G.R. No.

137582, August 29, 2012

MEDINA vs. CA
FACTS:
The instant case stemmed from a Complaint for Damages with prayer for Preliminary Attachment. In a
Decision dated 27 December 19!" the #TC ordered Arles Casta$ares" now deceased and represented by
his heirs" to pay damages for r%nning o&er and ca%sing in'%ries to fo%r(year old )enceslao *ahil%m" +r.
The fo%r(year old &ictim was left in the c%stody of petitioner +ose I. *edina" who also represented the
&ictim,s father" )enceslao *ahil%m" -r. in the aforesaid case. The Decision became final and e.ec%tory
on / +%ne 197. The motion for iss%ance of a writ of e.ec%tion filed by petitioner was granted and the
corresponding )rit of 0.ec%tion was iss%ed on 1 1ctober 197. The 0.(1fficio Pro&incial -heriff of the
#TC ser&ed a 2otice of 3e&y and -ei4%re on Arles, two 526 parcels of lands located at Aroroy" *asbate.
)hen the heirs of Arles failed to settle their acco%nt with petitioner" the first parcel of land %nder Ta.
Declaration 2o. 1177 was sold at a p%blic a%ction. 1nly petitioner participated in the bidding" th%s the
s%b'ect lot was awarded to him and a Certificate of -ale was iss%ed on 28 December 197. In the
-heriff,s 9inal Deed of -ale" the said parcel was transferred to )enceslao *ahil%m" -r." represented by
+ose I. *edina. A s%r&ey was cond%cted on the property. 1n 2/ +an%ary 199" the *otion for Iss%ance of
)rit of Possession was granted by the trial co%rt commanding the sheriff to physically o%st the heirs of
Arles and to deli&er the s%b'ect lot to petitioner.
1n 2: April 1991" petitioner applied for the registration of the lot co&ered by Ta. Declaration 2o. 1177.
Petitioner alleged that he is the owner in fee simple of s%ch parcel of land by &irt%e of a )ai&er of #ights
and Interests e.ec%ted by )enceslao *ahil%m" -r. in his fa&or. Andres Casta$ares" brother of Arles and
representing the heirs of the late Ab%ndio Casta$ares 5Ab%ndio6" filed an 1pposition claiming that after
the death of his father Ab%ndio" the ta. declaration of the property was cancelled and in its place" a ta.
declaration was iss%ed in his fa∨ that d%ring the lifetime of his father and %p to his death" Andres had
been in peacef%l" open" notorio%s" p%blic and ad&erse possession of the lot. 1n 2 April 1992" Andres
filed another Complaint for #eco&ery of Possession and 1wnership.
Andres testified that %pon Ab%ndio,s death" the latter left his children a parcel of agric%lt%ral land with an
area of 1 hectares" declared for ta.ation in Ab%ndio,s name %nder Ta. Declaration 2o. 117:. Andres
presented a s<etch plan on 2: *ay 19/ of 3ots 228 and 217" and pointed o%t that the alleged lot of
Arles co&ered by Ta. Declaration 2o. 1177 is o%tside 3ot 228. Petitioner insisted that the lots contained
in Ta. Declaration 2os. 1177 and 117: are not separate and distinct" b%t refers to only one parcel of land"
3ot 228. The lot in Ta. Declaration 2o. 1177 is denominated as 3ot 228(A and is deri&ed from Ta.
Declaration 2o. 117:" as certified by the wife of Arles" Patricia
1n 17 *ay 199/" the #TC rendered '%dgment in fa&or of petitioner. +ose I. *edina" and declaring him as
the absol%te owner of the disp%ted property. The trial co%rt fo%nd that *edina lawf%lly ac=%ired the land
thro%gh a Deed of )ai&er of #ights and Interest e.ec%ted by )enceslao *ahil%m" -r." the winning party
in the damages s%it. 1n appeal" howe&er" the CA re&ersed the findings of the trial co%rt. The CA stated
that the lot %nder Ta. Declaration 2o. 1177 in the name of Arles is separate and distinct from 3ots 228
and 217 declared %nder Ta. Declaration 2o. 117:. It aso !ot"# t$at s%!&" t$"'" $as (""! !o
s"tt")"!t *"t o+ t$" "stat" o+ A(u!#%o, %t ,as -'")atu'" +o' A'"s to $av" ao&at"# u!to $%)s"+ a
#%st%!&t -o't%o! o+ .ots 22/ a!# 2187 as $%s s$a'" %! t$" "stat".
I-->0? )@2 Arles, right of ownership o&er the properties of the decedent is merely inchoate as long as
the estate has not been f%lly settled and partitioned and therefore" any enc%mbrance of attachment o&er
the heir,s interests in the estate remains a mere probability" and cannot s%mmarily be satisfied witho%t the
final distrib%tion of the properties in the estate
A03D? Bes" the appellate co%rt is correct in stating that there was no settlement of the estate of Ab%ndio.
T$"'" %s !o s$o,%!g t$at .ot 22/ $as a'"a#* (""! -a't%t%o!"# #"s-%t" t$" #")%s" o+ A(u!#%o. It $as
(""! $"# t$at a! $"%'0s '%g$t o+ o,!"'s$%- ov"' t$" -'o-"'t%"s o+ t$" #"&"#"!t %s )"'"* %!&$oat" as
o!g as t$" "stat" $as !ot (""! +u* s"tt"# a!# -a't%t%o!"#. This means that the impending heir has
yet no absol%te dominion o&er any specific property in the decedent,s estate that co%ld be specifically
le&ied %pon and sold at p%blic a%ction. Any enc%mbrance of attachment o&er the heir,s interests in the
estate" therefore" remains a mere probability" and cannot s%mmarily be satisfied witho%t the final
distrib%tion of the properties in the estate. T$"'"+o'", t$" -u(%& au&t%o! sa" o+ t$" -'o-"'t* &ov"'"#
(* Ta1 D"&a'at%o! No. 1107 %s vo%# ("&aus" t$" su(2"&t -'o-"'t* %s st% &ov"'"# (* t$" Estat" o+
A(u!#%o" which %p to now" remains %npartitioned. Arles was not pro&en to be the owner of the lot %nder
Ta. Declaration 2o. 1177. It may not be amiss to state that a ta1 #"&a'at%o! (* %ts"+ %s !ot su++%&%"!t to
-'ov" o,!"'s$%-. Aga%!st a )"'" ta1 #"&a'at%o!, '"s-o!#"!ts ,"'" a(" to -'"s"!t a )o'" &'"#%("
-'oo+ o+ o,!"'s$%- ov"' .ot 22/. The Co%rt of Appeals relied on the Certification iss%ed by the
Comm%nity 0n&ironment and 2at%ral #eso%rces 1ffice 5C02#16 1fficer of the Department of
0n&ironment and 2at%ral #eso%rces 5D02#6 which certifies that A(u!#%o, a!# !o, t$" $"%'s, %s t$"
$o#"' o+ a $o)"st"a# a--%&at%o! a!# a! o'#"' +o' t$" %ssua!&" o+ -at"!t $a# a'"a#* (""! %ssu"#
as "a'* as 7 3u* 1952.
In Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, citing the early case of Calboa &. 9arrales we r%led that ,$"! a
$o)"st"a#"' $as &o)-%"# ,%t$ a t$" t"')s a!# &o!#%t%o!s ,$%&$ "!t%t" $%) to a -at"!t +o' a
-a't%&ua' t'a&t o+ -u(%& a!#, $" a&4u%'"s a v"st"# %!t"'"st t$"'"%!" eno%gh to be regarded as the
e=%itable owner thereof. )here the right to a patent to land has once become &ested in a p%rchaser of
p%blic lands" it is e=%i&alent to a patent act%ally iss%ed. The e.ec%tion and deli&ery of patent" after the
right to a partic%lar parcel of land has become complete" are the mere ministerial acts of the officer
charged with that d%ty. Ev"! ,%t$out a -at"!t, a -"'+"&t"# $o)"st"a# %s a -'o-"'t* '%g$t %! t$" +u"st
s"!s", u!a++"&t"# (* t$" +a&t t$at t$" -a'a)ou!t t%t" to t$" a!# %s st% %! t$" gov"'!)"!t. Su&$
a!# )a* (" &o!v"*"# o' %!$"'%t"#.
Also" in Nieto v. Quines and Pio in&ol&ing ownership o&er a contested lot" it was held that?
2e&ertheless" ha&ing complied with all the terms and conditions which wo%ld entitle him to a
patent" Cartolome D%ines" "v"! ,%t$out a -at"!t a&tua* %ssu"#, $as u!4u"st%o!a(* a&4u%'"#
a v"st"# '%g$t o! t$" a!# a!# %s to (" '"ga'#"# as t$" "4u%ta(" o,!"' t$"'"o+. >nder these
circ%mstances and applying by analogy the principles go&erning sales of immo&able property to
two different persons by the same &endor" Cartolome D%ines, title m%st pre&ail o&er that of *aria
9lorentino not only beca%se he had always been in possession of the land b%t also beca%se he
obtained title to the land prior to that of *aria 9lorentino.
I! t$" %!sta!t &as", %t ,as &"a' t$at t$"'" $as (""! a! %ssua!&" o+ -at"!t ,a* (a&5 %! 7 3u* 1952.
The only two acts left for the C02#1 to do are to prepare the patent and to transmit it to the #egister of
Deeds. As to whether these acts ha&e already been complied with is not borne in the records" b%t the fact
remains that these acts are merely ministerial. R"s-o!#"!ts $av" a'"a#* a&4u%'"# v"st"# '%g$ts to a
-at"!t ,$%&$ %s "4u%va"!t to a&tua %ssua!&" o+ -at"!t. T$"* $av" ("&o)" o,!"'s o+ t$" a!#.
As "v%#"!&" o+ o,!"'s$%- o+ a!#, a $o)"st"a# -at"!t -'"va%s ov"' a a!# ta1 #"&a'at%o!.