruled in favor of the Petitioner. But on appeal, CA reversed RTC’s decision.

ISSUE 1: Whether a private individual like the Petitioner could bring an action for reversion which has the effect of
cancelling Respondent’s free patent and certificate of title over a land, thus, reverting it back to the State?

HELD: No. Only the State can institute reversion proceedings under Sec. 101 of Public Land Act, of lands of public
domain or improvements thereon, shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or officer acting on his stead in the
proper court in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
In other words, a private individual like the Petitioner may not bring an action for reversion or any action which
would have the effect of cancelling Respondent’s free patent and the certificate of title issued on the basis thereof,
such that the land covered thereby will again form part of the public domain. Only the SOLGEN or officer acting on
his stead may do so since, Respondent’s title was originated from a grant by the government. Its cancellation
therefore is a matter between the grantor (state) and the grantee (Respondent). Clearly then, Petitioner has no
standing at all to question the validity of Respondent’s title. It follows that he cannot recover the property because,
to begin with, he has not shown that he is the rightful owner thereof.

ISSUE 2: Whether Petitioner could ascribe bad faith on the part of the Respondent in registering the subject land,
thus, vesting him a better right as he was the first in material possession thereof in good faith?

HELD: No. Inasmuch as the Petitioner has failed to introduce evidence regarding Respondent’s bad faith, her
Affidavit of Adjudication is therefore entitled to presumption of regularity, and as such, it requires clear and
convincing evidence to assail and controvert it. Moreover, the OCT was issued in her name which likewise enjoys
the presumption of regularity of its issuance, hence, requires more than Petitioner’s bare allegation to defeat it.
Torrens title, once registered, serves as notice to the whole world such that all persons must take notice and no
one can plead ignorance of its registration.

Caniza v. CA

The Incompetent, CARMEN CANIZA, represented by her legal guardian, AMPARO EVANGELISTA v. COURT OF
APPEALS (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), PEDRO ESTRADA and his wife, LEONORA ESTRADA
G.R. No. 110427. February 24, 1997
NARVASA, C.J.

FACTS:

Being then ninety-four (94) years of age, Carmen Caniza was declared incompetent by judgment in a guardianship
proceeding instituted by her niece, Amparo A. Evangelista. Caniza was the owner of a house and lot. Her guardian
Amparo Evangelista commenced a suit to eject the spouses Pedro and Leonora Estrada from said premises.

The complaint was later amended to identify the incompetent Caniza as plaintiff, suing through her legal guardian,
Amparo Evangelista. The amended Complaint pertinently alleged that plaintiff Caniza was the absolute owner of
the property in question; that out of kindness, she had allowed the Estrada Spouses, their children, grandchildren,
and sons-in-law to temporarily reside in her house, rent-free; that Caniza already had urgent need of the house on
account of her advanced age and failing health, “so funds could be raised to meet her expenses for support,
maintenance and medical treatment;” among others.

The defendants declared that they had been living in Caniza’s house since the 1960’s; that in consideration of their
faithful service they had been considered by Caniza as her own family, and the latter had in fact executed a
holographic will by which she “bequeathed” to the Estradas the house and lot in question. The Estradas insist that
the devise of the house to them by Caiza clearly denotes her intention that they remain in possession thereof, and
legally incapacitated her judicial guardian, Amparo Evangelista, from evicting them therefrom, since their ouster
would be inconsistent with the ward’s will. Such will has not been submitted for probate.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the alleged will may be given effect


HELD:

No. A will is essentially ambulatory; at any time prior to the testator’s death, it may be changed or revoked; and
until admitted to probate, it has no effect whatever and no right can be claimed thereunder, the law being quite
explicit: “No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the
Rules of Court” An owner’s intention to confer title in the future to persons possessing property by his tolerance, is
not inconsistent with the former’s taking back possession in the meantime for any reason deemed sufficient. And
that, in this case, there was sufficient cause for the owner’s resumption of possession is apparent: she needed to
generate income from the house on account of the physical infirmities afflicting her, arising from her extreme age.

Neri vs Heirs of Hadji Yusop Uy GR No 194366 10 October 2012

28WednesdaySep 2016

Posted by Rachel Chan in Case Digests, Remedial Law Review 2

≈ Leave a comment

Facts: This case is a petition for review on certiorari by petitioners: Napoleon, Alicia, Visminda, Rosa, Douglas,
Eutropia, and Victoria seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision of the CA which annulled the Decision of the
RTC of Davao del Norte, and entered a new one dismissing P’s complaint for annulment of sale and damages
against herein respondent.

During the lifetime of Ps’ mother, Anunciacion, she and her 2nd husband, Enrique, acquired several homestead
properties. When Anunciacion died, however, Enrique in his personal capacity and as natural guardian of his minor
children Rosa and Douglas, together with, Napoleon, Alicia and Visminda executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement of
the Estate with Absolute Deed of Sale (1979) adjudicating among themselves the said homestead properties, and
thereafter, sold the properties to the late spouses Uy for a consideration of 80,000.

On 1996, the children of Enrique filed a complaint for annulment of the said sale against spouses Uy, assailing the
validity of the sale for having been sold within the prohibited period. And, also, for having been executed without
the consent or approval of Eutropia, Victoria, Rosa and Douglas; thus, depriving the latter siblings of their legitime.

Uy countered that the sale took place beyond the 5 year prohibitory period from the issuance of the homestead
patents. They also denied that Eutropia and Victoria were excluded from the Extra-judicial settlement and sale of
the subject properties, and interposed further the defense of prescription and laches.

RTC rendered a Decision annulling the Extra-judicial settlement of estate with Absolute Deed of Sale. It ruled that
the sale is void because Eutropia and Victoria were deprived of their hereditary rights and that Enrique had no
judicial authority to sell the shares of his minor children, Rosa and Douglas.

On appeal, however, CA reserved and set aside RTC decision. Hence this appeal.

Issue: Whether Enrique, as guardian of his children and co-owner (with his children), sell their co-owned property?
Decision: No, as to the shares of the minor children because as a natural guardian, he is merely clothed with
powers of administration.

Doctrine: Parents should apply for judicial guardianship in order for them to sell properties of their children.

*Even the parents of their minor children are bound to post bond.*

With respect to Rosa and Douglas who were minors at the time of the execution of the settlement and sale, their
NATURAL GUARDIAN and father, Enrique, represented them in the transaction. However, on the basis of the laws
prevailing at that time, Enrique was merely clothed with POWERS OF ADMINISTRATION and bereft of any authority
to dispose of their 2/16 shares in the estate of their mother, Anunciacion.

Power of dominion, is granted by law only to a JUDICIAL GUARDIAN of the ward’s property and even then only with
court’s prior approval secured in accordance with the proceedings set forth by the Rules.

Exception: RATIFICATION

Consequently, the disputed sale entered into by Enrique in behalf of his minor children without the proper judicial
authority, unless ratified by them upon reaching the age of majority, is unenforceable in accordance with Art. 1317
and 1403(1) of the Civil Code.

Records, however, show that Rosa had ratified the extrajudicial settlement of the estate with absolute deed of sale.
The same, however, is not true with respect to Douglas for lack of evidence showing ratification.

THEREFORE, the extrajudicial settlement with sale is invalid and not binding on Eutropia, Victoria and Douglas.
Consequently, spouses Uy or their substituted heirs became pro indiviso co-owners of the homestead properties
with Eutropia, Victoria and Douglas, who retained title to their respective shares.

Oropesa vs Oropesa GR No 184528 25 April 2012

Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Decision rendered by the CA affirming the
Order of the RTC in a Special Proceedings which dismissed Nilo Oropesa’s, peitioner, petition for guardianship over
the properties of his father, respondent, Cirilo Oropesa.

Petitioner filed with the RTC of Parañaque City, a petition for him and a certain Ms. Louie Ginez to be appointed as
guardians over the property of his father, respondent, Cirilo Oropesa.

In said petition, petitioner alleged that respondent has been afflicted with several maladies and has been sickly for
over 10 years already having suffered a stroke, that his judgment and memory were impaired and such has been
evident after his hospitalization. That due to his age and medical condition, he cannot, without outside aid, manage
his property wisely, and has become easy prey for deceit and exploitation by people around him, particularly his
girlfriend, Ms. Luisa Agamata.

Respondent filed his Opposition to the petition for guardianship filed by his (ever caring and loving) son.

During trial, petitioner presented his evidence which consists of his, his sister, and respondent’s former nurse’s
testimony.
After presenting evidence, petitioner rested his case but failed to file his written formal offer of evidence.

Respondent, thereafter, filed his Omnibus Motion to declare that petitioner has waived the presentation of his
Offer of Exhibits and Evidence since they were not formally offered; To expunge the documents of the petitioner
from records; and to grant leave to the Oppositor to file Demurrer to Evid. A subsequent Demurrer was filed and
was granted.

MR was filed by petitioner and appealed the case to CA; failed, now to the SC.

Issue: Whether respondent is considered incompetent as per the Rules who should be placed under guardianship?

Decision: No.The only medical document on record is the Report of Neuropsychological Screening. Said report, was
ambivalent at best, although had negative findings regarding memory lapses on the part of respondent, it also
contained finding that supported the view that respondent on the average was indeed competent.

EDUARDO T. ABAD, Petitioner,


vs.
LEONARDO BIASON and GABRIEL A. MAGNO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 191993 December 5, 2012

FACTS: The facts show that on March 19, 2007, petitioner Eduardo Abad (Abad) filed a petition for guardianship
over the person and properties of Maura B. Abad (Maura) with the RTC Dagupan. In support thereof, Abad alleged
that he maintains residence at No. 14 B St. Paul Street, Horseshoe Village, Quezon City and that he is Maura’s
nephew. He averred that Maura, who is single, more than ninety (90) years old and a resident of Rizal Street,
Poblacion, Mangaldan, Pangasinan, is in dire need of a guardian who will look after her and her business affairs.
Due to her advanced age, Maura is already sickly and can no longer manage to take care of herself and her
properties unassisted thus becoming an easy prey of deceit and exploitation. Finding the petition sufficient in form
and substance, the RTC gave due course to the same and scheduled it for hearing. When the petition was called for
hearing on April 27, 2007, nobody entered an opposition and Abad was allowed to present evidence ex parte. After
Abad formally offered his evidence and the case was submitted for decision, Atty. Gabriel Magno filed a Motion for
Leave to Intervene, together with an Oppositionin- Intervention. Subsequently, on June 14, 2007, Leonardo Biason
(Biason) filed a Motion for Leave to File Opposition to the Petition and attached therewith his Opposition to the
Appointment of Eduardo Abad as Guardian of the Person and Properties of Maura B. Abad. Specifically, Biason
alleged that he is also a nephew of Maura and that he was not notified of the pendency of the petition for the
appointment of the latter’s guardian. He vehemently opposed the appointment of Abad as Maura’s guardian as he
cannot possibly perform his duties as such since he resides in Quezon City while Maura maintains her abode in
Mangaldan, Pangasinan. Biason prayed that he be appointed as Maura’s guardian since he was previously granted
by the latter with a power of attorney to manage her properties. RTC rendered a decision, denying Abad’s petition
and appointing Biason as Maura’s guardian. CA affirmed the decision on the RTC. Abad filed a Review on Certiorari
with the SC. Unfortunately, pending the resolution of the petition, Biason died. Maura averred that Biason’s death
rendered moot and academic the issues raised in the petition. She thus prayed that the petition be dismissed and
the guardianship be terminated. Abad expressed his acquiescence to Maura’s motion to dismiss the petition. He
asseverated that the issues raised in the petition pertain to the irregularity in the appointment of Biason as
guardian which he believed had been rendered moot and academic by the latter’s death. He also supported
Maura’s prayer for the termination of the guardianship by asseverating that her act of filing of a petition-in-
intervention is indicative of the fact that she is of sound mind and that she can competently manage her business
affairs.
ISSUE: Whether or not guardianship is terminated upon the death of Biason

HELD: Yes. It is a well-established rule that the relationship of guardian and ward is necessarily terminated by the
death of either the guardian or the ward. The supervening event of death rendered it pointless to delve into the
propriety of Biason’s appointment since the juridical tie between him and Maura has already been dissolved. The
petition, regardless of its disposition, will not afford Abad, or anyone else for that matter, any substantial relief.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen