Bergado v CA Doctrine 1.

An action to recover title to or possession of real property must be brought within ten years from date the cause of action accrues. a. In the present case, the cause of action accrued as early as 1947 when the property was sold to PTA or at the very latest in 65-66 when the adobe wall enclosing the property was erected. b. The ten yr prescriptive period has indisputably elapsed. The petitioners complaint was clearly barred when it was file on October 21, 1981, almost three and a half-decades after the PTA had taken possession of the land. 2. Laches is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted. 3. That neither prescription nor laches can operate against petitioners because their title to the property is registered under the Torrens system and therefore imprescriptible not applicable. a. What the petitioners registered was not their ownership to the property but the ESCRITURA DE COMPRAVENTA , and that only in 1964, 36 yrs after it was executed by marciana Trinidad. b. The most she conveyed to the petitioners parent was inchoate ownership as she herself was not the registered owner. c. The property remained in the names of Trinidads parents 1) No TCT had been issued in her favor 2) No certificate could also be issued in the petitioners names. 4. Mere registration of title in case of double sale is not enough, good faith must concur with the registration 5. Inscription of escritura de compraventa in 1964 produced no legal effect because it was mare in bad faith. Facts: 1. Disputed are some 5900 sqm of land forming part of a lot situated in pangasinan and covered by OCT 16545 in the name of Alejandro Trinidad and Aniceta Soriano. a. It was inherited by Marciana Trinidad. 1) She transferred it by virtue of an escritura de Compraventa dated may 3 1928, to Pedro Bergado and Justina Galinato ( petitioners parents) 2) She conveyed it again, this time through a deed of sale dated feb 19,1947, to the PTA of Urdaneta Community High School 2. The petitioners claim the property by right of inheritance from their parents. The republic says that the land was donated to it on July 26, 1977, by PTA ( parents teacher association). Ruling 1. The disputed property had been in possession of PTA since it acquired the same by virtue of the deed of sale dated feb 19, 1947 and of the Republic since July 29, 1977, date of the donation executed in its favor. a. The PTA and later the republic had constructing improvements on the land which certainly could not have escaped the attention of the petitioners.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

b. During all this time, the land was also enclosed with a barbed wire fence and later with an adobe wall erected by school administration sometime before 65-66. 1) The fence and the wall symbolized PTAs exclusive claim of ownership to the disputed property. The construction of various infrastructures on the land ( right wing of main bldg.,admin bldg., annex, reading center, and water reservoir) was also unmistakable act of ownership. 2) Not one of the petitioners protested. An action to recover title to or possession of real property must be brought within ten years from date the cause of action accrues. a. In the present case, the cause of action accrued as early as 1947 when the property was sold to PTA or at the very latest in 65-66 when the adodbe wall enclosing the property was erected. b. The ten yr prescriptive period has indisputably elapsed. The petitioners complaint was clearly barred when it was file on October 21, 1981, almost three and a half-decades after the PTA had taken possession of the land. That neither prescription nor laches can operate against petitioners because their title to the property is registered under the torrens system and therefore imprescriptible not applicable. a. What the petitioners registered was not their ownership to the property but the ESCRITURA DE COMPRAVENTA , and that only in 1964, 36 yrs after it was executed by marciana Trinidad. b. The most she conveyed to the petitioners parent was inchoate ownership as she herself was not the registered owner. c. The property remained in the names of trinidads parents 1) No TCT had been issued in her favor 2) No certificate could also be issued in the petitioners names d. The petitioners did not take possession of the land as they could have on the strength of the Escritura de Compraventa 1) They permitted the PTA and later the republic to do so and made no protest at all until 1981. The affidavit of adjudication Marciana Trinidad on feb 19,1947, was only a formal affirmation of her ownership by right of succession a. Even so it is still necessary for the purpose of registering the property in the name of the vendees. 1) Although the transferor-vendor named therein was Marciana Trinidad, the registered owners of the land were still Alejandro Trinidad and Aniceta Soriano. The escritura de compraventa cannot itself be considered the affidavit of adjudication. a. It did not comply with the requirement of notice ( rule 74, sec1) 1) This compliance cannot be presumed because the instrument was basically a deed of sale and such documents are not required to be published. a) Such a presumption may apply to the affidavit of adjudication of feb 19,1947. b) The record does not show that any evidence has been adduced by the petitioners to negate the regularity of the instrument. Petitioners parents did not immediately take possession of the property upon the execution of Marciana Trinidad of the escritura de compraventa in 1928. a. Neither did they themselves when their parents died. b. That they were ousted in 1979 is belied by the buildings erected on the land

c. Petitioners have not shown that they had paid the realty taxes on the land during any of the years they were supposedly occupying the same. 7. PTA did immediately enter the property when the deed of sale was concluded in 1947. a. The land had long been in the hands of the government when it finally occurred to the petitioners to register the compraventa. 1) It was obviously made in bad faith because the petitioners were at that time already aware that the respondent was in possession of the property. ( art 1544 applies) Ramos v CA Doctrine 1. A resulting trust is an intent-enforcing trust, based on the finding by the court that in view of the relationship of the parties their acts express the true intent to have a trust, even though they did not use the language to that effect. a. If the purpose of the payor of the consideration in having title placed in the name of another was to evade some rule of the common or statute law, the courts will not assist the payor in achieving the his improper purpose by enforcing a resulting trust for him in accordance with the clean hands doctrine. b. A trust or a provision in the terms of the trust is invalid if the enforcement of the trust or provision would be against public policy even though its performance does not involved the commission of a criminal or tortious act by the trustee. Facts. 1. PHHC awarded the rights to buy certain parcels of land to employees of the central bank. a. Herminio was awarded the rightd to buy a parcel of land designated as lot 25, block 86 ( 400 sqm) in Sikatuna Village, Quezon City. b. For the price of P3800.00 payable in installments, he sold and transferred his rights to buy the property to Lydia Ramos. 1) Lydia paid said price in several installments, and the last installment being paid on may 21, 1962. 2) Lydia assumed the obligation of paying to PHHC the monthly amortizations of 34.11 per month over a period of some 10 years ending sometime in 1974 when she paid the last monthly amortization. a) Lydias friend, Camacho acted as propertys caretaker for Lydia, even as the latter had the land fenced. 2. When the TCT was issued after full payment of the price, the cert was in the name of HERMINIANO T. RAMOS married to Herminia L. Ramos. a. They both consented to the delivery to Lydia of said TCT. b. On November 26, 1974, they executed in Lydias favor an irrevocable special power of attorney in sum empowering Lydia to sell, mortgage, lease, the subject property and to dispose of the proceeds thereof in the manner she wants. 1) It served as a practical means of giving assurance to Lydia that the spouses were in good faith and recognized the existing trust relationship between them over the subject land, particularly in view of the restriction annotated on the TCT in

sum to the effect that within 1 yr from said certs issuance no transfer or alienation of the property shall be made without PHHC WRITTEN CONSENT. 3. After having verified that Herminio had passed away and that Herminia and the successor-in-interest were disputing the ownership of the subject property and building thereon, Lydia filed this complaint. Issue: was the transaction involving the land in question valid? Ruling: not valid. 1. Lydia Celestino had candidly admitted in her testimony that although she was a central bank employee, she was not qualified to acquire any PHHC lot under the agreement entered into between PHHC and Central Bank because she is already an owner of a lot in QC. a. Her disqualification is the probable reason why she did not submit for approval by the PHHC the transfer in her favor of Herminianos right to buy the lot in question. PHHCS approval was necessary for the validity of the transfer. b. Resolution no 82 of PHHC, adopted by its board of directors on 23 may 1951, provided that the sale of more than one lot per person shall not be permitted. This policy is supported by the law. 1) The policy has its objective of providing decent housing for those who may be found unable otherwise to provide themselves therewith. 2. Instead of requiring Ramos to execute a deed of sale in her favor and to obtain PHHCs conformity thereto, she was satisfied with the SPA executed 5 days after the issuance of the title, authorizing her to execute acts of ownership. a. Such authority is in inconsistent with Lydias claim of ownership because Ramos solemnly declared that he is the owner in fee simple of the lot. 3. Having acted with evident bad faith, she did not come to court with clean hands when she asked for the reconveyance of the property on the basis of a resulting trust under art 1448, CC. a. A resulting trust is an intent-enforcing trust, based on the finding by the court that in view of the relationship of the parties their acts express the true intent to have a trust, even though they did not use the language to that effect. 1) If the purpose of the payor of the consideration in having title placed in the name of another was to evade some rule of the common or statute law, the courts will not assist the payor in achieving the his improper purpose by enforcing a resulting trust for him in accordance with the clean hands doctrine. 2) A trust or a provision in the terms of the trust is invalid if the enforcement of the trust or provision would be against public policy even though its performance does not involved the commission of a criminal or tortious act by the trustee. 4. Although the contract should be voided for being contrary to public policy, we deem it equitable to allow Lydia to recover what they had paid for the land with legal interest thereon commencing from the date of the filing of the complaint.