CELERINO E. MERCADO, Petitioner,vs BELEN ESPINOCILLA AND FERDINAND ESPINOCILL, Respondents. G.R. No. 1841 !

, Fe"r#$r% 1, & 1& Facts: Doroteo Espinocilla owned a parcel of land, Lot No. 552, with an area of 570 sq. m. After he died, his fi e children, !al acion, Aspren, "sa#el, $acario, and Dionisia di ided Lot No. 552 eq%all& amon' themsel es. Later, Dionisia died witho%t iss%e ahead of her fo%r si#lin's, and $acario too( possession of Dionisia)s share. "n an affida it of transfer of real propert&*+, dated No em#er -, -.+/, $acario claimed that Dionisia had donated her share to him in $a& -.+5. 0hereafter, on A%'%st ., -.77, $acario and his da%'hters 1ett& 2%lla#a and !aida 2a#elo sold*5, 225 sq. m. to his son 3o'er Espinocilla, h%s#and of respondent 1elen Espinocilla and father of respondent Ferdinand Espinocilla. 4n $arch /, -./5, 3o'er Espinocilla sold*5, --+ sq. m. to 6aridad Atien7a. 8er act%al s%r e& of Lot No. 552, respondent 1elen Espinocilla occ%pies -0. sq. m., 6aridad Atien7a occ%pies -20 sq. m., 6aroline 9% occ%pies 20. sq. m., and petitioner, !al acion:s son, occ%pies -;2 sq. m. 8etitioner s%ed the respondents on the 'ro%nd that he is entitled to own and possess -7sq. m. of Lot No. 552, ha in' inherited -+2.5 sq. m. from his mother !al acion and #o%'ht 2/.5 sq. m. from his a%nt Aspren. 3espondents a'ree that Doroteo)s fi e children each inherited --+ sq. m. of Lot No. 552. <owe er, $acario)s share increased when he recei ed Dionisia)s share. $acario)s increased share was then sold to his son 3o'er, respondents) h%s#and and father. 3espondents claim that the& ri'htf%ll& possess the land the& occ%p& #& irt%e of acq%isiti e prescription and that there is no #asis for petitioner)s claim of encroachment. Iss#e' =hether or not petitioner)s action to reco er the s%#>ect portion is #arred #& prescription. R#(in)' 9es. "n a constr%cti e tr%st, there is neither a promise nor an& fid%ciar& relation to spea( of and the so?called tr%stee neither accepts an& tr%st nor intends holdin' the propert& for the #eneficiar&. 0he relation of tr%stee and cest%i q%e tr%st does not in fact e@ist, and the holdin' of a constr%cti e tr%st is for the tr%stee himself, and therefore, at all times ad erse. 8rescription ma& s%per ene e en if the tr%stee does not rep%diate the relationship. 8rescription, as a mode of acq%irin' ownership and other real ri'hts o er immo a#le propert&, is concerned with lapse of time in the manner and %nder conditions laid down #& law, namel&, that the possession sho%ld #e in the concept of an owner, p%#lic, peacef%l, %ninterr%pted, and ad erse. Acq%isiti e prescription of real ri'hts ma& #e ordinar& or e@traordinar&.

0he 6A correctl& dismissed petitioner)s complaint as an action for recon e&ance #ased on an implied or constr%cti e tr%st prescri#es in -0 &ears from the time the ri'ht of action accr%es. 0his is the other (ind of prescription %nder the 6i il 6ode, called e@tincti e prescription, where ri'hts and actions are lost #& the lapse of time. 8etitioner)s action for reco er& of possession ha in' #een filed 55 &ears after $acario occ%pied Dionisia)s share, it is also #arred #& e@tincti e prescription. 4rdinar& acq%isiti e prescription req%ires possession in 'ood faith and with >%st title for -0 &ears. "n e@traordinar& prescription, ownership and other real ri'hts o er immo a#le propert& are acq%ired thro%'h %ninterr%pted ad erse possession for ;0 &ears witho%t need of title or of 'ood faith. Aniceto Bangis, substituted by his heirs, namely Rodolfo B. Bangis, et al. vs. Heirs of Serafin and Salud Adolfo, namely: Luz A. Banniester, et al.* G.R. No. 1! 8+,, -#ne 1., & 1&. F$/ts' 0he spo%ses !erafin, !r. and !al%dada Adolfo were the ori'inal re'istered owners of a -25,522 sq%are meter lot. 0his propert& was mort'a'ed to the then 3eha#ilitation Finance 6orporation and %pon defa%lt in the pa&ment of the loan o#li'ation, was foreclosed and ownership was consolidated in D18:s name. !erafin Adolfo, !r., howe er, rep%rchased the same. !ometime in -.75, !erafin Adolfo, !r. AAdolfoB alle'edl& mort'a'ed the s%#>ect propert& for the s%m of 8-2,500.00 to Aniceto 1an'is A1an'isB who immediatel& too( possession of the land. 0he said transaction was, howe er, not red%ced into writin'. =hen Adolfo died, his heirs, namel&, L%7 Adolfo 1annister, !erafin Adolfo, Cr. and Ele%terio Adolfo A<eirs of AdolfoB, e@ec%ted a Deed of E@tra>%dicial 8artition co erin' the propert&. 0hereafter the <eirs of Adolfo e@pressed their intention to redeem the mort'a'ed propert& from 1an'is #%t the latter ref%sed, claimin' that the transaction #etween him and Adolfo was one of sale. Amica#le settlement failed so a f%ll #lown trial ens%ed. 0he claim of the <eirs of 1an'is was that since the& ha e #een in possession of the s%#>ect land since -.72 or for 2/ &ears, then the present action has prescri#ed. Iss#e' =hether or not the action has prescri#ed. R#(in)' No. 0he co%rt r%led that the claim of the <eirs of 1an'is that since the& ha e #een in possession of the s%#>ect land since -.72 or for 2/ &ears is %ntena#le. "t #ears to note that while 1an'is indeed too( possession of the land %pon its alle'ed mort'a'e, the certificate of title A060 No. 5;-;B remained with Adolfo and %pon his demise, transferred to his heirs, there#& ne'atin' an& contemplated transfer of ownership. !ettled is the r%le that no title in dero'ation of that of the re'istered owner can #e acq%ired #& prescription or ad erse possession. $oreo er, e en if acq%isiti e prescription can #e appreciated in this case, the <eirs of 1an'is) possession #ein' in

#ad faith is two &ears sh& of the req%isite ;0?&ear %ninterr%pted ad erse possession req%ired %nder Article --;7 of the 6i il 6ode. 6onseq%entl&, the <eirs of 1an'is cannot alidl& claim the ri'hts of a #%ilder in 'ood faith as pro ided for %nder Article ++. in relation to Article ++/ of the 6i il 6ode. 0h%s, the order for them to s%rrender the possession of the disp%ted land to'ether with all its impro ements was properl& made. Aniceto Bangis, substituted by his heirs, namely Rodolfo B. Bangis, et al. vs. Heirs of Serafin and Salud Adolfo, namely: Luz A. Banniester, et al.

REP0BLIC OF 12E P2ILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. MIC2AEL C. SAN1OS, 3ANNESSA C. SAN1OS, MIC2ELLE C. SAN1OS $nd DELFIN SAN1OS, $(( represented "% DELFIN C. SAN1OS, Attorne%4in4F$/t, Respondents. G.R. No. 18 &+, -#(% 18, & 1& F$/ts' 4cto#er -..7, the respondents p%rchased three A;B parcels of %nre'istered land sit%ated in 1aran'a& 6aras%chi, "ndan', 6a ite.0he ; parcels of land were pre io%sl& owned #& one 2enerosa As%ncion A2enerosaB, one 0eresita !ernal A0eresitaB and #& the spo%ses Cimm& and "melda Antona, respecti el& !ometime after the said p%rchase, the respondents ca%sed the s%r e& and consolidation of the parcels of land. <ence, per the consolidationDs%#di ision plan 6cs?0+? 00;.+.?D, the ; parcels were consolidated into a sin'le lotEFLot ;FEwith a determined total area of nine tho%sand fi e h%ndred se ent&?se en A.,577B sq%are meters . the respondents filed with the 306 an Application for 4ri'inal 3e'istration of Lot ; the petitioner opposed on the 'ro%nd that that their predecessors?in?interest i.e., the pre io%s owners of the parcels of land ma(in' %p Lot ;, ha e #een in Fcontin%o%s, %ninterr%pted, open, p%#lic and ad erseF possession of the said parcels Fsince time immemorial. "t is #& irt%e of s%ch len'th& possession, tac(ed with their own, that respondents now hin'e their claim of title o er Lot ;. 306 'ranted the petition of the respondents and the 6o%rt of appeals affirmed the decision of the 306 Iss#e' =hether or not the 6o%rt of Appeals erred in affirmin' the 306 r%lin' 'rantin' ori'inal re'istration of Lot ; in fa or of the respondents. R#(in)' 9es. Gnder the C%ra 3e'alia and the 8ropert& 3e'istration Decree simpl& means that the !tate is the ori'inal proprietor of all lands and, as s%ch, is the 'eneral so%rce of all pri ate titles. 0h%s, p%rs%ant to this principle, all claims of pri ate title to land, sa e those acq%ired from nati e title, m%st #e traced from some 'rant, whether e@press or implied, from the !tate. A#sent a clear showin' that land had #een let into pri ate ownership thro%'h the !tate)s imprimat%r, s%ch land is pres%med to #elon' to the !tate.

1ein' an %nre'istered land, Lot ; is therefore pres%med as land #elon'in' to the !tate. "t is #asic that those who see( the entr& of s%ch land into the 0orrens s&stem of re'istration m%st first esta#lish that it has acq%ired alid title thereto as a'ainst the !tate, in accordance with law. "n this connection, ori'inal re'istration of title to land is allowed #& !ection -+ of 8residential Decree No. -52., or otherwise (nown as the 8ropert& 3e'istration Decree. 0he said section pro ides: !ection -+. =ho ma& appl&. 0he followin' persons ma& file in the proper 6o%rt of First "nstance an application for re'istration of title to land, whether personall& or thro%'h their d%l& a%thori7ed representati es: A-B 0hose who #& themsel es or thro%'h their predecessors?in?interest ha e #een in open, contin%o%s, e@cl%si e and notorio%s possession and occ%pation of aliena#le and disposa#le lands of the p%#lic domain %nder a #ona fide claim of ownership since C%ne -2, -.+5, or earlier. A2B 0hose who ha e acq%ired ownership of pri ate lands #& prescription %nder the pro isions of e@istin' laws. A;B 0hose who ha e acq%ired ownership of pri ate lands or a#andoned ri er #eds #& ri'ht of accession or accretion %nder the e@istin' laws. A+B 0hose who ha e acq%ired ownership of land in an& other manner pro ided for #& law. AEmphasis s%ppliedB 1asin' from the alle'ations of the respondents in their application for land re'istration and s%#seq%ent pleadin's, it appears that the& see( the re'istration of Lot ; %nder either the first or the second para'raph of the q%oted section. <owe er, after per%sin' the records of this case, as well as the laws and >%rispr%dence rele ant thereto, =e find that neither >%stifies re'istration in fa or of the respondents.

-AIME S. PERE5, "ot6 in 6is person$( $nd o77i/i$( /$p$/it% $s C6ie7, M$ri8in$ De9o(ition O77i/e,Petitioner, vs.SPO0SES FOR10NI1O L. MADRONA $nd :OLANDA B. PAN1E, Respondents. G.R. No. 1844+8 M$r/6 &1, & 1& F$/ts' 3espondent?spo%ses Fort%nito $adrona and 9olanda 1. 8ante are re'istered owners of a residential propert& respondents #%ilt their ho%se thereon and enclosed it with a concrete fence and steel 'ate."n -..., respondents recei ed the followin' letter dated $a& 25, -... from petitioner Caime !. 8ere7, 6hief of the $ari(ina Demolition 4ffice statin' that the& are %nlawf%l settlers. As response, respondent $adrona sent petitioner a three?pa'e letter5 dated C%ne /, -... statin' that the $a& 25, -... letter A-B contained an acc%sation li#elo%s in nat%re as it is condemnin' him and his propert& witho%t d%e processH A2B has no #asis and a%thorit& since there

is no co%rt order a%thori7in' him to demolish their str%ct%reH A;B cited le'al #ases which do not e@pressl& 'i e petitioner a%thorit& to demolishH and A+B contained a false acc%sation since their fence did not in fact e@tend to the sidewal(. 0hereafter after a &ear another letter with the same content was sent to them. 0his prompted the respondent to file an in>%ction case. 0he co%rt 'ranted the 0emporar& in>%ction and s%#seq%entl& rendered a decision fa ora#le to the respondent. 4n appeal, the 6A affirmed the decision of the 306. Iss#e' =<E0<E3 43 N400<E 64G30 4F A88EAL! 64$$"00ED A 3EIE3!"1LE E3343 "N AFF"3$"N2 0<E 3GL"N2 4F 0<E L4=E3 64G30 0<A0 0<E 3E!84NDEN0! A3E EN0"0LED 04 8E3$ANEN0 "NCGN60"4N, 0<E3E19 3E!03A"N"N2 0<E 8E0"0"4NE3 43 AN94NE A60"N2 F43 AND 4N <"! 1E<ALF F34$ 6A339"N2 4G0 0<E 0<3EA0ENED DE$4L"0"4N 4F 0<E"3 8E3"$E0E3 FEN6E AND !0EEL 2A0E. R#(in)' N4, 0he co%rt of appeals was correct. For in>%nction to iss%e, two req%isites m%st conc%r: first, there m%st #e a ri'ht to #e protected and second, the acts a'ainst which the in>%nction is to #e directed are iolati e of said ri'ht.2. <ere, the two req%isites are clearl& present: there is a ri'ht to #e protected, that is, respondents) ri'ht o er their concrete fence which cannot #e remo ed witho%t d%e processH and the act, the s%mmar& demolition of the concrete fence, a'ainst which the in>%nction is directed, wo%ld iolate said ri'ht. "f petitioner indeed fo%nd respondents) fence to ha e encroached on the sidewal(, his remed& is not to demolish the same s%mmaril& after respondents failed to heed his req%est to remo e it. "nstead, he sho%ld 'o to co%rt and pro e respondents) s%pposed iolations in the constr%ction of the concrete fence. "ndeed, %nless a thin' is a n%isance per se, it ma& not #e a#ated s%mmaril& 3espondents) fence is not a n%isance per se. 1& its nat%re, it is not in>%rio%s to the health or comfort of the comm%nit&. "t was #%ilt primaril& to sec%re the propert& of respondents and pre ent intr%ders from enterin' it. And as correctl& pointed o%t #& respondents, the sidewal( still e@ists. "f petitioner #elie es that respondents) fence indeed encroaches on the sidewal(, it ma& #e so pro en in a hearin' cond%cted for that p%rpose. Not #ein' a n%isance per se, #%t at most a n%isance per accidens, its s%mmar& a#atement witho%t >%dicial inter ention is %nwarranted.
NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHA'IS OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its Secretary enera!, Petiti"ner, #s$ALFRE%O S$ PAS&UAL, in 'is capacity as t'e Re(i"na! E)ec*ti#e %irect"r, %epart+ent ", En#ir"n+enta! and Nat*ra! Res"*rces, Re(i"na! O,,ice N"$ -., Resp"ndents$ $R$ N"$ /01.2., 3*!y //, .4/. Facts5

The petitioner alleged that it is the lawful and absolute owner of two (2) parcels of land. The petitioner had been in open, continuous and adverse possession for a period of more than thirty (30) years, and a cloud exists on its title because of an invalid ecember !, "#$% decision of the &ureau of 'ands. This invalid decision re)ected the miscellaneous sales applications of the petitioner*s predecessors+in+ interest for the lots, and ordered all those in privity with them (specifically including the petitioner) to vacate the lots and to remove their improvements thereon. &ecause of such cloud petitioner filed an action to ,uiet the title of the property. -espondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action but the trial court dismissed the motion. The court of appeals reversed the decision of the -T..
(

Iss*e5 /hether or not the .0 committed a reversible error in finding that the -T. committed a grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the petitioner*s complaint for ,uieting of title for failure to state a cause of action. R*!in(5 1o. 23ailure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of allegation in the pleading. 4n resolving a motion to dismiss based on the failure to state a cause of action only the facts alleged in the complaint must be considered. The test is whether the court can render a valid )udgment on the complaint based on the facts alleged and the prayer as5ed for.2 6nder 0rticles !7( and !77 of the .ivil .ode, there are two (2) indispensable re,uisites in an action to ,uiet title8 (") that the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an e,uitable title to or interest in the real property sub)ect of the action9 and (2) that a deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding is claimed to be casting cloud on his title. The petitioner*s status as possessor and owner of the lots had been settled in the final and executory ecember !, "#$% decision of the &ureau of 'ands that the :1- ;ecretary and the <= affirmed on appeal. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the possession and ownership of the lots. >urisprudence teaches us that the decisions and orders of administrative agencies, such as the &ureau of 'ands, rendered pursuant to their ,uasi+)udicial authority, upon finality, have the force and binding effect of a final )udgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata.