Property Law Cases EGD

7/25/2019 Property Law Cases EGD

1/11

1

GAPACAN V. OMIPET, 387 SCRA383Issues of property rights can be determined in an action toquiet title.FACTS:Paicat Gapacan is the primitive possessor of an unregistered

land in Mt. Province, divided into parcels of riceland andanother planted to camote and declared !" him for ta#ationpurposes. $e had t%o children Maria and Antonio. Antonioleft for a long %hile to tr" his luc& in the mines 'enguet.Maria remained, too& care of their father and eventuall"too& over the cultivation of the land.

Antonio Gapacan returned to and e#ecuted an A(davit ofTransfer of )eal Propert" sho%ing that the propert" had!een transferred to him !" his sister Maria Gapacan*+mipet+mipet- ma&ing him in eect the legal o%ner of thepropert" in /uestion. Since then, Antonio Gapacan0s famil"

Gapacans- had !een occup"ing and cultivating thepropert".

Sometime in 12, +mipet hired la!orers to clear andcultivate portions of the disputed propert". Gapacansprohi!ited them Gapacans and ordered the defendants tovacate the land and restore possession to plaintis.

+mipet then 3led an action to /uiet title in )TC and that she!e declared the la%ful o%ner. )TC ad4udged that Gapacanshave right of possession over the land. +n appeal CA,declared that the land is common propert" of !oth +mipet

and Gapacans and ordered its partition.'oth parties appealed. Gapacans alleged that CA cannotdeclare that the land is common propert" since it deviatesfrom the cause of action in the trial court. +mipet0s appeal ismostl" factual.

5SS67: 8hether or not propert" rights can !e decided in anaction to /uiet title9

$7;: ? of the Civil Code provides that an action to /uiettitle ma" !e !rought %hen there e#ists a cloud on the title to

a real propert" or an" interest therein. 5n the case of'autista v. 7#conde, %e held that the propert" o%ner %hose

propert" rights %ere !eing distur!ed ma" as& a competentcourt for a proper determination of the respective rights ofthe part"*claimants, not onl" to place things in their properplace, that is, to re/uire the one %ho has no right to refrainfrom acts in4urious to the peaceful en4o"ment of thepropert" not onl" of the rightful o%ner !ut also for the!ene3t of !oth %ith the vie% of dissipating an" cloud ofdou!t over the propert". 5t goes %ithout sa"ing thereforethat the appellate court in resolving the present controvers"is %ell %ithin its authorit" to ad4udicate on the respectiverights of the parties, that is, to pass upon the o%nership ofthe propert"@ hence to declare the same as commonpropert".

As to +mipet0s appeal, SC merel" a(rmed the 3ndings ofthe trial court that she did not present su(cient evidence toovercome Gapacan0s !etter right to possession. SCultimatel" ruled that CA %as correct in its determination thatthe land in dispute is common propert" and should !epartitioned.

ROBLES v. CA- Action for qi!tin"of tit#! $ %r!! &'t!ntFACTSPetitioners all surnamed )o!les- trace their o%nership of aparcel of land ,B s/ m.- to eon and Silvino, theirgrandfather and father, respectivel". 6pon Silvino0s death in1=2, said petitioners inherited the propert" and startedcultivation thereof. $ilario )o!les, private respondent andhalf*!rother of the petitioners, %as entrusted %ith thepa"ment of land ta#es due on the propert". 5n 1?2, $ilario

caused !oth the cancellation of the ta# declaration coveringthe propert" and its transfer to 'allane his father*in*la%-.'allane mortgaged the propert" and, for some reason, theta# declaration thereon %as su!se/uentl" named to $ilario.The latter then mortgaged the propert" to privaterespondent )ural 'an& of Cardona. The mortgage %asforeclosed and said !an& ac/uired !" pu!lic !idding thepropert" %hich %as then sold !" it to the spouses Santos.Petitioners learned of the mortgage onl" in 1>.Su!se/uentl", the action %as 3led, impleading also asparties*defendant the ;irector of ands and the ;istrictand +(cer sue to an issuance of a free patent in favour of

spouses Santos. Trial court ruled in favour of petitioners,declaring null the patent, declaring the heirs of Silvino


2/11

2

a!solute o%ners of the su!4ect land. CA reversed on theground that petitioners no longer had title to the propert".

5SS67S1- %hether petitioners have the appropriate title essentialto an action for /uieting of title relevant issue- and %hethertitle claimed !" respondents is valid2- %hether )7M !et%een $ilario and )'C is valid- %hether issuance of free patent is valid$7;1- Petitioners have valid title !" virtue of their continuedand open occupation and possession as o%ners of thesu!4ect propert".5n this case, the cloud on petitioners0 title emanate from theapparent validit" of the free patent issued and the ta#declarations and other evidence in favour of respondentsultimatel" leading to the transfer of the propert" to spousesSantos. 8)T title of the spouses Santos, such is deemedinvalidinoperative insofar as it is rooted in the title andappropriation of $ilario. $ilario could not have pre4udicedthe rights of his co*heirs as co*o%ners of the real estate. $emust have 3rst repudiated the o%nership clearl" andevidentl". CA failed to consider the irregularities in thetransactions involving the propert". Do instrumentdeed ofconve"ance %as presented to sho% an" transaction!et%een petitioners and 'allane or even $ilario.

2- Mortgage %as onl" valid insofar as $ilario0s undividedinterest is concerned there !eing co*o%nership !et%een theheirs. Court also delved into gross negligence %hichamounted to !ad faith on part of !an& !" not e#ercising duediligence in verif"ing the o%nership of the land consideringsuch %as unregistered.Free patent %as also not valid, the land in /uestion having!een converted ipso 4ure to private land !" virtue of theadverse possession in the concept of o%ners since.- 11? !" the petitioners. 5ssuance of patents coveringprivate lands is out of the 4urisdiction of the ;irector ofands or 'ureau of ands.

$ence, the sale of the propert" in favour of the spousesSantos 8)T the share of $iario %as valid !ut the patentissued %as null.

SAPTO V %ABIANA

Actions to quiet title to property in the possession of the

plainti are imprescriptible.

FACTS:

The su!4ect propert" %as originall" o%ned !" Sapto this

Sapto %as a Moro, so onl" one name- and located in

Alam!re, Toril, ;avao Cit". $e died, leaving three sons

Samuel, Constancio, and )amon. The latter predeceased his

!rothers, leaving no heirs. Samuel and Constancio e#ecuted

a deed of sale for a portion of said propert" in favour of

Fa!iana in consideration of P2=E.EE. The sale %as approved

!" the governor of ;avao !ut %as never registered. The

propert" %as transferred to Fa!iana and from then on he

en4o"ed possession from 11 until the case %as 3led.

Constancio died %ith no issue, leaving Samuel as soleadministrator of the propert". 6pon the latter0s death, his

%ido% and t%o children 3led the present action for recover"

of the parcel of land sold !" their predecessors to

defendant. The CF5 held that although the sale !et%een the

Sapto !rothers and Fa!iana %as never registered, it %as

!inding valid and !inding upon the parties and the vendors0

heirs. The CF5 also ordered the petitioners to e#ecute the

necessar" deed of conve"ance in favour of the defendant.

$ence this appeal.

5SS67:

8hether or not the CF50s order of conve"ance in favour of

Fa!iana %as valid.

$7;:

The SC 3rst a(rmed the validit" of the sale !et%een the

Sapto !rothers and Fa!iana, ruling, that even though it %as


3/11

never registered the sale %as valid, !inding, and eective

upon the heirs of the vendor. According to the court, actual

notice of the sale served as registration. Futher, that the

transfer and possession of the propert" %as a clear

indication of the validit" of the sale.

)egarding the issue on the validit" of the order of

conve"ance, the SC ruled that it %as valid. 5n assailing the

order, the Sapto heirs claimed that the CF5 cannot order the

conve"ance !ecause the defendant0s cause of action had

alread" prescri!ed.

The SC ruled ho%ever, that the action for conve"ance %as

actuall" one to /uiet title. 5n ruling so, the SC cited American

4urisprudence and Art. =E of the De% Civil Code, %hich

states, that actions to /uiet title to propert" in thepossession of the plainti are imprescripti!le.

The 4udgement is a(rmed, cost against appellants.

(!ir) *+!r') v). C%I of N!"ro)

Occi!nt'# G.R. No. L-8/8, 8/ SCRA

01 2Octo+!r 3, 04785

FACTS: Si!lings Segundo, Al!ino, Francisca, Pedro, and

Ale4andra 6!eras inherited a parcel of land from their

parents. Petitioners children and successors in interest of

Segundo 6!eras and Al!ino 6!eras- 3led a complaint

against respondents surviving spouse and children of Pedro

6!eras and Ale4andra 6!eras- for /uieting of title, recover"

of possession and o%nership, partition, and reconve"ance

%ith damages of the propert" in suit. ;efendants sought for

dismissal on the ground that the action is !arred !"

prescription. 'ut plaintis argued that the action is

imprescripti!le !ecause it is to /uiet the title to the propert"

in /uestion, for partition, and for declaring heirship and

deed of sale e#ecuted !" defendants as void a! initio. The

)TC dismissed the case on the ground of prescription,

holding that the action is essentiall" for reconve"ance !ased

upon an implied trust resulting from fraud. 5n this case,

plaintis aver that Pedro 6!eras e#ecuted the declaration of

heirship %ith malice and !ad faith to deprive the compulsor"

heirs.

5SS67: 8hether the case is one for /uieting of title and

therefore imprescripti!le.

)65DG: This case is an action for /uieting of title, %hich is

imprescripti!le. The teaching in Fa4a vs. CA applies, that is,

an action to /uiet title to propert" in the possession of

plainti is imprescripti!le and that %here there are material

facts to !e in/uired into and resolved on the !asis of

evidence adduced !" the parties %hich %ill determine the

legal precepts to !e applied, as in this case, the complaining

part" should !e given full opportunit" to prove his case. )TC

should not have summaril" dismissed the case on the

alleged ground of prescription not%ithstanding contrar"factual averments in the complaint %hich %ould clearl" rule

out prescription. The SC set aside respondent court0s order

of dismissal and remanded the case to respondent court for

trial and determination on the merits.

;A. ;7 A57S v. CA


4/11

=

An action to quiet title or to remove cloud may not be

brought for the purpose of settling a boundary dispute.

FACTS:

7duardo Aviles, the predecessor of the petitioners is the

!other of defendant Camilo. The" inherited their lands from

their parents and have agreed to su!divide the same

amongst themselves. The area alloted sic- to 7duardo

Aviles is 1?,111 s/uare meters more or less, to Anastacio

Aviles is 1?,21= s/uare meters more or less, %hile the area

alloted to defendant Camilo Aviles is 1=,=>E s/uare meters

more or less.

;efendant0s land composed of the riceland portion of his

land is 1,2E s/uare meters, the 3shpond portion is BEE

s/uare meters and the residential portion is ?E s/uare

meters, or a total of 1=,=>E s/uare meters.

The Petitioners claim that the" are the o%ners of the 3sh

pond %hich the" claim is %ithin their area. ;efendant

Camilo Aviles asserted a color of title over the northern

portion of the propert" %ith an area of appro#imatel" 1,2EEs/uare meters !" constructing a !am!oo fence thereon-

and moving the earthen di&es, there!" molesting and

distur!ing the peaceful possession of the plaintis over said

portion.

Petitioners sa" that the fences %ere created to undul"

encroach to their propert" !ut the defendant said that he

merel" reconstructed the same.

Petitioners !rought an action to /uiet title !ut %ere denied

thus this case.

5SS67: 8hether or not Petitioners 3led the right action

)65DG:

Do, Petitioners 3led the %rong action. This is o!viousl" a

!oundar" dispute and as such the action must fail.

Art. =>?. 8henever there is a cloud on title to real propert"

or an" interest therein, !" reason of an" instrument, record,claim, encum!rance or proceeding %hich is apparentl" valid

or eective !ut is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineective,

voida!le, or unenforcea!le, and ma" !e pre4udicial to said

title, an action ma" !e !rought to remove such cloud or to

/uiet the title.

An action ma" also !e !rought to prevent a cloud from !eing

cast upon a title to real propert" or an" interest therein.

Petitioners fail to point out an" an" instrument, record,claim, encum!rance or proceeding that could !een a

cloudH to their title. 5n fact, !oth plaintis and defendant

admitted the e#istence of the agreement of partition dated

Iune , 1B> and in accordance there%ith, a 3#ed area %as

allotted to them and that the onl" controvers" is %hether

these lands %ere properl" measured.

A special civil action for /uieting of title is not the proper

remed" for settling a !oundar" dispute, and that petitioners

should have instituted an e4ectment suit instead. An action


5/11

B

for forci!le entr", %henever %arranted !" the period

prescri!ed in )ule >E, or for recover" of possession de facto,

also %ithin the prescri!ed period, ma" !e availed of !" the

petitioners, in %hich proceeding the !oundar" dispute ma"

!e full" threshed out.

GALLAR v. (*SAIN

If the action is brought by the one who is in possession ofthe land, the action is imprescriptible; otherwise, it couldprescribe.

FACTS:$usains in this case are the heirs of Teodoro $usain. Teodoro$usain sold the land under dispute for E pesos to SerapioChichirita %ith the right to repurchase %ithin ? "ears.Teodoro transferred his right to his sister, Graciana $usain.

Graciana paid the redemption price and later sold the landto 7lias Gallar for a cattle. Possession of the land, together%ith the o%nerJs duplicate of the certi3cate of title ofTeodoro $usain, %as delivered on the same occasion toGallar, %ho since then has !een in possession of the land. Acouple of "ears after, Gallar 3led this suit in the Court of5nstance of 5loilo on +cto!er 1E, 1?E to compel$ermenegilda and 'onifacio $usain, as heirs of Teodoro$usain, to e#ecute a deed of conve"ance in his favor so thathe could get a transfer certi3cate of title. $e also as&ed fordamages. The $usains countered !" sa"ing that Gracianaalread" paid the redemption price thus their father had

alread" reac/uired o%nership over the same. The" alsoclaim that the action of 7lias has alread" P)7SC)5'7;.

5SS67:1- 8hether or not o%nership %as transferred to Gallar92- 8hether or not the action has alread" prescri!ed9

)65DG:1-


6/11

?

1- 8hether or not Pingol can refuse to transfer title to;onasco2- 8hether or not ;onasco has the right to /uiet title)65DG:1- Do. The contract !et%een Pingol and ;onasco is acontract of sale and not a contract to sell. The acts of theparties, contemporaneous and su!se/uent to the contract,clearl" sho% that the parties intended an a!solute deed of

sale@ the o%nership of the lot %as transferred to the;onasco upon its actual upon ;onasco0s possession andconstruction of the house- and constructive deliver" upone#ecution of the contract-. The deliver" of the lot divestedPingol of his o%nership and he cannot recover the titleunless the contract is resolved or rescinded under Art. 1B2of DCC. 5t states that the vendee ma" pa" even after thee#piration of the period stipulated as long as no demand forrescission has !een made upon him either 4udiciall" or !"notarial act. Pingol neither did so. $ence, ;onasco hase/uita!le title over the propert".

2- Although the complaint 3led !" the ;onascos %as anaction for speci3c performance, it %as actuall" an action to/uiet title. A cloud has !een cast on the title, since despitethe fact that the title had !een transferred to them !" thee#ecution of the deed of sale and the deliver" of the o!4ectof the contract, Pingol adamantl" refused to accept thepa"ment !" ;onascos and insisted that the" no longer hadthe o!ligation to transfer the title.

;onasco, %ho had made partial pa"ments andimprovements upon the propert", is entitled to !ring suit toclear his title against Pingol %ho refused to transfer title tohim. 5t is not necessar" that ;onasco should have ana!solute title, an e/uita!le title !eing su(cient to clothehim %ith personalit" to !ring an action to /uiet title.

Prescription cannot also !e invo&ed against the ;onascos!ecause an action to /uiet title to propert" in +D70sP+SS7SS5+D is imprescripti!le.

TITONG v. CAFor one to le an action to quiet title to a parcel of land, the

requisites in Art !" of the #$$ must be complied withmeaning there should be an instrument, record, claim,

encumbrance setting forth the cloud or doubt over the title.%therwise, the action to be led can either be e&ectment,forcible entry, unlawful detainer, accion reivindicatoria oraccion publiciana.

FACTS:A 2E,B2 s/uare meter parcel of land located at 'arrioTitiong, Mas!ate is the su!4ect propert" !eing disputed in

this case. The propert" is !eing claimed !" 2 contestants,ho%ever legal title over the propert" can onl" !e given toone of them.

The case originated from an action for /uieting of title 3led!" petitioner Mario Titong. The )TC of Mas!ate decided infavor of private respondents, icente aurio and Angelesaurio as the true and la%ful o%ners of the disputed land.The CA a(rmed the decision of the )TC.

Titong asserts that he is the o%ner of an unregistered parcelof land %ith an area of .2EE hectares and declared forta#ation purposes. $e claims that on three separateoccasions, private resps, %ith their hired la!orers, forci!l"entered a portion of the land containing an appro#imatearea of 2 hectares and !egan plo%ing the same underprete#t of o%nership. +n the other hand, private respsdenied the claim and said that the su!4ect land formed partof the B.B hectare agricultural land %hich the" hadpurchased from their predecessor*in*interest, Pa!lo7spinosa.

Titong identi3ed 7spinosa as the his ad4oining o%nerasserting that no controvers" had sprouted !et%een themfor 2E "ears until the latter sold lot >= to . aurio. The!oundar" !et%een the land sold to 7spinosa and %hatremained of Titong0s propert" %as the old 'ugsa"on river.8hen Titong emplo"ed erit as his tenant, he instructed thelatter to change the course of the old river and direct theNo% of %ater to the lo%land at the southern portion ofTitong0s propert", thus converting the old river into a)iceland.

Private resps, on the other hand, denied claim of Titong0s,sa"ing that the area and !oundaries of disputed landremained unaltered during the series of conve"ances priorto its coming into his hands. Accdg to him, Titong 3rst


7/11

>

declared land for ta#ation purposes %hich sho%ed that theland had an area of B.B hectares and %as !ounded on thenorth !" the '. )iver@ on the east !" propert" undero%nership !" OaragoKa, and on the %est !" propert" o%ned!" ;e la CruK. $e also alleges that Titong sold propert" toerano. The latter reac/uired the propert" pursuant tomutual agreement to repurchase the same.$o%ever, the propert" remained in Titong0s hands onl" for =

da"s !ecause he sold it to 7spinosa. 5t then !ecame a partof the estate of 7spinosa0s %ife, late Segundina 7spinosa.ater on, her heirs e#ecuted an 7#tra4udicial Settlement of7state %ith Simultaneous SaleH %here!" the B.B hectares%as sold to aurio for B,EEE pesos. 5n all these conve"ances,the area and !oundaries of the propert" remained e#actl"the same as those appearing in the name of Titong0s.

The court found out that 2 surve"s %ere made of thepropert". First surve" %as made !" Titong, %hile the second%as the relocation surve" ordered !" the lo%er court.'ecause of %hich, certain discrepancies surfaced. Contrar"to Titong0s allegation, he %as actuall" claiming B.>hectares, the total areas of lot nos 1, 1*A and ?E?.The lot => pertaining to 7spinosa0s %as left %ith onl" anarea of =.1=1 hectares instead of the B.B hectares sold !"Titong to him.

Apprised of the discrepanc", private resps 3led a protest!efore 'ureau of ands against 1st surve", and 3ling a casefor alteration of !oundaries !efore the MTC, proceedings of%hich %ere suspended !ecause of instant case.

Private resps. Avers that Titong is one of the four heirs of hismother, eonida OaragoKa. 5n the 7#tra4udicial Settlement%ith Sale of 7state of late OaragoKa, the heirs ad4udicatedunto themselves the .? hectares propert" of the deceased.The propert" %as !ounded !" the north !" erano, on theeast !" 'ernardo Titong, on the south !" the 'ugsa"on)iver and on the %est !" 'enigno Titong.5nstead of reNecting onl" .EEE hectares as his rightful sharein the e#tra4ud settlement, Titong0s share !loated to 2.=hectares. 5t then appeared to aurio that Titong encroachedupon his propert" and declared it as part of his inheritance.

The !oundaries %ere li&e%ise altered so that it %as !oundedon the north !" erano, on the east !" '. Titong, on the

south !" 7spinosa and on the %est !" Adolfo Titong. aurioalso denied that Titong diverted course of the '. river afterhe had repurchased the land from erano !ecause land %asimmediatel" sold to 7spinosa thereafter.

5SS67:8hether or not Titong is the rightful o%ner of the su!4ectpropert"

)65DG: D+The remed" for /uieting of title ma" !e availed of under thecircumstances mentioned in Art =>? of the DCC %herein itsa"s that action to /uiet title ma" !e made as a remedial orpreventive measure. 6nder =>?, a claimant must sho% thatthere is an instrument, record, claim, encum!rance orproceeding %hich casts a cloud, dou!t, /uestion or shado%upon o%ner0s title to or interest in real propert". The groundfor 3ling a complaint for /uieting title must !e instrument,record, claim, encum!rance or proceeding.H5n the case at !ar, Titong failed to allege that there %as aninstrument, claim etc !e clouded over his propert". Throughhis allegations, %hat Titong imagined as clouds cast on histitle %ere aurio0s alleged acts of ph"sical intrusion into hispurported propert". The grounds mentioned are for actionfor forci!le entr" and not /uieting title.

5n addition, the case %as considered to !e a !oundar"dispute. The )TC and CA correctl" held that %hen Titongsold the B.B hectare land to 7spinosa, his rights andpossession ceased and %ere transferred to aurio upon itssale to the latter.

Thus, it is no% a contract of sale %herein it is a contracttransferring dominion and other real rights in the thing sold.Titong also cannot rel" on the claim of prescription asordinar" ac/uisitive prescription re/uires possession in goodfaith and %ith 4ust title for the time 3#ed !" la%.

+CA)5T v. CA

FACTS:


8/11

Iuan +clarit purchased an unregistered land in 'ohol for

P1EE from Macalos. This particular land did not have

speci3ed !oundaries, as it %as onl" indicated that the

!orders %ere a !roo&, lands of Gales, and another of 'a4a.

$e su!se/uentl" purchased B more unregistered parcels of

land from Gales, one of %hich %as an irrigated rice and

coconut lands, %hich is no% the su!4ect of the action.

'alasa!as apparentl" entered the land a!out 1B "ears later

and replaces the I.+. la!els on top of the trees %ith F.G.Q

Felipa Gales, his mother-. The heirs of +clarit then 3led an

action for the /uieting of the title and damages against

'alasa!as, averring that +clarit e#ercised dominion and

o%nership openl", peacefull", adversel" and uninterrupted.

The deceased even planted coconut trees and other crops

on the land, en4o"ed their fruits and even paid realt" ta# on

the land.

)TC initiall" found for 'alasa!as after having a

Commissioner surve" the lands and discovered the

discrepanc" !et%een the !oundaries indicated in the ;eed

of Sales and the one %ritten on the ta# declarations. The CA,

ho%ever, reversed the decision, and ruled that +clarit is the

rightful o%ner of the land.

5SS67:

8hether or not the lands claimed !" 'alasa!as are actuall"

foreign and alienQ to the lands claimed !" +clarit, ma&ing

these lands actuall" his propert"9

$7;:

8hile it is true that ta# declarations are not strong proof to

claim one0s propert" as his, it %ill stand in court should

these ta# declarations !e coupled %ith one0s e#ercise of

o%nership, such as those proven !" +clarit0s heirs.

Furthermore, although %hat de3nes a piece of land is not

the area mentioned in its descriptions, !ut the !oundaries

laid do%n, in cases such as this one, %here the !oundaries

are unclear, the actual siKe of the land gains importance.

+'7A S CA

FACTS:

The lot in issue %as originall" registered in the names of

Manuel Melencio, Pura Melencio, 8ilfredo 8ico and

Maria!elle 8ico. 'ut %as su!se/uentl" re*registered in the

name of )amon Melencio son of deceased Manuel

Melencio-, Pura Melencio and the 8icos via a deed of sale.

+n ? Iune 1B su!4ect lot %as !ought !" private

respondent Iuan S. 7ste!an from Mauricio )amos %ho

claimed to have ac/uired the propert" from 6rsula Melencio,

the alleged administratri# of the estate of Manuel and Pura

Melencio.

Mean%hile, petitioner )omeo . +!lea leased a !uildinglocated on the su!4ect lot from a certain Marius 7ste!an, an

alleged son of private respondent Iuan S. 7ste!an. +!lea

eventuall" !ought from Marius the lot on %hich the !uilding

stood. As a conse/uence, on = Iul" 11 Iuan 7ste!an 3led

an e4ectment suit against petitioner +!lea.

MTC decided for Iuan 7ste!an and ordered +!lea to vacate

and pa" arrears. +n appeal, )TC a(rmed MTC.


9/11

+n Iune 1, the registered o%ners )amon Melencio,

Pura Melencio and 8ilfredo 8ico and Maria!elle 8ico- sold

the disputed lot to petitioner +!lea. After%ards, +!lea

together %ith the registered o%ners 3led !efore the )TC an

action for /uieting of title against Iuan 7ste!an. The"

contended that the deeds of sale e#ecuted !" Mauricio

)amos in favor of Iuan 7ste!an and !" 6rsula Melencio infavor of Mauricio )amos %ere a nullit".

Mean%hile, the e4ectment case %as appealed thrice to the

CA !ut all %ere denied.

5n the appeal to the SC, +!lea asserts that the su!se/uent

sale to him !" the registered o%ners is a supervening event

that gave him a !etter right of possession and o%nership.$ence the 4udgment of eviction can no longer !e enforced.

5SS67:

8hether or not a su!se/uent action to /uiet title in the )TC

divests the MTC of its 4urisdiction over an e4ectment case9

$7;:

Do.The sole issue in an action for unla%ful detainer isph"sical or material possession, i.e., possession de facto and

not possession de 4ure. The pendenc" of an action for

/uieting of title !efore the )TC does not divest the MTC of its

4urisdiction to proceed %ith the e4ectment case over the

same propert". The su!se/uent ac/uisition of o%nership !"

petitioners is not a supervening event that %ill !ar the

e#ecution of the 4udgment in said unla%ful detainer case,

the fact remaining that %hen 4udgment %as rendered !" the

MTC in the e4ectment case, petitioner +!lea %as a mere

possessor of the su!4ect lot.

Similarl", the fact that petitioners instituted a separate

action for /uieting of title is not a valid reason for defeating

the e#ecution of the summar" remed" of e4ectment. +n the

contrar"., it !olsters the conclusion that the eviction case

did not deal %ith the issue of o%nership %hich %as precisel"

the su!4ect matter of the action for /uieting of title !efore

the )TC. 8ith the 3nalit" of the decision in the e4ectment

case, e#ecution in favor of the prevailing part" has !ecome

a matter of right@ its implementation mandator". 5t cannot!e avoided.

'7D5T+ vs. SAR65TAD*)65O

If a person claiming to be the owner of a wrongfully

registered parcel of land is in actual possession, then his

right to see' reconveyance does not prescribe.

FACTS:

Petitioners $oracio and Felisa 'enito, originall", !ought the

land from Francisco Morales and instituted e4ectment

proceedings against all of the other s/uatters in the land.

)espondent, Agapita Sa/uitan*)uiK !ought a portion of the

land from petitioner on a promise to contri!ute Php ?EEE for

the e4ectment proceedings %hich %ill serve as the

consideration for the sale. +n 1> April 1>, a ;eed of

A!solute Sale %as issued in favor of respondent, ho%ever,

he failed to pa" his o!ligation of Php ?EEE. Thus, the

petitioner never caused the issuance of the certi3cate of

title despite demands of the respondent for such issuance.

5nstead, petitioner su!divided the lot %here respondent0s

land %as located into 3ve %hile the latter continued to

possess such land. Petitioners, then !orro%ed Php>B,EEE

from a certain 'asilia ;ela CruK, %ho later sued them for

collection. For failure to pa" the !orro%ed mone", a %rit ofe#ecution %as issued !" the )TC and the disputed


10/11

1E

petitioner0s land %as sold to ;ela CruK at a pu!lic auction, in

%hich the latter %as the highest !idder. +n 2B March 1?,

the assailed Certi3cate of Title %as issued to ;ela CruK !ut it

%as onl" on 2> Ma" 1 that the Certi3cate of Final ;eed

of Sale %as issued. +n 1 April 1, respondent 3led the

case for speci3c performance %ith declaration of nullit" of

titles and damages.

5SS67:

8hether or not petitioner0s action to /uiet title had alread"

prescri!ed9

)65DG: Do.

The respondent is in possession of the disputed propert". 5f a

person claiming to !e the o%ner of a %rongfull" registered

parcel of land is in actual possession, the right to see&

reconve"ance does not prescri!e. A petition for the /uieting

of title, although essentiall" an action for reconve"ance,

should not !e dismissed on the ground of prescription, if it is

alleged that the plainti is in possession of the propert".

Furthermor

e, the action %as seasona!l" 3led since ;ela CruK0s right to

its conve"ance and possession %as su!4ect to the 12*month

redemption perion provided under section of rule of

the )ules of court. 5n this case, onl" a month had passed.

M7T)+P+5TAD 'AD T)6ST C+.

A7I+

A cloud on a title is de3ned as a sem!lance of title %hich

appears in some legal form !ut %hich is in fact unfounded.H

8here a title %as previousl" held null and void alread", an

action to /uiet title is not the proper remed" !ecause the

TCT as !asis of the right- is not, on its face or other%ise,

valid in the 3rst place.

FACTS:

Spouses )aul and Cristina Acampado o!tained loans from

Metropolitan 'an& and Trust Compan" in the amounts of B&

and 2&. As securit" for the pa"ment, Spouses Acampados

e#ecuted in favor of the !an& a )eal 7state Mortgage over a

parcel of land registered in their names. Su!se/uentl" a

Complaint for ;eclaration of Dullit" of the TCT of the

spouses %as 3led !" S" Tan Se in the )TC of alenKuela.;espite !eing the mortgagee of the real propert", the !an&

%as not made a part" to the said civil casecomplaint for

declaration of nullit" of TCT.- The" %eren0t noti3ed as %ell.

The spouses defaulted in the pa"ment of their loan and

e#tra4udicial foreclosure proceedings %ere initiated. The

!an& su!mitted the highest and %inning !id. A certi3cate of

sale %as issued in their favor.

8hen the" %ere a!out to get their TCT from the )egister of

;eeds, petitioner %as informed of the e#istence of the

decision in the aforementioned civil case complaint for

declaration of nullit" of TCT- declaring the Spouses

Acampados0s TCT null and void.

The !an& 3led %ith the CA a petition for the annulment of

the )TC ;ecision. The CA dismissed their petition and ruled

that the !an& should have 3led a petition for relief from

4udgment or an action for /uieting of title.


11/11

11

5SS67S:

1. 8hether or not a petition for annulment of 4udgment is

the proper remed" availa!le to the !an&

2. 8hether or not the 4udgment of the trial court declaring

the Spouses Acampados TCT null and void- should !e

declared null and void

$7; U 'oth

Property Law Cases EGD

Documents

Transcript of Property Law Cases EGD