ltd week 3_final term_cases

7/25/2019 LTD Week 3_Final Term_cases

1/48


2/48

;eld: /*e land is pulic property% -s a !eneral rule, re!ardless of t*e source or

classi0cation of t*e land in t*e possession of municipality, e9ceptin! t*ose w*ic*

it ac'uired in its own funds in its priate or corporate capacity, suc* property is

*eld for t*e State for t*e ene0t of its in*aitants, w*et*er it e for

!oernmental or proprietary purposes% /*e le!al situation is t*e same if t*e

State itself *olds t*e property and puts it to a dierent use%

+*en it comes to property of municipality w*ic* it did not ac'uire in its priate

or corporate capacity wit* its own funds ational ?oernment to e disposed of accordin! to its discretion%

;ere it did so in oedience to t*e constitutional mandate of promotin! social

6ustice to insure t*e well3ein! and economic security of t*e people%

/*e property was not ac'uired y t*e City of Manila wit* its own funds in its

priate or proprietary capacity% /*e land was part of t*e territory of City of Manila

!ranted y soerei!n in its creation% Furt*ermore, City e9pressly reco!nised t*e

paramount title of t*e State oer its land w*en it re'uested t*e 2resident to

consider t*e feasiility of declarin! t*e lot as patrimonial property for sellin!%

/*ere could e no more latant reco!nition of t*e fact t*at said land elon!s to

t*e State and was simply !ranted in usufruct to t*e City of Manila for municipal

purposes% But since t*e City did not actually use said land for any reco!ni@ed

pulic purpose and allowed it to remain idle and unoccupied for a lon! time until

it was oerrun y s'uatters, no presumption of State !rant of owners*ip in faor

of t*e City of Manila may e ac'uiesced in to 6ustify t*e claim t*at it is its own

priate or patrimonial property%

Saas ". a#!ncio

L-29788, August 30, 1972

F-C/S: /*e City of Manila *ad a /orrens /itle oer a 7,."&3s'uare3meter lot% /*e

municipal Board of Manila re'uested t*e 2resident of t*e 2*ilippines to *ae t*e

lot declared as patrimonial property of t*e City so t*at it could e sold y t*e

City to t*e actual occupants of t*e lot% n 1"#., Con!ress enacted 4epulic -ct

.11$ w*erey t*e lot was made disposale or alienale land of t*e State ational ?oernment in !iin! t*e disposal

of t*e lot in 'uestion to t*e Land /enure -dministration can e lawfully done%

;L: es% /*ere ein! no proof t*at t*e lot *ad een ac'uired y t*e City wit*

its own funds, t*e presumption is t*at it was !ien to it y t*e State > /4AS/ for

t*e ene0t of t*e in*aitants% 4esidual control remained in t*e State, and

t*erefore t*e S/-/ can lawfully dispose of t*e lot% /*us, 4epulic -ct .11$ is

alid and constitutional and t*is is so een if t*e City of Manila will receie >(

C(M2>S-/(> from t*e State%


3/48


4/48

G.R. No. L-118 August 29, 190

EGEN/A NELA6AN, E( AL.,plaintis3appellants,

s%

%E%/L/A NELA6AN, E( AL.,defendants3appellees%

Antonio Pandes for appellants.

Reyes and Dy-Liacco for appellees.

RE6ES, ..L.,J.:

(n ecemer 15, 1"5), plaintis 0led ersus Cecilia >elayan and t*e irector of

Lands a complaint wit* t*e Court of First nstance of Camarines Sur for

DCancellation of /itle and 4econeyance D, alle!in! t*at t*ey elayan 0led a motion to dismiss t*e

complaint on t*e !round t*at


5/48

plaintis interposed t*e present appeal to t*e Court of -ppeals, t*at certi0ed t*e

same to us, ecause it inoles only 'uestions of law%

-ppellants contend, w*ile appellees deny elayan, still *ad t*e ri!*t to e9ercise its 6urisdiction to tryt*e case8


6/48

occupation of a!ricultural lands of t*e pulic domain, under a ona

"declaim of ac'uisition of owners*ip for at least t*irty years immediately

0lin! of t*e application for con0rmation of title, e9cept w*en preented y

war or force ma6eure% /*ese s*all e conclusiely presumed to *ae

performed all t*e conditions essential to a ?oernment !rant and s*all e

entitled to certi0cate of title under t*e proisions of t*is c*apter% o% 1".), Hune )), 1"57=1

under w*ic* t*ey may ask for t*e 6udicial con0rmation of t*eir imperfect or

incomplete title8 ut w*ic* course of action, appellees ar!ue, is no lon!er

aailale to t*e appellants ecause section .$, in connection wit* section .7 of

t*e 2ulic Land -ct ceased to ecome operatie on t*e day followin! ecemer

E1, 1"E$, t*e ori!inal period 09ed in t*e said -ct wit*in w*ic* possessors or

occupants of pulic lands could aail of its ene0ts% -ppellees eidently oerlook

t*at t*is period *as een e9tended from time to time y t*e le!islature, t*e

latest proro!ation ein! y 4epulic -ct >o% ), w*ic* e9tends t*e terms of itseectiity until ecemer E1, 1"#$%

/*ere is likewise no merit in appellees contention t*at t*e complaint does not

aer suGcient facts of owners*ip to *old a!ainst eit*er t*e appellee >elayan or

t*e !oernment%

2laintis alle!ation t*at t*ey *ae een in continued possession of t*e

properties in dispute since time immemorial as owners t#ereof is a suGcient

aerment of priate owners*ip%)t s*ould e rememered t*at possession since

time immemorial carries t*e presumption t*at t*e land *ad neer een part oft*e pulic domain or t*at it *ad een a priate property een efore t*e Spanis*

con'uest% -nd so, we said in one case

%%% -ll lands t*at were not ac'uired from t*e ?oernment, eit*er y

purc*ase or y !rant, elon! to t*e pulic domain%An e$ception to t#e

rule would e any land t#at s#ould #ave een in t#e possession of an

occupant and of #is predecessors in interest since time immemorial for

suc# possession would %ustify t#e presumption t#at t#e land #ad never

een part of t#e pulic domain or t#at it #ad een a private property even

efore t#e Spanis# con&uest%


7/48

n faor of alentin Susi, t*ere is moreoer, t*e presumption 6uris et de

6ure estalis*ed in para!rap* o% )$7., amendin!

-ct >o% ")#, t*at all t*e necessary re'uirements for a !rant y t*e

?oernment were complied wit*, for *e *as een in actual and p*ysical

possession, personally and t*rou!* *is predecessors, of an a!ricultural

land of t*e pulic domain openly, continuously, e9clusiely and puliclysince Huly )#, 1$"., wit* a ri!*t to a certi0cate of title to said land under

t*e proisions of C*apter of said -ct% So t*at w*en -n!ela 4a@on

applied for t*e !rant in *er faor, alentin Susi *ad already ac'uired, y

operation of law, not only a ri!*t to !rant, ut a !rant of t*e ?oernment

for it is not necessary t*at certi0cate of title s*ould e issued in order t*at

said !rant may e sanctioned y t*e courts, an application t*erefor is

suGcient, under t*e proisions of section .7 of -ct >o% )$7.% f y a le!al

0ction, alentin Susi *ad ac'uired t*e land in 'uestion y a !rant of t*e

State, it *ad already at least y presumption, of alentin Susi, eyond t*e

control of t*e irector of Lands% Conse'uently, in sellin! t*e land in'uestion to -n!ela 4a@on, t*e irector of Lands disposed of a land oer

w*ic* *e *ad no lon!er any title or control, and t*e sale t*us made was

oid and of no eect, and -n!ela did not t*erey ac'uire any ri!*t%

/*e irector of Lands contends t*at t*e land in 'uestion ein! of t*e

pulic domain, t*e plainti3appellee cannot maintain an action to recoer

possession t*ereof%

f, as aoe3stated, t*e land, t*e possession of w*ic* is in dispute, *ad

already ecome, y operation of law, priate property of t*e plainti,t*ere lackin! only t*e 6udicial sanction of *is title, alentin Susi *as t*e

ri!*t to rin! an action to recoer t*e possession t*ereof and *old it%

/*e case of Reyes! et al.! vs. Rodrigue'! et al.! #) 2*il%, 771, cited y t*e

appellees, is not t*e aut*ority to t*e contrary% n said case, t*ere was a trial and

upon t*e eidence at *and, it did not appear t*at t*e appellant really *ad any

title or interest in t*e land in 'uestion, presumed or proen, to *old a!ainst t*e

appellee or t*e !oernment% /*e presumption of owners*ip could not likewise

*old ecause appellants possession was neit*er alle!ed nor proen to e since

time immemorial% n fact, t*e aerment made t*ere, t*at t*e claimantspossession started in 1$$E, was not een elieed y t*e Court% For similar

reasons, Li Seng (iap and Co. vs. Director of Lands, 5" 2*il%, #$7 does not !oern

t*e case at ar, considerin! t*at t*e possession t*erein aerred started only

durin! t*e Spanis* re!ime%

t may not e amiss to state, furt*ermore, t*at t*e remedial proisions of section

E$ of t*e Land 4e!istration -ct, prescriin! a mode y w*ic* a decree may e

set aside upon petition y priate indiiduals, are e9pressly made applicale

een to t*ose w*o may *ae een depried merely of an estateor interestin


8/48

/*e fraud aerred y plaintis is actual fraud, consistin! in t*e alle!ed

concealment from t*e plaintis of t*e proceedin!s leadin! to t*e issuance of

defendant >elayan of t*e 'uestioned free patent, notwit*standin! *er knowled!e

t*at t*e land coered under *er application was ein! possessed y t*e

appellants as t*e owners t*ereof% /*is is fraud as contemplated under section E$

of t*e Land 4e!istration -ct elayan%


9/48

;G.R. No. 1970. un! 1, 2003eit*er can prescription e allowed a!ainst t*e *ereditary successors of t*e

re!istered owner, ecause t*ey merely step into t*e s*oes of t*e decedent and

are merely t*e continuation of t*e personality of t*eir predecessor in interest%J)$KConse'uently, since a certi0cate of re!istrationJ)"Kcoers it, t*e disputed land

cannot e ac'uired y prescription re!ardless of petitioners !ood fait*%

Fou#th /ssu!:

Prescription of Action and Laches

2etitioner also ar!ues t*at t*e ri!*t to recoer owners*ip *as prescried, and

t*at respondents are !uilty of lac*es% -!ain, we disa!ree%

-rticle 11.1 of t*e >ew Ciil Code proides t*at real actions oer immoale

properties prescrie after t*irty years% /*is period for 0lin! an action is

interrupted w*en a complaint is 0led in court%JE&K4odolfo de Leon alle!ed t*at t*e

land *ad een allocated to *im y *is rot*er ;ermoso de Leon in Marc* 1"#E,JE1Kut t*at t*e eed of 9tra6udicial 2artition assi!nin! t*e contested land to t*e

latter was e9ecuted only on Septemer 1#, 1"#E%JE)Kn any case, t*e Complaint

to recoer t*e land from petitioner was 0led on Feruary )., 1""E,JEEK

w*ic* waswit*in t*e E&3year prescriptie period%

(n t*e claim of lac*es, we 0nd no reason to reerse t*e rulin! of t*e

C-% Lac*es is ased upon e'uity and t*e pulic policy of discoura!in! stale

claims%JE.KSince lac*es is an e'uitale doctrine, its application is controlled y

e'uitale considerations%JE5Kt cannot e used to defeat 6ustice or to perpetuate

fraud and in6ustice%JE#K/*us, t*e assertion of lac*es to t*wart t*e claim of

respondents is foreclosed, ecause t*e eed upon w*ic* petitioner ases *er

claim is a for!ery%

=EREF&RE, t*e 2etition is D)*I)Dand t*e assailed

ecisionAFFIR+)D.Costs a!ainst petitioner%

S& &R'ERE'.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/149750.htm#_ftn36


14/48

GS/S "s. Santiago

G.R. No. 120 &cto>!# 28, 2003

FA%(S: eceased spouses Hose ulueta and Soledad 4amos otained arious

loans from ?SS from 1"5# to 1"57 in t*e total amount of 2E,117,&&&%&& securedy real estate mort!a!es oer t*eir parcels of land%

/*e uluetas failed to pay t*eir loans to defendant ?SS and t*e latter

foreclosed t*e real estate mort!a!es% (n -u!ust 1"7., t*e mort!a!ed properties

were sold at pulic auction wit* defendant ?SS ein! t*e *i!*est idder% >ot all

lots coered y t*e mort!a!ed titles, *oweer, were sold% >inety3one


15/48

notwit*standin! t*at t*ese were e9pressly e9cluded from t*e foreclosure

sale%

+*et*er or not 2etitioners defense on prescription is tenale%

EL': Fi#st /ssu!: S% /*e acts of defendant3appellant ?SS in concealin!

from t*e uluetas t*e e9istence of t*ese e9cluded lots, in failin! to notify orapprise t*e spouses ulueta aout t*e e9cluded lots from t*e time it

consolidated its titles on t*eir foreclosed properties, in failin! to inform t*em

w*en it entered into a contract of sale of t*e foreclosed properties to orkstown

as well as w*en t*e said sale was reoked y t*en 2resident durin! t*e same

year, demonstrated a clear eort on its part to defraud t*e spouses ulueta and

appropriate for itself t*e su6ect properties%

en if titles oer t*e lots *ad een issued in t*e name of t*e defendant3

appellant, still it could not le!ally claim owners*ip and asolute dominion oer

t*em ecause indefeasiility of title under t*e /orrens system does not attac* totitles secured y fraud or misrepresentation% /*e fraud committed y defendant3

appellant in t*e form of concealment of t*e e9istence of said lots and failure to

return t*e same to t*e real owners after t*eir e9clusion from t*e foreclosure sale

made defendant3appellant *olders in ad fait*% t is well3settled t*at a *older in

ad fait* of a certi0cate of title is not entitled to t*e protection of t*e law for t*e

law cannot e used as a s*ield for fraud%

S!con* /ssu!:

>(% (n t*e issue of prescription, !enerally, an action for reconeyance of real

property ased on fraud prescries in four years from t*e discoery of fraud8

suc* discoery is deemed to *ae taken place upon t*e issuance of t*ecerti0cate of title oer t*e property% 4e!istration of real property is a

constructie notice to all persons and, t*us, t*e four3year period s*all e counted

t*erefrom% (n t*e ot*er *and, -rticle 1.5# of t*e Ciil Code proides:

-rt% 1.5#% f property is ac'uired t*rou!* mistake or fraud, t*e person otainin!

it is, y force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for t*e ene0t of t*e

person from w*om t*e property comes%

-n action for reconeyance ased on implied or constructie trust prescries in

ten years from t*e alle!ed fraudulent re!istration or date of issuance of t*e

certi0cate of title oer t*e property%

/*e petitioners defense of prescription is untenale% -s *eld y t*e C-, t*e

!eneral rule t*at t*e discoery of fraud is deemed to *ae taken place upon t*e

re!istration of real property ecause it is Uconsidered a constructie notice to all

personsV does not apply in t*is case%

Contrary to its claim, t*e petitioner unar!ualy *ad t*e le!al duty to return t*e

su6ect lots to t*e uluetas% /*e petitioners attempts to 6ustify its omission y

insistin! t*at it *ad no suc* duty under t*e mort!a!e contract is oiously

clutc*in! at straw% -rticle )) of t*e Ciil Code e9plicitly proides t*at Ueery

person w*o, t*rou!* an act of performance y anot*er, or any ot*er means,

ac'uires or comes into possession of somet*in! at t*e e9pense of t*e latter

wit*out 6ust or le!al !round, s*all return t*e same to *im%V


16/48

;G.R. No. 120. &cto>!# 28, 2003stitut!* >y his ?i*o? R&SAR/& ENR/@E+ 5'A. 'ESAN(/AG&, respondent.

' E % / S / & N

%ALLE&, SR.,J.:

Before t*e Court is t*e petition for reiew on certiorari0led y t*e

?oernment Serice nsurance System


17/48

ew 2lan= Block o% )E55E cancelled /C/ >o% )1")58 and /C/ >o% )E55.

cancellin! /C/ >o% )1")., all in t*e name of defendant ?SS%

-fter defendant ?SS *ad re3ac'uired t*e properties sold to orkstown

eelopment Corporation, it e!an disposin! t*e foreclosed lots includin! t*e

e9cluded ones%

(n -pril 7, 1""&, representatie duardo Santia!o and t*en plainti -ntonio ic

ulueta e9ecuted an a!reement w*erey ulueta transferred all *is ri!*ts and

interests oer t*e e9cluded lots% 2lainti duardo Santia!os lawyer, -tty%

+enceslao B% /rinidad, wrote a demand letter dated May 11, 1"$"


18/48

complaint a &uo% Apon t*e deat* of Santia!o on Marc* #, 1""#, *e was

sustituted y *is widow, 4osario nri'ue@ da% de Santia!o, as t*e plainti%

-fter due trial, t*e 4/C rendered 6ud!ment a!ainst t*e petitioner orderin! it

to reconey to t*e respondent, 4osario nri'ue@ da% de Santia!o, in sustitution

of *er deceased *usand duardo, t*e seenty3ei!*t lots e9cluded from t*eforeclosure sale% /*e dispositie portion of t*e 4/C decision reads:

+;4F(4, 6ud!ment is *erey rendered in faor of plainti and a!ainst t*e

defendant:

1% (rderin! defendant to reconey to plainti t*e seenty3ei!*t os% 1, #, 7, $, &, 1&, 1E, Block os% 1, E, ., 5, 7, $ and 1&, Block os% E, 1&, 1), and 1E, Block ew 2lan=, Block os% 7, 1. and )&, Block ew 2lan=, Block os% 1E and )&, Block ew 2lan=, Block os% 1, ), E and 1&, Block ew 2lan=, Block os% 1, 5, $, 15, )# and )7, Block ew 2lan=, Block

os% 7 and 1), Block ew 2lan=, Block os% 1, . and #, Block ew 2lan=, Block W


19/48

o% Lot #, Block .%

p% Lots 5, 1), 1E and )., Block 5%

'% Lots 1& and 1#, Block #%

r% Lots # and 15, Block 7%

s% Lots 1E, )., )$ and )", Block $%

t% Lots 1, 11, 17 and )), Block "%

u% Lots 1, ), E and ., Block 1&%

% Lots 1, ), E and 5 ew=, Block 11%

)% (rderin! defendant to pay plainti, if t*e seenty3ei!*t otices of Lis

2endens inscried in /C/ >o% 2/3$&E.) under ntry >o% 2/31))#7T/3)E55.8 /C/

>o% $1$1) under ntry >o% 2/31))#7T/3)E55.8 and /C/ >o% 2/3$."1E under ntry

>o% 2/31))#7T/3)E55.%

5% Costs of suit%JEK

/*e petitioner eleated t*e case to t*e C- w*ic* rendered t*e assailed

decision aGrmin! t*at of t*e 4/C% /*e dispositie portion of t*e assailed decision

reads:

+;4F(4, premises considered, t*e *erein appeal is SMSS for lack of

merit% /*e ecision of ecemer 17, 1""7 of Branc* 71 of

t*e 4e!ional /rial Court of 2asi! City is *erey -FF4M% J.K

/*e petitioner moed for a reconsideration of t*e aforesaid decision ut t*e

same was denied in t*e assailed C- 4esolution of Septemer 5, )&&)%

/*e petitioner now comes to t*is Court alle!in! t*at:

/; C(A4/ (F -22-LS C(MM// - 44SBL 44(4 > 4AL>? /;-/ -=

2//(>4 +-S ?AL/ (F B- F-/; +;> > /4A/; -> > F-C/, /;4

+-S >( SAFFC>/ ?4(A> /( SA22(4/ SAC; C(>CLAS(>8 -> B= /;4+-S >( 24SC42/(> > /;S C-S%J5K
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn5


20/48

n its petition, t*e petitioner maintains t*at it did not act in ad fait* w*en it

erroneously included in its certi0cate of sale, and suse'uently consolidated t*e

titles in its name oer t*e seenty3ei!*t lots oemer

)5, 1"75 w*en t*e petitioner consolidated its owners*ip oer t*e su6ect

lots% -ccordin! to t*e petitioner, an action for reconeyance ased on implied or

constructie trust prescries in ten years from t*e time of its creation or upon

t*e alle!ed fraudulent re!istration of t*e property% n t*is case, w*en t*e action

was instituted on May 7, 1""&, more t*an fourteen years *ad already

lapsed% /*us, t*e petitioner contends t*at t*e same was already arred yprescription as well as lac*es%

/*e petitioner likewise takes e9ception to t*e *oldin! of t*e trial court and

t*e C- t*at it


21/48

t*em w*en it entered into a contract of sale of t*e foreclosed properties to

orkstown eelopment Corporation in 1"$& as well as w*en t*e said sale was

reoked y t*en 2resident Ferdinand % Marcos durin! t*e same year

demonstrated a clear eort on its part to defraud t*e spouses ulueta and

appropriate for itself t*e su6ect properties% en if titles oer t*e lots *ad een

issued in t*e name of t*e defendant3appellant, still it could not le!ally claimowners*ip and asolute dominion oer t*em ecause indefeasiility of title

under t*e /orrens system does not attac* to titles secured y fraud or

misrepresentation% /*e fraud committed y defendant3appellant in t*e form of

concealment of t*e e9istence of said lots and failure to return t*e same to t*e

real owners after t*eir e9clusion from t*e foreclosure sale made defendant3

appellant *olders in ad fait*% t is well3settled t*at a *older in ad fait* of a

certi0cate of title is not entitled to t*e protection of t*e law for t*e law cannot e

used as a s*ield for fraud%J7K

/*e Court a!rees wit* t*e 0ndin!s and conclusion of t*e trial court and t*eC-% /*e petitioner is not an ordinary mort!a!ee% t is a !oernment 0nancial

institution and, like anks, is e9pected to e9ercise !reater care and prudence in

its dealin!s, includin! t*ose inolin! re!istered lands%J$K/*e Courts rulin!

in Rural ,an of Compostela v. CAJ"Kis apropos:

Banks, indeed, s*ould e9ercise more care and prudence in dealin! een wit*

re!istered lands, t*an priate indiiduals, for t*eir usiness is one aected wit*

pulic interest, keepin! in trust money elon!in! to t*eir depositors, w*ic* t*ey

s*ould !uard a!ainst loss y not committin! any act of ne!li!ence w*ic*

amounts to lack of !ood fait* y w*ic* t*ey would e denied t*e protectiemantle of land re!istration statute, -ct J>o%K ."#, e9tended only to purc*asers

for alue and in !ood fait*, as well as to mort!a!ees of t*e same c*aracter and

description%J1&K

ue dili!ence re'uired of anks e9tend een to persons, or institutions like

t*e petitioner, re!ularly en!a!ed in t*e usiness of lendin! money secured y

real estate mort!a!es%J11K

n t*is case, t*e petitioner e9ecuted an aGdait in consolidatin! its

owners*ip and causin! t*e issuance of titles in its name oer t*e su6ect lotsdespite t*e fact t*at t*ese were e9pressly e9cluded from t*e foreclosure sale% By

so doin!, t*e petitioner acted in !ross and eident ad fait*% t cannot fei!n

i!norance of t*e fact t*at t*e su6ect lots were e9cluded from t*e sale at pulic

auction% -t t*e least, its act constituted !ross ne!li!ence amountin! to ad

fait*% Furt*er, as found y t*e C-, t*e petitioners acts of concealin! t*e

e9istence of t*ese lots, its failure to return t*em to t*e uluetas and een its

attempt to sell t*em to a t*ird party is proof of t*e petitioners intent to defraud

t*e uluetas and appropriate for itself t*e su6ect lots%

(n t*e issue of prescription, !enerally, an action for reconeyance of real

property ased on fraud prescries in four years from t*e discoery of fraud8
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn11


22/48

suc* discoery is deemed to *ae taken place upon t*e issuance of t*e

certi0cate of title oer t*e property% 4e!istration of real property is a constructie

notice to all persons and, t*us, t*e four3year period s*all e counted t*erefrom%J1)K(n t*e ot*er *and, -rticle 1.5# of t*e Ciil Code proides:

-rt% 1.5#% f property is ac'uired t*rou!* mistake or fraud, t*e person otainin!it is, y force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for t*e ene0t of t*e

person from w*om t*e property comes%

-n action for reconeyance ased on implied or constructie trust prescries

in ten years from t*e alle!ed fraudulent re!istration or date of issuance of t*e

certi0cate of title oer t*e property% J1EK

/*e petitioners defense of prescription is untenale% -s *eld y t*e C-, t*e

!eneral rule t*at t*e discoery of fraud is deemed to *ae taken place upon t*e

re!istration of real property ecause it is considered a constructie notice to allpersons does not apply in t*is case% /*e C- correctly cited t*e cases ofAdille v.

Court of AppealsJ1.Kand Samonte v. Court of Appeals,J15Kw*ere t*is Court

reckoned t*e prescriptie period for t*e 0lin! of t*e action for reconeyance

ased on implied trust from t*e actualdiscoery of fraud%

n rulin! t*at t*e action *ad not yet prescried despite t*e fact t*at more

t*an ten years *ad lapsed etween t*e date of re!istration and t*e institution of

t*e action for reconeyance, t*e Court inAdilleratiocinated:

t is true t*at re!istration under t*e /orrens system is constructie notice of title,ut it *as likewise een our *oldin! t*at t*e /orrens title does not furnis* a s*ield

for fraud% t is t*erefore no ar!ument to say t*at t*e act of re!istration is

e'uialent to notice of repudiation, assumin! t*ere was one, notwit*standin! t*e

lon!3standin! rule t*at re!istration operates as a uniersal notice of title%

For t*e same reason, we cannot dismiss priate respondents claims commenced

in 1"7. oer t*e estate re!istered in 1"55% +*ile actions to enforce a

constructie trust prescries in ten years, reckoned from t*e date of t*e

re!istration of t*e property, we, as we said, are not prepared to count t*e period

from suc* a date in t*is case% +e note t*e petitioners su rosaeorts to !et *oldof t*e property e9clusiely for *imself e!innin! wit* *is fraudulent

misrepresentation in *is unilateral aGdait of e9tra6udicial settlement t*at *e is

t*e only *eir and c*ild of *is mot*er Feli@a wit* t*e conse'uence t*at *e was

ale to secure title in *is name JaloneK% -ccordin!ly, we *old t*at t*e ri!*t of t*e

priate respondents commenced from t*e time t*ey actually discoered t*e

petitioners act of defraudation% -ccordin! to t*e respondent Court of -ppeals,

t*ey came to know Jof itK apparently only durin! t*e pro!ress of t*e

liti!ation% ;ence, prescription is not a ar% J1#K
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/104223.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jul2001/104223.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/155206.htm#_ftn16


23/48

/*e aoe rulin! was reiterated in t*e more recent case of Samonte% n t*is

case, as estalis*ed y t*e C-, t*e respondent actually discoered t*e

fraudulent act of t*e petitioner only in 1"$":

%%% J/K*e prescriptie period of t*e action is to e reckoned from t*e time plainti3

appellee


24/48

%AL/%'AN "s %E'ENA

;G.R. No. 1080. F!>#ua#y , 200#ua#y 0, 200


25/48

F-C/S: (n -u!ust )5, 1".7, Fermina e9ecuted a deed of donation inter ios

w*erey s*e coneyes t*e land to respondent Silerio Cendana, w*o

immediately entered into possession of t*e land, uild a fence around t*e land

and constructed a two3storey residential *ouse t*ereon sometime 1".", w*ere

*e resided until *is deat* in 1""$%

;L: ?esmundo s Court of -ppeals proides t*at: 2rescription is anot*er modeof ac'uirin! owners*ip and ot*er real ri!*ts oer immoale property% t is

concerned wit* t*e lapse of time in t*e manner and under conditions laid down

y law8 t*at t*e possession s*ould e t*e concept of owner, pulic, peaceful,

uninterrupted and aderse%

-c'uisitie 2rescription:

1% (rdinary -c'uisitie 2rescription re'uires possession in !ood fait* and

wit* 6ust title for ten years%)% 9traordinary -c'uisitie 2rescription ac'uired t*rou!* uninterrupted

aderse possession t*ereof for E& years wit*out need of title of !ood fait*%

/*e !ood fait* of t*e possessor consists in t*e reasonale elief t*at t*e person

form w*om receied t*e t*in! was t*e owner t*ereof, and could transmit *is

owners*ip%

;G.R. No. 1080. F!>#ua#y , 200oemer ., 1".1% ;e was suried y

*is wife, Fermina, and t*ree c*ildren, namely, petitioner Soledad, Hose and

Beni!no, all surnamed Calicdan%JEK

(n -u!ust )5, 1".7, Fermina e9ecuted a deed of donation inter

vivosw*erey s*e coneyed t*e land to respondent Silerio Cendaa,J.K

w*oimmediately entered into possession of t*e land, uilt a fence around t*e land
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn4


26/48

and constructed a two3storey residential *ouse t*ereon sometime in 1".", w*ere

*e resided until *is deat* in 1""$%J5K

(n Hune )", 1""), petitioner, t*rou!* *er le!al !uardian ?uadalupe Castillo,

0led a complaint for 4ecoery of (wners*ip, 2ossession and ama!es a!ainst

t*e respondent, alle!in! t*at t*e donation was oid8 t*at respondent tookadanta!e of *er incompetence in ac'uirin! t*e land8 and t*at s*e merely

tolerated respondents possession of t*e land as well as t*e construction of *is

*ouse t*ereon%J#K

n *is -nswer wit* Motion to ismiss, respondent alle!ed, y way of

aGrmatie defenses, t*at t*e land was donated to *im y Fermina in 1".78 and

t*at *e *ad een pulicly, peacefully, continuously, and adersely in possession

of t*e land for a period of .5 years% Moreoer, *e ar!ued t*at t*e complaint was

arred y prior 6ud!ment in t*e special proceedin!s for t*e Inventory of

Properties of Incompetent Soledad Calicdan,w*ere t*e court decreed t*ee9clusion of t*e land from t*e inentory of properties of t*e petitioner% J7K

(n >oemer 1), 1""#, t*e trial court rendered a decision in faor of t*e

petitioner, t*e dispositie portion of w*ic* reads as follows:

+;4F(4, 6ud!ment is rendered in faor of plainti and a!ainst t*e defendant

as follows:

1% (rderin! defendant Silerio Cendaa to acate t*e land in 'uestion and

surrender owners*ip and possession of t*e same to plainti8 and

)% (rderin! defendant to pay plainti 2)&,&&&%&& as moral dama!es,

2)&,&&&%&& as e9emplary dama!es, 21&,&&&%&& y way of attorneys

fees and ot*er liti!ation e9penses, plus cost of suit%

S( (44%J$K

(n appeal y t*e respondent, t*e Court of -ppeals reersed t*e trial courts

decision and declared t*at t*e donation was alid% Furt*ermore, it *eld t*at

petitioner lost *er owners*ip of t*e property y prescription%

;ence, t*e instant petition for reiew on t*e followin! issues:


27/48

/*e rule, *oweer, admits of t*e followin! e9ceptions:


28/48

-% /o my knowled!e and information, Si9to Calicdan ou!*t t*e property

from *is cousin, t*ink Flaiano or Felomino Bautista%

O% So, in ot*er words, you *ae no personal knowled!e aout *ow Si9to

Calicdan ac'uired t*is propertyQ

-% t*ink it was y purc*ase%

O% -ccordin! to information, so you *ae no actual personal knowled!e

*ow Si9to Calicadan ac'uired t*is propertyQ

-% es, ecause w*en t*e property was ou!*t y my uncle, was not yet

orn, so information only%

O% So w*en you were orn, you came to know already t*at Si9to Calicdan

is t*e owner of t*is propertyQ

-% es, t*ru t*e son of Felomino Bautista w*o is now, t*ink, in Ba!uio%

O% ou *ae not seen any document to s*ow t*at Si9to Calicdan

purc*ased t*e property from one Felomino BautistaQ

-% >one, sir%J11K

n People v. (uittap,J1)Kwe *eld t*at:

Ander 4ule 1E&, Section E# of t*e 4ules of Court, a witness can testify only to

t*ose facts w*ic* *e knows of *is own personal knowled!e, i.e., w*ic* are

deried from *is own perception8 ot*erwise, suc* testimony would e

*earsay% ;earsay eidence is de0ned as eidence not of w*at t*e witness knows

*imself ut of w*at *e *as *eard from ot*ers% /*e *earsay rule ars t*e

testimony of a witness w*o merely recites w*at someone else *as told *im,

w*et*er orally or in writin!% nSanvicente v. People, we *eld t*at w*en eidence

is ased on w*at was supposedly told t*e witness, t*e same is wit*out any

eidentiary wei!*t for ein! patently *earsay% Familiar and fundamental is t*e

rule t*at *earsay testimony is inadmissile as eidence%

/*e Court of -ppeals t*us erred in rulin! ased on respondents are *earsay

testimony as eidence of t*e donation made y Fermina%

>otwit*standin! t*e inalidity of t*e donation, we 0nd t*at respondent *as

ecome t*e ri!*tful owner of t*e land y e9traordinary ac'uisitie prescription%

2rescription is anot*er mode of ac'uirin! owners*ip and ot*er real ri!*ts

oer immoale property% t is concerned wit* lapse of time in t*e manner and

under conditions laid down y law, namely, t*at t*e possession s*ould e in t*e

concept of an owner, pulic, peaceful, uninterrupted and aderse% -c'uisitieprescription is eit*er ordinary or e9traordinary% (rdinary ac'uisitie prescription
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/may2003/144621.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/may2003/144621.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn12


29/48

re'uires possession in !ood fait* and wit* 6ust title for ten years% n e9traordinary

prescription owners*ip and ot*er real ri!*ts oer immoale property are

ac'uired t*rou!* uninterrupted aderse possession t*ereof for t*irty years

wit*out need of title or of !ood fait*%J1EK

/*e !ood fait* of t*e possessor consists in t*e reasonale elief t*at t*eperson from w*om *e receied t*e t*in! was t*e owner t*ereof, and could

transmit *is owners*ip%J1.KFor purposes of prescription, t*ere is 6ust title w*en

t*e aderse claimant came into possession of t*e property t*rou!* one of t*e

modes reco!ni@ed y law for t*e ac'uisition of owners*ip or ot*er real ri!*ts, ut

t*e !rantor was not t*e owner or could not transmit any ri!*t%J15K

-ssumin! arguendot*at ordinary ac'uisitie prescription is unaailin! in t*e

case at ar as it demands t*at t*e possession e in !ood fait* and wit* 6ust title,J1#Kand t*ere is no eidence on record to proe respondents !ood fait*,

neert*eless, *is aderse possession of t*e land for more t*an .5 years aptlys*ows t*at *e *as met t*e re'uirements for e9traordinary ac'uisitie

prescription to set in%

/*e records s*ow t*at t*e su6ect land is an unre!istered land% +*en t*e

petitioner 0led t*e instant case on Hune )", 1""), respondent was in possession

of t*e land for .5 years counted from t*e time of t*e donation in 1".7% /*is is

more t*an t*e re'uired E& years of uninterrupted aderse possession wit*out

6ust title and !ood fait*% Suc* possession was pulic, aderse and in t*e concept

of an owner% 4espondent fenced t*e land and uilt *is *ouse in 1".", wit* t*e

*elp of ?uadalupes fat*er as *is contractor% ;is act of cultiatin! and reapin! t*efruits of t*e land was manifest and isile to all% ;e declared t*e land for

ta9ation purposes and reli!iously paid t*e realty ta9es t*ereon% J17K/o!et*er wit*

*is actual possession of t*e land, t*ese ta9 declarations constitute stron!

eidence of owners*ip of t*e land occupied y *im% -s we said in t*e case

of 0eirs of Simplicio Santiago v. 0eirs of +ariano Santiago:J1$K

-lt*ou!* ta9 declarations or realty ta9 payment of property are not conclusie

eidence of owners*ip, neert*eless, t*ey are !ood indiciaof possession in t*e

concept of owner, for no one in *is ri!*t mind would e payin! ta9es for a

property t*at is not in *is actual or constructie possession% /*ey constitute atleast proof t*at t*e *older *as a claim of title oer t*e property% /*e oluntary

declaration of a piece of property for ta9ation purposes manifests not only ones

sincere and *onest desire to otain title to t*e property and announces *is

aderse claim a!ainst t*e State and all ot*er interested parties, ut also t*e

intention to contriute needed reenues to t*e ?oernment% Suc* an act

stren!t*ens ones ona "declaim of ac'uisition of owners*ip%

Moreoer, t*e deed of donation inter vivos, aleitoid for *ain! een

e9ecuted y one w*o was not t*e owner of t*e property donated, may still e

used to s*ow t*e e9clusie and aderse c*aracter of respondents

possession% /*us, in 0eirs ofSegunda +aningding v. Court of Appeals,J1"Kwe *eld:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/155080.htm#_ftn19


30/48

en assumin! t*at t*e donationpropter nuptiasis oid for failure to comply

wit* formal re'uisites, it could still constitute a le!al asis for aderse

possession% +it* clear and conincin! eidence of possession, a priate

document of donation may sere as asis for a claim of owners*ip% n Pensader

v. Pensaderwe ruled t*at w*ile t*e eral donation under w*ic* t*e defendant

and *is predecessors3in3interest *ae een in possession of t*e lands in 'uestionis not eectie as a transfer of title, still it is a circumstance w*ic* may e9plain

t*e aderse and e9clusie c*aracter of t*e possession% o%

31&)7& efore t*e 4e!ional /rial Court of a!upan City, Branc* .., and

declared respondent t*e ri!*tful owner of t*e su6ect property, not on t*e asis

of t*e eed of onation Inter 1ivos, w*ic* is *erey declared oid, ut on

e9traordinary ac'uisitie prescription%

=EREF&RE, in iew of t*e fore!oin!, t*e petition is >% /*e ecisionof t*e Court of -ppeals dated -pril ., )&&) in C-3?%4% C >o% #7)##, w*ic*

ordered t*e dismissal of Ciil Case >o% 31&)7& efore t*e 4e!ional /rial Court of

a!upan City, Branc* .., is -FF4M%

S& &R'ERE'.


31/48

AL&& ". %A

G.R. No. 908 anua#y 21, 1997

FA%(S: ie!o 2alomo is t*e owner of 15 parcels of land coered y 9ecutie

(rder >o% .&% (n 1"1#, *e ordered t*e re!istration of t*ese lands and donated

t*e same to *is *eirs, !nacio and Carmen 2alomo two mont*s efore *is deat*in -pril 1"E7%

Claimin! t*at t*e aforesaid ori!inal certi0cates of title were lost durin! t*e

Hapanese occupation, !nacio 2alomo 0led a petition for reconstitution wit* t*e

Court of First nstance of -lay on May 1"7&% /*e 4e!ister of eeds of -lay

issued /ransfer Certi0cates of /itle >os% E"11, E"1), E"1E and E"1. sometime in

(ctoer 1"5E% Sometime in Huly 1"5. 2resident 4amon Ma!saysay issued

2roclamation >o% .7 conertin! t*e area emraced y 9ecutie (rder >o% .&

into t*e D/iwi ;ot Sprin! >ational 2ark,D under t*e control, mana!ement,

protection and administration of t*e defunct Commission of 2arks and +ildlife,

now a diision of t*e Bureau of Forest eelopment% /*e area was neerreleased as alienale and disposale portion of t*e pulic domain and, t*erefore,

is neit*er susceptile to disposition under t*e proisions of t*e 2ulic Land Law

nor re!isterale under t*e Land 4e!istration -ct% /*e 2alomos, *oweer,

continued in possession of t*e property, paid real estate ta9es t*ereon and

introduced improements y plantin! rice, ananas, pandan and coconuts% (n

-pril $, 1"71, petitioner Carmen de Buenaentura and spouses !nacio 2alomo

and /rinidad 2ascual mort!a!ed t*e parcels of land to !uarantee a loan of

2)&&,&&& from t*e Bank of t*e 2*ilippine slands%

/SSE: +*et*er or not forest land may e owned y priate persons%

EL': /*e aderse possession w*ic* may e t*e asis of a !rant of title in

con0rmation of imperfect title cases applies only to alienale lands of t*e pulic

domain% t is in t*e law !oernin! natural resources t*at forest land cannot e

owned y priate persons% t is not re!isterale and possession t*ereof, no

matter *ow len!t*y, cannot conert it into priate property, unless suc* lands

are reclassi0ed and considered disposale and alienale% /*ere is no 'uestion

t*at t*e lots *ere formin! part of t*e forest @one were not alienale lands of t*e

pulic domain% -s to t*e forfeiture of improements introduced y petitioners,

t*e fact t*at t*e !oernment failed to oppose t*e re!istration of t*e lots in

'uestion is no 6usti0cation for petitioners to plead !ood fait* in introducin!

improements on t*e lots%

;G.R. No. 908. anua#y 21, 1997a!a,

Municipality of /iwi, 2roince of -lay pursuant to t*e proisions of -ct #.$ of t*e

2*ilippine Commission%J1K

Suse'uently, t*e t*en Court of First nstance of -lay, 15t* Hudicial istrict,

Anited States of -merica, ordered t*e re!istration of 15 parcels of land coeredy 9ecutie (rder >o% .& in t*e name of ie!o 2alomo on ecemer ",

1"1#8 J)Kecemer )$, 1"1#8JEKand Hanuary 17, 1"17%J.Kie!o 2alomo donated

t*ese parcels of land consistin! of 7.,$7) s'uare meters w*ic* were alle!edly

coered y (ri!inal Certi0cates of /itle >os% 51E, 1#", 17# and 17E J5Kto *is *eirs,

*erein petitioners, !nacio and Carmen 2alomo two mont*s efore *is deat* in

-pril 1"E7%J#K

Claimin! t*at t*e aforesaid ori!inal certi0cates of title were lost durin! t*e

Hapanese occupation, !nacio 2alomo 0led a petition for reconstitution wit* t*e

Court of First nstance of -lay on May E&, 1"5&%J7K

/*e 4e!ister of eeds of-lay issued /ransfer Certi0cates of /itle >os% E"11, E"1), E"1E and E"1.

sometime in (ctoer 1"5E%J$K

(n Huly 1&, 1"5. 2resident 4amon Ma!saysay issued 2roclamation >o% .7

conertin! t*e area emraced y 9ecutie (rder >o% .& into t*e D/iwi ;ot

Sprin! >ational 2ark,D under t*e control, mana!ement, protection and

administration of t*e defunct Commission of 2arks and +ildlife, now a diision of

t*e Bureau of Forest eelopment% /*e area was neer released as alienale and

disposale portion of t*e pulic domain and, t*erefore, is neit*er susceptile to

disposition under t*e proisions of t*e 2ulic Land Law o% /31.E efore t*e t*en Court of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn9


33/48

First nstance of -lay for n6unction wit* dama!es a!ainst priate respondents

Faustino H% 2erfecto, 4ay Santillan, Boy -riado, Loren@o Brocales, Salador oe

and ot*er oes w*o are all employees of t*e Bureau of Forest eelopment w*o

entered t*e land coered y /C/ >o% E"1E andTor /C/ E"1. and cut down

amoos t*ereat, totally leelin! no less t*an . !roes wort* not less

t*an 2),&&&%&&%

(n (ctoer 11, 1"7., t*e 4epulic of t*e 2*ilippines 0led Ciil Case >o% /3

17# for annulment and cancellation of Certi0cates of /itle inolin! t*e 15

parcels of land re!istered in t*e name of t*e petitioners and su6ect of Ciil Case

/31.E% mpleaded wit* t*e petitioners as defendants were t*e Bank of t*e

2*ilippine slands, Le!a@pi Branc* and t*e 4e!ister of eeds of -lay%

/*e case a!ainst t*e Bank of 2*ilippine slands was dismissed ecause t*e

loan of 2)&&,&&& wit* t*e Bank was already paid and t*e mort!a!e in its faor

cancelled%

- 6oint trial of Ciil Case /31.E and /317# was conducted upon a!reement of

t*e parties and on Huly E1, 1"$#, t*e trial court rendered t*e followin! decision:

D+;4F(4, premises considered, 6ud!ment is *erey rendered:

> CL C-S >o% /31.E, in faor of t*e defendants and a!ainst t*e plaintis,

dismissin! t*e complaint for in6unction and dama!es, as it is *erey SMSS%

Costs a!ainst t*e plaintis%

n CL C-S >o% /317#, in faor of t*e plaintis and a!ainst t*e defendants:

os% E"11, /3E"1), /3E"1E, and /3E"1., all

of t*e 4e!ister of eeds of -lay and all transactions ased on said titles%


34/48

/*e court a&uoin rulin! for t*e 4epulic found no suGcient proof t*at t*e

2alomos *ae estalis*ed property ri!*ts oer t*e parcels of land in 'uestion

efore t*e /reaty of 2aris w*ic* ended t*e Spanis*3-merican +ar at t*e end of

t*e century% /*e court furt*er stated t*at assumin! t*at t*e decrees of t*e Court

of First nstance of -lay were really issued, t*e 2alomos otained no ri!*t at all

oer t*e 2roperties ecause t*ese were issued only w*en 9ecutie (rder >o% .&was already in force% -t t*is point, we take note t*at alt*ou!* t*e ?eodetic

n!ineer of t*e Bureau of Lands appointed as one of t*e Commissioners in t*e

relocation surey of t*e properties stated in *is reamended report t*at of t*e

E,E$. s'uare meters coered y Lot ), 2lan 3")&5, only 1,"7# s'uare meters

fall wit*in t*e reseration area,J1EKt*e 4/C ordered /C/ E"1E coerin! t*e entire

Lot )1


35/48

possession of t*e lands from )& to 5& years at t*e time of t*eir re!istration in

1"1#%

+e are not coninced%

/*e 2*ilippines passed to t*e Spanis* Crown y discoery and con'uest int*e 1#t* century% Before t*e /reaty of 2aris in -pril 11, 1$"", our lands, w*et*er

a!ricultural, mineral or forest were under t*e e9clusie patrimony and dominion

of t*e Spanis* Crown% ;ence, priate owners*ip of land could only e ac'uired

t*rou!* royal concessions w*ic* were documented in arious forms, suc* as

o% $, ?%L%4%(% 4ecord >o% "$)E, dated ecemer

)$, 1"1# and 9pediente >o% 1&, ?%L%4%(% 4ecord >o% "$#$, dated ecemer ",

1"1# of t*e Court of First nstance of -lay, 15t* Hudicial istrict of t*e Anited

States of -merica presided y Hud!e sidro 2aredes t*at t*eir predecessors in

interest were in open, aderse and continuous possession of t*e su6ect lands for

)&35& years%J1.K

/*e aforesaid DdecisionsD of t*e Court of First nstance, *oweer,were not si!ned y t*e 6ud!e ut were merely certi0ed copies of noti0cation to

ie!o 2alomo earin! t*e si!nature of t*e clerk of court%

Moreoer, despite claims y t*e petitioners t*at t*eir predecessors in

interest were in open , aderse and continuous possession of t*e lands for )& to

5& years prior to t*eir re!istration in 1"1#31"17, t*e lands were sureyed only in

ecemer 1"1E, t*e ery same year t*ey were ac'uired y ie!o 2alomo%

Curiously, in Feruary 1"1E or 1& mont*s efore t*e lands were sureyed for

ie!o 2alomo, t*e !oernment *ad already sureyed t*e area in preparation for

its reseration for proincial park purposes% f t*e petitioners predecessors ininterest were indeed in possession of t*e lands for a numer of years prior to

t*eir re!istration in 1"1#31"17, t*ey would *ae undoutedly known aout t*e

inclusion of t*ese properties in t*e reseration in 1"1E% t certainly is a triRe late

at t*is point to ar!ue t*at t*e !oernment *ad no ri!*t to include t*ese

properties in t*e reseration w*en t*e 'uestion s*ould *ae een raised $E

years a!o%

-s re!ards t*e petitioners contention t*at inasmuc* as t*ey otained t*e

titles wit*out !oernment opposition, t*e !oernment is now estopped from

'uestionin! t*e alidity of t*e certi0cates of title w*ic* were !ranted% -s
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn14


36/48

correctly pointed out y t*e respondent Court of -ppeals, t*e principle of

estoppel does not operate a!ainst t*e ?oernment for t*e act of its a!ents% J15K

-ssumin! t*at t*e decrees of t*e Court of First nstance were really issued,

t*e lands are still not capale of appropriation% /*e aderse possession w*ic*

may e t*e asis of a !rant of title in con0rmation of imperfect title cases appliesonly to alienale lands of t*e pulic domain%

/*ere is no 'uestion t*at t*e lands in t*e case at ar were not alienale

lands of t*e pulic domain% -s testi0ed y t*e istrict Forester, records in t*e

Bureau of Forestry s*ow t*at t*e su6ect lands were neer declared as alienale

and disposale and su6ect to priate alienation prior to 1"1E up to t*e present%J1#KMoreoer, as part of t*e reseration for proincial park purposes, t*ey form

part of t*e forest @one%

t is elementary in t*e law !oernin! natural resources t*at forest landcannot e owned y priate persons% t is not re!istrale and possession t*ereof,

no matter *ow len!t*y, cannot conert it into priate property, J17Kunless suc*

lands are reclassi0ed and considered disposale and alienale%

>eit*er do t*e ta9 receipts w*ic* were presented in eidence proe

owners*ip of t*e parcels of land inasmuc* as t*e wei!*t of aut*ority is t*at ta9

declarations are not conclusie proof of owners*ip in land re!istration cases% J1$K

;ain! disposed of t*e issue of owners*ip, we now come to t*e matter

re!ardin! t*e forfeiture of improements introduced on t*e su6ect lands% tears emp*asis t*at 9ecutie (rder >o% .& was already in force at t*e time t*e

lands in 'uestion were sureyed for ie!o 2alomo% 2etitioners also apparently

knew t*at t*e su6ect lands were coered under t*e reseration w*en t*ey 0led

a petition for reconstitution of t*e lost ori!inal certi0cates of title inasmuc* as

t*e lueprint of Surey +ork (rder >umer )17$1 of 2lan 3")"" approed y

t*e C*ief of t*e Land 4e!istration (Gce nri'ue -ltaas in 1"5E as a true and

correct copy of t*e (ri!inal 2lan >o% 3")"" 0led in t*e Bureau of Lands dated

Septemer 11, 1".$J1"Kcontains t*e followin! note, Din conRict wit* proincial

reseration%DJ)&Kn any case, petitioners are presumed to know t*e law and t*e

failure of t*e !oernment to oppose t*e re!istration of t*e lands in 'uestion is no6usti0cation for t*e petitioners to plead !ood fait* in introducin! improements

on t*e lots%

Finally, since 1,"7# s'uare meters of t*e E,E$. s'uare meters coered y

/C/ E"1E fall wit*in t*e reseration, /C/ E"1E s*ould e annulled only wit*

respect to t*e aforesaid area% nasmuc* as t*e amoo !roes leeled in /C/

E"1E and su6ect of Ciil Case /31.E,J)1Kwere wit*in t*e perimeter of t*e national

park,J))Kno pronouncement as to dama!es is in order%
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/95608.htm#_edn22


37/48

=EREF&RE, t*e decision of t*e Court of -ppeals is *erey -FF4M wit*

t*e modi0cation t*at /C/ E"1E e annulled wit* respect to t*e 1,"7# s'uare

meter area fallin! wit*in t*e reseration @one%

S& &R'ERE'.


38/48

LE&NAR'& ". ARA5/LLA

?4 >o% 1.EE#" >oemer )7, )&&)

FA%(S:

Mariano /orres, predecessor3in3interest of respondents, owns a parcel of

land coered y /C/ >o% )E55


39/48

prescries in 1& years from t*e accrual of t*e ri!*t of action% t*e annotation on

May )&, 1""E of t*e >oemer 1E, 1"7) aGdait of aderse claim on /C/ >o%

)E55 o% )E55


40/48

eliery of 2ossession of 2roperty, (wners uplicate Certi0cate of /itle, 4entals

and ama!es, in Ciil Case >o% "E31&)$)%

/*e instant controersy stemmed from a dispute oer a 1,151%$& s'uare

meter lot, located in 2asay City, coered y /ransfer Certi0cate of /itle >o% )E55

o% )E55 o% )E55oemer 1E, 1"7), petitioner e9ecuted an aGdait of aderse

claimJ15Koer /C/ >o% )E55 o% 5#&E", ol% 5, on >oemer 15, 1"7)%

(n May 1$, 1""E, t*e 4e!ister of eeds of 2asay City was ale to retriee

t*e ori!inal copy of /C/ >o% )E55 o% )E55 o% )E55


41/48

n t*eir -nswer, respondents countered t*at since 1"E$ up to t*e present,

t*e lot in 'uestion *as een re!istered in t*e name of t*e late Mariano /orres y

C*aarria, t*eir predecessor3in3interest, and t*at t*ey *ae een in material

possession t*ereof in t*e concept of owners% n t*e settlement of t*e estate of

Mariano /orres y C*aarria, w*o died on -u!ust E&, 1"7., J1"K*is widow, 4osario

>adal, and *is natural c*ild, ir!inia /orres Marailla, ac'uired t*e disputed loty succession%J)&K-fter t*e demise of 4osario >adal, sometime in Hanuary 1""&,

*er s*are in t*e said lot was in*erited y *er sister, Leonor >adal, w*o was

appointed as special administratri9 of t*e estate of 4osario >adal%J)1KSuse'uently, Leonor >adal was also appointed administratri9 of t*e estate of

Mariano /orres y C*aarria%J))K4espondents maintain t*at t*ey *ae een in open

and peaceful possession of t*e said property and t*at it was only in 1""E w*en

t*ey came to know of t*e alle!ed claim of petitioners oer t*e same property%

4espondents contended furt*er t*at t*e deeds of sale dated -u!ust )$, 1"7)

and Septemer )", 1"7) are falsi0ed documents and t*at t*e si!nature ofMariano /orres y C*aarria on t*e -u!ust )$, 1"7) deed of asolute sale was a

for!ery% (n Feruary )$, 1""., respondents 0led a motion to dismissJ)EKt*e

complaint on t*e !rounds of:


42/48

F /; (4?>-L C(2 (F /; /C/ +-S L(S/TMSS>? > /; FLS (F /;

4?S/4 (F S, 2//(>4 S;(AL ;- FL - 2//(> F(4

4C(>S//A/(> (F /; //L8

/5

2//(>4S >-C/(> F(4 )1 -4S /( >F(4C ;S 4?;/S (> /; S

.= M- 4S2(>>/S BL /;-/ ; ;- -B->(> ;S

4?;/S (> /; 24(24/8 and,

5

L-C;S ;- (24-/ >(/+/;S/->>? /;-/ 2//(>4 +4(/ /;

4?S/4 (F S (F 2-S- C/ /; L-//4 42L /;-/

4?S/4-/(> C(AL >(/ B FFC/ BC-AS /; //L +-S MSS>?


43/48

can e reutted y eidence to t*e contrary, as w*en t*ere is failure on t*e part

of t*e endee to take material possession of t*e land su6ect of t*e sale in t*e

concept of a purc*aser3owner%J)"K

n t*e case at ar, it is not disputed t*at t*e lot in 'uestion was neer

deliered to petitioner notwit*standin! t*e alle!ed e9ecution of a deed ofasolute sale% From 1"7) to 1""E, petitioner neit*er *ad, nor demanded,

material possession of t*e disputed lot% t was t*e respondents w*o *ae een in

control and possession t*ereof in t*e concept of owners since 1"E$ up to t*e

present% t follows t*at owners*ip of t*e lot was neer transferred to

petitioner% ;ence, *e can not claim t*at t*e instant case is an accion

reivindicatoriaor an action to recoer owners*ip and full possession of t*e

property w*ic*, in t*e 0rst place, neer came into *is possession for lack of t*e

re'uisite deliery% /*us, inDanguilan v. Intermediate Appellate Court,JE&Kw*ere

t*e re'uisite deliery was not eected, t*e Court *eld t*at:

Since in t*is 6urisdiction it is a fundamental and elementary principle t*at

owners*ip does not pass y mere stipulation ut only y deliery ot *ain! ecome t*e owner for lack of deliery, JoneK cannot presume to

recoer t*e property from its present possessors% J/*eK action, t*erefore, is not

one of reindicacion, ut one a!ainst Jt*eK endor for speci0c performance of t*esale %%%

Clearly, t*e case 0led y petitioner was an action for speci0c performance of

a written contract of sale w*ic*, pursuant to -rticle 11.. of t*e Ciil Code,

prescries in 1& years from t*e accrual of t*e ri!*t of action% n a contract of

sale, t*ere is a reciprocal oli!ation to pay t*e purc*ase price and t*e

correspondin! deliery of t*e t*in! sold, w*ic* oli!ations !ie rise to a ri!*t of

action in case of reac*%JE1K;ere, petitioners ri!*t of action for speci0c

performance or rescission arose w*en deliery of t*e t*in! sold was not eected

on Septemer )", 1"7), despite t*e payment of t*e purc*ase price% ;ence, from1"7) to 1""E, w*en petitioner 0led t*e instant case, )1 years *ad elapsed

arrin! t*e institution of petitioners action w*ic* is de0nitely eyond t*e 1& year

prescriptie period%

2etitioners claim t*at t*e prescriptie period was tolled w*en *e re!istered

*is aderse claim wit* t*e 4e!ister of eeds is untenale% n (arin v. Court of

Appeals! et al.,JE)Kw*erein an action for annulment of a deed of sale was

dismissed on t*e !round of prescription and lac*es, t*e Court *eld t*at t*e

re!istration of an aderse claim does not toll t*e runnin! of t*e prescriptie

period, t*us:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/143369.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/143369.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/143369.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/143369.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/143369.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/143369.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/143369.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/nov2002/143369.htm#_ftn32


44/48

9 9 9 t*e title of t*e defendant must e up*eld for failure or t*e ne!lect of t*e

plaintis for an unreasonale and une9plained len!t* of time of more t*an

0fteen o% )E55


45/48

may e issued,JE$Kt*e endee may 0le wit* t*e 4e!ister of eeds an aderse

claim under Section 11& of -ct >o% ."#% For an aderse claim to e alid, it must

e s*own t*at a demand was made on t*e endor and t*at t*e latter refused to

surrender t*e owners duplicate certi0cate of title% JE"K

n instant case, it was not s*own t*at Mariano /orres y C*aarria, t*ere!istered owner of t*e disputed lot, refused to surrender t*e owners duplicate

certi0cate of title, nor t*at petitioner demanded t*e surrender t*ereof% n t*e

aGdait of aderse claim re!istered y petitioner *e merely stated: "% /*at in

t*e meantime t*e *erein = L(2(L( C% L(>-4( *as no means to

!et or secure t*e aforementioned (wnerJKs uplicate Copy of /itle >o% )E55

o% )E55


46/48

=EREF&RE, in iew of all t*e fore!oin!, t*e instant petition is >% /*e

>oemer )#, 1""" decision and t*e May 1", )&&& resolution of t*e Court of

-ppeals in C-3?%4% C >o% 5)"E), w*ic* sustained t*e Feruary 1, 1""# order of

t*e 4e!ional /rial Court of 2asay City, Branc* , dismissin! petitioners complaint

in Ciil Case >o% "E31&)$) on t*e !round of prescription and lac*es, is

-FF4M%

S& &R'ERE'.


47/48

REL/% ". %&R( &F AEALS

?4 >os% 1&E$$), 1&5)7# >oemer )5, 1""$

FA%(S:

(n Hune )), 1"57, 4- 1$"" was approed !rantin! aut*ority to all

municipalities and c*artered cities to undertake and carry out at t*eir owne9pense t*e reclamation y dred!in!, 0llin!, or ot*er means, of any fores*ore

lands orderin! t*em, and to estalis*, proide, construct, maintain and repair

proper and ade'uate dockin! and *aror facilities as suc* municipalities and

c*artered cities may determine in consultation wit* t*e Secretary of Finance and

t*e Secretary of 2ulic +orks and Communications%

2ursuant to t*e said law, (rdinance >o% 1)1 was passed y t*e city of 2asay for

t*e reclamation of fores*ore lands wit*in t*eir 6urisdiction and entered into an

a!reement wit* 4epulic 4eal state Corporation for t*e said pro6ect%

4epulic 'uestioned t*e a!reement% t contended, amon! ot*ers, t*at t*e

a!reement etween 44C and t*e City of 2asay was oid for t*e o6ect of t*e

contract is outside t*e commerce of man, it ein! a fores*ore land%

2asay City and 44C countered t*at t*e o6ect in 'uestion is wit*in t*e

commerce of man ecause 4- 1$"" !ies a roader meanin! on t*e term

Ufores*ore landV t*an t*at in t*e de0nition proided y t*e dictionary%

4/C rendered 6ud!ment in faour of 2asay City and 44C, and t*e decision was

aGrmed y t*e C- wit* modi0cations%

/SSE: +*et*er or not t*e term Ufores*ore landV includes t*e sumer!ed area%

+*et*er or not Ufores*ore landV and t*e reclaimed area is wit*in t*e

commerce of man%

EL':

/*e Court ruled t*at it is erroneous and unsustainale to up*old t*e

opinion of t*e respondent court t*at t*e term Ufores*ore landV includes t*e

sumer!ed areas% /o repeat, t*e term Dfores*ore landsD refers to:

#e strip of land t#at lies etween t#e #ig# and low water mars and t#at is

alternately wet and dry according to t#e 3ow of t#e tide.

A strip of land margining a ody of water 4as a lae or stream56 t#e part of a

seas#ore etween t#e low-water line usually at t#e seaward margin of a low-tide

terrace and t#e upper limit of wave was# at #ig# tide usually mared y a eac#

scarp or erm.ew nternational ictionary=

/*e duty of t*e court is to interpret t*e enalin! -ct, 4- 1$""% n so doin!, we

cannot roaden its meanin!8 muc* less widen t*e coera!e t*ereof% f t*e

intention of Con!ress were to include sumer!ed areas, it s*ould *ae proided

e9pressly% /*at Con!ress did not so proide could only si!nify t*e e9clusion of

sumer!ed areas from t*e term Ufores*ore lands%V

t ears stressin! t*at t*e su6ect matter of 2asay City (rdinance >o% 1)1, as

amended y (rdinance >o% 15$, and t*e -!reement under attack, *ae een


48/48

found to e outside t*e intendment and scope of 4- 1$"", and t*erefore ultra

viresand null and oid%

ltd week 3_final term_cases

Documents