Ltd Case Digests Batch 1

8/19/2019 Ltd Case Digests Batch 1

1/41

YU CHANG vs RP - UY vsFULE case

YU CHANG vs REPUBIC

FACTS:

• Petitioners' father, L. YuChang and the Municipalityof Pili, Camarines Sur,through its then Mayor, JustoCasuncad, executed an Agreement to xchange !ealProperty the former

assigned and transferred tothe Municipality of Pili his"##$s%uare$meter residentiallot San !o%ue, Pili,Camarines Sur, in exchangefor a "##$s%uare$meter pieceof land located in San Juan,Pili.

• L. Yu Chang and his familytoo& possession of the

property in San Juan,erected a residential houseand a gasoline station,declared the property in hisname under ax (eclarationand paid the real propertytaxes thereon from )e*ruary+, - up to March #,-/0. 1hen L. Yu Changdied on -/0, his 2ife(onata Sta. Ana and his

se3en children inherited theproperty and succeeded inthe possession of theproperty.

• 4n -/5, a (eed of ransferand !enunciation of their

rights o3er the property 2asexecuted *y L. Yu Chang's63e children in fa3or of petitioners. After transfer,petitioners had the su*7ect

property sur3eyed andsu*di3ided into t2o lots, Lot+-- and Lot ++##, PiliCadastre. Petitioners alsodeclared the lots in theirnames for taxation purposesas sho2n in ax(eclaration and paid the realproperty taxes.

• 4n --/, petitioner Soledad

Yu Chang, for herself and inrepresentation of her *rotherand co$petitioner, 8icente YuChang, 6led a petition forregistration of title o3er the+ lots under the Property!egistration (ecreedeclaring in their petitionthat they are the co$o2nersof the + lots9 that they andtheir predecessors$in$

interest :ha3e *een in actual,physical, material, exclusi3e,open, occupation andpossession of the + parcels of land for more than ## yearsand that allegedly, they ha3econtinuously, peacefully, andad3ersely possessed theproperty in the concept of o2ners. hey claimed thatthey are entitled to

con6rmation of o2nershipand issuance andregistration of title in theirnames.

• hey also su*mitted Agreement to xchange !ealProperty9 (eed of ransfer


2/41

and !enunciation9 Appro3edPlan of the + lots9 Appro3edechnical (escription of the+ lots9 )ield Appraisal and Assessment Sheet of the +

lots9 and )ield Appraisal and Assessment Sheet the lot inPili.

•

he !epu*lic, through 4S;,6led an 4pposition to theapplication saying that


3/41

HELD:

n order that petitioners'application for registration of titlemay *e granted, they must 6rstesta*lish the follo2ingE


4/41

continuous, and exclusi3epossession of the su*7ectproperties:, as they claimed, andpresented + tax declarationsco3ering the said properties.

". 4n appeal, CA a>irmed thedecision of the trial court.

. Petitioners assail the foregoing,alleging that the respondent failedto pro3e that its predecessors$in$interest possessed the su*7ectproperty in the manner and for thelength of time re%uired underSection "5 of CA Bo. "


5/41

does not constitute 2ell$nighincontro3erti*le e3idence of actualpossession and occupation.

". 8icente 4cos testimony

deser3es scant consideration and2ill not supplement the inherentinade%uacy of the tax declarations.. he respondent's application2as 6led after only four years fromthe time the su*7ect property may*e considered patrimonial *yreason of the (A!'s 4cto*er +0,--# 4rder sho2s lac& of possession 2hether for ordinary orextraordinary prescripti3e period

Mag*alon

AInar Hrothers 3s. Sps. Y*aneI

)actsE

Casimiro, the hus*and, 2ithmarital consent of his 2ife irmed *ythe CA.

ssueE 1DB the land in dispute can*e su*7ect of a free patent that 2ill

ma&e Sps. Y*aneI a*solute o2nerof the same

eldE he Spouses Y*aKeI@sposition rests on their ha3ing *eenissued the free patent and 4C Bo.+#.he records do not support theposition of the Spouses Y*aKeI. Although Jose !. Y*aKeI declaredin paragraph " of his application

for the free patent that Lot Bo.50? 2as pu*lic land, and 2asnot then claimed or occupied *yany other person9 and furtherdeclared under oath in thea>ida3it su*mitted to support hisapplication for the free patent thathe recogniIe


6/41

the nature and character of theland as pri3ate. n the Deed of Absolute Saledated June +, -/5, Adriano stated that he had *eenthe a*solute o2ner in fee simple

free from all liens andencum*rances 2hatsoe3er of LotBo. 50?9 and that he


7/41

itself is o2ned *y (ominga Holoyfrom 2hom Plainti> leased the*uilding *eginning in -00.

$n -//, under and pursuant to

the Nonal mpro3ement Program@sd2elling is located, 2as conducted2herein planti> 2as among thosecensused and %uali6ed as *ona6de occupant. As a result, planti> 2as assigned an identifying house

tag num*er on August +#, -//.

$n -/-, after the death of theo2ner (ominga Holoy, herdaughter$in$la2, Clarita Holoymanaged the leased premises. n-5/, 1alter Holoy stepped intothe situation through counseldemanded from the planti> andthe family immediate 3acation of the su*7ect premises, 2ith that, ane7ectment case 2as 6led 2ith theMC of Mandaluyong.

$After recei3ing the said decision,and after ha3ing 3eri6ed herhus*and@s status as a *ona 6deoccupant, plainti> forth2ithauthoriIed her nephe2 Sal3adorPagunsan to follo2 up 2ith theBA. Pursuant thereto, after

learing that all *ona 6deoccupants may *e allo2ed to *uythe structure if the o2ner hadalready died. Planti> 2as gi3enone month to exercise the optionof *uying the propertydenominated as Lot /, Hloc& /Phase . Planti> acceded since

the property they are occupying2as Lot 5. As a result, it 2asa2arded to herein respondents.

$Plainti> %uestioned the a2ard to

respondents 2ith the BA,alleging that they are dis%uali6edfor not ha3ing *een duly censusedeither as renters or sharers, andalso the matter regarding thealteration the lot num*er actually*eing occupied *y plainti>.

$As a result of the *ypassing of plainti>@s rights, she 2asdislocated, has su>ered sleepless

nights, mental anguish, 2oundedfeelings and undueem*arrassment, among others.

$!espondents countered that thecomplaint stated no cause of action, and that, if any, such causeof action is already *arred *y prior 7udgment. hey noted petitionersadmission in the 3eri6cation thatan action for reco3ery of

possession 2as commencedagainst her *y respondents *eforethe !C of Pasig, in3ol3ing thesame property and that it 2asresol3ed in the respondents fa3our,and that such decision 2asa>irmed *y the CA and *ecame6nal and executor.

$he !C ruled in fa3our of petitioner and declared the

ac%uisition of rsepondents of theLot 5 of the ulo state 3oid for*eing 3iolati3e of the right of theplainti>. Gpon Appeal, the CA re3ersed the !C. t ruled that theplainti> had no 3ested right o3erthe su*7ect parcel of land and the


8/41

residential structure standingthereon.

ISSUE6S:

-1hether or not the

petitioner has 3ested right o3er thesu*7ect parcel of land

$1hether or not the 6ling of an action for Speci6c Performanceand or damages *y Plainti> 2ould 3alidly attac& the !espondent@sorrens itle o3er the su*7ect lot

HELD:

-Bo. Contrary to petitioner'sposition, the issuance of a tagnum*er in her fa3or did not granther irrefuta*le rights to thesu*7ect property. he assignmentof a tag num*er 2as a mereexpectant or contingent right andcould not ha3e ripened into a 3ested right in fa3or of petitioner.

er possession and occupancy of the said property could not *echaracteriIed as 6xed anda*solute. As such, petitionercannot claim that she 2asdepri3ed of her 3ested right.Beither does petitioner ha3e a:cogniIa*le: right respecting thelot in %uestion. Bota*ly, she readilyadmitted not exercising theiroption to *uy Holoy@s property

despite the &no2ledge that one of the re%uirements *efore anentitlement to an a2ard of thego3ernment$o2ned lot is that theymust o2n the su*7ect house

$Bo. his is a collateralattac& that is not permitted under

the principle of indefeasi*ility of orrens title. Section "5 of Presidential (ecree Bo. +-,other2ise &no2n as the Property!egistration (ecree, une%ui3ocally

statesESC. "5. Certi6cate not su*7ect tocollateral attac&. $ A certi6cate of title shall not *e su*7ect tocollateral attac&. t cannot *ealtered, modi6ed, or cancelledexcept in a direct proceeding inaccordance 2ith la2.

A collateral attac& transpires2hen, in another action to o*tain a

di>erent relief and as an incidentto the present action, an attac& ismade against the 7udgmentgranting the title 2hile a directattac&


9/41

VERGEL PAULINO AND CIREMIA

PAULINO VS. COURT OF APPEALSAND REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, represented by teDMINISTRATOR !" te LAND

REGISTRATION AUTHORIT#

FACTS$

On December 14, 2007, the late Celso

Fernandez purchased, in a public

auction conducted by the Quezon City

goernment, a real property o!ned

and registered in the name o" #olita $%

&aier '&aier(, married to )edro &aier,

as eidenced by a certi*cate o" sale o"

delin+uent property% he sub-ectproperty appeared to be coered by

an o!ner.s duplicate o" C /o%

0117 o" the QCD%

3"ter his death, the suriing heirs o"

Celso Fernandez eecuted an 5tra6

&udicial ettlement o" 5state !ith

3bsolute ale coering the sub-ect

property, selling it in "aor o" the

petitioners, spouses 8ergel #% )aulino

and Ciremia )aulino 'pouses )aulino(,

"or a consideration o" )1,90:,000%00%

On &une 11, 1;99, a *re broce o" QCD on &une

11, 1;99% Bn addition, !hen the

technical description o" the sub-ect

property !as plotted, it !as identical

!ith #ot ;;, )iedad 5state coered by

C /o% 6::9; '42:2(, in thename o" ?agnolia % 3ntonino

'3ntonino(%

On December , 2010, pouses

)aulino *led !ith the QCD an

application "or registration o" the

-udicial reconstitution o" C /o%

0117 based on the C decision%

he egistrar o" Deeds, 3tty% 5lbert %

Quilala '3tty% Quilala(, and other

o>cials o" the QCD re"used to

reconstitute the original copy o" the

C% =ence, pouses )aulino *led a

petition "or indirect contempt%

ubse+uently, the C "ound 3tty%

Quilala guilty o" indirect contempt in

its Decision, dated December 2, 2011%


10/41

On &uly 1, 2012, respondent epublic

o" the )hilippines, represented by the

3dministrator o" the #3, *led its

)etition "or 3nnulment o" &udgment

!ith @rgent )rayer "or Bssuance o"

emporary estraining Order andor

rit o" )reliminary Bn-unction, !hich

!as granted by the C3 on eptember

24, 2012%

a


11/41

petitions by 'such( third parties "or

reconstitution o" allegedly lost or

destroyed titles oer lands that are

already coered by duly issued

subsisting titles in the names o" their

duly registered o!ners% he eistence

o" a prior title ipso "acto nulli*es the

reconstitution proceedings% he proper

recourse is to assail directly in a

proceeding be"ore the regional trial

court the alidity o" the orrens title

already issued to the other person%

Bn the case at bench, te CA "!*nd

t+t te RTC %+-ed *r'sd't'!n t!

!rder te re!nst't*t'!n !" te

!r'('n+% !py !" TCT N!. /01213,

tere be'n( n! %!st !r destr!yedt't%e !4er te s*bet re+%pr!perty, the respondent haing duly

proed that C /o% 0117 !as in the

name o" a diEerent o!ner, Florendo,

and the technical description

appearing on that C /o% 0117 !as

similar to the technical description

appearing in #ot ;;, )iedad 5state

coered by C /o% 6::9; '42:2(

in the name o" 3ntonino% Bn "act, C

/o% 6::9; '42:2( !as already

cancelled by C /os% 2;72: to

2;729 also in the name o" 3ntonino%

It )*st be re)e)bered t+t te

re!nst't*t'!n !" + ert'5+te !"

t't%e den!tes rest!r+t'!n 'n te

!r'('n+% "!r) +nd !nd't'!n !" +

%!st !r destr!yed 'nstr*)ent

+ttest'n( te t't%e !" + pers!n t! +p'ee !" %+nd. he purpose o" the

reconstitution o" title is to hae, a"ter

obsering the procedures prescribedby la!, the title reproduced in eactly

the same !ay it has been !hen the

loss or destruction occurred%

Re!nst't*t'!n +pp+rent%y

pres*pp!ses te e6'stene !" +n!r'('n+% ert'5+te !" t't%e &'

&+s %!st !r destr!yed. B" there !as

no loss or destruction %'-e 'n te

+se +t ben, tere 's +t*+%%yn!t'n( t! re!nst't*te. he same

rule applies i" in "act there is an earlier

alid certi*cate o" title in the name

and in the possession o" another

person and said title is eisting%

3ccordingly, the C neer ac+uired

-urisdiction oer the same, and its

-udgment rendered therea"ter is null

and oid, !hich may be attac


12/41

procured by "alsi*cation or "raud as

adanced by pouses )aulino can only

be raised in an action epressly

instituted "or the purpose% 3 orrens

title can be attacdecision.

Speci6cally, G0R0 No0 78989 is apetition for certiorari under R($e9 of the !ules of Court see&ing toannul the Septem*er +", +#+ and(ecem*er +#, +#+ !esolutionsissued *y the respondent CA,granting the pu*lic respondent@sprayer for the issuance of a 2rit of preliminary in7unction en7oining

the !C from enforcing andimplementing its July +#, +##decision, 2hich ordered the Land!egistration Authority "L!A$ toreconstitute the petitioners@certi6cate of title, ransfer of Certi6cate itle "T#T$ Bo. ?#0/of the !egistry of (eeds of FueIon


13/41

City "%#!D$.

4n the other hand, G0R0 No078>9?? is a petition for re3ie2on certiorari under R($e icer2as designated to recei3e thee3idence ex parte.

4n June +#, +##, the !Cdirected the L!A to su*mit areport 2ithin 63e


14/41

4n August 0, +##, the !Cissued the Certi6cate of )inality, there *eing no motion forreconsideration or appeal 6led *y

any of the interested parties.

Mean2hile, on August /, +##,the !C recei3ed the LRA Re"ort,0 stating that TCT No0?8==>2as re*istere% i t!ea+e o# a certai E++a B0F$ore%o "'lorendo$ and that it2as "revio(s$) t!e s(.3ect o# aa""$icatio #or a%+iistrativerecostit(tio. t 2as

also %iscovere% t!at t!e ori*ia$co") o# t!e tit$e o 2$e i t!eRe*istr) o# Dee%s was a+o*t!ose save% tit$es #ro+ t!e2re that gutted the o>ice of FC!(on June , -55. n addition,2hen the technical description of the su*7ect property 2as plotted, it2as identical 2ith Lot -?-, Piedadstate co3ered *y C Bo. !$50-


15/41

result in manifest in7ustice andirrepara*le in7ury againstpetitioner !epu*lic of thePhilippines ecti3e any 7udgment that may*e rendered in thecase.#crala2red

Spouses Paulino 6led a motion forreconsideration of the saidresolution, *ut it 2as denied in theassailed (ecem*er +#, +#+!esolution.

4n January /, +#?, SpousesPaulino 6led the special ci3il actionfor certiorari under !ule 0,doc&eted as G0R0 No0 78989,

see&ing to annul the CA resolutions, 2hich granted thepreliminary in7unction, citing thecommission of a gra3e a*use of discretion.

4n March , +#?, the CA promulgated its decision on themerits of the petition forannulment of 7udgment, grantingL!A@s petition, there*y annulling

and setting aside the !Cdecisions, dated July +#, +## and(ecem*er +, +#.he fallo readsEChan!o*les8irtuala2li*rary

HEREF4RE, premisesconsidered, the instant Petition for

Annulment of Judgment ishere*y GRANTED. he assailed(ecisions dated July +#, +## and(ecem*er +, +# of the !egionalrial Court, Hranch 5?, FueIon

City are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Petitionfor !econstitution of 4riginal Copyof C Bo. ?#0/ and thePetition for ndirect Contempt 6led*y pri3ate respondent spouses 8ergel Paulino and Ciremia ;.Paulino are DIS5ISSED.

S4 4RDERED.

he CA ruled that the !C lac&ed 7urisdiction to order thereconstitution of the original copyof C Bo. ?#0/, there *eing nolost or destroyed title. n fact, onthe *asis of the L!A !eport andother e3idence on record, thesu*7ect lot speci6ed on C Bo.?#0/ had the same technicaldescription and 2as identical toLot -?-, Piedad state co3ered *yC Bo. !$50-


16/41

Spouses Paulino 6led a motion forreconsideration, *ut it 2as denied*y the CA in its June 0, +#?!esolution. Conse%uently, they

6led a petition for re3ie2on certiorari 2ith this Court under!ule ", doc&eted as G0R0 No078>9??0

3entually, the Court issued aresolution ordering theconsolidation of ;.!. Bo. +#/??2ith ;.!. Bo. +##0, as *othcases essentially in3ol3e the sameset of facts, parties and issues.

Iss(es a% Ar*(+ets:

G0R0 No0 78989

!et!er t!e Co(rt o# A""ea$sco++itte% a error o# $aw a%*rave a.(se o# %iscretioa+o(ti* to $ac' or ecess o#

3(ris%ictio0=?

G0R0 No0 78>9??

!et!er t!e Co(rt o# A""ea$sco++itte% *rave error o# $aw iot %is+issi* t!e "etitio #or a($+et o# 3(%*+etotwit!sta%i* t!e #act t!att!e res"o%et #ai$e% to resortto t!e or%iar) re+e%ies o# ew tria$, a""ea$, "etitio #or re$ie# or ot!er a""ro"riate re+e%ies

%es"ite o""ort(it) to %o so0

!et!er t!e Co(rt o# A""ea$sco++itte% *rave error o# $aw

w!e it %isre*ar%e% t!e r($e oevi%ece i *ivi* cre%ece tot!e Re"ort t!at was $ate$) s(.+itte% .) t!e La%

Re*istratio A(t!orit) a%o.vio(s$) eec(te% #or t!eiterest o# ot!er "ersos a% to"rotect a #a'e a% s"(rio(stit$e0

!et!er t!e Co(rt o# A""ea$sco++itte% *rave error o# $aw ir($i* t!at recostit(tio o# TCT No0 ?8==> wo($%costit(te co$$atera$ attac' ot!e #a'e a% s"(rio(s TCT No0RT-99 it!e a+e o# Lo$ita ;avier caot .e recostit(te%.eca(se TCT No0 ?8==>eiste% i t!e a+e o# E++aF$ore%o a% "ertaie% to a%i/eret "ro"ert)0

T!e Co(rt o# A""ea$sco++itte% *raver error o# $aw

w!e it a($$e% t!e ;($) 78,78=8 Decisio o# t!e Re*ioa$Tria$ Co(rt .ase% o #act(a$iss(es %es"ite t!e #act t!at t!eRe*ioa$ Tria$ Co(rt o# (eoCit) !as 3(ris%ictio over t!erecostit(tio a% t!at it was"rove t!at TCT No0 ?8==>eiste% a% t!e sa+e was $ost0=<

Considering that the annulmentcase in the CA 2as already decidedand the petitions 2ereconsolidated, the Court 2ill 7usttreat the cases as one case as theyessentially in3ol3e the same issues.

)rom the foregoing, it appears that


17/41

the ruling of the Court hinges onthe resolution of these t2o &eyissuesE *rst+ 2hether CA properlya3ailed of !ule "/ of the --/!ules of Ci3il Procedure to assail

the 6nal !C decision9 and second,2hether the !C lac&ed 7urisdiction o3er the petition forreconstitution.

Procedural Issue: Propriet( of Petition for Annulment of &udgment

Spouses Paulino argue that under!ule "/ of the --/ !ules of Ci3il

Procedure, it is crystal clear thatannulment of 7udgments may only*e a3ailed of 2hen the ordinaryremedies of ne2 trial, appeal,petition for relief, or otherappropriate remedies are nolonger a3aila*le through no faultof the petitioner. hey insist on thedismissal of the petition forannulment on the ground that theL!A is already in estoppel and not

entitled to the relief prayed for*ecause the July +#, +## and(ecem*er +, +# !C decisions*ecame 6nal and executorythrough their fault as they failed toresort to other remedies despiteopportunities to do so.

n support thereof, SpousesPaulino cite !epublic vs.#astro, 2here the Court ruled

that annulment of 7udgment isne3er resorted to as a su*stitutefor a party@s o2n neglect in notpromptly a3ailing of the ordinaryor other appropriate remedies.n !epublic vs. TA'PA ,nc.,0 it 2asheld that, 2hether throughinad3ertence or negligence of its

deputiIed counsel or the 4S;itself, the decision had already*ecome 6nal and executory andcould not *e annulled. o concludeother2ise 2ould run counter to the

*asic principles of fair play.Hesides, there 2ould *e no end tolitigations if the parties, 2hounsuccessfully a3ailed themsel3esof any of the appropriate remediesor lost them through their fault orinad3ertence, could ha3eunfa3ora*le decisions annulled *ysimply *ringing an action forannulment of 7udgment.

he Court 6nds the petitionsde3oid of merit.

Gnder Section + of !ule "/, theonly grounds for annulment of 7udgment are extrinsic fraud andlac& of 7urisdiction. Lac& of 7urisdiction as a ground forannulment of 7udgment refers toeither lac& of 7urisdiction o3er theperson of the defending party or

o3er the su*7ect matter of theclaim. n case of a*sence, or lac&,of 7urisdiction, a court should notta&e cogniIance of the case.

n these cases, the petition forannulment 2as *ased on lac& of 7urisdiction o3er the su*7ectmatter. he rule is that 2herethere is 2ant of 7urisdiction o3er asu*7ect matter, the 7udgment is

rendered null and 3oid. A 3oid 7udgment is in legal e>ect no 7udgment, *y 2hich no rights aredi3ested, from 2hich no right can*e o*tained, 2hich neither *indsnor *ars any one, and under 2hichall acts performed and all claimso2ing out are 3oid. t is not a


18/41

decision in contemplation of la2and, hence, it can ne3er *ecomeexecutory. t also follo2s that sucha 3oid 7udgment cannot constitutea *ar to another case *y reason

of res judicata./

crala2red

Accordingly, the Court agrees 2iththe CA that L!A 2as not estoppedfrom assailing the July +#, +#!C (ecision *ecause it ne3erattained 6nality for *eing null and 3oid, ha3ing *een rendered *y acourt 2ithout 7urisdiction o3er thereconstitution proceedings.

As early as the case of StraitTimes+ ,nc. v. #A+5 the Court hasheld that 2hen the o2ner@sduplicate certi6cate of title has not*een lost, *ut is, in fact, in thepossession of another person, t!et!e recostit(te% certi2cate is

voi%, *ecause the court thatrendered the decision had no 7urisdiction. !econstitution can *e 3alidly made only in case of loss of

the original certi6cate.-

his rule2as reiterated in the casesof -illama(or v. Arante,+# !exlon !ealt( roup+ ,nc. v. #ourt of Appeals,+ East/orld otor ,ndustries #orporation v. S0unac#orporation+++ !odrigue1 v. Lim++?-illanueva v.-iloria,+" and #amitan v. 'idelit( ,nvestment #orporation.+ hus,2ith e3idence that the original

copy of the C 2as not lostduring the conagration that hitthe FueIon City all and that theo2ner@s duplicate copy of the title2as actually in the possession of another, the !C decision 2as nulland 3oid for lac& of 7urisdiction.

)or the aforecited reason, theCourt agrees that the pu*licrespondent correctly a3ailed of theremedy of petition for annulmentof 7udgment under !ule "/ 2ithout

need of exhausting other ordinaryremedies of ne2 trial, appeal,petition for relief, or otherappropriate remedies *ecause the!C 7udgment 2as null and 3oid.

ndeed, 2here a petition forannulment of a 7udgment or a 6nalorder of the !C 6led under !ule"/ of the !ules of Court isgrounded on lac& of 7urisdiction

o3er the person of the respondentor o3er the nature or su*7ect of theaction, the petitioner need notallege in the petition that theordinary remedy of ne2 trial orreconsideration of the 6nal orderor 7udgment or appeal therefrom isno longer a3aila*le through nofault of his o2n, precisely *ecausethe 7udgment rendered or the 6nalorder issued *y the !C 2ithout

7urisdiction is null and 3oid andmay *e assailed any time eithercollaterally or in a direct action or*y resisting such 7udgment or 6nalorder in any action or proceeding2hene3er it is in3o&ed, unless*arred *y laches.+0crala2red

Substantive Issue: &urisdiction of !T#in the !econstitution Proceedings

he go3erning la2 for 7udicialreconstitution of title is !.A. Bo.+0. Sec. thereof pro3ides 2henan order for reconstitution shouldissue, asfollo2sEChan!o*les8irtuala2li*rar y


19/41

Section . f the court, afterhearing, 6nds that the documentspresented, as supported *y parolee3idence or other2ise, aresu>icient and proper to 2arrant

the reconstitution of the $ost or %estro)e% certi2cate o# tit$e,a% t!at "etitioer is t!ere*istere% ower o# t!e"ro"ert) or !as a iterestt!erei, t!at t!e sai% certi2cateo# tit$e was i #orce at t!e ti+eit was $ost or %estro)e%, a%t!at t!e %escri"tio, area a%.o(%aries o# t!e "ro"ert) ares(.statia$$) t!e sa+e as t!ose

cotaie% i t!e $ost or %estro)e% certi2cate o# tit$e, anorder of reconstitution shall *eissued. he cler& of court shallfor2ard to the register of deeds acerti6ed copy of said order and allthe documents 2hich, pursuant tosaid order, are to *e sued as the*asis of the reconstitution. f thecourt 6nds that there is nosu>icient e3idence or *asis to

7ustify the reconstitution, thepetition shall *e dismissed, *utsuch dismissal shall not precludethe right of the party or partiesentitled thereto to 6le anapplication for con6rmation of hisor their title under the pro3isionsof the Land !egistration Act.


20/41

order the reconstitution of theoriginal copy of C Bo. ?#0/,there *eing no lost or destroyedtitle o3er the su*7ect real property,the respondent ha3ing duly

pro3ed that C Bo. ?#0/ 2asin the name of a di>erent o2ner,)lorendo, and the technicaldescription appearing on that CBo. ?#0/ 2as similar to thetechnical description appearing inLot -?-, Piedad state co3ered *yC Bo. !$50- erent o2ner,)lorendo, and the technicaldescription appearing thereinpertains to a parcel of landco3ered *y C Bo. !$50-


21/41

title denotes restoration in theoriginal form and condition of alost or destroyed instrumentattesting the title of a person to apiece of land. he purpose of the

reconstitution of title is to ha3e,after o*ser3ing the proceduresprescri*ed *y la2, the titlereproduced in exactly the same2ay it has *een 2hen the loss ordestructionoccurred.+- !econstitutionapparently presupposes theexistence of an original certi6cateof title 2hich 2as lost ordestroyed. f there 2as no loss or

destruction li&e in the case at*ench, there is actually nothing toreconstitute. he same rule appliesif in fact there is an earlier 3alidcerti6cate of title in the name andin the possession of anotherperson and said title is existing. Accordingly, the !C ne3erac%uired 7urisdiction o3er thesame, and its 7udgment renderedthereafter is null and 3oid, 2hich

may *e attac&ed anytime.

1ith respect to the contention of Spouses Paulino that the L!A !eport is inadmissi*le *ecause it2as not presented and identi6ed inopen court and admitted ine3idence, su>ice it is to say thatthey are estopped from%uestioning it. he admissi*ility of the L!A report 2as not challenged

during the proceedings of thepetition for annulment in the CA.ts admissi*ility 2as only%uestioned in these petitions. heyare deemed to ha3e 2ai3ed theirright to %uestion its genuinenessand authenticity.

)urther, records sho2 that the CA ga3e credence to the L!A !eport,2hich 2as su*mitted incompliance to its resolution, dated July +0, +#+. he L!A !eport is a

certi6ed photocopy from therecords duly signed *y the HranchCler& of Court. Accordingly, theL!A report is deemed to form partof the records 2hich may *e usedin resol3ing the presentcontro3ersy. t need not *eemphasiIed that the !C hastilyacted on the petition forreconstitution *ecause it did not2ait for the L!A !eport. f there

2as no haste, the L!A !eport2ould ha3e sho2n that the !Chad no 7urisdiction o3er the case*ecause there 2as already anexisting title.

n addition, Spouses Paulino alsoraised the irregularity in theissuance of C Bo. !$5-0-


22/41

title, once registered, cannot *eimpugned, altered, changed,modi6ed, enlarged or diminishedexcept in a direct proceedingpermitted *y la2.?# he 3alidity of

the certi6cate of title can *ethreshed out only in a directproceeding 6led for the purpose. A orrens title cannot *e attac&edcollaterally.

t is also a 2ell$&no2n doctrinethat the issue as to 2hether thetitle 2as procured *y falsi6cationor fraud as ad3anced *y SpousesPaulino can only *e raised in an

action expressly instituted for thepurpose. A orrens title can *eattac&ed only for fraud, 2ithin one year after the date of the issuanceof the decree of registration. Suchattac& must *e direct, and not *y acollateral proceeding. he titlerepresented *y the certi6catecannot *e changed, altered,modi6ed, enlarged, or diminishedin a collateral

proceeding.?

crala2red

ndeed, the reconstitutionproceeding constituted a collateralattac& on the orrens title of Antonino. he proper recourse of the Spouses Paulino to contest the 3alidity of the certi6cate of title isnot through the su*7ect petition forreconstitution, *ut in a properproceeding instituted for such

purpose. 3en if their argumentsof fraud surrounding the issuanceof the title of Antonino is correct,such allegation must *e raised in aproper proceeding 2hich isexpressly instituted for thatpurpose.

Beedless to state, the CA did notcommit any gra3e a*use of discretion in issuing the 2rit of preliminary in7unction %uestionedin ;.!. Bo. +##0.

HEREF4RE, the petitions in*oth cases are DENIED.

S4 4RDERED0

-elasco+ &r.+ "#hairperson$+ Peralta+-illarama+ &r.,Q and Leonen+ && .,concur.


23/41

REPUBLIC 4F THE

PHILIPPINES, Petitioer, v0

FRANLIN 50 5ILLAD4,

Res"o%et0 8LLA!AMA, J!., J.E

)ACSE

!espondent 6led a petitionfor reconstitution of 4riginalCerti6cate of itle


24/41

and


25/41

he nature of 7udicialreconstitution proceedings is therestoration of an instrument 2hichis supposed to ha3e *een lost ordestroyed in its original form and

condition. he purpose of thereconstitution of title or anydocument is to ha3e the documentreproduced, after properproceedings in the same form they2ere 2hen the loss or destructionoccurred.

he registered o2ners appearingin the title sought to *ereconstituted, or in this case, their

sur3i3ing heirs, are certainlyinterested parties 2ho should *enoti6ed of reconstitutionproceeding under Section + inrelation to Section ? of !.A. +0.ndeed, for petitions *ased onsources enumerated in Sections+


26/41

N4RA B0 CALALANG-PARULAN

AND ELVIRA B0 CALALANG,

PETITI4NERS, VS0 R4SARI4

CALALANG-GARCIA,et. al.,RESP4NDENTS0

G0R0 No0 =


27/41

*elonged to the con7ugalpartnership of the spouses.

he !C rendered a decisionin fa3or of respondents in

declaring that the parcel of land2as 7ointly ac%uired *y thespouses Pedro and ncarnacionfrom the parents of the latter.hus, it 2as part of the con7ugalproperty of the 6rst marriage of Pedro. he CA re3ersed the factual6ndings of the trial court and heldthat Pedro 2as the sole andexclusi3e o2ner of the su*7ectparcel of land. o2e3er, applying

the rules of succession, Pedro@sheirs succeeded him to the land ine%ual shares upon his death.hus, the CA ordered thepetitioners to recon3ey in fa3or of the respondents their rightfulshares to the land.

ISSUE

1as the disputed property*elonged to the con7ugalpartnership of the secondmarriage of Pedro 2ith l3ira ase3idenced *y the 4C

RULING

B4. 1e cannot sustain the

argument of the petitioners thatthe disputed property *elongs tothe con7ugal partnership of thesecond marriage of Pedro 2ithl3ira on the ground that the title2as issued in the name of PedroCalalang, married to l3ira Her*aRCalalangO.

he contents of a certi6cateof title are enumerated *y Section" of Presidential (ecree Bo.+-, other2ise &no2n asthe Property !egistration (ecreeE

SC. ". Statement of personalcircumstances in the certi*cate. 3ery certi6cate of title shall setforth the full names of all persons2hose interests ma&e up the fullo2nership in the 2hole land,including their ci3il status, and thenames of their respecti3e spouses,if married, as 2ell as theircitiIenship, residence and postal

address. f the property co3ered*elongs to the con7ugalpartnership, it shall *e issued inthe names of *oth spouses.

A plain reading of the a*o3epro3ision 2ould clearly re3eal thatt!e "!rase JPe%ro Ca$a$a*,

+arrie% to E$vira Ber.a

KCa$a$a*M +ere$) %escri.es

t!e civi$ stat(s a% i%eti2es

t!e s"o(se o# t!e re*istere%

ower Pe%ro0 Evi%et$), t!is

%oes ot +ea t!at t!e

"ro"ert) is co3(*a$0 n Litam v. !ivera+ 2e declaredE

)urther strong proofs thatthe properties in %uestion are theparaphernal properties of Marcosa!i3era, are the 3ery orrens itles

co3ering said properties. A$$ t!esai% "ro"erties are re*istere%i t!e a+e o# J5arcosa

Rivera, +arrie% to Ra#ae$

Lita+0M T!is circ(+stace

i%icates t!at t!e "ro"erties i

1(estio .e$o* to t!e

re*istere% ower, 5arcosa


28/41

Rivera, as !er "ara"!era$

"ro"erties, #or i# t!e) were

co3(*a$, t!e tit$es coveri* t!e

sa+e s!o($% !ave .ee iss(e%

i t!e a+es o# Ra#ae$ Lita+

a% 5arcosa Rivera0 T!e wor%sJ+arrie% to Ra#ae$ Lita+M

writte a#ter t!e a+e o#

5arcosa Rivera, i eac! o# t!e

a.ove +etioe% tit$es are

+ere$) %escri"tive o# t!e civi$

stat(s o# 5arcosa Rivera, t!e

re*istere% ower o# t!e

"ro"erties covere% .) sai%

tit$es0M

As the sole and exclusi3eo2ner, Pedro had the right tocon3ey his property in fa3or of Bora *y executing a (eed of Sale.he CA therefore erred in rulingthat Pedro Calalang depri3ed hisheirs of their respecti3e shareso3er the disputed property 2henhe alienated the same. At the timeof the sale of the disputed

property, the rights to thesuccession 2ere not yet *esto2edupon the heirs of Pedro. Anda*sent clear and con3incinge3idence that the sale 2asfraudulent or not duly supported*y 3alua*le consideration ectan ino>icious donation inter vivos=,the respondents ha3e no right to%uestion the sale of the disputed

property on the ground that theirfather depri3ed them of theirrespecti3e shares.

SP4USES D45INAD4R PERALTA AND 4FELIA PERALTA, Petitioers, vs0HEIRS 4F BERNARDINA

ABAL4N, re"resete% .) 5ANSUET4 ABAL4N,Res"o%ets0G0R0 No0 =?


29/41

them under the la2. t appears thata (eed of A*solute Sale 2asexecuted o3er the su*7ect propertyin fa3or of !estituto M. !ellama

Li&e2ise, they alleged that A*alonhad al2ays *een in possession of the su*7ect property through hertenant Pedro Hellen 2ho 2asthereafter succeeded *y his 2ife,!uperta Hellen, and then his son,;odofredo Hellen. 4n the otherhand, they said that !ellama hadne3er set foot on the land he 2asclaiming. hey alleged that thedefendants$appellants are not

*uyers in good faith as they 2erea2are that the su*7ect land 2as inthe possession of the plainti>s$appellees at the time they madethe purchase. hey thus claim thatthe titles issued to the defendants$appellants are null and 3oid. n hisans2er, !ellama alleged that thedeed of a*solute sale executed *y A*alon is genuine and that theduplicate copy of 4C Bo. s$appellees and ordered therestoration of 4C Bo. icial 6lesof the said 4>ice made the court a%uo conclude that the saiddocument 2as a mere forgery. heCA re3ersed the decision.

ssueDsE

1hether or not a forgedinstrument may *ecome the root of a 3alid title in the hands of aninnocent purchaser for 3alue, e3enif the true o2ner thereof has *eenin possession of the genuine title,2hich is 3alid and has not *eencancelled.

eldE

he assailed (ecision of theCA held that the Andals 2ere*uyers in good faith, 2hileSpouses Peralta 2ere not. (espiteits determination that fraudmarred the sale *et2eenHernardina A*alon and !ellama, afraudulent or forged document of

sale may still gi3e rise to a 3alidtitle. he appellate court reasonedthat if the certi6cate of title hadalready *een transferred from thename of the true o2ner to that2hich 2as indicated *y the forgerand remained as such, the land isconsidered to ha3e *eensu*se%uently sold to an innocentpurchaser, 2hose title is thusconsidered 3alid. he CA

concluded that this 2as the casefor the Andals. After executing the(eed of Sale 2ith Hernardina A*alon under fraudulentcircumstances, !ellama succeededin o*taining a title in his name andselling a portion of the property tothe Andals, 2ho had no &no2ledge


30/41

of the fraudulent circumstancesin3ol3ing the transfer from A*alonto !ellama. he records of the !Cand the CA ha3e a 6nding that2hen !ellama sold the properties

to the Andals, it 2as still in hisname9 and there 2as no annotationthat 2ould *light his clean title. othe Andals, there 2as no dou*tthat !ellama 2as the o2ner of theproperty *eing sold to them, andthat he had transmissi*le rights of o2nership o3er the said property.hus, they had e3ery right to relyon the face of his title alone. heesta*lished rule is that a forged

deed is generally null and cannotcon3ey title, the exception thereto,pursuant to Section of the Land!egistration Act, denotes theregistration of titles from theforger to the innocent purchaserfor 3alue. hus, the %ualifyingpoint here is that there must *e acomplete chain of registeredtitles.his means that all thetransfers starting from the original

rightful o2ner to the innocentholder for 3alue and thatincludes the transfer to the forger must *e duly registered, and thetitle must *e properly issued to thetransferee. n the instant case,there is no e3idence that the chainof registered titles 2as *ro&en inthe case of the Andals. Beither2ere they pro3en to ha3e&no2ledge of anything that 2ould

ma&e them suspicious of thenature of !ellama@s o2nershipo3er the su*7ect parcel of land.ence, 2e sustain the CA@s rulingthat the Andals 2ere *uyers ingood faith. Conse%uently, the 3alidity of their title to the parcelof the land *ought from !ellama

must *e upheld. As for SpousesPeralta, 2e sustain the ruling of the CA that they are indeed *uyersin *ad faith. he appellate courtmade a factual 6nding that in

purchasing the su*7ect property,they merely relied on thephotocopy of the title pro3ided *y!ellama. he CA concluded that amere photocopy of the title shouldha3e made Spouses Peraltasuspicious that there 2as somea2 in the title of !ellama,*ecause he 2as not in possessionof the original copy. his factual6nding 2as supported *y e3idence.

I5ELDA, LE4NARD4,FIDELIN4, AUCENA,

;4SEFINA, ANITA AND SISA, ALL SURNA5ED SY;UC4 VS0FELISA D0 B4NIFACI4 AND

VSD REALTY a%DEVEL4P5ENTC4RP4RATI4N0

G0R0 No0 =


31/41

2ith the condition that the*uildings 2hich the lessee hadconstructed thereon shall *ecomethe property of the lessorDs afterthe expiration of the lease

agreement and another leaseagreement dated (ecem*er +#,-/, in fa3or of a certain Chaneng, o3er the remaining portionof the su*7ect land. Sometime in--", ho2e3er, petitioners learnedthat a *ro&er named xe%uiel)a7ardo, through a Letter datedMarch -, --", o>ered for sale thesu*7ect land along 2ith theimpro3ements thereon to a certain

Luis 4ng. Petitioners found outthat the purported o2ner of thesu*7ect land, respondent )elisa (.Honifacio erent from that in her C Bo.+0//5. !espondent Honifacio also

a3erred that the technicaldescription of the land co3ered *yher C Bo. +0//5 had *een 3eri6ed and appro3ed *y the LandManagement Ser3ices of the(epartment of n3ironment andBatural !esources


32/41

2ith legal actions that ultimatelyled to a 6nal petition for re3ie2after the courts last ruled in fa3orof respondents in a separate case.

ssueDsE

1hether or not the last petition forre3ie2 is 2ith merit.

eldE

he petition 2as heldmeritorious. 4n the propriety of petitioners@ action to %uiet titleo3er the su*7ect land. he

instituted action in this case isclearly a direct attac& on acerti6cate of title to real property.n their complaint for %uieting of title, petitioners speci6cally prayfor the declaration of nullity andDorcancellation of respondents@ CBos. +0//5 and +5?? o3er thesu*7ect land. he relief sought *ypetitioners is certainly feasi*lesince the o*7ecti3e of an action to

%uiet title, as pro3ided under Article "/0 of the Ci3il Code of thePhilippines, is precisely to %uiet,remo3e, in3alidate, annul, andDornullify a cloud on title to realproperty or any interest therein *yreason of any instrument, record,claim, encum*rance or proceeding2hich is apparently 3alid ore>ecti3e *ut is in truth and in factin3alid, ine>ecti3e, 3oida*le, or

unenforcea*le, and may *epre7udicial to said title. he Courtalso 6nds *ereft of merit thecontentions that petitioners@ actionto %uiet title had alreadyprescri*ed andDor that the titles of respondents o3er the su*7ect landha3e already *ecome

incontro3erti*le and indefeasi*le*ased on Section ?+ of Presidential(ecree Bo. +-.

Hector U) vs0 Vi*iia G0 F($e, et

a$0

G0R0 No0 =


33/41

-5? that 2ere a3aila*le that timeof the execution of the deed of sale. t is nota*le that said 4C@scategorically stated that they 2ereentered pursuant to an

emancipation patent ministry of Agrarian !eform pursuant to the4peration Land ransfer Programof the ;o3ernment. )urthermore,said 4Cs are not *e transferredexcept *y hereditary succession orto the ;o3ernment in accordance2ith the pro3isions of P.( +/, Codeof Agrarian !eform of thePhilippines.

ssueE

1hether or not thepetitioner 2as a purchaser in goodfaith.

eld.

Bo.

)or one to *e a purchaser ingood faith in the eyes of the la2,

he should *uy the property of another 2ithout notice that someother person has a right to, orinterest in, such property, andshould pay a full and fair price forthe same at the time of suchpurchase, or *efore he has noticeof the claim or interest of someother persons in the property. e*uys the property 2ith the *elief

that the person from 2hom herecei3es the property 2as theo2ner and could con3ey title to theproperty. ndeed, a purchasercannot close his eyes to facts thatshould put a reasona*le man onhis guard and still claim he actedin good faith. n this case, the

*uyer or petitioner acted in *adfaith, he did not 6rst inspect thatthe property he 2ishes to *uy istransfera*le. Such property is nottransfera*le since it is included in

the 4peration Land ransferprogram of (A!. herefore, he isnot a *uyer in good faith.

=5B OF )O@5 &O3Q@B/

?3/$@3DB3 3/D @3/ ?3/3#O

s%=5B OF B?)#BCBO 3/D

?33 83##5

$%% /O% 1771, 3@$@ 27, 2014

Facts implicio and ?arta 8alles !ere

registered o!ners o" a lot designated #ot

9:% Bt appeared that they sold the lot,

by !ay o" notarized Deeds o" ale, toimplicio.s daughter, 3delaidaG their

brothers ?el+uiades and usticoG and

?arta.s daughter 5ncarnacion% ?el+uiades

sold his parcel, #ot9:6A, to 5ncarnacion and

oberto 3raza, !ho later sold the lot to

oberto.s 3unt, oledad 3raza% oledad later

sold the parcel to the pouses &oa+uin


34/41

?anguardia and usan ?analo 'pouses

?anguardia(% ustico sold his part o" the lot,

#ot 9:6D, to )edro and oledad 3raza, !ho

later sold the parcel to the pouses

#eonardo and ebecca 3raza 'pouses

3raza(% herea"ter, the heirs o" implicio and

?arta 8alles 'espondents( commenced an

action "or the Declaration o" /ullity o"

Certi*cates o" itle and Deeds o" ale,

Cancellation o" Certi*cates o" itle,

ecoery o" )ossession and Damages

against the heirs o" spouses ?anguardia

and the heirs o" spouses #eonardo and

ebecca ')etitioners( be"ore the egional

rial Court 'C(% espondents alleged that

implicio and Aeltran, Aermas,

Aoholano, Calayan, Carino, Castro,

Chaez, Comagul, De ?esa, Delosario, Dingayan, Dugyon$alias,

$arcia, $arida, $oteesan, Ihan,

#uglug, ?analo, ?artinez, /arag,

Ortega, )adon, )arladeesma, iera,

ocero, an 3ndres, iason6Contreras,

orres, Ju ?arta !ere long dead !hen the

documents !ere eecuted% here"ore, the

sale !as null and oid% Bn their respectie

ans!ers, )etitioners alleged that their

predecessors6in6interest !ere purchasers in

good "aith and that their o!nership !asneer +uestioned despite espondents.

rmed the Decision o" theC%

Bssue hether or not predecessors6in6

interest o" )etitioners !ere purchasers in

good "aith%

=eld )etitioners !ere not purchasers in

good "aith% B" circumstances eist that

re+uire a prudent man to inestigate and he

does not, he is deemed to hae acted in

mala *de, and his mere re"usal to beliee

that a de"ect eists or his !ill"ul

closing o" his eyes to the possibility o"

the eistence o" a de"ect in his endor.s

title !ill not macient eidence that

!ould conince the courts that the

proimity relationships

bet!eenamong the endors and

endees in the +uestioned sales !asnot used to perpetrated "raud% thus,

there is nothing to dispel the notion

that the apparent anomalies attended

the transaction%

it must be emphasized that the

Kburden o" proing the status o" a

purchaser in good "aith and "or alue

lies upon him !ho asserts that

standing% in discharging the burden, it

is enough to ino


35/41

ENRIQUETA M. LOCSIN, Petitioner, v.

BERNARDO HIZON, CARLOS HIZON,

SPS. JOSE MANUEL & LOURDES

GUEARA, Re!"on#ent!.

T$e %'t!Petitioner Enri()et M. Lo'!in *! t$e

re+i!tere# o*ner o -/0!(.1. 2ot 'overe#

34 Trn!er Certii'te o Tit2e 5TCT6 No.789/:;, 2o'te# t ;: Don i'ente St., Don

Antonio Hei+$t! S)3#ivi!ion, Br+4. Ho24

S"irit, C"ito2, Q)eno*in+ *$et$er A'eron $!'o1"2ie# *it$ $i! "rt o t$e 3r+in )n#er

t$e 'o1"ro1i!e +ree1ent. In !"ite o $er

3!en'e, $o*ever, !$e 'ontin)e# to "4 t$ere2 "ro"ert4 t?e! on t$e !)3=e't 2ot.

Ater #i!'overin+ t$t $er 'o"4 o TCT *!1i!!in+, Lo'!in i2e# "etition or

#1ini!trtive re'on!tr)'tion in or#er to

!e')re ne* one, TCT No. RT0

:-;-.So1eti1e in er24 7//7, !$e t$enre()e!te# $er 'o)n!e2 to '$e'> t$e !tt)! o

t$e !)3=e't 2ot. It *! t$en t$t t$e4

#i!'overe# t$t Mr42o) Bo2o! $# TCT No.RT0:-;- 'n'e22e# n# t$en !e')re# ne*

one, TCT No. N07///-; in $er vor 34

re+i!terin+ Dee# o A3!o2)te S2e22e+e#24 e?e')te# 34 Lo'!in *it$ t$e

Re+i!tr4 o Dee#!. Bo2o! 2ter !o2# t$e

!)3=e't 2ot to Bernr#o Hi


36/41

evi#en'e.

T$e CA, $o*ever, ir1e# t$e RTC!in#in+ t$t $erein re!"on#ent! re inno'ent

")r'$!er! or v2)e. A''or#in+24, t$e CA

r)2e# t$t Lo'!in 'n no 2on+er re'over t$e!)3=e't 2ot.Hen'e, t$e in!nt "etition.

Petitioner Lo'!in in!i!t! t$t Bernr#o *!*e22 *re, t t$e ti1e $e ")r'$!e# t$e

!)3=e't "ro"ert4, o "o!!i32e #ee't in

Bo2o! tit2e !in'e $e >ne* t$t not$er

"er!on, A'eron, *! t$en o'')"4in+ t$e 2otin i!!)e. A! 1tter o 't, Bernr#o even

1ove# or t$e e?e')tion o t$e 'o1"ro1i!e

+ree1ent 3et*een Lo'!in n# A'eronin in

or#er to enor'e to o)!t A'eron o $i! "o!!e!!ion over t$e "ro"ert4. T$)!,

"etitioner in!i!t t$t Bernr#o, ! 3)4er!$o)2# $ve 'te# ! re!on324 #i2i+ent

3)4er in veri4in+ t$e )t$enti'it4 o Bo2o!

tit2e in!te# o '2o!in+ $i! e4e! to t$e "o!!i3i2it4 o #ee't t$erein. E!!enti224,

"etitioner r+)e! t$t Bernr#o! !t)33orn

re)!2 to 1>e n in()ir4 3e4on# t$e 'e

o Bo2o! tit2e i! in#i'tive o $i! 2'> o "r)#en'e in "rote'tin+ $i1!e2 ro1 "o!!i32e

#ee't! or 2*! t$erein, n# 'on!e()ent24

3r! $i1 ro1 inter"o!in+ t$e "rote'tion''or#e# to n inno'ent ")r'$!er or v2)e.

A! re+r#! Cr2o! n# t$e S"!. G)evr!#1i!!ion! n# te!ti1onie!, t$e trn!er

ro1 t$e or1er to t$e 2tter *! on24

!i1)2te# n# inten#e# to >ee" t$e "ro"ert4

o)t o "etitioner! re'$.

Ho*ever, re!"on#ent! 1intin t$t t$e4

$# t$e ri+$t to re24 !o2e24 )"on t$e 'e oBo2o! '2en tit2e, 'on!i#erin+ t$t it *!

ree ro1 n4 2ien or en')13rn'e. T$e4 re

not even re()ire#, !o t$e4 '2i1, to '$e'> ont$e v2i#it4 o t$e !2e ro1 *$i'$ t$e4

#erive# t$eir tit2e. Too, re!"on#ent! '2i1

t$t t$eir >no*2e#+e o A'eron! "o!!e!!ion

'nnot 3e t$e 3!i! or n 22e+tion o 3#

it$.

T$e I!!)e

$et$er or not re!"on#ent! re inno'ent

")r'$!er! or v2)e.

T$e Co)rt! R)2in+

An inno'ent ")r'$!er or v2)e i! one *$o 3)4! t$e "ro"ert4 o not$er *it$o)t noti'e

t$t !o1e ot$er "er!on $! ri+$t to or

intere!t in it, n# *$o "4! )22 n# ir "ri'e t t$e ti1e o t$e ")r'$!e or 3eore

re'eivin+ n4 noti'e o not$er "er!on!

'2i1. A! !)'$, #ee'tive tit2eor one t$e

"ro')re1ent o *$i'$ i! tinte# *it$ r)#n# 1i!re"re!enttion14 3e t$e !o)r'e

o 'o1"2ete24 2e+2 n# v2i# tit2e,

"rovi#e# t$t t$e 3)4er i! n inno'ent t$ir# "er!on *$o, in +oo# it$, re2ie# on t$e

'orre'tne!! o t$e 'ertii'te o tit2e, or n

inno'ent ")r'$!er or v2)e.

Co1"2e1entin+ t$i! i! t$e 1irror #o'trine

*$i'$ e'$oe! t$e #o'trin2 r)2e t$t ever4

"er!on #e2in+ *it$ re+i!tere# 2n# 14!e24 re24 on t$e 'orre'tne!! o t$e

'ertii'te o tit2e i!!)e# t$ereor n# i! in no

*4 o32i+e# to +o 3e4on# t$e 'ertii'te to#eter1ine t$e 'on#ition o t$e "ro"ert4. A

"er!on #e2in+ *it$ re+i!tere# 2n# $!

ri+$t to re24 on t$e Torren! 'ertii'te o tit2en# to #i!"en!e *it$ t$e nee# o in()irin+

)rt$er e?'e"t *$en t$e "rt4 $! 't)2

>no*2e#+e o 't! n# 'ir')1!tn'e! t$t

*o)2# i1"e2 re!on324 ')tio)! 1n to1>e !)'$ in()ir4 or *$en t$e ")r'$!er

$! >no*2e#+e o #ee't or t$e 2'> o tit2e

in $i! ven#or or o !)i'ient 't! to in#)'e re!on324 "r)#ent 1n to in()ire into t$e

!tt)! o t$e tit2e o t$e "ro"ert4 in

2iti+tion. T$e "re!en'e o n4t$in+ *$i'$e?'ite! or ro)!e! !)!"i'ion !$o)2# t$en

"ro1"t t$e ven#ee to 2oo> 3e4on# t$e

'ertii'te n# inve!ti+te t$e tit2e o t$even#or ""erin+ on t$e 'e o !i#


37/41

'ertii'te. One *$o 22! *it$in t$e

e?'e"tion 'n neit$er 3e #eno1inte# n

inno'ent ")r'$!er or v2)e nor ")r'$!er in +oo# it$ n#, $en'e, #oe! not 1erit t$e

"rote'tion o t$e 2*.

In t$e '!e t 3r, Bo2o! 'ertii'te o tit2e

*! 'on'e#e#24 ree ro1 2ien! n#

en')13rn'e! on it! 'e. Ho*ever, t$ei2)re o Cr2o! n# t$e !"o)!e! G)evr to

e?er'i!e t$e ne'e!!r4 2eve2 o ')tion in

2i+$t o t$e 't)2 1i2ie) !)rro)n#in+ t$e

!e()en'e o trn!er! ro1 Bo2o! tore!"on#ent! 3r! t$e ""2i'tion o t$e

1irror #o'trine n# in!"ire! t$e Co)rt!

'on')rren'e *it$ "etitioner! "ro"o!ition.

Cr2o! i! not n inno'ent ")r'$!er or

v2)e. Con!i!tent *it$ t$e r)2e t$t t$e "rin'i"2 i! '$r+e32e n# 3o)n# 34 t$e

>no*2e#+e o, or noti'e to, $i! +ent

re'eive# in t$t '"'it4, n4 inor1tionvi232e n# >no*n to Bernr#o i! #ee1e#

!i1i2r24 vi232e n# >no*n to Cr2o!.

Bernr#o >ne* t$t Bo2o!, ro1 *$o1 $e

")r'$!e# t$e !)3=e't "ro"ert4, never'()ire# "o!!e!!ion over t$e 2ot. A! 1tter

o 't, Bernr#o #1itte# $vin+

>no*2e#+e o A'eron! 2ot "o!!e!!ion !*e22 ! t$e 'o1"ro1i!e +ree1ent 3et*een

"etitioner n# A'eron. Bo2o! ")r"orte#

Dee# o S2e *! e?e')te# on Nove13er 8,@:-: 3)t t$e e=e't1ent '!e 'o11en'e# 34

Lo'!in +in!t A'eron *! in @::7, or

t$irteen 5@86 4er! ter t$e "ro"ert4 *!

!)""o!e#24 trn!erre# to Bo2o!. An# J)#+1ent *! i!!)e# 34 t$e MTC on t$e

'o1"ro1i!e +ree1ent 3et*een Lo'!in n#

A'eron, '2er24 !tte# t$erein t$t "rtie!!)31itte# to t$e MTC or ""rov2

Co1"ro1i!e A+ree1ent #te# J)24 7,

@::8. It )rt$er in#i'te# t$t A'eron'>no*2e#+e! Lo'!in! ri+$t o

"o!!e!!ion to t$e "ro"ert ! t$e re+i!tere#

o*ner.

Hvin+ >no*2e#+e o t$e ore+oin+ 't!,

Bernr#o n# Cr2o!, !$o)2# $ve 3eeni1"e22e# to inve!ti+te t$e re!on 3e$in# t$e

rrn+e1ent. T$e4 !$o)2# $ve 3een "re!!e#

to in()ire into t$e !tt)! o t$e tit2e o t$e "ro"ert4 in 2iti+tion in or#er to "rote't

Cr2o! intere!t. It !$o)2# $ve !tr)'> t$e1

! o## t$t it *! Lo'!in, not Bo2o!, *$o!o)+$t t$e re'over4 o "o!!e!!ion 34

'o11en'in+ n e=e't1ent '!e +in!t

A'eron, n# even entere# into 'o1"ro1i!e

+ree1ent *it$ t$e 2tter 4er! ter t$e ")r"orte# !2e in Bo2o! vor. I Bo2o!

2re#4 '()ire# o*ner!$i" o t$e "ro"ert4

it !$o)2# $ve 3een $er *$o entere# into

'o1"ro1i!e +ree1ent *it$ A'eron, not $er "re#e'e!!or0in0intere!t, Lo'!in, *$o,

t$eoreti'224, $# 2re#4 #ive!te# $er!e2 oo*ner!$i" t$ereo.

T$e !"o)!e! G)evr re not inno'ent ")r'$!er! or v2)e. $en Bernr#o 1et

*it$ Lo'!in! 'o)n!e2 on J)ne @8, 7//7, n#

"er!on224 1#e 'o11it1ent to 'o1e )"

*it$ *in0*in !it)tion or $i! !on n#Lo'!in, $e >ne* t$t t$e "ro"ert4 $#

2re#4 3een ")r"orte#24 trn!erre# to $i!

#)+$ter n# !on0in02*, t$e !"o)!e!G)evr, or $e, no 2e!!, 'i2itte# t$e

!1e. T$i! i! n evi#en'e o 3# it$ n# n

""rent intention to 1i!2e# Lo'!in into 3e2ievin+ t$t !$e 'o)2# no 2on+er re'over

t$e !)3=e't "ro"ert4.

A2!o, t$e 't t$t Lo)r#e! G)evr n#Cr2o! re !i32in+!, n# t$t Cr2o! +ent in

$i! #e2in+! 'on'ernin+ t$e "ro"ert4 i! $i!

o*n t$er, ren#er! in're#i32e t$e r+)1entt$t Lo)r#e! $# no >no*2e#+e *$t!oever

o Lo'!in! '2i1 o o*ner!$i" t t$e ti1e o

t$e ")r"orte# !2e.

In#ee#, t$e 't t$t t$e !"o)!e! G)evr

never inten#e# to 3e t$e o*ner in +oo# it$

n# or v2)e o t$e 2ot i! )rt$er 1#e


38/41

1nie!t 34 t$eir 2'> o intere!t in

"rote'tin+ t$e1!e2ve! in t$e '!e. It #oe! not

even ""er in t$eir te!ti1onie! t$t t$e4, tt$e ver4 2e!t, inten#e# to vi+i2nt24 "rote't

t$eir '2i1 over t$e "ro"ert4 n# "revent

Lo'!in t>e it *4 ro1 t$e1. $t t$e4#i# *! to !i1"24 ""oint Bernr#o ! t$eir

ttorne40in0't to $n#2e t$e !it)tion n#

never 3ot$ere# '()intin+ t$e1!e2ve! *it$t$e #eve2o"1ent! in t$e '!e. T$i! !tron+24

in#i'te t$t Cr2o! n# t$e !"o)!e! G)evr

i2e# to e?er'i!e t$e ne'e!!r4 2eve2 o

')tion e?"e'te# o 3on i#e 3)4er n#even "eror1e# 't! t$t re $i+$24 !)!"e't.

ROTAIRO v. ALCANTARA

GR. No. @-887Se"te13er 7:, 7/@;

%ACTSF

Re!"on#ent Rovir A2'ntr 5Rovir6 i2e#

or t$e re'over4 o "o!!e!!ion o "r'e2 o 2n# 2o'te# in Cint, Ri n#

Tr)!t Co1"n4 n# *! !)3!e()ent24!)3#ivi#e#. One "r'e2 *! !o2# to Rotiro.i'tor n# A2re#o #e)2te# t$eir 2on n#

#i# not e?er'i!e t$eir ri+$t o re#e1"tion.

T$e tit2e! *ere 'on!o2i#te# n# *ere +ivento Pi2i"in! Bn>, t$e $i+$e!t 3i##er in t$e

)'tion !2e. T$e 2n#! *ere !)3!e()ent24

!o2# 34 Pi2i"in! Bn> to Rovir.

T$e RTC $e2# in vor o Rotiro, $o2#in+

t$t !in'e Rovir *! t$e !)''e!!or0in0

intere!t o t$e ori+in2 o*ner!, n# t$t !$e*! *e22 *re o t$e e?i!ten'e o t$e

1ort++e !in'e !$e 2ive# ner t$e "ro"ert4,!$e *! not entit2e# to t$e re2ie !$e "r4e#

or. T$e CA rever!e# t$e RTC #e'i!ion,

$o2#in+ t$t PD :9- #oe! not ""24 !in'e t$e1ort++e *! 'on!tit)te# 3eore t$e !2e

*! 1#e to Rotiro. PD :9- "rovi#e! t$t

*$en n inno'ent 3)4er ")r'$!e! 2n#

!)3=e'te# to 1ort++e, t$e 3)4er ")r'$!e!

it *it$ t$e >no*2e#+e o t$e 1ort++e.%)rt$er1ore, it $e2# t$t !in'e t$e "ro"ert4

*! 1ort++e# 3eore it *! !o2#, t$ere

*ere t$en no 3)4er! to noti4 re+r#in+ !)'$1ort++e !o t$e4 'o)2# e?er'i!e t$eir o"tion

to "4 in in!t221ent! to t$e 1ort++ee.

ISSUEF

@. $et$er or not PD :9- ""2ie!7. $i'$ 3et*een Rotiro n# Rovir

$! 3etter ri+$t to t$e "ro"ert4 in

#i!")te

HELDF

@. e!. PD :9- ""2ie! retro'tive24!in'e it e?"2i'it24 "rovi#e! t$t it

!$22 ""24 to '!e! "rior to it!

ee'tivit4. It 1n#te! t$ere!"on!i3i2it4 o t$e #eve2o"er o t$e

!)3#ivi!ion 2ot! to )2i22 it!

o32i+tion! t*o 4er! "rior to t$eee'tivit4 o t$i! 'o#e. In t$i! '!e,

A2'ntr n# I+n'io i2e# to !erve

noti'e t$t t$e 2n# *! !)3=e't to

1ort++e. Hen'e, Rotiro *! not32e to e?er'i!e $i! o"tion to "4

in!t221ent! #ire't24 to Pi2i"in!

Bn>.7. Rotiro $! 3etter ri+$t to t$e

"ro"ert4. Rovir *! ")r'$!er in

3# it$. T$e Co)rt $e2# t$t t$e#eter1intion *$et$er one i! 3)4er

in +oo# it$ i! 't)2 i!!)e, *$i'$

t$e Co)rt 'nnot #eter1ine in '!e!

o revie* )n#er R)2e ;9, e?'e"t in'!e! *$en t$e CA 1#e

1i!""re$en!ion o 't!. T$e CA

*! 'orre't *$en it =)!tiie# t$e""2i'3i2it4 o t$e Ln# Re+i!trtion

A't over t$e "ro"ert4 !in'e t$e

'onve4n'e o !i# 2n# *! noti'eto t$e *$o2e *or2#. Ho*ever, t$e

'onve4n'e !$22 not 3e v2i# +in!t

n4 "er!on )n2e!! re+i!tere#, e?'e"tt$e +rntor, $i! $eir! n# #evi!ee!,


39/41

n# t$ir# "er!on! $vin+ 't)2

>no*2e#+e t$ereo. %)rt$er1ore,

*$en "er!on i! *re or $!>no*2e#+e o t$e 't o n4 #ee't

in t$e tit2e or *$en $e >no*! it i!

)n#er 2iti+tion, !)'$ "er!on 'nnot 3e or#e# t$e "rote'tion o "rior

re+i!trtion. Hen'e, Rovir i!

")r'$!er in 3# it$ !in'e !$e $#'t)2 >no*2e#+e o t$e 'onve4n'e

n# !$e *! *re o t$e #ee't o

t$e tit2e 34 virt)e o t$e 1ort++e.

S$e *! 2!o *e22 *re t$t t$e 2n#*! in t$e "o!!e!!ion o Rotiro n#

t$t #eve2o"1ent! *ere 2e+224 1#e

in !)'$ 2n# 34 virt)e o t$e v2i#

!2e o t$e 2n#. It i! !ett2e# r)2et$t t$e Ln# Re+i!trtion A't

"rote't! on24 $o2#er! o tit2e in +oo#it$, n# #oe! not "er1it it!

"rovi!ion to 3e )!e# ! !$ie2# or

t$e 'o11i!!ion o r)#, or ! 1en! to enri'$ one!e2 t t$e

e?"en!e o ot$er!. Her '()i!ition o

t$e "ro"ert4 'nnot 3e )"$e2#.

UA!L@s CASE B4B

4!B@s CASE B4B

Andres v. PNB

G.R. No. 173548, Oct. 15, 2014

Facts:

S"!. i'tor n# %i2o1en An#re! *ere

t$e ori+in2 o*ner! o ;,8;0!()re01eter

"r'e2 o 2n# in Sto. Do1in+o, N)ev E'i=,

'overe# 34 TCT No. NT0-7-. T$e4 $# :

'$i2#ren. A1on+ t$e1 *ere Onore An#re! n#

Ro1n An#re!, *$o i! t$e t$er o Re4n2#o

An#re!. Ater i'tor! #et$, o t$e : '$i2#ren,

in'2)#in+ Ro1n n# Onore, +ree# in n

e?tr=)#i'i2 "rtition *it$ !2e to #=)#i'te one

$2 o t$e 2n# to e'$ o t$e1 pro

indiviso. T$i! #o')1ent 2!o "rovi#e! t$t or

P@,///.//, t$e4 22 !o2#, trn!erre#, n#

'onve4e# to Ro1n t$eir re!"e'tive ri+$t! n#

"rti'i"tion to t$e one0$2 "ortion o t$e

"ro"ert4. S"!. Ro1n n# L4#i An#re! t$en

1ort++e# t$e "ro"ert4 to PNB or P8,///.//.

$en t$e !"!. #ie#, Re4n2#o e?e')te#

#o')1ent #eno1inte# ! Se20A#=)#i'tion o

So2e Heir. T$en, Re4n2#o n# *ie Jnette

1ort++e# t$e "ro"ert4 to PNB or [email protected]

1i22ion 2on *it$o)t t$e 'on!ent o Onore.

C2i1in+ o*ner!$i" over t$e "ro"ert4, Onore

i2e# 'o1"2int or 'n'e22tion o tit2e,

re'onve4n'e o "ro"ert4 n# #1+e!. Onore22e+e# t$t t$e Se20A#=)#i'tion o So2e Heir

e?e')te# 34 Re4n2#o *! 2!iie# #o')1ent

!in'e Re4n2#o *! not t$e !o2e $eir n# $i!

"rent!, S"!. Ro1n n# L4#i, *ere !ti22 2ive

*$en !i# #o')1ent *! e?e')te#. PNB

'2i1e# t$t it 'on#)'te# t$e re()i!ite

e?1intion o 1ort++e# "ro"ert4 *$en it !ent

it! re"re!enttive, 3n> ""ri!er Gerr#o

Pe!tKo, to 'on#)'t n o')2r in!"e'tion o t$e

2n# n# t$e 3)i2#in+ t$t *! t$en 3ein+

'on!tr)'te# on it.

RTC r)2e# in vor o Onore. CA

1o#iie# RTC! #e'i!ion in t$t TCT No. N0

7;/ in t$e n1e o PNB *! #e'2re# v2i#

n# e?i!tin+. CA #enie# Onore! 1otion or

re'on!i#ertion, $en'e, t$i! ""e2.

Isse:

$et$er PNB i! n inno'ent 1ort++ee

or v2)e n# in +oo# it$, t$)!, it! ri+$t on t$e

"ro"ert4 i! "rote'te# even i t$e 1ort++or

o3tine# tit2e t$ro)+$ r)#.


40/41

!e"d:

#es.

C!e! 2i>e Cabuhat v CA $ve $e2# t$t

1ort++ee $! ri+$t to re24 in +oo# it$ on t$e

'ertii'te o tit2e o t$e 1ort++or o t$e "ro"ert4 +iven ! !e')rit4 n# in t$e 3!en'e o

n4 !i+n t$t 1i+$t ro)!e !)!"i'ion, $! no

o32i+tion to )n#ert>e )rt$er

inve!ti+tion. T$e "rote'tion o inno'ent

1ort++ee! or v2)e in#! !)""ort in t$e Ln#

Re+i!trtion A't.

Section 38 (now Sec. 32) of the Land

Registration Act "2'e! n inno'ent 1ort++ee

or v2)e )n#er t$e 1nt2e o "rote'tion

''or#e# to inno'ent ")r'$!er! or v2)e.

Section 39 of Act o. !9" "rovi#e! t$t ever4 "er!on re'eivin+ 'ertii'te o tit2e in

")r!)n'e o #e'ree o re+i!trtion, n# ever4

!)3!e()ent ")r'$!er 5or 1ort++ee6 o

re+i!tere# 2n# *$o t>e! 'ertii'te o tit2e or

v2)e in +oo# it$, !$22 $o2# t$e !1e ree o

22 en')13rn'e e?'e"t t$o!e note# on !i#

'ertii'te.

T$e !tn#r# o"ertin+ "r'ti'e or 3n>!

*$en 'tin+ on 2on ""2i'tion i! to 'on#)'tn o')2r in!"e'tion o t$e "ro"ert4 oere# or

1ort++e n# to veri4 t$e +en)inene!! o t$e

tit2e to #eter1ine t$e re2 o*ner5!6 t$ereo.

PNB 'o1"2ie# *it$ t$i! !tn#r# o"ertin+

"r'ti'e *$en it or#ere# it! re"re!enttive, 3n>

""ri!er Gerr#o Pe!tKo, to 'on#)'t n o')2r

in!"e'tion o t$e "ro"ert4 oere# ! 'o22ter2.

3mada Cotoner6Lacarias s% pouses3l"redo eilla

F+ts$ )az eilla borro!ed money

"rom 3mada Cotoner6Lacarias "or the

trael o" 3l"redo eilla to audi

3rabia% Ay !ay o" security, the parties

erbally agreed that 3mada !ould

ta


41/41

Iss*e$ hether or not eilla

spouses should be reinstated in their

property and reconeyance o" the ta

declaration in their "aor%

He%d$ )etitioner contends that the

un spouses !ere buyers in good "aith"or alue, thus, the court erred in

ordering reinstatement o" the property

in "aor o" the eilla spouses%

he court ruled that the rule

in land registration la! that the issue

o" !hether the buyer o" realty is in

good or bad "aith is releant only

!here the sub-ect o" the sale is

registered land and the purchase !as

made "rom the registered o!ner

!hose title to the land is clean%

/ecessarily, those !ho rely

in good "aith on a clean title issued

under the orrens system "or

registered lands must be protected% on

the other hand, those !ho purchase

unregistered lands do so at their o!n

peril%

he petitioner cannot aail

o" the de"ense o" buyer in good "aith

since the de"ense is personal to the

one claiming it !ho is the un

spouses% Furthermore, een i" the un

spouses used the de"ense o" buyer in

good "aith it !ill not be gien credit

since they assume the ris< o" buying

the property since the property is

unregistered

Ltd Case Digests Batch 1

Documents

Transcript of Ltd Case Digests Batch 1