Professional Documents
Culture Documents
156171
FERMA PORTIC,Petitioners,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
- versus - Corona,Carpio Morales, and Garcia, JJ
Respondent. April 22, 2005
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
An agreement in which ownership is reserved in
the vendor and is not to pass to the vendee until full
payment of the purchase price is known as a contract to
sell. The absence of full payment suspends the vendors
obligation to convey title. This principle holds true
between the parties, even if the sale has already been
registered. Registration does not vest, but merely serves
as evidence of, title to a particular property. Our land
registration laws do not give title holders any better
ownership than what they actually had prior to
registration.
The Case
Before us is a Petition for Review [1] under Rule 45 of the
Rules
of
Court,
challenging
the January
29,
2002 Decision[2] and
the November
18,
2002 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR
CV No. 66393. The assailed Decision disposed as
follows:
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the
appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. A new one is hereby entered
ORDERING defendant-appellant to pay the
unpaid balance of P55,000.00 plus legal
interest of 6% per annum counted from the
filing of this case. The ownership of defendantappellant over the subject property is hereby
confirmed.
No pronouncement as to costs.[4]
In the challenged Resolution,[5] the CA denied
petitioners Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
The Facts
The facts were summarized by the appellate
court as follows:
Spouses
Clodualdo
Alcantara
and
Candelaria Edrosalam were the original registered
owners of a parcel of land with three-door
apartment, located at No. 9, 1st Street BBB,
Marulas, Valenzuela City. Transfer Certificate of
Title No. T-71316 was issued in the names of
spouses Clodualdo Alcantara and Candelaria
Edrosalam.
On October 2, 1968, spouses Clodualdo
Alcantara and Candelaria Edrosalam sold the
subject property in favor of [petitioners] with the
condition that the latter shall assume the mortgage
executed over the subject property by spouses
The Issue
1.)
The Court hereby orders the quieting of
title or removal of cloud over the [petitioners] parcel
of land and three (3) door apartment now covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-113299 of the
Registry of Deeds for Caloocan City and Tax
Declaration Nos. C-018-00235 & C-031-012077
respectively, of Valenzuela City;
2.)
The
Court
hereby
orders
the
[respondent] to reconvey in favor of the [petitioners]
the parcel of land and three (3) door apartment now
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T113299 of the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City
after reimbursement by the [petitioners] of the
amount actually paid by the [respondent] in the
total amount of P145,025.89;
3.)
The Court hereby DENIES damages as
claimed by both parties.[7]
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals opined that the first
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) embodied the real
agreement between the parties, and that the subsequent
Deeds were executed merely to secure their respective
rights over the property.[8] The MOA stated that Cristobal
had not fully paid the purchase price. Although this
statement might have given rise to a cause of action to
annul the Deed of Sale, prescription already set in
because the case had been filed beyond the ten-year
reglementary period,[9] as observed by the CA.
Nonetheless, in conformity with the principle of unjust
enrichment, the appellate court ordered respondent to pay
petitioners the remaining balance of the purchase price. [10]
In their Motion for Partial Reconsideration,
petitioners contended that their action was not one for the
enforcement of a written contract, but one for the quieting
of title -- an action that was imprescriptible as long as they
remained in possession of the premises.[11] The CA held,
however, that the agreement between the parties was
valid, and that respondents title to the property was amply
this Court has stressed that registration does not vest, but
merely serves as evidence of, title. Our land registration
laws do not give the holders any better title than that which
they actually have prior to registration. [25]
Under Article 1544 of the Civil Code, mere
registration is not enough to acquire a new title. Good
faith must concur.[26] Clearly, respondent has not yet fully
paid the purchase price. Hence, as long as it remains
unpaid, she cannot feign good faith. She is also precluded
from asserting ownership against petitioners. The
appellate courts finding that she had a valid title to the
property must, therefore, be set aside.
Continuous Possession
DAMAGES
Bishop of Cebu v. Mangabon (1906)
Facts:
1. Mariano Mangabons parents and brothers had been
in possession of a tract of land in the district of Ermita
until about the year 1877 (possession of at least 20
years)
2. In 1878, they vacated the land by virtue of an order
from the municipality which declared that the land was
included within the zone of materiales Fuertes (fire
zone) and the houses in which they lived upon were
of light materials
3. They vacated said land without objection
Issue:
Whether after the promulgation of the CC, accion
publiciana, which had for its object the recovery of
possession in a plenary action before an action for the
recovery of title could be instituted, still existed (YES)
Ratio:
-
Available actions:
o Accion interdictal recovery of physical
possession within 1 year from the time of
dispossession
o Accion publiciana better right to such
possession brought after lapse of 1 year
o Recovery of ownership action for title
If Mangabon instituted the accion interdictal within 1
year from dispossession, he would have been
restored to the possession
o 1 year period has already elapsed so such
summary action for possession could not be
maintained
But even after the lapse of 1 year, he still could have
brought an accion publiciana involved the right to
possess; based upon the fact the he, having been in
possession for 20 years, could not lose the same until
he had been given opportunity to be heard and had
been defeated in an action in court by another with a
better right
Chacon v. CA (1983)
Facts:
1. Ramon Chacon granted a fishpond lease
agreement by Director of Forestry to construct and
maintain a fishpond over a mangrove swamp in Barrio
Lapasan, municipality of Cagayan, Oriental Misamis
2. Chacon developed the area into a fishpond, clearing
its shrubby growths and enclosing the same with
perimetric dikes
3. Upon his death, his heirs succeeded him in
possession, and were issued a transfer ordinary
fishpond permit
4. Heirs entered into a partnership agreement, under the
name Chacon Enterprises for the purpose of
acquiring title over the fishpond
5. Partnership applied for the purchase not only of the
15-hectare fishpond, but also the adjoining eastern
portion with an area of 4 hectares
6. Sales application alleged: area applied for had no
indication of settlement, occupation or improvement,
except the dikes and concrete gates owned by the
heirs of Ramon Chacon
7. Sales application was approved; an Order Award was
issued in favor of partnership (19 hectares, 11 ares,
14 centares); OCT issued.
8. Chacon Enterprises filed an ejectment suit against
Florentino Galasino and several other persons who
were in actual possession of an area of 43, 792 sqm.
Of the eastern portion of the land
TC: Dismissed action. Ocular inspection revealed:
defendants houses constructed in the premises are
already very old and in a dilapidated condition
defendants were staying and living in the premises for
more than one year
SC:
o While owner in fee continues liable to an
action, proceeding, or suit upon the adverse
claim, he has a continuing right to the aid of
a court of equity to ascertain and determine
the nature of such claim and its effects on
his title, or to assert any superior equity in
his favor
o He may wait until his possession is disturbed
or his title is attacked before taking steps to
vindicate his rights
o Reason: his undisturbed possession gives
him a continuing right to seek the aid of a
court of equity to ascertain and determine
the nature of the adverse claim
o Galasino et al. were in actual possession at
the
time
they
filed
action
for
annulment/reconveyance
Deduced form the fact that Chacon
Enterprises filed an ejectment suit and
an action to recover possession
tantamount to an admission that they
were not in actual possession
o Galasino et al. have been in possession in
concept of owners since 1920 (coconut trees
were 20-40 years old)
2. Not barred by laches
- Requisites:
(1) Conduct on the part of defendant for which
complainant seeks remedy
(2) Delay in asserting right; complainant having
knowledge or notice of defendants conduct
and having been afforded opportunity to
institute a suit
6. GM filed MR denied.
7. Hence, instant petition.
Issues:
WON Villeza et al. are entitled to file a forcible entry case
(YES)
Ratio:
1. Spouses
Jose,
residents
of
Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia USA, are owners of a percel of land in
Sitio Inarawan, San Isidro Antipolo, Rizal pursuant to
Homestead Patent granted to them in 1948
2. 1982 Sps. Jose executed SPA athorizing German
Management Services to develop their property into a
residential subdivision
3. German Management obtained Development Permit
- Finding that part of property was occupied by
Villeza, Gernale, and 20 others, it advised
occupants to vacate premises but they refused
- GM proceeded with the development which
included portions occupied and cultivated by
Villeza et al.
4. Villeza et al. filed action for forcible entry
- They are mountainside farmers of Sitio Inarawan;
they have occupied and tilled their farmholdings
some 12 to 15 years from promulgation of PD 27
- GM, under a permit from Office of Provincial
Governor of Rizal, was allowed to improve the
Barangay Road at Sitio Inarawan at its expense,
subject to the condition that it shall secure the
needed right of way from the owners of the lot to
be affected
- Instead, it forcibly removed and destroyed the
barbed wire fence enclosing their farmholdings
VDA. DE AVILES v. CA
An action to quiet title or to remove cloud may not be
brought for the purpose of settling a boundary dispute.
FACTS:
Eduardo Aviles, the predecessor of the petitioners is the
bother of defendant Camilo. They inherited their lands
from their parents and have agreed to subdivide the same
amongst themselves. The area alloted (sic) to Eduardo
Aviles is 16,111 square meters more or less, to Anastacio
Aviles is 16,214 square meters more or less, while the
area alloted to defendant Camilo Aviles is 14,470 square
meters more or less.
FACTS:
RULING:
No, Petitioners filed the wrong action. This is obviously a
boundary dispute and as such the action must fail.
HELD:
ISSUE/S:
1) Whether or not private respondents claim over the
expropriated land has prescribed
2) Whether or not reconveyance lies against expropriated
property
HELD:
1) YES. As provided in the Rules of Court, persons unduly
deprived of their lawful participation in a settlement may
assert their claim only w/in the 2-year period after the
settlement and distribution of the estate. However, this
prescriptive period will not apply to those who had not
been notified of the settlement.