ruling cases property

7/25/2019 Ruling Cases Property

1/24

RULING:

As ofcially constituted, the Third Civil Cases Division was comosed o! "ustice #$%$de la &uente, as Chairman, "ustices "or'e Co(uia, )ariano *osa, and &lores #artolome, as)em+ers$ In view, however, o! the voluntary inhi+ition o! "ustices Co(uia and #artolome!rom tain' art in the case, "ustices #idin and Camilon were reassi'ned to the Third Civil

Cases Division to !orm the %ecial Third Civil Cases Division$-etitioners ar'ue that the so.called %ecial Third Civil Cases Division, not +ein' one o! theten /012 Divisions o! the Court duly vested with 3urisdiction, had no ad3udicatory owers$ It isalso alle'ed that the reassi'nment o! "ustices #idin and Camilon is violative o! the in3unctiona'ainst aointment o! an aellate "ustice to a class o! divisions other than that to whichhe is aointed$ /-etition, $ 40.45$2

This contention has no merit$ A readin' o! the law will readily show that what #- 046rohi+its is aointment !rom one class o! divisions to another class$ &or instance, a "usticeaointed to the Criminal Cases Divisions cannot +e assi'ned to the Civil Cases Divisions$

"ustice #idin was reassi'ned !rom the &ourth Civil Cases Division, while "ustice Camilon wasreassi'ned !rom the %econd Civil Cases Division$ The two there!ore come !rom the same

class o! divisions to which they were aointed$

Thus, the reassi'nment o! "ustices #idin and Camilon to !orm the %ecial Third Civil CasesDivision in view o! the voluntary inhi+ition o! two /42 7re'ular7 mem+ers, is still within le'al+ounds$ 8therwise, a situation would have arisen where a re'ular division could not decide aarticular case +ecause some mem+ers thereo! inhi+ited themselves !rom articiatin' insaid case$

4$ The second assi'ned error involves a determination o! the correctness o! the rulin' o! theIAC that the CA Decision o! Decem+er 46, 0694 could not have 'ained the nature o! a roerand valid 3ud'ment /since aeal and not certiorari was the roer remedy2 and that theResolution o! "uly 4, 069; had in e


2/24

cate'ory +elon' cases in which only errors or (uestions o! law are involved$ @ach o! thesemodes have di


3/24

"urisdiction over land re'istration cases, as in ordinary actions, is ac(uired uon the ?lin' incourt o! the alication !or re'istration, and is retained u to the end o! the liti'ation$ Theissuance o! a decree o! re'istration is +ut a ste in the entire land re'istration rocessH andas such, does not constitute a searate roceedin'$

In the case at +ar, it aears that it was @stanislao )ayu'a, !ather o! Dominador )ayu'a,

redecessor.in.interest o! Realty, who ori'inally ?led on "une 4=, 064 a re'istrationroceedin' doceted as LRC Case No$ 5, GLR8 Record No$ N.46994 in the Court o! &irstInstance o! Rial to con?rm his title over arcels o! land descri+ed as Lots 0, 4 and ;, -lan-su.=1;$ /Lots 4 and ; the su+3ect o! the instant liti'ation amon' Caro, RRealty andFCD&C$2 Case No$ 5 was 3ointly tried with two other cases, LRC Case No$ 65, GLR8Record No$ =;05 ?led +y @duardo Guico and LRC Case No$ 9, GLR8 Record No$ ;;40?led +y &lorentino #altaar, as the three cases involved Identical arcels o! land, andIdentical alicantsoositors$

8n Au'ust 06, 06; the C&I.Rial actin' as a land re'istration court issued a consolidateddecision on the three cases, the disositive ortion o! which reads:

@n meritos de to do lo euesto, se ordena el re'istro de los lotes, 0, 4 y ; del lans -%U.

=1; a nom+re de @stanislao )ayu'a, desist oosicion de &lorentino #altaar y @duardoGuico con resects a dichos lotes$$$$

8n aeal, the a+ove decision o! the C&I was afrmed +y the Court o! Aeals in its decisiondated Novem+er 0, 06;6$ the disositive ortion o! which reads:

-or todas last consideraciones euestas con?rmamos la decision aelada en cuantoad3udica a @stanislao )ayu'a los lotes, 0, 4 y ; de such iano y (ue e(uivalent a lost lotes,=, y 5 del lano de #altaar y = y del lans de Guico$

Guico ?led a etition !or review on certiorari +e!ore this Court, +ut the etition wasdismissed and the Court o! Aeals decision was afrmed /%ee Guico v$ %an -edro, 4 -hil$=0 J06=0K2$

#e!ore he could secure a decree o! re'istration in his name, @stanislao died$

8n )ay 0;, 069 Dominador )ayu'a, son o! @stanislao, ?led a etition with the Reyes Courtdoceted as Case No$ 4596 alle'in' that he was the only heir o! the deceased @stanislao)ayu'a and rayin' !or the issuance o! a decree o! re'istration over the roertyad3udicated in !avor o! @stanislao$ At this oint, it cannot +e overemhasied that theetition ?led +y Dominador is N8T a distinct and searate roceedin' !rom, +ut acontinuation o!, the ori'inal land re'istration roceedin's initiated +y @stanislao )ayu'a,&lorentino #altaar and @duardo Guico$ In the same vein, the Reyes Court, as #ranch BI o!the Court o! &irst Instance o! Rial, was continuin' in the eercise o! 3urisdiction over thecase, which 3urisdiction was vested in the C&I.Rial uon ?lin' o! the ori'inal alications$

8n )ay 40, 069 the Reyes Court issued an order 'rantin' the etition o! Dominador

)ayu'a and directin' the Commissioner o! Land Re'istration to issue a decree o!re'istration over Lots 0, 4 and ; o! -lan -su.=1;, su+stitutin' therein as re'istered ownerDominador )ayu'a in liue o! @stanislao$

Resondent Caro, however, contends, that since the records o! LRC Case No$ 5 were notroerly reconstituted, then there was no endin' land re'istration case$ And since theReyes Court was actin' without a endin' case, it was actin' without 3urisdiction$/Resondent CaroEs )emorandum, , 4.9$2


4/24

e cites the case o! Bille'as v$ &ernando /L.4;=, Aril 46, 0656, 4 %CRA 00062 where thisCourt said that uon !ailure to reconstitute ursuant to law, 7the arties are deemed to havewaived the e


5/24

not eactly lo'ical or reasona+le, or !air and 3ust to the arties, includin' the trial courtwhich has not committed any ne'li'ence or !ault at all$

The rulin' in Nacua is more in eein' with the sirit and intention o! the reconstitution law$As stated therein, 7Act ;001 was not romul'ated to enalie eole !or !ailure to o+serve orinvoe its rovisions$ It contains no enal sanction$ It was enacted rather to aid and +ene?t

liti'ants, so that when court records are destroyed at any sta'e o! 3udicial roceedin's,instead o! institutin' a new case and startin' all over a'ain, they may reconstitute therecords lost and continue the case$ I! they !ail to as !or reconstitution, the worst that canhaen to them is that they lose the advanta'es rovided +y the reconstitution law7 /e$'$havin' the case at the sta'e when the records were destroyed2$

Alyin' the doctrine in the Nacua decision to LRC Case No$ 5, the arties thereto did nothave to commence a new action +ut only had to 'o +ac to the recedin' sta'e whererecords are availa+le$ The land re'istration case itsel! re$ mained endin' and the Court o!&irst Instance o! Rial continued to have 3urisdiction over it$

The records were destroyed at that sta'e o! the case when an that remained to +e done wasthe ministerial duty o! the Land Re'istration 8fce to issue a decree o! re'istration /which

would +e the +asis !or the issuance o! an 8ri'inal Certi?cate o! Title2 to imlement a3ud'ment which had +ecome ?nal /%ee Government v$ A+ural, ;6 -hil$ 665 J0606K at 0114H%ta$ Ana v$ )enla, 000 -hil$ 6= J0650K, 0 %CRA 046=H eirs o! Cristo+al )arcos v$ De#anuvar, 0;= -hil$ 4 J0659K, 45 %CRA ;052$ There are however authentic coies o! thedecisions o! the C&I and the Court o! Aeals ad3udicatin' Lots 0, 4 and ; o! -lan -su.=1;to @stanislao )ayu'a$ )oreover, there is an ofcial reort o! the decision o! this Courtafrmin' +oth the C&I and the CA decisions$ A ?nal order o! ad3udication !orms the +asis !orthe issuance o! a decree o! re'istration$

Considerin' that the Reyes court was actually in the eercise o! its 3urisdiction as a landre'istration court when it issued the order directin' the issuance o! a decree o! re'istration,7su+stitutin' therein as re'istered owner Dominador )ayu'a, in hue o! the ori'inalad3udicates, @stanislao )ayu'a, +ased on the afdavit o! sel!.ad3udication, su+3ect to the

rovisions o! %ec$ =, Rule = o! the Rules o! Court,7 which order is in consonance with therulin' o! this Court in the Guico decision, and the decisions o! the C&I.Rial and the CA datedAu'ust 06, 06; and Novem+er 0, 06;6, resectively, >e uhold the validity o! said orderand rule that "ud'e Bera was without 3urisdiction to set it aside$

=$ In uholdin' the title o! Caro as a'ainst those o! Realty and FCD&C, the %ecial Divisionalso relied on CaroEs +ein' an innocent urchaser !or value$

>hether or not Caro is an innocent urchaser !or value was never raised as an issue in thetrial court$ A erusal o! the records o! the case reveals that no !actual +asis eists to suortsuch a conclusion$ @ven Caro himsel! cites no !actual roo! o! his +ein' an innocenturchaser !or value$ e merely relies on the resumtion o! 'ood !aith under Article 4 o!the Civil Code$

It is settled that one is considered an innocent urchaser !or value only i!, relyin' on thecerti?cate o! title, he +ou'ht the roerty !rom the re'istered owner, 7without notice thatsome other erson has a ri'ht to, or interest in, such roerty and ays a !ull and !air rice!or the same, at the time o! such urchase, or +e!ore he has notice o! the claim or interest o!some other ersons in the roerty$7 /Cui v$ enson, 0 -hil$ 515 J0649K, &ule v$ De Le'are,00 -hil$ ;5 J065;K, %CRA ;0$2 e is not re(uired to elore !arther than what the

Torrens title uon its !ace indicates$ /&ule v$ De Le'are sura$2


6/24

Caro +ou'ht the disuted roerty !rom the #altaars, the ori'inal re'istered owners, +yvirtue o! a deed eecuted +e!ore Iluminada &i'ueroa, Notary -u+lic o! )anila dated 8cto+er6, 061$ owever, it was only later, on 8cto+er 0;, 061, that the decree o! re'istration in!avor o! the #altaars was transcri+ed in the Re'istration #oo !or the -rovince o! Rial andthat an 8ri'inal Certi?cate o! Title was issued$ It was on the same day, 8cto+er 0;, 061,that the deed evidencin' the sale +etween the #altaars and Caro was inscri+ed in the

Re'istry o! -roerty, and the 8ri'inal Certi?cate o! Title was cancelled as Trans!er Certi?cateo! Title No$ ;1;650 in the name o! Caro was issued$ /@hi+it 04, Rollo $ 41.4;$2

Thus, at the time o! sale there was as yet no Torrens title which Caro could have relieduon so that he may (uali!y as an innocent urchaser !or value$ Not +ein' a urchaser !orvalue and in 'ood !aith, he is in no +etter osition than his redecessors.in.interest$

The #altaars, redecessors.in.interest o! Caro are heirs o! &lorentino #altaar, anoositor in the ori'inal alication ?led +y @stanislao )ayu'a in 064$ As stated earlier, theC&I.Rial con?rmed the title o! @stanislao to Lots 0, 4 and ; o! -lan -su.=1;7desestimando oosicion de &lorentino #altaar $ $ $ con reseto a dichos lotes $ $ $7 As suchsuccessors o! &lorentino, they could not retend i'norance o! the land re'istrationroceedin's over the disuted arcels o! land earlier initiated +y @duardo Guico, &lorentino

#altaar and @stanislao )ayu'a, as when as the decisions rendered therein$

)oreover, it is not disuted that the title in the name o! Dominador )ayu'a, !rom whomRealty derived its title, was issued in 069, or twelve years +e!ore the issuance o! the title inthe name o! the #altaars in 061$

In this 3urisdiction, it is settled that 7/t2he 'eneral rule is that in the case o! two certi?cateso! title, urortin' to include the same land, the earlier in date revails $ $ $ $ In successivere'istrations, where more than one certi?cate is issued in resect o! a articular estate orinterest in land, the erson claimin' under the rior certi?cate is entitled to the estate orinterestH and that erson is deemed to hold under the rior certi?cate who is the holder o!,or whose claim is derived directly or indirectly !rom the erson who was the holder o! theearliest certi?cate issued in resect thereo! $ $ $ $7 /Le'arda and -rieto v$ %alee+y, ;0 -hil$

61 J060K at 6.65H Garcia B$ CA, Nos$ L.=960 and =6100, "anuary 44, 0691, 6 %CRA;91$2

TCT No$ 41=19 derived !rom 8CT 0516, is there!ore suerior to TCT No$ ;1;650 derived !rom8CT 9546$

$ &or its art, resondent Fueon City Develoment and &inancin' Cororation /FCD&C2alle'es that it has +een imroerly imleaded as thirty.arty de!endant inasmuch asRealtyEs alle'ed cause o! action a'ainst it is neither !or contri+ution, indemnity, su+ro'ationor any other relie! in resect o! CaroEs claim a'ainst Realty$ It liewise alle'es that Realtyhad no cause o! action a'ainst it since the third arty comlaint did not alle'e that FCD&Cviolated any le'al ri'ht o! Realty, FCD&C also assails the Bera Court decision in that itdeclares FCD&C directly lia+le to Caro and not to Realty$

In the ?rst lace, FCD&C did not aeal !rom the decision o! the Bera Court, nor !rom thedecision o! the Court o! Aeals dated Decem+er 46, 0694, nor !rom the resolution o! theIAC %ecial Third Civil Cases Division dated )ay 4, 069= M all o! which voided FCD&Cs titleto the disuted roerty$ ence, said decisionsresolution have +ecome ?nal and eecutoryas re'ards FCD&C$

)oreover, even as this Court a'rees with FCD&C that the third.arty comlaint ?led a'ainstit +y Realty was rocedurally de!ective in that the relie! +ein' sou'ht +y the latter !rom the


7/24

!ormer is not in resect o! CaroEs claim, olicy considerations and the !actual circumstanceso! the case comel this Court now to rule as well on FCD&CEs claim to the disuted roerty$ To rule on FCD&CEs claim now is to avoid multilicity o! suits and to ut to rest theseconictin' claims over the roerty$ A!ter an, FCD&C was a@R@&8R@, the Resolution o! )ay 4,069= o! the Intermediate Aellate Court and theDecision o! "anuary 41, 0690 o! the C&I.Rial #ranch OOIII, are %@T A%ID@ and the Decision o!Decem+er 46, 0694 o! the Court o! Aeals is A&&IR)@D$

%8 8RD@R@D

RULING:

Lucasan osits that he has sufcient cause o! action a'ainst -DICH thus, he chides theRTC !or dismissin' his comlaint, and the CA !or afrmin' the dismissal$ In suort o! histhesis, he cites %ection o! -residential Decree /-D2 No$ 046, or the -roerty Re'istrationDecree09 and Cometa v$ Court o! Aeals$06

As 'leaned !rom the averments o! the comlaint, LucasanPs action was one !or (uietin' o!title under Rule 5; o! the Rules o! Court$ @ssentially, he sou'ht the cancellation o! the noticeo! em+ar'o and the certi?cate o! sale annotated on TCT Nos$ T.5900 and T.0;905 claimin'that the said annotations +eclouded the validity and efcacy o! his title$ The RTC, however,dismissed his comlaint !or lac o! cause o! action which was afrmed +y the CA in its


8/24

assailed Decision$ Thus, the ey issue !or our consideration is whether the dismissal o!LucasanPs comlaint was roer$

Fuietin' o! title is a common law remedy !or the removal o! any cloud o! dou+t oruncertainty with resect to real roerty$ The Civil Code authories the said remedy in the!ollowin' lan'ua'e:

ART$ =5$ >henever there is a cloud on title to real roerty or any interest therein, +yreason o! any instrument, record, claim, encum+rance or roceedin' which is aarentlyvalid or e


9/24

J-KetitionersE redecessors.in.interest lost whatever ri'ht they had over JtheK land in(uestion !rom the very moment they !ailed to redeem it durin' the 0.year eriod o!redemtion$ Certainly, the Reu+licEs !ailure to eecute the acts re!erred to +y theetitioners within ten /012 years !rom the re'istration o! the Certi?cate o! %ale cannot, in anyway, oerate to restore whatever ri'hts etitionersE redecessors.in.interest had over thesame$ &or sure, etitioners have yet to cite any rovision o! law or rule o! 3urisrudence, and

we are not aware o! any, to the e


10/24

no such o+li'ation$ A!ter eiry, the urchaser may or may not re.sell the roerty +ut nolaw will comel him to do so$ And, he is not +ound +y the +id riceH it is entirely within hisdiscretion to set a hi'her rice, !or a!ter all, the roerty already +elon's to him as owner$

Accordin'ly, the condition imosed +y the -DIC !or the re.ac(uisition o! the roerty cannot+e considered un3ust or unreasona+le$

Berily, in several cases,45 this Court allowed redemtion even a!ter the lase o! theredemtion eriod$ #ut in those cases a valid tender was made +y the ori'inal owners withinthe redemtion eriod$ @ven in Cometa, the redemtion was allowed +eyond the redemtioneriod +ecause a valid tender o! ayment was made within the redemtion eriod$ Thesame is not true in the case +e!ore us$

In ?ne, we ?nd that the RTC correctly dismissed LucasanPs comlaint !or (uietin' o! title$Thus, the CA committed no reversi+le error in sustainin' the RTC$

>@R@&8R@, the etition is D@NI@D$ The Decision and Resolution o! the Court o! Aeals inCA.G$R$ CB No$ 9009, are A&&IR)@D$ Costs a'ainst the etitioner$

RULING:


11/24

The aeal lacs merit$

Article 0;1 o! the &amily Code reads:

Article 0;1$ Uon the termination o! the marria'e +y death, the con3u'al artnershiroerty shall +e li(uidated in the same roceedin' !or the settlement o! the estate o! thedeceased$

I! no 3udicial settlement roceedin' is instituted, the survivin' souse shall li(uidate thecon3u'al artnershi roerty either 3udicially or etra.3udicially within one year !rom thedeath o! the deceased souse$ I! uon the lase o! the si month eriod no li(uidation ismade, any disosition or encum+rance involvin' the con3u'al artnershi roerty o! theterminated marria'e shall +e void$

%hould the survivin' souse contract a su+se(uent marria'e without comliance with the!ore'oin' re(uirements, a mandatory re'ime o! comlete searation o! roerty shall'overn the roerty relations o! the su+se(uent marria'e$

Article 0;1 is to +e read in consonance with Article 01 o! the &amily Code, vi:

Article 01$ In case the !uture souses a'ree in the marria'e settlements that the re'ime o!con3u'al artnershi o! 'ains shall 'overn their roerty relations durin' marria'e, therovisions in this Chater shall +e o! sulementary alication$

The rovisions o! this Chater shall also aly to con3u'al artnershis o! 'ains alreadyesta+lished +etween souses +e!ore the e


12/24

share without an actual artition o! the roerty +ein' ?rst done either +y a'reement or +y3udicial decree$ Until then, all that he had was an ideal or a+stract (uota in )artaPs share$09Nonetheless, a co.owner could sell his undivided shareH hence, -rotacio, %r$ had the ri'ht to!reely sell and disose o! his undivided interest, +ut not the interest o! his co.owners$06Conse(uently, the sale +y -rotacio, %r$ and Rito as co.owners without the consent o! theother co.owners was not necessarily void, !or the ri'hts o! the sellin' co.owners were

there+y e


13/24

would +e, a!ter li(uidation, no more con3u'al assets then the whole transaction is null andvoid$0Qwhi0 #ut i! it turns out that hal! o! the roerty thus alienated or mort'a'ed +elon'sto the hus+and as his share in the con3u'al artnershi, and hal! should 'o to the estate o!the wi!e, then that corresondin' to the hus+and is valid, and that corresondin' to theother is not$ %ince all these can +e determined only at the time the li(uidation is over, it!ollows lo'ically that a disosal made +y the survivin' souse is not void a+ initio$ Thus, it

has +een held that the sale o! con3u'al roerties cannot +e made +y the survivin' sousewithout the le'al re(uirements$ The sale is void as to the share o! the deceased souse/ecet o! course as to that ortion o! the hus+andPs share inherited +y her as the survivin'souse2$ The +uyers o! the roerty that could not +e validly sold +ecome trustees o! saidortion !or the +ene?t o! the hus+andPs other heirs, the cestui (ue trust ent$ %aid heirs shallnot +e +arred +y rescrition or +y laches /%ee Cuison, et al$ v$ &ernande, et al$,L.005=,

"an$;0, 066$24

>@R@&8R@, we D@N the etition !or review on certiorariH and A&&IR) the decision o! theRe'ional Trial Court$

The etitioners shall ay the costs o! suit$

%8 8RD@R@D$


14/24

RULING:

The ?rst issue, while not raised +y the arties in the trial court and in the Court o!Aeals, is so interwoven with the other issues raised therein and is even decisive o! theoutcome o! this caseH hence, such issue must +e delved into and resolved +y this Court$45

>e note that the action o! the resondent in the trial court is !or: /a2 reinvidicatoria, todeclare the resondent the a+solute owner o! the su+3ect roerty and its reconveyance tohim as a conse(uence o! the nulli?cation o! &ree -atent No$ ;9=106 and 8CT No$ -.05=1H/+2 u+liciana, to order the etitioners and the other heirs o! Iluminado #aloloy to vacate theroerty and deliver ossession thereo! to himH and /c2 dama'es and attorneyPs !ees$

It is the contention o! the resondent that the su+3ect roerty was sold +y La'ata to his!ather, Astrolo'o ular, in 0650$ e adduced evidence that when his arents died intestate,they were survived +y their children, the resondent and his si+lin's @lena, "ose, Romeo,Anacleto, Leo, and Teresita$ Article 019 o! the Civil Code rovides that where there are twoor more heirs, the whole estate o! the decedent is, +e!ore artition, owned in common +ysuch heirs, su+3ect to the ayment o! the de+ts o! the deceased$ Until a division is made, theresective share o! each cannot +e determined and every co.owner eercises, to'ether withhis co.articiants, 3oint ownershi over the ro indiviso roerty, in addition to the use anden3oyment o! the same$

Under Article =9 o! the New Civil Code, any o! the co.owners may +rin' an action ine3ectment$ This article covers all inds o! actions !or the recovery o! ossession, includin' an

accion u+liciana and a reinvidicatory action$ A co.owner may +rin' such an action withoutthe necessity o! 3oinin' all the other co.owners as co.lainti


15/24

that the a+sence o! an indisensa+le arty in a case renders ine


16/24

roerty o! #al+edina on the south and that o! Lino @stoin on the north$ Therea!ter, acadastral survey o! the lands in "u+an was conducted +y the #ureau o! Lands$ The roertyo! #al+edina was desi'nated as a ortion o! Lot No$ ;;;, while that o! @stoin wasdesi'nated as Lot No$ ;;=$ The other ortion o! Lot No$ ;;;, with an area o! =,50 s(uaremeters, +elon'ed to Ale3andro Gruta$ #ecause o! the construction o! the road, the roertyo! #al+edina, which was a art o! Lot No$ ;;;, was reduced to =,50 s(uare meters$

#al+edina declared, under Ta Declaration No$ ;60, that Lot No$ ;;; had an area o! =,50s(uare meters and was coconut land;5 and that his roerty was +ounded on the south +y atrail /road2$ Lino @stoin declared Lot No$ ;;= under his name !or taation uroses, inwhich he stated that his roerty was +ounded on the north +y the trail 'oin' to #iriran$;Clearly, then, Lot No$ ;;; and Lot No$ ;;= had a common +oundary S the trail /road2 'oin'to #iriran$

#al+edina sold his roerty, which was a ortion o! Lot No$ ;;;, with an area o! =,50s(uare meters to Iluminado #aloloy on "une =, 060$;9 Under the deed o! a+solute sale, theroerty was +ounded on the south +y the trail /road2 owned +y Lino @stoin$;6 The @n'lishtranslation o! the deed o! sale attached as a'e 9 to the RTC Records, which +oth the trialcourt and the aellate court relied uon, is incorrect$

The ori'inal deed o! a+solute sale, which is in %anish, states that the +oundary o! theroerty on the south is 7con camino, Lino @stoin,7 while the @n'lish version o! the deed,indicates that the roerty is +ounded 7on the south +y Lino @stoin$7 #ein' an earlierdocument, the deed in %anish si'ned +y the arties there!ore should revail$ Con!orma+lyto such deed, Iluminado #aloloy declared in Ta Declaration No$ ;6 under his name thatthe roerty is +ounded on the south +y a trail,=1 and not +y Lot No$ ;;= owned +y Lino@stoin$

The resondent !ailed to adduce any documentary evidence to rove how the %ouses@stoin ac(uired the disuted roerty$ The resondentPs reliance on the testimonies o!)elissa @stoin, the dau'hter o! the %ouses @stoin, and on -or?rio Guamos as well as the)ay 9, 066; Afdavit o! )artiniano #al+edina, and the deed o! sale eecuted +y BictorianaLa'ata on Novem+er 4, 0650 in !avor o! Astrolo'o ular to corro+orate his claim over thelot in (uestion, is mislaced$

owever, the resondent !ailed to adduce in evidence the said deed or even an authenticcoy thereo!$ The resondent did not o


17/24

which, in turn, is consistent with the etitionersP claim$== Un!ortunately, the trial courtdenied the said motion on the 'round that it was mooted +y its decision$

&ourth$ Durin' the cadastral survey o! lands in "u+an, the lot o! Gruta and that o! #al+edina,inclusive o! the su+3ect roerty, were desi'nated as Lot No$ ;;; with a total area o! 6,;14s(uare meters under their names, while that o! Lino @stoin was desi'nated as Lot No$ ;;=

with an area o! 0,615 s(uare meters$ Iluminado #aloloy alied !or a !ree atent over LotNo$ ;;;, includin' the disuted roerty, under his name$ The resondent !ailed to adduceany evidence that the %ouses @stoin andor Astrolo'o ular oosed #al+edina andorIluminadoPs claim o! ownershi o! Lot No$ ;;; durin' the survey and a!ter the ?lin' o! thealication$ A roos is our rulin' in Ur(uia'a v$ Court o! Aeals:=

As succinctly o+served +y resondent Court o! Aeals in assessin' the totality o! theevidence S

>e do not a'ree with de!endants that they are also the occuants and ossessors o! thesu+3ect lot 3ust +ecause it 7is ad3acent to their titled roerty$7 -recisely, the +oundaries o!de!endantsP titled roerty were determined, delineated and surveyed durin' the cadastralsurvey o! Diolo' and therea!ter indicated in their certi?cate o! title in order that the etent

o! their roerty will +e nown and ?ed$ %ince the su+3ect lot was already !ound to +eoutside their titled roerty, de!endants have no +asis in claimin' it or other ad3acent lots!or that matter$ 8therwise, the very urose o! the cadastral survey as a rocess o!determinin' the eact +oundaries o! ad3oinin' roerties will +e de!eated$

De!endantsP own title, 8$C$T$ No$ 1.; /in the names o! "ose A'uirre and Cristina Gonales2,in !act +elies their claim o! occuation and ossession over the ad3acent su+3ect lot$@aminin' said title, we note that: /02 the cadastral survey o! Diolo' was conducted !rom

"anuary, 064; to Novem+er 064H /42 de!endantsP titled roerty was one o! those lotssurveyed and this was desi'nated as Lot No$ 454;H /;2 durin' the survey, it was alreadydetermined and nown that Lot No$ 454; is +ounded on the northeast, southeast, southwestand west +y Lot No$ ===; /as we have seen in our narration o! !acts, the su+3ect lot is asu+division lot o! Lot No$ 54 which was ori'inally identi?ed as Lot No$ ===;.#.0, Diolo'

Cadastre 9 @t$: hence, the su+3ect lot is a ortion o! Lot No$ ===;2H and /=2 8$C$T$ No$ 1.; was issued on 8cto+er 00, 065 on the stren'th o! the 3ud'ment rendered on "uly ;0/sic2, 06=0 +y the then Court o! &irst Instance o! *am+oan'a del Norte in Cadastral Case No$5, LRC Cadastral Record No$ 5$

&rom the !ore'oin' !acts, we ?nd that as early as "anuary, 064; when the cadastral surveywas started, the +oundaries o! Lot Nos$ 454; and ===; were already determined anddelineated$ %ince the su+3ect lot was surveyed to +e art o! Lot No$ ===;, it means thatdurin' that time de!endantsP redecessors.in.interest never claimed ownershi orossession over the su+3ect lot$ 8therwise, they would have comlained so that the su+3ectlot could +e ecluded !rom Lot No$ ===; and included in Lot No$ 454;, they +ein' ad3acentlots$ It is o+vious then that de!endantsP redecessors only claimed Lot No$ 454; and theyursued their claim in Cadastral Case No$ 5, LRC Cadastral Record No$ 5 until 8$C$T$ No$ 1.; was issued to them$ The contention o! de!endants that they and their redecessors.in.interest occuied and ossessed the su+3ect lot since time immemorial there!ore is nottrue$=5

&i!th$ Under the deed o! a+solute sale dated Novem+er 4, 0650, La'ata sold to Astrolo'oular Lot No$ ;;=, and not Lot No$ ;;;$ In Beterans &ederation o! the -hiliines v$ Courto! Aeals,= we ruled that:


18/24

-etitioner B&- maintains that the deed o! sale was valid and en!orcea+le and that it waser!ected at the very moment that the arties a'reed uon the thin' which was the o+3ecto! the sale and uon the rice$ The arties herein had a'reed on the arcel o! land thatetitioner would urchase !rom resondent -NR, and the same was descri+ed thereinH thus,etitioner B&- cannot conveniently set aside the technical descrition in this a'reement andinsist that it is the le'al owner o! the roerty erroneously descri+ed in the certi?cate o!

title$ -etitioner can only claim ri'ht o! ownershi over the arcel o! land that was the o+3ecto! the deed o! sale and nothin' else$=9

%ith$ Under the said deed o! sale dated Novem+er 00, 0650, Bictoriana La'ata sold Lot No$;;= which had an area o! 0,615 s(uare meters and covered +y Ta Declaration No$ =61$

The deed does not state that what was sold was only a ortion o! Lot No$ ;;=, ecludin'there!rom the disuted roerty$ This is understanda+le, since the su+3ect roerty is aortion o! Lot No$ ;;; owned +y Ale3andro Gruta and Iluminado #aloloy, and not o! Lino@stoin andor Bictoriana La'ata$ La'ata could not have sold a ortion o! Lot No$ ;;; whichshe does not own$ As the Latin ada'e 'oes: 7N@)8 DAT FU8D N8N A#@T$7

%eventh$ The #al+edinaPs Afdavit dated )ay 9, 066; ohen the terms o! an a'reement have +eenreduced to writin', it is considered as containin' all the terms a'reed uon and there can+e, +etween the arties and their successors in interest, no evidence o! such terms otherthan the contents o! the written a'reement$

It +ears stressin' that the deed o! a+solute sale eecuted +y #al+edina in !avor o! #aloloywas notaried +y the "ustice o! the -eace who was an @.8fcio Notary -u+licH hence,entitled to !ull ro+ative wei'ht$

@i'hth$ The %ecial %etch -lan o! Lot No$ ;;; reared +y Geodetic @n'ineer Rodol!o -$Cunanan=6 cannot revail over 8CT No$ -.05=1$ In !act, the lan even +uttressed the case!or the etitioners +ecause it shows that the su+3ect roerty is a ortion o! Lot No$ ;;;,and not o! Lot No$ ;;=, covered +y 8CT No$ -.05=1 under the name o! Iluminado #aloloy,the deceased !ather o! the etitioners$

Ninth$ The conclusion o! the RTC that La'ata in !act sold a ortion o! Lot No$ ;;= under thedeed o! a+solute sale dated Novem+er 4, 0650, unaware that the roerty was a art o! Lot

No$ ;;;, is +ased on mere seculations and surmises$

Iluminado #aloloy included in his alication !or a !ree atent the roerty o! Ale3androGruta, and was a+le to secure a !ree atent over said roerty in addition to his own$ Assuch, Gruta, not the resondent, is the roer arty to assail such !ree atent, as well as8CT No$ -.05=1 which was issued +ased thereon$


19/24

IN LIGT 8& ALL T@ &8R@G8ING, the etition is GRANT@D$ The decisions o! the Re'ionalTrial Court and the Court o! Aeals are R@B@R%@D and %@T A%ID@$ The comlaint o! theresondent is DI%)I%%@D$ No costs$

%8 8RD@R@D

RULING:

>e ?nd the etition +ere!t o! merit$

8ur dis(uisition in )uniciality o! #ian v$ Garcia49 is de?nitive$ There, we elained thatthe determination as to the eistence o! co.ownershi is necessary in the resolution o! anaction !or artition$ Thus:

The ?rst hase o! a artition andor accountin' suit is taen u with the determination o!whether or not a co.ownershi in !act eists, and a artition is roer /i$e$, not otherwisele'ally roscri+ed2 and may +e made +y voluntary a'reement o! all the arties interested inthe roerty$ This hase may end with a declaration that lainti< is not entitled to have aartition either +ecause a co.ownershi does not eist, or artition is le'ally rohi+ited$ It


20/24

may end, on the other hand, with an ad3ud'ment that a co.ownershi does in truth eist,artition is roer in the remises and an accountin' o! rents and ro?ts received +y thede!endant !rom the real estate in (uestion is in order$

The second hase commences when it aears that 7the arties are una+le to a'ree uonthe artition7 directed +y the court$ In that eventJ,K artition shall +e done !or the arties +y

the JcKourt with the assistance o! not more than three /;2 commissioners$ This second sta'emay well also deal with the rendition o! the accountin' itsel! and its aroval +y the JcKourta!ter the arties have +een accorded oortunity to +e heard thereon, and an award !or therecovery +y the arty or arties thereto entitled o! their 3ust share in the rents and ro?ts o!the real estate in (uestion$ 46 /@mhasis sulied$2

>hile it is true that the comlaint involved here is one !or artition, the same is remised onthe eistence or non.eistence o! co.ownershi +etween the arties$ -etitioner insists she isa co.owner ro indiviso o! the ?ve real estate roerties +ased on the trans!er certi?cates o!title /TCTs2 coverin' the su+3ect roerties$ Resondent maintains otherwise$ Indu+ita+ly,there!ore, until and unless this issue o! co.ownershi is de?nitely and ?nally resolved, itwould +e remature to e


21/24

%ec$ 45$ Admissions o! a arty$ S The act, declaration or omission o! a arty as to a relevant!act may +e 'iven in evidence a'ainst him$

To +e admissi+le, an admission must /a2 involve matters o! !act, and not o! lawH /+2 +ecate'orical and de?niteH /c2 +e nowin'ly and voluntarily madeH and /d2 +e adverse to theadmitterPs interests, otherwise it would +e sel!.servin' and inadmissi+le$;6

A care!ul erusal o! the contents o! the so.called -artition A'reement indicates that thedocument involves matters which necessitate rior settlement o! (uestions o! law, +asic o!which is a determination as to whether the arties have the ri'ht to !reely divide amon'themselves the su+3ect roerties$ )oreover, to !ollow etitionerPs ar'ument would +e toallow resondent not only to admit a'ainst his own interest +ut that o! his le'al souse aswell, who may also +e law!ully entitled co.ownershi over the said roerties$ Resondent isnot allowed +y law to waive whatever share his law!ul souse may have on the disutedroerties$ #asic is the rule that ri'hts may +e waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law,u+lic order, u+lic olicy, morals, 'ood customs or re3udicial to a third erson with a ri'htreco'nied +y law$=1

Curiously, etitioner hersel! admitted that she did not assent to the -artition A'reement

a!ter seein' the need to amend the same to include other matters$ -etitioner does not haveany ri'ht to insist on the contents o! an a'reement she intentionally re!used to si'n$

As to the award o! dama'es to resondent, we do not su+scri+e to the trial courtPs view thatresondent is entitled to attorneyPs !ees$ Unlie the trial court, we do not commiserate withresondentPs redicament$ The trial court ruled that resondent was !orced to liti'ate anden'a'ed the services o! his counsel to de!end his interest as to entitle him an award o!-011,111$11 as attorneyPs !ees$ #ut we note that in the ?rst lace, it was resondent himsel!who imressed uon etitioner that she has a ri'ht over the involved roerties$ %econdly,resondentPs act o! reresentin' himsel! and etitioner as hus+and and wi!e was adeli+erate attemt to sirt the law and escae his le'al o+li'ation to his law!ul wi!e$Resondent, there!ore, has no one +ut himsel! to +lame the conse(uences o! his deceit!ulact which resulted in the ?lin' o! the comlaint a'ainst him$

>@R@&8R@, the etition is D@NI@D$ The %etem+er 0=, 411= Decision o! the Court o!Aeals in CA.G$R$ CB No$ 565 is A&&IR)@D with )8DI&ICATI8N$ Resondent #ayani %$%amoy, "r$ is here+y declared the sole owner o! the disuted roerties, without re3udice toany claim his le'al wi!e may have ?led or may ?le a'ainst him$ The award o! -011,111$11 asattorneyPs !ees in resondentPs !avor is D@L@T@D$


22/24

RULING:

The etition is not meritorious$

&irst Issue: -roriety o! Certiorari

#e!ore the Court o! Aeals

%ince rivate resondents had ne'lected or !ailed to ?le an ordinary aeal within there'lementary eriod, etitioners alle'e that the Court o! Aeals erred in allowin' rivateresondentEs recourse to Rule 5 o! the Rules o! Court$ They contend that rivateresondentsE invocation o! certiorari was 7rocedurally de!ective$7 0= They !urther ar'uethat rivate resondents, in their etition +e!ore the Court o! Aeals, alle'ed errors o! thetrial court which, +ein' merely errors o! 3ud'ment and not errors o! 3urisdiction, were notcorrecta+le +y certiorari$ 0 This Court disa'rees$

Doctrinally entrenched is the 'eneral rule that certiorari is not a su+stitute !or a lost aeal$owever, "ustice &loren D$ Re'alado lists several ecetions to this rule, vi$: 7/02 where theaeal does not constitute a seedy and ade(uate remedy /%alvadades vs$ -a3arillo, et al$,9 -hil$ 2, as where ;; aeals were involved !rom orders issued in a sin'le roceedin'

which will inevita+ly result in a roli!eration o! more aeals /-CI# vs$ @scolin, et al$, L.4951and 4965, )ar$ 46, 06=2H /42 where the orders were also issued either in ecess o! orwithout 3urisdiction /A'uilar vs$ Tan, L.4;511, "un ;1, 061, C!$ #autista, et al$ vs$ %armiento,et al$, L.=0;, %et$ 4;0692H /;2 !or certain secial consideration, as u+lic wel!are oru+lic olicy /%ee "ose vs$ *ulueta, et al$ 0569, )ay ;0, 0650 and the cases cited therein2H/=2 where in criminal actions, the court re3ects re+uttal evidence !or the rosecution as, incase o! ac(uittal, there could +e no remedy /-eole vs$ A+alos, L1461;6, Nov$ 49, 06592H /2where the order is a atent nullity /)arcelo vs$ De Guman, et al$, L.461, "une 46, 06942Hand /52 where the decision in the certiorari case will avoid !uture liti'ations /%t$ -eter)emorial -ar, Inc$ vs$ Camos, et al$, L.;9491, )ar$ 40, 062$7 05 @ven in a case where theremedy o! aeal was lost, the Court has issued the writ o! certiorari where the lower courtatently acted in ecess o! or outside its 3urisdiction, 0 as in the resent case$

A etition !or certiorari under Rule 5 o! the Rules o! Court is aroriate and allowa+lewhen the !ollowin' re(uisites concur: /02 the writ is directed a'ainst a tri+unal, +oard orofcer eercisin' 3udicial or (uasi.3udicial !unctionsH /42 such tri+unal, +oard or ofcer hasacted without or in ecess o! 3urisdiction, or with 'rave a+use o! discretion amountin' to lacor ecess o! 3urisdictionH and /;2 there is no aeal or any lain, seedy and ade(uateremedy in the ordinary course o! law$ 09 A!ter a thorou'h review o! the case at +ar, we areconvinced that all these re(uirements were met$

As a ro+ate court, the trial court was eercisin' 3udicial !unctions when it issued its assailedresolution$ The said court had 3urisdiction to act in the intestate roceedin's involved in thiscase with the caveat that, due to its limited 3urisdiction, it could resolve (uestions o! titleonly rovisionally$ 06 It is horn+oo doctrine that 7in a secial roceedin' !or the ro+ate o!

a will, the (uestion o! ownershi is an etraneous matter which the ro+ate court cannotresolve with ?nality$ This ronouncement no dou+t alies with e(ual !orce to an intestateroceedin' as in the case at +ar$7 41 In the instant case, the trial court rendered a decisiondeclarin' as simulated and ?ctitious all the deeds o! a+solute sale which, on "uly 45, 065;and "une 45, 065, "uan C$ %anche and )aria Billa!ranca eecuted in !avor o! theirdau'hter, Rosalia %anche Lu'odH and 'randchildren, namely, Arturo %$ Lu'od, @velyn %$Lu'od and Ro+erto %$ Lu'od$ The trial court ruled !urther that the roerties covered +y thesaid sales must +e su+3ect to collation$ Citin' Article 0=16 /42 o! the Civil Code, the lowercourt nulli?ed said deeds o! sale and determined with ?nality the ownershi o! the roerties


23/24

su+3ect thereo! $ In doin' so, it clearly oversteed its 3urisdiction as a ro+ate court$"urisrudence teaches:

JAK ro+ate court or one in char'e o! roceedin's whether testate or intestate cannotad3udicate or determine title to roerties claimed to +e a art o! the estate and which areclaimed to +elon' to outside arties$ All that the said court could do as re'ards said

roerties is to determine whether they should or should not +e included in the inventory orlist o! roerties to +e administered +y the administrator$ I! there is not disute, well and'ood, +ut i! there is, then the arties, the administrator, and the oosin' arties have toresort to an ordinary action !or a ?nal determination o! the conictin' claims o! title +ecausethe ro+ate court cannot do so$ 40

&urthermore, the trial court committed 'rave a+use o! discretion when it rendered itsdecision in disre'ard o! the artiesE comromise a'reement$ 44 %uch disre'ard, on the'round that the comromise a'reement 7was nor aroved +y the court,7 4; is tantamountto 7an evasion o! ositive duty or to a virtual re!usal to er!orm the duty en3oined or to act incontemlation and within the +ounds o! law$ 7 4=

The !ore'oin' issues clearly involve not only the correctness o! the trial courtEs decision +ut

also the latterEs 3urisdiction$ They encomass lain errors o! 3urisdiction and 'rave a+use o!discretion, not merely errors o! 3ud'ment$ 4 %ince the trial court eceeded its 3urisdiction, aetition !or certiorari is certainly a roer remedy$ Indeed, it is well.settled that 7/a2n actdone +y a ro+ate court in ecess o! its 3urisdiction may +e corrected +y certiorari$7 45

Consistent with the !ore'oin', the !ollowin' dis(uisition +y resondent aellate court is at:

As a 'eneral roosition, aeal is the roer remedy o! etitioner Rosalia here under Rule016 o! the Revised Rules o! Court$ #ut the availa+ility o! the ordinary course o! aeal doesnot constitute sufcient 'round to JreventK a arty !rom main' use o! the etraordinaryremedy o! certiorari where aeal is not an ade(uate remedy or e(ually +ene?cial, seedyand sufcient /@chau vs$ Court o! Aeals, 066 %CRA ;902$ ere, considerin' that theresondent court has disre'arded the comromise a'reement which has lon' +een eecuted

as early as 8cto+er, 0656 and declared null and void the deeds o! sale with ?nality, which,as a ro+ate court, it has no 3urisdiction to do, >e deem ordinary aeal is inade(uate$Considerin' !urther the Jtrial courtEsK 'rantin' o! Jherein etitionersE2 motion !or eecution o!the assailed decision, 4 Jherein rivate resondentK RosaliaEs resort to the instant etitionJ!or review on certiorariK is all the more warranted under the circumstances$ 49

>e thus hold that the (uestioned decision and resolutions o! the trial court may +echallen'ed throu'h a secial civil action !or certiorari under Rule 5 o! the Rules o! Court$ Atthe very least, this case is a clear ecetion to the 'eneral rule that certiorari is not asu+stitute !or a lost aeal +ecause the trial courtEs decision and resolutions were issuedwithout or in ecess o! 3urisdiction, which may thus +e challen'ed or attaced at any time$7A void 3ud'ment !or want o! 3urisdiction is no 3ud'ment at all$ It cannot +e the source o! anyri'ht nor the creator o! any o+li'ation$ All acts er!ormed ursuant to it and all claims

emanatin' !rom it have no le'al e


24/24

de?ciency in the inventory !or uroses o! collatin' the roerties su+3ect o! the (uestioneddeeds o! sale$ 5; >e see no such error$ In the trial court, there was only one hearin'conducted, and it was held only !or the recetion o! the evidence o! Rosalia %$ Lu'od toinstall her as administratri o! the estate o! )aria Billa!ranca$ There was no other evidence,whether testimonial or otherwise, 7received, !ormally oe stress that these deeds o! sale did not involve 'ratuitous trans!ers o! !utureinheritanceH these were contracts o! sale er!ected +y the decedents durin' their li!etime$56 ence, the roerties conveyed there+y are not collationa+le +ecause, essentially,collation mandated under Article 0150 o! the Civil Code contemlates roerties conveyedinter vivos +y the decedent to an heir +y way o! donation or other 'ratuitous title$

In any event, these alle'ed errors and de?ciencies re'ardin' the delivery o! shares rovidedin the comromise, concealment o! roerties and !raud in the deeds o! sale are !actual innature which, as a rule, are not reviewa+le +y this Court in etitions under Rule =$ 1-etitioners have !ailed to convince us that this case constitutes an ecetion to such rule$ Allin all, we ?nd that the Court o! Aeals has sufciently addressed the issues raised +y them$Indeed, they have not ersuaded us that said Court committed any reversi+le error towarrant a 'rant o! their etition$

>@R@&8R@, the etition is here+y D@NI@D and the assailed Decision o! the Court o!Aeals is A&&IR)@D$

%8 8RD@R@D$

ruling cases property

Documents