property case digest

7/17/2019 Property Case Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/property-case-digest-568dd068066d0 1/23

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-16574 February 28, 164

!L"P"O N. C!S"L!N a#$ PUR"T! G!NGC!%CO, plaintiffs-appellants,

vs.

R!%MON& TOM!SS", S!NT"!GO G!NGC!%CO, defendants-appellees.

Julio Siayngco for plaintiffs-appellants.

Benjamin J. Molina for defendants-appellees.

M!'!L"NT!L, J.:

This case originated in the ustice of the Peace Court of !uiuan, "a#ar. A co#plaint $as filed

there b% the present appellants on April &', &()*, alleging that the defendants, appellees here,

$ere unla$full% detaining t$o +' uonset huts o$ned b% appellants and leased b% the# to

appellees under a verbal contract entered into on Nove#ber &, &((. /t $as further alleged that

the rental agreed upon $as P**.** a #onth, but that appellees had failed to pa% the sa#e fro#

the ti#e the lease agree#ent started, not$ithstanding repeated de#ands for such pa%#ent.

A #otion to dis#iss $as filed b% appellees on the ground that the co#plaint did not allege facts

sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The #otion $as denied b% the ustice of the Peace

Court. The hearing of the case $as postponed several ti#es upon #otion of appellees. The last

#otion for postpone#ent, ho$ever, $as denied upon appellant0s ob1ection, and the trial

proceeded in the absence of the adverse parties, after $hich 1udg#ent $as rendered ordering

the# to vacate the pre#ises described in the co#plaint and to pa% the su# of P)**.** as rentals

fro# Nove#ber &, &(( to March 2&, &()*.

The case $as appealed to the Court of 3irst /nstance of "a#ar, $here the appellees filed their

ans$er to the co#plaint. /n the ans$er of "antiago !angca%co he alleged as special defense that

the uonset huts in uestion had been sold to Ra%#ond To#assi. /n his separate ans$er To#assi

raised, a#ong his special defenses, the uestion of 1urisdiction on the part of the ustice of the

Peace Court.

4n 5ece#ber '6, &()* the Court of 3irst /nstance of "a#ar issued an order dis#issing the case

on the ground that the ustice of the Peace Court had lost its 1urisdiction b% reason of the several

postpone#ents granted b% it and therefore the Court of 3irst /nstance did not acuire appellate

1urisdiction at all. An appeal fro# that order $as ta7en to us +!.R. No. 8-(2'*, and this Court



rendered 1udg#ent on anuar% 2&, &()9, stating that the case should have been tried on the #erits

b% the Court of 3irst /nstance and re#aining the record for that purpose.

4n Ma% &), &()9 the Court of 3irst /nstance again issued an order dis#issing the appeal of

appellees and re#anding the case in turn to the ustice of the peace Court for e:ecution of its

1udg#ent. 3ro# that order appellees elevated the #atter to this Court b% certiorari +!.R. No. 8-

&&22) and !.R. No. 8-&&)*; and on 4ctober 2*, &()<, $e rendered 1udg#ent ordering the

Court of 3irst /nstance to proceed $ith the trial on the #erits.1äwphï1.ñt

4n une '2, &()(, the Court of 3irst /nstance, after conducting the trial as ordered, rendered its

decision again dis#issing the co#plaint. this ti#e on the ground that the ustice of the Peace

Court did not acuire original 1urisdiction in vie$ of the absence of an% allegation in the

co#plaint that the plaintiffs, appellants here, had #ade de#and upon the defendant0s to vacate

the t$o huts in uestion. Appellants filed a #otion for reconsideration, and upon denial thereof,

perfected the present appeal. Their pra%er is that the dis#issal be set aside and the court ordered

to render 1udg#ent in accordance $ith the oral and docu#entar% evidence adduced during the

trial.

The issue here is $hether or not original 1urisdiction $as acuired b% the ustice of the Peace

Court, considering the allegations in the co#plaint. /f it did acuire such 1urisdiction, then the

Court of 3irst /nstance, acting as appellate court, should consider the evidence presented. 4n the

other hand, if the ustice of the Peace Court did not acuire 1urisdiction, the onl% recourse for the

Court of 3irst /nstance $as to issue the order of dis#issal, as it did.

=e have gone over the allegations of the co#plaint and found nothing there to the effect that ade#and had been #ade upon the defendants to vacate the pre#ises in uestion. =hat allegation

there $as refers to a de#and for pa%#ent of the rentals agreed upon. "uch allegation, according

to the consistent ruling of this Court, is insufficient to confer 1urisdiction upon the ustice of the

Peace Court in an action of unla$ful detainer. Thus in !anaynay "s. Sarmiento, 6( Phil. p. 29, it

$as held>

The fact that it is alleged in the co#plaint that defendants failed to pa% the rents since

after August '), &('2, does not #a7e unla$ful defendant0s $ithholding of possession of

the propert%. Mere failure to pa% rents does not ipso facto #a7e unla$ful tenant0s

possession of the pre#ises. /t is the o$ner0s de#and for tenant to vacate the pre#ises,$hen the tenant has failed to pa% the rents on ti#e, and tenants refusal or failure to

vacate, $hich #a7e unla$ful $ithholding of possession. There is no legal obstacle for the

o$ner to allo$ a defaulting tenant to re#ain in the rented propert% one #onth, one %ear,

several %ears or even decades. That consent, no #atter ho$ long it #a% last, #a7es

la$ful tenant0s possession. 4nl% $hen that consent is $ithdra$n and the o$ner de#and

tenant to leave the propert% is the o$ner0s right of possession asserted and the tenant0s



refusal or failure to #ove out #a7es this possession unla$ful, because its is violative of

the o$ner0s preferential right of possession. +"ee also Robles v. "an ose, )' 4.!. 9&(2;

Ric7ards v. !on?ales, 8-&(2(, "ept. '9, &(9*.

=@ERE34RE, the 1udg#ent appealed fro# is affir#ed $ith costs.

ECON& &"("S"ON

)G.R. No. L-48448. February 2*, 184.+

CRESENC"O, M!G"N, U!N"TO, SOCR!TES, a#$ "MEL&!, a ur#a/e$ (ELE0,

Petitioners, . ON. CELSO !(EL"NO, Pre3$3# u$e, CF" Cebu ra# """, !L&"NG

!CE&ER!, F!"!N! !LL"SON, R!F!EL !L9U"S!L!S, ("CTOR !LF!F!R!,FORTUN!TO !RG!%O, N!T"("&!& !!R"!S, EL"SEO EL!RM!, M!UR!

EL!RM!, ("&!L UST!M!NTE, M!RC"!L URGOS, M!"MO C!!UG,

FLORO COROCOTO, "L!R"O G!("OL!, ROS"T! G!RC"!, LEOPOL&O L"NES,

M!G&!LEN! TESORO, R!MON TE!NO, PL!C"&! TE!NO, U!N"T!

(ERG!R!, a#$ !MROS"O ("LL!CES, Respondents.

E. P. Gabr3e, r., :or Petitioners.

Pe$ro L. !b3#o :or Private Respondents.

S%LL!US

&. C//8 8A=; PR4PERT; ACC/4N PB8/C/ANA; NATRE T@ERE43 A"

5/33ERENT/ATE5 3R4M 34RC/B8E ENTR AN5 N8A=38 5ETA/NER; CA"E ATBAR. D =hether or not respondent udge acted $ith grave abuse of discretion #ust be resolved

in the affir#ative. /t should be recalled that this is a case of accion publiciana, the purpose of

$hich is being to establish $ho have a better right to possess. +Bernabe, Et. Al. v. udge 5a%rit,Et Al., !.R. No. )<2((, 4ct. '6, &(<2. There is no allegation of forcible entr% in the co#plaint.

Neither is it a case of unla$ful detainer because the preponderance of evidence sho$s that the

occupanc% of private respondents on the lot in uestion is due to the tolerance of the o$nersthereof and against the latters $ill. Private respondents ad#it that the% have no $ritten contract

of lease $ith the petitioners not $ith petitioners predecessor in interest. 4nl% Marcial Burgos

alleged that he had an oral agree#ent $ith Rodrigo ele?, all others surprisingl% failed to testif%

that the% had such an oral agree#ent of lease. The% li7e$ise ad#it that their houses $ereconstructed $ithout building per#its. /n the true sense of the $ord, respondents are suatters. As

such, their possession is b% tolerance. +Pangilinan v. Aguilar, 2 "CRA &29. Although

respondents had been pa%ing no#inal rentals ranging fro# P.** to P&'.** per #onth for so#eti#e, the% did not thereb% acuire the legal status of tenants. "uatting is unla$ful and no



a#ount of acuiescence converts it into a la$ful act. /llegal constructions constitute public

nuisance per se. The% pose proble#s of health and sanitation. +Cf. Cit% of Manila v. !arcia, Et

Al., &( "CRA &2.

'. /5.; 8EA"E; EECTMENT N5ER PRE"/5ENT/A8 5ECREE N4. '*; N4NPAMENT

43 RENTA8, A !R4N5 T@ERE34R; CA"E AT BAR. D Even if the case $ere to bedecided as an e1ect#ent case, the insistence of respondents that the% are lessees and, therefore,

under the protective #antle of Presidential 5ecree No. '* loses ground $hen =e consider the

finding of fact that respondents had not been pa%ing an% consideration for the occupanc% of theirrespective pre#ises. "aid Presidential 5ecree No. '* suspended e1ect#ent $hen the lease is for

an indefinite period. /t did not suspend e1ect#ent on other grounds li7e lac7 of pa%#ent of the

rental stipulated.

2. /5.; /5.; /5.; /5.; REME5 43 8E""EE" =@EN 4=NER" 43 84T 3A/8 T4 C488ECT

4R RE3"E T4 ACCEPT RENTA8". D The failure of the o$ners to collect, or their refusal to

accept the rentals are not valid defenses. Article &')9 of the Civil Code provides that Fif the

creditor to $ho# tender of pa%#ent has been #ade refuses $ithout 1ust cause to accept it, thedebtor shall be released fro# responsibilit% b% the consignation of the thing or su# due.F crala$virtua&a$ librar%

. /5.; /5.; /5.; NEE5 43 4=NERG8E""4R T4 REP4""E"" PR4PERT 34R @/" 4=N

"E 4R 34R T@E "E 43 AN MEMBER 43 @/" 3AM/8 A" A RE"/5ENT/A8 N/T, A

!R4N5 T@ERE34R; CA"E AT BAR. D The petitioners need of the pre#ises for their o$nuse or for the use of an% #e#ber of his fa#il% as a residential unit entitles the# to the possession

of the lots in uestion. Batas Pa#bansa Blg. '), $hich too7 effect on April &*, &(6(, provides as

additional ground for 1udicial e1ect#ent the need of the o$nerGlessor to repossess his propert% for

his o$n use or for the use of an% #e#ber of his fa#il% as a residential unit, such o$ner ori##ediate #e#ber not being the o$ner of an% other available residential unit.

& E C " S " O N

GUERRERO, J.;

This is a petition for certiorari filed b% Cresencio, Magin, uanito, "ocrates and /#elda, allsurna#ed ele?, see7ing the reversal, for grave abuse of discretion, the decision dated Ma% '',

&(6< of the Court of 3irst /nstance of Cebu, Branch H/// dis#issing their co#plaint for recover%

of possession of five parcels of land pursuant to Presidential 5ecree No. '*.

The evidence sho$s that the five parcels of land all located at Iatipunan "treet, Cebu Cit%, then

assessed at P&6,***.** and 7no$n as 8ots )2&&-A-'-A, )2&&-A-'-B, )2&&-A-'-C, )2&&-A-'-5

and )2&&-A-'-3, $ere for#erl% o$ned b% Rodrigo ele?, the father of petitioners. /n ane:tra1udicial partition, the said lots $ere ad1udicated to petitioners herein on une &9, &(6*. As

earl% as &(6*, petitioners #ade a de#and to vacate upon respondents $ho as7ed an e:tension of

one %ear but thereafter, respondents changed their #inds and refused to vacate. Around the endof &(62, petitioners again advised respondents that the% needed the pre#ises for their o$n use



and ordered the# to vacate the pre#ises b% re#oving their d$elling units fro# the lots. pon

their refusal, petitioners filed an e1ect#ent case before the Cit% Court of Cebu, $hich case $as

doc7eted as Civil Case No. R-&6*&&. 4n #otion of respondents, the Cit% Court dis#issed thecase $ithout pre1udice in an 4rder dated August 2, &(6 on the ground that there e:ists no cause

of action, follo$ing the suspension of 1udicial e1ect#ent b% Presidential 5ecree No. '*. 4n ul%

2, &(69, petitioners #ade again an e:tra1udicial de#and in a letter $hich reuired respondents tovacate the pre#ises $ithin &) da%s at the sa#e ti#e threatening the# $ith prosecution under

Presidential 5ecree No. 66' for the cri#e of suatting. 4n August ), &(69, petitioners filed the

co#plaint for recover% of possession of the aforesaid five parcels of land alleging that e:cept forMagin ele?, the% have no other lot of their o$n and are living on other persons pre#ises; that

respondents are not onl% occup%ing the pre#ises but also accepting boarders andGor using the

sa#e for co##ercial purposes and that several de#ands have been #ade to give $a% to the

needs of petitioners and their respective fa#ilies but respondents #aliciousl%, abusivel% anddefiantl% refused to accede to petitioners la$ful de#ands. chanrobles.co# >virtual la$ librar%

/n their ans$er, respondents ad#itted the o$nership of the land b% petitioners. But in their

special and affir#ative defenses, the% alleged that the% have been occup%ing portions of the lots b% virtue of oral agree#ents of lease for an indefinite period, pa%ing #onthl% rentals for their

respective portions ranging fro# P.** to P&'.**; that the present action is barred b% res 1udicataand or prior 1udg#ent and that the present action, if at all there is an% cause of action, is

essentiall% one for unla$ful detainer since the last de#and to vacate $as #ade less than a %ear

ago.

Eight of the t$ent% respondents testified that the% are the original occupants of the lots $hile t$o

of the#, "egundo Macatol and @ilario !aviola, clai#ed to have bought their houses fro# third

persons $ith the understanding that the% should pa% rentals to the lando$ner, Rodrigo ele?.The% also testified that the% have been pa%ing rentals for their respective portions ranging fro#

P.** to P&'.**. /n support of their clai# of pa%#ent of rentals, at least si: of the# presented

one or t$o receipts dated &(62 or earlier +E:hibits ', '-A to '-/ and clai#ed that other receipts$ere lost. But all respondents ad#itted not having paid rentals since &(62, so#e reasoning out

that nobod% collected and others clai#ing that 3abiola ele? !arganera, Rodrigo ele?

daughter, refused to accept their rentals. At least one of the#, @ilario !aviola, produced $hat heclai#ed as a building per#it but the sa#e turned out to be a #ere application. chanrobles virtual la$librar%

After the case $as sub#itted for decision, the trial court ruled> 1gc>chanrobles.co#.ph

F/t appearing that the defendants are lessees of the portions of the land in uestion $herein their

respective d$elling units are erected, personal use b% the plaintiffs andGor then fa#ilies of the

said land, cannot be a valid ground for 1udicial e1ect#ent of the for#er, pursuant to Presidential5ecree No. '*, issued b% the President on March &), &(66.F +sic, should be 4ctober &', &(6'.

+5ecision of the C3/, p. ); Rollo, p. 2*.

4n the ground that respondent udge of the Court of 3irst /nstance of Cebu acted $ith grave

abuse of discretion in the e:ercise of his 1udicial functions b% holding that private respondents

are lessees and, therefore, privileged to continue sta%ing on the lots in uestion pursuant to

Presidential 5ecree No. '*, the plaintiffs belo$ brought this instant petition for certiorari.



Petitioners contend that the preponderance of evidence sho$s that the occupanc% of private

respondents on the lots in uestion is due to the tolerance of the o$ners thereof and against thelatters $ill.

Conceding that respondents are lessees, petitioners clai# that Presidential 5ecree No. '* doesnot #ean that +& the% are freed fro# pa%ing rentals for the lots in uestion; +' the% can use the

lots for co##ercial purposes; and +2 the% can refuse to adduce evidence D specificall%

referring to the t$elve respondents $ho did not testif% on their behalf.

/n ans$er to the argu#ent of respondents that the% are $illing to pa% rentals if petitioners send

collectors, petitioners cite Article &')9 of the Civil Code $here #ere $illingness to pa% is not

pa%#ent, thus> 1gc>chanrobles.co#.ph

FArt. &')9. /f the creditor to $ho# tender of pa%#ent has been #ade refuses $ithout 1ust cause

to accept it, the debtor shall be released fro# responsibilit% b% the consignation of the thing or

su# due.Fcrala$virtua&a$ librar%

Petitioners also clai# that the% had presented evidence that so#e respondents, particularl% Natividad Ba1aras, Maura Belar#a and Placida Te1ano, are using the pre#ises not onl% as

residences but also stores $hile Alding Acedera is using her residence as a boarding house,

thereb% re#oving said respondents fro# the protective #antle of Presidential 5ecree No. '*.

3inall%, petitioners invo7e the eual protection rights guaranteed b% the Constitution contending

that respondent udges undue application of Presidential 5ecree No. '* in spite of the

undisputed fact that petitioners have no other lot of their o$n and are renting other peoples properties, e:cept Magin ele? +$ho nevertheless $ants to recover his propert% for the use of

one of his children $ho is #arried, constitutes a denial of said constitutional provision.chanrobles la$librar% > red

=hether or not respondent udge acted $ith grave abuse of discretion #ust be resolved in the

affir#ative. /t should be recalled that this is a case of accion publiciana, the purpose of $hich is

being to establish $ho have a better right to possess. +Bernabe, Et. Al. v. udge 5a%rit, Et Al.,!.R. No. )<2((, 4ct. '6, &(<2. There is no allegation of forcible entr% in the co#plaint. Neither

is it a case of unla$ful detainer because the preponderance of evidence sho$s that the occupanc%

of private respondents on the lot in uestion is due to the tolerance of the o$ners thereof and

against the latters $ill. Private respondents ad#it that the% have no $ritten contract of lease$ith the petitioners not $ith petitioners predecessor in interest. 4nl% Marcial Burgos alleged

that he had an oral agree#ent $ith Rodrigo ele?, all others surprisingl% failed to testif% that

the% had such an oral agree#ent of lease. The% li7e$ise ad#it that their houses $ere constructed$ithout building per#its. /n the true sense of the $ord, respondents are suatters. As such, their

possession is b% tolerance. +Pangilinan v. Aguilar, 2 "CRA &29. Although respondents had

been pa%ing no#inal rentals ranging fro# P.** to P&'.** per #onth for so#e ti#e, the% did notthereb% acuire the legal status of tenants. "uatting is unla$ful and no a#ount of acuiescence

converts it into a la$ful act. /llegal constructions constitute public nuisance per se. The% pose

proble#s of health and sanitation. +Cf. Cit% of Manila v. !arcia, Et Al., &( "CRA &2.



Even if the case $ere to be decided as an e1ect#ent case, the insistence of respondents that the%

are lessees and, therefore, under the protective #antle of Presidential 5ecree No. '* loses ground

$hen =e consider the finding of fact that respondents had not been pa%ing an% consideration forthe occupanc% of their respective pre#ises. "aid Presidential 5ecree No. '* suspended e1ect#ent

$hen the lease is for an indefinite period. /t did not suspend e1ect#ent on other grounds li7e lac7

of pa%#ent of the rental stipulated.chanrobles virtual la$librar%

The failure of the o$ners to collect, or their refusal to accept the rentals are not valid defenses.

Article &')9 of the Civil Code provides that Fif the creditor to $ho# tender of pa%#ent has been#ade refuses $ithout 1ust cause to accept it, the debtor shall be released fro# responsibilit% b%

the consignation of the thing or su# due.F crala$virtua&a$ librar%

/ndependentl% of the foregoing, the petitioners need of the pre#ises for their o$n use or for theuse of an% #e#ber of his fa#il% as a residential unit entitles the# to the possession of the lots in

uestion. Batas Pa#bansa Blg. '), $hich too7 effect on April &*, &(6(, provides as additional

ground for 1udicial e1ect#ent the need of the o$nerGlessor to repossess his propert% for his o$n

use or for the use of an% #e#ber of his fa#il% as a residential unit, such o$ner or i##ediate#e#ber not being the o$ner of an% other available residential unit. chanrobles.co#.ph > virtual la$librar%

Even before the effectivit% of Batas Pa#bansa Blg. '), Presidential 5ecree No. '* had been held

to be not $ithout e:ception. /n 4ngchengco v. Cit% Court of Ja#boanga, () "CRA 2&2, this

Court ruled that Fe:tre#e necessit% for personal use of the propert% entitles the o$ner toe:e#ption fro# the operation of P5 '* $hich suspends the provision of Article &962 of the Civil

Code on 1udicial e1ect#ent.F The case of Betts v. Matias, (6 "CRA 2(, reaffir#ed that

FPresidential 5ecree No. '* does not sanction the deprivation of a lessor of residential propert%

in e:tre#e need of the leased pre#ises for his o$n use of his right to ter#inate the lease andrecover possession of his propert%.F Then, in "inclair v. Court of Appeals, &&) "CRA 2&<, this

Court held that Fa strict and rigid co#pliance $ith Presidential 5ecree No. '* is not in order, for

an e:e#ption fro# its provisions is $arranted for hu#anitarian reasons.F Again, in Tan To7 8eev. C3/ of Ialoocan Cit%, &'& "CRA 2<, this Court said that Fpetitioners reliance on the

provision of Presidential 5ecree No. '* is not $ell ta7en. /t could not have been the intention of

the said decree to deprive the o$ner of the rightful use of her ho#e, #ore so, $hen petitionersreneged on their pro#ise to loo7 for another house in the #ista7en belief that P5 '* gave the# a

preferential right over that of the o$ner. To den% the o$ner of the use and possession of her

propert% $ould be tanta#ount to depriving her of her constitutional right to abode.F /n Rantael v.

Court of Appeals, Et Al., (6 "CRA )2, this Court upheld the right of the lessor to 1udiciall%e1ect the lessee on the ground not onl% that Fe:piration of period of $ritten lease contract is

#anifestl% presentF but also because Batas Pa#bansa Blg. ') $hich superseded P.5. '*

Fbuttresses the right of respondent 8lave to 1udiciall% e1ect petitioner Rantael fro# the leased pre#ises.F /n "antos v. Court of Appeals and Paraguas, !.R. No. 8-)*6&, Ma% 2*, &(<2, this

Court held that Fthe retroactive application of Batas Pa#bansa Blg. ') to pending e1ect#ent

cases is alread% a settled #atter and #a% no longer be uestioned. +Ale1andro Melchor, r., etc. v.@on. ose 8. Mor1a, etc., Et Al., !.R. No. 8-2)')9, March &6, &(<2; !utierre? v. Cantada, (*

"CRA &; 4ngchengco v. Cit% Court of Ja#boanga, () "CRA 2&2; Betts v. Matias, (6 "CRA

2(. /t $as also held therein that Fthe right of the private respondents over the propert% $hich

the% o$n in order to use the sa#e as their residence, not being o$ners of an% other d$elling



place, #a% not be denied. "uch right is e:pressl% recogni?ed b% Batas Pa#bansa Blg. ').

Ele#ental sense of 1ustice and fairness dictates that it #ust be so.F chanrobles.co#.ph> virtual la$librar%

=@ERE34RE, the petition for certiorari is granted. The decision of the defunct Court of 3irst

/nstance of Cebu, Branch H///, dis#issing the co#plaint of petitioners, is hereb% REER"E5

and "ET A"/5E. A ne$ 1udg#ent is hereb% entered in favor of petitioners, ordering respondentsto vacate the pre#ises in uestion and to re#ove their respective constructions andGor

i#prove#ents therefro# $ithin si:t% +9* da%s fro# notice.

"4 4R5ERE5.Ono vs. lim

Facts:

1992, Lim filed in RTC Cebu a petition for reconstitution of the

oner!s duplicate cop" of OCT, alle#in# that the same OCT as

lost durin# $orld $ar 2 b" his mother, Luisa. This land as

located in %alamban, Cebu hich as sold to Luisa b" spouses Ono.

&lthou#h the deed evidencin# the sale as lost, the onl"

le#itimate son of Ono had e'ecuted a notari(ed document in favor

of Luisa denominated as confirmation of the sale hich as dul"

filed in )rovincial &ssessor!s Office of Cebu.

*o, +pouses Ono!s successorsininterest opposed Lim!s petition

contendin# that the" had the certificate of title of the land.

Lim then converted the petition into a complaint for -uietin# of

title, averrin# that the" had been in actual possession of the

propert" since 19/, cultivatin# and developin# it, en0o"in# its

fruits and pa"in# ta'es correspondin# to it.

The other part" claimed that the land as never sold to Luisa,

and that the confirmation b" the le#itimate son as fabricated,

the si#nature not bein# authentic.

RTC ruled in favor of Lim. C& affirmed the RTC. The C& ruled that

the action for -uietin# of title as not a collateral, but a

direct attac on the title and that the Lims! undisturbed

possession had #iven them a continuin# ri#ht to see the aid of

the courts to determine the nature of the adverse claim of a

third part" and its effect on their on title.

The petitioners raise the folloin# issues:

$hether or not the validit" of the OCT could be collaterall"

attaced throu#h an ordinar" civil action to -uiet title



$hether or not the onership over re#istered land could be lost

b" prescription, laches, or adverse possession

$hether or not there as a deed of sale e'ecuted b" +pouses Ono

in favor of Luisa and hether or not said deed as lost durin#

$orld $ar 33

$hether or not the confirmation of sale e'ecuted b" &ntonio in

favor of Luisa e'isted and

$hether or not the si#nature purportedl" of &ntonio in that

confirmation of sale as #enuine.

4eld: )etition has no merit.

516 &ction for cancellation of title is not an attac on the

title. The attac is direct hen the ob0ective is to annul or set

aside such 0ud#ment, or en0oin its enforcement. On the other

hand, the attac is indirect or collateral hen, in an action to

obtain a different relief, an attac on the 0ud#ment is

nevertheless made as an incident thereof.

526 )rescription as not relevant. )rescription, in #eneral, is a

mode of ac-uirin# or losin# onership and other real ri#hts

throu#h the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions

laid don b" la. 4oever, prescription as not relevant to the

determination of the dispute herein, considerin# that Lim did not

base his ri#ht of onership on an adverse possession over acertain period. 4e insisted herein, instead, that title to the

land had been voluntaril" transferred b" the re#istered oners

themselves to Luisa, his predecessorininterest.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

"EC4N5 5//"/4N

G.R. No. 14164 u#e <*, 2**6

SPOUSES E&ES"TO a#$ CONSORC"! R!G!S!, Petitioners,

vs.



SPOUSES GER!R&O a#$ RO&R"G! RO! a#$ =e E-OFF"C"O SER"FF OF

9UE0ON C"T%, Respondents.

5 E C / " / 4 N

CORON!, J.:

Edesito and Consorcia Ragasa filed a co#plaint& against private respondents !erardo and

Rodriga Roa and the public respondent e:-officio sheriff of Kue?on Cit% founded on the

follo$ing allegations>

4n Ma% &*, &(<(, plaintiffs Lpetitioners here entered into a contract $ith 4a7land 5evelop#ent

Resources Corporation for the purchase in install#ents of a piece of propert%, $ith

i#prove#ents, located at No. *9, !arnet "t., Prater illage //, 5ili#an, K.C. covered b% TCT

No. '6(9 of the Registr% of 5eeds for Kue?on Cit% and #ore particularl% described in a

photocop% of TCT No. '6(9 L;

/##ediatel% thereafter, plaintiffs too7 possession of the propert% covered b% TCT No. '6(9 of

the Registr% of 5eeds for Kue?on Cit% and resided thereat together $ith their relatives $ho

continued to occup% the sa#e $henever the plaintiffs $ould leave for /tal% $here the% both

$or7ed. @ence, fro# Ma% of &(<( up to the present date, plaintiffs $ere in continuous and

notorious possession of the propert% covered b% TCT No. '6(9 of the Registr% of 5eeds for

Kue?on Cit% to the e:clusion of others and in the concept of an o$ner;

/n March of &((', plaintiffs $ere able to full% pa% for the agreed purchase price of the propert%

covered b% TCT No. '6(9 of the Registr% of 5eeds for Kue?on Cit% and accordingl%, a 5eed of

Absolute "ale dated March &', &((' $as e:ecuted b% and bet$een 4a7land 5evelop#ent

Resources Corporation L and the original o$ners cop% of TCT No. '6(9 of the Registr% of

5eeds for Kue?on Cit% accordingl% turned over to the#;

@o$ever, despite the e:ecution of the 5eed of Absolute "ale, 4a7land 5evelop#ent Resources

Corporation failed to cause the transfer of title to plaintiffs. 4n the part of plaintiffs, all the $hile

the% thought that the 5eed of Absolute "ale and possession of the original of the o$ners cop% of

TCT No. '6(9 of Registr% of 5eeds for Kue?on Cit% $as #ore than sufficient to protect their

rights and interests over the propert%;

"o#eti#e March of &(((, during one of the trips of plaintiff Consorcia Ragasa to the Philippines

fro# /tal%, upon learning that 4a7land 5evelop#ent Resources Corporation $as no longer

functional as a corporate entit%, she decided to cause the transfer of registration of TCT No.

'6(9 of Registr% of 5eeds for Kue?on Cit% herself since the vendor thereof $as apparentl% in

no position to underta7e the sa#e;

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_141964_2006.html#fnt1




"he $as thus surprised to learn fro# the Registr% of 5eeds for Kue?on Cit% that on April &,

&((), the propert% in uestion $as sold b% defendant E:-4fficio "heriff of Kue?on Cit% La

respondent here to defendants "ps. Roa Lrespondents here as the highest bidder for the price

and consideration of P)&&,***.** as sho$n in the "heriffs 3inal 5eed of "ale L.

::: ::: :::

The lev% on attach#ent and the e:ecution sale underta7en b% the E:-4fficio "heriffs 4ffice of

Kue?on Cit% is clearl% illegal there being no notice given b% said individual to the occupants of

the propert% in uestion.

3urther#ore, a casual perusal of the "heriffs 5eed of "ale $ill reveal that the e:ecution price of

P)&&,***.** is grossl% inadeuate to pa% for real properties listed therein $ith fair #ar7et values

conservativel% esti#ated at P2,***,***.**

The case $as raffled to Branch ''*' of the Kue?on Cit% Regional Trial Court +RTC and $as

doc7eted as Civil Case No. K-((-26(*<.

/nstead of filing an ans$er, private respondents #oved for the dis#issal of the co#plaint on the

grounds of prescription and laches. /n an order 2 dated 3ebruar% 2, '***, the RTC granted the

#otion. Characteri?ing the suit as an action Fupon an in1ur% to the rights of the plaintiffF $hich,

according to Article &&9 of the Civil Code, #ust be filed $ithin four %ears, the RTC held that

petitioners action $as barred b% prescription for having been filed #ore than four %ears after the

registration of the e:ecution sale.

"ee7ing a reversal of the trial courts order dis#issing their co#plaint, petitioners proceeded

forth$ith to this Court $ith the present petition for revie$ on certiorari) raising onl% a pure

uestion of la$.9

=e grant the petition.

The trial courts order of dis#issal $as predicated on the theor% that the suit petitioners

co##enced $as an Faction upon an in1ur% to their rightsF conte#plated in Article &&9 of the

Civil Code. That pre#ise $as erroneous. A reading of the allegations in petitioners co#plaint

reveals that the action $as essentiall% one for uieting of title to real propert% under Article 69

of the Civil Code $hich states>

=henever there is a cloud on title to real propert% or an% interest therein, b% reason of an%

instru#ent, record, clai#, encu#brance or proceeding $hich is apparentl% valid or effective but

is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and #a% be pre1udicial to

said title, an action #a% be brought to re#ove such cloud or to uiet the title.















An action #a% also be brought to prevent a cloud being cast upon title to real propert% or an%

interest therein.

To #a7e out an action to uiet title under the foregoing provision, the initiator% pleading has

onl% to set forth allegations sho$ing that +& the plaintiff has Ftitle to real propert% or an% interest

thereinF6 and +' the defendant clai#s an interest therein adverse to the plaintiffs arising fro# an

Finstru#ent, record, clai#, encu#brance, or proceeding $hich is apparentl% valid or effective but

is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable.F< Thus, the aver#ents in

petitioners co#plaint that +& the% acuired o$nership of a piece of land b% tradition or deliver%

as a conseuence of sale and +' private respondents subseuentl% purchased the sa#e piece of

land at an allegedl% void e:ecution sale $ere sufficient to #a7e out an action to uiet title under

Article 69.

This being the case, Article &&9 +$hich refers to actions Fupon an in1ur% to the rights of the

plaintiffF and Fupon a uasi-delictF( did not appl%. Rather, considering petitioners allegation in

their co#plaint that Ffro# Ma% of &(<( up to the present date, plaintiffs Lhad been in continuous

and notorious possession of the propert%to the e:clusion of others and in the concept of

o$nerLsF&* O an assertion private respondents never bothered to dispute O our ruling in Sapto

". #a$iana&& should appl%>

L/t is an established rule of A#erican 1urisprudence +#ade applicable in this 1urisdiction b% Art.

<* of the Ne$ Civil Code&' that actions to uiet title to propert% in the possession of the

plaintiff are i#prescriptible.

FThe prevailing rule is that the right of a plaintiff to have his title to land uieted, as against one$ho is asserting so#e adverse clai# or lien thereon, is not barred $hile the plaintiff or his

grantors re#ain in actual possession of the land, clai#ing to be o$ners thereof, the reason for

this rule being that $hile the o$ner in fee continues liable to an action, proceeding, or suit upon

the adverse clai#, he has a continuing right to the aid of a court of euit% to ascertain and

deter#ine the nature of such clai# and its effect on his title, or to assert an% superior euit% in

his favor. @e #a% $ait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attac7ed before ta7ing steps

to vindicate his right. But the rule that the statute of li#itations is not available as a defense to an

action to re#ove a cloud fro# title can onl% be invo7ed b% a co#plainLant $hen he is in

possession. 4ne $ho clai#s propert% $hich is in the possession of another #ust, it see#s,

invo7e his re#ed% $ithin the statutor% period.F +citations o#itted&2

Accordingl%, petitioners action $as not sub1ect to prescription.

>EREFORE, the petition is GR!NTE&. The 3ebruar% 2, '*** order of the Regional Trial

Court, Branch ''*, Kue?on Cit% dis#issing petitioners co#plaint is hereb% RE(ERSE& and

SET !S"&E. 8et this case be REM!N&E& to the court a %uo for further proceedings.


















SO OR&ERE&.


SUPREME COURTManila

3/R"T 5//"/4N

G.R. No. L-46345 January 30, 1990

RESTITUTO CENIZA an JESUS CENIZA, petitioners,

vs.

T!E !ON. COURT O" A##EALS, $AGNO %A&ON, 'ICENTA %A&ON, TERESITA

%A&ON, EUGENIA %A&ON, an TO$AS %A&ON, respondents.

Vicente P. Valera and Pedro Rosito & Jesus F. Balicanta for petitioners.

Victorino U. Montecillo for respondents.

GRINO-A(UINO, J.:

This is a petition for review of the order dated October 29, 1976, of the Court of Appeals in CA-.!. "o. #$%#6 entitled, &Restituto Ceniza, et

al. vs. Magno Daon, et al.,& dis'issin( the petitioners) co'plaint for reconve*ance of their shares in co-ownership propert* and reversin(the decision of the trial court in their favor.

On +une 1#, 1967, the petitioners filed a(ainst private respondents, an action in the Court of irst nstance of Cebu for recover* of their title

to ots "os. 627-/ and 627-C 0bein( portions of ot "o. 627 with an area of approi'atel* %,36 s4uare 'eters5 situated in Casuntin(an,

andaue, Cebu 0now andaue Cit*5, which ori(inall* for'ed part of &acienda de andaue& of the 8e'inario de 8an Carlos de Cebu. The

ropert* is covered b* reconstituted Ori(inal Certif icate of Title "o. !O-13996 issued on ebruar* $, 199 0for'erl* :ecree "o. 69##$

issued on ebruar* 27, 19#5 in the na'e of &;icente :abon 'arried to arcela <or arcelina= Ceni>a.& 0pp. 7 and 19, !ecord on Appeal5.

etitioners are the descendants of anuel Ceni>a while the private respondents are the descendants of his sister, 8ofia Ceni>a. 8ofia

Ceni>a was childless but she had an adopted dau(hter na'ed laviana Ceni>a, who be(ot a dau(hter na'ed arced Ceni>a and who in

turn had a dau(hter na'ed arcelina 0or arcela5 Ceni>a who 'arried ;icente :abon. rivate respondents are the children of this 'arria(e

and the* are the (reat-(reat-(randchildren of 8ofia Ceni>a.

On the other hand, anuel Ceni>a had an onl* son, ablo, who had two sons, 8antia(o and +ose Ceni>a. etitioners !estituto and +esusCeni>a and a certain "e'esia Ceni>a-Albina are their children and the (reat-(randchildren of anuel Ceni>a.

The records disclose that when acienda de andaue was subdivided for resale to the occupants in 1929, +ose Ceni>a and ;icente :abon,

who were residin( in the hacienda, ?ointl* purchased ot 627 on install'ent basis and the* a(reed, for convenience, to have the land

re(istered in the na'e of :abon. 8ince then, +ose Ceni>a, ;icente :abon, and their heirs have possessed their respective portions of the

land, declared the sa'e for taation, paid real estate taes on their respective shares, and 'ade their respective install'ent pa*'ents to the

8e'inario de 8an Carlos de Cebu.



After :abon died in 19%#, his seven 075 children, na'ed a(no, +acinta, To'as, laviana, 8oledad, Teresita and @u(enia, succeeded to his

possession of a portion of the land.

On "ove'ber #, 1961, a private land surve*or, @spiritu /una(an, on the re4uest of +acinta :abon and !estituto Ceni>a who ?ointl* defra*ed

the cost, divided ot 627 into three parts, na'el*

015 ot "o. 627-A with ,%$ s4uare 'eters for arcela Ceni>aB

025 ot "o. 627-/ with $$# s4uare 'eters for !estituto Ceni>aB and

05 ot "o. 627-C with $# s4uare 'eters for "e'esia Ceni>a-Albina, who later be4ueathed her share to her brother,

+esus Ceni>a. 0p. 19, !ecord on Appeal5.

The present controvers* arose because the private respondents refused to conve* ots "os. 627-/ and 627-C to the petitioners. The*

clai'ed that their predecessor-in-interest, ;icente :abon, was the sole and eclusive owner of ot 627, b* purchase fro' the 8e'inario de

8an Carlos de Cebu. n their answer to the petitioners) co'plaint for reconve*ance in +une 1967, the* alle(ed that the petitioners) ri(ht of

action had alread* prescribed.

etitioners replied that ;icente :abon held the land in trust for the', as co-owners, hence, their action for reconve*ance was i'prescriptible.

On Au(ust 1, 1973, the trial court rendered ?ud('ent for the petitioners. indin( that there eisted a co-ownership a'on( the parties, itordered the private respondents to eecute deeds of conve*ance of ots "os. 627-/ and 627-C in favor of the plainti ffs, !estituto and +esus

Ceni>a, respectivel* 0p. %, !ecord on Appeal5.

On appeal b* the defendants 0now private respondents5 the Court of Appeals on October 29, 1976, reversed that decision of the trial court. t

ruled that the petitioners) ri(ht of action had prescribed after the lapse of 23 *ears fro' the date of re(istration of the land on ebruar* $,

199 in ;icente :abon)s na'e 0p. 2, !ollo5.

The petitioners have appealed to this Court b* a petition for review under !ule #% of the !ules of Court.

The le(al issue presented b* the petition is whether the re(istration of the title of the land in the na'e of one of the co-owner, constituted a

repudiation of the co-ownership for purposes of ac4uisitive prescription.

e find 'erit in the petition for review.

The trial court correctl* ruled that since a trust relation and co-ownership were proven to eist between the predecessors- in-interest of both

petitioners and private respondents, prescription did not run in favor of :abon)s heirs ecept fro' the ti'e that the* repudiated the co-

ownership and 'ade the repudiation Dnown to the other co-owners, !estituto and +esus Ceni>a 0Cortes vs. Oliva, hil. #$35.

ara(raph % of Article #9# of the Civil Code provides-

"o prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir a(ainst his co-owners or co-heirs so lon( as he epressl* or

i'pliedl* reco(ni>es the co-ownership.

The re(istration of ot "o. 627 in the na'e of ;icente :abon created a trust in favor of his co-owner +ose Ceni>a, and the latter)s heirs.

Article 1#%2 of the Civil Code states

f two or 'ore persons a(ree to purchase propert* and co''on consent the le(al title is taDen in the na'e of one ofthe' for the benefit of all, a trust is created b* force of law in favor of the others in proportion to the interest of each.

This Court has ruled in nu'erous cases involvin( fiduciar* relations that, as a (eneral rule, the trustee)s possession is not adverse and

therefore cannot ripen into a tit le b* prescription. Adverse possession re4uires the concurrence of the followin( circu'stances

a5 that the trustee has perfor'ed une4uivocal acts of repudiation a'ountin( to the ouster of the cestui !ue trust B

b5 that such positive acts of repudiation have been 'ade Dnown to the cestui !ue trust B and



c5 that the evidence thereon should be clear and conclusive.

The above ele'ents are not present here for the petitionersE co-owners have not been ousted fro' the land. The* continue to possess their

respective shares of ot 627 and the* have been pa*in( the realt* taes thereon. !estituto)s house stands on his portion of the and.

Assu'in( that the private respondents) re?ection of the subdivision plan for the partition of the land was an act of repudiation of the co-

ownership, prescription had not *et set in when the petitioners instituted the present action for reconve*ance. These circu'stances were

overlooDed b* the Court of Appeals.

n Custodio v. Casiano 9 8C!A $#1, we ruled that

here title to land was issued in the na'e of a co-heir 'erel* with the understandin( that he would act as a trustee of

his sisters, and there is no evidence t"at t"is trust relation "ad ever een repudiated # said trustee , it is held that a

reaction of co-ownership eisted between such trustee and his sisters and the ri(ht of the successors-in-interest of said

sisters to brin( the present action for recover* of their shares therein a(ainst the successors-in-interest of said trustee

cannot barred b* prescription, despite the, lapse of 2% *ears fro' the date of re(istration of the land in the trustee)s

na'e. 0@'phasis supplied.5

n $scoar v. %ocsin, 7# hil. $6, we affir'ed the dut* of the courts to shield fiduciar* relations &a(ainst ever* 'anner of chicaner* or

detestable desi(n cloaDed b* le(al technicalities& and to (uard a(ainst 'isuse of the Torrens s*ste' &to fo'ent betra*al in the perfor'ance

of a trust.&

n this case, since the statutor* period of li'itation within which to file an action for reconve*ance, after the defendants had repudiated theco-ownership in 1961, had not *et run i ts course when the petitioners filed said action in 1967, the action was not barred b* prescription.

@!@O!@. the decision of the Court of appeals is hereb* !@;@!8@: A": 8@T A8:@ and the decision dated Au(ust 1, 1973 of the

then Court of irst nstance of Cebu, /ranch ;, in Civil Case "o. !-1333 is reinstated. Costs a(ainst the private respondents.

8O O!:@!@:.

3/R"T 5//"/4N

L!.R. No. &'<)69. August &2, '**'

MAR/AN4 A. E8EJ, "R. +deceased, ATT. PR4 M. E8EJ, ATT. A8EAN5R4 M.

E8EJ, EN!R. P8TARC4 M. E8EJ and "ARA@ 5A. 5E E8EJ +for herself and her

children b% the late @4MER M. E8EJ, na#el% PATR/C/A, @A5EE, @4MER, R., RB,3E A8 and @ANA@, all surna#ed E8EJ, petitioners& "s. RE. 3RANC/"C4 5EMETR/4

+deceased, CE8ER/NA 5EMETR/4 3/ANJA, TARC/84 5EMETR/4, 8E/TA

3ERNAN5EJ 5EMETR/4 AN +for herself and her children, AN!E8A, A85E@EJA

RA5AJA, 3E8EC/T4 RA5AJA and 4"E RA5AJA, R., respondents.

5 E C / " / 4 N

NARE"-"ANT/A!4, J .>

This is a petition for revie$ of decision of the Court of Appeals dated March '', &((9 in CA-

!.R. C No. 2*2<&, reversing and setting aside the decision of the then Court of 3irst instance

of Caga%an de 4ro Cit%, Branch &6.



The spouses 3eli: Rada?a and Estefania Abrogar $ere the o$ners of a ten-hectare agricultural

land situated in Puntod, Macasandig, Caga%an de 4ro Cit%. pon their death, o$nership of the

land passed b% intestate succession to their surviving children na#el% - Ra#ona, "evero,3ilo#eno and acoba, - and grandchildren b% their son, ose, "r. na#el% - icente, 3elicito,

Rosario and ose, r. 4n March &', &(2<, the land $as registered under 4riginal Certificate of

Title No. 696<i

L& in the na#es of> "evero Rada?a, 1'( share; 3ilo#eno Rada?a, 1'( share; acobaRada?a, 1'( share; Ra#ona Rada?a, 1'( share; icente Rada?a, &G'* share; 3elicito Rada?a, &G'*

share; Rosario Rada?a, &G'* share; and ose Rada?a, r., &G'* share.

4n April &, &(6), respondents, the surviving children of Ra#ona Rada?a-5e#etrio and ose

Rada?a, "r., instituted a co#plaint for Partition of Real Estate $ith 5a#ages against petitioners,the heirs of the late Mariano ele?, "r., doc7eted as Civil Case No. 9<9 of the Court of 3irst

/nstance of Caga%an de 4ro Cit%, Branch &6. The% alleged that so#eti#e in &(6, the%

discovered that the propert% had been clai#ed and fenced in b% Mariano ele?, "r., and that the%$ere denied entr% thereto. 5ue to financial reasons, it too7 the# several %ears before instituting

the co#plaint. /n the #eanti#e, the% tried earnestl% to recover o$nership and possession of the

land through e:tra-legal #eans.

ii

L'

4n the other hand, petitioners averred that the propert% had been partitioned a#ong the heirs of3eli: Rada?a and Estefania Abrogar; that Mariano ele?, "r. purchased the shares of "evero

Rada?a and acoba Rada?a in &(29; that on Ma% 2*, &(6, 3ilo#eno sold his share as $ell as

Ra#onas share to Mariano ele?, "r.; that the share of ose $as li7e$ise sold to Mariano ele?,"r. b% his $ife Ciriaca Bacarro Rada?a; and that since his acuisition of the propert%, Mariano

ele?, "r., b% hi#self and through his heirs, has been in open, notorious, public and

uninterrupted possession of the sa#e in the concept of o$ners, and have e:ercised full% the

attributes of its o$nership.iiiL2

After trial, the court a %uo rendered 1udg#ent as follo$s>

=@ERE34RE, for all the foregoing considerations, 1udg#ent is hereb% rendered in favor of the

defendants and against the plaintiffs and the Court hereb%>

&.4rders the dis#issal of the co#plaint filed b% the plaintiffs;

'. 5eclares the defendants as the absolute o$ners of the propert% in litigation;

2. 5eclares the plaintiffs never again to #olest nor disturb the defendants in their la$ful, peaceful and rightful o$nership, possession and en1o%#ent of the propert% in litigation;

. 4n the counterclai#, orders the plaintiffs, 1ointl% and severall%, to pa% the defendants the

a#ount of P'*,***.** as #oral da#ages and P),***.** as attorne%s fee; and

). 4rders the plaintiffs to pa% the costs.

"4 4R5ERE5.ivL



Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, $hich reversed and set aside the lo$er courts

decision, to $it>

=@ERE34RE, the 1udg#ent appealed fro# is hereb% REER"E5 and "ET A"/5E, and a ne$one entered directing the partition of the propert% covered b% 4CT No. 696< in the portion of 'G)

to the plaintiffs-appellants and )'( to the defendants-appellees. Costs against the appellees.v

L)

The #otion for reconsideration filed b% petitioner $as denied b% the appellate court. viL9

@ence, the instant petition for revie$.

The issues raised b% petitioners are> $hether the shares of Ra#ona Rada?a and ose Rada?a $eresold to Mariano ele?, "r. and $hether respondents are guilt% of laches.

As regards the first issue, the findings of facts b% the trial court conflict $ith those of the Court

of Appeals. The trial court $as #orall% convinced that the shares of Ra#ona Rada?a and ose

Rada?a, "r. $ere sold to Mariano ele?, "r. on t$o different transactions and occasions. 4n theother hand, the Court of Appeals held that the alleged sale #ade b% Ra#ona Rada?a to 3ilo#eno

of her 1'( share and the subseuent sale #ade b% 3ilo#eno to Mariano ele?, "r. of his share and

that of Ra#onas and the sale #ade b% Ciriaca Rada?a to Mariano ele? of the shares of the heirsof ose Rada?a, "r., $ere of no force and effectvii

L6 for there $as no evidence presented in

support thereof. The testi#onies offered b% petitioners to establish the alleged transactions $ere

pure hearsa%.

To prove the alleged sale of Ra#onas share to 3ilo#eno, petitioners capitali?ed on the affidavitand testi#on% of 3rancisco, $ho stated that in the #iddle &(2*s, Ra#ona sold her share to his

father, 3ilo#eno, $ho paid Ra#ona three co$s in consideration thereof; and that since then the%

had been in e:clusive possession of the said propert% up to the ti#e the sa#e $as sold toMariano ele?, "r. b% his father. 4n the $itness stand, 3rancisco testified that he returned to thedisputed land so#eti#e in &(29 and that his father built a house inside the lot.viii

L< @o$ever, the

Court of Appeals ruled that it is i#probable that he $itnessed or could have had personal

7no$ledge of the alleged sale because he started residing on the land in uestion fro# &(2* up to&(2) and that for three %ears thereafter, or up to 3ebruar% '<, &(2<, he $as enlisted in the

Philippine Constabular% at Ca#p Iethl% in 8anao. "uch facts do not directl% and convincingl%

establish the alleged sale of the portion of Ra#ona Rada?a to 3ilo#eno Rada?a, hence, the sa#ecannot be logicall% inferred.

As regards the shares of ose Rada?a, "r.s children $hich $ere allegedl% sold b% their #other,

the Court of Appeals found nothing in the record to indicate that Ciriaca $as authori?ed b%icente, 3elicito, Rosario and ose, r. to #a7e the alleged sale to Mariano ele?, "r. Petitionersinsist that Ciriaca sold her childrens shares but the pertinent docu#ents $ere lost during the $ar.

To prove this alleged sale, petitioners again invo7e 3rancisco Rada?as state#ent that the $ife

and heirs of ose Rada?a, "r. sold their respective shares to the spouses Mariano ele?, "r. andPatricia Mercado. @o$ever, the Court of Appeals observed that even 3elicito, the son of Ciriaca,

had no 7no$ledge of the sale. =ith #ore reason, 3rancisco Rada?a, $ho is a stranger to such

alleged sale, cannot have an% basis in #a7ing this state#ent.



Another piece of evidence petitioners offered to prove the alleged sale $as the testi#on% of

/sabelo Tabian, a for#er tenant of Ciriaca Rada?a, $ho testified that Ciriaca told hi#, Beloy * am

going to ta+e the land from you $ecause there is difficulty in coming o"er this place and * amafraid * might get drown,ed. * might as well sell the land to toy ,Mariano /ele0& Sr.. Tabian

further testified that he delivered the land to Ciriaca. Thereafter, "ario Eche#, a tenant of

Mariano ele?, "r., approached hi# as7ing for help in plo$ing the land $hich he $as for#erl%cultivating.i:L( =hile the Court of Appeals did not suarel% rule on the $eight of Tabians

testi#on%, the sa#e $as li7e$ise hearsa% and cannot serve as proof of the alleged sale.

Anent the second issue, the principle of laches finds no application in this case.

aches is the failure of or neglect for an unreasonable and une:plained length of ti#e to do that$hich b% e:ercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, or to assert a right

$ithin reasonable ti#e, $arranting a presu#ption that the part% entitled thereto has either

abandoned it or declined to assert it.:L&*

3unda#entall%, laches is an euitable doctrine, its application is controlled b% euitableconsiderations.:iL&& Conco#itantl%, it is a better rule that courts, under the principle of euit%,

$ill not be guided or bound strictl% b% the statute of li#itations or the doctrine of laches $hen to

do so, #anifest $rong or in1ustice $ould result.:iiL&'

Petitioners invo7e laches against the respondents for their failure to protest their occupation ofthe sub1ect land since &(6. The% allege that respondents slept on their rights because it too7

the# t$ent% eight +'< %ears before the% instituted this case.

The Court of Appeals held that laches could not have set in because the specific act of

repudiation of the co-o$nership $as #ade onl% on March '6, &(6, $hen petitioners registered

the affidavit of adverse clai# e:ecuted b% Mariano ele? and had the sa#e annotated onrespondents title $ith respect to the )'( portion of the land. /t held that onl% then did the period

of prescription start to run. @o$ever, since this case $as filed on April &, &(6) and onl% for a)'( portion thereof, then no prescription can be counted in favor of petitioners for the re#aining

2'(. 3iiiL&2

=e agree $ith the Court of Appeals.

The land involved $as registered under the Torrens s%ste# in the na#e of respondents and their

predecessor-in-interest in &(2<. The evidence sho$s that onl% 2G) of the land $as sold toMariano ele?, "r. and the 'G) thereof re#ains in the na#e of respondents. The land being

undivided, onl% the rights of the co-o$ners $ere transferred, thereb% #a7ing the bu%er anotherco-o$ner of the propert%. /t is note$orth% that petitioners did not transfer the title of the land intheir na#e. /nstead, the% #erel% annotated their clai# over the 2G) portion of the land. This leads

to no other conclusion but a tacit recognition that o$nership over the 2'( share of the land does

not belong to the#. Article ( of the Civil Code provides that prescription does not run againsta co-o$ner so long as he e:pressl% or i#pliedl% recogni?es the co-o$nership.



Moreover, laches #a% not prevail against specific provision of la$, since euit%, $hich has been

defined as 1ustice outside legalit% is applied in the absence of and not against statutor% la$ or

rules of procedure.:ivL& nder the Propert% Registration 5ecree, no title to registered land in

derogation to that of the registered o$ner shall be acuired b% prescription or adverse

possession.:vL&) /t is $ell-settled that prescription and laches can not appl% to registered land

covered b% the Torrens s%ste#.:vi

L&9 Appl%ing the above principles, respondents being theregistered o$ner of the land can rest secure, $ithout the necessit% of $aiting in the portals of the

court, or sitting in the mirador de su casa& to avoid the possibilit% of losing his land.:viiL&6

>EREFORE, in vie$ of the foregoing, the petition is 5EN/E5. The decision of the Court of

Appeals dated March '', &((9 in CA-!.R. C No. 2*2<& is A33/RME5.

"4 4R5ERE5.

epublic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

"EC4N5 5//"/4N

G.R. No. 1564*2 February 1<, 2**6

SPS. !LFRE&O MEN&O0! a#$ ROS!R"O F. MEN&O0!, Petitioners,

vs.

M!R"! CORONEL, re?ree#=e$ by U!N"TO CORONEL, Respondent.

5 E C / " / 4 N

PUNO, J.:

4n appeal are the Court of Appeals +CAs Ma% 2*, '**' 5ecision& in CA-!.R. "P No. 96&)6

and Nove#ber &', '**' Resolution,' reversing the "epte#ber &6, '**& 5ecision2 of the

Regional Trial Court +RTC of Malolos, Bulacan in Civil Case No. )<-M-'**&. The RTC of

Malolos ruled that the Municipal Trial Court +MTC of @agono%, Bulacan, before $hich

respondent filed the e1ect#ent case against petitioners, had no 1urisdiction to decide the case for

failure of respondent to i#plead her co-o$ners of the disputed propert%, the latter being

indispensable parties to the e1ect#ent suit.

The facts are as follo$s>

Respondent Maria Coronel is one of the co-o$ners of 8ots 2')* and 2')& located at "agrada

3a#ilia, @agono%, Bulacan. Petitioners, spouses Alfredo and Rosario Mendo?a, occupied said

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_156402_2006.html#fnt1









lots upon tolerance of respondent and her co-o$ners $ithout pa%ing an% rent. =hen respondent

de#anded that petitioners vacate the pre#ises, the latter refused. Thus, on 5ece#ber '6, '***,

respondent filed a case before the MTC of @agono%, Bulacan for unla$ful detainer against

petitioners. The MTC ruled in favor of respondent, ordering petitioners to vacate the disputed

lots. The dispositive portion of its Ma% '(, '**& 5ecision reads as follo$s>

=@ERE34RE, pre#ises considered, 1udg#ent is hereb% rendered ordering the defendants and

all those clai#ing rights under the#>

+& to vacate the sub1ect pre#ises +lots 2')* and 2')& and to surrender possession of the

sa#e to plaintiffL;

+' to pa% plaintiff attorne%s fees and litigation e:penses in the a#ount of P&*,***.**

and to pa% a #onthl% rental of P)** fro# receipt of this decision until the% shall have

vacated the sub1ect pre#ises; and

+2 to pa% the costs of suit.

"4 4R5ERE5.

Petitioners appealed to the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan $hich ruled in their favor. /t annulled and

set aside the appealed decision for $ant of 1urisdiction of the MTC. /t held that the co-o$ners of

the sub1ect lot should have been i#pleaded as indispensable parties.

4n appeal to the CA, respondent $as successful as the appellate court reversed and set aside the

ruling of the RTC and revived the decision of the MTC dated Ma% '(, '**&. Petitioners Motion

for Reconsideration $as denied.

@ence, this appeal.)

Petitioners assign the follo$ing errors>

/. The lo$er court erred in ruling that a co-o$ner can bring an action in e1ect#ent $ithout

i#pleading his co-o$ners, rel%ing on an FErrata for pages 2<-2( of olu#e '<* "CRA,F

$hich appears to alter the original tenor of the ruling in Arcelona vs. CA that co-o$ners

are indispensable parties.

//. The lo$er court erred in not ta7ing into account that the co#plaint $as filed b% an

attorne%-in-fact authori?ed b% onl% one of the co-o$ners to file the e1ect#ent suit.







///. The lo$er court erred in allo$ing the petition for revie$ despite the fact that the

certification against foru#-shopping $as e:ecuted b% an attorne%-in-fact, in violation of

the reuire#ent that parties #ust personall% sign the sa#e.

The #ain issue in the case at bar is $hether an% of the co-o$ners #a% bring an action in

e1ect#ent.

The CA is correct in overruling the RTC. The latter court held that in !reo#a . Cour= o:

!??ea,9 $e held that a co-o$ner cannot #aintain an action in e1ect#ent $ithout 1oining all the

other co-o$ners, the latter being indispensable parties.

/n reversing the ruling of the RTC, the CA pointed out that the RTC relied on the uncorrected

!reo#a decision. The RTC overloo7ed the fact that the decision has been corrected b% an

FERRATA for pages 2<-2(F appearing on the second leaf of volu#e '<* of the "CRA. Thus, the

CA held>

3or#erl%, Article <6 of the old Civil Code provided that Fan% one of the co-o$ners #a% bring

an action in e1ect#ent.F /t $as subseuentl% held that a co-o$ner could not #aintain an action in

e1ect#ent $ithout 1oining all the other co-o$ners.

The foregoing state#ent $as deleted and replaced $ith the follo$ing>

/n the past, a co-o$ner could not even #aintain an action in e1ect#ent $ithout 1oining all the

other co-o$ners. . .

=hile Article <6 of the Civil Code no$ provides that Fan% one of the co-o$ners #a% bring an

action in e1ect#ent,F for#er Chief ustice Moran also stressed that all of the# are necessar% and

proper parties . . .

=e reiterate the !reo#a ruling that the controlling la$ is Article <6 of the Civil Code $hich

categoricall% states>

An% one of the co-o$ners #a% bring an action in e1ect#ent. +n

Article <6 is a departure fro# the rule laid do$n in the case of Paara . au336 $hich held

that an action for e1ect#ent #ust be brought b% all the co-o$ners. As e:plained b% Tolentino, the

la$ no$ allo$s a co-o$ner to bring an action for e1ect#ent, $hich covers all 7inds of actions for

the recover% of possession, including forcible entr% and unla$ful detainer, $ithout the necessit%

of 1oining all the other co-o$ners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is dee#ed to be instituted for

the benefit of all.<









=e also re1ect petitioners second and third assign#ent of errors. Petitioners clai# that uanito

Coronel, attorne%-in-fact of Maria Coronel, one of the co-o$ners of the lots in dispute is not

authori?ed to file the e1ect#ent suit. The% insist that he should have obtained the authorit% and

consent of all the co-o$ners. But since Article <6 of the Civil Code authori?es an% one of the

co-o$ners to bring an action for e1ect#ent and the suit is dee#ed to be instituted for the benefit

of all, $ithout the other co-o$ners actuall% giving consent to the suit, it follo$s that an attorne%-

in-fact of the plaintiff co-o$ner does not need authorit% fro# all the co-o$ners. @e needs

authorit% onl% fro# the co-o$ner instituting the e1ect#ent suit.

=e li7e$ise hold that the e:ecution of the certification against foru# shopping b% the attorne%-

in-fact in the case at bar is not a violation of the reuire#ent that the parties #ust personall% sign

the sa#e. The attorne%-in-fact, $ho has authorit% to file, and $ho actuall% filed the co#plaint as

the representative of the plaintiff co-o$ner, pursuant to a "pecial Po$er of Attorne%, is a part% to

the e1ect#ent suit. /n fact, "ection &, Rule 6* of the Rules of Court( includes the representative

of the o$ner in an e1ect#ent suit as one of the parties authori?ed to institute the proceedings.

/N /E= =@ERE43, petitioners appeal is &EN"E&. The Court of Appeals Ma% 2*, '**'

5ecision in CA-!.R. "P No. 96&)6 and Nove#ber &', '**' Resolution, reversing the "epte#ber

&6, '**& 5ecision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan in Civil Case No. )<-M-

'**& and reviving the Ma% '(, '**& 5ecision of the Municipal Trial Court of @agono%, Bulacan

in Civil Case No. &2*<, are A33/RME5.

SO OR&ERE&.





i

ii

iii

iv

v

vi

vii

viii

ix

x

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

xvii

property case digest

Documents