Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CORTES, J.:
The litigation over the ownership of the parcels of land which are
the subject of this petition started in 1927 when an application
for their registration under the Torrens System was first filed. In
the present petition for review Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc.
(hereafter referred to as Realty) and Macondray Farms, Inc.
(hereafter referred to as Macondray) seek a reversal of the
Resolution of May 2, 1984 of the Intermediate Appellate Court,
and an affirmance of the Court of Appeals Decision of December
29, 1982.
Two (2) adjacent parcels of land located in Almanza, Las Pias,
Metro Manila, having an aggregate area of 373,868 sq. m.,
situated in the vicinity of the Ayala Alabang Project and BF
Homes Paraaque are covered by three (3) distinct sets of
Torrens titles to wit:
1) TCT No. 20408 issued on May 29, 1975 in the
name of Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc., which was
derived from OCT No. 1609, issued on May 21,
that in the event of an unfavorable judgment against it, fourthparty defendants be ordered to reimburse the purchase price
which the corporation paid to them. However, QCDFC failed to
prosecute its case, and the fourth-party complaint was dismissed
for lack of interest.
After hearing, the Vera Court rendered judgment on January 20,
1981, sustaining the title of Morris G. Carpo to the two (2) lots in
question and declaring the titles of Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc.
and QCDFC null and void.
On March 20, 1981, Realty filed a Petition for certiorari with this
Court docketed as G.R. No. L-56471 questioning the decision of
the lower court. It also asked that it be allowed to appear
directly to this Court as it was raising only questions of law. After
respondents filed their comments to said petition, this Court
passed a resolution dated October 19, 1981 referring the case to
the Court of Appeals "in aid of its appellate jurisdiction for
proper determination on the merits of the appeal."
In its decision dated December 29, 1982, the Court of Appeals,
through its Ninth Division, with Justice Patajo
asponente, concurred in by Justices Gopengco and Kapunan, set
aside the decision of the trial court and rendered a new one
upholding the validity of the title in the name of Realty Sales
Enterprise, Inc. and declaring null and void the titles in the name
of Carpo and QCDFC.
Carpo filed a motion for reconsideration with the appellate court.
In the meantime, by virtue and pursuant to Batas Pambansa
Bldg. 129, or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, the Court
of Appeals was reorganized into the Intermediate Appellate
Court (IAC). As a consequence, there was a re-raffling of cases
and the case was assigned to the Second Special Cases Division
which, however, returned the records of the case for another re-
that the Reyes Court had no authority to issue the order of May
21, 1958 directing the issuance of a decree of registration in
favor of Mayuga, predecessor-in-interest of Realty, as it was not
sitting as a land registration court and also because the original
records of LRC Case No. 657, Record No. N-29882 were lost
and/or destroyed during World War II and were still pending
reconstitution.
Under Act No. 496, Land Registration Act, (1902) as amended by
Act No. 2347 (1914), jurisdiction over all applications for
registration of title to and was conferred upon the Courts of First
Instance of the respective provinces in which the land sought to
be registered is situated.
Jurisdiction over land registration cases, as in ordinary actions,
is acquired upon the filing in court of the application for
registration, and is retained up to the end of the litigation. The
issuance of a decree of registration is but a step in the entire
land registration process; and as such, does not constitute a
separate proceeding.
In the case at bar, it appears that it was Estanislao Mayuga,
father of Dominador Mayuga, predecessor-in-interest of Realty,
who originally filed on June 24, 1927 a registration proceeding
docketed as LRC Case No. 657, GLRO Record No. N-29882 in the
Court of First Instance of Rizal to confirm his title over parcels of
land described as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Plan Psu-47035. (Lots 2 and 3
the subject of the instant litigation among Carpo, RRealty and
QCDFC.) Case No. 657 was jointly tried with two other cases,
LRC Case No. 976, GLRO Record No. 43516 filed by Eduardo
Guico and LRC Case No. 758, GLRO Record No. 33721 filed by
Florentino Baltazar, as the three cases involved Identical parcels
of land, and Identical applicants/oppositors.
Since Realty is claiming under TCT No. 1609 which was issued
earlier than OCT No. 8931 from which QCDFC's title was
derived, Realty's title must prevail over that of QCDFC.
THIRD DIVISION
INOCENCIO Y. LUCASAN for himself and as the Judicial
Administrator of the Intestate Estate of the late JULIANITA
SORBITO LUCASAN,
Petitioner,
- versus PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (PDIC) as
receiver and liquidator of the defunct PACIFIC BANKING
CORPORATION,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 176929
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
Lucasan, as well as the mortgagee banks, PNB and RPB, did not
redeem the properties within the redemption period.
Nevertheless, PBC did not file a petition for consolidation of
ownership.
In January 1997, Lucasan, through counsel, wrote a letter to the
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), PBCs receiver
and liquidator seeking the cancellation of the certificate of sale
and offering to pay PBCs claim against Lucasan.[4]
Not long thereafter, Lucasan paid his loans with the PNB and
RPB. Consequently, the mortgagee banks executed their
respective releases of mortgage, resulting in the cancellation of
the prior encumbrances in favor of PNB and RPB.
On August 13, 2001, PDIC denied Lucasans request for the
cancellation of the certificate of sale stating:
Please be informed that based on our records, TCT Nos. T-68115
and T-13816 have already become part of the acquired assets of
Pacific Banking Corporation by virtue of a Certificate of Sale
dated May 13, 1981 executed by the City Sheriff of Bacolod.
Subsequently, this document was registered on the titles on June
5, 1981 so that the last day of the redemption period was June 5,
1982.
With regard to your request, we regret to inform you that
reacquisition of the subject properties have to be through sale
following PDICs policy on disposal. Accordingly, these properties
can be disposed through public bidding using the latest
appraised value in the total amount of P2,900,300.00 as of
March 29, 2000 as a minimum bid. If you are still interested to
acquire the properties, please get in touch with our Asset
Management Group x x x.[5]
Lucasan then filed a petition denominated as declaratory relief
with the RTC of Bacolod City docketed as Civil Case No. 0211874.[6] He sought confirmation of his rights provided in the
second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court in
SO ORDERED.[15]
As gleaned from the averments of the complaint, Lucasans action
was one for quieting of title under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.
Clearly thus, he had lost whatever right he had over Lot Nos.
1500-A and 229-E.
The payment of loans made by Lucasan to PNB and RPB in 1997
cannot, in any way, operate to restore whatever rightspacerun:yes'> Sadly for him, that case is not on all fours with
his case, for it was not for quieting of title but a petition for
issuance of a writ of possession and cancellation of lis pendens.
Likewise, in Cometa the registered owner assailed the validity of
the levy and sale, which Lucasan failed to do.
Co- Ownership
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
THE HEIRS OF PROTACIO GO, SR. and MARTA BAROLA,
namely: LEONOR, SIMPLICIO, PROTACIO, JR., ANTONIO,
Now here, in the instant case, the 5,560 square meter portion of
the 17,140 square-meter conjugal lot is certainly mush (sic) less
than what vendors Protacio Go and his son Rito B. Go will
eventually get as their share in the final partition of the property.
So the sale is still valid.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, complaint is hereby
DISMISSED without pronouncement as to cost and damages.
SO ORDERED.[12]
The RTCs denial of their motion for reconsideration[13]
prompted the petitioners to appeal directly to the Court on a
pure question of law.
Issue
The petitioners claim that Article 130 of the Family Code is the
applicable law; and that the sale by Protacio, Sr., et al. to
Servacio was void for being made without prior liquidation.
In contrast, although they have filed separate comments,
Servacio and Rito both argue that Article 130 of the Family Code
was inapplicable; that the want of the liquidation prior to the
sale did not render the sale invalid, because the sale was valid to
the extent of the portion that was finally allotted to the vendors
as his share; and that the sale did not also prejudice any rights of
the petitioners as heirs, considering that what the sale disposed
of was within the aliquot portion of the property that the vendors
were entitled to as heirs.[14]
Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
Article 130 of the Family Code reads:
Article 130. Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the
conjugal partnership property shall be liquidated in the same
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased.
SECOND DIVISION
REYNALDO BALOLOY and G.R. No. 157767
ADELINA BALOLOY-HIJE,
Petitioners,
Present:
PUNO, J., Chairman,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,*
CALLEJO, SR.,
TINGA, and
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
Promulgated:
ALFREDO HULAR,
Respondent. September 9, 2004
x-------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
a)
Declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the land in
question;
b)
Ordering the defendants to perpetually refrain from
disturbing plaintiff in his peaceful possession in the land in
question;
c)
Ordering the defendants to remove their houses in the land
in question, and to declare OCT No. P-16540, and whatever
paper, form, document or proceeding the defendants may have,
as null and void and without any effect whatsoever as far as the
land in question is concerned as they cast cloud upon the title of
the plaintiff;
d)
In the alternative, defendants be ordered to reconvey the
title in favor of the plaintiff as far as the land in question is
concerned;
e)
Ordering the defendants to jointly and severally pay the
plaintiff the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages; P5,000.00
as attorneys fee plus P500.00 for every appearance or hearing of
his lawyer in court; P1,500.00 as consultation fee; P5,000.00 as
incidental litigation expenses; P20,000.00 as exemplary
damages; and to pay the costs.
Plaintiff further prays for such other relief [as are] just and
equitable in the premises.[3]
The Evidence of the Respondent
The respondent adduced evidence that the Spouses Lino and
Victoriana Estopin were the original owners of a parcel of land
located in Barangay Biriran, Juban, Sorsogon, designated as Lot
No. 3347 of the Juban Cadastre. A major portion of the property,
where a house of strong materials was constructed, was
agricultural, while the rest was residential. The respondent also
averred that the Spouses Estopin declared the property in their
names under Tax Declaration No. 4790. On the north of the
agricultural portion of the property was the road leading to
Biriran, while north of the residential portion was a creek (canal)
and the property of Iluminado.
When Lino Estopin died intestate, his widow, Victoriana Lagata,
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale[4] on November 11, 1961 over
the agricultural portion of Lot No. 3347, which had an area of
15,906 square meters, more or less, in favor of Astrologo Hular,
married to Lorenza Hular. Shortly thereafter, on November 25,
1961, Lagata executed a Deed of Absolute Sale[5] over the
residential portion of the property with an area of 287 square
meters, including the house constructed thereon, in favor of
Hular. Hular and his family, including his son, the respondent,
then resided in the property. In 1961 or thereabouts, Iluminado
asked Hulars permission to construct a house on a portion of Lot
No. 3347 near the road, and the latter agreed. In l977, Lorenza
Hular, wife of Astrologo, declared the residential land in the
latters name under Tax Declaration No. 6841.[6]
Earlier, or on August 14, 1945, Irene Griarte had executed a
Deed of Absolute Sale over a coconut land located in Barangay
Biriran, Juban, with an area of 6,666 square meters in favor of
Martiniano Balbedina, with the following boundaries: North,
Alejandro Gruta; South, Lino Estopin; East, River Page; West,
Pedro Grepal and Esteban Grepal.[7] Subsequently, after a
cadastral survey was conducted on lands in Juban, the property
file the action, such actions had long since prescribed. The heirs
of Baloloy prayed that judgment be rendered in their favor, thus:
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable
Court to DISMISS this case pursuant to paragraph 15, et seq.,
hereof, and/or DECIDE it in favor of the defendants by
UPHOLDING the sanctity of OCT No. P-16540 and ordering
plaintiff to:
1.
RESPECT defendants proprietary rights and interests on
the property in question covered by OCT No. P-16540;
2.
VACATE it at his sole and exclusive expense, and never to
set foot on it ever again;
3.
PAY defendants:
a)
MORAL DAMAGES at P50,000.00 EACH;
b)
ACTUAL DAMAGES and UNREALIZED PROFITS at
P1,000.00/MONTH COMPUTED UP TO THE TIME OF PAYMENT
PLUS LEGAL RATE OF INTEREST;
c)
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES of P50,000.00
d)
ATTYS FEES and LITIGATION EXPENSES of P100,000.00;
and
e)
THE COSTS OF THIS SUIT.
DEFENDANTS pray for all other reliefs and remedies consistent
with law and equity.[22]
The Evidence for the Petitioners
Sometime in 1982, Hular asked permission from Iluminado to
construct his house on Lot No. 3353 near the road leading to
Biriran. Iluminado agreed, in the presence of his daughter,
petitioner Adelina Baloloy. As per the plan of Lot No. 3353
certified by a Director of the Bureau of Lands on November 6,
1961, Lot No. 3353 had an area of 9,302 square meters.[23]
As gleaned from the Sketch Plan of Lot Nos. 3347 and 3353
prepared on February 7, 1991 by Geodetic Engineer Salvador
Balilo, the houses of the Baloloy siblings and those of Astrologo
and Alfredo were located in Lot No. 3353.[24] In the said sketch
plan, Lot No. 3353 had an area of 9,302 square meters, while Lot
The trial court ruled that the property subject of the complaint,
with an area of 1,405 square meters, was part of Lot No. 3347
which the Spouses Estopin owned, and which they later sold to
Astrologo Hular. The trial court
also held that Iluminado committed fraud in securing the free
patent and the title for the property in question, and that when
We note that the action of the respondent in the trial court is for:
(a) reinvidicatoria, to declare the respondent the absolute owner
of the subject property and its reconveyance to him as a
consequence of the nullification of Free Patent No. 384019 and
OCT No. P-16540; (b) publiciana, to order the petitioners and the
other heirs of Iluminado Baloloy to vacate the property and
deliver possession thereof to him; and (c) damages and attorneys
fees.
It is the contention of the respondent that the subject property
was sold by Lagata to his father, Astrologo Hular, in 1961. He
adduced evidence that when his parents died intestate, they
were survived by their children, the respondent and his siblings
Elena, Jose, Romeo, Anacleto, Leo, and Teresita. Article 1078 of
the Civil Code provides that where there are two or more heirs,
the whole estate of the decedent is, before partition, owned in
common by such heirs, subject to the payment of the debts of the
deceased. Until a division is made, the respective share of each
cannot be determined and every co-owner exercises, together
with his co-participants, joint ownership over the pro indiviso
property, in addition to the use and enjoyment of the same.
Under Article 487 of the New Civil Code, any of the co-owners
may bring an action in ejectment. This article covers all kinds of
actions for the recovery of possession, including an accion
publiciana and a reinvidicatory action. A co-owner may bring
such an action without the necessity of joining all the other coowners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to be
instituted for the benefit of all.[27] Any judgment of the court in
favor of the co-owner will benefit the others but if such judgment
is adverse, the same cannot prejudice the rights of the
unimpleaded co-owners. If the action is for the benefit of the
plaintiff alone who claims to be the sole owner and entitled to
the possession thereof, the action will not prosper unless he
impleads the other co-owners who are indispensable parties.
In this case, the respondent alone filed the complaint, claiming
sole ownership over the subject property and praying that he be
declared the sole owner thereof. There is no proof that the other
co-owners had waived their rights over the subject property or
Q From whom?
A From Irene Griarte.
Atty. Diesta:
Already answered.
Witness:
respondents claim that the said lot was then residential, and that
the boundary of the property on the north was the road to
Biriran which, in turn, is consistent with the petitioners claim.
[44] Unfortunately, the trial court denied the said motion on the
ground that it was mooted by its decision.
PNR, and the same was described therein; thus, petitioner VFP
cannot conveniently set aside the technical description in this
agreement and insist that it is the legal owner of the property
erroneously described in the certificate of title. Petitioner can
only claim right of ownership over the parcel of land that was the
object of the deed of sale and nothing else.[48]
Sixth. Under the said deed of sale dated November 11, 1961,
Victoriana Lagata sold Lot No. 3347 which had an area of 15,906
square meters and covered by Tax Declaration No. 4790. The
deed does not state that what was sold was only a portion of Lot
No. 3347, excluding therefrom the disputed property. This is
understandable, since the subject property is a portion of Lot No.
3353 owned by Alejandro Gruta and Iluminado Baloloy, and not
of Lino Estopin and/or Victoriana Lagata. Lagata could not have
sold a portion of Lot No. 3353 which she does not own. As the
Latin adage goes: NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET.
Seventh. The Balbedinas Affidavit dated May 8, 1993 offered by
the respondent to prove the contents thereof is inadmissible in
evidence against the petitioners. Balbedina did not testify; as
such, the petitioners were deprived of their right to crossexamine him. The said affidavit is thus hearsay and barren of
probative weight. The affidavit varies the contents of the deed of
absolute sale which he (Balbedina) executed in favor of
Iluminado more than forty years earlier. In the said affidavit, it
was made to appear that Balbedina sold to Iluminado on June 4,
1951 only a portion of Lot 3353 with an area of 3,333 square
meters, when under the said deed of absolute sale, the property
that was sold consisted of 4,651 square meters. The affidavit is
proscribed by Section 9, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which
provides:
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. - When the terms of
an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between
the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such
terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
...
It bears stressing that the deed of absolute sale executed by
Balbedina in favor of Baloloy was notarized by the Justice of the
THIRD DIVISION
BETTY B. LACBAYAN,
Petitioner,
- versus G.R. No. 165427
Present:
CARPIO MORALES, J.,
Chairperson,
BRION,
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
SERENO, JJ.
BAYANI S. SAMOY, JR.,
Respondent.
Promulgated:
March 21, 2011
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
This settles the petition for review on certiorari filed by
petitioner Betty B. Lacbayan against respondent Bayani S.
Samoy, Jr. assailing the September 14, 2004 Decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 67596. The CA had
affirmed the February 10, 2000 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 224, of Quezon City declaring respondent
as the sole owner of the properties involved in this suit and
awarding to him P100,000.00 as attorneys fees.
This suit stemmed from the following facts.
SECOND DIVISION
LEONOR B. CRUZ,
Petitioner,
- versus TEOFILA M. CATAPANG,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 164110
Present:
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated:
February 12, 2008
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
This petition for review seeks the reversal of the Decision[1]
dated September 16, 2003 and the Resolution[2] dated June 11,
2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 69250. The Court
of Appeals reversed the Decision[3] dated October 22, 2001 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 86, Taal, Batangas, which
had earlier affirmed the Decision[4] dated September 20, 1999 of
the 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Taal, Batangas
ordering respondent to vacate and deliver possession of a
portion of the lot co-owned by petitioner, Luz Cruz and Norma
Maligaya.
The antecedent facts of the case are as follows.
Petitioner Leonor B. Cruz, Luz Cruz and Norma Maligaya are the
co-owners of a parcel of land covering an area of 1,435 square
meters located at Barangay Mahabang Ludlod, Taal, Batangas.
[5] With the consent of Norma Maligaya, one of the
aforementioned co-owners, respondent Teofila M. Catapang built
a house on a lot adjacent to the abovementioned parcel of land
sometime in 1992. The house intruded, however, on a portion of
the co-owned property.[6]
In the first week of September 1995, petitioner Leonor B. Cruz
visited the property and was surprised to see a part of
respondents house intruding unto a portion of the co-owned
property. She then made several demands upon respondent to
demolish the intruding structure and to vacate the portion
and the undivided thing or right to which it refers is one and the
same.[13]
The characteristics of co-ownership are: (a) plurality of subjects,
who are the co-owners, (b) unity of or material indivision, which
means that there is a single object which is not materially
divided, and which is the element which binds the subjects, and,
(c) the recognition of ideal shares, which determines the rights
and obligations of the co-owners.[14]
In co-ownership, the relationship of such co-owner to the other
co-owners is fiduciary in character and attribute. Whether
established by law or by agreement of the co-owners, the
property or thing held pro-indiviso is impressed with a fiducial
nature so that each co-owner becomes a trustee for the benefit of
his co-owners and he may not do any act prejudicial to the
interest of his co-owners.[15]
Thus, the legal effect of an agreement to preserve the properties
in co-ownership is to create an express trust among the heirs as
co-owners of the properties. Co-ownership is a form of trust and
every co-owner is a trustee for the others.[16]
Before the partition of a land or thing held in common, no
individual or co-owner can claim title to any definite portion
thereof. All that the co-owner has is an ideal or abstract quota or
proportionate share in the entire land or thing.[17]
Article 493 of the Civil Code gives the owner of an undivided
interest in the property the right to freely sell and dispose of it,
i.e., his undivided interest. He may validly lease his undivided
interest to a third party independently of the other co-owners.
[18] But he has no right to sell or alienate a concrete, specific or
determinate part of the thing owned in common because his
right over the thing is represented by a quota or ideal portion
without any physical adjudication.[19]
Although assigned an aliquot but abstract part of the property,
the metes and bounds of petitioners lot has not been designated.
As she was not a party to the Deed of Absolute Sale voluntarily
RULING:
NO, they should not be consolidated.
Quieting of Title
Realty Sales Ent. Inc., v. IAC
GR L-67451, September 28, 1987
FACTS:
Two (2) adjacent parcels of land located in Almanza, Las
Pias, Metro Manila are covered by three (3) distinct sets of
Torrens titles, one of which is TCT No. 20408 issued in the name
of Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc., pursuant to Decree No. N-63394
in LRC Cases Nos. 657, 758 and 976, GLRO Record Nos. N29882, N-33721 and N-43516, respectively.
In 1977, Morris Carpo filed a complaint for "declaration of
nullity of Decree No. N-63394 and TCT No. 20408." The
complaint alleged that TCT No. 20408 as well as OCT No. 1609
nor
the
are
So.
Lucasan V PDIC.
To avail of the remedy of QUIETING OF TITLE, two
indispensable requisites must concur, namely:
the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or
interest in the real property subject of action; and
Stated simply, the plaintiff must show that he has a legal title or
at least an equitable title over the real property in dispute, and
that some deed or proceeding beclouds its validity or efficacy.
______________________________________________________
CASE DIGEST: Baloloy v Hular
(Note: This case have several issues but only the issue about coownership was presented in this digest)
FACTS: Spouses Lino and Victoriana Estopin were the original
owners of a parcel of land located in Barangay Biriran, Juban,
Sorsogon ( Lot No. 3347 ) of the Juban Cadastre. A major
portion of the property was agricultural, while the rest was
residential. November 11 and 25, 1961: When Lino Estopin died
intestate, his widow, Victoriana Lagata, executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale on over the agricultural portion of Lot No. 3347,
( 15,906 sqm) and the residential portion of the property (287
sqm) to Astrologo Hular. In 1961 or thereabouts: Iluminado
asked Hulars permission to construct a house on a portion of Lot
No. 3347 near the road, and the latter agreed.
Iluminado Baloloy in 1945 acquired a coconut land (north of the
residential portion of Lot 3347 Lot No. 3353 (9302 sqm) and
registered the same. Iluminado constructed his house on a
portion of Lot No. 3353. He and his family, including his
children, forthwith resided in said house.