Coronel vs. IAC

7/23/2019 Coronel vs. IAC

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/coronel-vs-iac 1/12

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 70191 October 29, 1987

RODOLFO L. CORONEL, petitioner,

vs.

HONORALE !NTERMED!ATE APPELLATE COURT "#$ EL!AS

MERLAN, R!G!DO MERLAN, %OSE MERLAN, TEODOR!CO

NOSTRAT!S, SE&ERO %EC!EL SANT!AGO FERNAN "#$ FORTUNATO

OCAMPO,respondents.

GUT!ERRE', %R., J.:

This is a petition to revie the decision of the then Inter!ediate "ppellate

#ourt, no the #ourt of "ppeals, hich affir!ed the decision and order of

the then #ourt of $irst Instance of #avite in #ivil #ase No. %&'. The

dispositive portion of the trial court(s decision reads)

*H+R+$OR+, in the interest of !oral ustice, ud-!ent is

hereb rendered in favor of all the defendants and intervenor/

hereb DISMISSIN0 the co!plaint/ hoever, the #ourt hereb

orders instead the i!!ediate partition of the land, subect1

!atter on this case, ithout preudice to the plaintiff, and in

accordance ith the e2press but undivided apportion!ents

correspondin- to the ori-inal co1onership, and pursuant toTransfer #ertificate of Title No. T1'333 4+5HI6IT 31b7 of the

Re-istr of Deeds for the Province of #avite, as entered on

Ma '8, '8%9/

Hereb declarin- null and void, Transfer #ertificate of Title No,

T1:&&3; of the sa!e re-istr.



*ithout pronounce!ents as to costs. 4"t p. :', Record on

"ppeal7

The dispositive portion of the <uestioned order of the trial court reads.

*H+R+$OR+, under our present alternatives, as praed for b

defendants and Intervenor, throu-h =aer +leuterio ". 6eltran,

in their present incident recorded on >anuar '9, '8?9/ the

Decision subect !atter hereof is a!ended in the folloin-

si-nificance)

Plaintiff Rodolfo #oronel is further ordered to sub!it a co!plete

Inventor and "ccountin- of all the harvests of pala produced

fro! the parcel of land 4=ot '8&91"7 subect !atter of thepresent liti-ation, and to deliver the correspondin- shares to the

defendants and intervenors correlated ith all the harvests of

pala done b the plaintiffs/ considerin- the unrebutted finalit

of the testi!on of defendant 6ri-ido Merian in con-ruence ith

his supplication for the Inventor and "ccountin- of all the pala

-athered b plaintiff Radolfo #oronel ho is li@eise ordered,

finall, to pa Iaer +leuterio 6eltran as counsel for

defendants and intervenors, $our Thousand 4P3999997 Pesosfor his professional services.

Naic, #avite, $ebruar ';, '8?9. 4pp. ??1?8, Record on

"ppeal7.

Petitioner Rodolfo #oronel filed a co!plaint for recover of possession of a

parcel of land re-istered under his na!e 4Transfer #ertificate of Title No. T1

:&&3; in the Re-istr of Deeds for the Province of #avite7 and !ore

particularl described as follos)

" parcel of land 4lot '8&91" of the subdivision plan 4=R#7 Psd1

'93&33 bein- a portion of =ot '8&9, Naic, +state, =R# Rec. No.

?;397, situated in the Municipalit of Naic, Province of #avite,

Island of =uAon. 6ounded on the N+., pts. 'B to '3 b Irri-ation



Ditch/ on the S+ and S* pts. '3 to '& and '& to ' b =ot '8&91

D of the subdivision plan/ on the S* pts. ' to B b lot B;93, and

pts. B to '' b =ot '8&', both of Naic, +state/ and on the N*

pts. '' to 'B b Road. ... / containin- an area of T*+=V+

THOCS"ND ON+ HCNDR+D +I0HT NIN+ 4'B,'?87SEC"R+ M+T+RS, !ore or less. ... 4p. '9, Record on "ppeal7

The co!plaint doc@eted as #ivil #ase No. %&' as filed a-ainst the private

respondents +lias Merlan, 6ri-ido Merlan, >ose Merlan, Teodorico

Nostrates, Severo >eciel Santia-o $ernan and $ortunato Oca!po before

the then #ourt of $irst Instance of #avite.

#oronel alle-ed in his co!plaint that at the ti!e he purchased the subect

parcel of land, the defendants 4private respondents herein7 ere alread

occupin- a portion thereof as Ftenants at illF and that despite de!ands to

vacate the pre!ises, the defendants failed and refused to !ove out fro!

the land.

In their "nser ith #ounterclai! and *ith Third1Part #o!plaint, the

defendants denied that #oronel as the oner of the hole parcel of land

and alle-ed that the lots occupied b the! for! part of a 'G; undivided

share of brothers 6ri-ido Merlan and >ose Merlan hich the inherited fro!their deceased father 0abriel Merlan, one of the three heirs of 6ernabela

=ontoc, the ori-inal oner of =ot No. '8&91" of the Naic +state/ that the

Merlan brothers to-ether ith their to brothers and a sister never sold

their undivided 'G; share of the lot to anbod/ that it as actuall their

other co1heirs ho sold their undivided portions and that the plaintiff(s clai!

of onership of the hole parcel of land, if ever it has basis, is fraudulent,

void, and ithout effect/ that the Merlans have alas been in open and

peaceful possession of their undivided share of the lot throu-hout the ears

fro! the first sale b their co1heirs of =ot No. '8&91" in '8&9/ and that the

other defendants ere le-iti!ate tenants. The praed that the plaintiff

respect their ri-hts over 'G; 43,9%; s<uare !eters7 of =ot No. '8&91" of the

Naic +state,



In their Third1Part #o!plaint, the defendants char-ed that the third1part

defendants, oners of the re!ainin- portion of =ot No. '8&91", defrauded

the! hen the sold the entire parcel.

Third1Part Defendants Marcelo Novelo, PaA "nuat Daniel "nuat andRosario #ailao the defendants( co1oners of =ot No. '8&91" denied that

the had so!ethin- to do ith the fraudulent acts or ille-al !achinations

hich deprived the defendants of their share in the subect parcel of land,

and that hat the sold as onl their BG; undivided shares in said parcel.

The also filed a cross1clai! a-ainst their co1defendant Mariano Manalo

ho! the char-ed !i-ht have connived ith others Includin- the plaintiff

to deprive the defendants and their co1heirs of their share in the subect

parcel of land.

"s stated earlier, the loer court ruled in favor of the defendants and on

appeal, the loer court(s decision as affir!ed ith the folloin-

!odification b the then Inter!ediate "ppellate #ourt, to it)

*H+R+$OR+, PR+MIS+S #ONSID+R+D, there bein- no

reversible error in the !ain decision appealed fro! dated

Dece!ber :, '8:8, and the Order of the #ourt dated $ebruar

';, '8?9, the sa!e are hereb "$$IRM+D ith the!odification that after the ord FintervenorF in the !ain

decision, the folloin- shall be inserted)

l7 Declarin- the! as the absolute oners of the re!ainin- ' 'G;

of the BG? portion pertainin- to the late 6ernabela =ontoc,

na!eI, =ot '8&91" of the Naic +state pursuant to "rt. ?3& of

the Ne #ivil #ode. 4"t p. B8.7

The petitioner states that the appellate court erred as follos)

I

TH"T TH+ HONOR"6=+ INT+RM+DI"T+ "PP+=="T+

#OCRT H"S +RR+D IN NOT #ONSID+RIN0 TH"T TH+



#="IM O$ PRIV"T+ R+SPOND+NTS TO TH+ ="ND IN

EC+STION H"S 6++N 6"RR+D 6 TH+ ST"TCT+ O$

=IMIT"TION OR 6 +STOPP+= 6 ="#H+S.

II

TH"T TH+ HONOR"6=+ INT+RM+DI"T+ "PP+=="T+

#OCRT H"S +RR+D IN NOT #ONSID+RIN0 P+TITION+R

"S " PCR#H"S+R IN 0OOD $"ITH "ND $OR V"=C"6=+

#ONSID+R"TION O$ TH+ ="ND IN EC+STION.

III

TH"T TH+ HONOR"6=+ INT+RM+DI"T+ "PP+=="T+#OCRT H"S +RR+D IN D+#="RIN0 "S NC== "ND VOID

TR"NS$+R #+RTI$I#"T+ O$ TIT=+ NO. T1:&&3; O$ TH+

R+0ISTR O$ D++DS O$ #"VIT+ *HI#H IS "=R+"D

P"#+= IN TH+ N"M+ O$ P+TITION+R. 4at pp.'1B 6rief for the

Petitioners7

The records sho that the 'B,'?8 s<uare !eter lot as part of a 3?,:&&

s<uare !eter lot covered b Transfer #ertificate of Title No. ;''% 4RT1&9'97

of the Naic +state located at MuAon, Naic, #avite in the na!es of the

spouses Valentin 0utierreA and +li-ia Man-ahas ith a calculated portion

of BG?/ spouses >ose Perea and #elestia Naces ith a calculated portion of

;G?/ >osefa NaAareno ith a calculated portion of 'G? and 6ernabela =ontoc

ith a calculated portion of BG?. In dispute in the instant case is the BG?

share of 6ernabela =ontoc hich is e<uivalent to 'B,'?8 s<uare !eters.

*hen =ontoc died in '83&, she as survived b three sets of heirs) '7

6ernardino Merlan, a -randson b her son +nri<ue Merlan ho died in'8'?/ B7 >ose Merlan and 6ri-ido Merlan, defendants in the case belo

and private respondents herein, 0raciano Merlan, "-apito Merlan and

#oraAon Merlan, children of her son 0abriel ho died in '8;:/ and ;7

Daniel "nuat and PaA "nuat children of her dau-hter $rancisca Merlan.



In '8&9, 6ernardino Merlan, Daniel "nuat and PaA "nuat sold their BG;

undivided portion of the lot to spouses I-nacio Manalo and Marcela Nobelo.

In '8%9, Transfer #ertificate of Title No. 4T1;''%7 RT1&9'9 as cancelled b

Transfer #ertificate of Title No. T1'333 but carried the sa!e afore1specifiedre-istered co1oners ith an annotation carried fro! the for!er Transfer

#ertificate of Title, to it)

F+ntr No. 38&;1S"=+ in favor of I0N"#IO M"N"=O, !arried

to Marcela Nobelo coverin- the ri-hts, interest and

participation of 6ernardino Merlan, !arried to Rosario #ailao

D"NI+= "NC"T !arried to Dionisia =oola, and P" "NC"T

ido, on the share of 6+RN"6+=" =ONTO#, consistin- of

tent B9 -antas of seedlin-, on the land described in this

#ertificate of for the su! of THR++ THOCS"ND P+SOS

4P;,999.997 b virtue of the deed of sale, e2ecuted before the

Notar Public for the #it of #avite Mr. Pri!o D. "nuat 4Doc.

No. %&B/ pa-e No. ::/ 6oo@ No. VII Series of '8&97 on file in

this Re-istr.

Date of Instru!ent March '', '8&9.

Date of Inscription March ';, '8&9 at B);& p.!. 4"t pp. B;,

#ourt of "ppeals Decision/ pp. '?1'8, Rollo7

In '8%?, =ot No. '8&9 of the Naic +state as subdivided accordin- to a

S@etch Plan 4+2h. "7. The s@etch plan as approved b the #o!!ission

on =and Re-istration on "u-ust '&, '8%8. 6ernabela =ontoc(s BG? portion of

=ot No. '8&9 beca!e =ot No. '8&91" ith an area of 'B,'?8 s<uare

!eters.

So!eti!e in '8:9, I-nacio Manalo sold his interest in =ot '8&91" to

Mariano Manalo. The pertinent portions of the deed of sale e2ecuted b

spouses I-nacio Manalo and Marcela Nobelo in favor of spouses Mariano

Manalo and >or-a Manalo states)



"n- pa-@a!aari na!in n- baha-in- binaban--it sa itaas nito

a natatali@od n- titulo bi-. T1;''% na -aa n- su!usunod)

4+ntr No. 38&;1S"=+ In favor of I0N"#IO M"N"=O

!arried to M"R#+=" NOV+=O coverin- the ri-hts, interestsand participations of 6+RN"DINO M+R="N !arried to

ROS"RIO #"I="O D"NI+= "NC"T (!arried to DIONISI"

=OO=", and P" "NC"T ido, on the share of

6+RN"6+=" =ONTO#, consistin- of tent 4B97 -antas of

seedlin-, on the land described in this certificate of title of the

su! of THR++ THOCS"ND P+SOS 4P;,999.997, b virtue of

the deed of sale e2ecuted before the Notar Public for the #it

and Prov. of #avite Mr. Pri!o D. "nuat 4Doc. No. %&B/ Pa-e No.

::/ 6oo@ No. VII, Series of '8&97 on file in this Re-istr. Date of

instru!ent1March ';, '8&91at B);& p.!. 4s-d7 +S#O="STI#O

#C+V"S, Re-ister of Deeds.

Na alan-1alan- sa hala-an- IS"N0 =I6ON0 P'.999.99 PISO

salapin- 4blurred7, na sa a!in a ibinaad ni 0. M"RI"NO

M"N"=O @asal @a >OR0" M"N"=O !a sapat na -ulan-,

$ilipino at an- tirahan at pahatiran- sulat a 4blurred7 #avite, a

a!in- ipina-bili n- tuluan 4Venta Real "bsoluta7 an-naban--it na D"="*"N0 PCN0 4B97 salop na binhi, baha-i

n- =ote bl-. '8&9 4blurred7 tia@ sa lote na unahan nito sa

naturan- 0. Mariano Manalo, sa @anan- ta-a!ana o @ahaliti

sa !atuid !a-pa@ailan !an. Dito( sinasasa rin na!in an-

nasabin- lupan- tubi-an a alan- sinasa-utan-

pa-@a@autan- @anino !an- tao. 4pp. B&1B%, Rollo7

The deed of sale as re-istered in the Re-istr of Deeds in #avite.

Thereafter, Transfer #ertificate of Title No. T1'333 as cancelled and

Transfer #ertificate of Title No. T13'':& as issued for =ot No. '8&91" of

the Naic +state in the na!e of Mariano Manalo !arried to >or-a =a-os of

Naic, #avite. The certificate of title issued in the na!e of spouses Mariano

Manalo and >or-a =a-os covered the hole =ot No. '8&91" ithout an



!ention of the 'G; share of the private respondents in the parcel of land

hich as not sold to the!.

Relin- on the transfer certificate of title of the spouses Mariano Manalo

and >or-a =a-os and the S@etch Plan 4+2hibit F"F7, petitioner Rodolfo#oronel then bou-ht =ot No. '8&91" of the Naic +state fro! the for!er for

the consideration of PB:,999.99 as per Doc. No. ;3'/ Pa-e No. :9/ 6oo@

No. V Series of '8:3 in the Notarial Re-ister of Notar Public Nonilo ".

Euitan-on of the #it of Manila. The deed of sale as re-istered on

Dece!ber '8, '8:3 causin- the cancellation of Transfer #ertificate of Title

No. T13'':& and the issuance of Transfer #ertificate of Title No. T1:&&3; in

the na!e of petitioner Rodolfo #oronel.

#onsiderin- these facts, it is evident that the private respondents never

sold their 'G; share over =ot No. '8&91" of the Naic +state/ that hat their

co1oners sold to I-nacio Manalo as their BG; share of the sa!e lot/ and

that I-nacio Manalo sold onl the BG; share to third1part defendant

Mariano Manalo, the predecessor1in1interest of petitioner Rodolfo #oronel.

#onse<uentl, there as a !ista@e hen Transfer #ertificate of Title No.

3'':& as issued to Mariano Manalo coverin- the hole area of =ot No.

'8&91". Cnfortunatel, Mariano Manalo ho as included as third1part

defendant as ell as the subect of a cross1 clai! filed b the other third1part defendants, and ho could have shed li-ht on this controvers as at

the ti!e residin- abroad and as not served ith the third1part co!plaint.

Moreover, private respondents 6ri-ido Merlan and >ose Merlan ere in

open, peaceful and adverse possession of their 'G; share over the lot even

after '8&9 hen the first sale of the lot too@ place. The first ti!e the @ne

about #oronel(s clai! over the hole lot as hen the ere served a

cop of his co!plaint in '8:&.

Cnder these circu!stances, the first assi-n!ent of error is not ell ta@en.

The petitioner contends that the clai! of the private respondents over their

'G; undivided portion of =ot No. '8&91" B& ears after the re-istration of the

deed of sale in favor of I-nacio Manalo in '8&9 and !ore than five 4&7



ears after the re-istration of the deed of sale in favor of Mariano Manalo is

barred b prescription or laches. "ccordin- to hi!, there as undue dela

on the part of the private respondents to clai! their 'G; portion of =ot No.

'8&91" of the Naic +state and that the action for annul!ent should have

been brou-ht ithin four 437 ears 4"rt. ';8', Ne #ivil #ode7 countedfro! the date of the re-istration of the instru!ent.

The counterclai! of the private respondents hich as in effect a

reconveance to the! of their 'G; undivided share over lot No. '8&91" has

not prescribed. "s laful possessors and oners of the lot in <uestion their

cause of action falls ithin the settled urisprudence that an action to <uiet

title to propert1in one(s possession is i!prescriptible, Their undisturbed

possession over a period of !ore than B& ears -ave the! a continuin-

ri-ht to see@ the aid of a court of e<uit to deter!ine the nature of the

adverse clai! of a third part and the effect of his on title. If at all, the

private respondents( ri-ht, to <uiet title, to see@ reconveance and to annul

Transfer #ertificate of Title No. T1:&&3; accrued onl in '8:& hen the

ere !ade aare of a clai! adverse to their on. It as onl at that ti!e

that, the statutor period of prescription !a be said to have co!!enced to

run a-ainst the!. 4Sapto, et al. v. $abiana, '9; Phil. %?;, $aa v. #ourt of

"ppeals, :& S#R" 33'/ #ara-a1=ano v. #ourt of "ppeals, ';; S#R"

:'?7.

In the sa!e !anner, there is no bar based on laches to assert their ri-ht

over 'G; of the disputed propert. F=aches has been defined as the failure

or ne-lect, for an unreasonable and une2plained len-th of ti!e, to do that

hich b e2ercisin- due dili-ence could or should have been done earlier/

it is ne-li-ence or o!ission to assert a ri-ht ithin a reasonable ti!e,

arrantin- a presu!ption that the part entitled to assert it either has

abandoned it or declined to assert it.F 4Teido v. a!aco!a, ';? S#R" :?citin- Tia! et al. v. Sibon-1hano et al., B; S#R" B8, Sotto v Teves, S%

S#R" '&37 The facts of the case sho that the private respondents have

alas been in peaceful possession of the 'G; portion of the subect lot,

e2ercisin- onership thereto for !ore than B& ears disrupted onl in '8:&

hen the petitioner tried to re!ove the! b virtue of his torrens title



coverin- the entire =ot '8&91" of the Naic +state. It as onl at this point

that private respondents @ne about the supposed sale of their 'G; portion

of =ot '8&91" of the Naic +state and the i!!ediatel resisted.

The petitioner, hoever, insists that he is a purchaser in -ood faith. Thus,he ar-ues that Transfer #ertificate of Title No. T13'':& in the na!e of his

successor1in1interest Mariano Manalo as ver clear to the effect that there

is no lien or encu!brance stated therein hich could have been seen b

his parents ho represented hi! in the sale as he as then in the Cnited

States and b the laer contracted b hi! to e2ecute or prepare the

correspondin- deed of sale.

This notithstandin-, e cannot close our ees to the fact that neither the

private respondents nor their co1oners of the subect parcel of land sold

the for!er(s share of the lot. $urther!ore, even I-nacio Manalo to ho!

the third1part defendants sold their share resold onl the BG; shares to

Mariano Manalo, the successor1in1interest of the petitioner. *hether or not

there as fraud or ust a !ista@e or oversi-ht of an e!ploee of the

Re-ister of Deeds of #avite is not clear fro! the records. The point is that

the 'G; undivided portion of the private respondents over =ot No. '8&91"

as !ista@enl included in the transfer certificate of title of Mariano

Manalo.

*e appl e<uitable considerations)

Nor does the !ere fact that respondent1appellee Marcelo #oral

could sho a certificate of Torrens Title in his favor conclude the

!atter, the <uestion of fraud havin- been seasonabl raised

and the re!ed of reconveance sou-ht. Onl recentl,

in Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Villalva 4=1

B?'83, Nove!ber B3, '8:B, 3? S#R" ;'7 this #ourt had

occasion to state) There is, hoever, a countervailin- doctrine,

certainl not of lesser ei-ht, that !iti-ates the harshness of

the iron1clad application of the principle attachin- full faith and

credit to a Torrens certificate. It is inspired by the highest

concept of what is fair and what is equitable. It ould be a sad



da for the la if it ere to be oblivious to the de!ands ustice

The acceptance accorded the Torrens sste! of re-istration

ould certainl be i!paired if it could be utiliAed to perpetrate

fraud and chicaner. If it ere thus, then no sti-!a ould attach

to a clai! based solel on a narro and literal readin- of astatutor prescription, devoid of an shado of !oral ri-ht. That

is not the uridical nor! as reco-niAed b this #ourt. Deceit is

not to be countenanced/ duplicit is not to be rearded.

*itness the favor ith hich urisprudence has loo@ed on the

action for reconveance as ell as the reco-nition of the

constructive trust. There is thus the stress of rectitude. 4Ibid, p.

;87. 4Monticenes v. #ourt of "ppeals, &; S# R" '3, B'/

+!phasis supplied7.

Moreover, e ruled in an earlier case that)

222 222 222

... The si!ple possession of a certificate of title, under the

Torrens Sste!, does not necessaril !a@e the possessor a

true oner of all the propert described therein. If a person

obtains a title, under the Torrens sste!, hich includes b!ista@e or oversi-ht land hich cannot be re-istered under the

Torrens sste!s, he does not, b virtue of said certificate alone,

beco!e the oner of the lands ille-all included. 4=edes!a v.

Municipalit of Iloilo, 38 Phil. :%8, ::;, citin- =e-arda and

Prieto v. Saleeb, ;' Phil., &89/ see also #ara-a1=ano v.

#ourt of "ppeals, supra7.

*e find no reversible error on the part of the loer courts in reco-niAin- the

onership of the private respondents over 'G; of =ot No. '8&91" of the Naic

+state. The petitioner is bound to reco-niAe the lien in favor of the private

respondents hich as !ista@enl e2cluded and therefore not inscribed in

the torrens title of the land of his predecessors1in1interest.



*H+R+$OR+, the instant petition is hereb DISMISS+D. The <uestioned

decision is "$$IRM+D but ith a !odification to the effect that the

state!ent FHereb declarin- null and void, Transfer #ertificate of Title No.

T1:&&3; of the sa!e re-istrF is deleted. Instead, the Re-istrar of Deeds of

#avite is ordered to se-re-ate the 'G; portion of =ot No. '8&91" of the Naic+state 43,9%; s<uare !eters7 fro! the entire portion e!braced in Transfer

#ertificate of Title No. T1:&&3; and issue a ne certificate of title in favor of

the heirs of 0abriel Merlan over the disputed one1third portion and another

ne certificate of title over the re!ainin- to1thirds portion of the land in

favor of petitioner Rodolfo #oronel after cancellin- Transfer #ertificate of

Title No. T1:&&3;. The <uestioned order is also "$$IRM+D. No costs.

Coronel vs. IAC

Documents

Transcript of Coronel vs. IAC