FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 188471. April 20, 2010.]

FRANCISCO ALONSO, substituted by MERCEDES V. ALONSO,

TOMAS V. ALONSO and ASUNCION V. ALONSO , petitioners, vs . CEBU
COUNTRY CLUB, INC. , respondent,

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the OFFICE OF THE

SOLICITOR GENERAL , public respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN , J : p

By petition for review on certiorari, the petitioners appeal the order dated
December 28, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, in Cebu City, denying
the motion for issuance of writ of execution of the O ce of the Solicitor General (OSG)
in behalf of the Government, and the order dated April 24, 2009, denying their motion
for reconsideration filed against the first order.
Antecedents
The antecedent facts are those established in Alonso v. Cebu Country Club , 1
which follow.
Petitioner Francisco M. Alonso (Francisco) was the only son and sole heir of the
late spouses Tomas N. Alonso and Asuncion Medalle. Francisco died during the
pendency of this case, and was substituted by his legal heirs, namely: his surviving
spouse, Mercedes V. Alonso, his son Tomas V. Alonso (Tomas) and his daughter
Asuncion V. Alonso. 2
In 1992, Francisco discovered documents showing that his father Tomas N.
Alonso had acquired Lot No. 727 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate from the
Government in or about the year 1911; that the original vendee of Lot No. 727 had
assigned his sales certi cate to Tomas N. Alonso, who had been consequently issued
Patent No. 14353; and that on March 27, 1926, the Director of Lands had executed a
nal deed of sale in favor of Tomas N. Alonso, but the nal deed of sale had not been
registered with the Register of Deeds because of lack of requirements, like the approval
of the nal deed of sale by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, as
required by law. 3
Francisco subsequently found that the certi cate of title covering Lot No. 727-D-
2 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate had been "administratively reconstituted from the
owner's duplicate" of Transfer Certi cate of Title (TCT) No. RT-1310 in the name of
United Service Country Club, Inc., the predecessor of respondent Cebu Country Club,
Inc. (Cebu Country Club); and that upon the order of the court that had heard the
petition for reconstitution of the TCT, the name of the registered owner in TCT No. RT-
1310 had been changed to that of Cebu Country Club; and that the TCT stated that the
reconstituted title was a transfer from TCT No. 1021. 4 cSDHEC

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 It is relevant to mention at this point that the current TCT covering Lot 727-D-2 in
the name of Cebu Country Club is TCT No. 94905, which was entered in the land
records of Cebu City on August 8, 1985. 5
With his discoveries, Francisco formally demanded upon Cebu Country Club to
restore the ownership and possession of Lot 727-D-2 to him. However, Cebu Country
Club denied Francisco's demand and claim of ownership, and refused to deliver the
possession to him. 6
On September 25, 1992, Francisco commenced against Cebu Country Club in the
RTC in Cebu City an action for the declaration of nullity and non-existence of deed/title,
the cancellation of certi cates of title, and the recovery of property. On November 5,
1992, Cebu Country Club filed its answer with counterclaim. 7
On May 7, 1993, the RTC decided in favor of Cebu Country Club.
Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which ultimately a rmed the
RTC on March 31, 1997. Thus, Francisco led a motion for reconsideration, which was
denied on October 2, 1997. 8
Nothing daunted, Francisco appealed to this Court (G.R. No. 130876).
On January 31, 2002, this Court decided G.R. No. 130876, decreeing:
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review. However, we SET ASIDE the
decision of the Court of Appeals and that of the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City,
Branch 08.

IN LIEU THEREOF, we DISMISS the complaint and counterclaim of the

parties in Civil Cases No. CEB 12926 of the trial court. We declare that Lot No. 727
D-2 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate covered by Original Certi cate of Title Nos.
251, 232, and 253 legally belongs to the Government of the Philippines. 9

The petitioners sought a reconsideration. On December 5, 2003, however, the

Court denied their motion for reconsideration. 1 0 Hence, the decision in G.R. No.
130876 became final and executory.
In late 2004, the Government, through the OSG, led in the RTC a motion for the
issuance of a writ of execution. 1 1 Cebu Country Club opposed the motion for the
issuance of a writ of execution in due course.
Later on, the proceedings on the OSG's motion for the issuance of a writ of
execution at the instance of Cebu Country Club in deference to the on-going hearings
being conducted by the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives on a proposed bill to con rm the TCTs and reconstituted titles
covering the Banilad Friar Lands Estate in Cebu City. 1 2 The Congress ultimately
enacted a law to validate the TCTs and reconstituted titles covering the Banilad Friar
Lands Estate in Cebu City. This was Republic Act No. 9443, 1 3 effective on July 27,
2007. TcHCIS

Thereafter, both Cebu Country Club and the OSG brought the passage of R.A. No.
9443 to the attention of the RTC for its consideration in resolving the OSG's motion for
the issuance of a writ of execution. 1 4 On December 28, 2007, therefore, the RTC denied
the OSG's motion for the issuance of a writ of execution through the rst appealed
order. 1 5
The petitioners led a motion for reconsideration dated February 1, 2008,
questioning the denial of the OSG's motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. 1 6
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Upon being directed by the RTC to comment on the petitioners' motion for
reconsideration, the OSG manifested in writing that the Government was no longer
seeking the execution of the decision in G.R. No. 130876, subject to its reservation to
contest any other titles within the Banilad Friar Lands Estate should clear evidence
show such titles as having been obtained through fraud. 1 7
After the filing of the OSG's comment, the RTC issued the second appealed order,
denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, giving the following reasons:
1. The party who had a direct interest in the execution of the decision and the
reconsideration of the denial of the motion for execution was the
Government, represented only by the OSG; hence, the petitioners had no
legal standing to le the motion for reconsideration, especially that they
were not authorized by the OSG for that purpose;

2. R.A. No. 9443 "con rms and declares as valid" all "existing" TCTs and
reconstituted titles; thereby, the State in effect waived and divested itself of
whatever title or ownership over the Banilad Friar Lands Estate in favor of
the registered owners thereof, including Lot 727 D-2; and

3. The situation of the parties had materially changed, rendering the

enforcement of the nal and executory judgment unjust, inequitable, and
impossible, because Cebu Country Club was now recognized by the State
itself as the absolute owner of Lot 727 D-2. 1 8

Hence, the petitioners appeal by petition for review on certiorari.

Contentions of the Petitioners
The petitioners challenge the orders dated December 28, 2007 and April 29,
2009, because:
1. R.A. No. 9443 did not improve Cebu Country Club's plight, inasmuch as
R.A. No. 9443 presupposed rst a sales certi cate that lacked the required
signature, but Cebu Country Club did not have such sales certi cate.
Moreover, the titleholders were in fact the owners of the lands covered by
their respective titles, which was not true with Cebu Country Club due to its
being already adjudged with nality to be not the owner of Lot 727-D-2.
Lastly, Cebu Country Club's title was hopelessly defective, as found by the
Supreme Court itself; ICDcEA

2. The doctrine of law of the case barred the application of R.A. No. 9443 to
Cebu Country Club;
3. The RTC's declaration that R.A. No. 9443 con rmed Cebu Country Club as
the absolute owner of Lot 727-D-2 despite the prior and nal judgment of
the Supreme Court that Cebu Country Club was not the owner was
unconstitutional, because it virtually allowed the legislative review of the
Supreme Court's decision rendered against Cebu Country Club;
4. The use of R.A. No. 9443 as a waiver on the part of the Government vis-à-
vis Cebu Country Club was not only misplaced but downrightly repugnant
to Act 1120, the law governing the legal disposition and alienation of Friar
Lands; and

5. The petitioners had the requisite standing to question the patent errors of
the RTC, especially in the face of the unholy conspiracy between the OSG
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 and Cebu Country Club, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the
passage of R.A. No. 9443 and DENR Memorandum No. 16, both of which
in fact made their predecessor Tomas N. Alonso's sales certi cate and
patent valid. 1 9

Issues
The Court confronts and resolves the following issues, to wit:
1. Whether or not the petitioners were the real parties-in-interest to question
the denial by the RTC of the OSG's motion for the issuance of a writ of
execution;
2. Whether or not R.A. No. 9443 gave the petitioners a legal interest to assail
the RTC's orders; and

3. Whether or not the petitioners can appeal by petition for review on certiorari
in behalf of the OSG.

Ruling
The petition for review is denied due course.
A.
Preliminary Considerations:
Petitioners contravene the hierarchy of courts,
and the petition is fatally defective
Before delving on the stated issues, the Court notes that the petitioners are guilty
of two violations that warrant the immediate dismissal of the petition for review on
certiorari. HEIcDT

The rst refers to the petitioners' breach of the hierarchy of courts by coming
directly to the Court to appeal the assailed issuances of the RTC via petition for review
on certiorari. They should not have done so, bypassing a review by the Court of Appeals
(CA), because the hierarchy of courts is essential to the e cient functioning of the
courts and to the orderly administration of justice. Their non-observance of the
hierarchy of courts has forthwith enlarged the docket of the Court by one more case,
which, though it may not seem burdensome to the layman, is one case too much to the
Court, which has to devote time and effort in poring over the papers submitted herein,
only to discover in the end that a review should have rst been made by the CA. The
time and effort could have been dedicated to other cases of importance and impact on
the lives and rights of others.
The hierarchy of courts is not to be lightly regarded by litigants. The CA stands
between the RTC and the Court, and its establishment has been precisely to take over
much of the work that used to be done by the Court. Historically, the CA has been of the
greatest help to the Court in synthesizing the facts, issues, and rulings in an orderly and
intelligible manner and in identifying errors that ordinarily might escape detection. The
Court has thus been freed to better discharge its constitutional duties and perform its
most important work, which, in the words of Dean Vicente G. Sinco, 2 0 "is less
concerned with the decision of cases that begin and end with the transient rights and
obligations of particular individuals but is more intertwined with the direction of
national policies, momentous economic and social problems, the delimitation of
governmental authority and its impact upon fundamental rights." 2 1
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 The need to elevate the matter rst to the CA is also underscored by the reality
that determining whether the petitioners were real parties in interest entitled to bring
this appeal against the denial by the RTC of the OSG's motion for the issuance of a writ
of execution was a mixed question of fact and law. As such, the CA was in the better
position to review and to determine. In that regard, the petitioners violate Section 1,
Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which demands that an appeal by petition
for review on certiorari be limited to questions of law. 2 2
The second violation concerns the omission of a sworn certi cation against
forum shopping from the petition for review on certiorari. Section 4, Rule 45 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the petition for review should contain,
among others, the sworn certi cation on the undertakings provided in the last
paragraph of Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, viz.:
Section 2. ...

The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a certi cation
under oath that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the
same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding,
he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a
similar action or proceeding has been led or is pending before the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or
agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal
or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom. (n) AaSHED

Only petitioner Tomas V. Alonso has executed and signed the sworn certi cation
against forum shopping attached to the petition. Although neither of his co-petitioners
— Mercedes V. Alonso and Asuncion V. Alonso — has joined the certification, Tomas did
not present any written express authorization in his favor authorizing him to sign the
certi cation in their behalf. The signing of the certi cation by only one of the petitioners
could not be presumed to re ect the personal knowledge by his co-petitioners of the
ling or non- ling of any similar action or claim. 2 3 Hence, the failure of Mercedes and
Asuncion to sign and execute the certi cation along with Tomas warranted the
dismissal of their petition. 2 4
B.
Petitioners are not proper parties
to appeal and assail the order of the RTC
The petitioners are relentless in insisting that their claim to Lot No. 727-D-2 of
the Banilad Friar Lands Estate should be preferred to that of Cebu Country Club, despite
the nal judgment in G.R. No. 130876 being adverse to their claim. Their insistence
raises the need to resolve once and for all whether or not the petitioners retained any
legal right to assert over Lot No. 727-D-2 following the Government's manifest
desistance from the execution of the judgment in G.R. No. 130876 against Cebu
Country Club.
The above-noted defects of the petition for review notwithstanding, therefore,
the Court has now to address and resolve the stated issues on the sole basis of the
results the Court earlier reached in G.R. No. 130876. In this regard, whether or not the
petitioners are the proper parties to bring this appeal is decisive.
After careful consideration, the Court nds that the cause of the petitioners
instantly fails.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 In G.R. No. 130876, the Court found that the petitioners did not validly acquire
ownership of Lot No. 727-D-2, and declared that Lot No. 727 D-2 legally belonged to the
Government, thus:
The second issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the
Cebu Country Club, Inc. is owner of Lot No. 727.

Admittedly, neither petitioners nor their predecessor had any title to

the land in question . The most that petitioners could claim was that the
Director of Lands issued a sales patent in the name of Tomas N. Alonso. The
sales patent , however, and even the corresponding deed of sale were not
registered with the Register of Deeds and no title was ever issued in the
name of the latter . This is because there were basic requirements not complied
with, the most important of which was that the deed of sale executed by the
Director of Lands was not approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources . Hence, the deed of sale was void . "Approval by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce is indispensable for the validity of the
sale." Moreover, Cebu Country Club, Inc. was in possession of the land since 1931,
and had been paying the real estate taxes thereon based on tax declarations in its
name with the title number indicated thereon. Tax receipts and declarations of
ownership for taxation purposes are strong evidence of ownership. This Court has
ruled that although tax declarations or realty tax payments are not conclusive
evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the
concept of owner for no one in his right mind will be paying taxes for a property
that is not in his actual or constructive possession. TcSCEa

Notwithstanding this fatal defect, the Court of Appeals ruled that "there
was substantial compliance with the requirement of Act No. 1120 to validly
convey title to said lot to Tomas N. Alonso."
On this point, the Court of Appeals erred.

Under Act No. 1120, which governs the administration and disposition of
friar lands, the purchase by an actual and bona de settler or occupant of any
portion of friar land shall be "agreed upon between the purchaser and the Director
of Lands, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources (mutatis mutandis)."
In his Memorandum led on May 25, 2001, the Solicitor General submitted
to this Court certi ed copies of Sale Certi cate No. 734, in favor of Leoncio
Alburo, and Assignment of Sale Certi cate No. 734, in favor of Tomas N. Alonso.
Conspicuously, both instruments do not bear the signature of the Director of
Lands and the Secretary of the Interior. They also do not bear the approval of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Only recently, in Jesus P. Liao v. Court of Appeals , the Court has ruled
categorically that approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce
of the sale of friar lands is indispensable for its validity , hence, the
absence of such approval made the sale null and void ab-initio . Necessarily,
there can be no valid titles issued on the basis of such sale or assignment.
Consequently, petitioner Francisco's father did not have any
registerable title to the land in question. Having none, he could not
transmit anything to his sole heir, petitioner Francisco Alonso or the
latter's heirs .

In a vain attempt at showing that he had succeeded to the estate of his

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 father, on May 4, 1991, petitioner Francisco Alonso executed an a davit
adjudicating the entire estate to himself (Exh. "Q"), duly published in a newspaper
of general circulation in the province and city of Cebu (Exh. "Q-1"). Such a davit
of self-adjudication is inoperative, if not void, not only because there was nothing
to adjudicate, but equally important because petitioner Francisco did not show
proof of payment of the estate tax and submit a certi cate of clearance from the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Obviously, petitioner Francisco has not paid
the estate taxes.

Consequently, we rule that neither Tomas N. Alonso nor his son

Francisco M. Alonso or the latter's heirs are the lawful owners of Lot
No. 727 in dispute . . . . . 2 5

The pronouncement in G.R. No. 130876 renders beyond dispute that the non-
execution of the judgment would not adversely affect the petitioners, who now hold no
right whatsoever in Lot No. 727-D-2. Otherwise put, they are not the proper parties to
assail the questioned orders of the RTC, because they stand to derive nothing from the
execution of the judgment against Cebu Country Club. ETCcSa

Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
interest, unless otherwise authorized by law or the rules. 2 6 A real party in interest is one
who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to
the avails of the suit. 2 7 "Interest" within the meaning of the rule means material interest,
an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere
interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. The rule refers to a real or
present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy; or from a future,
contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. 2 8 One having no right or interest to
protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as a party-plaintiff in an action. 2 9
Thus, an appeal, like this one, is an action to be prosecuted by a party in interest
before a higher court. In order for the appeal to prosper, the litigant must of necessity
continue to hold a real or present substantial interest that entitles him to the avails of
the suit on appeal. If he does not, the appeal, as to him, is an exercise in futility. So it is
with the petitioners!
In contrast, the Government, being the legal owner of Lot No. 727-D-2, is the only
party adversely affected by the denial, and is the proper party entitled to assail the
denial. 3 0 However, its manifest desistance from the execution of the decision
effectively barred any challenge against the denial, for its non-appeal rendered the
denial final and immutable.
C.
R.A. No. 9443 gives petitioners no legal interest
to assail the denial of the motion for execution
Section 1 of R.A. No. 9443 provides:
Section 1. All existing Transfer Certi cates of Title and
Reconstituted Certi cates of Title duly issued by the Register of Deeds
of Cebu Province and/or Cebu City covering any portion of the Banilad
Friar Lands Estate , notwithstanding the lack of signatures and/or approval of
the then Secretary of Interior (later Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources) and/or the then Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands (later Director of
Public Lands) in the copies of the duly executed Sale Certi cates and
Assignments of Sale Certi cates, as the case may be, now on le with the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Community Environment and Natural Resources O ce (CENRO), Cebu City, are
hereby declared as valid titles and the registered owners recognized as
absolute owners thereof.

The law expressly declares as valid "(a)ll existing Transfer Certi cates of Title
and Reconstituted Certi cates of Title duly issued by the Register of Deeds of Cebu
Province and/or Cebu City covering any portion of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate," and
recognizes the registered owners as absolute owners. To bene t from R.A. No. 9443,
therefore, a person must hold as a condition precedent a duly issued Transfer
Certificate of Title or a Reconstituted Certificate of Title. CacTSI

Although Lot 727-D-2 was earlier declared to be owned by the Government in

G.R. No. 130876, R.A. No. 9443 later validated Cebu Country Club's registered
ownership due to its holding of TCT No. RT-1310 (T-11351) in its own name. As the
OSG explained in its manifestation in lieu of comment 3 1 ( led in the RTC vis-à-vis the
petitioners' motion for reconsideration against the RTC's denial of the OSG's motion for
issuance of a writ of execution), the enactment of R.A. No. 9443 had "mooted the nal
and executory Decision of the Supreme Court in "Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc.,"
docketed as G.R. No. 130876, which declared the Government as the owner of Lot 727-
D-2 based on the absence of signature and approval of the then Secretary of Interior;"
and that the decision in G.R. No. 130876 had "ceased to have any practical effect" as
the result of the enactment of R.A. No. 9443, and had thereby become "academic." 3 2
On the other hand, the petitioners could not bene t from R.A. No. 9443 because
of their non-compliance with the express condition of holding any Transfer Certi cate
of Title or Reconstituted Certi cate of Title respecting Lot 727-D-2 or any portion
thereof.
The appropriate recourse for the petitioners, if they persist in the belief that the
TCT of Cebu Country Club should be nulli ed, is to compel the OSG through the special
civil action for mandamus to commence the action to annul on the ground that Cebu
Country Club had obtained its title to Lot 7217-D-2 through fraud. Yet, that recourse is
no longer availing, for the decision in G.R. No. 130876 explicitly found and declared that
the reconstituted title of Cebu Country Club had not been obtained through fraud. Said
the Court:
On the question that TCT No. RT-1310 (T-11351) bears the same number
as another title to another land, we agree with the Court of Appeals that
there is nothing fraudulent with the fact that Cebu Country Club, Inc.'s
reconstituted title bears the same number as the title of another parcel
of land . This came about because under General Land Registration O ce
(GLRO) Circular No. 17, dated February 19, 1947, and Republic Act No. 26 and
Circular No. 6, RD 3, dated August 5, 1946, which were in force at the time the title
was reconstituted on July 26, 1948, the titles issued before the inauguration of
the Philippine Republic were numbered consecutively and the titles issued after
the inauguration were numbered also consecutively starting with No. 1, so that
eventually, the titles issued before the inauguration were duplicated by titles
issued after the inauguration of the Philippine Republic. . . . .

xxx xxx xxx

Petitioners next argue that the reconstituted title of Cebu Country
Club, Inc. had no lawful source to speak of; it was reconstituted through
extrinsic and intrinsic fraud in the absence of a deed of conveyance in
its favor . In truth, however, reconstitution was based on the owner's
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 duplicate of the title, hence, there was no need for the covering deed of
sale or other modes of conveyance. Cebu Country Club, Inc. was
admittedly in possession of the land since long before the Second
World War, or since 1931. In fact, the original title (TCT No. 11351) was
issued to the United Service Country Club, Inc. on November 19, 1931 as
a transfer from Transfer Certi cate of Title No. 1021. More importantly,
Cebu Country Club, Inc. paid the realty taxes on the land even before
the war, and tax declarations covering the property showed the number
of the TCT of the land. Cebu Country Club, Inc. produced receipts
showing real estate tax payments since 1949 . On the other hand, petitioner
failed to produce a single receipt of real estate tax payment ever made by his
father since the sales patent was issued to his father on March 24, 1926. Worse,
admittedly petitioner could not show any [T]orrens title ever issued to Tomas N.
Alonso, because, as said, the deed of sale executed on March 27, 1926 by the
Director of Lands was not approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources and could not be registered. "Under the law, it is the act of registration
of the deed of conveyance that serves as the operative act to convey the land
registered under the Torrens system. The act of registration creates constructive
notice to the whole world of the fact of such conveyance." On this point,
petitioner alleges that Cebu Country Club, Inc. obtained its title by fraud
in connivance with personnel of the Register of Deeds in 1941 or in
1948, when the title was administratively reconstituted. Imputations of
fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner
failed to adduce evidence of fraud . In an action for re-conveyance based on
fraud, he who charges fraud must prove such fraud in obtaining a title. "In this
jurisdiction, fraud is never presumed." The strongest suspicion cannot
sway judgment or overcome the presumption of regularity . "The sea of
suspicion has no shore, and the court that embarks upon it is without rudder or
compass." Worse, the imputation of fraud was so tardily brought, some
forty-four (44) years or sixty-one (61) years after its supposed
occurrence , that is, from the administrative reconstitution of title on July 26,
1948, or from the issuance of the original title on November 19, 1931, that
veri cation is rendered extremely di cult, if not impossible, especially
due to the supervening event of the second world war during which
practically all public records were lost or destroyed, or no longer
available . 3 3 aEcHCD

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING , the petition for review on certiorari is denied for
lack of merit.
The Court declares that Cebu Country Club, Inc. is the exclusive owner of Lot No.
727-D-2 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate, as confirmed by Republic Act No. 9443.
Costs of suit to be paid by the petitioners.
SO ORDERED .
Puno, C.J., Carpio Morales, Leonardo-de Castro and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1.G.R. No. 130876, January 31, 2002, 375 SCRA 390.

2.Id., p. 393.
3.Id., pp. 393-394.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 4.Id., p. 394.
5.Annex 3, Comment on the petition for review on certiorari.
6.Rollo, p. 394.
7.Id., p. 395.

8.Id., pp. 396-398.

9.Id., p. 410.
10.G.R. No. 130876, December 5, 2003, 417 SCRA 115.
11.Rollo, p. 15.
12.Id.

13.Entitled An Act Confirming and Declaring, Subject to Certain Exceptions, the Validity of
Existing Transfer Certificate of Title Covering the Banilad Friar Lands Estate, Situated in
the First District of Cebu.
14.Rollo, p. 17.

15.Id., pp. 42-43.

16.Id., p. 18.
17.Id., p. 176.
18.Id., pp. 44-47.
19.Id., pp. 22-23.

20.Philippine Political Law, 10th Edition, p. 323.

21.Conde v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 144 SCRA 144.
22.Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari
from a judgment, final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan,
the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized
by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The
petition may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other
provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set
forth. The petitioner may seek the same provisional remedies by verified motion filed in
the same action or proceeding at any time during its pendency.
23.Gonzales v. Balikatan Kilusang Bayan sa Pananalapi, Inc., G.R. No. 150859, March 28, 2005,
454 SCRA 111, 115.
24.Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, relevantly states:
Section 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. — The failure of the petitioner to comply
with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and
other lawful fees, deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of
the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient
ground for the dismissal thereof.

The Supreme Court may on its own initiative deny the petition on the ground that the
appeal is without merit, or is prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration. (3a)
25.Supra, note 1, 375 SCRA 390, 403-405.
26.Section 2. Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
27.Id.
28.Quisumbing v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 138437, November 14, 2008, 571 SCRA 7, 15.

29.Ralla v. Ralla, G.R. No. 78646, July 23, 1991, 199 SCRA 495.
30.Cañete v. Genuino Ice Company, Inc., G.R. No. 154080, January 22, 2008, 542 SCRA 206,
220-222, where the petitioners admitted not to be the owners of the land, but the
Government, the Court declared: (". . . petitioners may not be considered the real
parties in interest for the purpose of maintaining the suit for cancellation of the
subject titles. The Court of Appeals is correct in declaring that only the State, through
the Solicitor General, may institute such suit . Jurisprudence on the matter has
been settled and the issue need not be belabored."); Gabila v. Barriga, n No. L-28917,
September 30, 1971, 41 SCRA 131 (where the Court declared: ". . . In his amended
complaint the plaintiff makes no pretense at all that any part of the land
covered by the defendant's title was privately owned by him or by his
predecessors-in-interest. Indeed, it is admitted therein that the said land was
at all times a part of the public domain until December 18, 1964, when the
government issued a title thereon in favor of the defendant. Thus, if there is
any person or entity [entitled] to relief, it can only be the government ."); Heirs of
Ambrocio Kionisala v. Heirs of Honorio Dacut, G.R. No. 147379, February 27, 2002, 378
SCRA 206, 214 (where the Court held: "Where the plaintiff in his complaint admits
that he has no right to demand the cancellation or amendment of the
defendant's title because even if the title were canceled or amended the
ownership of the land embraced therein or of the portion affected by the
amendment would revert to the public domain, we ruled that the action was
for reversion and that the only person or entity entitled to relief would be the
Director of Lands .").

31.This was submitted by the OSG to the RTC in connection with petitioners' motion for
reconsideration dated January 28, 2008.

32.Rollo, p. 175.
33.Supra, note 1, pp. 399-402.

n Note from the Publisher: Written as "Gabilla v. Barriga" in the original document.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 79787. June 29, 1989.]

APOLONIO EGAO AND BEATRIZ EGAO , petitioners, vs. THE

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (NINTH DIVISION), SEVERO
DIGNOS AND SEVERO BONTILAO , respondents.

Eliud J. Pailagao for petitioners.

Guerrero A. Adaza for private respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS; A NOTARIAL

DOCUMENT HAS IN ITS FAVOR THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY. — A notarial
document is evidence of the facts in clear unequivocal manner therein expressed. It has in
its favor the presumption of regularity. To contradict all these, there must be evidence that
is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.
2. ID.; ID.; FINDINGS OF FACTS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, GENERALLY NOT
DISTURB ON APPEAL. — The question of authenticity being one of fact, the Court win not
disturb the conclusions of the Court of Appeals on the matter.
3. CIVIL LAW; LAND TITLES AND DEEDS; TORRENS TITLE; ONCE REGISTERED,
CANNOT BE DEFEATED BY ADVERSE, OPEN AND NOTORIOUS POSSESSION. — A Torrens
title, once registered, cannot be defeated, even by adverse open and notorious possession.
A registered title under the Torrens system cannot be defeated by prescription. The title,
once registered, is notice to the world. All persons must take notice. No one can plead
ignorance of the registration.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE; CONSTRUED. — An "innocent
purchaser for value" is deemed, under the Torrens system, to include an innocent lessee,
mortgagee or other encumbrancer for value.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; BUYER WHO CLOSES HIS EYES TO FACTS WHICH SHOULD PUT A
REASONABLE MAN ON HIS GUARD AS TO THE POSSIBILITY OF EXISTENCE OF DEFECT
ON TITLE, NOT AN INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE. — Where a purchaser neglects to
make the necessary inquiries and closes his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable
man on his guard as to the possibility of the existence of a defect in his vendor's title, and
relying on the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor, purchases the
property without making any further investigation, he cannot claim that he is a purchaser in
good faith for value.
6. ID.; ID.; ACTION FOR REVERSION, MAY NOT BE BROUGHT BY ANY PRIVATE
INDIVIDUAL. — A private individual may not bring an action for reversion or any action
which would have the effect of cancelling a free patent and the corresponding certificate
of title issued on the basis thereof, with the result that the land covered thereby will again
form part of the public domain, as only the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his
stead may do so.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 7. ID.; PUBLIC LAND ACT; RULE ON PARI DELICTO; NOT APPLICABLE WHERE ITS
ENFORCEMENT OR APPLICATION RUN COUNTER TO THE PUBLIC POLICY OF
PRESERVING THE GRANTEE'S RIGHT TO THE LAND UNDER HOMESTEAD. — The rule of
pari delicto non oritur actio (where two persons are equally at fault neither party may be
entitled to relief under the law), admits of exceptions and does not apply to an inexistent
contract, such as, a sale void ab initio under the Public Land Act, when its enforcement or
application runs counter to the public policy of preserving the grantee's right to the land
under the homestead law.
8. ID.; PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE; REGISTRATION OF DEED, OPERATIVE ACT
THAT BINDS THE LAND INSOFAR AS THIRD PERSONS ARE CONCERNED. — Sec. 51, par. 2
of the Property Registration Decree (PD 1529), formerly Sec. 50 of the Land Registration
Act (Act No. 496) expressly provides that the registration of the Deed is the operative act
that binds or affects the land insofar as third persons are concerned.
9. ID.; LAND TITLES AND DEEDS; DECREE OF PRUDENCE REQUIRED WHERE ONE BUYS
FROM A PERSON WHO IS NOT THE REGISTERED OWNER. — The law requires a higher
degree of prudence from one who buys from a person who is not the registered owner,
when the land object of the transaction is registered land. While one who buys from the
registered owner need not look behind the certificate of title, one who buys from another
who is not the registered owner is expected to examine not only the certificate of title but
all factual circumstances necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws in the title
of the transferor, or in his capacity to transfer the land. Failing to exercise caution of any
kind whatsoever is tantamount to bad faith.
10. ID.; PUBLIC LAND ACT; SALE OF PATENTED LANDS WITHIN THE PROHIBITIVE
FIVE (5) YEAR PERIOD, NULL AND VOID. — Deeds of sale of patented lands, perfected
within the prohibited five (5) year period are null and void (Sec. 124, Public Land Act). No
title passed from the Egaos to Marfori which could be validly transferred to herein
respondents Bontilao and Dignos. Nemo dat quod non habet (nobody can dispose of that
which does not belong to him).
11. ID.; ID.; ID.; VENDOR OR HIS HEIRS, ENTITLED TO POSSESSION OF THE LAND
WHILE THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT TAKEN STEPS TO ASSERT ITS TITLE. — While the
government has not taken steps to assert its title, by reversion, to a homestead sold in
violation of the Public Land Act, the vendor or his heirs is better entitled to the possession
of the land, the vendee being in no better situation than any intruder.

DECISION

PADILLA , J : p

This is a land dispute which culminated in the filing by private respondents Severo Dignos
and Severo Bontilao of a verified complaint for Quieting of Title and/or Recovery of
Possession and Ownership before the RTC of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, * against
petitioners Apolonio and Beatriz Egao.
Private respondents' complaint alleged that they are the legitimate owners and
possessors of two (2) parcels of land situated at Lonocan, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, per
deed of absolute sale dated 21 December 1979 which, among others, recited thus: Cdpr

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 "WHEREAS, the above mentioned Parcels of land Lot No. 662 is covered by
Original Certificate of Title No. P-3559 Free Patent No. 298112 registered in the
name of APOLONIO EGAO married to Beatriz Menosa and Lot No. 661 is covered
by Original Certificate of Title No. P-3558 Free Patent No. 303249 registered in the
name of RAULITA CONEJOS married to Pedro Conejos, all transcribed in the
Registration Book in the Register of Deeds for the Province of Bukidnon;.

"WHEREAS, Lot No. 662 has been transferred in ownership from BEATRIZ
MENOSA EGAO, married to Apolonio Egao in favor of ROBERTO N. MARFORI per
Deed of Absolute Sale executed before Tommy C. Pacana, Notary Public of
Cagayan de Oro City entered in his Notarial Registry under Doc. No. 75; Page No.
15; Book V; Series of 1965; and Lot No. 661 likewise has been transferred in
ownership from RAULITA R. CONEJOS in favor of ROBERTO N. MARFORI per
Deed of Absolute Sale executed before Tommy C. Pacana, Notary Public of
Cagayan de Oro City, dated June 3, 1965, entered in his Notarial Registry under
Doc. No. 20; Page 4; Book V; Series of 1965.

"WHEREAS, the VENDEES herein is [sic] aware of the fact that the Certificate of
Title over the above mentioned parcels of land have not yet been transferred in
favor of ROBERTO N. MARFORI except for the tax declarations but that the
VENDOR herein is in actual, physical, continuous, uninterrupted, and adverse
possession of the above described parcels of land free from all liens and
encumbrances whatsoever;" 1

Allegedly, upon purchase of Lot No. 662 from Roberto Marfori, improvements were
introduced and taxes paid by private respondents. Sometime in June 1983, herein
petitioners allegedly occupied illegally portions of the land. 2
Petitioners' answer to the complaint asserted that Apolonio Egao is the registered owner
of the parcel of land known as Lot No. 662, Pls 854 with an area of 3,451 sq. meters
evidenced by OCT No. P-3559 issued by the Register of Deeds of Bukidnon pursuant to
Free Patent No. 298112 dated 12 August 1965; that he (Apolonio Egao) and his family
have been in actual, physical, adverse, open and continuous possession thereof even
before the issuance to him of the free patent; that the land has never been sold by reason
of the prohibition against alienation under Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Law);
and that the instant case was the fourth in a series filed against the Egaos and is part of
respondents' scheme to grab said parcel of land from the petitioners.
Judge Felicidario M. Batoy ruled in favor of the Egaos, herein petitioners (defendants in the
court a quo), ordering respondent Severo Bontilao (plaintiff in the court a quo) to
immediately deliver to the Egaos the owner's duplicate copy of Original Certificate of Title
No. P-3559. Said trial judge held: Cdpr

"In the instant case, granting arguendo, that defendants executed the 2
documents in favor of Marfori (Exhs. A & B) after the filing of the application for
free patent but before the issuance of the latter, without the approval of the
Director of Lands, upon issuance of Free Patent No. 298112. On August 12, 1965,
the said deeds of sale (Exhs. A & B) were ipso facto cancelled or superseded by
said free patent. Moreover, it appears from the evidence that defendants never
vacated or abandoned their possession of Lot No. 662 as they have continuously
lived on said lot since 1950, a fact admitted by the plaintiffs themselves. And as
long as Original Certificate of Title No. P-3559 remains in the name of defendant
Apolonio Egao, married to Beatriz Menoza Egao, this is the ultimate and best
evidence of title granted by the government which must be honored and respected
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 by the courts. In a nutshell, the plaintiffs miserably failed to present or show any
title to Lot No. 662, PLS-854 which should be quieted or freed from any cloud of
doubt as prayed for in their complaint and they further failed to show that they
are entitled to the ownership and possession to Lot No. 662, PLS-854." 3

Private respondents went to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 09539. Setting aside the
RTC decision, the appellate court ** held, in part, thus —
"That the land is titled in the name of defendant Apolonio Egao is not in question.
The main point in issue is whether defendants could validly sell the land to
Marfori who in turn transferred ownership thereof to the plaintiffs." 4

Marfori and Egao were both held by the Court of Appeals in pari delicto for violating the
five (5) year restriction under Sec. 118, Commonwealth Act No. 141 as amended by Act
No. 496 against encumbrance or alienation of lands acquired under a free patent or
homestead; hence, they cannot, according to the appellate court, seek affirmative relief,
but respondents on the other hand were declared innocent purchasers for value who
obtained the owner's duplicate copy of the OCT (still in the name of the Egaos) from
Marfori who transferred to them (respondents) physical possession of the property.
Finally, the Court of Appeals held:
"WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one is
rendered:
1. Declaring the plaintiffs as the absolute owners of the land
known as Lot No. 662, Pls-854 of the Land Registry of Bukidnon;
2. Ordering the Register of Deeds of Bukidnon to effect the
cancellation of Original Certificate of Title No. P-3559 in the name of
Apolonio Egao and in lieu thereof, another one be issued in the names of
plaintiffs, after payment of the proper fees;
3. Ordering the defendants to surrender peaceful possession of
the land to plaintiffs and to desist from further disturbing the possession
over the land of plaintiffs;
4. Ordering the defendants to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED." 5

Petitioners turn to this Court for relief, assailing the appellate court for allegedly
committing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in holding that:
a. Petitioners sold Lot 662 to Roberto Marfori;

b. It was only in 1983 when Petitioners wrested possession over the land
from private Respondents;

c. Petitioners never denied the sales made in favor of Marfori, in their answer;
d. Private Respondents are "innocent purchasers for value." 6

and/or for allegedly deciding questions of substance not in accordance with law and/or
applicable decisions of this Court.
Without giving due course to the petition, the Court required respondents to comment. 7
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 After comment, the Court resolved to require petitioners to file a reply, which they did.
Respondents filed a rejoinder. Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced,
the Court resolved to give due course to the petition. Upon submission by the parties of
their respective memorandum, the petition was submitted for decision. 8
Validity of the Deeds of Sale executed between Marfori (as purchaser) and the petitioners
(as sellers) is the main issue to be resolved, in determining respondents' right over the
disputed land, the respondents being the transferees of Marfori. prcd

It is undisputed that Free Patent No. 298112 was issued to petitioner Apolonio Egao over
Lot No. 662 on 12 August, 1965. Sec. 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended,
prohibits the alienation or encumbrance, within a period of five (5) years from the date of
issuance of the patent, of lands acquired under free patent or homestead. Assuming,
arguendo, the authenticity of the Deeds of Sale executed by the Egaos in favor of Marfori
over portions of Lot No. 662 (the land in question), dated 7 May 1964, 14 January and 6
October 1965, it clearly appears that all deeds were executed within the prohibited period
of five (5) years. As correctly found by the appellate court —
"Section 124 of the Public Land Act provided [sic] that any acquisition,
conveyance, alienation, transfer or other contract made or executed in violation of
any of the provisions of Sections 118, 121, 120 122 and 123 of this Act shall be
unlawful, null and void from its execution and shall produce the effect of
annulling and cancelling the grant, title, patent or permit originally issued,
recognized or actually or prescriptively, and cause the reversion of the property
and its improvements to the state." 9

Petitioners deny the authenticity and due execution of the notarized deeds of sale in favor
of Marfori, asserting continued ownership over the land by virtue of a Torrens Certificate of
Title issued in their name. While the Court is not satisfied with respondents' explanation of
their failure to present the notaries public (who were residents of a neighboring province)
to affirm their participation in the preparation of the Deeds, the Court also finds as
insufficient the mere denials by petitioners as to due execution and authenticity of said
Deeds of Sale. A notarial document is evidence of the facts in clear unequivocal manner
therein expressed. It has in its favor the presumption of regularity. To contradict all these,
there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. 1 0
The question of authenticity being one of fact, the Court win not disturb the conclusions of
the Court of Appeals on the matter.
Original Certificate of Title No. P-3559 over the land in dispute was issued on 1 March
1966, a few months after the execution by the Egaos of the last Deed of Sale in favor of
Marfori. 1 1 The OCT is registered in the name of the Egaos, herein petitioners.
A Torrens title, once registered, cannot be defeated, even by adverse open and notorious
possession. A registered title under the Torrens system cannot be defeated by
prescription. The title, once registered, is notice to the world. All persons must take notice.
No one can plead ignorance of the registration. 1 2
Contrary to the appellate court's conclusion, respondents are not innocent purchasers for
value. 1 3 An "innocent purchaser for value" is deemed, under the Torrens system, to include
an innocent lessee, mortgagee or other encumbrancer for value. 1 4 Where a purchaser
neglects to make the necessary inquiries and closes his eyes to facts which should put a
reasonable man on his guard as to the possibility of the existence of a defect in his
vendor's title, and relying on the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 purchases the property without making any further investigation, he cannot claim that he is
a purchaser in good faith for value. 1 5
Furthermore, a private individual may not bring an action for reversion or any action which
would have the effect of cancelling a free patent and the corresponding certificate of title
issued on the basis thereof, with the result that the land covered thereby will again form
part of the public domain, as only the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead
may do so. 1 6
The rule of pari delicto non oritur actio (where two persons are equally at fault neither party
may be entitled to relief under the law), admits of exceptions and does not apply to an
inexistent contract, such as, a sale void ab initio under the Public Land Act, when its
enforcement or application runs counter to the public policy of preserving the grantee's
right to the land under the homestead law. 1 7
Sec. 51, par. 2 of the Property Registration Decree (PD 1529), formerly Sec. 50 of the Land
Registration Act (Act No. 496) expressly provides that the registration of the Deed is the
operative act that binds or affects the land insofar as third persons are concerned. The law
requires a higher degree of prudence from one who buys from a person who is not the
registered owner, when the land object of the transaction is registered land. While one who
buys from the registered owner need not look behind the certificate of title, one who buys
from another who is not the registered owner is expected to examine not only the
certificate of title but all factual circumstances necessary for him to determine if there are
any flaws in the title of the transferor, or in his capacity to transfer the land. Failing to
exercise caution of any kind whatsoever is tantamount to bad faith. 1 8
Deeds of sale of patented lands, perfected within the prohibited five (5) year period are null
and void (Sec. 124, Public Land Act). No title passed from the Egaos to Marfori which
could be validly transferred to herein respondents Bontilao and Dignos. Nemo dat quod
non habet (nobody can dispose of that which does not belong to him). 1 9
While the government has not taken steps to assert its title, by reversion, to a homestead
sold in violation of the Public Land Act, the vendor or his heirs is better entitled to the
possession of the land, the vendee being in no better situation than any intruder. 2 0
Accordingly, respondents who are not innocent purchasers for value have no standing to
question petitioners' right to the land and to file an action for quieting of title.
LibLex

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 09539 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Meanwhile, petitioners as registered owners are entitled to
remain in physical possession of the disputed property. Respondents are ordered to
deliver the owner's duplicate copy of the OCT (No. P-3559) to petitioners, without
prejudice to an action for reversion of the land, which may be instituted by the Solicitor
General for the State.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Solicitor General.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Paras, J., took no part.
Footnotes

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 * Br. XI, Judge Felicidario M. Batoy, presiding; case docketed as Civil Case No. 61.

1. Rollo at 16.
2. Rollo at 10.
3. Rollo at 28.
** Ninth Division — Associate Justice Jose C. Campos, Jr. ponente, JJ., Gloria C. Paras and
Conrado Limcaoco, concurring.
4. Rollo at 47.
5. Rollo at 48.

6. Rollo at 5.
7. Rollo at 56.
8. Rollo at 138-142, 147-152.
9. Rollo at 48.
10. Yturalde v. Aganon, 28 SCRA 407; Cabrera v. Villanueva, No. 75069, April 15, 1988, 150
SCRA 672.
11. Rollo at 47.

12. Legarda v. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590, 595; see also Sec. 46 of Act 496, Land Registration
Act.

13. Tsn. p. 8, Oct. 24, 1984.

14. Peña, Narciso, Registration of Land Titles & Deeds, 1980 revised edition, p. 124.
15. Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil. 644.
16. Sec. 101, Public Land Act applied. (Sumail vs. Judge of the Court of First Instance et al.,
G.R. No. L-8278 prom., April 30, 1955; Lucas vs. Durian, et al., G.R. No. L-7886, Sept. 23,
1957; Acot et al. vs. Kempis, 55 O.G., p. 2907, April 20, 1959).

17. Castro v. Escutin, G.R. No. L-27406, May 31, 1979, 90 SCRA 349, Gonzales v. Trinidad,
67 Phil. 682 (1939), De los Santos vs. Roman Catholic Church of Midsayap, et al., G.R.
No. L-6088, February 25, 1954, 50 O.G. 1588.

18. Barrios v. CA, No. L-32531, Aug. 31, 1977, 73 SCRA 427.
19. Art. 1458, New Civil Code —
By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the
ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing and the other to pay therefor a price
certain in money or its equivalent. Azcona v. Reyes and Larracas, 59 Phil 446; Coronel v.
Ona, 33 Phil. 456.

20. Noblejas, Antonio H., Land Titles & Deeds, 1968 edition with 1977 Supplement, p. 317.
De los Santos vs. Roman Catholic Church, et al., G.R. No. L-6088, February 25, 1954.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com