Haystacks: Property Law

Haystacks
Property Law
Michael Vernon Guerrero Mendiola 2003 Shared under Creative Commons ttri!ution" #onCommercial"Share like 3$0 Philippines license$
Some %i&hts %eserved$
'a!le o( Contents
&ne v$ )irector o( Lands *G$%$ #o$ +03,,$ -e!ruary ./ 0,,0$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 0 &o v$ C *G$%$ #o$ L"034,4$ 5cto!er 30/ 0,.2$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 6 &ustin v$ 7 C *G$%$ #os$ ..036"3.$ 8uly 6/ 0,,0$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 3 ntipolo v$ 9apanta *G$%$ #o$ .633+$ )ecem!er 2./ 0,4+$1 2$$$$$$$$$ , ssistant Secretary (or Le&al ((airs v$ C *G$%$ #o$ 3.3.0$ 8anuary ,/ 0,4,$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 00 ssociated 7nsurance : Surety v$ 7ya *G$%$ #os$ L"00433"34$ May 30/ 0,64$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 03 ;achrach v$ Sei(ert *G$%$ #o$ L"2.6,$ 5cto!er 02/ 0,60$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 06 ;achrach Motors v$ 'alisay"Silay Millin& *G$%$ #o$ 36223$ Septem!er 03/ 0,30$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 03 ;aes v$ C *G$%$ #o$ 0040.6$ 8uly ./ 0,,3$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 04 ;alta<ar v$ Caridad *G$%$ #o$ L"2360,$ 8une 23/ 0,..$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 0, ;alucana& v$ -rancisco *G$%$ #o$ L"33+22$ May 30/ 0,43$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 20 ;ataclan v$ C-7 Cavite *G$%$ #o$ +3+6.$ May ./ 0,36$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 23 ;autista v$ larcon *G$%$ #o$ 4063$ )ecem!er 2+/ 0,02$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 2+ ;erkenkotter v$ Cu =n>ien& *G$%$ #o$ +0.+3$ 8uly 30/ 0,36$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 26 ;icerra v$ 'ene<a *G$%$ #o$ L"0.204$ #ovem!er 2,/ 0,.2$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 23 ;inalay v$ Manalo *G$%$ #o$ ,20.0$ March 04/ 0,,0$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 24 ;oard o( ssessment ppeals v$ City 'reasurer *G$%$ #o$ L"0633+$ 8anuary 30/ 0,.+$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 30 ;ur&os v$ Chie( o( Sta((/ -P *G$%$ #o$ .+2.0$ )ecem!er 2./ 0,4+$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 32 Municipality o( Cavite v$ %o>as *G$%$ #o$ ,0.,$ March 30/ 0,06$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 3. Ce!u 5?y&en : cetylene v$ ;ercilles *G$%$ #o$ L"+0+3+$ u&ust 2,/ 0,36$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 33 Chua v$ C *G$%$ #o$ 00,4+0$ 8anuary 20/ 0,,,$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 34 Chua Guan v$ Samahan& Ma&sasaka *G$%$ #o$ +20,0$ #ovem!er 2/ 0,36$1 2$$$$$$$$$ +0 Chua Pen& Hian v$ C *G$%$ #o$ .0006$ )ecem!er 0,/ 0,4+$1 2$$$$$$$$$ +2 Cure& v$ 7 C *G$%$ #o$ 33+.6$ Septem!er 3/ 0,4,$1 2$$$$$$$$$ +3 )acanay v$ sistio *G$%$ #o$ ,3.6+$ May ./ 0,,2$1 2$$$$$$$$$ +. )avao Sawmill v$ Castillo *G$%$ #o$ +0+00$ u&ust 3/ 0,36$1 2$$$$$$$$$ +, )e ;uyser v$ )irector o( Lands *G$%$ #o$ L"223.3$ March 04/ 0,43$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 60 )e Gu<man v$ dela -uente *G$%$ #o$ 32+33$ )ecem!er 2,/ 0,30$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 60 )el Campo v$ -ernande<" !esia *G$%$ #o$ L"+,20,$ pril 06/ 0,44$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 62 )epra v$ )umlao *G$%$ #o$ L"633+4$ May 0./ 0,46$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 63 )irector o( -orestry v$ Villareal *G$%$ #o$ L"322..$ -e!ruary 23/ 0,4,$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 6. )irector o( Lands v$ C *G$%$ #o$ 644.3$ 8une 22/ 0,4+$1 2$$$$$$$$$ .0 )irector o( Lands v$ 7 C *G$%$ #o$ 332+.$ March 2/ 0,,3$1 2$$$$$$$$$ .2 @spiritu v$ Municipal Council o( Po<orru!io/ Pan&asinan *G$%$ #o$ L"0000+$ 8anuary 20/ 0,64$1 2$$$$$$$$$ .+ @van&elista v$ lto Surety *G$%$ #o$ L"0003,$ pril 23/ 0,64$1 2$$$$$$$$$ .6 -errer vs$ ;autista *G$%$ #o$ +.,.3$ March 0+/ 0,,+$1 2$$$$$$$$$ .3 Geminiano v$ C *G$%$ #o$ 020303$ 8uly 2+/ 0,,.$1 2$$$$$$$$$ ., German Mana&ement : Services v$ C AGernale/ Ville<aB *G$%$ #o$ 3.20. and 3.203$ Septem!er 0+/ 0,4,$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 30 Grande v$ C *G$%$ #o$ L"03.62$ 8une 30/ 0,.2$12$$$$$$$$$ 32 GS7S v$ Calson *G$%$ #o$ L"0,4.3$ May 2,/ 0,.4$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 36 Government v$ Ca!an&is *G$%$ #o$ 2433,$ March 23/ 0,2,$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 3. Government v$ Cole&io de San 8ose *G$%$ #o$ 3042,$ u&ust 24/ 0,2,$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 34 Grana v$ C *G$%$ #o$ L"02+4.$ u&ust 30/ 0,.0$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 40 Harty v$ Victoria/ 'arlac *G$%$ #o$ 6003$ March 00/ 0,0,$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 42 Hilario v$ City o( Manila *G% #o$ L"0,630 pril 23/ 0,.31 2$$$$$$$$$ 4+ Hinunan&an AMunicipality o(B v$ )irector o( Lands *G$%$ #o$ 306+$ 8anuary 20/ 0,03$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 44 Hod&es v$ Garcia *G$%$ #o$ L"02330$ u&ust 22/ 0,.0$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 4, Hon&kon& : Shan&hai ;ankin& v$ ldecoa : Co$ *G$%$ #o$ 4+33$ March 23/ 0,06$1 2$$$$$$$$$ ,0 7&nacio v$ )irector o( Lands *G$%$ #o$ L"02,64$ May 30/ 0,.0$1 2$$$$$$$$$ ,. 7&nacio v$ Hilario *G$%$ #o$ L"036$ pril 30/ 0,+.$1 2$$$$$$$$$ ,3
7&nao v$ 7 C *G$%$ #o$ 3243.$ 8anuary 04/ 0,,0$1 2$$$$$$$$$ ,4 7nter"re&ional )evelopment Corporation v$ C *G$%$ #o$ L"3,.33$ 8uly 22/ 0,36$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 000 8acinto v$ )irector o( Lands *G$%$ #o$ 2.33+$ )ecem!er 30/ 0,2.$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 000 8a&ualin& v$ C *G$%$ #o$ ,+243$ March +/ 0,,0$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 003 Laurel v$ Garcia *G$%$ #o$ ,2003 : ,20+3$ 8uly 26/ 0,,0$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 006 Leun& Cee v$ Stron& Machinery *G$%$ #o$ L"00.64$ -e!ruary 06/ 0,04$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 00, Lope< v$ 5rosa *G$%$ #os$ L"00403"04$ -e!ruary 24/ 0,64$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 000 Macasiano v$ )iokno *G$%$ #o$ ,33.+$ u&ust 00/ 0,,2$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 003 Makati Leasin& v$ Dearever 'e?tiles *G$%$ #o$ L"64+.,$ May 0./ 0,43$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 006 Manalo v$ 7 C *G$%$ #o$ .+363$ pril 2./ 0,4,$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 003 Manaran& v$ 5(ilada *G$%$ #o$ L"4033$ May 04/ 0,6.$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 00, Maneclan& v$ 7 C *G$%$ #o$ L"..636$ Septem!er 30/ 0,4.$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 020 Manila Lod&e 3.0 v$ C *G$%$ #o$ L"+0000$ Septem!er 30/ 0,3.$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 020 Manotok %ealty v$ 'ecson *G$%$ #o$ L"+3+36$ u&ust 0,/ 0,44$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 026 Mapa v$ 7nsular Government *G$%$ #o$ L"33,3$ -e!ruary 0,/ 0,04$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 023 Mercado v$ C *G$%$ #o$ L"++000$ 8une 00/ 0,44$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 02, Mercado v$ Municipal President o( Maca!e!e *G$%$ #o$ 33,4.$ March 0/ 0,3+$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 032 Mindanao ;us v$ City ssessor *G$%$ #o$ L"03430$ Septem!er 2,/ 0,.2$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 036 Miranda v$ -adullon *G$%$ #o$ L"4220$ 5cto!er 2,/ 0,66$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 03. Monserrat v$ Ceron *G$%$ #o$ 33034$ Septem!er 23/ 0,33$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 033 MDSS v$ C *G$%$ #o$ L"6+62.$ u&ust 26/ 0,4.$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 03, #avarro v$ Pineda *G$%$ #o$ L"04+6.$ #ovem!er 30/ 0,.3$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 0+0 5as AMunicipality o(B v$ %oa *G$%$ #o$ L"2003$ #ovem!er 2+/ 0,0.$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 0+3 Paci(ic -arms v$ @s&uerra *G$%$ #o$ L"20343$ #ovem!er 2,/ 0,.,$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 0++ Panlilio v$ Mercado *G$%$ #o$ 04330$ March 2./ 0,23$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 0+3 Pecson v$ C *G$%$ #o$ 00640+$ May 2./ 0,,6$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 0+4 PeopleEs ;ank v$ )ahican Lum!er *G$%$ #o$ L"03600$ May 0./ 0,.3$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 060 Philippine %e(inin& v$ 8arFue *G$%$ #o$ +060.$ March 26/ 0,36$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 063 Piansay v$ )avid *G$%$ #o$ L"0,+.4$ 5cto!er 30/ 0,.+$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 06+ Pleasantville )evelopment v$ C *G$%$ #o$ 3,.44$ -e!ruary 0/ 0,,.$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 06. Prudential ;ank v$ Panis *G$%$ #o$ L"60004$ u&ust 30/ 0,43$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 06, Punsalan v$ vda$ )e Lacsamana *G$%$ #o$ L"6632,$ March 24/ 0,43$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 0.0 Guemuel v$ 5laes *G$%$ #o$ L"0004+$ pril 2,/ 0,.0$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 0.2 %epu!lic v$ la&ad *G$%$ #o$ ..403$ 8anuary 2./ 0,4,$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 0.+ %epu!lic v$ C *G$%$ #o$ L"+3006$ u&ust 30/ 0,4+$12$$$$$$$$$ 0.3 %epu!lic v$ C *G$%$ #o$ L".0.+3$ 5cto!er 02/ 0,4+$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 0., %epu!lic v$ 7 C *G$%$ #o$ 33046$ 8une +/ 0,,0$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 030 %eynante v$ C *G$%$ #o$ ,6,03$ pril 4/ 0,,2$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 032 %onFuillo v$ C *G$%$ #o$ +33+.$ March 20/ 0,,0$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 03+ %o?as v$ 'uason *G$%$ #o$ L"3344$ )ecem!er 20/ 0,03$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 03. %u!iso vs$ %ivera *G% L"00+03/ 30 5cto!er 0,031 2$$$$$$$$$ 03, San )ie&o v$ Montesa *G$%$ #o$ L"03,46$ Septem!er 2,/ 0,.2$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 040 Santos v$ Mo>ica *G$%$ #o$ L"26+60$ 8anuary 30/ 0,.,$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 042 Santos v$ Moreno *G$%$ #o$ L"0642,$ )ecem!er +/ 0,.3$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 043 Sarmiento v$ &ana *G$%$ #o$ 63244$ pril 30/ 0,4+$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 04, Ser&Es Products v$ PC7 Leasin& *G$%$ #o$ 033306$ u&ust 22/ 2000$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 0,0 Si!al v$ Valde< *G$%$ #o$ 2.234$ u&ust +/ 0,23$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 0,2 Standard 5il v$ 8aramillo *G$%$ #o$ 2032,$ March 0./ 0,23$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 0,6 7nvoluntary insolvency o( Paul Strochecker v$ %amire< *G$%$ #o$ 04300$ Septem!er 2./ 0,22$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 0,. 'an Gueto v$ C *G$%$ #o$ L"36.+4$ -e!ruary 23/ 0,43$1H %esolution 2$$$$$$$$$ 0,3
'umalad v$ Vicencio *G$%$ #o$ L"30033$ Septem!er 30/ 0,30$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 0,4 =S v$ Carlos *G$%$ #o$ .2,6$ Septem!er 0/ 0,00$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 200 =S v$ 'am!untin& *G$%$ #o$ 0.603$ 8anuary 04/ 0,20$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 203 Vda$ )e #a<areno v$ C *G$%$ #o$ ,40+6$ 8une 2./ 0,,.$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 20+ Vda$ )e 'antoco v$ Muncipal Council o( 7loilo *G$%$ #o$ 2+,60$ March 26/ 0,2.$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 203 Via>ar v$ C *G$%$ #o$ 332,+$ )ecem!er 02/ 0,44$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 200 Villanueva v$ Castaneda *G$%$ #o$ L".0300$ Septem!er 20/ 0,43$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 203 Province o( 9am!oan&a del #orte v$ City o( 9am!oan&a *G$%$ #o$ L"2+++0$ March 24/ 0,.4$1 2$$$$$$$$$ 206
This collection contains one hundred eight (108) cases summarized in this format by Michael Vernon M. Guerrero (as a sophomore la student) during the !irst "emester# school year $00%&$00' in the (roperty )a class under *tty. +lmer ,abuya at the *rellano -ni.ersity "chool of )a (*-")). /ompiled as (0!# 1uly $011. 2erne Guerrero entered *-") in 1une $00$ and e.entually graduated from *-") in $003. 4e passed the (hilippine bar e5aminations immediately after (*pril $006).
www$!erne&uerrero$com
Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)
[1] Agne v. Director of Lands [G.R. No. !"##. $e%ruary &' 1##!.] Agne v. IAC [G.R. No. 72255. February 6, 1990.] Second Division, Regalado (J): 4 concurring $acts( The land subject matter of the case was originall covered b !ree "atent #$#%$ issued on &' ()ril &*$' in the name of +erminigildo (g)oon, -n #& .a &*$', )ursuant to the said )atent, the Register of Deeds of "angasinan issued to said +erminigildo (g)oon -/T #$'0, "resentacion (g)oon 1ascon inherited the said )arcel of land u)on the death of her father, +erminigildo, and was issued T/T $##0* on % ()ril &*%0, "resentacion declared the said land for ta2ation )ur)oses in her name under TD &&30% and ta2es were )aid thereon in her name, -n &$ ()ril &*'&, s)ouses Joa4uin and "resentacion 1ascon filed /ivil /ase 56##7% in the then /!8 "angasinan for recover of )ossession and damages against .arcelino /, (gne, !eli2 -riane, (gaton Taganas (re)resented b !lorentino /, Taganas), +ilario 9scor)i:o, 8sabelo .auricio, +eirs of Roman Damaso (Jorge Damaso and (lejandro Damaso), +eirs of !rancisco Ramos (9ncarnacion R, ;eano and Dominga R, .edrano), +eirs of Sabina 1elacio (ga)ito (Sera)io (ga)ito and <icolasa (ga)ito), !eli:a Diccion (gne, 9stanislao 1oros)e (re)resented b 9li:abeth 1, =adua), ;ibrado =adua, <icolas >illanieva, +eirs of /arlos "alado (!ortunata "alado and 8sabelita "alado), "rimitivo Taganas, "anfilo Soingco, =ernardo "alattao, .arcelino S, Santos and "aulino D, (gne Jr, (minor, re)resented b !eli:a Diccion (gne), Their com)laint states that the are the registered owners under T/T $##0* of the )arcel of land situated in =arrio =antog, (singan, "angasinan which is now in the )ossession of (gne, et,al,? that during the Ja)anese occu)ation, the latter, ta@ing advantage of the abnormal conditions then obtaining, too@ )ossession of said land b means of fraud, stealth, strateg and intimidation? that 1ascon re)eatedl demanded the surrender of the )h sical )ossession of said )ro)ert but the latter refused, (gne, et,al, alleged that the land in 4uestion was formerl a )art of the river bed of the (gno6/hico River? that in the ear &*#0, a big flood occurred which caused the said river to change its course and abandon its original bed? that b virtue of the )rovisions of (rticle $'0 of the S)anish /ivil /ode which was then the law in force, (gne, et,al,, b o)eration of law, became the owners b accession or accretion of the res)ective ali4uot )arts of said river bed bordering their )ro)erties? that since &*#0, the and their )redecessors in interest occu)ied and e2ercised dominion o)enl and adversel over said )ortion of the abandoned river bed in 4uestion abutting their res)ective ri)arian lands continuousl u) to the )resent to the e2clusion of all other )ersons, )articularl +erminigildo (g)oon? that the have introduced im)rovements thereon b constructing irrigation canals and )lanting trees and agricultural cro)s thereon and converted the land into a )roductive area, -n % .arch &*'4, while the above case was still )ending, (gne, et,al, filed a com)laint against Director of ;ands and s)ouses (g)oon with the former /!8 "angasinan for annulment of title, reconve ance of andAor action to clear title to a )arcel of land, which action was doc@eted as /ivil /ase 56#%4*, (gne, et, al, alleged in their said com)laint that the land in 4uestion, which was formerl a )ortion of the bed of (gno6/hico river which was abandoned as a result of the big flood in &*#0, belongs to them )ursuant to the )rovision of (rticle $'0 of the old /ivil /ode? that it was onl on &$ ()ril &*'&, when s)ouses filed a com)laint against them, that the found out that the said land was granted b the 1overnment to +erminigildo (g)oon under !ree "atent #$#%$, )ursuant to which -/T #$'0 was issued in the latterBs name? and that the said )atent and subse4uent titles issued )ursuant thereto are null and void since the said land, an abandoned river bed, is of )rivate ownershi) and, therefore, cannot be the subject of a )ublic land grant, -n #& June &*'4, the trial court rendered a decision in /ivil /ase 56##7%, ordering (gne, et,al, to surrender )h sical )ossession of land in 4uestion, to )a in soludum the )roduce of the land ("3,000 )er ear) from the date of the filing of the action at the rate of %C interest )er annum until full )aid? to )a in solidum the amount of "700 re)resenting attorne Bs fees? and to )a the costs,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1 )
(gne, et,al, a))ealed to the a))ellate court, -n $0 Januar &*73 the former 8(/ affirmed in toto in (/61R /> %0$776R the decision of the trial court, and with the denial of (gne et,al,Bs motion for reconsideration, (gne, et,al, filed a )etition for review on certiorari with the Su)reme /ourt (1R '##33), -n #4 June &*'4, the /!8 "angasinan, acting on the motion to dismiss filed b the Director of ;ands and s)ouses (g)oon, issued an order dismissing /ivil /ase 56#%4* for annulment of title b merel citing the statement in the case of (ntonio, et al, vs, =arroga, et al, that an action to annul a free )atent man ears after it had become final and indefeasible states no cause of action, (gne, et,alBs motion for the reconsideration of the order was denied on && Se)tember &*'4, hence the )etition for review on certiorari (1R ;640$**) The Su)reme /ourt reversed and set aside the assailed decision of 8(/ in (/61R /> %0$776R and the 4uestioned order of dismissal of the trial court in its /ivil /ase #%4*, and rendered judgment ordering the 1ascon to reconve the )arcel of land to (gne, et,al, 1. ,ase of Antonio v. Barroga not contro--ing The lower court erred in ordering the dismissal of /ivil /ase 56#%4*, as the case of (ntonio relied u)on in the dismissal order is not controlling, 8n that case, the com)laint was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, not onl because of the dela in the filing of the com)laint but s)ecificall since the ground relied u)on b the )laintiff therein, i,e, that the land was )reviousl covered b a titulo real, even if true, would not warrant the annulment of the free )atent and the subse4uent original certificate of title issued to defendant, +. ,ause of action. $acts a--eged in co/*-aint 0y*ot0etica--y ad/itted u*on t0e fi-ing of t0e /otion to dis/iss The facts alleged in the com)laint, which are deemed h )otheticall admitted u)on the filing of the motion to dismiss, constitute a sufficient cause of action against )rivate res)ondents, ". Agne o1ns *ro*erty. Ri*arian o1ners i*so facto o1ners of a%andoned river %ed (2-d ,ivi,ode) The old /ivil /ode, the law then in force, )rovides that Dthe beds of rivers which remain abandoned because the course of the water has naturall changed belong to the owners of the ri)arian lands throughout their res)ective lengths, 8f the abandoned bed divided estates belonging to different owners, the new dividing line shall run at e4ual distance therefrom,E Thus, once the river bed has been abandoned, the ri)arian owners become the owners of the abandoned bed to the e2tent )rovided b this article, The ac4uisition of ownershi) is automatic, There need be no act on the )art of the ri)arian owners to subject the accession to their ownershi), as it is subject thereto i)so jure from the moment the mode of ac4uisition becomes evident, without the need of an formal act of ac4uisition, Such abandoned river bed had fallen to the )rivate ownershi) of the owner of the ri)arian land even without an formal act of his will and an unauthori:ed occu)ant thereof will be considered as a tres)asser, The right in re to the )rinci)al is li@ewise a right in re to the accessor , as it is a mode of ac4uisition )rovided b law, as the result of the right of accretion, Since the accessor follows the nature of the )rinci)al, there need not be an tendenc to the thing or manifestation of the )ur)ose to subject it to our ownershi), as it is subject thereto i)so jure from the moment the mode of ac4uisition becomes evident, The right of the owner of land to additions thereto b accretion has been said to rest in the law of nature, and to be analogous to the right of the owner of a tree to its fruits, and the owner of floc@s and herds to their natural increase, 8n the )resent case, (gne, et,al, became owners of ali4uot )ortions of said abandoned river bed as earl as &*#0, when the (gno River changed its course, without the necessit of an action or e2ercise of )ossession on their )art, it being an admitted fact that the land in dis)ute, )rior to its registration, was an abandoned bed of the (gno River and that (gne, et, al, are the ri)arian owners of the lands adjoining the said bed,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( + )
. 21ners0i* of accession governed %y ,ivi- ,ode' i/*rescri*ti%i-ity of registered -and governed %y Land Registration Act. 3/*rescri*ti%i-ity does not a**-y as tit-e %ased on *u%-ic grant The failure of (gne et,al, to register the accretion in their names and declare it for )ur)oses of ta2ation did not divest it of its character as a )rivate )ro)ert , (lthough an accretion to registered land is not automaticall registered and therefore not entitled or subject to the )rotection of im)rescri)tibilit enjo ed b registered )ro)ert under the Torrens s stem, The said rule is not a))licable to the case since the title claimed b s)ouses 1ascon is not based on ac4uisitive )rescri)tion but is anchored on a )ublic grant from the 1overnment, which )resu))oses that it was ince)tivel a )ublic land, -wnershi) over the accession is governed b the /ivil /ode, 8m)rescri)tibilit of registered land is a concern of the ;and Registration (ct, 4. Land of *rivate o1ners0i*. Director of Lands does not 0ave aut0ority to grant free *atent for said -and 5nder the )rovisions of (ct #7'4 )ursuant to which the title of 1asconBs )redecessor in interest was issued, the "resident of the "hili))ines or his alter ego, the Director of ;ands, has no authorit to grant a free )atent for land that has ceased to be a )ublic land and has )assed to )rivate ownershi), and a title so issued is null and void, The nullit arises, not from the fraud or deceit, but from the fact that the land is not under the jurisdiction of the =ureau of ;ands, The jurisdiction of the Director of ;ands is limited onl to )ublic lands and does not cover lands )rivatel owned, The )ur)ose of the ;egislature in ado)ting the former "ublic ;and (ct, (ct #7'4, was and is to limit its a))lication to lands of the )ublic domain, and lands held in )rivate ownershi) are not included therein and are not affected in an manner whatsoever thereb , ;and held in freehold or fee title, or of )rivate ownershi), constitute no )art of the )ublic domain and cannot )ossibl come within the )urview of said (ct #7'4, inasmuch as the DsubjectE of such freehold or )rivate land is not embraced in an manner in the title of the (ct and the same are e2cluded from the )rovisions or te2t thereof, 8n the )resent case, the land in dis)ute since earl &*#0 was alread under the )rivate ownershi) of (gne et,al, and no longer a )art of the lands of the )ublic domain, the same could not have been the subject matter of a free )atent, !ree "atent #$#%$ issued to +erminigildo (g)oon is null and void and the subse4uent titles issued )ursuant thereto cannot become final and indefeasible, &. No tit-e ac5uired %y a**-icant *atentees if -and a-ready a *rivate *ro*erty of anot0er (s ruled in Director of ;ands vs, Sisican, et al, that if at the time the free )atents were issued in &*3$ the land covered therein were alread )rivate )ro)ert of another and, therefore, not )art of the dis)osable land of the )ublic domain, then a))licants )atentees ac4uired no right or title to the land, 6. 7oid *atents *roduce no -ega- effects ( certificate of title fraudulentl secured is null and void ab initio if the fraud consisted in misre)resenting that the land is )art of the )ublic domain, although it is not, The nullit arises, not from the fraud or deceit but, from the fact that the land is not under the jurisdiction of the =ureau of ;ands, =eing null and void, the free )atent granted and the subse4uent titles )roduce no legal effects whatsoever, Fuod nullum est, nullum )roducit effectum, 8. Ru-e on incontroverti%i-ity of certificate of tit-e u*on e9*iration of 1 year' does not a**-y in t0e *resent case The rule on the incontrovertibilit of a certificate of title u)on the e2)iration of one ear, after the entr of the decree, )ursuant to the )rovisions of the ;and Registration (ct, does not a))l where an action for the cancellation of a )atent and a certificate of title issued )ursuant thereto is instituted on the ground that the are null and void because the =ureau of ;ands had no jurisdiction to issue them at all, the land in 4uestion having been withdrawn from the )ublic domain )rior to the subse4uent award of the )atent and the grant of a certificate of title to another )erson, Such an action is different from a review of the decree of title on the ground of fraud, #. Action to annu- void tit-e issued *ursuant to a *u%-ic grant does not *rescri%e
)ro*erty' +!!" ( " )
(lthough a )eriod of one ear has alread e2)ired from the time a certificate of title was issued )ursuant to a )ublic grant, said title does not become incontrovertible but is null and void if the )ro)ert covered thereb is originall of )rivate ownershi), and an action to annul the same does not )rescribe, 1!. Action to 5uite tit-e i/*rescri*ti%-e since *etitioners are in *ossession of -and Since (gne, et,al, are in )ossession of the land in dis)ute, an action to 4uiet title is im)rescri)tible, Their action for reconve ance which, in effect, see@s to 4uiet title to )ro)ert in oneBs )ossession is im)rescri)tible, Their undisturbed )ossession for a number of ears gave them a continuing right to see@ the aid of a court of e4uit to determine the nature of the adverse claims of a third )art and the effect on her title, (s held in Caragay-Layno vs. Court of Appeals, et al. , an adverse claimant of a registered land, undisturbed in his )ossession thereof for a )eriod of more than 30 ears and not @nowing that the land he actuall occu)ied had been registered in the name of another, is not )recluded from filing an action for reconve ance which, in effect, see@s to 4uiet title to )ro)ert as against the registered owner who was rel ing u)on a Torrens title which could have been fraudulentl ac4uired, To such adverse claimant, the remed of an action to 4uiet title is im)rescri)tible, 8n actions for reconve ance of )ro)ert )redicated on the fact that the conve ance com)lained of was void ab initio, a claim of )rescri)tion of the action would be unavailing, 11. Land Registration Act and ,adastra- Act does not give any%ody %etter tit-e t0an 10at 0e rea--y or -a1fu--y 0as ( free )atent which )ur)orts to conve land to which the 1overnment did not have an title at the time of its issuance does not vest an title in the )atentee as against the true owner, (s stated in Gustillo v. Maravill (47 "hil 7$7), the ;and Registration (ct as well as the /adastral (ct )rotects onl the holders of a title in good faith and does not )ermit its )rovisions to be used as a shield for the commission of fraud, or that one should enrich himself at the e2)ense of another, The (cts do not give an bod , who resorts to the )rovisions thereof, a better title than he reall and lawfull has, 8f he ha))ened to obtain it b mista@e or to secure, to the )rejudice of his neighbor, more land than he reall owns, with or without bad faith on his )art, the certificate of title, which ma have been issued to him under the circumstances, ma and should be cancelled or corrected (;egarda and "rieto vs, Saleeb , $& "hil,, 3*0), 1+. Agne:s tit-e su*erior over Gascon:s. )ossession The title of (gne, et,al, over the land in dis)ute is su)erior to the title of the registered owner, 1ascon, which is a total nullit , The long and continued )ossession of the former under a valid claim of title cannot be defeated b the claim of a registered owner whose title is defective from the beginning, 1". ,onc-usiveness of a ;orrens tit-e not avai-a%-e for use to *er*etua- fraud and c0icanery. Land Registration Act. Registration is not a /ode of ac5uiring *ro*erty The 4ualit of conclusiveness of a Torrens title is not available for use to )er)etrate fraud and chicaner , To )ara)hrase from (ngeles vs, Samia, the ;and Registration (ct does not create or vest title, 8t onl confirms and records title alread e2isting and vested, 8t does not )rotect a usur)er from the true owner, 8t cannot be a shield for the commission of fraud, 8t does not )ermit one to enrich himself at the e2)ense of another, The Torrens s stem was not established as a means for the ac4uisition of title to )rivate land, 8t is intended merel to confirm and register the title which one ma alread have on the land, Ghere the a))licant )ossesses no title or ownershi) over the )arcel of land, he cannot ac4uire one under the Torrens s stem of registration, Resort to the )rovisions of the ;and Registration (ct does not give one a better title than he reall and lawfull has, Registration does not vest title, 8t is not a mode of ac4uiring )ro)ert , 8t is merel evidence of such title over a )articular )ro)ert , 8t does not give the holder an better title than what he actuall has, es)eciall if the registration was done in bad faith, The effect is that it is as if no registration was made at all, 1 . Lac0es The failure of the s)ouses 1ascon to assert their claim over the dis)uted )ro)ert for almost $0 constitute laches and bars an action to recover the same, The registered ownersB right to recover )ossession of
)ro*erty' +!!" ( )
the )ro)ert and title thereto from (gne, et, al, has, b long inaction or ine2cusable neglect, been converted into a stale demand, 14. Aut0ority of t0e ,ourt to order t0e reconveyance of *ro*erty Ghere the evidence show that the )laintiff is the true owner of the land subject of the free )atent and title granted to another and that the defendant and his )redecessor in interest were never in )ossession thereof, the /ourt, in the e2ercise of its e4uit jurisdiction and without ordering the cancellation of said title issued u)on the )atent, ma direct the defendant registered owner to reconve the )ro)ert to the )laintiff, !urther, if the determinative facts are before the /ourt and it is in a )osition to finall resolve the dis)ute, the e2)editious administration of justice will be subserved b such a resolution and thereb obviate the needless )rotracted )roceedings conse4uent to the remand of the case of the trial court, -n these considerations, as well as the fact that these cases have been )ending for a long )eriod of time, the /ourt, in the )resent case, see no need for remanding /ivil /ase #%4* for further )roceedings, and hold that the facts and the ends of justice in this case re4uire the reconve ance b the 1ascons to (gne, et,al, of the dis)uted lot, [+] Ago v. ,A [G.R. No. L<168#8. 2cto%er "1' 1#&+.] 9n =anc, ;abrador (J): * concurring, & too@ no )art $acts( 8n &*3', "astor D, (go bought sawmill machineries and e4ui)ments from 1race "ar@ 9ngineering, 8nc,, e2ecuting a chattel mortgage over said machineries and e4ui)ments to secure the )a ment of a balance of the )rice remaining un)aid of "$#,000,00, which (go agreed to )a on installment basis, (go defaulted in his )a ments and so, in &*37, 1race "ar@ 9ngineering, 8nc, instituted e2trajudicial foreclosure )roceedings of the mortgage, To enjoin said foreclosure, (go instituted S)ecial /ivil /ase 3$ in the /!8 (gusan, The )arties to the case arrived at a com)romise agreement and submitted the same in court in writing, signed b (go and the 1race "ar@ 9ngineering, Judge -rti: of the /!8 (gusan dictated a decision in o)en court on #7 Januar &*3*, Still, (go continued to default in his )a ments as )rovided in the judgment b com)romise, so 1race "ar@ 9ngineering filed with the lower court a motion for e2ecution, which was granted b the court on &3 (ugust &*3*, ( writ of e2ecution, dated #$ Se)tember &*3*, later followed, The "rovincial Sheriff of Surigao, acting u)on the writ of e2ecution, levied u)on and ordered the sale of the sawmill machineries and e4ui)ments in 4uestion, These machineries and e4ui)ments had been ta@en to and installed in a sawmill building located in ;ianga, Surigao del Sur, and owned b the 1olden "acific Sawmill to whom he had sold them or assigned them in )a ment of his subscri)tion to the shares of stoc@ of said cor)oration on &% !ebruar &*3* (a date after the decision of the lower court but before lev b the Sheriff), Thereafter the sawmill machineries and e4ui)ments were installed in a building and )ermanentl attached to the ground, +aving been advised b the sheriff that the )ublic auction sale was set for 4 December &*3*, (go, on & December &*3*, filed the )etition for certiorari and )rohibition with )reliminar injunction with the /(, The /ourt of ())eals on 7 December &*3*, issued a writ of )reliminar injunction against the sheriff but it turned out that the latter had alread sold at )ublic auction the machineries in 4uestion as scheduled, 1race "ar@ 9ngineering was the onl bidder for "&3,000,00, although the certificate of sale was not et e2ecuted, The /( instructed the sheriff to sus)end the issuance of a certificate of sale of the said sawmill machineries and e4ui)ment until the final decision of the case, -n * <ovember &*%0, the /( dismissed the )etition for certiorari and dissolved the writ of )reliminar injunction, with costs against the )etitioner, The Su)reme /ourt set aside the decision of the /ourt of ())eals and declared that the issuance of the writ of e2ecution against the sawmill machineries and e4ui)ments )urchased b "astor D, (go from the 1race "ar@ 9ngineering, 8nc,, as well as the sale of the same b the Sheriff of Surigao, are null and void, /osts against
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 4 )
1race "ar@ 9ngineering, 8nc, 1. ,A Ru-ing( ,o/*ro/ise agree/ent %inding %et1een *arties ( com)romise agreement is binding between the )arties and becomes the law between them, (Gonza e! v!. Gonza e!, GR "#125$ [19$%]& 'ar()n v!. 'ar()n, GR "#12$*9 [1959]+. +. ,A Ru-ing( =udg/ent %ased on a co/*ro/ise agree/ent is not a**ea-a%-e and is e9ecutory 8t is a general rule in this jurisdiction that a judgment based on a com)romise agreement is not a))ealable and is immediatel e2ecutor , unless a motion is filed on the ground of fraud, mista@e or duress, (,e o! Reye! v!. -gar(e, 75 ./) . 505& "a0e1a v!. 'or2e, G.R. No. "#100%9, 3u y *1, 1957+ ". =udg/ent /ade in o*en court not rea- >udg/ent of t0e court as it 0as not yet %een rendered Section & of Rule $3 describes the manner in which judgments shall be rendered, )roviding that Dall judgments determining the merits of cases shall be in writing )ersonall and directl )re)ared b the judge, and signed b him, stating clearl and distinctl the facts and the law on which it is based, and filed with the cler@ of the court,E The court of first instance being a court of record, in order that a judgment ma be considered as rendered it must not onl be in writing, signed b the judge, but it must also be filed with the cler@ of court, The mere )ronouncement of the judgment in o)en court with the stenogra)her ta@ing note thereof does not, therefore, constitute a rendition of the judgment, 8t is the filing of the signed decision with the cler@ of court that constitutes rendition, Ghile it is to be )resumed that the judgment that was dictated in o)en court will be the judgment of the court, the court ma still modif said order as the same is being )ut into writing, (nd even if the order or judgment has alread been )ut into writing and signed, while it has not et been delivered to the cler@ for filing, it is still subject to amendment or change b the judge, 8t is onl when the judgment signed b the judge is actuall filed with the cler@ of court that it becomes a valid and binding judgment, "rior thereto, it could still be subject to amendment and change and ma not, therefore, constitute the real judgment of the court, Dictating >udg/ent in o*en court is not va-id notice of said >udg/ent The mere fact that a )art heard the judge dictating the judgment in o)en court, is not a valid notice of said judgment, 8f rendition thereof is constituted b the filing with the cler@ of court of a signed co) (of the judgment), it is evident that the fact that a )art or an attorne heard the order or judgment being dictated in court cannot be considered as notice of the real judgment, <o judgment can be notified to the )arties unless it has )reviousl been rendered, The notice, therefore, that a )art has of a judgment that was being dictated is of no effect because at that time no judgment has as et been signed b the judge and filed with the cler@, 4. Ru-es s*ecific on t0e service of fina- orders or >udg/ent Section ' of Rule #' e2)ressl re4uire that final orders or judgments be served )ersonall or b registered mail, 8n accordance with this )rovision, a )art is not considered as having been served with the judgment merel because he heard the judge dictating the said judgment in o)en court? it is necessar that he be served with a co) of the signed judgment that has been filed with the cler@ in order that he ma legall be considered as having been served with the judgment, &. 3ssuance of 1rit of e9ecution nu-- and void (s the signed judgment not having been served u)on the )etitioner, said judgment could not be effective u)on him who had not received it, 8t follows as a conse4uence that the issuance of the writ of e2ecution was null and void, having been issued before )etitioner was served, )ersonall or b registered mail, a co) of the decision, 6. ?a1/i-- /ac0ineries and e5ui*/ent are rea- *ro*erties in accordance 1it0 Art. 14 (4) = reason of installment in a building, the said sawmill machineries and e4ui)ments became real estate )ro)erties in accordance with the )rovision of (rt, 4&3(3) of the /ivil /ode, 8t is inter)reted similarl
)ro*erty' +!!" ( & )
to the case of =er@en@otter vs, /u 5njieng e +ijos, where the /ourt held that the installation of the machiner and e4ui)ment in the central of the .abalacat Sugar /om)an for use in connection with the industr carried b that com)an , converted the said machiner and e4ui)ment into real estate b reason of their )ur)ose, 8n the )resent case, the installation of the sawmill machineries in the building of the 1olden "acific Sawmill, 8nc,, for use in the sawing of logs carried on in said building, the same became a necessar and )ermanent )art of the building or real estate on which the same was constructed, converting the said machineries and e4ui)ments into real estate within the meaning of (rticle 4&3(3) of the /ivil /ode of the "hili))ines, 8. ?a-e /ade %y s0eriff void for -ack of *u%-ication /onsidering that the machineries and e4ui)ments in 4uestion valued at more than "&3,000,00 a))ear to have been sold without the necessar advertisement of sale b )ublication in a news)a)er, as re4uired in Section &% of Rule $* of the Rules of /ourt, which re4uires )ublication for )ro)erties with value above "400, the sale made b the sheriff must be declared null and void, ["] Agustin v. 3A, [G.R. Nos. &&!64<6&. =u-y 4' 1##!.] !irst Division, 1rino6(4uino (J): 4 concurring $acts( The /aga an River se)arates the towns of Solana on the west and Tuguegarao on the east in the )rovince of /aga an, 8n &*&* the lands east of the river were covered b the Tuguegarao /adastre, 8n &*#3, -/T 34'# was issued for land east of the /aga an River owned b 9ulogio (gustin, (s the ears went b , the /aga an River moved graduall eastward, de)ositing silt on the western ban@, The shifting of the river and the siltation continued until &*%7, 8n &*30, all lands west of the river were included in the Solana /adastre, (mong these occu) ing lands covered b the Solana /adastre were "ablo =ina ug and .aria .elad, =ina ug was in )ossession since &*4' of ;ots $$4*, '7'3 to '7'*, '77& to '773, '7*& and '7*#, 8t is has an area of 7 hectares )lanted to tobacco and corn and another &# hectares overgrown with talahib, =ina ugBs +omestead ())lication G6'*033 over this land was a))roved in &*3* and his )ossession recogni:ed in the decision in /ivil /ase &0&, -n the other hand, as a result of /ivil /ase $4$6T, .acario .elad, the )redecessor6in6interest of .aria .elad and Timoteo .elad, was issued -/T "630#% for ;ot $$3& of /ad, #*$ on & June &*3%, Through the ears, the /aga an River eroded lands of the Tuguegarao /adastre on its eastern ban@ among which was (gustinBs ;ot 743', de)ositing the alluvium as accretion on the land )ossessed b =ina ug on the western ban@, +owever, in &*%7, after a big flood, the /aga an River changed its course, returned to its &*&* bed, and, in the )rocess, cut across the lands of .aria .elad, Timoteo .elad, and the s)ouses "ablo =ina ug and 1eronima 5bina whose lands were transferred on the eastern, or Tuguegarao, side of the river, To cultivate those lots the had to cross the river, 8n ()ril &*%*, while the .elads, =ina ug, 5rbina and their tenants were )lanting corn on their lots located on the eastern side of the /aga an River, (gustin, the +eirs of =aldomero ;angca , Juan ;angca , and (rturo =alisi, accom)anied b the ma or and some )olicemen of Tuguegarao, claimed the same lands as their own and drove awa the .elads, =ina ug and 5rbina from the )remises, -n #& ()ril &*'0, .aria and Timoteo .elad filed a com)laint (/ivil /ase $4$6T) to recover ;ot $$3& with an area of 3 hectares and its %,%6hectare accretion, -n #4 ()ril &*'0, "ablo =ina ug filed a se)arate com)laint (/ivil /ase $446T) to recover his lots and their accretions, -n &% June &*'3, the trial court rendered a decision in /ivil /ase $4$6T, ordering 9ulogio (gustin, 1regorio Tuliao, Jacinto =u4uel and -ctavio =ancud, their re)resentatives or agents to vacate ;ot $$3& of Solana /adastre together with its accretion consisting of )ortions of ;ots *4%$, *4%# and *4%& of Tuguegarao /adastre and to restore ownershi) in favor of .aria .elad and Timoteo .elad who are the onl interested heirs of .acario .elad, The trial court li@ewise ordered, in /ivil /ase $446T, Justo (dduru, (ndres "astor, Teofilo Tagaca , >icente /amilan, <icanor .ora, =aldomero /agurangan, Domingo Fuilang, /esar /abal:a, 9lias .acababbad, Titong .acababbad, (rturo =alisi, Jose (llabun, 9ulogio (gustin, =anong (4uino, Junior /ambri and Juan
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 6 )
;angoa , their re)resentatives or agents to vacate ;ots $$4*, '7'3 to '7'*, '77& to '773, '7*& and '7*#, together with its accretion and to restore )ossession to "ablo =ina ug and 1eronimo 5rbina, Githout )ronouncement as to damages which were not )ro)erl )roven and to costs, 9ulogio (gustin a))ealed the decision in /ivil /ase $4$6T, while 9ulogio (gustin, =aldomero /agurangan (substituted b his heir), (rturo =alisi and Juan ;angca a))ealed the decision in /ivil /ase $446T, =ut u)on motion of the .elads, =ina ug and 5rbina, the trial court ordered on &3 (ugust &*'3 the e2ecution )ending a))eal of the judgment in /ivil /ase $446T against /agurangan, =alisi and ;angca on the ground that their a))eal was dilator as the had not )resented evidence at the trial, -n #* <ovember &*7$, the 8ntermediate ())ellate /ourt rendered a decision affirming in toto the judgment of the trial court, with costs against the (gustin, /agurangan, =alisi and ;angca , +ence, the )etition for review, The Su)reme /ourt denied the )etition for lac@ of merit, and affirmed the decision of the 8(/, now /(? with costs against (gustin, et,al, 1. $indings of fact of t0e ,ourt of A**ea- conc-usive 1it0 t0e ?u*re/e ,ourt The finding of the /ourt of ())eals that there had been accretions to the lots of the .elads, =inau g and 5rbina who did not lose the ownershi) of such accretions even after the were se)arated from the )rinci)al lots b the sudden change of course of the river, is a finding of fact which is conclusive on this /ourt, That finding is su))orted b (rt, 43' of the <ew /ivil /ode which )rovides that Dto the owners of lands adjoining the ban@s of rivers belong the accretion which the graduall receive from the effects of the current of the waters, ($%%)E +. ,onditions for accretion to %enefit a ri*arian o1ner (ccretion benefits a ri)arian owner when the following re4uisites are )resent: (&) that the de)osit be gradual and im)erce)tible? (#) that it resulted from the effects of the current of the water? and ($) that the land where accretion ta@es )lace is adjacent to the ban@ of a river (Re0ub )4 v!. CA, 1*2 5CRA 51$+. 8n the )resent case, the accretion on the western ban@ of the /aga an River had been going on from &*&* u) to &*%7 or for a )eriod of 4* ears, 8t was gradual and im)erce)tible, -nl when ;ot $$3&, with an original area of 3 hectares described in the free )atent that was issued to .acario .elad in June &*3%, was resurve ed in &*%7 did it become @nown that %,% hectares had been added to it, ;ot $$3&, covered b a homestead )atent issued in June &*30 to "ablo =ina ug, grew from its original area of &7 hectares, b an additional 30 hectares through alluvium as the /aga an River graduall moved to the east, These accretions belong to ri)arian owners u)on whose lands the alluvial de)osits were made (Ro6a! v!. 7ua!on, 9 ./) . $0%& ,)re4(or o2 "an8! v!. R)za , %7 ./) . %06+. ". Reason for t0e *rinci*-e of accretion %enefiting a ri*arian o1ner The reason for the )rinci)le is because, if lands bordering on streams are e2)osed to floods and other damage due to the destructive force of the waters, and if b virtue of law the are subject to encumbrances and various @inds of easements, it is onl just that such ris@s or dangers as ma )rejudice the owners thereof should in some wa be com)ensated b the right of accretion (Cor(e! v!. C)(y o2 'an) a, 10 ./) . 567+. 21ners0i* of accretion not -ost u*on sudden and a%ru*t c0ange of t0e river TheB ownershi) of the accretion to the lands was not lost u)on the sudden and abru)t change of the course of the river (/aga an River in &*%7 or &*%* when it reverted to its old &*&* bed), and se)arated or transferred said accretions to the other side (or eastern ban@) of the river, (rticles 43* and 4%$ of the <ew /ivil /ode a))l to this situation, (rticle 43* )rovides that Dwhenever the current of a river, cree@ or torrent segregates from an estate on its ban@ a @nown )ortion of land and transfers it to another estate, the owner of the land to which the segregated )ortion belonged retains the ownershi) of it, )rovided that he removes the same within two ears,E (rticle 4%$ )rovides that D whenever the current of a river divides itself into branches, leaving a )iece of land or )art thereof isolated, the owner of the land retains his ownershi), +e also
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 8 )
retains it if a )ortion of land is se)arated from the estate b the current,E [ ] Anti*o-o v. @a*anta [G.R. No. &4"" . Dece/%er +&' 1#8 .] !irst Division, .elencio6+errera (J): 4 concurring, & too@ no )art, $acts( The .unici)alit of (<T8"-;-, for more than 30 ears now, has considered the dis)uted )ro)ert , described below, to be )ublic land subject to (<T8"-;-Bs use and )ermission to use within the )rerogatives and )ur)oses of a munici)al cor)oration, There is indication to the effect that it had been the site of the )ublic mar@et as far bac@ as &*07, or at the latest, since &*#0 Du) to toda ,E 1raduall , additional )ublic structures were built thereon, li@e the "uericulture and !amil "lanning /enter, the 8ntegrated <ational "olice =uilding, the -ffice of the .unici)al Treasurer, and the )ublic abattoir, Those )ublic structures occu) almost the entire area of the land, -n 7 (ugust &*'', a single a))lication for the registration of two distinct )arcels of land was filed b two distinct a))licants before the then /!8 Ri:al, =ranch H>, .a@ati (the Registration /ourt), -ne of the two a))licants was /onrado 9niceo, +e had a))lied for registration under the Torrens s stem of a )arcel of land containing #37 s4, m, The other a))licant was D+eirs of Joa4uin (vendaIoE, and the land the were a))l ing for registration was a )arcel containing *,7#% s4, m, (the dis)uted )ro)ert ) surve ed in the name of the .unici)alit of (nti)olo, =oth )arcels were situated in the .unici)alit of (nti)olo, The a))lication were a))roved b the Registration /ourt on #% !ebruar &*70, (<T8"-;- too@ ste)s to inter)ose an a))eal but because it failed to amend the Record on ())eal, its a))eal was disallowed, -n ## .a &*7&, (<T8"-;- filed a com)laint (/ivil /ase 4&$3$) of the /!8 Ri:al, =ranch H888, "asig against named D+eirs of Joa4uin (vendaIoE, and their assignees )ra ing for nullification of the judgment rendered b the Registration /ourt, The defendants, in their (nswer, )leaded a s)ecial defense of res judicata, (fter a )reliminar hearing on the mentioned s)ecial defense, the case was dismissed, (<T8"-;- )erfected an a))eal to the then /ourt of ())eals, ( notice to file =rief was issued b the ())ellate /ourt, which (<T8"-;- claimed it had not received, 5)on motion of the (vendano heirs to dismiss on the ground the (<T8"-;- had not filed its =rief within the reglementar )eriod, the a))eal was dismissed on #$ (ugust &*7$ des)ite the fact that before the dismissal, (<T8"-;- had submitted its ())ellantBs =rief, (<T8"-;filed a motion for reconsideration, which the ())ellate /ourt denied on #' Se)tember &*7$ for lac@ of legal and factual basis, +ence, the )etition for review on certiorari, The Su)reme /ourt (&) set aside the resolutions of the a))ellate court (now 8(/) dated #$ (ugust &*7$ and #' Se)tember &*7$? (#) set aside the judgment of the /!8 Ri:al in /ivil /ase 4&$3$ and rendered the judgment and decree of the /!8 Ri:al in ;R/ <6***3, ;R/ Record <63#&'% null and void in res)ect of the D+eirs of Joa4uin (vendano? ($) ordered the Register of Deed of Ri:al to cancel all certificates issued b virtue of decree issued in ;R/ <6***3, ;R/ Rec, <63#&'% in res)ect of the D+eirs of 8sabela (vendanoE? and (4) declared the certificate of title issuied in the name of /onrado 9niceo, and transfers therefrom as decreed in ;R/ <6**3, ;R/ Rec, <63#&'% to continue to be valid? without )ronouncements as to costs, 1. ;ec0nica-ity yie-ds to %roader interests of su%stantia- >ustice. A0en >urisdiction is 5uestioned (lthough failure to file =rief within the time )rovided b the Rules is, indeed, a ground for dismissal of an a))eal, this /ourt had held that rules of technicalit must ield to the broader interests of substantial justice s)eciall where, as in this case, the im)ortant issue of lac@ of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the ;and Registration /ourt has been raised, +. Re/and is ordinari-y t0e a**ro*riate re-ief. ,ourt reso-ves /erits due to " /otions for ear-y decision fi-ed
)ro*erty' +!!" ( # )
( remand to the lower /ourt, for the entertainment of the a))eal on the merits, would ordinaril be the a))ro)riate relief, +owever, considering the three .otions for 9arl Decision filed b )rivate res)ondents, we shall resolve the substantive merits of the a))eal to the a))ellate tribunal from the judgment rendered in the case, ". Dis*uted *ro*erty devoted to *u%-ic use and *u%-ic service. )ossession does not *resu**ose o1ners0i*. Lands *resu/ed to %e *u%-ic -ands un-ess contrary is *roven. ;a9 dec-aration /ere indicia of a c-ai/ to o1ners0i* (t the time the a))lication for registration was filed on 7 (ugust &*'', the dis)uted )ro)ert was alread devoted to )ublic use and )ublic service, Therefore, it was outside the commerce of man and could no longer be subject to )rivate registration, The claim of the (vendano heirs that the merel tolerated occu)anc b (<T8"-;- which had borrowed the dis)uted )ro)ert from them, since the had been in )ossession, since as far bac@ as &*&%, erroneousl )resu))oses ownershi) thereof since that time, The forget that all lands are )resumed to be )ublic lands until the contrar is established, The fact that the dis)uted )ro)ert ma have been declared for ta2ation )ur)oses in their names or of their )redecessors6in6interest as earl as &*&7 does not necessaril )rove ownershi), The are merel indicia of a claim of ownershi), (<T8"-;- had also declared the dis)uted )ro)ert as its own in Ta2 Declarations *0*, **$ and 434, . Res >udicata does not a**-y since Land Registration ,ourt 0ad no >urisdiction to entertain t0e registration of *u%-ic *ro*erty Since the ;and Registration /ourt had no jurisdiction to entertain the a))lication for registration of )ublic )ro)ert of (<T8"-;-, its Decision adjudicating the dis)uted )ro)ert as of )rivate ownershi) is null and void, 8t never attained finalit , and can be attac@ed at an time, 8t was not a bar to the action brought b (<T8"-;- for its annulment b reason of res judicata, 4. Bffects of decision 10ic0 is nu-- and void %y virtue of -ack of >urisdiction The want of jurisdiction b a court over the subject6matter renders the judgment void and a mere nullit , and considering that a void judgment is in legal effect no judgment, b which no rights are divested, from which no rights can be obtained, which neither binds nor bars an one, and under which all acts )erformed and all claims flowing out of are void, and considering, further, that the decision, for want of jurisdiction of the court, is not a decision in contem)lation of law, and hence, can never become e2ecutor , it follows that such a void judgment cannot constitute a bar to another case b reason of res judicata, &. ;it-es nu-- and void. ,ance--ation *ursued t0roug0 ordinary action Ghen the titles issued b a /ourt, or b virtue of the decision or decree of the court, with no jurisdiction over the subject matter? such are to be held to be null and void and )erforce, the must be ordered cancelled, 8t follows that Jif a )erson obtains a title under the "ublic ;and (ct which includes, b oversight, lands which cannot be registered under the Torrens S stem, or when the Director of ;ands did not have jurisdiction over the same because it is a )ublic forest, the grantee does not, b virtue of the said certificate of title alone, become the owner of the land illegall includedB (Re0ub )4 v!. An)9a!, 56 5CRA $99, 50*& "e8e!9a v!. 'un)4)0a )(y o2 I o) o, $9 ./). 769+ , 5nder these circumstances, the certificate of title ma be ordered cancelled and the cancellation ma be )ursued through an ordinar action therefor, This action cannot be barred b the )rior judgment of the land registration court, since the said court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter, (nd if there was no such jurisdiction, then the )rinci)le of res judicata does not a))l , [4] Assistant ?ecretary for Lega- Affairs v. ,A [G.R. No. 6&6&1. =anuary #' 1#8#.] Second Division, .elencio6+errera (J): 4 concurring $acts( -n &3 ()ril &*47, Jesus ., ;arrabaster a))lied with the <ational ;and Settlement (dministration
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1! )
(<;S() for a home lot at the .arbel Settlement District, /otabato, -n &0 Jul &*30 ;arrabasterBs a))lication was granted, +ome ;ot $$% (later @nown as ;ot $33, &,300 s4,m,) was allocated to him on the basis of a re)ort of the su)ervisor of the Settlement District that the lot was vacant and free from an claim or conflict, ;arrabaster leased the lot to =asilio .endo:a and tolerated Jorge 1eller to s4uat on the )ortion thereof, -n #3 <ovember &*3# the ;and Settlement and Develo)ment /or)oration (;SD/) too@ over the functions of the <;S(, -n #* June &*3% ;arrabaster and his wife assigned their rights and interests over ;ot $$% to Jose =, "ena, <otwithstanding the transfer, "ena allowed .endo:a and 1eller to sta on the lot, -n 7 Se)tember &*3% a Su))lementar Deed of Sale was e2ecuted b the same )arties defining the boundaries of ;ot $33 (formerl $$%: < b =ulo@ cree@ and a street? S b =ulo@ cree@ and the <ational +ighwa ? 9 b a street beside the )ublic )la:a? and G b =ulo@ cree@), -n &7 June &*34, R( &&%0 transferred the custod and administration of the .arbel Townsite to the <ational Resettlement and Rehabilitation (dministration (<(RR(), -n #0 (ugust &*3% "ena re4uested <(RR( to a))rove the transfer of rights but the latter did not act thereon in view of "roclamation $$%, s, &*3%, returning to the =ureau of ;ands the dis)osition of the lots which remained unallocated b the ;SD/ at the time of its abolition, The =ureau of ;ands did not act on "enaBs re4uest either, )rom)ting him to bring u) the matter to the =oard of ;i4uidators (=-;), which was created to wind u) the affairs of ;SD/, (lthough ;SD/ had initiall denied the re4uest, it subse4uentl confirmed the sale to "ena in its Resolution &$*, s, &*%4, "ena must have reali:ed that the )ro)ert contained an area bigger than &,300 s4, ms,, hence, his re4uest to =-; that the area be adjusted from &,300 to $,%&%,*$ s4, ms, to conform to its actual area, 8n its Resolution &$*, s, &*%4, the =-; denied the re4uest, "ena moved for reconsideration stressing that the award should be for $,%&%,*$ s4, ms,, but the =-; again denied the same under its Resolution 4$*, s, &*%', "ena a))ealed to the -ffice of the "resident, The =-; conducted an investigation and re)orted that ;ot $33, as awarded to ;arrabaster, contained onl &,300 s4, ms, but due to accretion, since the lot was almost surrounded b a cree@, the area increased to $,%&%,*$ s4, ms,? and since home lots had an average area of &,300 s4, ms, onl , the =ureau of ;ands subdivided the )ro)ert into $ )arts, namel : ;ot &0' (&,433 s4, ms,, allocated to =asilio .endo:a)? ;ot &07, (&,300 s4, ms,, allocated to "ena)? and ;ot &0* (%%& s4, ms,, allocated to (rturo Ro2as), The =-; then recommended that "ena be awarded ;ot &07 instead of the whole of former ;ot $33, 92ce)ting to this, "ena alleged that the lot transferred to him b ;arrabaster contains $,%&%,*$ and not &,300 s4, ms,, this being the area embraced within the boundaries described in the Su))lementar Deed of Sale e2ecuted between him and ;arrabaster on 7 Se)tember &*3%, -n &0 !ebruar &*%* the -ffice of the "resident ordered that the area of "enaBs lot (;ot &07) be maintained at &,300 s4, ms, on the )remise that accretion belonged to the 1overnment, 5)on "enaBs motion for reconsideration, the same -ffice, on &$ .a &*%*, modified its Decision and held that the award to "ena of the original ;ot $33 is maintained? reasoning that the benefits of accretion accrue to the owner, "ena, and not to the 1overnment ((rticle 43'), -n &4 .a &*%* the =-; a))roved Resolution #$%, s, &*%*, directing its ;SD/ unit to advise "ena accordingl , (nd on $ Se)tember &*%* the =-; recommended to the Director of ;ands the issuance of a )atent in "enaBs favor, -n & (ugust &*%* .endo:a addressed a letter6)rotest to the =-;, to which the latter in its Resolution 477, dated % (ugust &*%*, res)onded b advising .endo:a to direct its )rotest to the -ffice of the "resident, .endo:a did so and on #7 Se)tember &*'& said -ffice rendered its letter6decision affirming its &$ .a &*%* decision, 8n the meantime, on #' Januar &*'0, and while his )rotest with the -ffice of the "resident was still )ending, .endo:a resorted to /ivil /ase *7 for /ertiorari before the then /!8 /otabato against the )ublic officials and "ena, -n #$ June &*'7, .endo:a followed u) with a Su))lemental "etition to annul the administrative Decision of #0 Se)tember &*'& den ing his )rotest, -n &0 .a &*73 the Trial /ourt rendered its Decision in /ivil /ase *7 dismissing .endo:aBs "etition for /ertiorari, -n a))eal, the /ourt of ())eals reversed the Trial /ourt in its #7 <ovember &*7% Decision, without
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 11 )
)rejudice to the reo)ening of the administrative case in said -ffice as to accord all )arties concerned, including .endo:a, their constitutional rights to due )rocess of law, The Su)reme /ourt set aside the Decision of #7 <ovember &*7% of the /ourt of ())eals, and reinstated the Decision of &0 .a &*73 of the RT/ (=ranch #4, Koronadal, South /otabato, /ivil /ase *7), 1. Due *rocess. Decision of t0e 2ffice of t0e )resident not vitiated (fter the -ffice of the "resident had rendered its Decision dated &$ .a &*%*, .endo:a filed a letter6)rotest on & (ugust &*%* with the =-;, The latter office directed him to file his )rotest with the -ffice of the "resident, which he did, -n #7 Se)tember &*'&, .endo:aBs re4uest for reconsideration was denied b said -ffice, These observations do not justif the conclusion that the decisions of the -ffice of the "resident were vitiated? allegedl b failure to accord due )rocess of law to .endo:a, i,e, that he was not made a )art to the administrative case, not served with a co) of the &0 !ebruar &*%* Decision? and not notified of )roceedings before the &$ .a &*%* decision nor served a co) thereof, +. Assu/ing a%sence of notice and o**ortunity to %e *resent in *roceedings( Defect cured 9ven assuming that there was absence of notice and o))ortunit to be )resent in the administrative )roceedings )rior to the rendition of the &0 !ebruar &*%* and &$ .a &*%* Decisions b the -ffice of the "resident, such )rocedural defect was cured when .endo:a elevated his letter )rotest to the -ffice of the "resident, which subjected the controvers to a))ellate review but eventuall denied reconsideration, +aving thus been given a chance to be heard with res)ect to his )rotest there is sufficient com)liance with the re4uirements of due )rocess, (5ee a !o ,or9)(or)o v. Fernan8ez, "#25%97, Augu!( 21, 1976, 72 5CRA *%%, *9$#*95& 'on(e9ayor v!. Arane(a -n)v. Foun8a()on, "#$$251, 'ay *1, 1977, 77 5CRA *21 [1977]& a !o 5u90ang v. In4)ong, "#50992, 3une 19, 19%5, 1*7 5CRA 56 [19%5]+. ". Due *rocess. )ending ad/inistrative re5uest for reconsideration a%andoned in favor of >udicia*roceedings .endo:a had abandoned his )ending administrative re4uest for reconsideration in favor of judicial )roceedings, when he filed his )etition for certiorari before the /!8 /otabato, which was )resented while his re4uest for reconsideration with the -ffice of the "resident, involving the same Decision of &$ .a &*%*, was )ending, .endo:a cannot justifiabl claim that he was denied due )rocess, Accretion. Artic-e 46 a-so a**-ies to creeks 5)on re6stud , the -ffice of the "resident modified its conclusions in its Decision of &$ .a &*%*b ta@ing into account (rticle 43' of the /ivil /ode, which )rovides that Dto the owners of lands adjoining the ban@s of rivers belong the accretion which the graduall receive from the effects of the current of the waters,E 8t also o)ined that cree@s are included within the meaning of this /ivil /ode )rovision,E 4. Accretion %e-ongs to ri*arian o1ner' even if it occurred *rior to co/*-etion of insta--/ent *ay/ent Ghile it ma be conceded that ;ot <o, $33 technicall belongs to the government because it was bought from the latter under an installment )lan, it cannot be rightfull concluded that the benefits of accretion must still be retained b the said seller, 8n Director of Lands, et al. vs. Ricardo Rizal, et al. (7' "hil, 70%, at 7&0, 7&4 L&*30M), it was held that DGhen the lot bordering on a )ublic stream is sold on installment basis b the government, said stream is made the boundar , The stream ma advance or recede but it will alwa s constitute the boundar or boundaries of the lot, and the )urchaser has the right to insist that the original boundaries be )reserved, and all the area inside said boundaries be considered as included in the saleE? and that D8n the sale of a friar land, lot or )arcel bordering on rivers under (ct, <o, &&#0 )ending )a ment in full of the )urchase )rice, although the government reserves title thereto, merel for its )rotection, the beneficial and e4uitable title is in the )urchaser, and that an accretion b the lot even before )a ment of the last installment belongs to the )urchaser thereof,E
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1+ )
&.
Aut0ority of Bureau of Lands -i/ited to t0e dis*osa- of -ots in una--ocated areas 5nder "roclamation $$%, s, &*3%, the authorit of the =ureau of ;ands to dis)ose of lots was limited to Dunallocated areas,E Since the )ro)ert no longer belonged to the 1overnment the subdivision thereof b the =ureau of ;ands into $ lots, as well as the allocation of said lots to two other individuals, was be ond the sco)e of its authorit , ;arrabaster had alread ac4uired the beneficial and e4uitable title over the ;ot $33, albeit the 1overnment still retained the na@ed title thereto, /onse4uentl , to ;arrabaster and now to his assignee ("eIa) belong the accretions to said lot which ma no longer be allocated to others b the 1overnment, +e is entitled to all the benefits which ma accrue to the land as well as suffer the losses that ma befall it, 6. CendoDa:s fi-ing of Cisce--aneous ?a-es A**-ication ina**ro*riate and 1it0out -ega- force and effect .endo:aBs filing of a .iscellaneous Sales ())lication over the Dis)uted "ro)ert with the =ureau of ;ands on % <ovember &*%# is ina))ro)riate and without an legal force and effect since the same was no longer )ublic land subject to dis)osition b the 1overnment, 8. No irregu-arity t0at can %e i/*uted to t0e ad/inistrative decisions <o irregularit ma be im)uted to the administrative decisions b reason of the fact that allegedl a co) of the investigation re)ort of the =-; was not among those elevated to the Trial /ourt or among those mar@ed in evidence, The -ffice of the "resident could not have relied u)on said re)ort if the same had not been before it when it rendered the 4uestioned Decisions, #. $inding of facts of B9ecutive Branc0 given res*ect as -ong as su**orted %y su%stantia- evidence 8n reviewing administrative decisions of the 92ecutive =ranch of the government, the findings of fact made therein must be res)ected, as long as the are su))orted b substantial evidence, even if not overwhelming or )re)onderant (Ang 7)bay v!. Cour( o2 In8u!(r)a Re a()on!, 69 ./) . 6*5 [19$0]+ ? that it is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibilit of the witnesses, or otherwise substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agenc on the sufficienc of the evidence ("ao 7ang :un, e( a . v!. Fabre, %1 ./) . 6%2 [19$%]+ ? that the administrative decision in matters within the e2ecutive jurisdiction can onl be set aside on )roof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law ("ov)na v!. 'oreno, "#17%21, Nove9ber 29, 196*, 9 5CRA 557& 7)9ban4aya v!. ;)4en(e, "#19100, ,e4e9ber 27, 196*, 9 5CRA %52+, which were absent in the )resent case, 1!. Reo*ening t0e case 1i-- -ead to *rotracted -itigation To reo)en the case as ordered b the /ourt of ())eals would o)en wide the doors to a )rotracted litigation of a controvers that has been )ending for a))ro2imatel &* ears, [&] Associated 3nsurance E ?urety v. 3ya [G.R. Nos. L<1!8"6<"8. Cay "!' 1#48.] 9n =anc, !eli2 (J): * concurring $acts( S)ouses (driano and ;ucia (, >alino were the owners and )ossessors of a house of strong materials constructed on ;ot $, =loc@ 70 of the 1race "ar@ Subdivision in /aloocan, Ri:al, which the )urchased on installment basis from the "hili))ine Realt /or)oration, -n % <ovember &*3&, to enable her to )urchase on credit rice from the <(R8/, ;ucia >alino filed a bond ("&&,000,00? (8S/- =ond *'&) subscribed b the (ssociated 8nsurance N Suret /o, and as counter6guarant therefor, the >alinos e2ecuted an alleged chattel mortgage on the aforementioned house in favor of the suret com)an , which encumbrance was dul registered with the /hattel .ortgage Register of Ri:al on % December &*3&, 8t is admitted that at the time said underta@ing too@ )lace, the )arcel of land on which the house is erected was still registered in the name
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1" )
of the "hili))ine Realt /or)oration, +aving com)leted )a ment on the )urchase )rice of the lot, the >alinos were able to secure on &7 -ctober &*37, a certificate of title in their name (T/T #'774), Subse4uentl , however, or on #4 -ctober &*3#, the >alinos, to secure )a ment of an indebtedness in the amount of "&#,000,00, e2ecuted a real estate mortgage over the lot and the house in favor of 8sabel 8 a, which was dul registered and annotated at the bac@ of the certificate of title, ;ater, ;ucia (, >alino failed to satisf her obligation to the <(R8/, the suret com)an was com)elled to )a the same )ursuant to the underta@ing of the bond, The suret com)an demanded reimbursement from the >alinos, who failed to do so, The com)an foreclosed the chattel mortgage over the house as a conse4uence, ( )ublic sale was conducted thereafter b the "rovincial Sheriff of Ri:al on #% December &*3#, wherein the )ro)ert was awarded to the suret com)an for "7,000,00, the highest bid received therefor, The suret com)an then caused the said house to be declared in its name for ta2 )ur)oses (Ta2 Declaration #3&#7), Sometime in Jul &*3$, the suret com)an learned of the e2istence of the real estate mortgage over the lot covered b TT/ #%774 together with the im)rovements thereon? thus, said suret com)an instituted /ivil /ase #&%# with the /!8 .anila naming (driano and ;ucia >alino and 8sabel 8 a, the mortgagee, as defendants, -n the other hand, on #* -ctober &*3$, 8sabel 8 a filed a civil action against the >alinos and the suret com)an (/ivil /ase #304 with /!8 .anila) )ra ing for a decree of foreclosure of the land, building and im)rovements thereon to be sold at )ublic auction and the )roceeds a))lied to satisf the demands? this )ursuant to the contract of mortgage as the >alinos have failed to )a interest for more than % months alread ? the suret com)an included as it claims to have an interest on the residential house covered b said mortgage, The two cases were jointl heard u)on agreement of the )arties, who submitted the same on a sti)ulation of facts, after which the /ourt rendered judgment dated 7 .arch &*3%, holding that the chattel mortgage in favor of the (ssociated 8nsurance N Suret was )referred and su)erior over the real estate mortgage subse4uentl e2ecuted in favor of 8sabel 8 a, 8t was ruled that as the >alinos were not et the registered owner of the land on which the building in 4uestion was constructed at the time the first encumbrance was made, the building then was still a )ersonalt and a chattel mortgage over the same was )ro)er, +owever, as the mortgagors were alread the owners of the lot at the time the contract with 8sabel 8 a was entered into, the building was transformed into a real )ro)ert and the real estate mortgage created thereon was li@ewise adjudged as )ro)er, The residential building was, therefore, ordered e2cluded from the foreclosure )ra ed for b 8sabel 8 a, although the latter could e2ercise the right of a junior encumbrancer, The s)ouses >alino were ordered to )a the amount demanded b said mortgagee or in their default to have the )arcel of land subject of the mortgage sold at )ublic auction for the satisfaction of 8 aBs claim, The Su)reme /ourt reversed the decision of the lower court, recogni:ed 8sabel 8 aBs right to foreclose not onl the land but also the building erected thereon, and ordered that the )roceeds of the sale thereof at )ublic auction (if the land has not et been sold), be a))lied to the unsatisfied judgment in favor of 8sabel 8 a, The decision however is without )rejudice to an right that the (ssociated 8nsurance N Suret ma have against the >alinos on account of the mortgage of said building the e2ecuted in favor of said suret com)an , Githout )ronouncement as to costs, 1. Nature of *ro*erty encu/%ered is t0e decisive factor in deter/ination of *referentia- rig0t The decisive factor in resolving the issue as to which of these encumbrances should receive )reference over the other is the determination of the nature of the structure litigated u)on, for where it be considered a )ersonalt , the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage and the subse4uent sale thereof at )ublic auction, made in accordance with the /hattel .ortgage ;aw would be valid and the right ac4uired b the suret com)an therefrom would certainl deserve )rior recognition? otherwise, a))ellantBs claim for )reference must be granted, +. Bui-ding a-1ays i//ova%-e
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1 )
Ghile it is true that generall , real estate connotes the land and the building constructed thereon, it is obvious that the inclusion of the building, se)arate and distinct from the land, in the enumeration of what ma constitute real )ro)erties ((rt, 4&3, new /ivil /ode) could onl mean one thing: that a building is b itself an immovable )ro)ert , .oreover, and in view of the absence of an s)ecific )rovision to the contrar , a building is an immovable )ro)ert irres)ective of whether or not said structure and the land on which it is adhered to belong to the same owner,E ("o0ez v!. <ro!a+. ". Bui-ding cannot %e divested of c0aracter as rea-ty 10en constructed on -and %e-onging to anot0er ( building certainl cannot be divested of its character of a realt b the fact that the land on which it is constructed belongs to another, To hold it the other wa , the )ossibilit is not remote that it would result in confusion, for to cloa@ the building with an uncertain status made de)endent on the ownershi) of the land, would create a situation where a )ermanent fi2ture changes its nature or character as the ownershi) of the land changes hands, B9ecution of a c0atte- /ortgage over a %ui-ding inva-id and a nu--ity (s )ersonal )ro)erties could onl be the subject of a chattel mortgage (Section &, (ct $*3#), the e2ecution of the chattel mortgage covering a building is clearl invalid and a nullit , Ghile it is true that said document was corres)ondingl registered in the /hattel .ortgage Register, this act )roduced no effect whatsoever for where the interest conve ed is in the nature of a real )ro)ert , the registration of the document in the registr of chattels is merel a futile act, Thus, the registration of the chattel mortgage of a building of strong materials )roduce no effect as far as the building is concerned ("eung =ee v!. 5(rong 'a4/)nery Co., *7 ./) ., 6$$+. 4. No rig0t ac5uired %y c0atte- /ortgage creditor 10o *urc0ases rea- *ro*erties in an e9tra>udiciaforec-osure sa-e ( mortgage creditor who )urchases real )ro)erties at an e2trajudicial foreclosure sale thereof b virtue of a chattel mortgage constituted in his favor, which mortgage has been declared null and void with res)ect to said real )ro)erties, ac4uires no right thereto b virtue of said sale (,e a R)va v!. A/ >eo, 60 ./) ., %99+. [6] Bac0rac0 v. ?eifert [G.R. No. L<+&4#. 2cto%er 1+' 1#4!.] 9n =anc, -:aeta (J): 7 concurring $acts( The deceased 9mil .aurice =achrach left no forced heir e2ce)t his widow .ar .cDonald =achrach, 8n his last will and testament made varius legacies in cash and willed all the fruits and usufruct the remainder of his estate (after )a ment of legacies, be4uests and gifts) to his wifeBs enjo ment, The will further )rovided that u)on the death of .ar .cDonald =achrach, one6half of all his estate shall be divided share and share ali@e b and betweenhis legal heirs, to the e2clusion of his brothers, The estate of 9, ., =achrach, as owner of &07,000 shares of stoc@ of the (to@6=ig Gedge .ining /o,, 8nc,, received from the latter 34,000 shares re)resenting 30C stoc@ dividend on the said &07,000 shares, -n &0 June &*47, .ar .cDonald =achrach, as usufructuar or life tenant of the estate, )etitioned the lower court to authori:e the "eo)les =an@ and Trust /om)an , as administrator of the estate of 9, ., =achrach, to transfer to her the said 34,000 shares of stoc@ dividend b indorsing and delivering to her the corres)onding certificate of stoc@, claiming that said dividend, although )aid out in the form of stoc@, is fruit or income and therefore belonged to her as usufructuar or life tenant, So)hie Siefert and 9lisa 9lianoff, legal heirs of the deceased, o))osed said )etition on the ground that the stoc@ dividend in 4uestion was not income but formed )art of the ca)ital and therefore belonged not to the usufructuar but to the remainderman, The lower court granted the )etition and overruled their objection, Siefer and 9lianoff a))ealed,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 14 )
The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the order a))ealed from, being in accordance with the above64uoted )rovisions of the /ivil /ode? with costs against the a))ellants, 1. Cassac0usetts ru-e' dec-ares stock dividend is not an inco/e %ut /ere-y re*resents an addition to t0e invest/ent ca*itaThe so6called .assachusetts rule, which )revails in certain jurisdictions in the 5nited States, regards cash dividends, however large, as income, and stoc@ dividends, however made, as ca)ital, (')no( v!. .a)ne, 99 'a!!., 101& 96 A9. ,e4., 705.+ 8t holds that a stoc@ dividend is not in an true sense an dividend at all since it involves no division or severance from the cor)orate assets of the subject of the dividend? that it does not distribute )ro)ert but sim)l dilutes the shares as the e2isted before? and that it ta@es nothing from the )ro)ert of the cor)oration, and adds nothing to the interests of the shareholders, Thus, the rule su))orts the a))ellantBs contention that a stoc@ dividends is not an income (unli@e a cash dividend), but merel re)resents an addition to the invested ca)ital, +. )ennsy-vania ru-e. a-- earnings of t0e cor*oration /ade *rior to t0e testator stock0o-der %e-ong to 0is estate The so6called "enns lvania rule, which )revails in various other jurisdictions in the 5nited States, declares that all earnings of the cor)oration made )rior to the death of the testator stoc@holder belong to the cor)us of the estate, and that all earnings, when declared as dividends in whatever form, made during the lifetime of the usufructuar or life tenant are income and belong to the usufructuar or life tenant, (9ar)Bs ())eal, #7 "a,, $%7,) The rule su))orts a))elleeBs contention, ". )ennsy-vania Ru-e. Re/ainder/en in trust of t0e cor*us of t0e estate' 10i-e dividends go to -ife tenants The testator intended the remaindermen should have onl the cor)us of the estate he left in trust, and that all dividends should go to the life tenants, 8t is true that )rofits reali:ed are not dividends until declared b the )ro)er officials of the cor)oration, but distribution of )rofits, however made, is dividends, and the form of the distribution is immaterial,E (8n re Thom)sonBs 9state, #%# "a,, #'7? &03 (tl, #'$, #'4,) . Dividend' even if dec-ared as stock' 10ic0 is %ased u*on t0e earnings of t0e co/*any is an inco/e of t0e ca*ita- invested in it 8n +ite vs, +ite (*$ K ,, #3'? #0 S, G,, ''7, '70), the /ourt of ())eals of Kentuc@ , held that Dwhere a dividend, although declared in stoc@, is based u)on the earnings of the com)an , it is in realit , whether called b one name or another, the income of the ca)ital invested in it, 8t is but a mode of distributing the )rofit, ( stoc@ dividend )ro)er is the issue of new shares )aid for b the transfer of a sum e4ual to their )ar value from the )rofit and loss account to that re)resenting ca)ital stoc@? and reall a cor)oration has no right to declare a dividend, either in cash or stoc@, e2ce)t from its earnings, 8n the )resent case? the &07,000 shares of stoc@ are )art of the )ro)ert in usufruct, The 34,000 shares of stoc@ dividend are civil fruits of the original investment, The re)resent )rofits, and the deliver of the certificate of stoc@ covering said dividend is e4uivalent to the )a ment of said )rofits, Said shares ma be sold inde)endentl of the original shares, just as the offs)ring of a domestic animal ma be sold inde)endentl of its mother, 4. ;estator:s intent. su%stance not for/ The law regards substance, and not form, and such a rule might result not onl in a violation of the testatorBs intention, but it would give the )ower to the cor)oration to beggar the life tenants, who, in this case, are the wife and children of the testator, for the benefit of the ramaindermen, who ma )erha)s be un@nown to the testator, being unborn when the will was e2ecuted, The /ourt is unwilling to ado)t a rule which to us seems so arbitrar , and devoid of reason and justice, 8f the dividend be in fact a )rofit, although declared in stoc@, it should be held to be income,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1& )
&.
)ennsy-vania ru-e /ore in accord 1it0 -oca- statutes The "enns lvania rule is more in accord with "hili))ine statutor laws than the .assachusetts rule, 5nder section &% of the /or)oration ;aw, no cor)oration ma ma@e or declare an dividend e2ce)t from the sur)lus )rofits arising from its business, (n dividend, therefore, whether cash or stoc@, re)resents sur)lus )rofits, 6. Fsufructuary entit-ed to fruits of t0e *ro*erty in usufruct (rticle 4'& of the /ivil /ode )rovides that the usufructuar shall be entitled to receive all the natural, industrial, and civil fruits of the )ro)ert in usufruct, !urther, (rticles 4'4 )rovides that D /ivil fruits are deemed to accrue da b da , and belong to the usufructuar in )ro)ortion to the time the usufruct ma last,E (rticle 4'3, on the other hand, )rovides that DGhen a usufruct is created on the right to receive an income or )eriodical revenue, either in mone or fruits, or the interest on bonds or securities )a able to bearer, each matured )a ment shall be considered as the )roceeds or fruits of such right, Ghen it consists of the enjo ment of the benefits arising from an interest in an industrial or commercial enter)rise, the )rofits of which are not distributed at fi2ed )eriods, such )rofits shall have the same consideration, 8n either case the shall be distributed as civil fruits, and shall be a))lied in accordance with the rules )rescribed b the ne2t )receding article,E [8] Bac0rac0 Cotors v. ;a-isay<?i-ay Ci--ing [G.R. No. "4++". ?e*te/%er 16' 1#"1.] 9n =anc, Romualde: (J): ' concurring $acts( -n ## December &*#$, the Talisa 6Sila .illing /o,, 8nc,, was indebted to the "<=, To secure the )a ment of its debt, it succeeded in inducing its )lanters, among whom was .ariano ;acson ;edesma, to mortgage their land to the ban@, (nd in order to com)ensate those )lanters for the ris@ the were running with their )ro)ert under that mortgage, the aforesaid central, b a resolution )assed on the same date, and amended on #$ .arch &*#7, undertoo@ to credit the owners of the )lantation thus mortgaged ever ear with a sum e4ual to #C of the debt secured according to the earl balance, the )a ment of the bonus being made at once, or in )art from time to time, as soon as the central became free of its obligations to the ban@, and of those contracted b virtue of the contract of su)ervision, and had funds which might be so used, or as soon as it obtained from said ban@ authorit to ma@e such )a ment, ?I( !ee9! 'ar)ano "a4!on "e8e!9a )! )n8eb(e8 2ro9 :a4/ra4/ 'o(or& (/e 4)r4u9!(an4e o2 @/)4/ )! no( 2oun8 )n (/e 4a!e 2a4(!.A =achrach .otor /o,, 8nc, filed a com)laint against the Talisa 6Sila .illing /o,, 8nc,, for the deliver of the amount of "&$,730 or )romissor notes or other instruments of credit for that sum )a able on $0 June &*$0, as bonus in favor of .ariano ;acson ;edesma, The com)laint further )ra s that the sugar central be ordered to render an accounting of the amounts it owes .ariano ;acson ;edesma b wa of bonus, dividends, or otherwise, and to )a =achrach .otors a sum sufficient to satisf the judgment mentioned in the com)laint, and that the sale made b said .ariano ;acson ;edesma be declared null and void, The "<= filed a third )art claim alleging a )referential right to receive an amount which .ariano ;acson ;edesma might be entitled from Talisa 6Sila .illing as bonus, Talisa 6Sila answered the com)laint that .ariano ;acson ;edesmaBs credit ("',300) belonged to /esar ;edesma because he had )urchase it, /esar ;edesma claimed to be an owner b )urchase in good faith, (t the trial all the )arties agreed to recogni:e and res)ect the sale made in favor of /esar ;edesma of the "',300 )art of the credit in 4uestion, for which reason the trial court dismissed the com)laint and cross6com)laint against /esar ;edesma authori:ing the central to deliver to him the sum of "',300, (nd u)on conclusion of the hearing, the court held that the =achrach .otor /o,, 8nc,, had a )referred right to receive the amount of "&&,0'%,0# which was .ariano ;acson ;edesmaBs bonus, and it ordered the central to deliver said sum to =achrach .otors, "<= a))ealed,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 16 )
The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment a))ealed from, as it found no merit in the a))eal?, without e2)ress finding as to costs, 1. ,ivi- $ruits under Artic-e "44 of t0e ,ivi- ,ode (rticle $33 of the /ivil /ode considers three things as civil fruits: !irst, the rents of buildings? second, the )roceeds from leases of lands? and, third, the income from )er)etual or life annuities, or other similar sources of revenue, (ccording to the conte2t of the law, the )hrase Du otras analogasE refers onl to rents or income, for the adjectives DotrasE and DanalogasE agree with the noun Drentas,E as do also the other adjectives D)er)etuasE and Dvitalicias,E The Dcivil fruitsE the /ivil /ode understands one of three and onl three things, to wit: the rent of a building, the rent of land, and certain @inds of income, +. Bonus not a civi- fruit. not an inco/e of t0e -and The amount of the bonus, according to the resolution of the central granting it, is not based u)on the value, im)ortance or an other circumstance of the mortgaged )ro)ert , but u)on the total value of the debt thereb secured, according to the annual balance, which is something 4uite distinct from and inde)endent of the )ro)ert referred to, (s the bonus is not obtained from the land, it is not civil fruits of that land, 8t is neither rent of buildings, )roceeds from lease of lands, or income under (rticle $33 of the /ivil /ode, [#] Baes v. ,A [G.R. No. 1!8!&4. =u-y &' 1##".] !irst Division, /ru: (J): $ concurring $acts( 8n &*%#, the government dug a canal on a )rivate )arcel of land (;ot #*37, with area of $$,*0# s4,m,) to streamline the Tri)a de 1allina cree@, This lot was later ac4uired b !eli2 =aes, who registered it in his name under T/T &0**0 and then had it subdivided into $ lots (;ot #*376(, #7,77* s4,m, T/T &&04&,? ;ot #*376=, $,377 s4,m, T/T &&04#,? and ;ot #*376/, 43# s4,m,, T/T &&04$), 8n e2change for ;ot #*376=, which was totall occu)ied b the canal, the government gave =aes a lot with e2actl the same area as ;ot #*376= through a Deed of 92change of Real "ro)ert dated #0 June &*'0, The )ro)ert , which was near but not contiguous to ;ot #*376/, was denominated as ;ot $#'&6( and later registered in the name of !eli2 =aes under T/T #4$00, The soil dis)laced b the canal was used to fill u) the old bed of the cree@, .eanwhile, =aes had ;ot #*376/ and a )ortion of ;ot #*376( designated as ;ot &, =l@, 4, resurve ed and subdivided, -n &# Januar &*%7, he submitted a )etition for the a))roval of his resurve and subdivision )lans, claiming that after the said lots were )lotted b a com)etent surve or, it was found that there were errors in res)ect of their bearings and distances, The resurve 6subdivision )lan was a))roved b the /!8 "asa /it in an order dated &3 Januar &*%7, (s a result, the old T/Ts covering the said lots were canceled and new ones were issued (=l@, 4: ;ot &6(, %'# s4,m,, T/T T6&4404? ;ot &6= re)resenting the increase in si:e after the resurve , 7#% s4,m,, T/T T6&4403? ;ot #*376/6&, 43# s4,m,, T/T T6&440%? and ;ot #*376/6# re)resenting the increase after resurve , #,''0 s4,m,, T/T T6&440'), ;ots #*376/6& and #*376/6# were later consolidated and this time further subdivided into 4 lots (;ot &, &4' s4,m,, T/T #*3*#,? ;ot #, *30 s4,m,, T/T #*3*$? ;ot $, #3' s4,m,, T/T #*3*4? and ;ot 4, &,7%7 s4,m,, T/T #*3*3), 8n &*'7, the Re)ublic of the "hili))ines discovered that ;ot &6= (T/T &4403) on which the =aes had erected an a)artment building, covered ;ot $%&& of the "asa /adastre, which is a filled6u) )ortion of the Tri)a de 1allina cree@, .oreover, ;ot #*376/ (T/T #*3*# to #*3*3), with an increased area of #,''0 s4,m, after resurve and subdivision, had been unlawfull enlarged, -n &' <ovember &*7#, the Re)ublic filed a )etition for cancellation of T/T &4403 and #*3*# to #*3*3 with the trial court (/ivil /ase 04%06"), =aes did not object in his answer to the cancellation of T/T #*3*#, #*3*4 and #*3*3 and was not able to )rove during the trial that the government utili:ed a )ortion of ;ot # under T/T #*3*$, The trial court therefore decreed that the original ;ot #*376/ (43# s4,m,) be reverted to its status before the resurve 6subdivision of ;ot #*376/, =aes a))ealed to the /ourt of ())eals, which affirmed in toto
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 18 )
the ruling of the trial court, declaring T/Ts &4403, #*3*#, #*3*$, #*3*4, #*3*3, and T/T #*3*$Bs derivative titles T/Ts &#4'#3, &#4'#%, &#4'#' and &#4'#*, ordering the Register of Deeds for "asa /it to cancel them and issue new ones in their stead in the name of the =aes after segregating from T/T #*3*$ 43# s4, m,, the actual area of ;ot #*376/ (covered b cancelled T/T &&04$) belonging to !eli2 =aes, and dismissing the counterclaim, =aes a))ealed to the Su)reme /ourt b wa of certiorari, The Su)reme /ourt denied the )etition, with costs against =aes, 1. Artic-e &1 of t0e ,ivi- ,ode a**-ies to a natura- c0ange in t0e course of t0e strea/. 3f c0ange of course is due to 1orks' %e-ongs to concessioners if not to o1ners of -and covered %y t0e 1aters (rticle 4%& of the /ivil /ode )rovides that DRiver beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course of the waters i)so facto belong to the owners whose lands are occu)ied b the new course in )ro)ortion to the area lost, +owever, the owners of the lands adjoining the old bed shall have the right to ac4uire the same b )a ing the value thereof, which value shall not e2ceed the value of the area occu)ied b the new bed,E (rticle 4%& refers to a natural change in the course of a stream, 8f the change of the course is due to wor@s constructed b concessioners authori:ed b the government, the concession ma grant the abandoned river bed to the concessioners, 8f there is no such grant, then, b analog , the abandoned river bed will belong to the owners of the land covered b the waters, as )rovided in this article, without )rejudice to a su)erior right of third )ersons with sufficient title, +. Ri*arian o1ner entit-ed to co/*ensation if c0ange in t0e course of river %y artificia- /eans 8f the ri)arian owner is entitled to com)ensation for the damage to or loss of his )ro)ert due to natural causes, there is all the more reason to com)ensate him when the change in the course of the river is effected through artificial means, =aesB loss of the land covered b the canal was the result of a deliberate act on the )art of the government when it sought to im)rove the flow of the Tri)a de 1allina cree@, 8t was therefore obligated to com)ensate the =aeses for their loss, ". 21ners0i* of dried u* *ortion of creek in addition to fair e9c0ange of si/i-ar -ots %y *arties a dou%-e co/*ensation =aes has alread been com)ensated as there has been a fair e2change of ;ot $#'&6( belonging to the 1overnment and ;ot #*376= belonging to =aes, which were similar in area and value, through a Deed of 92change of Real "ro)ert which the )arties freel entered into, =aes cannot claim additional com)ensation because allowing =aes to ac4uire ownershi) of the dried6u) )ortion of the cree@ would be a clear case of double com)ensation and unjust enrichment at the e2)ense of the state, The e2change of lots between the )etitioners and the Re)ublic was the result of voluntar negotiations, 8f these had failed, the government could still have ta@en ;ot #*376= under the )ower of eminent domain, u)on )a ment of just com)ensation, as the land was needed for a )ublic )ur)ose, [1!] Ba-taDar v. ,aridad [G.R. No. L<+"4!#. =une +"' 1#&&.] 9n =anc, Re es J=; (J): 7 concurring $acts( 8n the cadastral )roceeding (/adastral /ase 34, 1;R- /adastral /ase &###), the trial court rendered decision, dated #$ Januar &*4&, awarding ;ot 77%4 of the ;aoag (8locos <orte) cadastre to the s)ouses Julio =alta:ar and /onstancia >alencia as their conjugal )artnershi) )ro)ert , Said decision having become final, the corres)onding decree was issued on &# Jul &*4&, and )ursuant thereto, said lot was registered in the names of a))licant s)ouses under -/T -6&443, which was later transcribed, on 3 <ovember &*3*, in the office of the Register of Deeds of 8locos <orte, 8n the meanwhile, Julio =alta:ar, the registered owner of ;ot 77%4, died, -n % December &*%&, his surviving
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1# )
wife and children filed a motion, in the cadastral case )ra ing for writ of )ossession against Silvina /aridad and her daughter, 9duarda /aridad, who had been in )ossession of the southern )ortion of said ;ot 77%4 since &*$*, while the cadastral case involving said lot was )ending before the trial court, and before the decision was rendered and the corres)onding decree issued in &*4&, <o writ having theretofore been issued in =alta:arBs favor, the trial court issued an order, on && December &*%&, granting =alta:arBs motion, and overruled /aridadBs o))osition but directed the sheriff not to remove or destro the )ermanent im)rovements on the lot without an e2)ress command, -n # Januar &*%#, the order having become final, the sheriff enforced the writ and )laced =alta:ar in )ossession of the southern )ortion of the lot, -n #$ Januar &*%#, =alta:ar )resented a motion to com)el 9duarda and Silvina /aridad to remove their res)ective houses which the built in &*37 and &*3*, res)ectivel , in the southern )ortion of the dis)uted lot, and, in the event of their failure to do so, to order the sheriff to demolish the same, -n #0 .arch &*%#, the trial court, after due hearing, granted =alta:arBs motion, ordering the /aridads to remove their res)ective houses from the southern )ortion of said lot 77%4 within $0 da s from recei)t of said order, <ot satisfied, the /aridads a))ealed (/(61R $&#7*6R), The a))ellate court, however, certified the a))eal to the Su)reme /ourt for raising onl 4uestions of law, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the a))ealed order? with costs against the /aridads, 1. 2rder co/*e--ing ,aridads to re/ove t0eir res*ective 0ouses fro/ t0e dis*uted -ot. Lack of o**osition in *revious *roceedings The order, dated #0 .arch &*%#, of the cadastral court, granting =alta:arBs motion to com)el the /aridads to remove their res)ective houses from the dis)uted lot, is valid and enforceable against the latter, This ma be concluded based on the circumstances that (&) that the /aridads do not dis)ute that during the )endenc of the cadastral )roceeding (to which judgment was rendered awarding said lot 77%4, and conse4uent issuance of the final decree of registration of the same, in favor of Julio =alta:ar), the late (ndres /aridad, his surviving s)ouse Silvina /aridad, and their children, one of whom is 9duarda /aridad, were in )ossession of the southern )ortion of the dis)uted lot ? (#) that 9duarda /aridad claims right and title thereto as a mere heir and successor6in6interest of said (ndres /aridad? and ($) that the /aridads do not dis)ute the )ro)riet and validit of the order of the cadastral court, granting the writ of )ossession in favor of =alta:ar as well as its enforcement, +. =urisdiction of t0e ,$3' sitting as a -and registration court' to issue 1rit of *ossession and order de/o-ition of i/*rove/ents 8n Marcelo vs. Mencias, etc., et al. (;6&3%0*, #* ()ril &*%0, 37 -1 $$4*), the /ourt had alread u)held the jurisdiction or authorit of the /!8, sitting as a land registration court, to order, as a conse4uence of the writ of )ossession issued b it, the demolition of im)rovements introduced b the successor6in6interest of a defeated o))ositor in the land registration case, ". ?ection 1"' Ru-e "# of t0e Ru-es of ,ourt Section &$, Rule $* of the Rules of /ourt (+ow e2ecution for the deliver or restitution of )ro)ert enforced), )rovides that Dthe officer must enforce an e2ecution for the deliver or restitution of )ro)ert b )lacing the )laintiff in )ossession of such )ro)ert , and b lev ing as hereinafter )rovided u)on so much of the )ro)ert of the judgment debtor as will satisf the amount of costs, damages, rents, and )rofits included in the e2ecution, +owever, the officer shall not destro , demolish or remove the im)rovements made b the defendant or his agent on the )ro)ert , e2ce)t b s)ecial order of the court, which order ma onl issue u)on )etition of the )laintiff after due hearing and u)on the defendantBs failure to remove the im)rovements within a reasonable time to be fi2ed b the court,E . Ru-e a**-ies to -and registration cases in a su**-etory c0aracter and not on-y to ordinary actions invo-ving t0e de-ivery or restitution of *ro*erty
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +! )
The )rovision of the Rules of /ourt a))lies not onl to ordinar actions involving the deliver or restitution of )ro)ert , but also to )roceedings under the land registration law, The )rovisions of the Rules of /ourt are a))licable to land registration cases in a su))letor character (Rule &$#), Thus, if the writ of )ossession issued in a land registration )roceeding im)lies the deliver of )ossession of the land to the successful litigant therein (,e9orar v!. Iba1ez, 51 <G 2%72, .a!ay B!(a(e Co90any v!. ,e Ro!ar)o, e( a ., 11 ./) . *91& 'an a0a! v!. " oren(e, $% ./) . 29%+ , a writ of demolition must, li@ewise, issue, es)eciall considering that the latter writ is but a com)lement of the former which without said writ of demolition would be ineffective, To re4uire a successful litigant in a land registration case to institute another action for the )ur)ose of obtaining )ossession of the land adjudged to him, or for the )ur)ose of securing fruits of his victor , would be a cumbersome )rocess, 8t would foster unnecessar and e2)ensive litigations and result in multi)licit of suits, which the judicial s stem abhors, 4. )o1er of a >udge to issue a-- au9i-iary 1rits to carry into effect t0e >urisdiction conferred u*on t0e court %y -a1 Section %, Rule &#4, of the Rules of /ourt )rovides that Dwhen b law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all au2iliar writs, )rocesses and other means necessar to carr it into effect ma be em)lo ed b such court or officer? and if the )rocedure to be followed in the e2ercise of such jurisdiction is not s)ecificall )ointed out b these rules, an suitable )rocess or mode of )roceeding ma be ado)ted which a))ears most conformable to the s)irit of said rules,E 8n the )resent case, the Judge has the )ower to issue all au2iliar writs, including the writ of demolition, )rocesses and other means necessar to carr into effect the jurisdiction conferred u)on it b law in land registration cases to issue a writ of )ossession to the successful litigant, &. Bvery court 0as in0erent *o1er to do necessary t0ing s for t0e ad/inistration of >ustice 8n Shio i vs. !arvey, 4$ "hil $$$, it was )ointed out that Dinde)endent of an statutor )rovision, ever court has inherent )ower to do all things reasonabl necessar for the administration of justice within the sco)e of its jurisdiction,E 8n line with this doctrine, the Judge has the inherent )ower to issue the writ of demolition, 8ts issuance is reasonabl necessar to do justice to )etitioner who is being de)rived of the )ossession of the lots in 4uestion, b reason of the continued refusal of the res)ondent to remove his house thereon and restore )ossession of the )remises to )etitioner, 6. Bui-ders in %ad fait0. Rig0ts of registered o1ner cannot %e defeated %y an unsuccessfuo**onent t0roug0 t0e su%terfuge of re*-acing 0is o-d 0ouse 1it0 a ne1 one fro/ ti/e to ti/e The /aridads cannot be regarded as builders in good faith because the are bound b the &*4& decree of registration that obligated their )arents and )redecessors6in6interest, 1ood faith must rest on a colorable right in the builder, be ond a mere stubborn belief in oneBs title des)ite judicial adjudication, The fact that in &*3* the /aridads demolished and re)laced their old house with new and bigger ones cannot enervate the rights of the registered owners, -therwise, the rights of the latter to enjo full )ossession of their registered )ro)ert could be indefinitel defeated b an unsuccessful o))onent through the sim)le subterfuge of re)lacing his old house with a new one from time to time, [11] Ba-ucanag v. $rancisco [G.R. No. L<"" ++. Cay "!' 1#8".] Second Division, 9scolin (J): 4 concur, & too@ no )art $acts( /ecilia dela /ru: /harvet was the owner of a &'',30 s4,m, lot located in Oamora Street, "andacan, .anila (T/T #3%%4), -n $& (ugust &*3#, .rs, /harvet leased said lot to Richard Stohner for a )eriod of 3 ears at the monthl rental of "40,00, )a able in advance within the first &0 da s of each month, The lease contract )rovided, among others, that Dthe lessee ma erect such buildings u)on and ma@e such im)rovements to the leased land as he shall see fit, (ll such buildings and im)rovements shall remain the )ro)ert of the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +1 )
lessee and he ma remove them at an time, it being agreed, however, that should he not remove the said buildings and im)rovements within a )eriod of two months after the e2)iration of this (greement, the ;essor ma remove the said buildings and im)rovements or cause them to be removed at the e2)ense of the ;essee,E During the e2istence of the lease, Stohner made fillings on the land and constructed a house thereon, said im)rovements being allegedl valued at "$3,000,00, -n 7 .arch &*%%, .rs, /harvet sold the said lot to Rosendo =alucanag, !or StohnerBs failure to )a the rents, =alucanag, thru counsel, wrote Stohner a letter demanding that he vacate the )remises, 8n re)l thereto, Stohner, also thru counsel, claimed that he was a builder in good faith of the residential house erected in the land, +e offered )ro)osals for a )ossible com)romise, either for Stohner would )urchase the lot at &#C )er annum on the value or that =alucanag reimburse Stohner the amount "$3,000 for the im)rovements and constructions he has made on the lot, (s no agreement was reached, =alucanag instituted in the /it /ourt of .anila an ejectment suit against Stohner and after due trial, the court rendered a decision, ordering Stohner to )a =aculanag the sum of "$%0,00 as bac@ rentals from December &*%3 to (ugust &*%%, to vacate the )remises and the sum of "&00 as attorne Bs fees, -n a))eal, the /!8 .anila, =ranch 8H, after conducting a trial de novo, rendered a decision, setting aside the judgment of the cit court and dismissing =aculanagBs com)laint, The /!8 held that Stohner was a builder in good faith because he had constructed the residential house with the consent of the original lessor, .rs, /harvet, and also because the latter, after the e2)iration of the lease contract on $& (ugust &*3', had neither sought StohnerBs ejectment from the )remises, nor the removal of his house therefrom? and thus, invo@ing (rticles 447 and 34% of the /ivil /ode, Stohner cannot be ejected until he is reimbursed of the value of the im)rovements, =aculanag filed a motion for reconsideration, which the /!8 denied, =aculanag filed the )etition for review with the Su)reme /ourt, The Su)reme /ourt set aside the decision in /ivil /ase %'30$, with costs against Stohner, The latter was ordered to vacate the )remises in 4uestion and to )a =alucanag the rentals due from .arch &*%* u) to the time he surrenders the )remises, at the rate of "40,00 a month, 1. Lessee cannot %e considered a %ui-der in good fait0 (rticle 447 of the /ivil /ode a))lies onl to a case where one builds on land in the belief that he is the owner thereof and it does not a))l where oneBs onl interest in the land is that of a lessee under a rental contract, 8n the )resent case, there is no dis)ute that the relation between =alucanag and Stohner is that of lessor and lessee, the former being the successor in interest of the original owner of the lot, +. )ossessor in good fait0. Lo*eD v. )0i-i**ine and Bastern ;rading 8n ;o)e:, 8nc, vs, "hil, and 9astern Trading /o,, 8nc,, it was held that Dthe )rinci)le of )ossessor in good faith refers onl to a )art who occu)ies or )ossess )ro)ert in the belief that he is the owner thereof and said good faith ends onl when he discovers a flaw in his title so as to reasonabl advise or inform him that after all he ma not be the legal owner of said )ro)ert , 8t cannot a))l to a lessee because as such lessee he @nows that he is not the owner of he leased )remises, <either can he den the ownershi) or title of his lessor, ( lessee who introduces im)rovements in the leased )remises, does so at his own ris@ in the sense that he cannot recover their value from the lessor, much less retain the )remises until such reimbursement, D . Artic-e 1&68 is -a1 a**-ica%-e. 2*tions of t0e -essor and t0e -essee The law a))licable to the )resent case is (rticle &%'7 of the /ivil /ode, which )rovides that Dif the lessee ma@es, in good faith, useful im)rovements which are suitable to the use for which the lease is intended, without altering the form or substance of the )ro)ert leased, the lessor u)on the termination of the lease shall )a the lessee P of the value of the im)rovements at the time, Should the lessor refuse to reimburse said amount, the lessee ma remove the im)rovements, even though the )rinci)al thing ma suffer damage thereb , +e shall not, however, cause an more im)airment u)on the )ro)ert leased than is necessar , D The article gives the lessor the o)tion to a))ro)riate the useful im)rovements b )a ing P of their value, and the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( ++ )
lessee cannot com)el the lessor to a))ro)riate the im)rovements and ma@e reimbursement, for the lesseeBs right under the law is to remove the im)rovements even if the leased )remises ma suffer damage thereb , =ut he shall not cause an more damage u)on the )ro)ert than is necessar , 4. 3/*-ied ne1 -ease (tacit recondition) created 10en -essee continued in *ossession of t0e *re/ises 1it0 t0e ac5uiescence of t0e -essor. )eriod fi9ed according to Artic-e 1&86 Ghile the lease contract entered into e2)ired on $& (ugust &*3', the lessee nevertheless continued in )ossession of the )remises with the ac4uiescence of the lessor, (n im)lied new lease or tacita recondition was thus created between the )arties, the )eriod of which is established b (rticle &%7' of the /ivil /ode (D8f the )eriod for the lease has not been fi2ed, it is understood to be from ear to ear, if the rent agreed u)on is annual? from month to month, if it is monthl ? from wee@ to wee@, if the rent is wee@l ? and from da to da , if the rent is to be )aid dail E), Thus, the duration of the new lease must be deemed from month to month, the agreed rental in the instant case being )a able on a monthl basis, The lessor ma thus terminate the lease after each month with due notice u)on the lessee, (fter such notice, the lesseeBs right to continue in )ossession ceases and his )ossession becomes one of detainer, !urthermore, the lesseeBs failure to )a the sti)ulated rentals entitles lessor to recover )ossession of the )remises, [1+] Batac-an v. ,$3 ,avite [G.R. No. " 4&. Cay &' 1#"4.] 9n =anc, >ic@ers (J): 4 concur $acts( The /!8 /avite issued on #4 ()ril &*$4 an order for the sale at )ublic auction the land subject of civil case #4#7 between >icente Santo Domingo =ernardo ()laintiff therein) and /atalino =ataclan (defendant therein), The lower court held that =ernardo has the right to the )ossession of the land and that =ataclan has the right to demand from the former the sum of "&,%4# for the e2)enses done in good faith, such as the wall and the e2isting coco and abaca, and also with the right to retain the )ossession of the land until this amount is )aid to him, =ernardo can choose, within $0 da s, from the date he is notified, to )a that sum to =ataclan the cost of the e2isting wall and all )lantations in the land, or to com)el =ataclan to )a him the )rice the land, at "$00 )er hectare, 8n case =ernardo chose to com)el =ataclan to )a him the )rice of the land, =ataclan shall carr out the )a ment in the terms suitable and fi2ed b the /ourt? Githout costs, -n a))eal to this court the value of the land containing *0 hectares was reduced from "$00 to "#00 a hectare, and the value of the im)rovements made b =ataclan thereon was increased from "&,%4# to "#,#&#, The decision of the lower court was affirmed in all other res)ects (1R $'$&*), =ernardo elected to com)el =ataclan to )a him the value of the land, "&7,000, =ernardo informed the /!8 /avite that he elected to com)el =ataclan to )a him the value of the land, and that =ataclan a))eared in court and stated that he did not have an mone ? that the court on #4 Januar &*$4 then granted =ernardo $0 da s in which to )a bataclan the sum of "#,#&#, and ordered that if said )a ment was not made the land should be sold at )ublic auction for the )a ment of said sum to =ataclan, the balance after deducting the e2)enses of the sale to be delivered to =ernardo, -n &% .arch &*$4 the lower court (Judge Rovira) modified his order and ordered that from the )roceeds of the sale =ernardo should be )aid for the land at the rate of "#00 a hectare, and that the balance, if an , should be delivered to =ataclan, -n #4 ()ril &*$4, the lower court (Judge Si2to de la /osta) issued an order for the sale of the land at )ublic auction in order that the =ernardo might be )aid from the )roceeds the sum of "&7,000 and the legal e2)enses of the sale, and that from the balance, if an , "#,#&# should be )aid to =ataclan, +ence, the )etition for a writ of certiorari to annul the order of the /!8, The Su)reme /ourt denied the )etition, with the costs against =ataclan,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +" )
1. Artic-e "&1 of t0e ,ivi- ,ode (rticle $%& of the civil code, the basis of the decision of the lower court, )rovides that Dan owner of land on which an thing has been built, sown, or )lanted, in good faith, shall be entitled to a))ro)riate the thing so built, sown, or )lanted, u)on )a ing the com)ensation mentioned in articles 43$ and 434, or to com)el the )erson who has built or )lanted to )a him the value of the land or, to re4uire the )erson who sowed thereon to )a the )ro)er rent therefor,E +. ,ourt /ay fi9 t0e *eriod of *ay/ent 8t is true that in the decision in 4uestion it was )rovided that in case the )laintiff elected to com)el the defendant to )a him the value of the land, the )a ment should be made within the )eriod agreed u)on b the )arties or that it would be fi2ed b the court, +owever, =ataclan as@ed for a )eriod of &3 ears in which to )a to owner of the land the value thereof? and when he a))eared in court he informed the court that he had no mone with which to )a for the land, 5nder those circumstances, it would have been futile for the court to grant =ataclan a reasonable )eriod of $0 or %0 da s in which to )a =ernardo the sum of "&7,000, 8f there was an irregularit in the courtBs ordering the sale of the )ro)ert at )ublic auction under the conditions stated in the orders of &% .arch &*$4 and #4 ()ril &*$4, it was not )rejudicial but favorable to the )etitioner, because his onl right was to )urchase the land for the sum of "&7,000, ". A**ea- cou-d 0ave %een t0e *ro*er re/edy =ataclan could have a))ealed from the order in 4uestion, and his right to a))eal was an ade4uate remed , [1"] Bautista v. A-arcon [G.R. No. 814". Dece/%er + ' 1#1+.] !irst Division, Torres (J): 4 concur, # concur in result, $acts( Toribio =autista was the owner of a tract of land, used as a fish)ond in the barrio of "angjolo and the sitio called Talinducan, of the )ueblo of -bando, =ulacan (<: fisher of Julian Santos? S: /ornelio 9nri4ue: and =enito 9nri4ue:, 9: Talinducan River? G: fisheries of Toribio (larcon and Julian Santos, and a canal or ditch which is between these fisheries), =autistaBs fish)ond is formed b two )arcels of land, one low and the other high, and is divided into two se)arate fisheries, although together the are su))lied with water, the low land from the Talinducan River, and the high land from the said canal or ditch which, in its western )art, is connected with and derived from the -bando River, terminating at =autistaBs fish)ond and serving as a boundar line between (larconBs and SantosB fisheries, Said ditch had e2isted for more than 30 ears and had a width of about % meters, The bed of the said ditch or canal was not owned b neither (larcon and =autista, -n -ctober &*0', (larcon and Santos occu)ied said ditch, constructed thereon the retaining walls of their res)ective fisheries, in such manner that the narrowed and reduced the bed of the ditch to an a))ro2imate width of #3 centimeters, thus obstructing and almost com)letel )reventing the )assage of the water, on which account the )laintiffBs fisher on the high land had been almost entirel de)rived or water, = written instrument of &0 ()ril &*07, =autista filed a com)laint against (larcon and Santos with a )ra er for a )reliminar injunction, (fter the filing of the com)laint, (larcon and Santos closed the canal com)letel and rendered =autistaBs fisher com)letel dr , -n #3 !ebruar &*0*, the )reliminar injunction was issued b the court, -n #& June &*&&, the lower court ordered that the injunction become final and ordered (larcon and Santos to cease occu) ing the tracts s)ecified in the judgment (adjacent to the canal or ditch), to remove their res)ective di@es, and to )a =autista "&00 and the costs of the suit, (larcon and Teodoro Ra mundo, in substitution of Santos, a))ealed through a bill of e2ce)tions, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment a))ealed from, with the costs against the (larcon and Ra mundo, 1. )ro*erty of *u%-ic o1ners0i* (rticle $$*, <o, &, of the /ivil /ode )rovides that D)ro)ert of )ublic ownershi) is (&) that destined to the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( + )
)ublic use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, )orts, and bridges constructed b the State, and ban@s, shores, roadsteads, and that of a similar character,E (rticle 40' of the same code )rovides that D(&) Rivers and their natural beds, (#) /ontinuous or intermittent waters from s)rings or broo@s running in their natural beds and the said beds, ($) Gaters using continuousl or intermittentl in lands of said )ublic ownershi), (4) ;a@es and )onds formed b nature on )ublic lands and their beds, (3) Rain water running through ravines or sand beaches, the beds of which shall also be )ublic )ro)ert E are )ro)ert of )ublic ownershi), +. La1 *rovisions a**-ica%-e to t0e *resent case The )rovisions of (rticles $$* (&) and 40' substantiall agree with those of the ;aw of Gaters of $ (ugust &7%%, made a))licable to these 8slands b the S)anish 1overnment and )ublished in the 1aceta de .anila of #4 Se)tember &7'&, as is shown b the te2t of articles $$, $%, $', $*, '#, and others relevant to the matter under discussion, ". No *rivate *erson 0as t0e rig0t to usur* *ossession of a 1atercourse %e-onging to t0e *u%-ic do/ain <o )rivate )erson has a right to usur) )ossession of a watercourse, branch of a river, or la@e of the )ublic domain and use, unless it shall have been )roved that he constructed the same within )ro)ert of his e2clusive ownershi), and such usur)ation constitutes a violation of the legal )rovisions which e2)licitl e2clude such waterwa s from the e2clusive use or )ossession of a )rivate )art , . ,ana-' toget0er 1it0 its 1ater' is a *ro*erty of *u%-ic use and not susce*ti%-e of *rivate a**ro*riation The canal, together with the water that flows through it, drawn from the -bando River, belongs to that class of )ro)ert of )ublic use and domain which is not susce)tible of )rivate a))ro)riation, and, therefore, )rivate )arties could not, under an circumstances, usur) the greater )ortion of it without committing a notorious and glaring violation of the law that )rotects the )ro)erties of the State and the rights of its citi:ens, =oth )arties are entitled to utili:e, for the needs and benefit of their fisheries, the water which flows from the -bando River into the said canal, but none of them ma utili:e and receive such water e2clusivel and to the detriment of the rest, as did (larcon and Santos b reducing the bed of the canal, thereb almost de)riving =autista of the 4uantit of water necessar for the maintenance of his fisher , 4. No *roof adduced t0at A-arcon and ?antos are o1ners of t0e cana(larcon and Santos have not adduced an )roof whatever that the are the owners of the canal, to allow them to reduce the volume of the flow b constructing, near the middle of the canal, the di@es of their res)ective fisheries, <either have the adduced an )roof whatever that the are the owners of the right to an easement for conve ing water, which was ac4uired b =autista through )rescri)tion for a )eriod of more than 40 ears, as is demonstrated b the record, &. A-arcon and ?antos -ia%-e for da/ages (larcon and Santos, the latter through Ra mundo, are jointl obligated to indemnif =autista for the losses and damages which the occasioned him b the construction of their fisher di@es and the reduction of the ca)acit of the said canal, in the amount fi2ed b the trial court in the judgment a))ealed from, the findings of which are a))roved, as the are in accordance with law, [1 ] Berkenkotter v. ,u Fn>ieng [G.R. No. 1& ". =u-y "1' 1#"4.] 9n =anc, >illa6real (J): 4 concur $acts( -n #% ()ril &*#%, the .abalacat Sugar /om)an obtained from /u 5njieng e +ijos, a loan secured b a first mortgage constituted on # )arcels of land Dwith all its buildings, im)rovements, sugar6cane mill, steel
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +4 )
railwa , tele)hone line, a))aratus, utensils and whatever forms )art or is a necessar com)lement of said sugar6cane mill, steel railwa , tele)hone line, now e2isting or that ma in the future e2ist in said lots,E -n 3 -ctober &*#%, the .abalacat Sugar /om)an decided to increase the ca)acit of its sugar central b bu ing additional machiner and e4ui)ment, so that instead of milling &30 tons dail , it could )roduce #30, The estimated cost of said additional machiner and e4ui)ment was "&00,000, 8n order to carr out this )lan, =, (, 1reen, )resident of said cor)oration, )ro)osed to the =, +, =er@en@otter, to advance the necessar amount for the )urchase of said machiner and e4ui)ment, )romising to reimburse him as soon as he could obtain an additional loan from the mortgagees, /u 5njieng e +ijos, and that in case =, (, 1reen should fail to obtain an additional loan from /u 5njieng e +ijos, said machiner and e4ui)ment would become securit therefor, said =, (, 1reen binding himself not to mortgage nor encumber them to an bod until =er@en@otter be full reimbursed for the cor)orationBs indebtedness to him,, +aving agreed to said )ro)osition made in a letter dated 3 -ctober &*#%, =, +, =er@en@otter, on * -ctober &*#%, delivered the sum of "&,'&0 to =, (, 1reen, the total amount su))lied b him to =, (, 1reen having been "#3,'30, !urthermore, =, +, =er@en@otter had a credit of "##,000 against said cor)oration for un)aid salar , Gith the loan of "#3,'30 and said credit of "##,000, the .abalacat Sugar /o,, 8nc,, )urchased the additional machiner and e4ui)ment, -n &0 June &*#', =, (, 1reen a))lied to /u 5njieng e +ijos for an additional loan of "'3,000 offering as securit the additional machiner and e4ui)ment ac4uired b said =, (, 1reen and installed in the sugar central after the e2ecution of the original mortgage deed, on #' ()ril &*#', together with whatever additional e4ui)ment ac4uired with said loan, =, (, 1reen failed to obtain said loan, ?7/e 4a!e 2a4(! 8o no( 0rov)8e 2or (/e )n!(an4e @/en (/e 4a!e @a! 2) e8 @)(/ (/e o@er 4our(, an8 8e(a) ! o2 !u4/ 4on(rover!yA The /!8 .anila dismissed =er@en@otterBs com)laint, with costs, +ence, the a))eal, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the a))ealed judgment in all its )arts, with costs to the a))ellant, 1. Cortgage inc-ude a-- natura- accessions' i/*rove/ents' gro1ing fruits and rents not co--ected (rticle &7'' of the /ivil /ode )rovides that mortgage includes all natural accessions, im)rovements, growing fruits, and rents not collected when the obligation falls due, and the amount of an indemnities )aid or due the owner b the insurers of the mortgaged )ro)ert or b virtue of the e2ercise of the )ower of eminent domain, with the declarations, am)lifications, and limitations established b law, whether the state continues in the )ossession of the )erson who mortgaged it or whether it )asses into the hands of a third )erson, +. Cortgage inc-udes i/*rove/ents and fi9tures 8t is a rule, established b the /ivil /ode and also b the .ortgage ;aw, with which the decisions of the courts of the 5nited States are in accord, that in a mortgage of real estate, the im)rovements on the same are included? therefore, all objects )ermanentl attached to a mortgaged building or land, although the ma have been )laced there after the mortgage was constituted, are also included, (Ar(!. 110 an8 111 o2 (/e 'or(gage "a@, an8 1%77 o2 (/e C)v) Co8e& 8e4)!)on o2 -.5. 5u0re9e Cour( )n (/e 9a((er o2 Roya In!uran4e Co. v!. R. ') er, )Cu)8a(or, an8 A9a8eo [26 5u0. C(. Re0., $6& 199 -.5., *5*] a! 4)(e8 )n :)!4/o22 v!. .o9ar an8 Co90a1)a Genera 8e 7aba4o!& 2ur(/er 4)(e8 )n Cea v!. ;) anueva+ ". B9c-usion of /ac0inery fro/ /ortgage. necessity of sti*u-ation 8n order that it ma be understood that the machiner and other objects )laced u)on and used in connection with a mortgaged estate are e2cluded from the mortgage, when it was stated in the mortgage that the im)rovements, buildings, and machiner that e2isted thereon were also com)rehended, it is indis)ensable that the e2clusion thereof be sti)ulated between the contracting )arties ( :)!4/o22 v!. .o9ar an8 Co90a1)a Genera 8e 7aba4o!& 2ur(/er 4)(e8 )n Cea v!. ;) anueva+.
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +& )
. Cac0inery 0as c0aracter of rea- *ro*erty (rticle $$4, )aragra)h 3, of the /ivil /ode gives the character of real )ro)ert to machiner , li4uid containers, instruments or im)lements intended b the owner of an building or land for use in connection with an industr or trade being carried on therein and which are e2)ressl ada)ted to meet the re4uirements of such trade or industr , The installation of a machiner and e4ui)ment in a mortgaged sugar central, in lieu of another of less ca)acit , for the )ur)ose of carr ing out the industrial functions of the latter and increasing )roduction, constitutes a )ermanent im)rovement on said sugar central and subjects said machiner and e4ui)ment to the mortgage constituted thereon (article &7'', /ivil /ode)? 4. )ersona- security does not a-ter *er/anent c0aracter of /ac0inery:s incor*oration 1it0 t0e centraThe fact that the )urchaser of the new machiner and e4ui)ment has bound himself to the )erson su))l ing him the )urchase mone to hold them as securit for the )a ment of the latterBs credit, and to refrain from mortgaging or otherwise encumbering them does not alter the )ermanent character of the incor)oration of said machiner and e4ui)ment with the central, The fact that =, (, 1reen bound himself to =er@en@otter to hold said machiner and e4ui)ment as securit for the )a ment of the latterBs credit and to refrain from mortgaging or otherwise encumbering them until =er@en@otter has been full reimbursed therefor, is not incom)atible with the )ermanent character of the incor)oration of said machiner and e4ui)ment with the sugar central of the .abalacat Sugar /o,, 8nc,, as nothing could )revent =, (, 1reen from giving them as securit at least under a second mortgage, %, /reditor not vested with right of ownershi) but onl with right of redem)tion The sale of the machiner and e4ui)ment in 4uestion b the )urchaser who was su))lied the mone , after the incor)oration thereof with the mortgaged sugar central, does not vest the creditor with ownershi) of said machiner and e4ui)ment but sim)l with the right of redem)tion, Thus, while the mortgage constituted on said sugar central to /u 5njieng e +ijos remained in force, onl the right of redem)tion of the vendor .abalacat Sugar /o,, 8nc,, the sugar central with which said machiner and e4ui)ment had been incor)orated, was transferred thereb , subject to the right of /u 5njieng e +ijos under the first mortgage, [14] Bicerra v. ;eneDa [G.R. No. L<1&+18. Nove/%er +#' 1#&+.] 9n =anc, .a@alintal (J): &0 concur, $acts( The =icerras are su))osedl the owners of the house ("h" #0,000) built on a lot owned b them in ;agangilang, (bra? which the Tene:as forcibl demolished in Januar &*3', claiming to the owners thereof, The materials of the house were )laced in the custod of the barrio lieutenant, The =icerras filed a com)laint claiming actual damages of "#00, moral and conse4uential damages amounting to "%00, and the costs, The /!8 (bra dismissed the com)laint claiming that the action was within the e2clusive (original) jurisdiction of the Justice of the "eace /ourt of ;agangilang, (bra, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the order a))ealed, +aving been admitted in forma )au)eris, no costs were adjudged, 1. House is i//ova%-e *ro*erty even if situated on -and %e-onging to a different o1ner. B9ce*tion' 10en de/o-is0ed ( house is classified as immovable )ro)ert b reason of its adherence to the soil on which it is built ((rticle 4&3, )aragra)h &, /ivil /ode), This classification holds true regardless of the fact that the house ma be situated on land belonging to a different owner, =ut once the house is demolished, as in this case, it ceases to e2ist as such and hence its character as an immovable li@ewise ceases,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +6 )
+. Recovery of da/ages not e9ceeding )+'!!! and invo-ving no rea- *ro*erty %e-ong to t0e =ustice of t0e )eace ,ourt The com)laint is for recover of damages, the onl )ositive relief )ra ed for, !urther, a declaration of being the owners of the dismantled house andAor of the materials in no wise constitutes the relief itself which if granted b final judgment could be enforceable b e2ecution, but is onl incidental to the real cause of action to recover damages, (s this is a case for recover of damages where the demand does not e2ceed "h" #,000 and that there is no real )ro)ert litigated as the house has ceased to e2ist, the case is within the jurisdiction of the Justice of the "eace /ourt (as )er Section 77, R( #*% as amended) and not the /!8 (Section 44, id,) [1&] Bina-ay v. Cana-o [G.R. No. #+1&1. Carc0 18' 1##1.] Third Division, !eliciano (J): 4 concur $acts( The late Judge Taccad originall owned a )arcel of land situated in Tumauini, 8sabela having an estimated area of #0 hectares, The western )ortion of this land bordering on the /aga an River has an elevation lower than that of the eastern )ortion which borders on the national road, Through the ears, the western )ortion would )eriodicall go under the waters of the /aga an River as those waters swelled with the coming of the rains, The submerged )ortion, however, would re6a))ear during the dr season from Januar to (ugust, 8t would remain under water for the rest of the ear, -n * .a &*3*, 1uillermo .analo ac4uired 7,%3 hectares thereof from !austina Taccad, daughter of Judge Juan Taccad (<: !rancisco !orto, 9: <ational Road, S: Julian Tumolva, G: /aga an River), 8n &*%4, .analo )urchased another &,70 hectares from 1regorio Taguba who had earlier ac4uired the same from Judge Taccad (<: =alug /ree@, S: !austina Taccad Lnow .analoM, 9: "rovincial Road, G: /aga an river), -n #& -ctober &*%*, during the rain season, the two )arcels of land were consolidated as one lot during the cadastral surve at =alug, Tamauini, 8sabela (;ot $0', &,7 hectares Q #,*47* hectares of 7,%3 hectares )urchased? the other )ortion under water was left unsurve ed), The /aga an River running from south to north, for@s at a certain )oint to form two (#) branches R the western and the eastern branches R and then unites at the other end, further north, to form a narrow stri) of land, The eastern branch of the river cuts through the land of and is inundated with water onl during the rain season, The bed of the eastern branch is the submerged or the unsurve ed )ortion of the land belonging to .analo, !or about 7 months of the ear when the level of water at the )oint where the /aga an River for@s is at its ordinar de)th, river water does not flow into the eastern branch, Ghile this condition )ersists, the eastern bed is dr and is susce)tible to cultivation, The elongated stri) of land formed b the western and the eastern branches of the /aga an River loo@ed ver much li@e an island, This stri) of land was surve ed on &# December &*%*, 8t was found to have a total area of ##,'#0* hectares and was designated as ;ot 7#& (&0,7&## hectares) and ;ot 7## (&&,*07'),, ;ot 7#& is located directl o))osite ;ot $0' and is se)arated from the latter onl b the eastern branch of the /aga an River during the rain season and, during the dr season, b the e2)osed, dr river bed, being a )ortion of the land bought from !austina Taccad, .analo claims that ;ot 7#& also belongs to him b wa of accretion to the submerged )ortion of the )ro)ert to which it is adjacent, =inala , et,al,, other hand, who are in )ossession of ;ot 7#& insist that the own ;ot 7#&, The occu) the outer edges of ;ot 7#& along the river ban@s, i,e,, the fertile )ortions on which the )lant tobacco and other agricultural )roducts, The also cultivate the western stri) of the unsurve ed )ortion during summer, This situation com)elled .analo to file a case for forcible entr against )etitioners on #0 .a &*%*, The case was dismissed b the .unici)al /ourt of Tumauini, 8sabela for failure of both )arties to a))ear, -n &3 December &*'#, .analo again filed a case for forcible entr against )etitioners, The latter case was similarl dismissed for lac@ of jurisdiction b the .unici)al /ourt of Tumauini, 8sabela, -n #4 Jul &*'4, .analo filed a com)laint before the then /!8 8sabela, =ranch $ for 4uieting of title,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +8 )
)ossession and damages against )etitioners, +e )ra ed that judgment be entered ordering )etitioners to vacate the western stri) of the unsurve ed )ortion, and )ra ed that judgment be entered declaring him as owner of ;ot 7#& on which he had laid his claim during the surve , -n &0 <ovember &*7#, the trial court rendered a decision declaring .analo as the lawful owner of ;ot 7#& and ordering =inala , et,al, to vacate the )remises of ;ot 7#& and restraining them further from entering said )remises? without )ronouncement as to costs, =inala , et,al, a))ealed to the /ourt of ())eals which, however, affirmed the decision of the trial court, The filed a motion for reconsideration, without success, 8n effect, both courts rejected the assertion that the de)ression on the earthBs surface which se)arates ;ot $0' and ;ot 7#& is, during )art of the ear, the bed of the eastern branch of the /aga an River, The Su)reme /ourt set aside the decision of /ourt of ())eals in /(61R /> 047*#, declared .analo as the owner of ;ot $0', and declared that the regularl submerged )ortion or the eastern bed of the /aga an River to be )ro)ert of )ublic dominion, The /ourt also declared that the ownershi) of ;ot 7#& shall be determined in an a))ro)riate action that ma be instituted b the interested )arties inter se? without )ronouncement as to costs, 1. $inding of facts %y -o1er courts entit-ed to great res*ect. A0et0er t0e conc-usion reac0ed t0ereafter is correct is a 5uestion of -a1 8t is a familiar rule that the findings of facts of the trial court are entitled to great res)ect, and that the carr even more weight when affirmed b the /ourt of ())eals, This is in recognition of the )eculiar advantage on the )art of the trial court of being able to observe first6hand the de)ortment of the witnesses while testif ing, Juris)rudence is li@ewise settled that the /ourt of ())eals is the final arbiter of 4uestions of fact, =ut whether a conclusion drawn from such findings of facts is correct, is a 4uestion of law cogni:able b the Su)reme /ourt, 8n the )resent case, the conclusion reached b both courts below a))arentl collides with their findings that )eriodicall at the onset of and during the rain season, river water flows through the eastern bed of the /aga an River, +. Govern/ent of t0e )0i-i**ine 3s-ands v. ,o-egio de ?an =ose not a**-ica%-e to *resent case 1overnment of the "hili))ine 8slands vs, /olegio de San Jose is not a))licable to the )resent case, That case involved ;aguna de =a ? since ;aguna de =a is a la@e, the /ourt a))lied the legal )rovisions governing the ownershi) and use of la@es and their beds and shores, in order to determine the character and ownershi) of the dis)uted )ro)ert , S)ecificall , the /ourt a))lied the definition of the natural bed or basin of la@es found in (rticle '4 of the ;aw of Gaters of $ (ugust &7%%, 5)on the other hand? what is involved in the instant case is the eastern bed of the /aga an River, ". Artic-e 6! of t0e La1 of Aaters a**-ica%-e' not Artic-e 6 (rticle '0 of the ;aw of Gaters of $ (ugust &7%% is the law a))licable to the )resent case, (rticle '0 )rovides that Dthe natural bed or channel of a cree@ or river is the ground covered b its waters during the highest floodsE, (rticle '0 defines the natural bed or channel of a cree@ or river as the ground covered b its waters during the highest floods, The highest floods in the eastern branch of the /aga an River occur with the annual coming of the rains as the river waters in their onward course cover the entire de)ressed )ortion, The conclusion of the /ourt that the de)ressed )ortion is a river bed rests u)on evidence of record, The descri)tion of the lot ac4uired from Taguba and the other from Taccad refer to the dried u) bed or the eastern branch of the river as the /aga an River serving as the western boundar in the Deeds of Sale, !urther, .analo himself, during direct e2amination, de)ict the de)ressed )ortion se)arating ;ot 7#& and ;ot $0' as a river bed, The di@e6li@e slo)e of such de)ression, or such to)ogra)hic feature, is com)atible with the fact that huge volume of water )asses through the eastern bed regularl during the rain season, 9ven if there is no record of when the /aga an River began to carve its eastern channel, the bed alread e2isted even before the sale of the land to .analo (with the bed being referred to as Dold bedE or even DRio .uerte de /aga anE), . )rivate o1ners0i* of t0e %ed of a river cannot %e ac5uired as t0e -and constituted *ro*erty of
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +# )
*u%-ic do/inion. Artic-e +! a**-ies to e9isting %eds' Artic-e &+ a**-ies to ne1 %eds in re-ation to Artic-e 46 (Accretion) "ursuant to (rticle 4#0 of the /ivil /ode, .analo did not ac4uire )rivate ownershi) of the bed of the eastern branch of the river even if it was included in the deeds of absolute sale e2ecuted b 1regorio Taguba and !austina Taccad in his favor, These vendors could not have validl sold land that constituted )ro)ert of )ublic dominion, (rticle 4#0 of the /ivil /ode states that D(&) those intended for )ublic use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, )orts and bridges constructed b the State, ban@s, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character?E and D(#) those which belong to the State, without being for )ublic use, and are intended for some )ublic service or for the develo)ment of the national wealthE are )ro)ert of )ublic dominion, (lthough (rticle 4#0 s)ea@s onl of rivers and ban@s, DriversE is a com)osite term which includes: (&) the running waters, (#) the bed, and ($) the ban@s, .anresa, in commenting u)on (rticle $$* of the S)anish /ivil /ode of &77* from which (rticle 4#0 of the "hili))ine /ivil /ode was ta@en, stressed the )ublic ownershi) of river beds, Still, evven if it were alleged and )roved that the /aga an River first began to encroach on his )ro)ert after the )urchase from 1regorio Taguba and !austina Taccad? (rticle 4%# of the /ivil /ode would then a))l divesting, b o)eration of law, .analo of )rivate ownershi) over the new river bed, 4. Accretion' re5uisites (ccretion as a mode of ac4uiring )ro)ert under (rticle 43' of the /ivil /ode re4uires the concurrence of three ($) re4uisites: (a) that the de)osition of soil or sediment be gradual and im)erce)tible? (b) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river (or sea)? and (c) that the land where accretion ta@es )lace is adjacent to the ban@s of rivers (or the sea coast), 8n the )resent case, the /ourt notes that the )arcels of land bought b .analo border on the eastern branch of the /aga an River, (n accretion formed b this eastern branch which .analo ma claim must be de)osited on or attached to ;ot $0', (s it is, the claimed accretion (;ot 7#&) lies on the ban@ of the river not adjacent to ;ot $0' but directl o))osite ;ot $0' across the river, &. A--uvia- *rocess is s-o1 and gradua-' not sudden and forcefu(ssuming (arguendo onl ) that the /aga an River referred to in the Deeds of Sale transferring ownershi) of the land to .analo is the western branch, the decision of the /ourt of ())eals and of the trial court are bare of factual findings to the effect that the land )urchased b .analo received alluvium from the action of the river in a slow and gradual manner, -n the contrar , the flooding, that caused the land to rea))ear ma@ing it susce)tible to cultivation, is sudden and forceful action, and is hardl the alluvial )rocess contem)lated under (rticle 43' of the /ivil /ode, 8t is the slow and hardl )erce)tible accumulation of soil de)osits that the law grants to the ri)arian owner, 6. ?iDe of -and considered a--uviu/ and to*ogra*0y of -and negates conc-usion of incre/ent 8t is im)ortant to note that ;ot 7#& has an area of &&,*& hectares, ;ot 7#& (&&,*& hectares) is the northern )ortion of the stri) of land having a total area of ##,'# hectares, 8t is difficult to su))ose that such a si:able area as ;ot 7#& resulted from slow accretion to another lot of almost e4ual si:e, The total landholding )urchased b .analo is &0,43 hectares, even smaller than ;ot 7#& which he claims b wa of accretion, !urther, there are stee) vertical di@e6li@e slo)es se)arating the de)ressed )ortion or river bed and ;ot 7#& and ;ot $0', This to)ogra)h of the land, among other things, )recludes a reasonable conclusion that ;ot 7#& is an increment to the de)ressed )ortion b reason of the slow and constant action of the waters of either the western or the eastern branches of the /aga an River, 8. Guieting of tit-e re5uires e5uita%-e tit-e or interest in su%>ect rea- *ro*erty 5nder (rticle 4'' of the /ivil /ode, the )laintiff in an action for 4uieting of title must at least have e4uitable title to or interest in the real )ro)ert which is the subject matter of the action, The evidence of record on this )oint is less than satisfactor , such as that both )arties claim adverse )ossession of ;ot 7#& and both )arties )resenting ta2 declarations on the subject land? thus the /ourt feels com)elled to refrain from determining the ownershi) and )ossession of ;ot 7#&, adjudging neither )etitioners nor res)ondent .analo as owner(s) thereof,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( "! )
[16] Board of Assess/ent A**ea-s v. ,ity ;reasurer [G.R. No. L<14"" . =anuary "1' 1#& .] 9n =anc, "aredes (J): 7 concur, & concur in result, & too@ no )art, $acts( -n #0 -ctober &*0#, the "hili))ine /ommission enacted (ct 474 which authori:ed the .unici)al =oard of .anila to grant a franchise to construct, maintain and o)erate an electric street railwa and electric light, heat and )ower s stem in the /it of .anila and its suburbs to the )erson or )ersons ma@ing the most favorable bid, /harles ., Swift was awarded the said franchise on .arch &*0$, the terms and conditions of which were embodied in -rdinance 44 a))roved on #4 .arch &*0$, .eralco became the transferee and owner of the franchise, .eralcoBs electric )ower is generated b its h dro6electric )lant located at =otocan !alls, ;aguna and is transmitted to the /it of .anila b means of electric transmission wires, running from the )rovince of ;aguna to the said /it , These electric transmission wires which carr high voltage current, are fastened to insulators attached on steel towers constructed b res)ondent at intervals, from its h dro6 electric )lant in the )rovince of ;aguna to the /it of .anila, .eralco has constructed 40 of these steel towers within Fue:on /it , on land belonging to it, -n &3 <ovember &*33, /it (ssessor of Fue:on /it declared the aforesaid steel towers for real )ro)ert ta2 under Ta2 Declaration $&**# and &334*, (fter den ing .eralcoBs )etition to cancel these declarations an a))eal was ta@en b .eralco to the =oard of (ssessment ())eals of Fue:on /it , which re4uired .eralco to )a the amount of "&&,%3&,7% as real )ro)ert ta2 on the said steel towers for the ears &*3# to &*3%, .eralco )aid the amount under )rotest, and filed a )etition for review in the /ourt of Ta2 ())eals which rendered a decision on #* December &*37, ordering the cancellation of the said ta2 declarations and the /it Treasurer of Fue:on /it to refund to .eralco the sum of "&&,%3&,7%, The motion for reconsideration having been denied, on ## ()ril &*3*, the )etition for review was filed, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the decision a))ealed from, with costs against the )etitioners, 1. Definition of H*o-eI The word D)oleE means Da long, com)arativel slender usuall c lindrical )iece of wood or timber, as t )icall , the stem of a small tree stri))ed of its branches? also, b e2tension, a similar t )icall c lindrical )iece or object of metal or the li@eE, The term also refers to Dan u)right standard to the to) of which something is affi2ed or b which something is su))orted? as a dovecote set on a )ole? telegra)h )oles? a tent )ole? sometimes, s)ecificall , a vesselBs mast,E (GebsterBs <ew 8nternational Dictionar , #nd 9d, ), &*0',) "oles made of two steel bars joined together b an interlacing metal rod, are called D)olesE notwithstanding the fact that the are not made of wood, +. ?tee- to1ers' 10ic0 is 1it0in t0e ter/ H*o-es'I are e9e/*ted fro/ ta9es under *art 33' *aragra*0 # of Cera-co:s franc0ise "aragra)h * of .eralcoBs franchise )rovides that the conce)t of the D)olesE for which e2em)tion is granted, is not determined b their )lace or location, nor b the character of the electric current it carries, nor the material or form of which it is made, but the use to which the are dedicated, 8n accordance with the definitions, a )ole is not restricted to a long c lindrical )iece of wood or metal, but includes Du)right standards to the to) of which something is affi2ed or b which something is su))orted,E 8n the )resent case, .eralcoBs steel su))orts consist of a framewor@ of four steel bars or stri)s which are bound b steel cross6arms ato) of which are cross6arms su))orting five high voltage transmission wires and their sole function is to su))ort or carr such wires, ". 3nter*retation of *o-es so as to inc-ude to1ers is not a nove-ty. F? cases The conclusion that the steel su))orts in 4uestion are embraced in the term D)olesE is not a novelt , Several
)ro*erty' +!!" ( "1 )
courts of last resort in the 5nited States have called these steel su))orts Dsteel towersE, and the have denominated these steel su))orts or towers, as electric )oles, 8n their decisions the words DtowersE and D)olesE were used interchangeabl , and it is well understood in that jurisdiction that a transmission tower or )ole means the same thing, (See Steamons v, Dallas "ower N ;ight /o, (Te2t) #&# S,G, ###, ##4? $#6( Gords and "hrases ), $%3,? Salt River >alle 5sersB (ssBn, v, /om)ton 7 ), #nd, #4*6#30? and 8ns)iration /onsolidation /oo)er /o, v, =r an, #3# ), &0&%) . 3nter*retation s0ou-d not %e restrictive and narro1 to defeat t0e o%>ect for 10ic0 t0e franc0ise granted The word D)olesE, as used in (ct 474 and incor)orated in the .eralcoBs franchise, should not be given a restrictive and narrow inter)retation, as to defeat the ver object for which the franchise was granted, The )oles as contem)lated thereon, should be understood and ta@en as a )art of the electric )ower s stem of the .eralco, for the conve ance of electric current from the source thereof to its consumers, 8f the res)ondent would be re4uired to em)lo Dwooden )oles,E or Drounded )olesE as it used to do 30 ears ago, it would be a de)arture to )rogress in technolog , Steel towers, thus, can better effectuate the )ur)oses for which .eralcoBs franchise was granted, 4. ;a9 -a1 does not define rea- *ro*erty. Artic-e 14 of t0e ,ivi- ,ode defines %y enu/eration The ta2 law does not )rovide for a definition of real )ro)ert ? but (rticle 4&3 of the /ivil /ode does, b stating which are immovable )ro)ert , &. ?tee- to1ers are not i//ova%-e *ro*erty under *aragra*0 1' " and 4 The steel towers or su))orts do not come within the objects mentioned in )aragra)h &, because the do not constitute buildings or constructions adhered to the soil, The are not constructions analogous to buildings nor adhering to the soil, (s )er descri)tion, given b the lower court, the are removable and merel attached to a s4uare metal frame b means of bolts, which when unscrewed could easil be dismantled and moved from )lace to )lace, The can not be included under )aragra)h $, as the are not attached to an immovable in a fi2ed manner, and the can be se)arated without brea@ing the material or causing deterioration u)on the object to which the are attached, 9ach of these steel towers or su))orts consists of steel bars or metal stri)s, joined together b means of bolts, which can be disassembled b unscrewing the bolts and reassembled b screwing the same, These steel towers or su))orts do not also fall under )aragra)h 3, for the are not machineries or rece)tacles, instruments or im)lements, and even if the were, the are not intended for industr or wor@s on the land, "etitioner is not engaged in an industr or wor@s on the land in which the steel su))orts or towers are constructed, 6. 3t is t0e duty of t0e ,ity ;reasurer to refund. -ega- tec0nica-ities cannot %e avai-ed of 8ndulging in legal technicalities and niceties which do not hel) the /it Treasurer an ? for, factuall , it was he who had insisted that res)ondent herein )a the real estate ta2es, which .eralco )aid under )rotest, +aving acted in his official ca)acit as /it Treasurer of Fue:on /it , he would surel @now what to do, under the circumstances, Thus, he cannot be sustained in his argument that as the /it Treasurer is not the real )art in interest, but Fue:on /it , which was not made a )art to the suit, notwithstanding its ca)acit to sue and be sued, he should not be ordered to effect the refund, The 4uestion has not been raised in the lower court and, therefore, it cannot )ro)erl be raised for the first time on a))eal, [18] Burgos v. ,0ief of ?taff' A$) [G.R. No. & +&1. Dece/%er +&' 1#8 .] 9n =anc, 9scolin (J): &0 concur, & too@ no )art
)ro*erty' +!!" ( "+ )
$acts( -n ' December &*7#, Judge 9rnani /ru:6"aIo, 92ecutive Judge of the then /!8 Ri:al LFue:on /it M, issued # search warrants where the )remises at &*, Road $, "roject %, Fue:on /it , and '74 5nits / N D, R.S =uilding, Fue:on (venue, Fue:on /it , business addresses of the D.etro)olitan .ailE and DGe !orumE news)a)ers, res)ectivel , were searched, and office and )rinting machines, e4ui)ment, )ara)hernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the )rinting, )ublication and distribution of the said news)a)ers, as well as numerous )a)ers, documents, boo@s and other written literature alleged to be in the )ossession and control of Jose =urgos, Jr, )ublisher6editor of the DGe !orumE news)a)er, were sei:ed, ( )etition for certiorari, )rohibition and mandamus with )reliminar mandator and )rohibitor injunction was filed after % months following the raid to 4uestion the validit of said search warrants, and to enjoin the Judge (dvocate 1eneral of the (!", the cit fiscal of Fue:on /it , et,al, from using the articles sei:ed as evidence in /riminal /ase F60##'7# of the RT/ Fue:on /it ("eo)le v, =urgos), The )ra er of )reliminar )rohibitor injunction was rendered moot and academic when, on ' Jul &*7$, the Solicitor 1eneral manifested that said articles would not be used until final resolution of the legalit of the sei:ure of said articles, The Su)reme /ourt declared the search warrants #067#(a,b) issued on ' December &*7# null and void, and granted the writ of mandator injunction for the return of the sei:ed articles, such articles sei:ed ordered released to the )etitioners? without costs, 1. Frgency of constitutiona- issue raised overrides *rocedura- f-a1. $ai-ure to fi-e /otion to 5uas0 "etitioners, before im)ugning the validit of the warrants before the /ourt, should have filed a motion to 4uash said warrants in the court that issued them, =ut this )rocedural flaw notwithstanding, the /ourt ta@e cogni:ance of this )etition in view of the seriousness and urgenc of the constitutional issues raised, not to mention the )ublic interest generated b the search of the DGe !orumE offices, which was televised and widel )ublici:ed in all metro)olitan dailies, The e2istence of this s)ecial circumstance justifies this /ourt to e2ercise its inherent )ower to sus)end its rules, 8n >da, de -rdove:a v, Ra mundo, it was said that Dit is alwa s in the )ower of the court LSu)reme /ourtM to sus)end its rules or to e2ce)t a )articular case from its o)eration, whenever the )ur)oses of justice re4uire it , , ,E +. Lac0es defined ;aches is failure or negligence for an unreasonable and une2)lained length of time to do that which, b e2ercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, 8t is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a )resum)tion that the )art entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it, ". B9tra>udicia- effort negates *resu/*tion of a%andon/ent of rig0t to t0e *ossession of *ro*erty 92trajudicial efforts e2erted b )etitioners negate the )resum)tion that the had abandoned their right to the )ossession of the sei:ed )ro)ert , thereb refuting the charge of laches against them, (lthough the reason given b )etitioners ma not be flattering to the judicial s stem, The /ourt finds no ground to )unish or chastise them for an error in judgment in )ursuing other remedies, rel ing on the so6called e2ecutive benevolence or largesse (e,g, ;etter of )residential friend !iscal !laminiano to /ol, =albino Diego, /hief 8ntelligence and ;egal -fficer of the "S1), . Docu/ents /arked as evidence in cri/ina- case do not affect issue on t0e va-idity of t0e 1arrants The documents sei:ed lawfull belong to Jose =urgos, Jr, and he can do whatever he )leases with them, within legal bounds? such as mar@ing them as evidence in the criminal case, The fact that he has used them as evidence does not and cannot in an wa affect the validit or invalidit of the search warrants assailed in the )etition,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( "" )
4. B9a/ination conducted "etitionersB objection that there is an alleged failure to conduct an e2amination under oath or affirmation of the a))licant and his witnesses, as mandated b the /onstitution as well as Sec, 4, Rule &#% of the Rules of /ourt, ma )ro)erl be considered moot and academic, as )etitioners themselves conceded during the hearing on * (ugust &*7$, that an e2amination had indeed been conducted b the judge of /ol, (badilla and his witnesses, &. Defect on t0e address 10ere ite/s are to %e seiDed is ty*ogra*0ica- error Search Garrants <o, #067#LaM and <o, #067#LbM were used to search two distinct )laces: <o, &*, Road $, "roject %, Fue:on /it and '74 5nits / N D, R.S =uilding, Fue:on (venue, Fue:on /it , res)ectivel , -bjection is inter)osed to the e2ecution of Search Garrant <o, #067#LbM at the latter address on the ground that the two search warrants )in)ointed onl one )lace where )etitioner Jose =urgos, Jr, was allegedl @ee)ing and concealing the articles listed therein, i,e,, <o, &*, Road $, "roject %, Fue:on /it , The defect )ointed out is obviousl a t )ogra)hical error, "recisel , two search warrants were a))lied for and issued because the )ur)ose and intent were to search two distinct )remises, 8t would be 4uite absurd and illogical for res)ondent judge to have issued two warrants intended for one and the same )lace, 6. Deter/ination 10et0er 1arrant descri%es *re/ises to %e searc0 1it0 sufficient *articu-arity 8n the determination of whether a search warrant describes the )remises to be searched with sufficient )articularit , the e2ecuting officerBs )rior @nowledge as to the )lace intended in the warrant is relevant, This would seem to be es)eciall true where the e2ecuting officer is the affiant on whose affidavit the warrant had issued, and when he @nows that the judge who issued the warrant intended the building described in the affidavit, (nd it has also been said that the e2ecuting officer ma loo@ to the affidavit in the official court file to resolve an ambiguit in the warrant as to the )lace to be searched, 8. )ro*erty seiDed need not %e o1ned %y *erson against 10o/ t0e 1arrant is directed Section #, Rule &#% of the Rules of /ourt, enumerates the )ersonal )ro)erties that ma be sei:ed under a search warrant, such as LaM "ro)ert subject of the offense? LbM "ro)ert stolen or embe::led and other )roceeds or fruits of the offense? and LcM "ro)ert used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense, The rule does not re4uire that the )ro)ert to be sei:ed should be owned b the )erson against whom the search warrant is directed, 8t ma or ma not be owned b him, -wnershi) is of no conse4uence, and it is sufficient that the )erson against whom the warrant is directed has control or )ossession of the )ro)ert sought to be sei:ed was alleged to have in relation to the articles and )ro)ert sei:ed under the warrants, #. Cac0ineries re/ain to %e /ova%-e *ro*erty. o1ner s0ou-d *-ace t0e /ac0inery to %e i//ova%-e 5nder (rticle 4&3L3M of the /ivil /ode of the "hili))ines, Dmachiner , rece)tables, instruments or im)lements intended b the owner of the tenement for an industr or wor@s which ma be carried on in a building or on a )iece of land and which tend directl to meet the needs of the said industr or wor@sE are considered immovable )ro)ert , 8n Davao Sawmill /o, v, /astillo, it was said that machiner which is movable b nature becomes immobili:ed when )laced b the owner of the tenement, )ro)ert or )lant, but not so when )laced b a tenant, usufructuar , or an other )erson having onl a tem)orar right, unless such )erson acted as the agent of the owner, 8n the )resent case, )etitioners do not claim to be the owners of the land andAor building on which the machineries were )laced, The machineries, while in fact bolted to the ground, remain movable )ro)ert susce)tible to sei:ure under a search warrant, 1!. Artic-e 37' ?ection " of t0e 1#6" ,onstitution. $inding of *ro%a%-e cause re5uired to issue 1arrant Section $ )rovides that no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e2ce)t u)on )robable cause to be determined b the judge, or such other res)onsible officer as ma be authori:ed b law, after e2amination
)ro*erty' +!!" ( " )
under oath or affirmation of the com)lainant and the witnesses he ma )roduce, and )articularl describing the )lace to be searched and the )ersons or things to be sei:ed, 8n the )resent case, a statement in the effect that the )etitioner Dis in )ossession or has in his control )rinting e4ui)ment and other )ara)hernalia, news )ublications and other documents which were used and are all continuousl being used as a means of committing the offense of subversion )unishable under "D 773, as amendedE is a mere conclusion of law and does not satisf the re4uirements of )robable cause, =ereft of such )articulars as would justif a finding of the e2istence of )robable cause, said allegation cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant, 11. )ro%a%-e cause for searc0 defined. A**-ication to searc0es against ne1s*a*er *u%-is0erJeditor "robable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonabl discreet and )rudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the )lace sought to be searched, Ghen the search warrant a))lied for is directed against a news)a)er )ublisher or editor in connection with the )ublication of subversive materials, the a))lication andAor its su))orting affidavits must contain a s)ecification, stating with )articularit the alleged subversive material he has )ublished or is intending to )ublish, .ere generali:ation will not suffice, 1+. ,onstitution re5uires *ersona- kno1-edge of co/*-ainant J 1itnesses to >ustify issuance of 1arrant 8n mandating that Dno warrant shall issue e2ce)t u)on )robable cause to be determined b the judge, after e2amination under oath or affirmation of the com)lainant and the witnesses he ma )roduceE? the /onstitution re4uires no less than )ersonal @nowledge b the com)lainant or his witnesses of the facts u)on which the issuance of a search warrant ma be justified, 8n (lvare: v, /!8, it was ruled that Dthe oath re4uired must refer to the truth of the facts within the )ersonal @nowledge of the )etitioner or his witnesses, because the )ur)ose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the individual ma@ing the affidavit and see@ing the issuance of the warrant, of the e2istence of )robable cause,E 1". Genera- 1arrants inva-id 8n Standford v, State of Te2as, the search warrant which authori:ed the search for Jboo@s, records, )am)hlets, cards, recei)ts, lists, memoranda, )ictures, recordings and other written instruments concerning the /ommunist "arties of Te2as, and the o)erations of the /ommunist "art in Te2as,E was declared void b the 5,S, Su)reme /ourt for being too general, 8t is that it is not the )olic of the government to su))ress an news)a)er or )ublication that s)ea@s with Dthe voice of non6conformit E but )oses no clear and imminent danger to state securit , 1 . ,-osure of *u%-ications in t0e nature of censors0i* a%0orrent to t0e freedo/ of t0e *ress (s a conse4uence of the search and sei:ure, these )remises of the .etro)olitan .ail and Ge !orum were )adloc@ed and sealed, with the further result that the )rinting and )ublication of said news)a)ers were discontinued, Such closure is in the nature of )revious restraint or censorshi) abhorrent to the freedom of the )ress guaranteed under the fundamental law, and constitutes a virtual denial of )etitionersB freedom to e2)ress themselves in )rint, Thus state of being is )atentl anathematic to a democratic framewor@ where a free, alert and even militant )ress is essential for the )olitical enlightenment and growth of the citi:enr , 14. Cac0ines not se5uestered under )D 884. Lack of 3RR' contrary c-ai/ %y Carcos and Ro/u-o Se4uestration under Section 7 of "D 773, as amended, which authori:es Dthe se4uestration of the )ro)ert of an )erson, natural or artificial, engaged in subversive activities against the government and its dul constituted authorities in accordance with im)lementing rules and regulations as ma be issued b the Secretar of <ational DefenseE could not validl be effected in view of the absence of an im)lementing rules and regulations )romulgated b the .inister of <ational Defense, !urther, no less than "resident .arcos himself denied the re4uest of the militar authorities to se4uester the )ro)ert sei:ed as re)orted in the &0 December &*7# issue of the Dail 92)ress, This was confirmed b !oreign .inister /arlos ", Romulo on &0 !ebruar &*7#, reiterating .arcosB claims, in his letter to 5S /ongressman Ton ", +all,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( "4 )
[1#] Cunici*a-ity of ,avite v. Ro>as [G.R. No. #!&#. Carc0 "1' 1#14.] 9n =anc, Torres (J): $ concur, &concur in result $acts( The .unici)alit (constituted through (ct 7#), and as the successor to the rights said entit had under the late S)anish government, and b virtue of (ct &0$*, had e2clusive right, control and administration over the streets, lanes, )la:as, and )ublic )laces of the munici)alit of /avite, Rojas, et,al,, b virtue of a lease secured from the .unici)alit (Resolution &0, dated $ Jul &*0'), occu)ied a )arcel of land *$ s4, m, in area that forms )art of the )ublic )la:a @nown under the name of Soledad, belonging to the munici)alit of /avite, Rojas constructed thereon a house, )a ing the .unici)alit a rental of "3,37 a 4uarter in advance for occu)ation thereof (schedule fi2ed in -rdinance 4$, s, &*0$), with the condition that Rojas are obligated to vacate the leased land within %0 da s subse4uent to the .unici)alit Bs demand to that effect, Rojas has been re4uired b the munici)alit to vacate and deliver )ossession of the said land, wherein the %0da s within which it was ought to vacated ela)sed without Rojas doing so, Thus, b an instrument dated 3 December &*&&, afterwards amended on &4 .arch &*&#, the )rovincial fiscal of /avite, re)resenting the munici)alit , filed a com)laint in the /!8 /avite against Rojas alleging that the lease secured from the munici)alit of /avite is ultra vires and therefore i)so facto null and void and of no force or effect, for the said land is an integral )ortion of a )ublic )la:a of )ublic domain, and thus )ra ed that judgment be rendered declaring that )ossession of the said land lies with the .unici)alit and ordering Rojas to vacate the land and deliver )ossession thereof to the .unici)alit , (fter hearing and on #' .arch &*&$, the court rendered the judgment dismissing the com)laint with cost against the .unici)alit , The counsel for the munici)alit e2ce)ted and in writing as@ed for a reo)ening of the case and the holding of a new trial, This motion was denied, with e2ce)tion on the )art of the .unici)alit , and the corres)onding bill of e2ce)tions was filed, a))roved and forwarded to the cler@ of the Su)reme /ourt, The Su)reme /ourt reversed the judgment a))ealed from and declared the land occu)ied )ublic, as it formed )art of the )ublic )la:a called Soledad, and the lease of said )arcel of land as null and void, The /ourt ordered Rojas to vacate it and release the land within $0 da s, leaving it and as it was before her occu)ation, There is no ground for the indemnit sought in the nature of damages, but the munici)alit must in its turn restore to Rojas the rentals collected? without s)ecial finding as to the costs, 1. )-aDa ?o-edad. Cunici*a-ity or o%>ectors not entit-ed for inscri*tion of -and for *u%-ic use and reserved for t0e co//on %enefit = section $ of the said (ct <o, &0$*, )assed Januar &#, &*04, the "hili))ine /ommission granted to the munici)alit of /avite all the land included in the tract called "la:a Soledad, 8n the case of <icolas vs, Jose (% "hil 37*), wherein the munici)alit of /avite, re)resented b its )resident /atalino <icolas, sought inscri)tion in its name of the land com)rised in the said "la:a Soledad, with objection on the )art of .aria Jose et al,, who occu)ied some )arts thereof with their houses and who also sought that inscri)tion be decreed in their name of the )arcels of land in this )la:a occu)ied b them, this court decided that neither the munici)alit nor the objectors were entitled to inscri)tion, for with res)ect to the objectors said )la:a belonged to the munici)alit of /avite and with res)ect to the latter the said "la:a Soledad was not transferable )ro)ert of that munici)alit to be inscribed in its name, because the intention of (ct <o, &0$* was that the said )la:a and other )laces therein enumerated should be @e)t o)en for )ublic transit? wherefore there can be no doubt that the defendant has no right to continue to occu) the land of the munici)alit leased b her, for it is an integral )ortion of "la:a Soledad, which is for )ublic use and is reserved for the common benefit, +. )ro*erty for *u%-ic use in *rovinces and in to1ns (rticle $44 of the /ivil /ode )rovides that D)ro)ert for )ublic use in )rovinces and in towns com)rises the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( "& )
)rovincial and town roads, the s4uares, streets, fountains, and )ublic waters, the )romenades, and )ublic wor@s of general service su))orted b said towns or )rovinces,E "la:a Soledad being a )romenade for )ublic use, the munici)al council of /avite could not in &*0' withdraw or e2clude from )ublic use a )ortion thereof in order to lease it for the sole benefit of Rojas, 8n leasing a )ortion of said )la:a or )ublic )lace for )rivate use, munici)alit e2ceeded its authorit in the e2ercise of its )owers b e2ecuting a contract over a thing of which it could not dis)ose, nor is it em)owered so to do, ". ,o//una- t0ings cannot %e so-d as t0ey are outside t0e co//erce of /an (rticle &#'& of the /ivil /ode )rescribes that ever thing which is not outside the commerce of man ma be the object of a contract, (s )la:as and streets are outside of this commerce, the &# !ebruar &7*3 decision of the S)anish Su)reme /ourt stated that Dcommunal things that cannot be sold because the are b their ver nature outside of commerce are those for )ublic use, such as the )la:as, streets, common lands, rivers, fountains, etc,E The lease contract, whereb the munici)alit of /avite leased to Rojas a )ortion of the "la:a Soledad, is null and void and of no force or effect, in accordance with the )rovision of (rticle &$0$ of the /ivil /ode, because it is contrar to the law and the thing leased cannot be the object of a contract, Thus, Rojas must restore and deliver )ossession of the land described in the com)laint to the munici)alit of /avite, which in its turn must restore to Rojas all the sums it ma have received from her in the nature of rentals just as soon as she restores the land im)ro)erl leased, !or the same reasons as have been set forth, conse4uentl Rojas is not entitled to claim that the munici)alit indemnif her for the damages she ma suffer b the removal of her house from the said land, [+!] ,e%u 29ygen E Acety-ene v. Berci--es [G.R. No. L< ! 6 . August +#' 1#64.] Second Division, /once)cion Jr, (J): 4 concur $acts( The )arcel of land sought to be registered was originall a )ortion of ., =orces Street, .abolo, /ebu /it , -n #$ Se)tember &*%7, the /it /ouncil of /ebu, through Resolution #&*$ ($ -ctober &*%7), declared the terminal )ortion of ., =orces Street, .abolo, /ebu /it , as an abandoned road, the same not being included in the /it Develo)ment "lan, Subse4uentl , on &* December &*%7, the /it /ouncil of /ebu )assed Resolution #'33, authori:ing the (cting /it .a or to sell the land through a )ublic bidding, "ursuant thereto, the lot was awarded to the herein )etitioner being the highest bidder and on $ .arch &*%*, the /it of /ebu, through the (cting /it .a or, e2ecuted a deed of absolute sale to the )etitioner for a total consideration of "&0,700,00, = virtue of the aforesaid deed of absolute sale, the )etitioner filed an a))lication with the /!8 /ebu to have its title to the land registered (;R/ <6*47? ;R/ Record <6443$&), -n #% June &*'4, the (ssistant "rovincial !iscal of /ebu filed a motion to dismiss the a))lication on the ground that the )ro)ert sought to be registered being a )ublic road intended for )ublic use is considered )art of the )ublic domain and therefore outside the commerce of man, (fter hearing the )arties, on && -ctober &*&4 the trial court issued an order dismissing the )etitionerBs a))lication for registration of title, +ence, the instant )etition for review, The Su)reme /ourt set aside the order of the lower court, and the ordered said court to )roceed with the hearing of the )etitionerBs a))lication for registration of title, 1. ,ity is e/*o1ered to c-ose city road or street and 1it0dra1 t0e sa/e fro/ *u%-ic use Section $& of the Revised /harter of /ebu /it (;egislative "owers) )rovides that Dan )rovision of law and e2ecutive order to the contrar notwithstanding, the /it /ouncil shall have the following legislative )owers 222 to close an cit road, street or alle , boulevard, avenue, )ar@ or s4uare, "ro)ert thus withdrawn from )ublic servitude ma be used or conve ed for an )ur)ose for which other real )ro)ert belonging to the /it ma be lawfull used or conve ed,E 8t is undoubtedl clear that the /it of /ebu is em)owered to close a
)ro*erty' +!!" ( "6 )
cit road or street, +. Discretion of t0e city counci- cannot ordinari-y %e interfered 1it0 %y t0e court The cit council is the authorit com)etent to determine whether or not a certain )ro)ert is still necessar for )ublic use, The )ower to vacate a street or alle is discretionar , and the discretion will not ordinaril be controlled or interfered with b the courts, absent a )lain case of abuse or fraud or collusion, !aithfulness to the )ublic trust will he )resumed, So the fact that some )rivate interests ma be served incidentall will not invalidate the vacation ordinance (Fav)! v. C)(y o2 :agu)o+, ". ?treet 1it0dra1n fro/ *u%-ic use %eco/es *atri/onia- *ro*erty. ?u%se5uent sa-e va-id Ghen a )ortion of the cit street was withdrawn from )ublic use, such withdrawn )ortion becomes )atrimonial )ro)ert which can be the object of an ordinar contract, (s e2)ressl )rovided b (rticle 4## of the /ivil /ode, D)ro)ert of )ublic dominion, when no longer intended for )ublic use or for )ublic service, shall form )art of the )atrimonial )ro)ert of the State,E !urther, the Revised /harter of the /it of /ebu, in ver clear and une4uivocal terms, states that D)ro)ert thus withdrawn from )ublic servitude ma be used or conve ed for an )ur)ose for which other real )ro)ert belonging to the /it ma be lawfull used or conve ed,E Thus, the withdrawal of the )ro)ert in 4uestion from )ublic use and its subse4uent sale to the )etitioner is valid, [+1] ,0ua v. ,A [G.R. No. 1!#8 !. =anuary +1' 1###.] Second Division, .endo:a (J): 4 concur $acts( Jose ;, /hua and /o Sio 9ng were lessees of a commercial unit at $07% Redem)torist Street in =aclaran, "araIa4ue, .etro .anila, The lease was for a )eriod of 3 ears, from & Januar &*73 to $& December &*7*, The contract e2)ressl )rovided for the renewal of the lease at the o)tion of the lessees Din accordance with the terms of agreement and conditions set b the lessor,E "rior to the e2)iration of the lease, the )arties discussed the )ossibilit of renewing it, The e2changed )ro)osal and counter)ro)osal, but the failed to reach agreement, The dis)ute was referred to the baranga ca)tain for conciliation but still no settlement was reached b the )arties, -n #4 Jul &**0, Ramon 8barra filed a com)laint for unlawful detainer against )etitioners in the .T/ "araIa4ue, .etro .anila, which on 4 !ebruar &**# rendered a decision, giving a )eriod of # ears e2tension of occu)anc to /hua and /o Sio 9ng starting #4 Jul &**0, ordering them to )a 8barra the sum of "&77,70%,00 re)resenting bac@ rentals as of &**& and a monthl rental of "&0,000,00 thereafter until the e2)iration of the aforesaid e2tension of their occu)anc or until the subject )remises is actuall vacated, and ordering them to )a 8barra the amount of "&3,000 as attorne Bs fees? and the cost of suit, -n a))eal b both )arties, the RT/ .a@ati (=ranch 3*) ruled that the lease was for a fi2ed )eriod of 3 ears and that, u)on its e2)iration on & Januar &**0, /huaBs and /o Sio 9ngBs continued sta in the )remises became illegal, The court ordered /hua and /o Sio 9ng to vacate the )remises and to turn over )ossession thereof to 8barra? to )a 8barra the amount of "4#,$0% re)resenting accrued or ban@ rentals from & Januar &*7' to $& December &*7*, a monthl rental of "',$#0,30 for the use or occu)anc of the )remises starting & Januar &**0 until #4 Jul &**0 and at "&0,000 from #4 Jul &**0 until /hua and /o Sio 9ng shall have vacated the same, the amount of "&0,000 re)resenting reasonable attorne Bs fees, The court also ordered the dismissal of /huaBs and /o Sio 9ngBs counterclaim for lac@ of merit? with costs against them, /hua and /o Sio 9ng a))ealed to the /ourt of ())eals, which affirmed the decision, 8n its decision, dated 7 -ctober &**#, the /ourt of ())eals affirmed the decision of the lower court e2ce)t for the modification that the monthl rental that )etitioners should )a )rivate res)ondent from #4 Jul &**0 until the latter finall
)ro*erty' +!!" ( "8 )
vacate the )remises in 4uestion is reduced to "',$#0,00? with costs against /hua and /o Sio 9ng, /hua and /o Sio 9ng filed motion for reconsideration, which was li@ewise denied, +ence, the )etition for review on certiorari, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the decision of the /ourt of ())eals, dated 7 -ctober &**#? costs against /hua and /o Sio 9ng, 1. ,ontract is t0e -a1 %et1een *arties. A%so-ving renta-s -eads to un>ust enric0/ent /huaBs and /o Sio 9ngBs rental arrearages from &*7% to &*7* was an issue raised at the )re6trial and on which issue 8barra )resented evidence without an objection from the former, /onsidering that /hua and /o Sio 9ng incurred said rental arrearages because the did not )a 8barra the automatic &0C increase in their monthl rental ever ear for the ears &*7% to &*7* as agreed u)on and sti)ulated in their lease contract which contract is the law between the )arties, justice and good faith demand that /hua and /o Sio 9ng should )a said rental arrearages, To absolve the defendants from )a ing rentals in arrears while the continue occu) ing and enjo ing the )remises would be allowing the defendants to enrich themselves at 8brarraBs e2)ense, +. 2%>ection 1aived if o%>ection to ad/ission of evidence not /ade at ti/e t0e evidence is offered. A/end/ents to *-eading a--o1ed to confor/ to t0e evidence in t0e record (n objection to the admissibilit of evidence should be made at the time such evidence is offered or as soon thereafter as the objection to its admissibilit becomes a))arent, otherwise the objection will be considered waived and such evidence will form )art of the records of the case as com)etent and admissible evidence, Rule &0, S3 7 of the Rules of /ivil "rocedure allows the amendment of the )leadings in order to ma@e them conform to the evidence in the record, ". No -ease to %e e9tended 10en t0e -ease contract e9*ired (fter the lease terminated on & Januar &**0 and without the )arties thereafter reaching an agreement for its renewal, /hua and /o Sio 9ng became deforciants subject to ejectment from the )remises, The are not entitled to a reasonable e2tension of time to occu) the )remises on account of the fact that the lease contract between the )arties has alread e2)ired, as there was no longer an lease to s)ea@ of which could be e2tended, . Aut0ority of t0e court to fi9 a -onger ter/ of -ease a**-ies to cases 10ere no *eriod is fi9ed %y *arties The .T/ was in effect ma@ing a contract for the )arties which it obviousl did not have the )ower to do, The )otestative authorit of the courts to fi2 a longer term for a lease under (rticle &%7' of the /ivil /ode a))lies onl to cases where there is no )eriod fi2ed b the )arties, 8n the )resent case, the contract of lease )rovided for a fi2ed )eriod of 3 ears from & Januar &*73 to $& December &*7*, (s held in "acolod-Murcia Milling Co., #nc. v. "anco $acional %ilipino , it is not the )rovince of the court to alter a contract b construction or to ma@e a new contract for the )arties? its dut is confined to the inter)retation of the one which the have made for themselves, without regard to its wisdom or foll , as the court cannot su))l material sti)ulations or read into contract words which it does not contain, 4. Artic-e 1&64 e9c-udes cases fa--ing under Arti-ce 1&6" (rticle &%'3 of the /ivil /ode e2cludes cases falling under (rticle &%'$ (which )rovides among others, that the lessor ma judiciall eject the lessee when the )eriod agreed u)on or that which is fi2ed has e2)ired) from the cases wherein, )ursuant to (rticle &%7', courts ma fi2 a longer )eriod of lease, &. Artic-e 8 a**-ies to *ossessor in good fait0 and not to -essee There is no )rovision of law which grants the lessee a right of retention over the leased )remises on the ground that the lessee made re)airs and im)rovements on the )remises, (rticle 447 of the /ivil /ode, in relation to (rticle 34%, which )rovides for full reimbursement of useful im)rovements and retention of the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( "# )
)remises until reimbursement is made, a))lies onl to a )ossessor in good faith, i,e, one who builds on a land in the belief that he is the owner thereof, 6. Rationa-e on 10y Artic-e 8 does not a**-y to -essees. Artic-e 1&68 as re-ief 8n a number of cases, the /ourt has held that this right does not a))l to a mere lessee otherwise, it would alwa s be in his )ower to Dim)roveE his landlord out of the latterBs )ro)ert , (rticle &%'7 merel grants to such a lessee ma@ing in good faith useful im)rovements the right to be reimbursed one6half of the value of the im)rovements u)on the termination of the lease, or, in the alternative, to remove the im)rovements if the lessor refuses to ma@e reimbursement, 8. A1ard of attorney:s fees reasona%-e /hua and /o Sio 9ng were correctl ordered to )a attorne Bs fees considering that 8barra had to go to court to )rotect his interest, The award of "&0,000 is reasonable in view of the time it has ta@en this rather sim)le case for ejectment to be decided, [++] ,0ua Guan v. ?a/a0ang Cagsasaka [G.R. No. +!#1. Nove/%er +' 1#"4.] Second Division, =utte (J): 4 concur $acts( -n June &7, &*$&, 1on:alo +, /o Toco, the owner of 3,7*4 shares of the ca)ital stoc@ of Samahang .agsasa@a 8nc, re)resented b * certificates having a )ar value of "3 )er share mortgaged said shares to /hua /hiu to guarantee the )a ment of a debt of "#0,000 due on or before &* June &*$#, The said certificates of stoc@ were delivered with the mortgage to the mortgagee, /hua /hiu, The said mortgage was dul registered in the office of the registered of deeds of .anila on #$ June &*$&, and in the office of the said cor)oration on $0 Se)tember &*$&, -n #7 <ovember &*$&, /hua /hiu assigned all his right and interest in said mortgage to the /hua 1uan and the assignment in the office of the register of deeds in the /it of .anila on #7 December &*$&, and in the office of the said cor)oration on 4 Januar &*$#, /o Toco defaulted in the )a ment of said debt at maturit and /hua 1uan foreclosed said mortgage and delivered the certificates of stoc@ and co)ies of the mortgage and assignment to the sheriff of the /it of .anila in order to sell the said shares at )ublic auction, The sheriff auctioned said shares on ## December &*$#, and the )laintiff having been the highest bidder for the sum of "&4,$*0, the sheriff e2ecuted in his favor a certificate of sale of said shares, The )laintiff tendered the certificates of stoc@ standing in the name of /o Toco to the )ro)er officers of the cor)oration for cancellation and demanded that the issue new certificates in the name of /hua 1uan, The officers (the individual defendants) refused and still refuse to issue said new shares in the name of /hua 1uan, (n action for writ of mandamus was filed with the /!8 <ueva 9cija, )ra ing that the defendants transfer the said 3,7*4 shares of stoc@ to the )laintiff b cancelling the old certificates and issuing new ones in their stead, The )arties entered into a sti)ulation in which the defendants admitted all of the allegations of the com)laint and the )laintiff admitted all of the s)ecial defenses in the answer of the defendants, and on this sti)ulation the submitted the case for decision, (s s)ecial defense, the defendants refused to cancel said certificates (/o TocoBs) and to issue new ones in the name of /hua 1uan because )rior to the date of the latterBs demand (4 !ebruar &*$$), * attachments had been issued and served and noted on the boo@s of the cor)oration against /o TocoBs shares and /hua 1uan objected to having these attachments noted on the new certificates which he demanded, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment a))ealed from, holding that the attaching creditors are entitled to )riorit over the defectivel registered mortgage of the a))ellant? without s)ecial )ronouncement as to costs,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( ! )
1. Registration of c0atte- /ortgage in t0e office of cor*oration not necessary and 0ad no -egaeffect The registration of the said chattel mortgage in the office of the cor)oration was not necessar and had no legal effect, Ghether the shares of a cor)oration could be h )othecated b )lacing a chattel mortgage on the certificate re)resenting such shares are settled b the case of .onserrat vs, /eron, 8n the )resent case, the registration of such a mortgage or the effect of such registration was not in 4uestion, <othing a))ears in the record of that case even tending to show that the chattel mortgage there involved was ever registered an where e2ce)t in the office of the cor)oration, and there was no 4uestion involved there as to the right of )riorit among conflicting claims of creditors of the owner of the shares, +. Difficu-ty on t0e *ractica- a**-ication of t0e ,0atte- Cortgage -a1 to s0ares of stock of a cor*oration The )ractical a))lication of the /hattel .ortgage ;aw to shares of stoc@ of a cor)oration )resents considerable difficult , as an e4uit in shares of stoc@ is of such an intangible character, and the /ourt has obtained little aid from the decisions of other jurisdictions because that form of mortgage is ill suited to the h )othecation of shares of stoc@ and has been rarel used elsewhere, 8n fact, it has been doubted whether shares of stoc@ in a cor)oration are chattels in the sense in which that word is used in chattel mortgage statutes (see !ua /un vs, Summers and /hina =an@ing /or)oration), ". Aays in e9ecuting a va-id c0atte- /ortgage effective against t0ird *ersons Section 4 of (ct &307 )rovides two wa s for e2ecuting a valid chattel mortgage which shall be effective against third )ersons, !irst, the )ossession of the )ro)ert mortgaged must be delivered to and retained b the mortgagee? and, second, without such deliver the mortgage must be recorded in the )ro)er office or offices of the register or registers of deeds, . )ro*er *-ace of registration of a c0atte- /ortgage Section 4 )rovides that in such a case the mortgage shall be registered in the )rovince in which the mortgagor resides at the time of ma@ing the same or, if he is a non6resident, in the )rovince in which the )ro)ert is situated? and it also )rovides that if the )ro)ert is situated in a different )rovince from that in which the mortgagor resides the mortgage shall be recorded both in the )rovince of the mortgagorBs residence and in the )rovince where the )ro)ert is situated, 4. Do/ici-e of cor*oration decisive for *ur*oses of e9ecution' attac0/ent and garnis0/ent of s0ares of stock 8t is a common but not accurate generali:ation that the situs of shares of stoc@ is at the domicile of the owner, The term situs is not one of fi2ed or invariable meaning or usage, <or should one lose sight of the difference between the situs of the shares and the situs of the certificate of shares, The situs of shares of stoc@ for some )ur)oses ma be at the domicile of the owner and for others at the domicile of the cor)oration? and even elsewhere, 8t is a general rule that for )ur)oses of e2ecution, attachment and garnishment, it is not the domicile of the owner of a certificate but the domicile of the cor)oration which is decisive, &. ,ourt:s construction of ?ection ' Act 14!8' as to o1ners0i* of s0ares in a cor*oration = analog with the foregoing and considering the ownershi) of shares in a cor)oration as )ro)ert distinct from the certificates which are merel the evidence of such ownershi), it seems to be a reasonable construction of section 4 of (ct &307 to hold that the )ro)ert in the shares ma be deemed to be situated in the )rovince in which the cor)oration has its )rinci)al office or )lace of business, 8f this )rovince is also the )rovince of the ownerBs domicile, a single registration is sufficient, 8f not, the chattel mortgage should be registered both at the ownerBs domicile and in the )rovince where the cor)oration has its )rinci)al office or )lace of business, 8n this sense the )ro)ert mortgaged is not the certificate but the )artici)ation and share of the owner in the assets of the cor)oration,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1 )
6. Cet0od of 0y*ot0ecating s0ares of stock %y c0atte- /ortgage cu/%erso/e and unusua- in t0e *resent state of -a1. Risks of de%tor andJor creditor. Re/edy is 1it0 -egis-ature ()art from the cumbersome and unusual method of h )othecating shares of stoc@ b chattel mortgage, it a))ears that in the )resent state of our law, the onl safe wa to accom)lish the h )othecation of share of stoc@ of a "hili))ine cor)oration is for the creditor to insist on the assignment and deliver of the certificate and to obtain the transfer of the legal title to him on the boo@s of the cor)oration b the cancellation of the certificate and the issuance of a new one to him, !rom the stand)oint of the debtor this ma be unsatisfactor because it leaves the creditor as the ostensible owner of the shares and the debtor is forced to rel u)on the honest and solvenc of the creditor, -f course, the mere )ossession and retention of the debtorBs certificate b the creditor gives some securit to the creditor against an attem)ted voluntar transfer b the debtor, )rovided b 6 laws of the cor)oration e2)ressl enact that transfers ma be made onl u)on the surrender of the certificate, 8t is to be noted, however, that section $3 of the /or)oration ;aw enacts that shares of stoc@ Dma be transferred b deliver of the certificate endorsed b the owner or his attorne in fact or other )erson legall authori:ed to ma@e the transfer,E The use of the verb Dma E does not e2clude the )ossibilit that a transfer ma be made in a different manner, thus leaving the creditor in an insecure )osition even though he has the certificate in his )ossession, .oreover, the shares still standing in the name of the debtor on the boo@s of the cor)oration will be liable to sei:ure b attachment or lev on e2ecution at the instance of other creditors, Decisions in the case of .onserrat vs, /eron and in the )resent case have done little )erha)s to ameliorate the )resent uncertain and unsatisfactor state of our law a))licable to )ledges and chattel mortgages of shares of stoc@ of "hili))ine cor)orations, The remed lies with the legislature, 8. ;ransfer %y endorse/ent and de-ivery of certificate 1it0 intention to *-edge sufficient to give -egaeffect The transfer b endorsement and deliver of a certificate with intention to )ledge the shares covered thereb should be sufficient to give legal effect to that intention and to consummate the juristic act without necessit for registration, [+"] ,0ua )eng Hian v. ,A [G.R. No. &!!14. Dece/%er 1#' 1#8 .] Second Division, (4uino (J): 4 concur, & too@ no )art, $acts( .iguel /, >eneracion owned a #,&*4 s4,m, lot located at '7' .elencio Street, /abanatuan /it , +e leased it in &*47 to "atric@ /hua "eng +ian for &0 ears, The lease was renewed for another &0 ears, /hua constructed on that lot a #6store building, the ground floor being the sawmill and the second floor as residence, -n #3 .a &*%7, after the second lease agreement had e2)ired, >eneracion leased to /hua &,730 s4uare meters of the lot for $ ears or from & .a &*%7 to & .a &*'& at the monthl rental of "&,300, The new lease contract sti)ulates that the lease shall terminate automaticall without e2tension and the lessee shall vacate and surrender the )remises without an obstruction thereon? that in the event that the ;essee fails to surrender and vacate the leased )remises at the e2)iration of this lease on .a &, &*'&, andAor to remove his buildings and im)rovements, same shall automaticall remain as )ro)ert of the ;essor without the necessit of e2ecuting a Deed of Transfer or conve ance of the aforementioned )ro)erties? that this document will serve as Deed of Transfer and /onve ance of the above mentioned buildings and im)rovements in favor of the ;essor? and that the ;essee shall )a the ;essor Dcom)ensator damagesE of "#0,000 )lus attorne Bs fee of "#,000 should the ;essor see@ judicial relief b reason of ;esseeBs non6fulfillment or violation of the terms of the lease, -n % !ebruar &*%* >eneracion died, (fter the third lease contract e2)ired or on & .a &*'&, >eneracionBs heirs demanded that /hua vacate the )remises and )a the accrued rentals, /hua did not com)l with their demand, -n && ()ril &*'#, the >eneracions filed in the /!8 <ueva 9cija an action for s)ecific )erformance against
)ro*erty' +!!" ( + )
/hua, The trial court rendered a decision from which both )arties a))ealed, -n $0 -ctober &*70, the ())ellate /ourt rendered judgment ordering /hua and his famil to vacate the land in 4uestion? to conve the buildings and im)rovements e2isting on the land to the >eneracion heirs and to )a the monthl rental of "&,300 from June, &*'& until he delivers )ossession thereof and the amount of "#0,000 as com)ensator damages )lus "#,000 as attorne Bs fee, /hua a))ealed to the Su)reme /ourt, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment of the /ourt of ())eals? with costs against the )etitioner, 1. ,$3 0as >urisdiction over issue on rig0ts of *arties to a %ui-ding constructed on -and Ghere the issues raised before the inferior court do not onl involve )ossession of the lot but also the rights of the )arties to the building constructed thereon, the /ourt of !irst 8nstance and not the munici)al or cit court has jurisdiction over the case (-rtigas and /o,, ;td, "artnershi) vs, /ourt of ())eals, 1,R, <o, 3#477, Jul #3, &*7&, &0% S/R( &#&), +. ,$3 0as >urisdiction as action for s*ecific *erfor/ance is not ca*a%-e of *ecuniary The action sought was for s)ecific )erformance of the sti)ulations of a lease contract, 8t was not ca)able of )ecuniar estimation, 8t was within the e2clusive original jurisdiction of the /ourt of !irst 8nstance (De Jesus vs, 1arcia, &#3 "hil, *%3? ;a)itan vs, Scandia, 8nc,, ;6#4%%7, Jul $&, &*%7, #4 S/R( 4'*), ". Bui-ding and i/*rove/ents on -eased -and treated as *ersona- *ro*erty The building and im)rovements on the leased land ma be treated as )ersonal )ro)erties (Standard -il /o, of <ew Tor@ vs, Jaramillo, 44 "hil, %$0? ;una vs, 9ncarnacion, *& "hil, 3$&? .anarang vs, -filada, ** "hil, &07? Tumalad vs, >icencio, ;6$0&'$, Se)tember $0, &*'&, 4& S/R( &4$, &3#6$), (lienation in the contract of lease of the ;esseeBs im)rovements is not a dis)osition of conjugal realt without the wifeBs consent, . ?ti*u-ation t0at Lessor 1ou-d %eco/e o1ner of i/*rove/ents is va-id The validit of a sti)ulation that the lessor would become the owner of the im)rovements constructed b the lessee on the leased land has been sustained (;ao /hit vs, Securit =an@ N Trust /o, and /onsolidated 8nvestment, 8nc,, &03 "hil, 4*0? /o =un Kin vs, ;iongson, &00 "hil, &0*&), 4. ,ontract is t0e -a1 %et1een t0e *arties. The case is governed b the lease contract which is the law between the )arties, The four6 ear e2tension of the lease made b the trial court and the amount of damages do not merit an serious consideration, [+ ] ,ureg v. 3A, [G.R. No. 6" &4. ?e*te/%er 6' 1#8#.] !irst Division, .edialdea (J): $ concur $acts( -n 3 <ovember &*7#, Domingo ()ostol, Soledad 1erardo, Rosa 1erardo, <ieves 1erardo, !lordeli:a 1erardo and ;ilia .a4uinad filed a com)laint for 4uieting of title and damages with )reliminar injunction against ;eonida, Romeo, "e)ito, +ernando, .anuel, (ntonio and 9l)idio /arni an with the RT/ 8sabela (/ivil /ase =r, &&&6$'$), ( tem)orar restraining order was issued b the trial court on &# <ovember &*7#, The com)laint alleged that the 1erardos and .a4uinad are the legal andAor the forced heirs of the late Domingo 1erardo, who died in !ebruar &*44, the latter being the onl issue of the late !rancisco 1erardo, who died before the outbrea@ of GG88? that since time immemorial andAor before #% Jul &7*4, the late !rancisco 1erardo, together with his )redecessors6in6interest have been in actual, o)en, )eaceful and continuous )ossession, under a bona fide claim of ownershi) and adverse to all other claimants, of a )arcel of land, situated in /asibarag6/ajel, /abagan, 8sabela, containing an area of #,3 hectares L<: /aga an River? 9: Domingo 1uingab (formerl Rosa /ureg)? S: (ntonio /arni an? and G: Sabina .olaM, Said land was declared for ta2ation )ur)oses under TD 076$0#$ in the name of !rancisco 1erardo, which cancelled TD /6
)ro*erty' +!!" ( " )
*%%*, in the name of !rancisco? that u)on the death of !rancisco 1erardo, the ownershi) and )ossession of the land was succeeded b his onl issue, Domingo 1erardo who, together with $ legal or forced heirs, namel Soledad 1erardo, "rimo 1erardo(Q) and Salud 1erardo(Q) have also been in actual, o)en, )eaceful and continuous )ossession of the same, "rimo 1erardo was survived b Rosa, <ieves and !lordeli:a 1erardo? while Salud 1erardo was survived b ;ilia .a4uinad, 8n &*'*, Soledad, Rosa, <ieves, and !lordeli:a 1erardo along with ;ilia .a4uinad verball sold the land to Domingo ()ostol, -n &0 Se)tember &*7#, the verbal sale and conve ance was reduced into writing b the vendors who e2ecuted an D92tra6Judicial "artition with >oluntar Reconve ance,E (bout the time of the e2ecution of the 92tra6Judicial "artition, the land alread manifested signs of accretion of about $ hectares on the north caused b the northward movement of the /aga an River? that Domingo ()ostol declared the land and its accretion for ta2 )ur)oses under TD 076&$#7& on &3 Se)tember &*7#, Sometime about the last wee@ of Se)tember and or the first wee@ of -ctober &*7#, when the 1erardos, .a4uinad and ()ostol were about to cultivate their land together with its accretion, the were )revented and threatened b the /arni ans (;eonida /ureg and Romeo, "e)ito, +ernando, .anuel, (ntonio and 9l)idio: surviving s)ouse and children of (ntonio /arni an) from continuing to do so, The late (ntonio /arni an was the owner of a )iece of land (ac4uired from his father6in6law .arcos /ureg on 3 -ctober &*3% as evidenced b an (bsolute Deed of Sale) situated in /asibarag6/ajel, /abagan, 8sabela which contained an area of #,'*0 s4, m,(<: Domingo 1erardo? 9: Domingo 1uingab? S: "elagio /ama o? and G: .arcos /ureg), and which was declared for ta2ation )ur)oses under TD &$&$&, with an assessed value of "'0,00, /arni an revised on #7 <ovember &*%7 his TD &$&$& dated #4 Jul &*%& to conform with the correct area and boundaries of his -/T "6&*0*$ issued on #3 <ovember &*%7 )ursuant to !ree "atent $**4$& dated #& .a &*%7? that the area under the new TD &3%%$ was increased from #,'*0 s4,ms, to 4,374 s4,ms, and the boundar on the north became /aga an River, )ur)osel eliminating com)letel the original boundar on the north which is Domingo 1erardo, The heirs of (ntonio /arni an (/ureg, et,al,) alleged in their answer that the land claimed b the 1erardos and ()ostol is non6e2istent? that (ntonio /arni an was the owner of a )iece of land bounded on the north b /aga an River and not b the land of !rancisco 1erardo? that the Dsubject landE is an accretion to their registered land and that the have been in )ossession and cultivation of the DaccretionE for man ears, The a))lication for the issuance of a writ of )reliminar injunction was denied on #7 Jul &*7$ on the ground that the /arni ans (/ureg) were in actual )ossession of the land in litigation )rior to Se)tember &*7#, 8n a decision rendered on % Jul &*74, the trial court rendered judgment declaring Domingo ()ostol the absolute owner of the )arcel of land containing an area of 3,3000 hectares (<: /aga an River? 9: Domingo 1uingab? S: (ntonio /arni an? and G: b Sabina .ola) and with an assessed value of "$,3#0? ordering the issuance of a writ of )reliminar injunction against /ureg, et,al,? ordering that the writ be made )ermanent? and ordering /ureg, et,al, to )a ()ostol, et,al, a reasonable attorne Bs fee of "3,000,00, litigation e2)enses of "&,300,00 and costs, -n &' Jul &*74, /ureg a))ealed to the then 8(/ /ourt which affirmed the decision of the trial court on &3 -ctober &*73 (/(61R /> 0$73#), /uregBs .otion for Reconsideration was denied on 7 Januar &*7%, +ence, the )etition for review under Rule 43 of the Rule of /ourt, The Su)reme /ourt granted the )etition, reversed and set aside the decision a))ealed from, and rendered judgment dismissing /ivil /ase =r, 8886$'$ for 4uieting of title and damages? with costs against ()ostol, et,al, 1. ;a9 Dec-aration not sufficient evidence to *rove o1ners0i*. 2,; indicates true and -egao1ners0i* 1erardosB and .a4uinadBs (therefore ()ostolBs) claim of ownershi) of their alleged # N &A# hectare land is anchored mainl on 4 ta2 declarations, The declaration of ownershi) for )ur)oses of assessment on the )a ment of the ta2 is not sufficient evidence to )rove ownershi), (Bvange )!(a v. 7abayuyong, 7 ./) . 607&
)ro*erty' +!!" ( )
B u9bar)ng v. B u9bar)ng, 12 ./) . *%$& 4)(e8 )n Ca9o v. R)o!a :ay4o, 29 ./) . $*7, $$$+ , -n the other hand, /ureg et,al, relied on the indefeasibilit and incontrovertibilit of their -/T "6&*0*$, 8n the case of %errer-Lopez v. Court of Appeals (1R 304#0, #* .a &*7', &30 S/R( $*$, 40&640#), it was ruled that as against an arra of )roofs consisting of ta2 declarations andAor ta2 recei)ts which are not conclusive evidence of ownershi) nor )roof of the area covered therein, an original certificate of title indicates true and legal ownershi) b the registered owners over the dis)uted )remises, /uregBs -/T "6&*0*$ should be accorded greater weight as against the ta2 declarations offered b ()ostol, et,al, in su))ort of their claim, which declarations are all in the name of the lattersB )redecessor6in6interest, !rancisco 1erardo, and a))ear to have been subscribed b him after the last war, when it was established during the trial that !rancisco 1erardo died long before the outbrea@ of the last war, +. Decree of registration %ars a-- c-ai/s and rig0ts arising or e9isting *rior to decree ( decree of registration bars all claims and rights which arose or ma have e2isted )rior to the decree of registration (Ferrer#"o0ez v. CA, !u0ra., 0. $0$+. = the issuance of the decree, the land is bound and title thereto 4uieted, subject onl to e2ce)tions stated in Section $*, (ct 4*% (now Section 44 of "D &3#*), Since /uregBs original certificate of title clearl stated that subject land is bounded on the north b the /aga an River, ()ostolBs claim over the land allegedl e2isting between /uregBs land and the /aga an River, is deemed barred and nullified with the issuance of the original certificate of title, ". ;a9 Dec-aration of ear-ier date cannot defeat 2,; of -ater date. ,ureg not esto**ed as ;a9 Dec-arations su%se5uent to issuance of 2,; states nort0ern %oundary is ,agayan river ( ta2 declaration, being of an earlier date cannot defeat an original certificate of title which is of a later date, The a))ellate court erred in considering Ta2 Declaration &$&$&, in the name of (ntonio /arni an, as an admission b him that his land is bounded on the north b the land of Domingo 1erardo and thus is esto))ed from claiming otherwise, The ta2 declarations of the late (ntonio /arni an subse4uent to the issuance of -/T "6&*0*$ alread states that its northern boundar is /aga an River, 8n effect, he has re)udiated an )revious ac@nowledgment b him, granting that he caused the accom)lishment of the ta2 declarations in his name before the issuance of -/T "6&*0*$, of the e2istence of !rancisco 1erardoBs land, . ,ureg' et.a-. in actua- *ossession. Bvidence 9vidence on record )roves that /ureg, et,al, are in actual )ossession of the land, !irst, the trial court in its Decision stated the reason for den ing )rivate res)ondentsB )etition for the issuance of a )reliminar injunction, is that /ureg, et,al, were in actual )ossession of the land in litigation )rior to Se)tember &*7#, Second, witness for ()ostol, et,al,, 9steban 1uingab, boundar owner on the east of the land in 4uestion and whose own land is bounded on the north of /aga an River, on cross6e2amination, revealed that when his )ro)ert was onl more than & hectare in &*37, (now more than 4 hectares) his boundar on the west is the land of (ntonio /arni an, Third, witness Rogelio /, (lbano, a geodetic engineer, on direct e2amination stated that in &*'4, the late (ntonio /arni an re4uested him to surve the land covered b his title and the accretion attached to it, but he did not )ursue the same because he learned from the -ffice of the Director of the =ureau of ;ands that the same accretion is the subject of an a))lication for homestead )atent of one Democrata (guila, contrar to the statement of the trial court and the a))ellate court that (lbano Dmade three attem)ts to surve the land but he did not continue to surve because )ersons other than defendants were in )ossession of the land,E which statement a))ears onl to be a conclusion, !ourth, an order b the Director of ;ands dated &4 (ugust &*70 in connection with the +omestead ())lication of Democrata (guila of an accretion situated in /ataba ungan, /abagan, 8sabela, such a))lication was disa))roved because in an investigation conducted b the =ureau of ;ands of the area a))lied for which is an accretion, the same was found to be occu)ied and cultivated b , among others, (ntonio /arni an, who claimed it as an accretion to his land, ()ostol, et,al, nor their )redecessors6in6interest a))eared as one of those found occu) ing and cultivating said accretion, 4. Accretion %e-ongs to ri*arian o1ners The land in 4uestion is an alluvial de)osit left b the northward movement of the /aga an River and )ursuant
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 4 )
to (rticle 43' of the <ew /ivil /ode, it is said that Dto the owners of land adjoining the ban@s of river belong the accretion which the graduall receive from the effects of the current of the waters,E &. Accretion does not auto/atica--y %eco/e registered -and The area covered b -/T "6&*0*$ is onl 4,374 s4, ms, The accretion attached to said land is a))ro2imatel 3,3 hectares, The increase in the area of /uregBs land, being an accretion left b the change of course or the northward movement of the /aga an River does not automaticall become registered land just because the lot which receives such accretion is covered b a Torrens title, (5ee Gran8e v. Cour( o2 A00ea !, "#17652, 3une *0, 1962+. (s such, it must also be )laced under the o)eration of the Torrens S stem, [+4] Dacanay v. Asistio [G.R. No. #"&4 . Cay &' 1##+.] 9n =anc, 1rino6(4uino (J): &$ concur, & too@ no )art $acts( -n 3 Januar &*'*, ../ -rdinance '*60# was enacted b the .etro)olitan .anila /ommission, designating certain cit and munici)al streets, roads and o)en s)aces as sites for flea mar@ets, "ursuant thereto, the /aloocan /it ma or o)ened u) ' flea mar@ets in that cit , -ne of those streets was the D+eroes del B*%U where the !rancisco Dacana lives, 5)on a))lication of vendors Rodolfo Teo)e, .ila "astrana, /armen =arbosa, .erle /astillo, =ienvenido .enes, <anc =ugarin, Jose .anuel, /risaldo "aguirigan, (lejandro /astron, Ruben (raneta, Juanita and Rafael .alibaran, and others, the cit ma or and cit engineer, issued them licenses to conduct vending activities on said street, 8n &*7', (ntonio .artine:, as -8/ cit ma or of /aloocan /it , caused the demolition of the mar@et stalls on +eroes del B*%, >, 1o:on and 1on:ales streets, To sto) .a or .artine:B efforts to clear the cit streets, Teo)e, "astrana and other stallowners filed an action for )rohibition against the /it of /aloocan, the -8/ /it .a or and the /it 9ngineer andAor their de)uties before the RT/ /aloocan /it (=ranch &##, /ivil /ase /6&#*#&), )ra ing the court to issue a writ of )reliminar injunction ordering these cit officials to discontinue the demolition of their stalls during the )endenc of the action, The court issued the writ )ra ed for, +owever, on #0 December &*7', it dismissed the )etition and lifted the writ of )reliminar injunction which it had earlier issued, +owever, shortl after the decision came out, the cit administration in /aloocan /it changed hands, /it .a or .acario (sistio, Jr, did not )ursue the latterBs )olic of clearing and cleaning u) the cit streets, 8nvo@ing the trial courtBs decision, !rancisco Dacana wrote a letter to .a or (sistio calling his attention to the illegall 6constructed stalls on +eroes del B*% street and as@ed for demolition on ' .arch &*77, wrote a follow6u) letter to the ma or and the cit engineer on ' ()ril &*77, and without receiving an res)onse, sought the intervention of "resident (4uino through a letter, These letter was referred to the cit ma or for a))ro)riate action, -n $ ()ril &*7*, Dacana filed a com)laint against .a or (sistio and 9ngineer Sarne (-.=6067*60&4%) in the -ffice of the -mbudsman, (fter conducting a )reliminar investigation, the -mbudsman rendered a final evaluation and re)ort on #7 (ugust &*7*, finding that the .a orBs and the /it 9ngineerBs inaction is )urel motivated b their )erceived moral and social res)onsibilit toward their constituents, but Dthe fact remains that there is an omission of an act which ought to be )erformed, in clear violation of Sections $(e) and (f) of R( $0&*,E The -mbudsman recommended the filing of the corres)onding information in court, (s the stallholders continued to occu) +eroes del B*% Street, through the tolerance of the cit officials, and in clear violation of the decision in /ivil /ase /6&#*#&, Dacana filed a )etition for mandamus on &* June &**0, )ra ing that the cit officials be ordered to enforce the final decision in /ivil /ase /6&#*#& which u)held the cit ma orBs authorit to order the demolition of mar@et stalls on >, 1o:on, 1on:ales and +eroes del B*% Streets and to enforce "D ''# and other )ertinent laws,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( & )
The Su)reme /ourt established that Dacana and the general )ublic have a legal right to the relief demanded and that the cit officials have the corres)onding dut , arising from )ublic office, to clear the cit streets and restore them to their s)ecific )ublic )ur)ose (Bnr)Cuez v!. :)8)n, $7 5CRA 1%*& C)(y o2 'an) a v!. Gar4)a e( a ., 19 5CRA $1* 4)()ng -n!on v!. "a4!on, 100 ./) . 695+ , and thus ordered the /it .a or and /it 9ngineer of /aloocan /it or their successors in office to immediatel enforce and im)lement the decision in /ivil /ase /6&#*# declaring that +eroes del B*%, >, 1o:on, and 1on:ales Streets are )ublic streets for )ublic use, and the are ordered to remove or demolish, or cause to be removed or demolished, the mar@et stalls occu) ing said cit streets with utmost dis)atch within $0 da s from notice of the decision? the decision being immediatel e2ecutor , 1. =uris*rudence a**-ica%-e to *ro*erty of *u%-ic do/inion The streets, being of )ublic dominion must be outside of the commerce of man, /onsidering the nature of the subject )remises, the following juris)rudence coA)rinci)les are a))licable on the matter: (&) The cannot be alienated or leased or otherwise be the subject matter of contracts, ('un)4)0a )(y o2 Cav)(e v!. RoDa!, *0 ./) . 602+? (#) The cannot be ac4uired b )rescri)tion against the state (In!u ar Govern9en( v!. A 8e4oa, 19 ./) . 505+, 9ven munici)alities can not ac4uire them for use as communal lands against the state (C)(y o2 'an) a v!. In!u ar Govern9en(, 10 ./) . *27+? ($) The are not subject to attachment and e2ecution (7an 7o4o v!. 'un)4)0a Coun4) o2 I o) o, $9 ./) . 52+& (4) The cannot be burdened b an voluntar easement (2#II Co )n E Ca0(a)n 520& 7o en()no, C)v) Co8e o2 (/e ./) . ;o . II, 19%* B8. 00. 29#*0+. +. ,onte9t of t0e ordinance of t0e Cetro*o-itan Cani-a ,o//ission as to t0e esta%-is0/ent of f-ea /arkets on /unici*a- streets' roads and o*en s*aces -rdinance #, s, &*'* of the .etro)olitan .anila /ommission is an ordinance Dauthori:ing and regulating the use of certain cit andAor munici)al streets, roads and o)en s)aces within .etro)olitan .anila as sites for flea mar@et andAor vending areas, under certain terms and conditions, subject to the a))roval of the .etro)olitan .anila /ommission, and for other )ur)oses,E Section # of said ordinance )rovides that Dthe streets, roads and o)en s)aces to be used as sites for flea mar@ets (tiangge) or vending areas? the design, measurement or s)ecification of the structures, e4ui)ment and a))aratuses to be used or )ut u): the allowable distances: the da s and time allowed for the conduct of the businesses andAor activities herein authori:ed? the rates or fees or charges to be im)osed, levied and collected? the @inds of merchandise, goods and commodities sold and services rendered: and other matters and activities related to the establishment, maintenance and management and o)eration of flea mar@ets and vending areas, shall be determined and )rescribed b the ma ors of the cities and munici)alities in the .etro)olitan .anila where the same are located, subject to the a))roval of the .etro)olitan .anila /ommission and consistent with the guidelines hereb )rescribed,E Section %(m) of said ordinance )rovides that Din the establishment o)eration, maintenance and management of flea mar@ets and vending areas, the following guidelines, among others, shall be observed: 222 (m) that the )ermittee shall remove the e4ui)ment, facilities and other a))urtenances used b him in the conduct of his business after the close or termination of business hours,E ". Re-ated case' Cunici*a-ity of ,avite. Return of rent 8n the case of .unici)alit of /avite vs, Rojas, it was held that )ro)erties for )ublic use ma not be leased to )rivate individuals, Such a lease is null and void for the reason that a munici)al council cannot withdraw )art of the )la:a from )ublic use, 8f )ossession has alread been given, the lessee must restore )ossession b vacating it and the munici)alit must thereu)on restore to him an sums it ma have collected as rent, . Re-ate case' ,ity of Cani-a v. Garcia. 2rdinance -ega-iDing t0e occu*ancy of s5uatters of *u%-ic -and is nu-- and void 8n the case of /it of .anila vs, 1erardo 1arcia, &* S/R( 4&$, it was held that DtThe )ro)ert being a )ublic one, the .anila .a ors did not have the authorit to give )ermits, written or oral, to the s4uatters, and that the )ermits granted are therefore considered null and void, (s reiterated in the case of =aguio /iti:ens (ction 8nc, vs, The /it /ouncil, &#& S/R( $%7, Dan ordinance legali:ing the occu)anc b s4uatters of )ublic land
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 6 )
is null and void,E 4. 2ccu*ation of *rivate individua-s of *u%-ic *-aces devoted for *u%-ic use a nuisance The occu)ation and use of )rivate individuals of sidewal@s and other )ublic )laces devoted for )ublic use constitute both )ublic and )rivate nuisances and nuisance )er se, and this a))lies to even case involving the use or lease of )ublic )laces under )ermits and licenses issued b com)etent authorit , u)on the theor that such holders could not ta@e advantage of their unlawful )ermits and license and claim that the land in 4uestion is a )art of a )ublic street or a )ublic )lace devoted to )ublic use, hence, be ond the commerce of man, ("adilla, /ivil /ode (nnotated, >ol, 88, ), 3*, %th 9d,, citing 5mali vs, (4uino, 8/, (, Re), $$*,), &. Aut0ority of t0e city /ayor and t0e city engineer to order t0e de/o-ition of i--ega- structures DThe authorit of the .unici)alit to demolish the shanties is mandated b "D ''#, and Section & of ;etter of 8nstruction &* ordering certain )ublic officials, one of whom is the .unici)al .a or to remove all illegal constructions including buildings on and along esteros and river ban@s, those along railroad trac@s and those built without )ermits on )ublic or )rivate )ro)ert (Fan!)bar)an Re!)8en(! A!!o4)a()on v!. 'un. o2 'aGa(), 1*5 5CRA 2*5+, The /it 9ngineer is also among those re4uired to com)l with said ;etter of 8nstruction, !urther, Section &73, )aragra)h 4 of =" $$'(;ocal 1overnment /ode) )rovides that the /it 9ngineer shall (c) "revent the encroachment of )rivate buildings and fences on the streets and )ublic )laces, (j) ns)ect and su)ervise the construction, re)air, removal and safet of )rivate buildings, (@) Gith the )revious a))roval of the /it .a or in each case, order the removal of materials em)lo ed in the construction or re)air of an building or structures made in violation of law or ordinance, and cause buildings and structures dangerous to the )ublic to made secure or torn down, among others, ;i@ewise, the /harter of the /it of /aloocan, R( 330#, (rticle >88, Section #', )aragra)h g, & and m, grants the /it 9ngineer similar )owers, 6. )u%-ic street cannot %e /ade su%>ect to a -ease ( )ublic street is )ro)ert for )ublic use hence outside the commerce of man ((rts, 4#0, 4#4, /ivil /ode), =eing outside the commerce of man, it ma not be the subject of lease or other contract (;) anueva e( a . v!. Ca!(a1e8a an8 'a4a )no, 15 5CRA 1$2, 4)()ng (/e 'un)4)0a )(y o2 Cav)(e v!. RoDa!, *0 5CRA 602& B!0)r)(u v!. 'un)4)0a Coun4) o2 .ozorrub)o, 102 ./) . %69, an8 'uyo( v!. ,e a Fuen(e, $% <.G. $%60+ , The dis)uted areas from which the mar@et stalls are sought to be evicted are )ublic streets, as found b the trial court in /ivil /ase /6&#*#&, 8. Lease or -icenses nu-- and void for %eing contrary to -a1 (s the stallholders )a fees to the /it 1overnment for the right to occu) )ortions of the )ublic street, the /it 1overnment, contrar to law, has been leasing )ortions of the streets to them, Such leases or licenses are null and void for being contrar to law, The right of the )ublic to use the cit streets ma not be bargained awa through contract, The interests of a few should not )revail over the good of the greater number in the communit whose health, )eace, safet , good order and general welfare, the res)ondent cit officials are under legal obligation to )rotect, The 92ecutive -rder issued b the (cting .a or authori:ing the use of +eroes del B*% Street as a vending area for stallholders who were granted licenses b the cit government contravenes the general law that reserves cit streets and roads for )ublic use, The 92ecutive -rder ma not infringe u)on the vested right of the )ublic to use cit streets for the )ur)ose the were intended to serve: i,e,, as arteries of travel for vehicles and )edestrians, [+&] Davao ?a1/i-- v. ,asti--o [G.R. No. ! 11. August 6' 1#"4.] 9n =anc, .alcolm (J): 4 concur $acts( The Davao Saw .ill is the holder of a lumber concession from the 1overnment, 8t has o)erated a sawmill in the sitio of .aa, barrio of Tigatu, munici)alit of Davao, "rovince of Davao, +owever, the land
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 8 )
u)on which the business was conducted belonged to another )erson, -n the land the sawmill com)an erected a building which housed the machiner used b it, Some of the im)lements thus used were clearl )ersonal )ro)ert , the conflict concerning machines which were )laced and mounted on foundations of cement, 8n the contract of lease sti)ulated that on the e2)iration of the )eriod agreed u)on, or if the ;essee should leave or abandon the land leased, all the im)rovements and buildings introduced and erected b the ;essee shall )ass to the e2clusive ownershi) of the ;essor without an obligation on its )art to )a an amount for said im)rovements and buildings? which do not include the machineries and accessories in the im)rovements, 8n another action (Davao ;ight N "ower vs, Davao Saw .ill), a judgment was rendered in favor of Davao ;ight N "ower? a writ of e2ecution issued thereon, and the )ro)erties in 4uestion were levied u)on as )ersonalt b the sheriff, <o third )art claim was filed for such )ro)erties at the time of the sales thereof as is borne out b the record made b the )laintiff herein, 8ndeed the bidder, which was Davao ;ight N "ower, and the defendant herein having consummated the sale, )roceeded to ta@e )ossession of the machiner and other )ro)erties described in the corres)onding certificates of sale e2ecuted in its favor b the sheriff of Davao, 8t must be noted that on a number of occasions, Davao Sawmill treated the machiner as )ersonal )ro)ert b e2ecuting chattel mortgages in favor of third )ersons, -ne of such )ersons is the a))ellee b assignment from the original mortgagees, V8nstance on how controvers arose canBt be found in the case facts, 8m)liedl , the issue on the character of the )ro)erties arose from the consummation of a sale following the e2ecution of the judgment in the other action, Davao ;ight N "ower v, Davao SawmillW The trial judge found that the )ro)erties were )ersonal in nature, and as a conse4uence absolved the defendants from the com)laint, The issue was raised in the Su)reme /ourt involving the determination of the nature of said )ro)erties, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment a))ealed from, with costs against the a))ellant, 1. ?tandard 2i- ru-ing key to issue on t0e c0aracter of t0e *ro*erty 8t must be )ointed out that Davao Sawmill should have registered its )rotest before or at the time of the sale of this )ro)ert , 8t must further be )ointed out that while not conclusive, the characteri:ation of the )ro)ert as chattels b Davao Sawmill is indicative of intention and im)resses u)on the )ro)ert the character determined b the )arties, 8n this connection the decision of the court in the case of Standard -il /o, of <ew Tor@ vs, Jaramillo (L&*#$M, 44 "hil,, %$0), whether obiter dicta or not, furnishes the @e to such a situation, +. 3//o%i-iDation of /ac0inery. 10en *-aced in *-ant %y o1ner .achiner which is movable in its nature onl becomes immobili:ed when )laced in a )lant b the owner of the )ro)ert or )lant, but not when so )laced b a tenant, a usufructuar , or an )erson having onl a tem)orar right, unless such )erson acted as the agent of the owner, The distinction rests u)on the fact that one onl having a tem)orar right to the )ossession or enjo ment of )ro)ert is not )resumed b the law to have a))lied movable )ro)ert belonging to him so as to de)rive him of it b causing it b an act of immobili:ation to become the )ro)ert of another, ". ,oncrete i//o%i-iDation of -essee:s /ac0inery on-y if -ease sti*u-ates transfer of o1ners0i* on its ter/ination /oncrete immobili:ation ta@es )lace because of the e2)ress )rovisions of the lease which re4uires the )utting in of im)roved machiner , de)rived the tenant of an right to charge against the lessor the cost of such machiner , and it was e2)ressl sti)ulated that the machiner so )ut in should become a )art of the )lant
)ro*erty' +!!" ( # )
belonging to the owner without com)ensation to the lessee, 5nder such conditions the tenant in )utting in the machiner was acting but as the agent of the owner in com)liance with the obligations resting u)on him, and the immobili:ation of the machiner which resulted arose in legal effect from the act of the owner in giving b contract a )ermanent destination to the machiner , (>aldes v, (ltagracia) [+6] De Buyser v. Director of Lands [G.R. No. L<++6&". Carc0 18' 1#8".] Second Division, 9scolin (J): 3 concur, & on leave $acts( De =u ser is the registered owner of ;ot 4#&' of the Surigao /adastre, which borders the Surigao Strait, /ontiguous to said lot is a )arcel of land which was formed b accretion from the sea, the subject6 matter of this controvers , S)ouses 8gnacio and /andida Tanda ag have been occu) ing this foreshore land through a Revocable "ermit issued b the Director of ;ands, !or the use and occu)ation thereof, said s)ouses )aid the =ureau of ;ands the amount of "%,30 annuall , The have a house on said lot, which De =u ser alleged had been )urchased b the Tanda ags from one !rancisco .acalinao, a former lessee of the De =u ser, /laiming ownershi) of the said land, De =u ser filed an action against the Tanda ags in the /!8 Surigao to recover )ossession of this land as well as rents in arrears for a )eriod of % ears, The com)laint was subse4uentl amended to im)lead the Director of ;and as defendant, allegedl for having illegall issued a revocable )ermit to the Tanda ags, (fter due trial, the court a 4uo rendered a decision dismissing the com)laint? holding said land in 4uestion to be formed along the shore b action of the sea and thus )art of )ublic domain, and ordering de =u ser to )a "#30,00 to the Tanda ags as damages? and to )a the costs as well, !rom the judgment, de =u ser a))ealed directl to the Su)reme /ourt on a )ure 4uestion of law? such being )erfected before the effectivit of R( 3440, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the decision a))ealed from? with costs against the )laintiff6a))ellant, 1. A--uvia- for/ation a-ong seas0ore is *art of *u%-ic do/ain (lluvial formation along the seashore is )art of the )ublic domain and, therefore, not o)en to ac4uisition b adverse )ossession b )rivate )ersons, 8t is outside the commerce of man, unless otherwise declared b either the e2ecutive or legislative branch of the government, +. ,onstruction of Artic-e of t0e ?*anis0 La1 of Aaters (" August 18&&) (rticle 4 of the S)anish ;aw of Gaters of $ (ugust &7%% )rovides that the Dlands added to the shore b accretion and alluvial de)osits caused b the action of the sea, form )art of the )ublic domain, when the are no longer washed b the waters of the sea, and are not necessar for )ur)oses of )ublic utilit , or for the establishment of s)ecial industries, or for the coastguard service, the 1overnment shall declare them to be the )ro)ert of the owners of the estate adjacent thereto and as an increment thereof,E The true construction of the )rovision is that the State shall grant these lands to the adjoining owners onl when the are no longer needed for the )ur)oses mentioned therein, 8n the )resent case, de =u serBs evidence failed to )rove that the land in 4uestion is no longer needed b the government, or that the essential conditions for such grant under (rticle 4 of the S)anish ;aw of Gaters, e2ists, ". Revoca%-e )er/it a**-ication does not re-in5uis0ed ?tate:s o1ners0i* over t0e -and 8n a))roving the Revocable "ermit ())lication of the Tanda ags, the Director of ;ands did not declare the land as no longer needed for )ublic use, 8t merel allowed them to continue their tem)orar occu)ation and )rovisional use of the )remises under revocable )ermit renewable ever ear in the meantime the land is not actuall needed b the government for )ublic im)rovements (=oulevard and seawall )rotection )ur)oses), 8t is clear thus that the State never relin4uished ownershi) over the land,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 4! )
. Dis*osition of *ro*erty of *u%-ic do/ain under Bureau of Lands. $ai-ure to su%/it to its >urisdiction does not entit-e one to *rotection of t0e courts on t0e /atter of rig0t to fores0ore -and The land being )ro)ert of )ublic dominion, its dis)osition falls under the e2clusive su)ervision and control of the =ureau of ;ands, 5nder the "ublic ;and (ct, an a))lication for the sale or lease of lands enumerated under Section 3* thereof, should be filed with the =ureau of ;ands, ;i@e an other )rivate )art , one must a))l for a )ermit to use the land, <ot having submitted to the jurisdiction of the =ureau of ;ands which has administration and control over the area in 4uestion, b filing the corres)onding a))lication for )ermit, one has no right whatsoever in the foreshore land as to be entitled to )rotection in the courts of justice, 4. 2ccu*ation or *ossession of -and for/ed a-ong t0e s0ore %y action of t0e sea /ere detainer if 1it0out aut0ority fro/ t0e Govern/ent to occu*y said -and The occu)ation or )ossession held, without the records disclosing whether the re4uisite authori:ation to occu) the )arcel of land formed along the shore b the action of the sea from the S)anish 1overnment of the "hili))ines, is a mere detainer that can merit from the law no )rotection such as is afforded onl to the )erson legall in )ossession (A 8e4oa v. In!u ar Govern9en(+. &. Grant of revoca%-e *er/it a--o1ed %y t0e *assing of Act +46!' a/ending ?ection 4 of Act 1&4 The lease of reclaimed lands and of the foreshore was formerl )rovided b (ct &%34? under which, lands could onl be leased in the manner and under the conditions )rovided b the said law in a manner that no revocable )ermits were allowed, (ct #3'0, amended Section 3 of (ct &%34 so as to authori:e the tem)orar use of the foreshore under a revocable )ermit, This measure was a))arentl deemed necessar as well as e2)edient in order to legali:e the habitual use of the coast and shores of these islands b the )eo)le, who had erected thereon light material houses and dwellings, tem)orar structures used in connection with fishing, salt and other maritime industries, as well as to authori:e the )rovisional occu)ation and use contem)lated b the law )roviding for its formal lease, Such circumstance evidentl )rom)ted the legislature to all the tem)orar use of the foreshore in this manner b means of revocable )ermit, 6. Bureau of -and acting for and in %e0a-f of ?ecretary of Agricu-tura- and Natura- Resources in granting t0e revoca%-e *er/it The grant of a Revocable "ermit for the tem)orar use and occu)ation of the dis)uted land is valid, having been legall issued b the =ureau of ;ands, acting for and in behalf of the Secretar (now .inister) of (griculture and <atural Resources who is em)owered to grant revocable )ermits under Section %7 of the "ublic ;and (ct which )rovides that Dthe Secretar of (griculture and <atural Resources ma grant to 4ualified )ersons tem)orar )ermission u)on the )a ment of a reasonable charge, for the use of an )ortion of the lands covered b this cha)ter for an lawful )rivate )ur)ose, subject to revocation, at an time when, in his judgment the )ublic interest shall re4uire,E [+8] De GuD/an v. de-a $uente [G.R. No. "+ "". Dece/%er +#' 1#"!.] !irst Division, Romualde: (J): 7 concur $acts( !rancisco de 1u:man and /risanto De la !uente, being close friends and com)adres, agreed verball that the latter should occu) , in addition to a house he intended to build, the land here in 4uestion, belonging to the former, 8n &*&# De la !uente built his house u)on said land, which house was re)aired in &*#7 (house was a))raised b the court at "',304), De la !uente was re4uired to )a rent at "43 )er month from & -ctober &*#% to $& December &*#' and at "&#0 a month from & Januar &*#7, De la !uente on the other hand receives rent at "40 )er month (from "a umo and later, Taw "e /han), Raised in the trial court (a4(ua 4on(rover!y no( ava) ab e )n (/e 4a!e 2a4(!+ , the de 1u:mans contend that de la !uente occu)ies their land b mere tolerance, De la fuente however claims that the land belongs to him, The trial court ordered de la !uente
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 41 )
to vacate the )remises and restoring such to the de 1u:mans, !or lac@ of evidence, no judgment was rendered against de la !uente and "a umo to )a damages at "%*',30 from & -ctober &*#% to &3 Januar &*#7, or against de la !uente and Taw "e /han to )a in solidum damages of "&#0 a month from &3 Januar &*#7, =oth )laintiffs and defendants a))ealed from this judgment, The Su)reme /ourt modified the judgment a))ealed from, and held that the land in 4uestion belongs not to the defendant De la !uente, but to the )laintiffs, who are entitled to ac4uire said defendantBs house built thereon, b )a ing its owner the sum of "',304, or to com)el him to )a them the )rice of the land agreed u)on b the interested )arties? and in default thereof, the )rice as fi2ed b the com)etent court? and should the )laintiff choose to ac4uire the house, the defendant shall have the right to retain the same until the above6 mentioned amount is satisfied,affirmed the the remainder of the judgment a))ealed from insofar as it is not incom)atible with this decision, Githout e2)ress )ronouncement of costs, 1. Land o1ned %y t0e de GuD/ans The record shows that the owners of the land were !rancisco de 1u:man and his deceased wife, and it now belongs to said !rancisco de 1u:man and his children, +. De -a $uente:s *ossession of t0e -and in good fait0 De la !uenteBs )ossession of the land commenced and continues in good faith, inasmuch as, on the one hand, the e2trajudicial notice given b the defendant about <ovember, &*#' did not b itself destro said good faith, and will continue to e2ist as long as there is no final judgment to the contrar , which to date has not been rendered? and, on the other hand, the necessit for the re)airs of the house has been sufficientl )roved, ". 2ne *arty o1ner of t0e -and' one *arty o1ner of t0e %ui-ding This is a case where one )art is the owner of the land, and the other is the owner, in good faith, of the building thereon, )rovided for in article $%& of the /ivil /ode, [+#] De- ,a/*o v. $ernandeD<A%esia [G.R. No. L< #+1#. A*ri- 14' 1#88.] !irst Division, 1anca co (J): 4 concur $acts( S)ouses 9stanislao and /once)cion del /am)o and =ernarda (besia are co6owners )ro indiviso of a lot (;ot &&%& of the /adastral Surve of /ebu, 43 s4,m, at the corner of !, !lores and /avan Streets, /ebu /it ? T/T %&730) in the )ro)ortion of #A$ and &A$ share each, res)ectivel , The s)ouses filed an action for )artition with the /!8 /ebu, The trial court a))ointed a commissioner in accordance with the agreement of the )arties, The said commissioner conducted a surve , )re)ared a s@etch )lan and submitted a re)ort to the trial court on #* .a &*'%, recommending that the )ro)ert be divided into two lots: ;ot &&%&6( ($0 s4,m,) and ;ot <o, &&%&6= (&3 s4, m,), The houses of the s)ouses and (besia were surve ed and shown on the s@etch )lan, (besiaBs house occu)ied the )ortion with an area of 3 s4,m, of the s)ousesB ;ot &&%&6(, The )arties manifested their conformit to the re)ort and as@ed the trial court to finall settle and adjudicate who among the )arties should ta@e )ossession of the 3 s4, m, of the land in 4uestion, The lower court held that (rticle 447 of the <ew /ivil /ode does not a))l in the case, and ordered (besia to demolish at her own e2)ense )art of her house which has encroached ;ot &&%&6( and deliver said area to the s)ouses, with %0 da s u)on notice, The )arties were ordered to )a the commissionerBs fee ("400 in )ro)ortional share), and the cost of suit (also in )ro)ortional share), (besia a))ealed to the /ourt of ())eals, which certified the case to the Su)reme /ourt on account of the 4uestion of law involved, the sole issue is the a))licabilit of the )rovisions of (rticle 447 of the /ivil /ode relating to a builder in good faith when the )ro)ert involved is owned in common, The Su)reme /ourt modified the decision a))ealed from b ordering the s)ouses to indemnif (besia for the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 4+ )
value of the said )ortion of the (besiaBs house in accordance with (rticle 34% of the /ivil /ode, if the s)ouses elect to a))ro)riate the same, -therwise, (besia shall )a the value of the 3 s4, m, of land occu)ied b their house at such )rice as ma be agreed u)on with the s)ouses and if its value e2ceeds the )ortion of the house that (besia built thereon, (besia ma choose not to bu the land but (besia must )a a reasonable rental for the use of the )ortion of the s)ouseBs land as ma be agreed u)on between the )arties, 8n case of disagreement, the rate of rental shall be determined b the trial court, -therwise, defendants ma remove or demolish at their own e2)ense the said )ortion of their house? Githout costs, 1. Artic-e 8 of t0e ,ivi- ,ode does not a**-y 10en co<o1ner %ui-t' so1n' or *-anted in good fait0' as 0e is not a t0ird *arty. ?ituation governed %y co<o1ners0i* (rticle 447 of the /ivil /ode )rovides that Dthe owner of the land on which an thing has been built, sown, or )lanted in good faith, shall have the right to a))ro)riate as his own the wor@s, sowing or )lanting, after )a ment of the indemnit )rovided for in articles 34% and 347, or to oblige the one who built or )lanted to )a the )rice of the land, and the one who sowed, the )ro)er rent, +owever, the builder or )lanter cannot be obliged to bu the land if its value is considerabl more than that of the building or trees, 8n such case, he shall )a reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to a))ro)riate the building or trees after )ro)er indemnit , The )arties shall agree u)on the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fi2 the terms thereof,E (rticle 447 of the /ivil /ode cannot a))l where a co6owner builds, )lants or sows on the land owned in common for then he did not build, )lant or sow u)on land that e2clusivel belongs to another but of which he is a co6owner, The co6owner is not a third )erson under the circumstances, and the situation is governed b the rules of co6ownershi), +. Artic-e 8 of t0e ,ivi- ,ode a**-ies if co<o1ners0i* is ter/inated %y t0e *artition The )rovisions of (rticle 447 of the new /ivil /ode should a))l when the co6ownershi) is terminated b the )artition, as in the )resent case, and when it a))ears that the house of (besia overla)s or occu)ies a )ortion of 3 s4, m, of the land )ertaining to the s)ouses which (besia obviousl built in good faith, .anresa and <avarro (mandi agree that the said )rovision of the /ivil /ode ma a))l even when there was co6ownershi) if good faith has been established, ". 2*tions avai-a%-e to t0e *arties ())l ing (rticle 447 of the /ivil /ode, the s)ouses have the right to a))ro)riate said )ortion of the house of (besia u)on )a ment of indemnit to the latter as )rovided for in (rticle 34% of the /ivil /ode, -therwise, the s)ouses ma oblige (besia to )a the )rice of the land occu)ied b their house, +owever, if the )rice as@ed for is considerabl much more than the value of the )ortion of the (besiaBs house built thereon, then the latter cannot be obliged to bu the land, (besia shall then )a the reasonable rent to the s)ouses u)on such terms and conditions that the ma agree, 8n case of disagreement, the trial court shall fi2 the terms thereof, -f course, (besia ma demolish or remove the said )ortion of their house, at their own e2)ense, if the so decide, ["!] De*ra v. Du/-ao [G.R. No. L<46" 8. Cay 1&' 1#84.] !irst Division, .elencio6+errera (J): 3 concur, & too@ no )art $acts( !rancisco De)ra is the owner of a )arcel of land registered under T/T T6$07', @nown as ;ot %73, situated in the munici)alit of Dumangas, 8loilo, with an area of a))ro2imatel 7,7'0 s4, m, (gustin Dumlao owns an adjoining lot, designated as ;ot %7$, with an a))ro2imate area of #$& s4, ms, 8n &*'#, when Dumlao constructed his house on his lot, the @itchen thereof had encroached on an area of $4 s4, m, of De)raBs )ro)ert , (fter the encroachment was discovered in a relocation surve of De)raBs lot made on # <ovember &*'#, his mother, =eatri: Derla, after writing a demand letter as@ing Dumlao to move bac@ from his encroachment, filed an action for 5nlawful Detainer on % !ebruar &*'$ against Dumlao in the .unici)al
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 4" )
/ourt of Dumangas, Said com)laint was later amended to include De)ra as a )art )laintiff, (fter trial the .unici)al /ourt found that Dumlao was a builder in good faith, and a))l ing (rticle 447 of the /ivil /ode, rendered judgment on #* Se)tember &*'$, ordering that a forced lease is created between the )arties with De)ra, as lessor, and the Dumlao as lessee, over the dis)uted )ortion with an area of $4 s4, m,, the rent to be )aid is "3,00 a month, )a able b the lessee to the lessors within the first 3 da s of the month the rent is due? and the lease shall commence on that da that this decision shall have become final, !rom the foregoing judgment, neither )art a))ealed so that, if it were a valid judgment, it would have ordinaril la)sed into finalit , Still, De)ra did not acce)t )a ment of rentals so that Dumlao de)osited such rentals with the .unici)al /ourt, -n &3 Jul &*'4, De)ra filed a /om)laint for Fuieting of Title against Dumlao before the then /!8 8loilo (=ranch 8>), involving the same $4 s4, m,, which was the bone of contention in the .unici)al /ourt, Dumlao, in his (nswer, admitted the encroachment but alleged, in the main, that the )resent suit is barred b res judicata b virtue of the Decision of the .unici)al /ourt, which had become final and e2ecutor , "remised on the joint motion for judgment based on the sti)ulation of facts b the )arties, the Trial /ourt on $& -ctober &*'4, issued the assailed -rder, decreeing that the $4 s4,m, is )art and )arcel of ;ot %73 of the /adastral Surve of Dumangas of which De)ra is owner as evidenced b T/T $07' and such )laintiff is entitled to )ossess the same? without )ronouncement as to cost, Thus, an a))eal was filed with the then /ourt of ())eals, which the latter certified to the Su)reme /ourt as involving )ure 4uestions of law, The Su)reme /ourt set aside the judgment of the trial /ourt and ordered the case remanded to the RT/ 8loilo for further )roceedings consistent with (rticles 447 and 34% of the /ivil /ode, 8t ordered (&) the trial court to determine the )resent fair )rice of De)raBs $4 s4uare meter6area of land, the amount of the e2)enses s)ent b Dumlao for the building of the @itchen, the increase in value (D)lus valueE) which the said area of $4 s4uare meters ma have ac4uired b reason thereof, and whether the value of said area of land is considerabl more than that of the @itchen built thereon? and after said amount have been determined b com)etent evidence, (#) the RT/ shall render judgment, (a) granting De)ra a )eriod of &3 da s within which to e2ercise his o)tion under the law ((rticle 447, /ivil /ode), whether to a))ro)riate the @itchen a his own b )a ing to Dumlao either the amount of the e2)enses s)ent b Dumlao for the building of the @itchen, or the increase in value (D)lus valueE) which the said area of $4 s4uare meters ma have ac4uired b reason thereof, or to oblige Dumlao to )a the )rice of said area, The amounts shall be )aid b the obligor within &3 da s from notice of the o)tion b tendering the amount to the /ourt in favor of the )art entitled to receive it, (b) that if De)ra e2ercises the o)tion to oblige Dumlao to )a the )rice of the land but the latter rejects such )urchase because the value of the land is considerabl more than that of the @itchen, Dumlao shall give written notice of such rejection to De)ra and to the /ourt within &3 da s from notice of De)raBs o)tion to sell the land, 8n that event, the )arties shall be given a )eriod of &3 da s from such notice of rejection within which to agree u)on the terms of the lease, and give the /ourt formal written notice of such agreement and its )rovisos, 8f no agreement is reached b the )arties, the trial /ourt, within &3 da s from and after the termination of the said )eriod fi2ed for negotiation, shall then fi2 the terms of the lease, )rovided that the monthl rental to be fi2ed b the /ourt shall not be less than "&0 )er month, )a able within the first 3 da s of each calendar month, The )eriod for the forced lease shall not be more than # ears, counted from the finalit of the judgment, considering the long )eriod of time since &*3# that Dumlao has occu)ied the subject area, The rental thus fi2ed shall be increased b &0C for the second ear of the forced lease, Dumlao shall not ma@e an further constructions or im)rovements on the @itchen, 5)on e2)iration of the #6 ear )eriod, or u)on default b Dumlao in the )a ment of rentals for # consecutive months, De)ra shall be entitled to terminate the forced lease, to recover his land, and to have the @itchen removed b Dumlao or at the latterBs e2)ense, The rentals herein )rovided shall be tendered b Dumlao to the /ourt for )a ment to De)ra, and such tender shall constitute evidence of whether or not com)liance was made within the )eriod fi2ed b the /ourt, (c) ordering Dumlao to )a De)ra an amount com)uted at "&0 )er month as reasonable com)ensation for the occu)anc of De)raBs land for the )eriod counted from &*3#, the ear Dumlao occu)ied the subject area, u) to the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 4 )
commencement date of the forced lease, and (d) that the )eriods to be fi2ed b the trial /ourt in its Decision shall be ine2tendible, and u)on failure of the )art obliged to tender to the trial /ourt the amount due to the obligee, the )art entitled to such )a ment shall be entitled to an order of e2ecution for the enforcement of )a ment of the amount due and for com)liance with such other acts as ma be re4uired b the )restation due the obligee? Githout costs, 1. Decision of t0e Cunici*a- ,ourt nu-- and void' cannot o*erate as res >udicata The Decision of the .unici)al /ourt is null and void, The judgment in a detainer case is effective in res)ect of )ossession onl (Sec, ', Rule '0, Rules of /ourt), The .unici)al /ourt overste))ed its bounds when it im)osed u)on the )arties a situation of Dforced leaseE, which li@e Dforced co6ownershi)E is not favored in law, !urthermore, a lease is an interest in real )ro)ert , jurisdiction over which belongs to /!8 (now RT/) (Sec, 44(b), Judiciar (ct of &*47? # Sec, &* (#) =" &#*), Since the .unici)al /ourt, acted without jurisdiction, its Decision was null and void and cannot o)erate as res judicata to the subject com)laint for Fueting of Title, +. Difference in causes in detainer and action to 5uiet tit-e. =udg/ent in detainer case not a %ar to action res*ecting tit-e to -and 9ven if the Decision of the .unici)al /ourt were valid, the rule on res judicata would not a))l due to difference in cause of action, 8n the .unici)al /ourt, the cause of action was the de)rivation of )ossession, while in the action to 4uiet title, the cause of action was based on ownershi), !urthermore, Sec, ', Rule '0 of the Rules of /ourt e2)licitl )rovides that judgment in a detainer case Dshall not bar an action between the same )arties res)ecting title to the land,E ". ,ourt syste/ a dis*ute reso-ving /ec0anis/. Lega- effect of agree/ent of *arties 1it0in conte9t of /utua- concession and sti*u-ation /onsistent with the )rinci)les that the /ourt s stem must be a dis)ute resolving mechanism, the /ourt accords legal effect to the agreement of the )arties, within the conte2t of their mutual concession and sti)ulation, The have, thereb , chosen a legal formula to resolve their dis)ute (Sti)ulation of !acts) R to a))l to Dumlao the rights of a Dbuilder in good faithE and to De)ra those of a Dlandowner in good faithE as )rescribed in (rticle 447, The /ourt thus refrained from further e2amining whether the factual situations of Dumlao and De)ra conform to the juridical )ositions res)ectivel defined law, for a Dbuilder in good faithE under (rticle 447, a D)ossessor in good faithE under (rticle 3#% and a Dlandowner in good faithE under (rticle 447, . Bui-der in good fait0. Artic-e 8 (rticle 447 of the /ivil /ode )rovides that Dthe owner of the land on which an thing has been built sown or )lanted in good faith shall have the right to a))ro)riate as his own the wor@s, sowing or )lanting, after )a ment of the indemnit )rovided for in articles 34% and 347, or to oblige the one who built or )lanted to )a the )rice of the land, and the one who sowed, the )ro)er rent, +owever, the builder or )lanter cannot be obliged to bu the land if its value is considerabl more than that of the building or trees, 8n such case, he shall )a reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to a))ro)riate the building or trees after )ro)er indemnit , The )arties shall agree u)on the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fi2 the terms thereof,E "ursuant to the foregoing )rovision, De)ra has the o)tion either to )a for the encroaching )art of DumlaoBs @itchen, or to sell the encroached $4 s4uare meters of his lot to Dumlao, +e cannot refuse to )a for the encroaching )art of the building, and to sell the encroached )art of his land, 4. Rig0t of re/otion The owner of the building erected in good faith on a land owned b another, is entitled to retain the )ossession of the land until he is )aid the value of his building, under article 43$ (now 34%), The owner of the land, u)on the other hand, has the o)tion, under article $%& (now 447), either to )a for the building or to sell his land to the owner of the building, =ut he cannot refuse both to )a for the building and to sell the land and com)el the owner of the building to remove it from the land where it erected, +e is entitled to such remotion
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 44 )
onl when, after having chosen to sell his land, the other )art fails to )a for the same, 8n the )resent case, Dumlao had e2)ressed his willingness to )a for the land, but De)ra refused to sell, &. 3gnacio v. Hi-ario (n order of the lower com)elling the builder to remove their buildings from the land belonging to the landowner onl because the latter chose neither to )a for such buildings nor to sell the land, is null and void, for it amends substantiall the judgment sought to be e2ecuted and is, furthermore, offensive to articles $%& (now (rticle 447) and 43$ (now (rticle 34%) of the /ivil /ode, (Igna4)o v!. H) ar)o, 76 ./) . 605, 60% [19$6]+.I 6. Artic-e "&1 of t0e ?*anis0 ,ivi- ,ode vis<K<vis Artic-e 8 of t0e Ne1 ,ivi- ,ode. Benefits e9tended to %ui-der %ut -ando1ner retained 0is o*tion The original )rovision found in (rticle $%& of the S)anish /ivil /ode )rovides that Dthe owner of land on which an thing has been built, sown or )lanted in good faith, shall have the right to a))ro)riate as his own the wor@, sowing or )lanting, after the )a ment of the indemnit stated in (rticles 43$ and 434, or to oblige the one who built or )lanted to )a the )rice of the land, and the one who sowed, the )ro)er rent,E The /ode /ommission must have ta@en account of the objections (of some commentators) to (rticle $%& of the S)anish /ivil /ode, +ence, the /ommission )rovided a modification thereof, and (rticle 447 of our /ode has been made to )rovide that Dthe owner of the land on which has been built, sown or )lanted in good faith, shall have the right to a))ro)riate as his own the wor@s, sowing or )lanting, after )a ment of the indemnit )rovided for in articles 34% and 347, or to oblige the one who built or )lanted to )a the )rice of the land, and the one who sowed, the )ro)er rent, +owever, the builder or )lanter cannot be obliged to bu the land if its value is considerabl more than that of the building or trees, 8n such case, he shall )a reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to a))ro)riate the building or trees after )ro)er indemnit , The )arties shall agree u)on the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fi2 the terms thereof,E (dditional benefits were e2tended to the builder but the landowner retained his o)tions, 8. ;0e fairness of t0e ru-es in Artic-e 8 Ghere the builder, )lanter or sower has acted in good faith, a conflict of rights arises between the owners, and it becomes necessar to )rotect the owner of the im)rovements without causing injustice to the owner of the land, 8n view of the im)racticabilit of creating a state of forced co6ownershi), the law has )rovided a just solution b giving the owner of the land the o)tion to ac4uire the im)rovements after )a ment of the )ro)er indemnit , or to oblige the builder or )lanter to )a for the land and the sower to )a for the )ro)er rent, 8t is the owner of the land who is authori:ed to e2ercise the o)tion, because his right is older, and because, b the )rinci)le of accession, he is entitled to the ownershi) of the accessor thing, (* 'anre!a 21*& :ernar8o v!. :a(a4 an, *7 <22. Gaz. 1*%2& Co 7ao v!. C/an C/)4o, G.R. No. $9167, A0r) *0, 19$9& Ar()4 e a00 )e8J !ee Cabra , e( a v!. Iba1ez [5.C.] 52 <22. Gaz. 217& 'ar2or) v!. ;e a!4o, [C.A.] 52 <22. Gaz. 2050+. ["1] Director of $orestry v. 7i--area- [G.R. No. L<"++&&. $e%ruary +6' 1#8#.] 9n =anc, /ru: (J): &$ concur, & too@ no )art, $acts( Ru)erto >illareal a))lied for its registration on #3 Januar &*4*, a land consisting of &'7,&&$ s4, m, of mangrove swam)s located in the munici)alit of Sa)ian, /a)i:, alleging that he and his )redecessors6in6 interest had been in )ossession of the land for more than 40 ears, +e was o))osed b several )ersons, including the Director of !orest on behalf of the Re)ublic of the "hili))ines, (fter trial, the a))lication was a))roved b the /!8 /a)i:, The decision was affirmed b the /ourt of ())eals, The Director of !orestr then came to the Su)reme /ourt in a )etition for review on certiorari claiming that the land in dis)ute was forestal in nature and not subject to )rivate a))ro)riation,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 4& )
The Su)reme /ourt set aside the decision of the /ourt of ())eals and dismissed the a))lication for registration of title of >illareal, with cost against him? the decision being immediatel e2ecutor , 1. ,-assification of t0e -ands of t0e *u%-ic do/ain = the "hili))ine =ill of &*0#, one of the earlier (merican organic acts in the countr , lands of the )ublic domain in the "hili))ine 8slands were classified into three grand divisions: agricultural, mineral and timber or forest lands, This classification was maintained in the /onstitution of the /ommonwealth, )romulgated in &*$3, until it was su)erseded b the /onstitution of &*'$, The &*'$ charter e2)anded the classification of )ublic lands to include industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement, and gra:ing lands and even )ermitted the legislature to )rovide for other categories, This )rovision has been re)roduced, but with substantial modifications, in the )resent &*7' /onstitution, +. 2n-y *u%-ic agricu-tura- -and a--o1ed to %e a-ienated under ,o//on1ea-t0 ,onstitution 5nder the /ommonwealth /onstitution, which was the charter in force when the case arose, onl agricultural lands were allowed to be alienated, Their dis)osition was )rovided for under /( &4& ("ublic ;and (ct), .ineral and timber or forest lands were not subject to )rivate ownershi) unless the were first reclassified as agricultural lands and so released for alienation, ". Decisions reiterating /angrove s1a/*s are agricu-tura- -and a. Contano v. 3nsu-ar Govern/ent. Cangrove s1a/*s or /ang-ares defined 8n .ontano v, 8nsular 1overnment (&*0*) mangrove swam)s or manglares were defined as Dmud flats, alternatel washed and e2)osed b the tide, in which grows various @indred )lants which will not live e2ce)t when watered b the sea, e2tending their roots dee) into the mud and casting their seeds, which also germinate there, These constitute the mangrove flats of the tro)ics, which e2ist naturall , but which are also, to some e2tent cultivated b man for the sa@e of the combustible wood of the mangrove and li@e trees as well as for the useful ni)a )alm )ro)agated thereon, (lthough these flats are literall tidal lands, the cannot be so regarded in the sense in which that term is used in the cases cited or in general (merican juris)rudence, The waters flowing over them are not available for )ur)ose of navigation, and the ma be dis)osed of without im)airment of the )ublic interest in what remains, %. Contano v. 3nsu-ar Govern/ent. Cangrove s1a/*s considered agricu-tura- -ands and susce*ti%-e to *rivate o1ners0i* .angrove swam)s were considered agricultural lands and so susce)tible of )rivate ownershi), as under the uncertain and somewhat unsatisfactor condition of the law, the custom had grown of converting manglares and ni)a lands into fisheries which became a common feature of settlement along the coast and at the same time of the change of sovereignt constituted one of the most )roductive industries of the 8slands, the abrogation of which would destro vested interests and )rove a )ublic disaster, c. =ocson v. Director of $orestry. Cang-are 1it0 fe1 trees is not ti/%er -and <otwithstanding the definition )rovided b the legislature in the &*&' (dministrative /ode as to D)ublic forestsE, the /ourt maintained the doctrine in the .ontano case when # ears later it held in the case of Jocson v, Director of !orestr that Dthe words timber land are alwa s translated in the S)anish translation of that (ct ((ct of /ongress) as Jterrenos forestales,B The /ourt thought there is an error in this translation and that a better translation would be Jterrenos madereros, Timber land in 9nglish means land with trees growing on it, The manglar )lant would never be cited a tree in 9nglish but a bush, and land which has onl bushes, shrubs or a4uatic )lants growing on it cannot be called Jtimber land,B The fact that there are a few trees growing in a manglare or ni)a swam)s does not change the general character of the land from manglare to timber land,E
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 46 )
d. =ocson v. Director of $orestry. Definition found in t0e 1#16 Ad/inistrative ,ode cannot affect rig0ts vested *rior to its enact/ent. Act #+& a**-ies to t0ose cases (ddressing itself directl to Section &7#0, the /ourt declared that Din the case of .a)a vs, 8nsular 1overnment (&0 "hil, Re),, &'3), the /ourt said that the )hrase Jagricultural landsB as used in (ct *#% means those )ublic lands ac4uired from S)ain which are not timber or mineral lands, Ghatever ma have been the meaning of the term Jforestr B under the S)anish law, the (ct of /ongress of Jul &st, &*0#, classifies the )ublic lands in the "hili))ine 8slands as timber, mineral or agricultural lands, and all )ublic lands that are not timber or mineral lands are necessaril agricultural )ublic lands, whether the are used as ni)a swam)s, manglares, fisheries or ordinar farm lands, The definition of forestr as including manglares found in the (dministrative /ode of &*&' cannot affect rights which vested )rior to its enactment, These lands being neither timber nor mineral lands, the trial court should have considered them agricultural lands, 8f the are agricultural lands, then the rights of a))ellants are full established b (ct *#%,E e. 7da. De ,entenera v. 2%ias. Cangrove -ands are not forest as used in t0e Act of ,ongress 8n 1architorena >da, de /entenera v, -bias, )romulgated on 4 .arch &*$$, more than &3 ears after the effectivit of the (dministrative /ode of &*&', The /ourt declare that the o))osition of the Director of !orestr is untenable, inasmuch as it has been definitel decided that mangrove lands are not forest lands in the sense in which this )hrase is used in the (ct of /ongress, <o elaboration was made on this conclusion which was merel based on the cases of .ontano and Jocson, f. ;ongson v. Director of $orestry. Cangrove -ands are agricu-tura- in nature 8n Tongson v, Director of !orestr , the ruling in >da, De /entenera v, -bias was reiterated, declaring that the mangrove lands in litis were agricultural in nature, The decision even 4uoted with a))roval the statement of the trial court that Dmangrove swam)s where onl trees of mangrove s)ecies grow, where the trees are small and s)arse, fit onl for firewood )ur)oses and the trees growing are not of commercial value as lumber do not convert the land into )ublic land, Such lands are not forest in character, The do not form )art of the )ublic domain,E g. Re*u%-ic v. de )orkan. A-- *u%-ic -ands not ti/%er or /inera- -ands are agricu-tura*u%-ic -ands 8n Re)ublic v, De "or@an (&*77), the /ourt, citing Kriven@o v, Register of Deeds, reiterated the ruling in the .a)a case that Dall )ublic lands that are not timber or mineral lands are necessaril agricultural )ublic lands, whether the are used as ni)a swam)s, manglares, fisheries or ordinar farm lands,E 4, (dministrative /ode of &*&'? .angrove swam)s form )art of the )ublic forests of the countr Subse4uentl , the "hili))ine ;egislature categoricall declared that mangrove swam)s form )art of the )ublic forests of this countr , This it did in the (dministrative /ode of &*&', which became effective on & -ctober &*&', )roviding in Section &7#0 of said code that Dfor the )ur)ose of this cha)ter J)ublic forestB includes, e2ce)t as otherwise s)eciall indicated, all unreserved )ublic land, including ni)a and mangrove swam)s, and all forest reserves of whatever character,E The legislative definition embodied in Section &7#0 of the Revised (dministrative /ode of &*&', remains unamended u) to now, )rovides that mangrove swam)s or manglares form )art of the )ublic forests of the "hili))ines, (s such, the are not alienable under the /onstitution and ma not be the subject of )rivate ownershi) until and unless the are first released as forest land and classified as alienable agricultural land, 4. Decisions dec-aring /angrove -ands for/ *art of *u%-ic do/ain a. Lngson v. ?ecretary of Agricu-ture and Natura- Resources. Bureau of $is0eries 0as no
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 48 )
>urisdiction over /angrove -ands sti-- c-assified as forest -ands 8n Tngson v, Secretar of (griculture and <atural Resources (&*7$), the /ourt ruled Dthat the =ureau of !isheries has no jurisdiction to dis)ose of swam)lands or mangrove lands forming )art of the )ublic domain while such lands are still classified as forest lands,E %. Heirs of A/unategui v. Director of $orestry. $orests do not -ose c-assification if stri**ed of its cover 8n +eirs of (munategui v, Director of !orestr , the /ourt held that Da forested area classified as forest land of the )ublic domain does not lose such classification sim)l because loggers or settlers ma have stri))ed it of its forest cover, "arcels of land classified as forest land ma actuall be covered with grass or )lanted to cro)s b @aingin cultivators or other farmers, J!orested landsB do not have to be on mountains or in out6of6the6wa )laces, Swam) areas covered b mangrove trees, ni)a )alms, and other trees growing in brac@ish or sea water ma also be classified as forest land, The classification is descri)tive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descri)tive of what the land actuall loo@s li@e, 5nless and until the land classified as JforestB is released in an official )roclamation to that effect so that it ma form )art of the dis)osable agricultural lands of the )ublic domain, the rules on confirmation of im)erfect titles do not a))l ,E c. 7a--arta v. 3A,. $orest -ands or s1a/* /angrove are not *rivate *ro*erties' not registera%-e 8n >allarta v, 8ntermediate ())ellate /ourt, the /ourt agreed with the Solicitor 1eneralBs submission that the land in dis)ute, which he described as Dswam) mangrove or forestal land,E were not )rivate )ro)erties and so not registerable, This case was decided onl &# da s after the De "or@an case, &. ,-assification of -and is t0e function initia--y %e-onging to t0e -egis-ature. Ro-e of eac0 %ranc0 of govern/ent The determination of the 4uestion of classification of lands is a function initiall belonging to the legislature, which has the authorit to im)lement the constitutional )rovision classif ing the lands of the )ublic domain (and is now even )ermitted to )rovide for more categories of )ublic lands), The legislature having made such im)lementation, the e2ecutive officials ma then, in the discharge of their own role, administer our )ublic lands )ursuant to their constitutional dut Dto ensure that the laws be faithfull e2ecutedE and in accordance with the )olic )rescribed, !or their )art the courts will ste) into the )icture if the rules laid down b the legislature are challenged or, assuming the are valid, it is claimed that the are not being correctl observed b the e2ecutive, Thus do the three de)artments, coordinating with each other, )ursue and achieve the objectives of the /onstitution in the conservation and utili:ation of our natural resources, 6. De-egation of *o1ers' )resident given function of /aking *eriodic c-assification of *u%-ic -ands 8n /( &4&, the <ational (ssembl delegated to the "resident of the "hili))ines the function of ma@ing )eriodic classifications of )ublic lands, Section % )rovides that Dthe "resident, u)on the recommendation of the Secretar of (griculture and <atural Resources, shall from time to time classif the lands of the )ublic domain into: (a) (lienable or dis)osable, (b) Timber, and (c) .ineral lands, and ma at an time and in a li@e manner transfer such lands from one class to another, for the )ur)oses of their administration and dis)osition,E Section ' of the same (ct )rovides that Dfor the )ur)oses of the administration and dis)osition of alienable or dis)osable lands, the "resident, u)on recommendation b the Secretar of (griculture and <atural Resources, shall from time to time declare what lands are o)en to dis)osition or concession under this (ct,E Gith )articular regard to alienable )ublic lands, Section * of the same law )rovides that Dfor the )ur)ose of their administration and dis)osition, the lands of the )ublic domain alienable or o)en to dis)osition shall be classified, according to the use or )ur)oses to which such lands are destined, as follows: (a) (gricultural? (b) Residential, commercial, industrial, or for similar )roductive )ur)oses? (c) 9ducational, charitable, or other
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 4# )
similar )ur)oses? and (d) Reservations for townsites and for )ublic and 4uasi6)ublic uses, The "resident, u)on recommendation b the Secretar of (griculture and <atural Resources, shall from time to time ma@e the classifications )rovided for in this section, and ma , at an time and in a similar manner, transfer lands from one class to another,E (s for timber or forest lands, the Revised (dministrative /ode )rovides in Section &7#% (Regulation setting a)art forest reserves? Revocation of same) that D5)on the recommendation of the Director of !orestr , with the a))roval of the De)artment +ead, the "resident of the "hili))ines ma set a)art forest reserves from the )ublic lands and he shall b )roclamation declare the establishment of such reserves and the boundaries thereof, and thereafter such forest reserves shall not be entered, sold, or otherwise dis)osed of, but shall remain as such for forest uses, and shall be administered in the same manner as )ublic forest, The "resident of the "hili))ines ma in li@e manner b )roclamation alter or modif the boundaries of an forest reserve from time to time, or revo@e an such )roclamation, and u)on such revocation such forest reserve shall be and become )art of the )ublic lands as though such )roclamation had never been made,E Section &7#' ((ssignment of forest land for agricultural )ur)oses) )rovides that Dlands in )ublic forest, not including forest reserves, u)on the certification of the Director of !orestr that said lands are better ada)ted and more valuable for agricultural than for forest )ur)oses and not re4uired b the )ublic interests to be @e)t under forest, shall be declared b the De)artment +ead to be agricultural lands,E 8. Cangrove s1a/*s or /ang-ares co/*rised 1it0in t0e *u%-ic forests of t0e )0i-i**ines .angrove swam)s or manglares should be understood as com)rised within the )ublic forests of the "hili))ines as defined in the Section &7#0 of the (dministrative /ode of &*&', The legislature having so determined, the /ourt has no authorit to ignore or modif its decision, and in effect veto it, in the e2ercise of our own discretion, The statutor definition remains unchanged to date and, no less noteworth , is acce)ted and invo@ed b the e2ecutive de)artment, .ore im)ortantl , the said )rovision has not been challenged as arbitrar or unrealistic or unconstitutional, assuming the re4uisite conditions, to justif our judicial intervention and scrutin , The law is thus )resumed valid and so must be res)ected, The /ourt re)eats its statement in the (munategui case that the classification of mangrove swam)s as forest lands is descri)tive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descri)tive of what the land actuall loo@s li@e, That determination having been made and no cogent argument having been raised to annul it, the /ourt has no dut as judges but to a))l it, #. Ho-dings as t0at /ang-ares as agricu-tura- -and covers on-y t0ose -ands 10ic0 o1ners0i* 0ad a-ready vested %efore t0e effectivity of t0e 1#16 Ad/inistrative ,ode The /ourtBs )revious descri)tion of the term in 4uestion as )ertaining to agricultural lands should be understood as covering onl those lands over which ownershi) had alread vested before the (dministrative /ode of &*&' became effective, Such lands could not be retroactivel legislated as forest lands because this would be violative of a dul ac4uired )ro)ert right )rotected b the due )rocess clause, 1!. Cangrove s1a/*s of ?a*ian are forest -and The land under contention, being admittedl a )art of the mangrove swam)s of Sa)ian, and for which a minor forest license had in fact been issued b the =ureau of !orestr from &*#0 to &*30, it must be considered forest land, 8t could therefore not be the subject of the adverse )ossession and conse4uent ownershi) claimed b the )rivate res)ondent in su))ort of his a))lication for registration, To be so, it had first to be released as forest land and reclassified as agricultural land )ursuant to the certification the Director of !orestr ma issue under Section &7#' of the Revised (dministrative /ode, 11. Director of $orestry' not Director of Lands' 0as >urisdiction over t0e *ro*erty The surve )lan of the mangrove swam)s a))roved b the Director of ;ands, to )rove that the land is registerable, cannot be invo@ed, The mere e2istence of such a )lan would not have the effect of converting the mangrove swam)s, as forest land, into agricultural land, Such a))roval is ineffectual because it is clearl
)ro*erty' +!!" ( &! )
inofficious, The Director of ;ands was not authori:ed to act in the )remises, 5nder the law, it is the Director of !orestr who has the authorit to determine whether forest land is more valuable for agricultural rather than forestr uses, as a basis for its declaration as agricultural land and release for )rivate ownershi), 1+. Rig0t to t0e registration of su%>ect -and not esta%-is0ed ())licant has not established his right to the registration of the subject land in his name, The record contains no convincing evidence of the e2istence of the informacion )osesoria allegedl obtained b the original transferor of the )ro)ert , let alone the fact that the conditions for ac4uiring title thereunder have been satisfied, <owhere has it been shown that the informacion )osesoria has been inscribed or registered in the registr of )ro)ert and that the land has been under the actual and adverse )ossession of the )rivate res)ondent for twent ears as re4uired b the S)anish .ortgage ;aw, These matters are not )resumed but must be established with definite )roof, which is lac@ing in the )resent case, 1". ;a9 dec-arations are not sufficient to *rove *ossession Ta2 declarations are not sufficient to )rove )ossession and much less vest ownershi) in favor of the declarant, as the /ourt has held in countless cases, ["+] Director of Lands v. ,A [G.R. No. 488&6. =une ++' 1#8 .] !irst Division, .elencio6+errera (J): 4 concur, & too@ no )art $acts( 8n their a))lication for registration filed on &0 .a &*'%, a))licants claimed that the are the co6 owners in fee sim)le of the land a))lied for (;ot #$4', /ad6$0#6D, /ase $, -bando /adastre under "lan ()6 0$60003$3 situated in -bando =ulacan? a))ro2imatel *,$ hectares, adjoining Kailongan River and which has been converted to a fish)ond) )artl through inheritance in &*&7 and )artl b )urchase on # .a &*37? that it is not within an forest :one or militar reservation? and that the same is assessed for ta2ation )ur)oses in their names, The Re)ublic of the "hili))ines, re)resented b the Director of the =ureau of !orest Develo)ment o))osed the a))lication on the ground that the land is within the unclassified region of -bando and thus are denominated as forest lands and do not form )art of the alienable )ortion of the )ublic domain, (fter hearing, the Trial /ourt ordered registration of the subject land in favor of the ())licants, This was affirmed on a))eal b the ())ellate /ourt, The )arties sti)ulated that the land is within an unclassified region of -bando, =ulacan (as )er =! .a) ;/ %$', & .arch &*#'), <o evidence has been submitted that the land has been released or subse4uentl classified des)ite an 8ndorsement (&' <ovember &*'%), of the District !orester, to the Director of !orest Develo)ment that such land was devoid of an forest growth and forms )art of a well6develo)ed and )roducing fish)onds, thus recommending the land to be dis)osed with the "ublic ;and ;aw, The Su)reme /ourt reversed the a))ealed decision, and dismissed the a))lication for registration in ;and Registration /ase <o, <6#**6>6'% of the former /!8 =ulacan, =ranch 888? without )rejudice to the availment b the a))licants of the )ro)er administrative remed , 1. ,-assification of *u%-ic -and an e9c-usive *rerogative of t0e B9ecutive De*art/ent. Rega-ian Doctrine The classification of )ublic lands is an e2clusive )rerogative of the 92ecutive De)artment of the 1overnment and not of the /ourts, 8n the absence of such classification, the land remains as unclassified land until it is released therefrom and rendered o)en to dis)osition, This should be so under time6honored /onstitutional )rece)ts, This is also in consonance with the Regalian doctrine that all lands of the )ublic domain belong to the State, and that the State is the source of an asserted right to ownershi) in land and charged with the conservation of such )atrimon , 8n the )resent case, the /ourts a 4uo released the subject )ro)ert from the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( &1 )
unclassified categor , which is be ond their com)etence and jurisdiction, +. ?tate cannot %e esto**ed %y t0e o/ission' /istake or error of its officia-s or agents The recommendation of the District !orester for release of subject )ro)ert from the unclassified region is not the ultimate word on the matter, (nd the fact that =! .a) ;/ <o, %$' dated & .arch &*#' showing subject )ro)ert to be within the unclassified region was not )resented in evidence will not o)erate against the State considering the sti)ulation between the )arties and under the well6settled rule that the State cannot be esto))ed b the omission, mista@e or error of its officials or agents, ". ,adastra- survey does not re-ease t0e -and as a-iena%-e. Land sti-- 1it0in >urisdiction of Bureau of $orest Deve-o*/ent Ghile it ma be that the .unici)alit of -bando has been cadastrall surve ed in &*%&, it does not follow that all lands com)rised therein are automaticall released as alienable, ( surve made in a cadastral )roceeding merel identifies each lot )re)arator to a judicial )roceeding for adjudication of title to an of the lands u)on claim of interested )arties, =esides, if land is within the jurisdiction of the =ureau of !orest Develo)ment, it would be be ond the jurisdiction of the /adastral /ourt to register it under the Torrens S stem, . Fnc-assified -and does not ri*en to *rivate o1ners0i* Since the subject )ro)ert is still unclassified, whatever )ossession a))licants ma have had, and, however long, cannot ri)en into )rivate ownershi), The conversion of subject )ro)ert into a fish)ond b a))licants, or the alleged titling of )ro)erties around it, does not automaticall render the )ro)ert as alienable and dis)osable, 4. A**-icant:s re/edy -ies in t0e re-ease of t0e *ro*erty fro/ its *resent c-assification ())licantsB remed lies in the release of the )ro)ert from its )resent classification, 8n fairness to a))licants, and it a))earing that there are titled lands around the subject )ro)ert , )etitioners6officials should give serious consideration to the matter of classification of the land in 4uestion, [""] Director of Lands v. 3A, [G.R. No. 6"+ &. Carc0 +' 1##".] Second Division, <ocon (J): 4 concur $acts( ;and involved is an island @nown as Tambac 8sland in ;inga en 1ulf, Situated in the .unici)alit of =ani, "angasinan, the area consists of &7',#77 s4, m,, more or less, The initial a))lication for registration was filed for "acific !arms, 8nc, under the )rovisions of the ;and Registration (ct, (ct 4*%, as amended, The Re)ublic of the "hili))ines, thru the Director of ;ands o))osed the a))lication alleging that the a))licant, "acific !arms, 8nc, does not )ossess a fee sim)le title to the land nor did its )redecessors )ossess the land for at least $0 ears immediatel )receding the filing of a))lication, The o))osition li@ewise s)ecificall alleged that the a))licant is a )rivate cor)oration dis4ualified under the &*'$ /onstitution from ac4uiring alienable lands of the )ublic domain citing Section &&, (rticle &4, The Director of !orest Develo)ment also entered its o))osition alleging that the land is within the unclassified )ublic land and, hence, inalienable, -ther )rivate )arties also filed their o))ositions, but were subse4uentl withdrawn, 8n an amended a))lication, "acific !arms, 8nc, filed a manifestation6motion to change the a))licant from "acific !arms, 8nc, to J, (ntonio (raneta, Des)ite the su))osed amendment, there was no re)ublication, -n 4 -ctober &*'*, the trial court rendered a decision adjudicating the subject )ro)ert to J, (ntonio (raneta, -n a))eal to the then 8ntermediate ())ellate /ourt, the decision of the lower court was affirmed on &# December &*73, +ence, the )etition for review, The Su)reme /ourt granted the )etition, and reversed the decisions of the courts a 4uo,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( &+ )
1. ?u%/ission of tracing c-ot0 /andatory in registration. $ai-ure to su%/it origina- tracing c-ot0 as evidence fata8n Director of ;ands v, The +onorable 8ntermediate ())ellate /ourt and ;ino (nit, it was ruled that the submission of the tracing cloth )lan is a mandator re4uirement for registration, 8n Director of ;ands v, Re es, on the other hand, it was held that failure to submit in evidence the original tracing cloth )lan is fatal it being a statutor re4uirement of mandator character, 8t is of no im)ort that the Director of ;ands failed to object to the )resentation of the certified co) of the said )lan, Ghat is re4uired is the original tracing cloth )lan of the land a))lied for and objection to such re4uirement cannot be waived either e2)ressl or im)liedl , (s held in Director of ;ands v, Re es, if the original tracing cloth )lan was indeed with the ;and Registration /ommission, there is no reason wh the a))licant cannot easil retrieve the same and submit it in evidence, it being an essential re4uirement for registration, +. A/end/ent of t0e na/e of a**-icant an atte/*t to evade dis5ua-ification The amendment of the a))lication from the name of "acific !arms, 8nc,, as a))licant, to the name of J, (ntonio (raneta, was a mere attem)t to evade dis4ualification, The /onstitution, whether the &*'$ or &*7', )rohibits )rivate cor)orations or associations from holding alienable lands of the )ublic domain e2ce)t b lease, ())arentl reali:ing such )rohibition, a))licant amended its a))lication to conform with the mandates of the law, ". Re5uire/ent of re*u%-ication due to a/end/ents to t0e a**-ication (mendments to the a))lication ma be due to change in )arties or substantial change in the boundaries or increase in the area of the land a))lied for, (s to amendments to the a))lication due to change in )arties, neither the ;and Registration (ct, as amended, nor "D &3#* (the "ro)ert Registration DecreeX, re4uires re)ublication and registration ma be allowed b the court at an stage of the )roceeding u)on just and reasonable terms, -n the other hand, re)ublication is re4uired if the amendment is due to substantial change in the boundaries or increase in the area of the land a))lied for, . )D 14+# a**-ied *ro*er-y in t0e *resent case There is no relevant dis)ute in the lower courtBs a))lication of "D &3#*, instead of (ct 4*%, in adjudicating the land to the then a))licant, assuming that the land involved is registrable, =oth laws are e2isting and can stand together, "D &3#* was enacted to codif the various laws relative to registration of )ro)ert , in order to facilitate effective im)lementation of said laws, 4. ,-assification of -ands of t0e *u%-ic do/ain ;ands of the )ublic domain are classified under three main categories, namel : .ineral, !orest and Dis)osable or (lienable ;ands, 5nder the /ommonwealth /onstitution, onl agricultural lands were allowed to be alienated, Their dis)osition was )rovided for under /( &4& (Secs, %6'), which states that it is onl the "resident, u)on the recommendation of the )ro)er de)artment head, who has the authorit to classif the lands of the )ublic domain into alienable or dis)osable, timber and mineral lands, .ineral and Timber or forest lands are not subject to )rivate ownershi) unless the are first reclassified as agricultural lands and so released for alienation, &. ,ourts 0ave no aut0ority to c-assify unc-assified -and. Rega-ian Doctrine The courts cannot release the subject )ro)ert from the unclassified categor , which is be ond their com)etence and jurisdiction, The classification of )ublic lands is an e2clusive )rerogative of the 92ecutive De)artment of the 1overnment and not of the /ourts, 8n the absence of such classification, the land remains unclassified until released therefrom and rendered o)en to dis)osition, This is in consonance with the Regalian doctrine that all lands of the )ublic domain belong to the State, and that the State is the source of an asserted right to ownershi) in land and charged with the conservation of such )atrimon , 5nder the Regalian Doctrine, all lands not otherwise a))earing to be clearl within )rivate ownershi) are )resumed to belong to
)ro*erty' +!!" ( &" )
the State, +ence, a )ositive act of the government is needed to declassif a forest land into alienable or dis)osable land for agricultural or other )ur)oses, 6. Burden of *roof in *roving t0e -and is a-iena%-e or dis*osa%-e The burden of )roof in overcoming the )resum)tion of state ownershi) of the lands of the )ublic domain is on the )erson a))l ing for registration that the land subject of the a))lication is alienable or dis)osable, 5nless the a))licant succeeds in showing b convincing evidence that the )ro)ert involved was ac4uired b him or his ancestors either b com)osition title from the S)anish 1overnment or b )ossessor information title, or an other means for the )ro)er ac4uisition of )ublic lands, the )ro)ert must be held to be )art of the )ublic domain, The a))licant must )resent evidence and )ersuasive )roof to substantiate his claim, 8. ;a9 dec-arations and recei*ts not conc-usive evidence of o1ners0i* Ta2 declarations and recei)ts are not conclusive evidence of ownershi) or of the right to )ossess land when not su))orted b evidence, The fact that the dis)uted )ro)ert ma have been declared for ta2ation )ur)oses in the names of the a))licants or of their )redecessors6in6interest wa bac@ in &*#& does not necessaril )rove ownershi), The are merel indicia of a claim of ownershi), #. ?tate cannot %e esto**ed %y o/ission' /istake or error of its officia-s 8n Director of ;ands v, /(, it was held that it is a well6settled rule that the State cannot be esto))ed b the omission, mista@e or error of its officials or agents, if omission there was, in fact, Thus, the fact that =! .a) ;/ %'$ dated & .arch &*#', in that case, showing subject )ro)ert to be within unclassified region was not )resented in evidence will not o)erate against the State, ;i@ewise, in the )resent case, the contention that the =!D, ;/ .a) <o, %7&, certified on (ugust 7, &*#' which was the basis of the re)ort and recommendation of the ;and 92aminer, is too anti4uated? that it cannot be conclusivel relied u)on and was not even )resented in evidence, cannot be well ta@en, 1!. Fnc-assified *ro*erty. *ossession cannot ri*en into *rivate o1ners0i* Since the subject )ro)ert is still unclassified, whatever )ossession the a))licant ma have had and however long, cannot ri)en into )rivate ownershi), The conversion of subject )ro)ert does not automaticall render the )ro)ert as alienable and dis)osable, 11. Govern/ent ca--ed u*on to c-assify t0e -and The 1overnment should seriousl consider the matter of the reclassification of the land in 4uestion, The attem)t of )eo)le to have dis)osable lands the have been tilling for generations titled in their name should not onl be viewed with understanding attitude, but as a matter of )olic encouraged, [" ] Bs*iritu v. Cunici*a- ,ounci- of )oDorru%io' )angasinan [G.R. No. L<11!1 . =anuary +1' 1#48.] 9n =anc, .ontema or (J): &0 concur $acts( During the last world war, the mar@et building of the town of "o:orrubio was destro ed, and after ;iberation, the mar@et vendors began constructing tem)orar and ma@e6 shift stalls, even small residences, on a )ortion of the town )la:a, The .unici)al Treasurer collected from these stall owners fees at the rate of ",#3 )er s4uare meter a month, 8n time, the whole munici)al mar@et was rehabilitated, but the owners of the structures on the )la:a failed and refused to transfer to said mar@et )lace, 8n &*3&, the .unici)al /ouncil of "o:orrubio )assed Resolution #0*, ordering the occu)ants and owners of the structures on the )la:a to remove their buildings within %0 da s from recei)t of the resolution, 8n answer to this resolution, 7 of the mar@et stall building owners filed a )etition for )rohibition in the /!8 "angasinan
)ro*erty' +!!" ( & )
against the .unici)al /ouncil, the .unici)al .a or, and the /hief of "olice of "o:orrubio, The trial court, on #7 ()ril &*3%, dismissed the )etition for )rohibition filed b a))ellants and lifting the )reliminar injunction it initiall issued, and ordering the removal of the a))ellantBs stalls from the )ublic )la:a within &0 da s from notice, ())eal was filed b the a))ellants to the Su)reme /ourt, -n #3 Januar &*3', a))ellants voluntaril vacated the )ublic )la:a of "o:orrubio, /oncrete fences were constructed in the )remises, and absent an com)laints from the a))ellants nor their counsels, a motion for the dismissal of the case was filed as the case has become moot and academic, The a))ellants failed to comment on the )etition for dismissal, The Su)reme /ourt decided the case in a formal resolution, instead of a resolution for the satisfaction of the )arties and guidance of the town officials and residents, 8t affirmed the decision a))ealed from? with costs against a))ellants, 1. fees No contract or agree/ent %et1een a**e--ants and /unici*a-ity. fee not rent %ut /arket sta--
The fee of ",#3 )er s4uare meter collected b the .unici)al Treasurer, was not for the rent of the )ortion of the )ublic )la:a occu)ied b the mar@et stalls, but rather the mar@et stall fees charges on all mar@et vendors in a )ublic mar@et, There was absolutel no contract or agreement between the a))ellants and the munici)alit , about renting of the "la:a to the former, The occu)ation of the )la:a and the construction of tem)orar buildings thereon mostl for mar@et, even residence )ur)oses, was merel tolerated b the munici)alit , because of the destruction of the )ublic mar@et during the war, +. ;o1n *-aDas are *ro*erties of *u%-ic do/inion to %e devoted to *u%-ic use and /ade avai-a%-e to *u%-ic in genera-. i--ega- *rivate construction a nuisance su%>ect to a%ate/ent according to -a1 Town )la:a cannot be used for the construction of mar@et stalls, s)eciall of residences, and that such structures constitute a nuisance subject to abatement according to law, Town )la:as are )ro)erties of )ublic dominion, to be devoted to )ublic use and to be made available to the )ublic in general, The are outside the commerce of man and cannot be dis)osed of or even leased b the munici)alit to )rivate )arties, Ghile in case of war or during an emergenc , town )la:as ma be occu)ied tem)oraril b )rivate individuals, when the emergenc has ceased, said tem)orar occu)ation or use must also cease, and the town officials should see to it that the town )la:as should ever be @e)t o)en to the )ublic and free from encumbrances or illegal )rivate constructions, ["4] Bvange-ista v. A-to ?urety [G.R. No. L<111"#. A*ri- +"' 1#48.] 9n =anc, /once)cion (J): * concur $acts( -n 4 June &*4*, Santos 9vangelista instituted /ivil /ase <o, 7#$3 of the /!8 .anila (Santos 9vangelista vs, Ricardo Rivera) for a sum of mone , -n the same date, he obtained a writ of attachment, which was levied u)on a house, built b Rivera on a land situated in .anila and leased to him, b filing co) of said writ and the corres)onding notice of attachment with the -ffice of the Register of Deeds of .anila, on 7 June &*4*, 8n due course, judgment was rendered in favor of 9vangelista, who, on 7 -ctober &*3&, bought the house at )ublic auction held in com)liance with the writ of e2ecution issued in said case, The corres)onding definite deed of sale was issued to him on ## -ctober &*3#, u)on e2)iration of the )eriod of redem)tion, Ghen 9vangelista sought to ta@e )ossession of the house, Rivera refused to surrender it, u)on the ground that he had leased the )ro)ert from the (lto Suret N 8nsurance /o,, 8nc, and that the latter is now the true owner of said )ro)ert , 8t a))ears that on &0 .a &*3#, a definite deed of sale of the same house had been issued to (lto Suret , as the highest bidder at an auction sale held, on #* Se)tember &*30, in com)liance with a writ of e2ecution issued in /ivil /ase %#%7 of the same court ((lto Suret N 8nsurance vs,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( &4 )
.a2imo Fuiambao, Rosario 1uevara and Ricardo Rivera)E in which judgment, for the sum of mone , had been rendered in favor of (lto Suret , +ence, on &$ June &*3$, 9vangelista instituted an action against (lto Suret and Ricardo Rivera, for the )ur)ose of establishing his title over said house, and securing )ossession thereof, a)art from recovering damages, (fter due trial, the /!8 .anila rendered judgment for 9vangelista, sentencing Rivera and (lto Suret to deliver the house in 4uestion to 9vangelista and to )a him, jointl and severall , "40,00 a month from -ctober, &*3#, until said deliver , )lus costs, -n a))eal, the decision was reversed b the /ourt of ())eals, which absolved (lto Suret from the com)laint, u)on the ground that, although the writ of attachment in favor of 9vangelista had been filed with the Register of Deeds of .anila )rior to the sale in favor of (lto Suret , 9vangelista did not ac4uire thereb a )referential lien, the attachment having been levied as if the house in 4uestion were immovable )ro)ert , although, in the o)inion of the /ourt of ())eals, it is Dostensibl a )ersonal )ro)ert ,E (s such, the /ourt of ())eals held, Dthe order of attachment , , , should have been served in the manner )rovided in subsection (e) of section ' of Rule 3*,E of the Rules of /ourt, 9vangelista filed an a))eal b /ertiorari with the Su)reme /ourt, The Su)reme /ourt reversed the decision of the /ourt of ())eals, and another one entered affirming that of the /!8 .anila, with the costs against (lto Suret N 8nsurance /o, 1. House is not *ersona-' %ut i//ova%-e *ro*erty The house is not )ersonal )ro)ert , much less a debt, credit or other )ersonal )ro)ert not ca)able of manual deliver , but immovable )ro)ert , (s e2)licitl held, in ;addera vs, +odges (47 -1 3$'4), Da true building (not merel su)erim)osed on the soil) is immovable or real )ro)ert , whether it is erected b the owner of the land or b a usufructuar or lessee, This is the doctrine in ;eung Tee vs, Strong .achiner /om)an , $' "hil,, %44, The o)inion that the house of Rivera should have been attached in accordance with subsection (c) of said section ', as D)ersonal )ro)ert ca)able of manual deliver , b ta@ing and safel @ee)ing in his custod E, for it declared that D9vangelista could not have validl )urchased Ricardo RiveraBs house from the sheriff as the latter was not in )ossession thereof at the time he sold it at a )ublic auctionE is untenable, +. House /ay %e considered *ersona- *ro*erty in a deed of c0atte- /ortgage' %ut vie1 is -i/ited to *arties "arties to a deed of chattel mortgage ma agree to consider a house as )ersonal )ro)ert for )ur)oses of said contract (;una vs, 9ncarnacion, 47 --1 #%%4? Standard -il /o, of <ew Tor@ vs, Jaramillo, 44 "hil,, %$0? De Jesus vs, Juan Dee /o,, 8nc,, '# "hil,, 4%4), +owever, this view is good onl insofar as the contracting )arties are concerned, 8t is based, )artl , u)on the )rinci)le of esto))el, <either this )rinci)le, nor said view, is a))licable to strangers to said contract, ". House is not *ersona- *ro*erty even if su%>ect to c0atte- /ortgage. Ru-es of e9ecution strict on t0e c0aracter of t0e *ro*erties as rea- and *ersona- not1it0standing agree/ent of *arties The rules on e2ecution do not allow, and should not be inter)reted as to allow, the s)ecial consideration that )arties to a contract ma have desired to im)art to real estate as )ersonal )ro)ert , when the are not ordinaril so, Sales on e2ecution affect the )ublic and third )ersons, The regulation governing sales on e2ecution are for )ublic officials to follow, The form of )roceedings )rescribed for each @ind of )ro)ert is suited to its character, not to the character which the )arties have given to it or desire to give it, The regulations were never intended to suit the consideration that )arties, ma have )rivatel given to the )ro)ert levied u)on, 9nforcement of regulations would be difficult were the convenience or agreement of )rivate )arties to determine or govern the nature of the )roceedings ('anarang v. <2) a8a+ . House of /i9ed /ateria- -evied u*on on e9ecution is rea- *ro*erty The house of mi2ed materials levied u)on on e2ecution, although subject of a contract of chattel mortgage between the owner and a third )erson, is real )ro)ert within the )urview of Rule $*, section &%, of the Rules
)ro*erty' +!!" ( && )
of /ourt as it has become a )ermanent fi2ture on the land, which is real )ro)ert , ('anarang v. <2) a8a, 4)()ng var)ou! !our4e!+. 4. $oregoing consideration a**-y to conditions for -evy of attac0/ent The foregoing considerations a))l , with e4ual force, to the conditions for the lev of attachment, for it similarl affects the )ublic and third )ersons, &. Bvidence. ,onc-usion' t0at -ack of *roof t0at t0e 1rit or notice of attac0/ent to 0ave %een served -eads to suc0 not 0aving %een served' is inaccurate /onsidering that neither the )leadings, nor the briefs in the /ourt of ())eals, raised an issue on whether or not co)ies of the writ of attachment and notice of attachment had been served u)on Rivera? that the defendants had im)liedl admitted that Rivera had received co)ies of said documents? and that, for this reason, evidentl , no )roof was introduced thereon, the /ourt held that the finding of the /ourt of ())eals to the effect that said co)ies had not been served u)on Rivera is based u)on a misa))rehension of the s)ecific issues involved therein and goes be ond the range of such issues, a)art from being contrar to the admission b the )arties, and that, accordingl , a grave abuse of discretion was committed in ma@ing said finding, which is, furthermore, inaccurate, ["&] $errer vs. Bautista [G.R. No. &#&". Carc0 1 ' 1## .] Third Division, >itug (J): 4 concur $acts( -n #3 <ovember &*3%, 1loria (, !errer filed with the /!8 ;a 5nion, =ranch 888, a com)laint for reivindicacion (/ivil /ase (67%) against .ariano =alanag and .agdalena Domondon, Judge (ntonio 1, =autista dismissed, on &0 !ebruar &*'%, the com)laint, without )rejudice, on the ground that the court had no authorit to cancel or annul the decree and the title issued b the Director of ;ands on the basis of a mere collateral attac@, 1loria (, !errer claims ownershi) a stri) of land south of ;ot &*70 of the /adastral surve of (ringa , ;a 5nion b virtue of accretion, she being the owner of ;ot &*70 covered b T/T T6$#70, which is immediatel north of the land in 4uestion, -n the other hand, .ariano =alanag and .agdalena Domondon e4uall assert ownershi) over the )ro)ert on account of long occu)ation and b virtue of /ertificate of Title "6&%7, in the name of .agdalena Domondon, )ursuant to !ree "atent $0*304 issued on #4 Januar &*%%, -n #$ .arch &*'%, !errer filed a com)laint with =ranch 888 of the then /!8 ;a 5nion to DFuiet Title to Real "ro)ert E against =alanag and Domondon (/ivil /ase (63&4), -n 0' December &*'%, Judge =autista issued an order dismissing !errerBs com)laint? because it constitutes a collateral or indirect attac@ on the !ree "atent and -riginal /ertificate of Title, !errer filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied on $ .a &*'', "ursuant to the Su)reme /ourtBs Resolution, dated &* (ugust &*'', !errer was allowed to file the )etition for review on certiorari under R( 3440 considering that onl 4uestions of law had been raised, -n 0$ (ugust &*'7, the /ourt dismissed the )etition for lac@ of interest due to the failure of !errerBs counsel to submit the re4uisite memorandum in su))ort of the )etition, 8n a Resolution dated #7 Se)tember &*'7, however, the /ourt resolved to reconsider the dismissal and to reinstate the )etition, The Su)reme /ourt reversed and set aside the 4uestioned order of dismissal of the trial court (/ivil /ase 3&46 (), and rendered judgment declaring !errer to be the owner of the dis)uted )arcel of land and ordering =alanag and Domondon to reconve the same to !errer? without costs, 1. $errer t0e -a1fu- o1ner of accretion (rticle 43' of the /ivil /ode )rovides that Dto the owners of lands adjoining the ban@s of rivers belong the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( &6 )
accretion which the graduall receive from the effects of the current of the waters,E 5ndoubtedl , !errer is the lawful owner of the accretion, she being the registered owner of ;ot &*70 which adjoins the alluvial )ro)ert , "arentheticall , the same finding has also been made b the trial court in /ivil /ase (67%, +. A--uvion %e-ongs to ri*arian o1ner. Rationa-e for t0e ru-e (lluvion gives to the owners of lands adjoining the ban@s of rivers or streams an accretion which is graduall received from the effects of the current of waters (Ar(. $57, C)v) Co8e& 7ua!on v!. Cour( o2 A00ea !, 1$7 5CRA *7& Cureg v!. IAC, 177 5CRA *1*+ , The rationale for the rule is to )rovide some @ind of com)ensation to owners of land continuall e2)osed to the destructive force of water and subjected to various easements (Agu!()n v!. IAC, 1%7 5CRA 21%& :)na ay v!. 'ana o, 195 5CRA *7$+. ". Director of -ands 0as no aut0ority to grant a free *atent over -and 10ic0 ceased to %e *u%-ic -and. ;it-e issued nu-- and void The Director of ;ands has no authorit to grant a free )atent over land that has )assed to )rivate ownershi) and which has thereb ceased to be )ublic land, (n title thus issued or conve ed b him would be null and void (7ua!on v!. Cour( o2 A00ea !, 1$7 5CRA *7+. The nullit arises, not from fraud or deceit, but from the fact that the land is no longer under the jurisdiction of the =ureau of ;ands, the latterBs authorit being limited onl to lands of )ublic dominion and not those that are )rivatel owned (Agne v!. ,)re4(or o2 "an8!, 1%1 5CRA 79*+. 8n the )resent case, =alanag and Domondon ac4uired no right or title over the dis)uted land b virtue of the free )atent since at the time it was issued in &*%%, it was alread )rivate )ro)ert and not a )art of the dis)osable land of the )ublic domain, . ;it-e incontroverti%-e 1 year after it is issued *ursuant to a *u%-ic grant. Does not a**-y if issuance is nu-- and void. Action to dec-are tit-e void does not *rescri%e (lthough, ordinaril , a title becomes incontrovertible one ear after it is issued )ursuant to a )ublic grant, the rule does not a))l when such issuance is null and void, (n action to declare the nullit of that void title does not )rescribe (Agne v!. ,)re4(or o2 "an8!, !u0ra+? in fact, it is susce)tible to direct, as well as to collateral, attac@ (B!(oe!(a, 5r. v!. Cour( o2 A00ea !, 179 5CRA 20*+. 4. 1! year *rescri*tion *eriod a**-ies to action for reconveyance if it is %ased on an i/*-ied or constructive trust. 3n t0e *resent case' t0e >udicia- re-ations0i* is a *atent nu--ity The ten6 ear )rescri)tive )eriod is a))licable to an action for reconve ance if, indeed, it is based on an im)lied or constructive trust, (rticle &43% of the /ivil /ode, u)on which a constructive trust can be )redicated, cannot be invo@ed, however, since the )ublic grant and the title corres)ondingl issued to =alanag and Domondon that can create that juridical relationshi) is a )atent nullit , &. Assu/ing' )rescri*tive *eriod interru*ted 10en action is fi-ed in court or if action is *ending 9ven assuming, nonetheless, that a constructive trust did arise, the running of the )rescri)tive )eriod is to be deemed interru)ted when an action is filed in court ((rt, &&33, /ivil /ode) or, obviousl , when one is alread there )ending, 8n the )resent case, the !ree "atent was issued on #4 Januar &*%% and -/T "6&%7 was transcribed in the Registration =oo@ of ;a 5nion on 07 !ebruar &*%%, (t that time, /ivil /ase (67% for reivindicacion between the )arties was still )ending in court, (fter /ivil /ase (67% was dismissed, without )rejudice, on &0 !ebruar &*'%, !errer, on ## .arch &*'%, )rom)tl filed /ivil /ase (63&4, 6. Ba-anag and Do/ondon cannot c-ai/ o1ners0i* %y ac5uisitive *rescri*tion =alanag and Domondon claim ownershi) of the dis)uted )ro)ert b ac4uisitive )rescri)tion, -wnershi) and other real rights over immovable )ro)ert are ac4uired b ordinar )rescri)tion through )ossession of &0 ears if the adverse )ossession is with a just title and the )ossession is in good faith, -wnershi) and other real rights over immovables also )rescribe through uninterru)ted adverse )ossession thereof for thirt ears, this time without need of title or of good faith, (See (rt, &&$4, /ivil /ode,) 1iven the settings in the )resent case, the a))licable )eriod of ac4uisitive )rescri)tion, if at all, would be thirt ears, That )ossession, for )ur)oses
)ro*erty' +!!" ( &8 )
of ac4uisitive )rescri)tion, was deemed interru)ted u)on their recei)t of summons ((rt, &&#$, /ivil /ode) in /ivil /ase (67% )ending since &*%3, as well as /ivil /ase (63&4 filed in &*'% following the dismissal the month )revious of /ivil /ase (67%, 8. B9*editious ad/inistration of >ustice Ghere the determinative facts are before the Su)reme /ourt, and it is in a )osition to finall resolve the dis)ute, the e2)editious administration of justice will be subserved b the resolution of the case and thereb obviate the needless )rotracted )roceedings conse4uent to the remand of the case to the trial court (He)r! o2 Cr)!an(a A 9ora8)e, e( a . v!. Cour( o2 A00ea !, e( a ., G.R. No. 91*%5, 3anuary $, 199$& ")anga :ay "ogg)ng Co., e( a . v!. Cour( o2 A00ea !, 157 5CRA *57& B!4u8ero v!. ,u ay, 15%, 5CRA 69+. Ghere the owner of the land is determined, the court then, in the e2ercise of its e4uit jurisdiction ma , instead of remanding the case to the trial court, direct the owner to reconve the dis)uted )arcel to its lawful owner (")9aza v!. IAC, 1%2 5CRA %55& Agne v!. ,)re4(or o2 "an8!, !u0ra+. /onsidering, moreover, the length of time that the case has been )ending between the )arties, an order from the Su)reme /ourt re4uiring such reconve ance can certainl be just and warranted, ["6] Ge/iniano v. ,A [G.R. No. 1+!"!". =u-y + ' 1##&.] Third Division, Davide Jr (J): 4 concur $acts( ;ot $'%36=6& ($&4 s4, m,) was originall owned b "aulina (mado vda, de 1eminiano, the mother of !ederico, .aria, 9rnesto, (suncion, ;arr and .arl n 1eminiano, -n a &#6s4, m, )ortion of that lot stood the 1eminianosB unfinished bungalow, which the 1eminianos sold in <ovember &*'7 to Dominador and .ar <icolas for the sum of "%,000,00, with an alleged )romise to sell to the latter that )ortion of the lot occu)ied b the house, Subse4uentl , "aulina (mado61eminiano e2ecuted a contract of lease over a &#% s4, m, )ortion of the lot, including that )ortion on which the house stood, in favor of the <icolas s)ouse for "40 )er month for a )eriod of ' ears commencing on &3 <ovember &*'7, The <icolas s)ouses then introduced additional im)rovements and registered the house in their names, (fter the e2)iration of the lease contract in <ovember &*73, however, the "aulina refused to acce)t the monthl rentals, 8t turned out that the lot in 4uestion was the subject of a suit, which resulted in its ac4uisition b one .aria ;ee in &*'#, 8n &*7#, ;ee sold the lot to ;il Salcedo, who in turn sold it in &*74 to the s)ouses (gustin and 9ster Dionisio, -n &4 !ebruar &**#, the Dionisio s)ouses e2ecuted a Deed of Fuitclaim over the said )ro)ert in favor of the 1eminianos, (s such, the lot was registered in the latterBs names, -n * !ebruar &**$, the 1eminianos sent, via registered mail, a letter addressed to .ar <icolas demanding that she vacate the )remises and )a the rentals in arrears within #0 da s from notice, 5)on failure of the <icolas s)ouses to heed the demand, the 1eminianos filed with the .T// of Dagu)an /it a com)laint for unlawful detainer and damages, The trial court held that there was no lease to s)ea@ of to be renewed as the lot was ac4uired b .aria ;ee in &*'#, and that if indeed there is a legal lease e2isting, its renewal can onl be made on a month6to6month )ursuant to (rticle &%7' of the /ivil /ode? that the lessees were not builders in good faith and the reimbursement as such are governed b (rticle &%'7? and that the value of the house and im)rovements was "&70,000 as there was controverting evidence )resented, The /ourt thus ordered the <icolas s)ouses to vacate the )remises, to )a the 1eminianos "40 a month as reasonable com)ensation for their sta thereon from the filing of the com)laint on &4 ()ril &**$ until the vacated, and to )a the sum of "&,000 as attorne Bs fees, )lus costs, -n a))eal b the <icolas s)ouses, the RT/ Dagu)an /it reversed the trial courtBs decision and rendered a
)ro*erty' +!!" ( &# )
new judgment: (&) ordering the 1eminianos to reimburse the <icolas s)ouses for the value of the house and im)rovements in the amount of "&70,000,00 and to )a the latter "&0,000,00 as attorne Bs fees and "#,000,00 as litigation e2)enses? and (#) allowing the <icolas s)ouses to remain in )ossession of the )remises until the were full reimbursed for the value of the house, 8t ruled that since the <icolas s)ouses were assured b the 1eminianos that the lot the leased would eventuall be sold to them, the could be considered builders in good faith, and as such, were entitled to reimbursement of the value of the house and im)rovements with the right of retention until reimbursement had been made, -n a))eal, this time b 1eminianos, the /ourt of ())eals affirmed the decision of the RT/ and denied the 1eminianosB motion for reconsideration, +ence, the )etition for review on certiorari, The Su)reme /ourt granted the )etition? reversing and setting aside the decision of the /ourt of ())eals of #' Januar &**3 in /(61R S" $4$$'? and reinstating the decision of =ranch $ of the .unici)al Trial /ourt in /ities of Dagu)an /it in /ivil /ase *#&4? with costs against the <icolas s)ouses, 1. Non<o1ner of t0e *re/ises /ay -ease *ro*erty Ghile the right to lease )ro)ert is an incident of title and )ossession, a )erson ma be a lessor and occu) the )osition of a landlord to the tenant although he is not the owner of the )remises leased, (fter all, ownershi) of the )ro)ert is not being transferred, onl the tem)orar use and enjo ment thereof, +. Nico-as s*ouses esto**ed. Bsto**e- a**-ies even if -essor 0as no tit-e' /ay %e asserted not on-y %y origina- -essor %ut a-so t0ose 10o succeed to 0is tit-e The <icolas s)ouses came into )ossession of a &#% s4, m, )ortion of the said lot b virtue of a contract of lease e2ecuted b the 1eminianosB mother in their favor, The juridical relation between the 1eminianosB mother as lessor, and the <icolas s)ouses as lessees, is therefore well6established, and carries with it a recognition of the lessorBs title, The lessees who had undisturbed )ossession for the entire term under the lease, are then esto))ed to den their landlordBs title, or to assert a better title not onl in themselves, but also in some third )erson while the remain in )ossession of the leased )remises and until the surrender )ossession to the landlord, This esto))el a))lies even though the lessor had no title at the time the relation of lessor and lessee was created, and ma be asserted not onl b the original lessor, but also b those who succeed to his title, ". Lessees not *ossessors not %ui-ders in good fait0 =eing mere lessees, the <icolas s)ouses @new that their occu)ation of the )remises would continue onl for the life of the lease, "lainl , the cannot be considered as )ossessors nor builders in good faith, . Artic-e 8 in re-ation to Artic-e 4 & a**-ies on-y to a *ossessor in good fait0. does not a**-y to -essee (rticle 447 of the /ivil /ode, in relation to (rticle 34% of the same /ode, which allows full reimbursement of useful im)rovements and retention of the )remises until reimbursement is made, a))lies onl to a )ossessor in good faith, i,e,, one who builds on land with the belief that he is the owner thereof, 8t does not a))l where oneBs onl interest is that of a lessee under a rental contract? otherwise, it would alwa s be in the )ower of the tenant to Dim)roveE his landlord out of his )ro)ert , 4. A--eged o*tion to %uy not su**orted %y evidence. )ro/ise unenforcea%-e un-ess o*tion is in 1riting <either the deed of sale over the house nor the contract of lease contained an o)tion in favor of the <icolas s)ouses to )urchase the said lot, The first thing that the s)ouses should have done was to reduce the alleged )romise into writing, because under (rticle &40$ of the /ivil /ode, an agreement for the sale of real )ro)ert or an interest therein is unenforceable, unless some note or memorandum thereof be )roduced, <ot having ta@en an ste)s in order that the alleged )romise to sell ma be enforced, the )rivate res)ondents cannot ban@
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 6! )
on that )romise and )rofess an claim nor color of title over the lot in 4uestion, &. 2*tion does not render t0e Nico-as s*ouses %ui-ders in good fait0 9ven if the 1erminianos indeed )romised to sell, it would not ma@e the s)ouses )ossessors or builders in good faith so as to be covered b the )rovisions of (rticle 447 of the /ivil /ode, The latter cannot raise the mere e2)ectanc of ownershi) of the lot because the alleged )romise to sell was not fulfilled nor its e2istence even )roven, 6. )ecson v. ,A does not a**-y. No forced co<o1ners0i* There is no need to a))l b analog the )rovisions of (rticle 447 on indemnit as was done in "ecson vs, /ourt of ())eals, because the situation sought to be avoided and which would justif the a))lication of that )rovision, is not )resent in the )resent case, D( state of forced co6ownershi)E would not be created between the 1erminianos and the <icolas s)ouses, 8. Lessees governed %y Artic-e 1&68 The rights of the lessees are governed b (rticle &%'7 of the /ivil /ode which allows reimbursement to the e2tent of one6half of the value of the useful im)rovements, The right to indemnit under (rticle &%'7 of the /ivil /ode, however, arises onl if the lessor o)ts to a))ro)riate the im)rovements, Since the 1erminianos refused to e2ercise that o)tion, the <icolas s)ouses cannot com)el them to reimburse the one6half value of the house and im)rovements, <either can the retain the )remises until reimbursement is made, The s)ousesB sole right then is to remove the im)rovements without causing an more im)airment u)on the )ro)ert leased than is necessar , ["8] Ger/an Canage/ent E ?ervices v. ,A (Gerna-e' 7i--eDa) [G.R. No. 6&+1& and 6&+16. ?e*te/%er 1 ' 1#8#.] Third Division, !ernan (J): # concur, & concur in result, & on leave $acts( S)ouses / nthia /u eg@eng Jose and .anuel Rene Jose, residents of "enns lvania, "hiladel)hia, 5S( are the owners of a )arcel of land situated in Sitio 8narawan, San 8sidro, (nti)olo, Ri:al, with an area of #$#,*4# s4, m, (T/T 300#$ of the Register of Deeds Ri:al issued && Se)tember &*70 cancelling T/T 3%'%#A T63%0), The land was originall registered on 3 (ugust &*47 in the -ffice of the Register of Deeds Ri:al as -/T &*, )ursuant to a +omestead "atent granted b the "resident of the "hili))ines on #' Jul &*47, under (ct &4&, -n #% !ebruar &*7#, the s)ouses Jose e2ecuted a s)ecial )ower of attorne authori:ing 1erman .anagement Services to develo) their )ro)ert into a residential subdivision, /onse4uentl , on * !ebruar &*7$ the 1erman .anagement obtained Develo)ment "ermit 004#4 from the +uman Settlements Regulator /ommission for said develo)ment, !inding that )art of the )ro)ert was occu)ied b 1ernale and >ille:a and #0 other )ersons, 1erman .anagement advised the occu)ants to vacate the )remises but the latter refused, <evertheless, 1erman .anagement )roceeded with the develo)ment of the subject )ro)ert which included the )ortions occu)ied and cultivated b 1ernale, et,al, 1ernale, et,al, filed an action for forcible entr against 1erman .anagement before the .T/ (nti)olo, Ri:al, alleging that the are mountainside farmers of Sitio 8narawan who have occu)ied and tilled their farmholdings some &# to &3 ears )rior to the )romulgation of "D#', and that the were de)rived of their )ro)ert without due )rocess of law when 1erman .anagement forcibl removed and destro ed the barbed wire fence enclosing their farmholdings without notice and bulldo:ing the rice, corn, fruit bearing trees and other cro)s that the )lanted b means of force, violence and intimidation,, -n ' Januar &*73, the .T/ dismissed 1ernale et,al,Bs com)laint for forcible entr , -n a))eal, the RT/ (nti)olo, Ri:al, =ranch ;HH8 sustained the dismissal b the .T/, 1ernale then filed a )etition for review with the /ourt of ())eals, -n #4 Jul &*7%, said court gave due course to their )etition and reversed the decisions of the .T/ and the RT/,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 61 )
The ())ellate /ourt held that since 1ernale, et,al, were in actual )ossession of the )ro)ert at the time the were forcibl ejected b 1erman .anagement, the have a right to commence an action for forcible entr regardless of the legalit or illegalit of )ossession, 1erman .anagement moved to reconsider but the same was denied b the ())ellate /ourt in its resolution dated #% Se)tember &*7%, +ence the )resent recourse, The Su)reme /ourt denied the )etition, and affirmed the /( decision? with costs against 1erman .anagement, 1. No vio-ation of due *rocess %y a**e--ate court The /ourt of ())eals need not re4uire )etitioner to file an answer for due )rocess to e2ist, The comment filed b )etitioner on #% !ebruar &*7% has sufficientl addressed the issues )resented in the )etition for review filed b )rivate res)ondents before the /ourt of ())eals, +aving heard both )arties, the ())ellate /ourt need not await or re4uire an other additional )leading, .oreover, the fact that )etitioner was heard b the /ourt of ())eals on its motion for reconsideration negates an violation of due )rocess, +. Actua- *ossessors can co//ence forci%-e entry. 21ners0i* not an issue <otwithstanding the claim that 1erman .anagement was dul authori:ed b the owners to develo) the subject )ro)ert , the actual )ossessors can commence a forcible entr case against the former because ownershi) is not in issue, !orcible entr is merel a 4uieting )rocess and never determines the actual title to an estate, Title is not involved, 1ernale et,al were alread in )eaceable )ossession of the )ro)ert at the time 1erman .anagement entered the )ro)ert , manifested b the fact that the even )lanted rice, corn and fruit bearing trees &# to &3 ears )rior to 1erman .anagementBs act of destro ing their cro)s, ". )rior *ossessor 0as security to re/ain in *ro*erty unti- -a1fu--y e>ected %y *erson 0aving %etter rig0t %y accion *u%-iciana or accion reivindicatoria ( )art ma validl claim ownershi) based on the muniments of title it ma )resent, such evidence does not res)onsivel address the issue of )rior actual )ossession raised in a forcible entr case, 8t must be stated that regardless of the actual condition of the title to the )ro)ert , the )art in )eaceable 4uiet )ossession shall not be turned out b a strong hand, violence or terror, Thus, a )art who can )rove )rior )ossession can recover such )ossession even against the owner himself, Ghatever ma be the character of his )rior )ossession, if he has in his favor )riorit in time, he has the securit that entitles him to remain on the )ro)ert until he is lawfull ejected b a )erson having a better right b accion )ubliciana or accion reivindicatoria, . Doctrine of se-f<0e-* can on-y %e e9ercised on-y at t0e ti/e of actua- or t0reatened dis*ossession of *ro*erty The justification that the drastic action of bulldo:ing and destro ing the cro)s of the )rior )ossessor on the basis of the doctrine of self hel) (enunciated in (rticle 4#* <//) is unavailing because the such doctrine can onl be e2ercised at the time of actual or threatened dis)ossession, which is absent in the )resent case, Ghen )ossession has alread been lost, the owner must resort to judicial )rocess for the recover of )ro)ert , This is clear from (rticle 3$% <// that , Din no case ma )ossession be ac4uired through force or intimidation as long as there is a )ossessor who objects thereto, +e who believes that he has an action or right to de)rive another of the holding of a thing, must invo@e the aid of the com)etent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing,E ["#] Grande v. ,A [G.R. No. L<16&4+. =une "!' 1#&+.] 9n =anc, =arrera (J): ' concur, $ too@ no )art $acts( 9ulogia, (lfonso, 9ulalia, and Sofia 1rande are the owners of a )arcel of land, with an area of $,30$# hectares, located at barrio Ragan, munici)alit of .agsa sa (formerl Tumauini), )rovince of 8sabela, b
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 6+ )
inheritance from their deceased mother "atricia (ngui (who inherited it from her )arents 8sidro (ngui and (na ;o)e:, in whose name said land a))ears registered, as shown b -/T #*7#, issued on * June &*$4), Said )ro)ert is identified as ;ot &, "lan "S567$$4#, Ghen it was surve ed for )ur)oses of registration sometime in &*$0, its northeastern boundar was the /aga an River (the same boundar stated in the title), Since then, and for man ears thereafter, a gradual accretion on the northeastern side too@ )lace, b action of the current of the /aga an River, so much so, that b &*37, the ban@ thereof had receded to a distance of about &03 meters from its original site, and an alluvial de)osit of &*,*%4 s4uare meters (&,**%4 hectares), more or less, had been added to the registered area, -n #3 Januar &*37, the 1randes instituted an action in the /!8 8sabela against Domingo and 9steban /alalung to 4uiet title to said )ortion (&*,*%4 s4uare meters) formed b accretion, alleging in their com)laint (/ivil /ase &&'&) that the and their )redecessors6in6interest, were formerl in )eaceful and continuous )ossession thereof, until Se)tember, &*47, when the /alalungs entered u)on the land under claim of ownershi), The 1randes also as@ed for damages corres)onding to the value of the fruits of the land as well as attorne Bs fees and costs, 8n their answer, dated &7 !ebruar &*37, the /alalungs claim ownershi) in themselves, asserting that the have been in continuous, o)en, and undisturbed )ossession of said )ortion, since )rior to the ear &*$$ to the )resent, (fter trial, the /!8 8sabela, on 4 .a &*3*, rendered a decision adjudging the ownershi) of the )ortion in 4uestion to the 1randes, and ordering the /alalungs to vacate the )remises and deliver )ossession thereof to the 1randes, and to )a to the latter "#30,00 as damages and costs, 5nsatisfied, the /alalungs a))ealed to the /ourt of ())eals, which rendered, on &4 Se)tember &*%0, a decision (/(61R #3&%*6R) reversing that of the /!8 8sabela, and dismissing the 1randesB action against the /alalungs, to 4uiet title to and recover )ossession of a )arcel of land allegedl occu)ied b the latter without the 1randesB consent, Thus, the a))eal b the 1randes to the Su)reme /ourt, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the decision of the /ourt of ())eals, with costs against the 1randes, 1. A--uviu/ %e-ongs to ri*arian o1ner = law, unless some su)erior title has su)ervened, alluvium should )ro)erl belong to the ri)arian owners, s)ecificall in accordance with the rule of natural accession in (rticle $%% of the old /ivil /ode (now (rticle 43'), which )rovides that Dto the owner of lands adjoining the ban@s of rivers, belongs the accretion which the graduall receive from the effects of the current of the water,E The area in controvers has been formed through a gradual )rocess of alluvion, which started in the earl thirties, is a fact conclusivel established b the evidence for both )arties, There can be no dis)ute that both under (rticle 43' of the new /ivil /ode and (rticle $%% of the old, the 1randes are the lawful owners of said alluvial )ro)ert , as the are the registered owners of the land to which it adjoins, +. Accretion to registered -and does not i*so >ure %eco/es entit-ed to t0e *rotection of t0e ru-e of i/*rescri*ta%i-ity of tit-e under Land Registration Act (n accretion to registered land, while declared b s)ecific )rovision of the /ivil /ode to belong to the owner of the land as a natural accession thereof, does not i)so jure become entitled to the )rotection of the rule of im)rescri)tibilit of title established b the ;and Registration (ct, Such )rotection does not e2tend be ond the area given and described in the certificate, To hold otherwise, would be )roductive of confusion, 8t would virtuall de)rive the title, and the technical descri)tion of the land given therein, of their character of conclusiveness as to the identit and area of the land that is registered, Just as the Su)reme /ourt, albeit in a negative manner, has stated that registration does not )rotect the ri)arian owner against the erosion of the area of his land through gradual changes in the course of the adjoining stream (.aya(a! B!(a(e ,eve o09en( Co. v!. 7ua!on, 5* ./) . 55+, so registration does not entitle him to all the rights conferred b the ;and Registration (ct, in so far as the area added b accretion is concerned, Ghat rights he has, are declared not b said (ct, but b the )rovisions of the /ivil /ode on accession? and these )rovisions do not )reclude ac4uisition of the additional area b another )erson through )rescri)tion, (5ee Ga )n8ez, e( a . v!. :agu)!a, e(
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 6" )
a ., CA#GR 192$9#R, 17 3u y 1959+. ". 21ners0i* of a *iece of -and and registration under ;orrens syste/ are different. 3/*rescri*ti%i-ity of registered -and under -and registration -a1. Accretion not registered su%>ect to ac5uisition t0roug0 *rescri*tion %y t0ird *ersons (ccretion does not automaticall become registered land just because the lot which receives it is covered b a Torrens title thereb ma@ing the alluvial )ro)ert im)rescri)tible? just as an unregistered land )urchased b the registered owner of the adjoining land does not, b e2tension, become i)so facto registered land, -wnershi) of a )iece of land is one thing, and registration under the Torrens s stem of that ownershi) is 4uite another, -wnershi) over the accretion received b the land adjoining a river is governed b the /ivil /ode, 8m)rescri)tibilit of registered land is )rovided in the registration law, Registration under the ;and Registration and /adastral (cts does not vest or give title to the land, but merel confirms and thereafter )rotects the title alread )ossessed b the owner, ma@ing it im)rescri)tible b occu)ation of third )arties, =ut to obtain this )rotection, the land must be )laced under the o)eration of the registration laws wherein certain judicial )rocedures have been )rovided, The fact remains that the 1randes never sought registration of said alluvial )ro)ert (which was formed sometime after the 1randesB )ro)ert covered b -/T #*7# was registered on * June &*$4) u) to the time the instituted the action in the /!8 8sabela in &*37, The increment, therefore, never became registered )ro)ert , and hence is not entitled or subject to the )rotection of im)rescri)tibilit enjo ed b registered )ro)ert under the Torrens s stem, /onse4uentl , it was subject to ac4uisition through )rescri)tion b third )ersons, . ,a-a-ungs in *ossession of -and since 1#" ' not 1# 8 Domingo /alalung testified that he occu)ied the land in 4uestion for the first time in &*$4, not in &*47 as claimed b the 1randes, The area under occu)anc graduall increased as the ears went b , 8n &*4%, he declared the land for )ur)oses of ta2ation, the ta2 declaration of which was su)erseded in &*47 b another, after the name of the munici)alit wherein it is located was changed from Tumauini to .agsa sa , /alalungBs testimon is corroborated b two witnesses, both owners of )ro)erties nearb , "edro ;aman, '# ears of age, who was .unici)al )resident of Tumauini for three terms (recollection of the /alalungBs )eaceful )ossession since &*40 or &*4&), and >icente /, =acani (/alalungsB )ossession started sometime in &*$$ or &*$4, The area thereof was then less than one hectare), The testimon of the said witnesses entitled to much greater weight and credence than that of "edro 1rande and his lone witness, ;aureana Rodrigue:, 4. Grandes re-in5uis0ed *ossession of -ot occu*ied %y t0e ,a-a-ungs The 1randes did not file an action until &*37, because it was onl then that the were able to obtain the certificate of title from the surve or, Domingo "arlan? and that the never declared the land in 4uestion for ta2ation )ur)oses or )aid the ta2es thereon, The e2cuse the gave for not immediatel ta@en ste)s to recover )ossession of the lot was that the did not receive their co) of the certificate of title to their )ro)ert until &*37 for lac@ of funds to )a the fees of the surve or Domingo "arlan, Ghen the /alalungs had their land surve ed in ()ril &*37, "edro 1rande tried to sto) it, not because he claimed the accretion for himself and for the other 1randes, but because the surve included a )ortion of the )ro)ert covered b their title, Thus, the 1randes relin4uished their )ossession to the )art thus included, containing an area of some 437 s4, ms, &. $inding of ,ourt of A**ea-s conc-usive. )rescri*tion su*ervened in favor of ,a-a-ungs The /ourt of ())eals, u)on consideration of the evidence, was convinced that the /alalungs were reall in )ossession o)enl , continuousl and adversel , under a claim of ownershi) since &*$$ or &*$4, immediatel after the )rocess of alluvion started u) to the filing of the action in &*37? and that the 1randes wo@e u) to their rights onl when the received their co) of the title in &*37, = then, however, )rescri)tion had alread su)ervened in favor of the /alalungs, This finding of the e2istence of these facts, arrived at b the /ourt of ())eals after an e2amination of the evidence )resented b the )arties, is conclusive as to them and can not be reviewed b the Su)reme /ourt,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 6 )
6.
A**-ica%-e -a1 on *rescri*tion( Act 1#! not ,ivi- ,ode' since *ossession started in 1#"" or 1#" The law on )rescri)tion a))licable to the case is that )rovided in (ct &*0 and not the )rovisions of the /ivil /ode, since the )ossession started in &*$$ or &*$4 when the )ertinent articles of the -ld /ivil /ode were not in force and before the effectivit of the <ew /ivil /ode in &*30, The conclusion of the /ourt of ())eals that the /alalungs ac4uired the alluvial lot in 4uestion b ac4uisitive )rescri)tion is in accordance with law, [ !] G?3? v. ,a-son [G.R. No. L<1#8&6. Cay +#' 1#&8.] 9n =anc, .a@alintal (J): ' concur, & on official leave $acts( -n && ()ril &*3', /alsons 8nc, a))lied for a loan of "#. to a))ellee to )a the balance of the )urchase )rice of certain )arcels of land situated at the corner of 1lobo de -ro and 9li:ondo Streets, Fuia)o, .anila, and to finance the construction of a #6stor te2tile mar@et building on said land, The a))lication was a))roved b a))elleeBs =oard of Trustees on #% (ugust &*3', 8n connection with said loan a))ellants e2ecuted on $& -ctober &*3' a )romissor note binding themselves jointl and severall to )a a))ellee the sum of "#., with interest at the rate of 'C )er annum com)ounded monthl , in &#0 e4ual monthl installments of "#$,##&,%* each? the first of such due and )a able beginning the month following the last release or the month following the e2)iration of the )eriod for the construction of the building (or within &# months), whichever is earlier, 8t was also sti)ulated that the )ro)erties should be free from all liens and encumbrances other than the mortgage itself, The first release in the amount of "7&*,000,00 was made on ' <ovember &*3', while the second (and last) release in the amount of "$0,000,00 was made on &3 .a &*37, The chec@s covering both releases were drawn in favor of the vendor of the mortgaged )ro)erties, 8n accordance with the agreement between the )arties, the old building standing on the mortgaged )ro)erties was insured for "$00,000,00 on & December &*3*, ())ellee advanced the sum of "3,%#7,00 for the annual )remium, but a))ellants failed to reimburse the same, ())ellee filed a com)laint for the foreclosure of the mortgage with the /!8 .anila on && (ugust &*37, alleging a number of violations of the mortgage contract, to wit: (&) that the mortgaged )ro)erties had not been freed b the mortgagor from certain liens and encumbrances other than the mortgage itself? (#) that without the )rior written consent of )laintiff defendants removed and dis)osed of the com)lete band sawmill and filing machine which formed )art of the )ro)erties mortgaged? ($) that /alsons, 8nc,, failed to submit to a))ellee evidence showing the reduction of defendantBs account on the lot to at least "7&*,000,00? (4) and that, /alsons, 8nc,, failed to begin, much less com)lete, the construction of the su)ermar@et building on the mortgaged )ro)erties, -n (ugust &&, &*3*, )laintiff filed su))lemental com)laint, which was admitted without o))osition, Two additional grounds for the foreclosure of the mortgage were alleged, namel : (&) that defendants failed, des)ite demands therefor, to )a the amorti:ations due and )a able, including accrued interest and surcharges, on the )ortion of the loan released to them? and (#) that defendants failed to com)lete the construction of the te2tile mar@et building on the mortgaged )ro)erties within &# months from ' <ovember &*3', the date of the first release of "7&*,000,00, Judgment was rendered on $ .arch &*%# in favor of )laintiff, and defendants brought the a))eal directl to the /ourt in view of the amount involved, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment a))ealed from, with costs against a))ellants, 1. 7endor:s -ien a -ega- encu/%rance' 10ic0 is effective even if not recorded 9ven if the two certificates of title covering the mortgaged )ro)ert do not show an lien or encumbrance thereon other than the mortgage itself? the vendorBs lien in favor of the former owners, re)resenting the un)aid balance of "#70,000,00 on the )urchase )rice of the lots mortgaged, The lien is a legal encumbrance and therefore effective although not recorded,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 64 )
+. A**e--ee not esto**ed in invoking rig0t to 0ave *ro*erties free fro/ vendor:s -ien -ne of the reasons wh a))ellant /alsons, 8nc,, a))lied for the "#. loan was )recisel to use )art thereof to )a the balance of the )urchase )rice of 3 )arcels of land it mortgaged to a))ellee, (nd to assure itself that no vendorBs lien attached to the said )ro)erties, a))ellee caused the additional conditions to be added to the original terms of the mortgage contract, 8t turns out in fact that a))ellants had failed to reduce their account on the lot to "7&*,000,00, as sti)ulated in the mortgage contract, since there was still a balance of "#70,000 on the )urchase )rice, Gith res)ect to the second release of "$0,000,00, the chec@ was also drawn in favor of the vendor with the understanding that it would be used to )a the real estate ta2es due on said )ro)erties and thus remove the corres)onding ta2 lien im)osed b law, The ste)s ta@en b a))ellee negate an inference that it agreed to waive its right to have the )ro)erties Dfree from all liens and encumbrances,E as )rovided in the mortgage contract, ". A**e--ee cannot %e esto**ed %y a co//it/ent /ade %y its agent not ref-ected in t0e Agree/ent 9sto))el is invo@ed b a))ellants on the basis of a letter dated #7 -ctober &*3', sent b the .anager of a))elleeBs Real 9state De)artment to the vendor of the )ro)erties, to the effect that the balance of the )urchase )rice in the amount of "#70,000,00 would be released within si2 (%) months from the date of the said letter, The commitment of said .anager was not recogni:ed b the =oard of Trustees of the a))ellee as shown b the fact that it was not incor)orated in the mortgage contract, which was e2ecuted on a later date, $& -ctober &*3', Ghile the schedule of subse4uent releases was clearl defined in the mortgage contract, no mention was made about the said commitment, . Cac0ineries are i//ova%-es and are inc-uded in /ortgage. insta--ed %y t0e o1ner to /eet de/ands of industry or 1orks The mortgage was on the lands Dtogether with all the buildings and im)rovements now e2isting or which ma hereafter be constructedE thereon, (nd the machineries were )ermanentl attached to the )ro)ert , and installed there b the former owner to meet the needs of certain wor@s or industr therein, The were therefore )art of immovable )ursuant to (rticle 4&3 of the /ivil /ode, and need not be the subject of a se)arate chattel mortgage in order to be deemed dul encumbered in favor of a))ellee, 4. )ro/issory note *rovides for due date of insta--/ents. $ai-ure to *ay a/ortiDations a vio-ation of /ortgage contract The )romissor note e2ecuted b the )arties clearl )rovides when the first installment, as well as subse4uent ones, would become due, i,e, beginning the month following the last release andAor the month following the e2)iration of the )eriod for the construction of the te2tile mar@et building, whichever is earlier and the rest on the 'th da of ever month thereafter until the )rinci)al of "#. and the interest shall have been full )aid, The mortgage contract )rovides that the )ro)osed building should be com)leted within &# months from the date of the first release, Said release having been made on ' <ovember &*3', the construction )eriod e2)ired on ' <ovember &*37? hence, the first installment became due one month thereafter or on ' December &*37, and the rest on the 'th da of ever month thereafter, ())ellantsB failure to )a the amorti:ations, interest and surcharges demanded of them b a))ellee, therefore, constitutes a violation of the mortgage contract and is sufficient ground for the foreclosure of the mortgage, [ 1] Govern/ent v. ,a%angis [G.R. No. +8"6#. Carc0 +6' 1#+#.] Second Division, >illa6Real (J): % concur $acts( ;ots $%, $* and 40, bloc@ $0$3 of cadastral )roceeding '& of the /it of .anila, 1;R-, Record $'$, were formerl a )art of a large )arcel of land belonging to the )redecessor of /abangis, !rom the ear &7*% said land began to wear awa , due to the action of the waves of .anila =a , until the ear &*0& when the said lots became com)letel submerged in water in ordinar tides, and remained in such a state until &*&# when
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 6& )
the 1overnment undertoo@ the dredging of >itas 9stuar in order to facilitate navigation, de)ositing all the sand and silt ta@en from the bed of the estuar on the low lands which were com)letel covered with water, surrounding that belonging to the "hili))ine .anufacturing /om)an , thereb slowl and graduall forming the lots, the subject matter of the )roceeding, 5) to the month of !ebruar &*#' nobod had declared lot $* for the )ur)oses of ta2ation, and it was onl in the ear &*#% that Dr, "edro 1il, in behalf of /abangis, declared lot 40 for such )ur)ose, ?7/e 4a!e 2a4(! 8o no( 0rov)8e /o@ (/e 4a!e @a! ra)!e8 be2ore (/e (r)a 4our(A The /!8 .anila rendered judgment (in cadastral )roceeding $'$ of the /!8 .anila, 1;R- /adastral Record $'$) adjudicated the title and decreed the registration of lots $%, $* and 40, bloc@ $033 of the cadastral surve of the /it of .anila in favor of /onsuelo, /onsorcia, 9lvira and Tomas, all surnamed /abangis, in e4ual )arts, and dismissed the claims )resented b the 1overnment of the "hili))ine 8slands and the /it of .anila, The 1overnment of the "hili))ine 8slands a))ealed said judgment before the Su)reme /ourt, The Su)reme /ourt reversed the judgment a))ealed from and lots $%, $* and 40 of cadastral )roceeding $'$ of the /it of .anila are held to be )ublic land belonging to the 1overnment of the 5nited States under the administration and control of the 1overnment of the "hili))ine 8slands, 1. )ro*erty of *u%-ic o1ners0i* (rticle $$*, subsection &, of the /ivil /ode )rovides that D)ro)ert of )ublic ownershi) is that devoted to )ublic use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, )orts and bridges constructed b the State, riverban@s, shores, roadsteads, and that of a similar character,E (rticle &, case $, of the ;aw of Gaters of $ (ugust &7%%, )rovides that Dthe shores are )art of the national domain o)en to )ublic use, = the shore is understood that s)ace covered and uncovered b the movement of the tide, 8ts interior or terrestrial limit is the line reached b the highest e4uinoctial tides, Ghere the tides are not a))reciable, the shore begins on the land side at the line reached b the sea during ordinar storms or tem)ests,E +. A%andon/ent of -and to %eco/e *art of t0e s0ore of t0e sea' roadstead and t0e -ike /akes t0e *ro*erty of *u%-ic o1ners0i* 8n the case of (ragon vs, 8nsular 1overnment (&* "hil,, ##$), with reference to article $$* of the /ivil /ode, held that that in a case of gradual encroachment or erosion b the ebb and flow of the tide, )rivate )ro)ert ma become J)ro)ert of )ublic ownershi),B as defined in article $$* of the code, where it a))ears that the owner has to all intents and )ur)oses abandoned it and )ermitted it to be totall destro ed, so as to become a )art of the J)la aB (shore of the sea), JradaB (roadstead), or the li@e, 8n the 9nciclo)edia JurYdica 9s)aIola, volume H88, )age 337, states that whenE the sea advances and )rivate )ro)erties are )ermanentl invaded b the waves, and in this case the become )art of the shore or beach, The then )ass to the )ublic domain, but the owner thus dis)ossessed does not retain an right to the natural )roducts resulting from their new nature? it is a de facto case of eminent domain, and not subject to indemnit ,E 8n the )resent case, the failure of the /abangis to )rotect their land b building a retaining wall with consent of com)etent authorit , and allowing )ortion of their land to be com)letel covered b water, constitutes abandonment, Thus, when the land was com)letel submerged and was reclaimed as a result of a certain wor@ done b the 1overnment in &*&#, the )ortions of the land became a )art of the )ublic domain, ". 21ners0i* of -and rec-ai/ed fro/ t0e sea. A0en -ands are converted to *u%-ic -and' no *erson cou-d ac5uire tit-e t0ereto e9ce*t in for/ and /anner esta%-is0ed %y -a1 (rticle 3 of the ;aw of Gaters of &7%% )rovides that Dlands reclaimed from the sea in conse4uence of wor@s constructed b the State, or b the )rovinces, )ueblos, or )rivate )ersons, with )ro)er )ermission, shall become the )ro)ert of the )art constructing such wor@s, unless otherwise )rovided b the terms of the grant of authorit ,E The fact that from &*&# some fishermen had been dr ing their fishing nets and de)ositing their bancas on lots $%, $* and 40, b )ermission of Tomas /abangis, does not confer on the latter or his successors
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 66 )
the ownershi) of said lots, because, as the were converted into )ublic land, no )rivate )erson could ac4uire title thereto e2ce)t in the form and manner established b the law, . ,ase of BuDon v. 3nsu-ar Govern/ent and ,ity of Cani-a different. 3nundation %y sea due to acts inde*endent of t0e 1i-- of t0e o1ner of -and (re/ova- of -arge 5uantity of sand) 8n the case of =u:on vs, 8nsular 1overnment and /it of .anila, the rise of the waters of the sea that covered the lands there in dis)ute, was due not to the action of the tide but to the fact that a large 4uantit of sand was ta@en from the sea at the side of said land in order to fill in /ervantes Street, and this court )ro)erl held that because of this act, entirel inde)endent of the will of the owner of said land, the latter could not lose the ownershi) thereof, and the mere fact that the waters of the sea covered it as a result of said act, is not sufficient to convert it into )ublic land, es)eciall , as the land was high and a))ro)riate for building )ur)oses, 4. ,ase of Director of Lands v. Agui-ar different. $ai-ure of t0e o**ositor to *resent evidence 8n the case of the Director of ;ands vs, (guilar, the 8nsular 1overnment did not )resent an evidence in su))ort of its contention, thus leaving uncontradicted the evidence adduced b the claimants (guilar et al,, as to the ownershi), )ossession and occu)ation of said lots, 8n the )resent case, the evidence shows that from &7*%, the waves of .anila =a had been graduall and constantl washing awa the sand that formed the lots here in 4uestion, until &*0&, when the sea water com)letel covered them, and thus the remained until the ear &*&#, 8n the latter ear the were reclaimed from the sea b filling in with sand and silt e2tracted from the bed of >itas 9stuar when the 1overnment dredged said estuar in order to facilitate navigation, &. Land eroded %y gradua- erosion %y e%% and f-o1 of tide and rec-ai/ed %y fi--ing done %y govern/ent are *u%-ic -and The lots in 4uestion having disa))eared on account of the gradual erosion due to the ebb and flow of the tide, and having remained in such a state until the were reclaimed from the sea b the filling in done b the 1overnment, the are )ublic land, (Aragon v!. In!u ar Govern9en(, 19 ./) ., 22*& Fran4)!4o v!. Govern9en( o2 (/e ./) )00)ne I! an8!, 2% ./) ., 505.+ [ +] Govern/ent v. ,o-egio de ?an =ose [G.R. No. "!8+#. August +8' 1#+#.] Second Division, >illa6Real (J): 3 concur $acts( During the months of Se)tember to <ovember ever ear, the waters of ;aguna de =a cover a long stri) of land along the eastern border of the two )arcels of land in 4uestion, the width of which stri) varies from 30 to '0 meters and u) to the eastern border of the )ass claimed b the munici)alit of San "edro Tunasan, The flooded stri) includes the aforementioned )ass itself, which is usuall com)letel covered with water, so that the )eo)le can fish in said flooded stri), Raised in the /!8 ;aguna, the claimant /olegio de San Jose contends that the )arcels of land are a )art of the +acienda de San "edro Tunasan belonging it, which has been in )ossession thereof since time immemorial b means of its tenants or lessees and farmers, -n the other hand, the 1overnment contends that the said two )arcels of land belong to the )ublic domain, and its evidence tends to )rove that the have alwa s been @nown as the shores of ;aguna de =a , The /!8 rendered, in cadastral case $0, 1;R- Record $3* of San "edro, ;aguna, a decision in favor of /olegio de San Jose ordering the registration of the # )arcels of land (lot & and #) in accordance with law? without )ronouncement as to costs, 8t further stated that its ruling should be understood in the manner that the lease of said lands e2ecuted b the /olegio de San Jose in favor of /arlos Toung =aldwin is valid and subsists under the terms and conditions set forth in the instruments and )roviding for the issuance of the )ro)er decree once said decision becomes final, ())eal was made b the 1overnment of the "hili))ine 8slands before the Su)reme /ourt, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment a))ealed from, without s)ecial )ronouncement as to costs,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 68 )
1. Laguna Lake is a -ake not a -agoon The 9nciclo)edia Juridica 9s)aIola, volume HH8 defines Dla@eE as Da bod of water formed in de)ressions of the earth, -rdinaril fresh water, coming from rivers, broo@s, or s)rings, and connected with the sea b themE? and DlagoonE as Da small la@e, ordinaril of fresh water, and not ver dee), fed b floods, the hollow bed of which is bounded b elevations of land,E 8n the )resent case, ;aguna de =a is a bod of water formed in de)ressions of the earth? it contains fresh water coming from rivers and broo@s or s)rings, and is connected with .anila =a b the "asig River? and thus is a la@e, +. Lakes and *onds e9isting u*on *u%-ic -ands %e-ong to *u%-ic do/inion (rticle 40' of the /ivil /ode )rovides that Dla@es and )onds formed b nature on )ublic lands, and their channelsE are of )ublic ownershi), (rticle 44 of the ;aw of Gaters of $ (ugust &7%%, )rovides that Dnatural )onds and la@es e2isting u)on )ublic lands and fed b )ublic waters, belong to the )ublic domain,E 8t is be ond discussion that ;aguna de =a belongs to the )ublic domain, being a natural la@e e2isting u)on )ublic lands, and fed b )ublic waters from rivers, broo@s and s)rings, ". H2rdinaryI and He9traordinaryI de*t0 distinguis0ed The word Dordinar E is defined in the Dictionar of the S)anish (cadem as that Dnot e2ceeding the average? common, natural, occurring alwa s or most of the time? not going be ond what often ha))ens or ta@es )lace,E while De2traordinar E is defined as the Duncommon, transcending the general rule, order, or measure? e2ceeding, sur)assing, or going be ond that which is ordinar , commonl met with, current, settled, or admitted b the majorit ,E (ccording to said definitions, the highest de)th of the waters of ;aguna de =a during the dr season is the ordinar one, and the highest de)th the attain during the rain season is the e2traordinar one? inasmuch as the former is the one which is regular, common, natural, which occurs alwa s or most of the time during the ear, while the latter is uncommon, transcends the general rule, order or measure, and goes be ond that which is the ordinar de)th, . B9tent of t0e %ed of Laguna -ake (rticle '4 of the ;aw of Gaters defines the bed of a la@e as Dthe natural bed or basin of la@es, )onds, or )ools, is the ground covered b their waters when at their highest ordinar de)th,E Thus, in the )resent case, the natural bed or basin of the la@es is the ground covered b their waters when at their highest ordinar de)th, the natural bed or basin of ;aguna de =a is the ground covered b its waters when at their highest de)th during the dr season, i,e, u) to the northeastern boundar of the two )arcels of land in 4uestion, 4. Land in 5uestion do not %e-ong to t0e *u%-ic do/ain 8nasmuch as, according to article 40' of the /ivil /ode, la@es and their beds belong to the )ublic domain, and inasmuch as, according to article '4 of the ;aw of Gaters, the bed of a la@e is the ground covered b its waters at their highest ordinar de)th? whereas the waters of ;aguna de =a at their highest de)th reach no farther than the northeastern boundar of the two )arcels of land in 4uestion, said )arcels are outside said bed and, conse4uentl , do not belong to the )ublic domain, Therefore, the must belong to /olegio de San Jose as )art of +acienda de San "edro Tunasan, which was owned b it, &. Artic-e "&6 of t0e ,ivi- ,ode does not a**-y. Artic-e 66 of t0e La1 of Aaters a**-y (rticle $%' )rovides that Dthe owners of estates bordering on )onds or lagoons, do not ac4uire the land left dr b the natural decrease of the waters, nor lose those inundated b them in e2traordinar floods,E The )rovision refers to )onds and lagoons, and has therefore no a))lication to the )resent case, which refers to a la@e, a lagoon being legall distinct in character from a la@e, /onsidering that the inundation of the land in 4uestion is made during the months of Se)tember to <ovember, which is e2traordinar , the legal )rovision a))licable to the case is that contained in article '' of the aforesaid ;aw of Gaters, Said article )rovides that Dlands accidentall inundated b the waters of la@es, or b cree@s, rivers, and other streams, shall continue to be the )ro)ert of their res)ective owners,E
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 6# )
6. Accretion u*on -ands contiguous to -akes %e-ong to t0e o1ners of suc0 -ands (rticle 74 of the said ;aw of Gaters )rovides that Daccretions de)osited graduall u)on lands contiguous to cree@s, streams, rivers, and la@es, b accessions or sediments from the waters thereof, belong to the owners of such lands,E 9ven if, therefore, the two )arcels of land in litigation were considered as accretions graduall de)osited b accessions or sediments from the waters of ;aguna de =a , the would still belong to the claimant /olegio de San Jose as owner of the lands bordering on said ;aguna de =a , 8. )aragra*0 " of Artic-e 1 of t0e La1 of Aaters a**-ies on s0ores of t0e sea' not of t0e -akes "aragra)h $ of article & of the ;aw of Gaters )rovides that shores are )art of the national domain o)en to )ublic use, and that b the shore is Dunderstood that s)ace covered and uncovered b the movement of the tide, 8ts interior or terrestrial limit is the line reached b the highest e4uinoctial tides, Ghere the tides are not a))reciable, the shore begins on the land side at the line reached b the sea during ordinar storms or tem)ests,E This )rovision refers to the waters of the sea, being included in Title 8, which treats of the ownershi) and use of said waters of the sea, ;a@e waters, being terrestrial waters, their ownershi) and use are governed b Title 88 of said ;aw of Gaters, 8n the same manner as the shore of the sea is that s)ace covered and uncovered b the waters during tides, the e2terior or terrestrial limit being the line reached b the highest e4uinoctial tides, so the shore of a la@e is that s)ace covered and uncovered b the waters during the tides, its interior or terrestrial limit being the line reached b its highest ordinar de)th, #. ?u//ary of t0e ,ourt:s decision in t0e *resent case The /ourt held (&) that the natural bed or basin of ;aguna de =a is the ground covered b its waters at their highest ordinar de)th during the dr season, that is, during the months of December, and Januar to (ugust? (#) that the highest de)th reached b said waters during the rain season, or during the months of Se)tember to <ovember, is e2traordinar ? ($) that the two )arcels of land in litigation form an integral )art of the +acienda de San "edro Tunasan belonging to the claimant /olegio de San Jose? (4) that said two )arcels of land, being accidentall inundated b the waters of ;aguna de =a continue to be the )ro)ert of the claimant /olegio de San Jose, )ursuant to (rticle '' of the ;aw of Gaters of $ (ugust &7%%? (3) that even su))osing that the said two )arcels of land have been formed b accession or de)osits of sediment b the waters of said ;aguna de =a , the still belong to the said claimant /olegio de San Jose bordering on said ;aguna de =a , )ursuant to (rticle 74 of the ;aw of Gaters of $ (ugust &7%%? and (%) that the )rovisions of the ;aw of Gaters regulating the ownershi) and use of the waters of the sea are not a))licable to the ownershi) and use of la@es, which are governed b s)ecial )rovisions, [ "] Grana v. ,A [G.R. No. L<1+ 8&. August "1' 1#&!.] 9n =anc, 1utierre:6David (J): 7 concur $acts( 8n &*0* a cadastral surve of =utuan, (gusan, was made b the =ureau of ;ands, 8n that surve , the )arcel of land in 4uestion was included as )art of the lot belonging to 1regorio =ongato and /lara =otcon for which -/T R-6'# (&$7) was issued in their favor on &# !ebruar &*#$, -n #3 <ovember &*$$, this lot was )urchased b the s)ouses .arcos =ongato and 9usebia .ore, and u)on their death, the land was inherited b (urora =ongato and Jardenio Sanche:, the former being the daughter of .arcos =ongato b his first marriage while the latter is the son of 9usebia .ore also b her first marriage, -n &$ ()ril &*3&, (urora =ongato and Jardenio Sanche: sued ;eonor 1rana and Julieta Torralba before the /!8 (gusan, for the recover of 7' s4, m, of residential land, (fter trial, the court rendered judgment declaring =ongato and Sanche: owners of the land in controvers and ordering 1rana and Torralba to vacate and deliver it to the former and to )a a monthl rental of "&0,00 from the filing of the com)laint until the actuall vacate the same, )lus attorne Bs fees and costs, The decision, on a))eal, having been affirmed b the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 8! )
/ourt of ())eals with the onl modification of disallowing the award for attorne Bs fees, 1rana and Torralba brought the case to the Su)reme /ourt through a )etition for review, The Su)reme /ourt modified the a))ealed decision in the sense that =ongato and Sanche: were directed to e2ercise within $0 da s from the decision their o)tion to either bu the )ortion of the house of 1rana and Torralba on their land or sell to the latter the )ortion of their land on which it stands, 8f =ongato and Sanche: choose to sell the land and 1rana and Torralba are unwilling or unable to bu , then the must vacate the same and must )a reasonable rent of "&0,00 monthl from the time =ongato and Sanche: made their choice u) to the time the actuall vacate the )remises, =ut if the value of the land is considerabl more than the value of the im)rovement, then 1rana and Torralbe ma elect to rent the land, in which case the )arties shall agree u)on the terms of a lease, Should the disagree, the court of origin is hereb instructed to intervene and fi2 the terms thereof, 1rana and Torralba shall )a reasonable rent of "&0,00 monthl from the moment =ongato and Sanche: e2ercised their o)tion u) to the time the )arties agree on the terms of the lease or until the court fi2es such terms? without )ronouncement as to costs, 1. No *roof t0at first survey is erroneous <o )roof was )resented to show that the first surve was erroneous or that it included )art of the contiguous land of 1ranaBs and TorralbaBs )redecessor in interest (8sidaria Trillo) as )art of the lot now covered b -/T R-6'# (&$7), The alleged s@etch )lan of the resurve (TS6%3 =utuan /adastre) was not )resented in evidence, +. ;orrens certificate conc-usive and indefeasi%-e after -a*se of *eriod to 10ic0 it /ay %e i/*ugned ( Torrens certificate of title becomes conclusive and indefeasible after the la)se of the )eriod within which it ma be im)ugned (Reye!, e( a . v!. :orbon, e( a ., 50 ./) ., 791& =u9u v!. R)vera, e( a ., 6$ ./) ., 1*+. 8n the )resent case, the land in 4uestion is )art of the lot covered b the Torrens title issued wa bac@ in &*#$ in the name of =ongatoBs and Sanche:B )redecessors in interest, Said title has not been contested u) to the )resent, and, therefore, has become incontrovertible evidence of the ownershi) of the land covered b it, ". No ne1 evidence to grant /otion for ne1 triaThe /ourt of ())eals did not err in den ing the motion for new trial on the ground of newl discovered evidence as the new evidence sought to be introduced was the s@etch )lan of the second surve , which, with the em)lo ment of reasonable diligence would have easil been discovered and )roduced at the trial, . Resurvey *-an cannot a-ter or /odify a tit-e 8f a subse4uent certificate of title cannot be )ermitted to )revail over a )revious Torrens title (Reye!, e( a , v!. :orbon, e( a ., !u0ra+ with more reason should a resurve )lan not be allowed to alter or modif such title so as to ma@e the area of the land therein described agree with that given in the )lan, (5ee Govern9en( o2 (/e ./) )00)ne! v!. Ar)a!, *6 ./) ., 195+. 4. Bui-ders in good fait0 (lthough without an legal and valid claim over the land in 4uestion, 1rana and Torralba were found to have constructed a )ortion of their house thereon in good faith, 5nder (rticle $%& of the old /ivil /ode ((rticle 447 of the new), the owner of the land on which an thing has been built in good faith shall have the right to a))ro)riate as his own the building, after )a ment to the builder of necessar and useful e2)enses, and in the )ro)er case, e2)enses for )ure lu2ur or mere )leasure, or to oblige the builder to )a the )rice of the land, &. 2*tions of t0e o1ners of t0e -and. )ractica-ity of t0e o*tions considered The owners of the land have the choice of either a))ro)riating the )ortion of the house which is on their land u)on )a ment of the )ro)er indemnit to the builders, or selling to builders that )art of their land on which stands the im)rovement, +owever, it would be im)ractical for res)ondents to choose to e2ercise the first alternative, i,e,, bu that )ortion of the house standing on their land, for in that event the whole building might
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 81 )
be rendered useless, The more wor@able solution, it would seem, is for the owners to sell to the builders that )art of their land on which was constructed a )ortion of the latterBs house, 8f the builders are unwilling or unable to bu , then the must vacate the land and must )a rentals until the do so, -f course, the owners cannot oblige the builders to bu the land if its value is considerabl more than that of the )ortion of the house, 8f such is the case, then the builders must )a reasonable rent, The )arties must come to an agreement as to the conditions of the lease, and should the fail to do so, then the court shall fi2 the same, ((rticle $%&, old /ivil /ode? (rticle 447 of the new), 6. Rig0t of retention. Bui-der in good fait0 not re5uired to *ay renta-s unti- 0e is rei/%ursed e9*enses incurred %y 0i/ The a))ellate court erred in ordering 1rana and Torralba to )a monthl rentals of "&0,00 from the date of filing of the com)laint until the actuall vacate said land, ( builder in good faith ma not be re4uired to )a rentals, +e has a right to retain the land on which he has built in good faith until he is reimbursed the e2)enses incurred b him, (')ran8a v!. Fa8u on, e( a ., 97 ./) ., %01& 51 <22. Gaz., 6226, !ee a !o 'ar()nez v!. :aganu!, 2% ./) ., 500& ,e Guz9an v!. ,e a Fuen(e, 55 ./) ., 501& >a!) ag v!. Ro8r)guez, <22. Gaz., 5u00., Augu!( 16, 19$1, 0. 2$7+. 8. )etitioners esto**ed in c-ai/ing /ot0er 1as not inc-uded as an indis*ensa%-e *arty for t0e co/*-aint to %e dis/issed 1rana and Torralba clearl asserted ownershi) over the land in dis)ute as well as over ;ot $&0 in their answer to the com)laint, The are conse4uentl esto))ed from alleging that the com)laint should have been dismissed for nonjoinder of an indis)ensable )art , it being alleged that their mother .aria /u)in, who owns the land in 4uestion as )art of her ;ot $&0, has not been made a )art defendant in the case, [ ] Harty v. 7ictoria' ;ar-ac [G.R. No. 4!1". Carc0 11' 1#!#.] 9n =anc, Torres (J): 3 concur $acts( -n &' Januar &*07, the re)resentative of .onsignor Jeremiah J, +art , archbisho) of the Roman /atholic /hurch, as the legal administrator of the )ro)erties and rights of the /atholic /hurch within the archbisho)ric of .anila, filed a written com)laint in the /!8 Tarlac against the munici)alit of >ictoria, alleging that the )arish of the said town had been and was then the owner of a )arcel of land within the said munici)alit , @nown as the )la:a of the church of >ictoria? that it had ac4uired said )arcel of land more than %0 ears )reviousl , and had continued to )ossess the same ever since u) to &*0&, in which ear the munici)alit unlawfull and forcibl sei:ed the said )ro)ert , claiming to be entitled thereto and retaining it to the )resent da , -n &3 June &*07, the trial court rendered judgment, holding that the )arish of >ictoria of the Roman /atholic ()ostolic /hurch, had a better right to the )ossession of the land described in the com)laint, and sentenced the .unici)alit to vacate the same and to )a the costs, To said judgment the re)resentative of the .unici)alit e2ce)ted and moved for a new trial on the ground that it was contrar to the weight of the evidence, and he notified the court that, if his motion were overruled, he would a))eal to the Su)reme /ourt, The motion for a new trial was overruled? the .unici)alit e2ce)ted, and )resented the corres)onding bill of e2ce)tions which, after recei)t of a co) had been ac@nowledged b the adverse )art , was a))roved, -n & Se)tember, the .unici)alit was ordered to furnish bond in the sum of "&,000 to insure the fulfillment of the judgment in the event that it should be totall or )artiall affirmed, To said order the .unici)alit e2ce)ted, but furnished the bond as directed b the court, The Su)reme /ourt reversed the judgment a))ealed from, and held that the whole of the land not occu)ied b the church of the town of >ictoria and its )arish house, is a )ublic )la:a of the said town, of )ublic use, and that in conse4uence thereof, the .unici)alit is absolved of the com)laint without an s)ecial ruling as to the costs of both instances,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 8+ )
1. )ro*erty of *u%-ic o1ners0i* (rticle $$* of the /ivil /ode )rovides that D)ro)ert of )ublic ownershi) is (&) that destined to the )ublic use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, )orts, and bridges constructed b the State, and ban@s, shores, roadsteads, and that of a similar character,E !urther, (rticle $44 of said code )rovides that D)ro)ert for )ublic use in )rovinces and in towns com)rises the )rovincial and town roads, the s4uares, streets, fountains, and )ublic waters, the )romenades, and )ublic wor@s of general service su))orted b the said towns or )rovinces,E +. History of t0e /unici*a-ity of 7ictoria' ;ar-ac. ,usto/s in creation of ne1 to1n under t0e o-d La1s of t0e 3ndies The town of >ictoria was formerl onl a barrio of the town of Tarlac and @nown as /anarum, 8t was converted into a town in &733, and named >ictoria, To this end the must have laid out the streets and the )la:a of the town, in the center of which were situated the church and )arish house from the commencement, and at the e2)iration of about &# ears the )arish of said town was constituted and the )riest who was to )erform the office of curate was a))ointed? that from the ver beginning, the large tract of land that surrounds the church and the )arish house was @nown as a )ublic )la:a, destined to the use of all the residents of the recentl founded town? )ublic )erformances and religious )rocessions were held thereon without hindrance either on the )art of the local authorities or of the curate of said town, !urther, it was a custom observed b all the towns established administrativel in these 8slands under the old ;aws of the 8ndies, that on their creation, a certain amount of land was alwa s reserved for )la:as, commons, and s)ecial and communal )ro)ert , and as it is un4uestionable that the said large s)ace of land was left vacant in the center of the town of >ictoria when it was constituted as a civil town, ". ;0e -ate ;anedo donated t0e -and occu*ied %y t0e ,0urc0 to t0e c0urc0 and not to t0e *aris0 curate There are good grounds to su))ose that the late >icente Tanedo donated the land now occu)ied b the church and )arish house in said munici)alit for religious )ur)oses, or to the church, but not to the )arish curate, because at the time there was no curate at the new town of >ictoria, . )roof -acking if t0e -and ;anedo donated inc-ude t0e 10o-e -arge tract constituting t0e to1n *-aDa. Aaiver of rig0ts t0ereon in favor of t0e *u%-ic *resu/ed 8t ma be true that the father of the witness /asimiro TaIedo, who owned the s)ace of land where the church and )arish house were erected, had voluntaril donated it to the /atholic /hurch but )ro)er )roof is lac@ing that the donation affirmed b the said Tanedo com)rehended the whole of the large tract which at the )resent time constitutes the )la:a of the town, 9ven though all the remaining s)ace of land which now forms the great )la:a of the town of >ictoria had been owned b the said Tanedo, it must be )resumed that he waived his right thereto for the benefit of the towns)eo)le, since all the residents have enjo ed the free use of said )la:a, 8t has not been satisfactoril shown that the munici)alit or the )rinci)ales of the town of >ictoria had donated the whole of said land to the curate of >ictoria or to the /atholic /hurch, nor could it have been so donated, it being a )ublic )la:a destined to )ublic use and was not )rivate ownershi), or )atrimon of the town of >ictoria, or of the "rovince of Tarlac, /ertain it is that the /urate has not )roven that the /atholic /hurch or the )arish of >ictoria was the owner or )ro)rietor of the said e2tensive )iece of land which now forms the )ublic )la:a of said town, nor that it was in )ossession thereof under the form and conditions re4uired b law, inasmuch as it has been full )roven that said )la:a has been used without let or hindrance b the )ublic and the residents of the town of >ictoria ever since its creation, 4. )-aDas destined for *u%-ic use not su%>ect to *rescri*tion "ursuant to (rticle &*$% of the /ivil /ode, )la:as, among other things, destined to the )ublic use are not subject to )rescri)tion,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 8" )
&. )rocured trees set out in t0e *-aDa does not constitute an act of *rivate o1ners0i* That both the curates and the gobernadorcillos of the said town )rocured fruit trees and )lants to be set out in the )la:a, does not constitute an act of )rivate ownershi), but evidences the )ublic use thereof, or )erha)s the intention to im)rove the and embellish the said )la:a for the benefit of the towns)eo)le, [ 4] Hi-ario v. ,ity of Cani-a [GR No. L<1#46! A*ri- +6' 1#&6] =eng:on J" (J): 7 concur $acts( Dr, Jose +ilario was the registered owner of a large tract of land around 4* hectares in area (=arrio 1uina ang, San .ateo, Ri:al), 5)on his death this )ro)ert was inherited b his son, Jose +ilario, Jr,, to whom a new certificate of title was issued, During the lifetime of )laintiffBs father, the +ilario estate was bounded on the western side b the San .ateo River,$ To )revent its entr into the land, a bamboo and lumber )ost di@e or ditch was constructed on the northwestern side, This was further fortified b a stonewall built on the northern side, !or ears, these safeguards served their )ur)ose, +owever, in &*$', a great and e2traordinar flood occurred which inundated the entire )lace including the neighboring barrios and munici)alities, The River destro ed the di@e on the northwest, left its original bed and meandered into the +ilario estate, segregating from the rest thereof a lenticular )iece of land, The dis)uted area is on the eastern side of this lenticular stri) which now stands between the old riverbed site and the new course, 8n &*43, the 5S (rm o)ened a sand and gravel )lant within the )remises, and started scra)ing, e2cavating and e2tracting soil, gravel and sand from the nearb areas along the River, The o)erations eventuall e2tended northward into the stri) of land, /onse4uentl , a claim for damages was filed with the 5S Gar De)artment b ;uis +idalgo, the then administrator of Dr, +ilarioBs estate, The 5S (rm )aid, 8n &*4', the )lant was turned over to herein defendants6a))ellants and a))ellee who too@ over its o)erations, -n ## -ctober ##, &*4*, )laintiff filed his com)laint for injunction and damages against the defendants /it 9ngineer of .anila, District 9ngineer of Ri:al, the Director of "ublic Gor@s, and 9ngr, =usuego, the 9ngineer6in6charge of the )lant, Subse4uentl , the =ureau of .ines and (tt , .a2imo /alalang were res)ectivel allowed to join the litigation as intervenors? as )er issue of fees and )enalties for materials (sand and gravel) e2tracted, -n &4 .arch &*34, defendants filed a )etition for injunction against )laintiff and intervenor /alalang in the same case, alleging that the latter have fenced off the dis)uted area in contravention of an agreement had between the latter and the Director of "ublic Gor@s wherein the defendants were allowed to continue their o)erations but subject to the final outcome of the )ending suit, -n &$ .a &*34, )laintiff amended his com)laint and im)leaded as additional defendants the /it of .anila, the "rovincial Treasurer of Ri:al, and 9ngr, 9ulogio Sese, the new 9ngineer6in6charge of the )lant, "laintiff also converted his claim to one )urel for damages directed against the /it of .anila and the Director of "ublic Gor@s, solidaril , in the amount of "&,000,000,00, as the cost of materials ta@en since &*4*, as well as those to be e2tracted therefrom until defendants sto) their o)erations, -n #& December &*3%, the lower court rendered its decision, ordering the /it of .anila and Director of "ublic Gor@s to )a +ilario in solidum the sum of "$'%,*7*,%0 as cost of gravel and sand e2tracted from the )laintiffBs land, )lus costs? and ordering the "rovincial Treasurer of Ri:al to reimburse intervenor /alalang of "$%,70 re)resenting gravel fees illegall collected, <one of the )arties litigants seemed satisfied with this decision and the all sought a reconsideration of the same, -n (ugust $0, &*3', the lower court resolved the motions to reconsider with an order, holding that the #A3 )ortion of the area in controvers to +ilario, and dismissing the case against the =ureau of "ublic Gor@s insofar as mone claims are concerned without )rejudice to +ilario ta@ing action against )ro)er )art in such claim, +ilario and /alalang filed a second motion for reconsideration, which the lower court denied, +ence, the a))eal, The Su)reme /ourt set aside the decision and orders a))ealed from, and entered another judgment to the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 8 )
effect that the /it of .anila and the Director of "ublic Gor@s, and his agent and em)lo ees, are absolved of liabilit from e2tracting materials from subject )ro)ert (of )ublic domain)? and the )ortion within the stri) of land 4uestion declared not )art of )ublic domain and confirmed as )art of +ilarioBs )rivate )ro)ert , <o /osts, 1. 2-d ,ivi- ,ode and La1 of Aaters of 18&& contro--ing -a1 Since the change in the course of the River too@ )lace in &*$', long before the )resent /ivil /ode too@ effect, the 4uestion should be determined in accordance with the )rovisions of the old /ivil /ode and those of the ;aw of Gaters of $ (ugust &7%%, +. A-- river%anks' as *art of t0e river%eds' are of *u%-ic o1ners0i* 5nder the old /ivil ;aw and the ;aw of Gaters, all riverban@s are of )ublic ownershi), including those formed when a river leaves its old bed and o)ens a new course through a )rivate estate, (rtcile $$* of the old /ivil /ode is ver clear, Githout an 4ualifications, it )rovides that Dthat devoted to )ublic use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, )orts and bridges constructed b the State, riverban@s, shores, roadsteads, and that of a similar characterE are )ro)ert of )ublic ownershi), !urther, the riverban@ is )art of the riverbed, (rticle '$ of the ;aw of Gaters which )rovides that the )hrase Dban@s of a riverE is understood those lateral stri)s of :ones of its beds which are washed b the stream onl during such high floods as do not cause inundations, The use of the words Dof its bed Lde sus alveosM D clearl indicates the intent of the law to consider the ban@s for all legal )ur)oses, as )art of the riverbed, Thus, the ban@s of the River are )art of its bed, Since undeniabl all beds of river are of )ublic ownershi), it follows that the ban@s, which form )art of them, are also of )ublic ownershi), ". Natura- %ed or c0anne- of a creek or river defined The natural bed or channel of a cree@ or river is the ground covered b its waters during the highest Lordinar M floods ((rticle '0 of the ;aw of the Gaters), . Ne1 %ed' 10en river c0anges course' is of *u%-ic o1ners0i*. Ceans to recover (rticle $'# of the old /ivil /ode which )rovides that Dwhenever a navigable or floatable river changes its course from natural causes and o)ens a new bed through a )rivate estate, the new bed shall be of )ublic ownershi), but the owner of the estate shall recover it in the event that the waters leave it dr again either naturall or as the result of an wor@ legall authori:ed for this )ur)ose,E =an@s are not mentioned in the )rovision, as the nature of ban@s follows that of the bed and the running water of the river, 4. A river is a co/*ound conce*t consisting of running 1aters' %ed' and %anks ( river is a com)ound conce)t consisting of three elements? (&) the running waters, (#) the bed and ($) the ban@s, (ll these constitute the river, (merican authorities are in accord with this view, as that DJ RiverB consists of water, bed and ban@sE? and that D( JriverB consists of water, a bed and ban@s, these several )arts constituting the river, the whole river, 8t is a com)ound idea? it cannot e2ist without all its )arts, 9va)orate the water, and ou have a dr hollow, 8f ou could sin@ the bed, instead of a river ou would have a fathomless gulf, Remove the ban@s, and ou have, a boundless floodE &. River is of *u%-ic o1ners0i*' e-e/ents fo--o1 sa/e nature of o1ners0i*. La1 e9*-icit Since a river is but one com)ound conce)t, it should have onl one nature, i,e,, it should either be totall )ublic or com)letel )rivate, Since rivers are of )ublic ownershi), it is im)licit that all the three com)onent elements be of the same nature also, Still, the law e2)ressl ma@es all three elements )ublic, Thus, riverban@s and beds are )ublic under (rtciles $$* and 40', res)ectivel , of the /ode, while the flowing waters are declared so under (rticles $$, )ar, # of the ;aw of Gaters of &7%%, 6. Natura- is not synony/ous to origina- or *rior condition D<aturalE is not made s non mous to DoriginalE or D)rior conditionE, -n the contrar , even if a river should
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 84 )
leave its original bed so long as it is due to the force of nature, the new course would still fall within the sco)e of the definition )rovided b the Diccionario de ;a Real (cademia 9s)aIola, +ence, the law must have used the word DnaturalE onl because it is in @ee)ing with the ordinar nature and conce)t of a river alwa s to have a bed and ban@s, Diccionario De La Real Acade&ia 'spa(ola) KNA7-RA"#0er(ene4)en(e a a na(ura eza o 4on2or9e a a 4a )8a8 o 0ro0r)e8a8 8e a! 4o!a!& #na()va, or)g)var)o 8e un 0ueb o o )94)oLn& /e4/o 4on ver8a8, n) ar()2)4)o, 9eze a n) 4o90o4)!)on a guna, )ngenuo y !)n 8ob ez en !u 9o8o 8e 0ro4e8er& 8) 4e!e (a9b)en 8e a! 4o!a! Cue )9)(ar a, a na(ura eza 4on 0ro0)e8a8& regu ar y Cue 4o9u9nen(e !u4e8e, y 0ar e!o, 2a4) 9en(e 4re)b e& Cue !e 0ro8u4e 0or !o a! a! 2uerza! 8e a na(ura eza, 4an)o 4on(ra;ue!(o a !obre na(ura y 9) agro!o.I 8. Artic-e 44" of t0e o-d ,ivi- ,ode does not intend to aut0oriDe *rivate ac5uisition of river %anks %ut recogniDes vested rig0ts of ri*arian o1ners. History of o1ners0i* of River Banks (rticle 33$ was never intended to authori:e the )rivate ac4uisition of river ban@s, as this would conflict with clear legislative )olic enunciated in (rticle $$* of the /ode that all riverban@s were of )ublic ownershi), The article merel recogni:ed and )reserved the vested rights of ri)arian owners who, because of )rior law or custom, were able to ac4uire ownershi) over the ban@s, This was )ossible under the Siete *artidas which was )romulgated in &7$4, 5nder ;aw %, Title #7, "artida $, the ban@s of rivers belonged to the ri)arian owners, following the Roman ;aw rule, =ut subse4uent legislation radicall changed this rule, = the ;aw of Gaters of $ (ugust &7%%, riverban@s became of )ublic ownershi), albeit im)liedl onl because considered )art of the bed which was )ublic, b statutor definition, This law, while e2)ressl re)ealing all )rior inconsistent laws, left undisturbed all vested rights then e2isting, (rticle '$ of the La+ of ,aters of -.// is the reconciliation effected between the )rivate ownershi) of the ban@s and the )olic of the law to devote all ban@s to )ublic 5se, The easement would )reserve the )rivate ownershi) of the ban@s and still effectuate the )olic of the law, So, the easement in (rticle '$ onl recogni:ed and )reserved e2isting )rivatel owned ban@s? it did not authori:e future )rivate a))ro)riation of riverban@s, Subse4uentl , the La+ of ,aters of -0 1une -.23 reenacted (rticle '$ of the ;aw of Gaters of &7%% and affirmed the )ublic ownershi) of rivers and their beds and the treatment of the ban@s as )art of the bed, =ut nowhere in the law was there an )rovision authori:ing the )rivate a))ro)riation of the ban@s, The )ublic nature of riverban@s are obtained onl b im)lication until the )romulgation of the Civil Code of -.33, which was e2)licit in (rticle $$* that riverban@s were declared )ublic )ro)ert since the were destined for )ublic use, Since the first )aragra)h of (rticle $% of the ;aw of Gaters if &7'* was reenacted in (rticle 33$ of the /ode, this article must also be understood not as authori:ing the )rivate ac4uisition of riverban@s but onl as recogni:ing the vested titles of ri)arian owners who alread owned the ban@s, 8n the )resent case, since the new ban@s were formed when the river changed its course in &*$', the ban@s cannot be subjected to the )rovisions of the Siete "artidas, to claim )rivate ownershi) of the ban@s, as such was alread su)erceded b then, #. Lega- definition a**-ies 1it0 t0e -ega- order' distinction due to *0ysica- order cannot *revaiThe conclusion made b the lower court that onl the northern #A3 of the dis)uted area remained as )laintiffBs )rivate )ro)ert is )redicated from the findings that the )ortion where rice and corn were found in the ocular ins)ection of &3 June &*3&, was on the northern #A3 of the dis)uted area? that this cannot be a )art of the bed because of the e2istence of vegetation which could not have grown underwater, and that this )ortion is man6 made, This is bereft of evidence, as the une2cavated )ortion of the land is the southwestern Z, !urther, (merican cases cannot be a))lied as these do not involve a similar statutor )rovision, unli@e in the ;aw of Gaters, which defined DbedsE and Dban@sE and considered the latter as )art of the former, That )lants can and do grow on the ban@s which otherwise could not have grown on the bed which is constantl subjected to the flow of the waters )roves the distinction between DbedsE and Dban@sE in the )h sical order, +owever, in dealing with the legal order, legal definitions )revail,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 8& )
1!. Li/its of %anks of rivers (rticle '$ of the ;aw of Gaters which defines the limits of ban@s of rivers D= the )hrase Jban@s of a riverB is understood those lateral stri)s or :ones of its bed which are washed b the stream onl during such high floods as do not cause inundations, The farthest e2tremit of the ban@ on the west side would, therefore, be that lateral line or stri) which is reached b the waters during those high floods that do not cause inundations, 8n other words, the e2tent reached b the waters when the River is at high tide, 11. Banks of river different in to*ogra*0y There is a difference between the to)ogra)h of the two sides immediatel adjoining the River, The line indicated as D)rimar ban@,E which is on the east, is about $ meters high and has a stee) grade right at the edge where it dro)s almost verticall to the watercourse level, The o))osite side, on the other hand, has no such stee) acclivit , The ban@ near the water edge, is about $0 to 30 cms, high onl , and graduall slo)es u) to a height of about # to #6&A# meters along the line indicated as Dsecondar ban@E, which is 4uite far from the waterline, /onsidering the )eculiar characteristics of the two sides ban@ing the river, the rise in the waterlevel would not have the same effect on the two sides, Thus, on the east, the water would rise verticall , until the to) of the D)rimar ban@E is reached, but on the west, there would be a low angled inclined rise, the water covering more ground until the Dsecondar ban@E line is reached, 8n other words, while the water e2)ansion on the east is vertical, that on the west is more or less lateral, or hori:ontal, 1+. 2rdinary and e9traordinary f-ood There are two t )es of floods in the area during the rain season, -ne is the so6called Dordinar E flood, when the river is swollen but the flowing water is @e)t within the confines of the D)rimar E and Dsecondar E ban@s, This occurs annuall , about three to four times during the )eriod, Then there is the De2traordinar E flood, when the waters overflow be ond the said ban@s, and even inundate the surrounding areas, +owever, this flood does not ha))en regularl , !rom &*4' to &*33, there were onl three such floods, 1". Cove/ent of t0e river' 1est %ank' fro/ 1# 4<1#44 !rom &*43 to &*4*, the west ban@ of the River e2tended westward u) to the Dsecondar ban@E line? from &*30 to &*3#, this ban@ had moved, with the River, to the east, its lateral borders running along a line just #0 meters west of the camachile tree? and from &*3$ to &*33, the e2tremities of the west ban@ further receded eastward be ond the camachile tree, until the la just about #0 meters east of said tree, 1 . $-oodings not accidenta- as t0ey are annua-. Govern/ent v. ,o-egio de ?an =ose does not a**-y 9vidence shows that the River floods with annual regularit during the rain season, These floods can hardl be called DaccidentalE, The /olegio de San Jose case is not e2actl in )oint, Ghat was mainl considered there was (rticle '4 of the ;aw of Gaters relating to la@es, )onds and )ools, 8n the )resent case, none of these is involved, 14. Cove/ent of t0e river not due to e9cavation and e9traction of /ateria-s The e2cavations and e2tractions of materials, even from the (merican )eriod, have been made onl on the stri) of land west of the River, 5nder the Dfollowing6the nature6of6thingsE argument advanced b )laintiff, the River should have moved westward, where the level of the ground had been lowered, =ut the movement has been in the o))osite direction instead, Therefore, it cannot be attributed to defendantsB o)erations, .oreover, +ilarioBs own evidence indicates that the movement eastward was all due to natural causes, The movement eastward of the channel b as much as $& meters, from &*30 to &*3$, was due to two t )hoons which caused the erosion of the east ban@ and the de)ositing of materials on the west side which increased its level from as much as ,*$ to # meters, 1&. River of different 1idt0. c-ai/ of unnatura- 1idening unfounded Reliance is made on the finding b the lower court that in &*4$, the river was onl %0 meters wide, whereas in &*30, it was alread &40 meters wide, Such area sam)led shows onl the width of the River near the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 86 )
southwestern boundar of the +ilario estate, 8t does not indicate how wide it was in the other )arts, es)eciall u) north, 16. B9traction confined on t0e %anks of t0e river and not %eyond -i/its of t0e 1est %ank to invade 0is *rivate estate. Hi-ario cannot recover da/ages fro/ defendants !rom &*4' to the earl )art of &*4*, the defendants conducted their o)erations onl in the <ew (ccretion (rea along a narrow longitudinal :one contiguous to the watercourse then, This :one, /it 9ngineer .anila, is about & @m, long and e2tends northward u) to )t, 30,$3, +owever, no e2tractions nor e2cavations were underta@en west of this :one, i,e,, above the Dtem)orar ban@E line, This line is located east of the Dsecondar ban@E line, the lateral e2tremit of the west ban@ then, 8n the latter )art of &*4*, )laintiff )rohibited the defendants from e2tracting along the <ew (ccretion (rea and constructed a fence across the same, This forced the defendants to go southeast of the D92cavated (reaE, !rom &*34 to &*33, defendantsB area of o)eration was still farther east of the <ew (ccretion (rea, The were, wor@ing within a confined area along the west waterline, the northern and western boundaries of which were #0 meters awa east from the camachile tree, 8t a))ears sufficientl established, therefore, that defendants have not gone be ond the receding western e2tremities of the west riverban@, The have confined their e2traction of gravel and sand onl from which the ban@s of the River, which constitute )art of the )ublic domain wherein the had the right to o)erate, "laintiff has not )resented sufficient evidence that defendants have gone be ond the limits of the west ban@, as )reviousl established, and have invaded his )rivate estate, +e cannot, therefore, recover from them, 18. )-aintiff not denied of *ro*erty 1it0out >ust co/*ensation The /ourt does not declare that the entire channel, i,e,, all that s)ace between the Dsecondar ban@E line and the D)rimar ban@E line, has )ermanentl become )art of the riverbed, Ghat is held is that at the time the defendants made their e2tractions, the e2cavations were within the confines of the riverban@s then, (ll that s)ace to the west of said receding lineE would still be )art of )laintiffBs )ro)ert and also whatever )ortion adjoining the river is, at )resent, no longer reached b the non6inundating ordinar floods, !urther, it is not correct to sa that )laintiff would be de)rived of his )ro)ert without an com)ensation at all, 5nder (rticle $'0 of the old /ivil /ode, the abandoned bed of the old river belongs to the ri)arian owners either full or in )art with the other ri)arian owners, (nd had the change occurred under the /ivil /ode of the "hili))ines, )laintiff would even be entitled to all of the old bed in )ro)ortion to the area he has lost, 1#. Defendants did not un>ust-y *rofit at *-aintiff:s e9*ense as t0ey are not res*onsi%-e for t0e s0ifting of t0e river Defendants cannot be accused of unjustl )rofiting at )laintiffBs e2)ense, The were not res)onsible for the shifting of the river, 8t was due to natural causes for which no one can be blamed, !urher, defendants were e2tracting from )ublic )ro)ert then, under )ro)er authori:ation, The government, through the defendants, ma have been enriched b chance, but not unjustl , [ &] Hinunangan (Cunici*a-ity of) v. Director of Lands [G.R. No. 6!4 . =anuary +!' 1#1".] !irst Division, .oreland (J): 3 concur $acts( ;and in 4uestion is situated in +inunangan, ;e te, and contains an area of &0, $#7,7 s4, m, it is bounded on the northwest b the maritime :one? on the southeast b <orth (merica Street? on the southwest b .analili Street, and on the northwest b San 8sidro ;abrador Street, 5)on this lot is built a stone fort which has stood there from time immemorial and was in times )ast used as a defense against the invasion of the .oros, "etitioners a))lied for the registration of the title to the lands so described, The /ourt of ;and Registration ordered said registration in favor of the )etitioners, The 8nsular 1overnment a))ealed as to the registration of the title of one of the )arcels of land onl ,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 88 )
The Su)reme /ourt reversed the judgment in relation to the )arcel of land described, and dismissing the )etition as to that )arcel of land? but affirming the judgment in all other res)ects, 1. Defense of nationa- territory rests u*on t0e state and not u*on to1ns and vi--ages The defense of the national territor against invasion b foreign enemies rested u)on the state and not u)on the towns and villages and for this reason all of the defenses were constructed b the <ational 1overnment, +. $ortresses and its -and *ro*erty of t0e ?tate. Lega- anc0ors 8n volu&e 4, 5oo6 0, title 2, la+ - of the La+s of the #ndies , it was stated that Dwe command that all the ground roundabout the castles and fortresses be clear and unoccu)ied, and if an building is erected within $00 )aces of the wall or other building so strong that ever at a greater distance it would )rejudice the defenses, it shall be torn down, and the owner of the same shall be )aid from the Ro al Treasur for the damages caused him,E "oo6 7, title 2, la+ -4, reads as DGe order that, for the securit and defense of the cities as is now assured b the castles and fortresses, no building shall be erected within $00 )aces of the walls or stoc@ades of the new cities,E Article 033 of the Civil Code, in )art, )rovides that Dthat which belongs )rivatel to the state, which is not for )ublic use and which is destined for the )ublic good or to increase the national riches, such as walls, fortresses and other constructions for the defense of the countr , and the mines as long as no concession in regard to them is madeE is )ublic )ro)ert , Article 07- of the Civil Code )rovides that D)ublic )ro)ert , when it ceases to be used for the )ublic use and which is destined for the necessities of the defense of the countr , becomes a )art of the )ro)ert of the state,E 8t is clear thus that the fortress in 4uestion was erected for the national defense and was a )art of the )ro)ert of the state destined and used for that )ur)ose? and as a result, the land which it stands on is also dedicated to that )ur)ose, ". $ortress not %eing in use does not de*rive t0e state of its o1ners0i* The fact that said fortress ma not have been used for man ears for the )ur)oses for which it was originall built does not of necessit de)rive the state of its ownershi) therein, The /ivil /ode )rovides that, when the fortress ceases to be used for the )ur)ose for which it was constructed, it becomes the )ro)ert of the state in what ma be called the )rivate sense, . )resu/*tion of grant %y t0e state to /unici*a-ity /ay %e invoked on-y is *ro*erty is used distinct-y for *u%-ic *ur*oses The /ourt has ruled where the munici)alit has occu)ied lands distinctl for )ublic )ur)oses (such as for the munici)al court house, the )ublic school, the )ublic mar@et, or other necessar munici)al building) and in the absence of )roof to the contrar , )resume a grant from the state in favor of the munici)alit , Still, the rule ma be invo@ed onl as to )ro)ert which is used distinctl for )ublic )ur)oses? and cannot be a))lied against the state when occu)ied for an other )ur)ose, 8n the )resent case, the evidence does not disclose that the munici)alit has used the land for )ur)oses distinctl )ublic, but has that it has e2ercised acts of ownershi) over the land b )ermitting it to be occu)ied and consenting to the erection of )rivate houses thereon, [ 6] Hodges v. Garcia [G.R. No. L<1+6"!. August ++' 1#&!.] 9n =anc, 1utierre:6David (J): 7 concur $acts( ( lot [ formerl a )art of ;ot *07 of the /adastral Surve of Jaro, 8loilo [ was ac4uired b /, <, +odges from Salustiano .irasol in Januar &*30, and subse4uentl registered in his name as evidenced b T/T T6#304 issued b the Register of Deeds of 8loilo, This )ro)ert was bounded on the north b the Salog River, (djoining that river on the other side is ;ot ##*0, which was )urchased b (mador D, 1arcia from Dr, .anuel +echanova on &3 ()ril &*30, -n &# Jul &*30, 1arcia had the land he bought resurve ed, The surve
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 8# )
)lan disclosed that the land, which was originall surve ed in &*&# and was then bounded on the S9 and SG b the Salog river, had increased in area b the river ban@, and that the added area, which bounds the land on the S9 and SG, is in turn bounded on the S9 and SG b the Salog river, 8n due time, 1arcia a))lied for the registration of the additional area under the ;and Registration (ct, and on ## .arch &*3#, the cadastral court rendered a decision holding that the land sought to be registered is an accretion to ;ot ##*0 and decreeing that the land be registered in his name, -n $0 June &*3#, the corres)onding -/T -6##* was issued in favor of 1arcia, /< +odges filed an action with the /!8 8loilo for the )ossession of a )ortion of land designated as ;ot *076F with an area of 3,*$& s4, m, , which is alleged to have been se)arated from )laintiffBs land b the Dnatural changeE in the course of a river, The court ruled in favor of 1arcia, +odges a))ealed to the /ourt of ())eals, The a))ellate court certified the case to the Su)reme /ourt that it was decided u)on a sti)ulation of facts and for that reason 4uestions of fact can no longer be raised on a))eal, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the decision a))ealed from, with costs against /< +odges, 1. )resu/*tion in t0e a%sence of evidence t0at t0e c0ange in t0e course of t0e river 1as sudden (avu-sion) 8n the absence of evidence to show that the change in the course of the river was sudden or that it occurred through avulsion, the )resum)tion is that the change was gradual and caused b accretion and erosion, (.aya(a! B!(a(e I90rove9en( Co. v!. 7ua!on, 5* ./) ., 55.+ +. $act on a--uvion or accretion not contradicted 8n an event, it was agreed u)on b the )arties in o)en court that from the ear &*&' until the construction of the di@e (in &*$*) along the river the course of the Salog river, starting from the edge of lot ##*0, graduall ate u) the ban@ towards the side of the )oblacion of Jaro and at the same time graduall de)osited sediments towards the side of ;ot ##*0? that when 1arcia bought lot ##*0 from Dr, .anuel +echanova in &*30, he found out that there was an accretion along one side of said lot, to which 1arcia a))lied for its registration, to which culminated in the issuance of an -/T in his favor? and that because of the gradual de)osit of sediments of the Salog River along his land, lot ##*0, 1arcia has been in )ossession of said land since &*30 until now, while +odges and his )redecessors in interest since the gradual loss of lot *076F, covered b water, has never been in actual )ossession of the said lot, The foregoing facts have never been denied or contradicted b )laintiff, and the clearl show that the increase in area of ;ot ##*0 b the river ban@ was due to alluvion or accretions which it graduall received (from &*&' to &*$*, or for a )eriod of ## ears) from the effects of the current of the river, <either did +odges file an o))osition des)ite due )ublication of the notice of the a))lication and hearing, !urther, the land now being claimed b +odges had been litigated in three civil cases, while 1arcia was recogni:ed as the owner of the land and held legall entitled to its )ossession, ". Registration does not *rotect t0e ri*arian o1ner against di/inution of t0e area of 0is -and The land in 4uestion has become )art of 1arciaBs estate as a result of accretion, it follows that said land now belongs to him, The fact that the accretion to his land used to )ertain to +odgesB estate, which is covered b a Torrens certificate of title, cannot )reclude 1arcia from being the owner thereof, Registration does not )rotect the ri)arian owner against the diminution of the area of his land through gradual changes in the course of the adjoining stream, (ccretions which the ban@s of rivers ma graduall receive from the effect of the current become the )ro)ert of the owners of the ban@s, (Ar(. *66 o2 (/e o 8 C)v) Co8e& Ar(. $57 o2 (/e ne@.+ Such accretions are natural incidents to land bordering on running streams and the )rovisions of the /ivil /ode in that res)ect are not affected b the ;and Registration (ct, (.aya(a! B!(a(e I90rove9en( Co. v!. 7ua!on+ [ 8] Hongkong E ?0ang0ai Banking v. A-decoa E ,o. [G.R. No. 8 "6. Carc0 +"' 1#14.]
)ro*erty' +!!" ( #! )
9n =anc, Trent (J): $ concur, & concurs in result, & dissents, $acts( The defendants, Joa4uin, Ooilo, and /ecilia (all 8baIe: de (ldecoa), were born in the "hili))ines on #' .arch &774, 4 Jul &773, and &77', res)ectivel , the legitimate children of Ooilo 8baIe: de (ldecoa and 8sabel "alet? the )arents being natives of S)ain but domiciled in .anila, The firm of (ldecoa N /o,, of which Ooilo 8baIe: de (ldecoa, the father who died on 4 -ctober &7*3, had been a member and managing director, was reorgani:ed in December &7*%, and the widow became one of the general or Dca)italisticE )artners of the firm, The $ children a))ear in the articles of agreement as industrial )artners, The widow, retaining her .anila domicile, left the "hili))ines and went to S)ain in &7*' due to her health, and did not return until the latter )art of &*0#, -n $& Jul &*0$, 8sabel "alet went before a notar )ublic and e2ecuted two instruments, whereb she emanci)ated her sons, who were &7 ears old at that time, with their consent and acce)tance, (fter the e2ecution of said instruments, both Joa4uin and Ooilo )artici)ated in the management of (ldecoa N /o, as )artners b being )resent and voting at meetings of the )artners of the com)an u)on matters connected with its affairs, -n #$ !ebruar &*0%, (ldecoa N /o, obtained from the ban@ a credit in account current u) to the sum of "430,000 u)on the terms and conditions set forth in the instrument 92hibit (, ;ater it was agreed that 8sabel "alet and her sons should mortgage, in addition to certain securities of (ldecoa N /o, certain of their real )ro)erties as additional securit for the obligations of (ldecoa N /o, Thus, on #$ .arch &*0%, the mortgage, 92hibit =, was e2ecuted wherein certain corrections in the descri)tion of some of the real )ro)ert mortgaged to the ban@ b 92hibit ( were made and the amount for which each of the mortgaged )ro)erties should be liable was set forth, These two mortgages, 92hibits ( and =, were dul recorded in the registr of )ro)ert of the cit of .anila on #$ .arch &*0%, The real )ro)ert mortgaged b 8sabel "alet was at her instance, registered under the )rovisions of the ;and Registration, the )ro)ert subject to the mortgage in favor of the ban@, b decree of the land court 7 .arch &*0'? while another )ro)ert , on % <ovember &*0% and at the instance of 8sabel "alet and her $ children, was a))lied for registration (the undivided \ of said )ro)ert being subject to the mortgage in favor of the ban@), the a))lication of which was granted b decree of the land court 7 Se)tember &*0', -n $& December &*0%, (ldecoa N /o, went into li4uidation on account of the e2)iration of the term for which it had been organi:ed, and the intervener, 5r4uhart, was dul elected b the )arties as li4uidator, and b resolution dated #4 Januar &*0', he was granted the authorit e2)ressed in that resolution, (dditional securit for the )erformance of the obligation in favor of the ban@ under the terms of contracts 92hibit ( and = were made on various dates, -n ## December &*0%, (ldecoa N co, mortgaged to the ban@ the right of mortgage u)on real )ro)ert in the "rovince of (lba mortgage to it b one Oubeldia, -n $& .ach &*0', (ldecoa N /o,, alread in li4uidation, mortgaged to the ban@ the right of mortgage u)on real estate in the )rovince of (mbos /amarines mortgage to it b one (ndres 1architorena ("#0,#70,&*), -n the same date, (ldecoa N /o, further mortgaged the right of mortgage u)on real )ro)ert in the same )rovince mortgage to it b Tremo a +ermanos ("4$,&&',40) and ;iborio Tremo a ("'3,4%$,34), !urther, on $0 Januar &*0', (ldecoa N /o, dul authori:ed the ban@ to collect from certain )ersons and firms an and all debts owing b them to (ldecoa N /o, and to a))l all amounts so collected to the satisfaction, )ro tanto, of an indebtedness of (ldecoa N /o, to the ban@, -n the other hand, as the result of the litigation between (ldecoa N /o, and (, S, .acleod, wherein the injunction bond of "30,000 was made b the ban@ u)on the condition that an liabilit incurred on the )art of the ban@ u)on this injunction bond would be covered b the mortgage of #$ !ebruar &*0%, (ldecoa N /o, became the owner, through a com)romise agreement e2ecuted on &4 (ugust &*0', of the shares of the "asa 9state /om)an ;imited, and on $0 (ugust &*0', 5r4uhart, as li4uidator mortgaged to the ban@, b wa of
)ro*erty' +!!" ( #1 )
additional securit for the )erformance of the obligations set forth in 92hibits ( and =, the $&# shares of the "asa 9state /om)an , ;imited, ac4uired b (ldecoa N /o, -n &7 !ebruar &*0', (ldecoa N /o, ac@nowledged an indebtedness of "&34,%7*,#0 each to Joa4uin and Ooilo 8baIe: de (ldecoa, and another "7*,&'',0' to /ecilia 8baIe: de (ldecoa, -n $0 Se)tember &*07, Joa4uin, Ooilo, and /ecilia recovered a judgment in the /!8 .anila for the )a ment of the balance of "&33,&#',$&, -n $0 <ovember &*0', Joa4uin, Ooilo, and /ecilia instituted an action in the /!8 .anila against the ban@ for the )ur)ose of obtaining a judicial declaration to the effect that the contract whereb (ldecoa N /o, mortgaged to the ban@ the shares of the "asa 9state /om)an recovered from (lejandro S, .acleod, was null and void, and for a judgment that these shares be sold and a))lied to the satisfaction of their judgment obtained on $0 Se)tember &*07, Judgment was rendered b the lower court in favor of the children, but u)on a))eal the Su)reme /ourt reversed that judgment and declared that the mortgage of the shares of stoc@ in the "asa 9state /o, to the ban@ was valid, 8n &*07, Joa4uin, Ooilo, and /ecilia commenced an action against their mother, 8sabel "alet, and (ldecoa N /o,, in which the ban@ was not a )art , and in Se)tember of that ear )rocured a judgment of the /!8 annulling the articles of co)artnershi) of (ldecoa N /o,, in so far as the were concerned, and decreeing that the were creditors and not )artners of that firm, 8n -ctober &*07, Joa4uin and Ooilo instituted an action against the ban@ for the )ur)ose of obtaining a judgment annulling the mortgages created b them u)on their interest in the )ro)erties described in 92hibits ( and =, u)on the ground that the emanci)ation b their mother was void and of no effect, and that, therefore, the were minors inca)able of creating a valid mortgage u)on their real )ro)ert , The /!8 dismissed the com)laint as to Joa4uin u)on the ground that he had ratified those mortgages after becoming of age, but entered a judgment annulling said mortgages with res)ect to Ooilo, =oth )arties a))ealed from this decision and the case was given registr <o, %77* in the Su)reme /ourt, -n $& Januar &*&&, the =an@ filed an action against the defendants for the )ur)ose of recovering from (ldecoa N /o,, an amount due from the latter as the balance to its debit in an account current with the /om)an , and to enforce the subsidiar liabilit of the other defendants for the )a ment of this indebtedness, as )artners of the /om)an , and to foreclose certain mortgages e2ecuted b the defendants to secure the indebtedness sued u)on, -n &0 (ugust &*&#, judgment was entered in favor of the ban@, ordering the defendants to )a the sum of "$44,*#4,#$ with interest of 'C )er annum from date of judgment until full )aid, and the costs? and ordering the foreclosure of the mortgages, Judgment was also entered den ing the relief sought b the intervener, (ll of the defendants and the intervener have a))ealed, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment a))ealed from, and ordered the a))ellants whose a))eals are determined to )a their res)ective )ortions of the cost, 1. ,o/*-aint not vague nor a/%iguous The com)laint alleges that a certain s)ecific amount was due from the defendant firm as a balance of its indebtedness to the )laintiff, and this necessaril im)lies that there were no credits in favor of the defendant firm of an @ind whatsoever which had not alread been deducted from the original obligation, +. No evidence su**orts c-ai/ t0at %ank *re>udiced A-decoa %y inducing t0e custo/ers to cease co//ercia- re-ations There is no evidence to show that there was an inducement made b the ban@ to )rejudice (ldecoa N /o, for its customers to cease their commercial relations with (ldecoa N /o,, 8t ma be )ossible that some of (ldecoa N /o,Bs customers ceased doing business with that firm after it went into li4uidation, This is the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( #+ )
ordinar effect of a commercial firm going into li4uidation, This is es)eciall true for the reason that it was a well @nown fact that (ldecoa N /o, was insolvent, !urthermore, the ban@ was e2)ressl em)owered to ta@e an ste)s which might be necessar , judiciall or e2trajudiciall , for the collection of these credits, The real reason which caused the defendantBs )rovincial customers to cease ma@ing shi)ments was due to the fact that the defendant, being out of funds, could not give its customers an further credit, 8t is therefore clear that the ban@, having e2ercised the authorit conferred u)on it b the com)an in a legal manner, is not res)onsible for an damages which might have resulted from the failure of the defendantBs )rovincial customers to continue doing business with that firm, ". ,ourt 0as >urisdiction as %ank does not seek to e9ercise /ortgage rig0t on rea- *ro*erties in t0e *rovinces The ban@ is not see@ing to e2ercise its mortgage rights u)on the mortgages which the defendant firm holds u)on certain real )ro)erties in the "rovinces of (lba and (mbos /amarines and to sell these )ro)erties at )ublic auction in these )roceedings? nor does the judgment of the trial court directs that this be done, =efore that )ro)ert can be sold the original mortgagors will have to be made )arties, The ban@ is not tr ing to foreclose an mortgages on real )ro)ert e2ecuted b (ldecoa N /o, . ?o-idary o%-igation. Coney >udg/ent against t0e fir/ and forec-osure >udg/ent against t0e ot0ers 8t is true that the ban@ sought and obtained a mone judgment against that firm, and at the same time and in the same action obtained a foreclosure judgment against the other defendants, 8f two or more )ersons are in solidum the debtors of a third )erson, and one or more of such debtors mortgage an of their real )ro)ert situate in the jurisdiction of the court, the creditor, in case his obligation is not )aid at maturit , ma include all of the solidar debtors in the same suit and secure a joint and several judgment against them, as well as judgments of foreclosure u)on the res)ective mortgages, 4. B9tensions does not e9tinguis0 t0e /ortgages The contention that the e2tensions granted to (ldecoa N /o,Bs debtors, with the consent and authorit of that firm itself, has resulted in e2tinguishment of the mortgages created b (ldecoa N /o, or of the mortgages created b )artners of that com)an to secure its liabilities to the ban@, is untenable, The record shows that all the sureties were re)resented b 5r4uhart, the )erson elected b them as li4uidator of the firm, when he agreed with the ban@ u)on the e2tensions granted to those debtors, The authorit to grant these e2tensions was conferred u)on the ban@ b the li4uidator, and he was given authorit b all the sureties to authori:e the ban@ to )roceed in this manner, This a))ellant does not contend that she is not )ersonall liable in solidum with (ldecoa N /o, for the liabilit of the latter firm to the )laintiff in the event that the a))eal ta@en b (ldecoa N /o, should be unsuccessful, Ge have just held that the judgment a))ealed from b (ldecoa N /o, should be affirmed, =ut DoIa 8sabel "alet does contend that her liabilit as a )artner for the obligations of (ldecoa N /o,, although solidar , is subsidiar , and that she is entitled to insist that the )ro)ert of (ldecoa N /o, be first a))lied in its entiret to the satisfaction of the firmBs obligations before the ban@ shall )roceed against her in the e2ecution of its judgment, &. )ro*erties 3sa%e- )a-et /ortgage 1ere not security for *erfor/ance of 0er so-idary su%sidiary o%-igation %ut *art of t0e direct o%-igation of t0e fir/ itse-f (lthough the court recogni:ed the subsidiar character of the )ersonal liabilit of DoIa 8sabel "alet as a member of the firm of (ldecoa N /o, and decreed that as to an deficienc which might result after the sale of the mortgaged )ro)erties, e2ecution should not issue against the )ro)erties of DoIa 8sabel "alet until all the )ro)ert of (ldecoa N /o, shall have been e2hausted, The )ro)erties mortgaged b DoIa 8sabel "alet were so mortgaged not merel as securit for the )erformance of her own solidar subsidiar obligation as a )artner bound for all the debts of (ldecoa N /o,, but for the )ur)ose of securing the direct obligation of the firm
)ro*erty' +!!" ( #" )
itself to the ban@, 8t is urged on behalf of DoIa 8sabel "alet that the mortgages e2ecuted b her u)on her individual )ro)ert have been canceled, The ground for this contention is that (ldecoa N /o, undertoo@ b the contract of !ebruar #$, &*0%, to discharge its liabilit to the )laintiff ban@ at the rate of not less than "30,000 )er annum, and that therefore it was the dut of the ban@ to sue (ldecoa N /o, as soon as that firm failed to )a at maturit an one of the )artial )a ments which it had )romised to ma@e, and to a))l the )roceeds from the sale of the )ro)ert of (ldecoa N /o, to the satisfaction of this indebtedness, and that the fact that the ban@ failed to do so is e4uivalent to an e2tension of the term of the )rinci)al debtor, and that the effect of this e2tension has been to e2tinguish the obligation of this defendant as a suret of (ldecoa N /o, 8t is also contended that the ban@ e2)ressl e2tended the term within which (ldecoa N /o, was to satisf its obligation b allowing (ldecoa N /o, to furnish additional securit , DoIa 8sabel "alet alleges that all these acts were done without her @nowledge or consent, 6. 3sa%e- )a-et a *ersona- de%tor in so-idu/ 1it0 A-decoa E ,o.' and not a /ere surety The e2tension of the term which, in accordance with the )rovisions of article &73& of the /ivil /ode )roduces the e2tinction of the liabilit of the suret must of necessit be based on some new agreement between the creditor and )rinci)al debtor, b virtue of which the creditor de)rives himself of his right to immediatel bring an action for the enforcement of his claim, The mere failure to bring an action u)on a credit, as soon as the same or an )art of it matures, does not constitute an e2tension of the term of the obligation, 8n the )resent case, DoIa 8sabel "alet is a )ersonal debtor jointl and severall with (ldecoa N /o, for the whole indebtedness of the latter firm to the ban@, and not a mere suret for the )erformance of the obligations of (ldecoa N /o, without an solidar liabilit , 8t is true that certain additional deeds of mortgage and )ledge were e2ecuted b (ldecoa N /o, in favor of the ban@ as additional securit after (ldecoa N /o, had failed to meet its obligation to )a the first installment due under the agreement of #$ !ebruar &*0%, but there is no sti)ulation whatever in an of these documents or deeds which can in an wa be inter)reted in the sense of constituting an e2tension which would bind the ban@ to wait for the e2)iration of an new term before suing u)on its claim against (ldecoa N /o, 8. 3ntervener is not a *referred creditor over t0e %ank The intervener is see@ing to have himself declared a )referred creditor over the ban@? citing Section &#& of the /ode of /ivil "rocedure which )rovides that D( )erson ma , at an )eriod of a trial, u)on motion, be )ermitted b the court to intervene in an action or )roceeding, if he has legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the )arties, or an interest against both,E The amount ("#&,000) to which the intervener is a creditor of (ldecoa N /o, is not evidenced b a )ublic document, or an document for that matter, nor secured b )ledge or mortgage, while the amount due the ban@ a))ears in a )ublic instrument and is also secured b )ledges and mortgages on the )ro)ert of (ldecoa N /o,, out of which the intervener see@s to have his indebtedness satisfied, 8t is, therefore, clear that the intervener is not entitled to the relief sought, !urther, the amount ("&4,000) sought b the intervener as salar re)resents his salar as li4uidator of the firm and not to salar )rior to li4uidation, #. Receiver a**ointed %y t0e court *referred in *ay/ent of fees over creditors. 3ntervener 1as a**ointed %y /e/%ers of t0e ,o/*any 1it0out a**rova- fro/ t0e creditor<%ank The ruling of the su)reme court of S)ain in &% .arch &7*' was correct to the effect that the fees of a receiver, a))ointed b the court to )reserve )ro)ert in litigation, must be )aid in )reference to the claims of creditors, 8n said ruling the court said Dthat the e2)ense of maintenance of )ro)ert is bound to affect such )ersons as have an interest therein, whether the be the owners or creditors of the )ro)ert ? therefore )a ment for this object has )reference over an other debt, since such other debts are recoverable to the e2tent that the )ro)ert is )reserved and maintained,E 8n the )resent case, however, 5r4uhart was elected li4uidator b the members of the firm of (ldecoa N /o, without the consent or a))roval of the ban@ or of an other creditor, +e did not receive his em)lo ment b reason of an judicial act, Ghatever ma be due him for his services as
)ro*erty' +!!" ( # )
li4uidator is due under a contract of em)lo ment between himself and the members of the firm of (ldecoa N /o, 1!. 3ntervener not *referred over creditors over t0e fir/:s *ersona- *ro*erty. /ortgage over rea*ro*erty not *ersona- *ro*erty (rticle &*## of the /ivil /ode )rovides that, with regard to s)ecified the )ersonal )ro)ert of the debtor, the Dcredits for the construction, re)air, )reservation, or for the amount of the sale of )ersonal )ro)ert which ma be in the )ossession of the debtor to the e2tent of the value of the sameE are )referred, The onl )ersonal )ro)ert of (ldecoa N /o, is &% shares of the stoc@ of the =anco 9s)aIol6!ili)ino? 430 shares of the stoc@ of the /om)aIia .aritima (both items )receding were )ledged before the li4uidation)? $$0 shares of the stoc@ of the "asa 9state /o,, ;td, (which were in the )ossession of (ldecoa N co or its li4uidator for onl & da )? and certain claims against debtors of (ldecoa N /o,, mentioned in 92hibit 1, which were assigned to the ban@ on $0 Januar &*0', (s the intervener has been )aid for his services u) to Januar &*&0, he cannot be declared a )referred creditor of the ban@, The onl )ro)ert of (ldecoa N /o, which the li4uidator had an thing to do with after &*&0 was the real estate mortgages mortgaged to the ban@ as additional securit , These mortgages on real )ro)ert cannot be regarded as )ersonal )ro)ert , and it is onl of )ersonal )ro)ert that article &*## s)ea@s of, 11. )-ea of anot0er action *ending is not sustained if its *endency is set u* to defeat anot0er The )rinci)le u)on which a )lea of another action )ending is sustained is that the latter action is deemed unnecessar and ve2atious (M) )a9! v!. Ga!(on, 1$% A a., 21$& $2 5ou., 552& 1 Cy4. 21& 1 RC", !e4. 1.+ but when the )endenc of such a suit is set u) to defeat another, the case must be the same, There must be the same )arties, or at least such as re)resent the same interest, there must be the same rights asserted, and the same relief )ra ed for, This relief must be founded on the same facts, and the title or essential basis of the relief sought must be the same, The identit in these )articulars should be such that if the )ending case had alread been dis)osed of, it could be )leaded in bar as a former adjudication of the same matter between the same )arties (Ma(!on v!. 3one!, 1* Ma ., 679, 715& 20 ". e8., 666+. 8n the )resent case, the case and the one )ending in the Su)reme /ourt are identical? thus the in4uir must therefore )roceed to the other re4uisites demanded b the rule, The former suit is one to annul the mortgages, The )resent suit is one for the foreclosure of the mortgages, 8t ma be conceded that if the final judgment in the former action is that the mortgages be annulled, such an adjudication will den the right of the ban@ to foreclose the mortgages, 1+. ;est of identity The test of identit , stated in & / c,, #7, is that Da )lea of the )endenc of a )rior action is not available unless the )rior action is of such a character that, had a judgment been rendered therein on the merits, such a judgment would be conclusive between the )arties and could be )leaded in bar of the second action,E This test has been a))roved, citing the 4uotation, in Gilliams vs, 1aston (&47 (la,, #&4? 4# Sou,, 33#)? >an >lec@ vs, (nderson (&$% 8owa, $%%? &&$ <, G,, 73$)? Get:stein vs, .ining /o, (#7 .ont,, 43&? '# ",, 7%3), 8t is a))licable, between the same )arties, onl when the judgment to be rendered in the action first instituted will be such that, regardless of which )art is successful, it will amount to res adjudicata against the second action, 1". =udg/ent dec-aring t0e c0i-dren as creditors and not *artners of A-decoa not %inding to t0e %ank 8t a))ears that a certified co) of the judgment entered in the former case, wherein it was declared that the children, were creditors and )artners of (ldecoa N /o,, was offered in evidence, Such evidence was objected to b the ban@ on the ground that is was res inter alios acta and not com)etent evidence against the ban@ or binding u)on it in an wa because it was not a )art to that action, This objection was sustained and the )roffered evidence e2cluded, 8t was an action in )ersonam and the ban@ was not a )art , The judgment is binding onl u)on the )arties to the suit and their successors in interest (sec, $0%, /ode of /ivil "rocedure, <o, #),
)ro*erty' +!!" ( #4 )
[ #] 3gnacio v. Director of Lands [G.R. No. L<1+#48. Cay "!' 1#&!.] !irst Division, .ontema or (J): 7 concur $acts( !austino 8gnacio, on #3 Januar &*30, filed an a))lication for the registration of a )arcel of land (mangrove), adjoining a )arcel of land that 8gnacio has )reviousl ac4uired from the 1overnment b virtue of a free )atent title in &*$%, situated in barrio 1asac, <avotas, Ri:al, with an area of $',7'' s4,m,, ;ater, he amended his a))lication b alleging among others that he owned the )arcel a))lied for b right of accretion? the )arcel being formed b accretion and alluvial de)osits caused b the action of the .anila =a which borders it on the sourtwest, +e also claims that he had occu)ied the land since &*$3, )lanting it with a)i6a)i trees, and that his )ossession has been continuous, adverse and )ublic for a )eriod of #0 ears until said )ossession was disturbed b >aleriano, To the a))lication, the Director of ;ands, ;aureano >aleriano and Domingo 1utierre: filed o))ositions, 1utierre: later withdrew his o))osition, The Director of ;ands claimed the )arcel a))lied for as a )ortion of the )ublic domain, being a foreshore land covered b the ebb and flow of the tide, 8n his turn, >aleriano alleged that he was holding the land b virtue of a )ermit granted him b the =ureau of !isheries, issued on &$ Januar &*4', and a))roved b the "resident, (fter hearing, the /!8 Ri:al dismissed 8gnacioBs a))lication for the registration of the )arcel of land, holding it to form )art of the )ublic domain, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the a))ealed decision, with costs, 1. Artic-e 46 N,, does not a**-y as it covers accretion on %anks of rivers (rticle 43' of the <ew /ivil /ode ((rticle $%%, -ld /ivil /ode), which )rovides that Dto the owners of lands adjoining the ban@s of rivers belong the accretion which the graduall receive from the effects of the current of the waters,E This is ina))licable as it refers to accretion or de)osits on the ban@s of rivers, while the accretion in the )resent case was caused b action of the .anila =a , +. Artic-e 1' and 4 of t0e La1 of Aaters a**-y (accretion for/ed %y t0e sea) as %ay is *art of t0e sea (rticles &, 4 and 3 of the ;aw of Gaters are a))licable, referring to accretions formed b the sea, .anila =a is a )art of the sea, being a mere indentation of the same, (s defined, ba is an o)ening into the land where the water is shut in on all sides e2ce)t at the entrance? an inlet of the sea? an arm of the sea, distinct from a river, a bending or curbing of the shore of the sea or of a la@e, ". A**-ication of La1 of Aaters on -ands %ordering Cani-a Bay. cases The Su)reme /ourt has in some cases a))lied the ;aw of Gaters on ;ands bordering .anila =a ? such as the cases of Ker N /o, vs, /auden, % "hil,, '$#, involving a )arcel of land bounded on the sides b .anila =a , where it was held that such land formed b the action of the sea is )ro)ert of the State? !rancisco vs, 1overnment of ",8,, #7 "hil,, 303, involving a land claimed b a )rivate )erson and subject to the ebb and flow of the tides of the .anila =a , . 3nter*retation of Artic-e of t0e La1 of Aaters of 18&&. Dec-aration t0at -and is not necessary for *ur*oses of *u%-ic uti-ity' etc.' -ies 1it0 t0e e9ecutive and *ossi%-y t0e -egis-ative de*art/ents (rticle 4 of the ;aw of Gaters of &7%% )rovides that when a )ortion of the shore is no longer washed b the waters of the sea and is not necessar for )ur)oses of )ublic utilit , or for the establishment of s)ecial industries, or for coastguard service, the government shall declare it to be the )ro)ert of the owners of the estates adjacent thereto and as an increment thereof, Ge believe that onl the e2ecutive and )ossibl the legislative de)artments have the authorit and the )ower to ma@e the declaration that an land so gained b the sea, is not necessar for )ur)oses of )ublic utilit , or for the establishment of s)ecial industries, or for coast6guard service, 8f no such declaration has been made b said de)artments, the lot in 4uestion forms )art
)ro*erty' +!!" ( #& )
of the )ublic domain,E (<atividad vs, Director of ;ands L/(M, $' -1 #*03) 4. ,ourt are not in *osition to deter/ine if -and are used as s*ecified in Artic-e of t0e La1 of Aaters The courts are neither )rimaril called u)on, nor indeed in a )osition to determine whether an )ublic land are to be used for the )ur)oses s)ecified in (rticle 4 of the ;aw of Gaters (>icente Joven .onteverde v, Director of ;ands (*$ "hil, &$4), &. )u%-ic do/ain not su%>ect to ordinary *rescri*tion ;and of the )ublic domain is not subject to ordinar )rescri)tion, DThe occu)ation or material )ossession of an land formed u)on the shore b accretion, without )revious )ermission from the )ro)er authorities, although the occu)ant ma have held the same as owner for seventeen ears and constructed a wharf on the land, is illegal and is a mere detainer, inasmuch as such land is outside of the s)here of commerce? it )ertains to the national domain? it is intended for )ublic uses and for the benefit of those who live nearb , (8nsular 1overnment vs, (ldecoa N /o,, &* "hil,, 303) [4!] 3gnacio v. Hi-ario [G.R. No. L<164. A*ri- "!' 1# &.] 9n =anc, .oran (J): &0 concur $acts( 9lias +ilario and his wife Dionisia Dres filed a com)laint Damian, !rancisco and ;uis 8gnacio concerning the ownershi) of a )arcel of land, )artl rice6land and )artl residential, (fter the trial of the case, the lower court (Judge (lfonso !eli2), rendered judgment holding +ilario and Dres as the legal owners of the whole )ro)ert but conceding to the 8gnacios the ownershi) of the houses and granaries built b them on the residential )ortion with the rights of a )ossessor in good faith, in accordance with article $%& of the /ivil /ode? without )ronouncement is made as to damages and costs, Subse4uentl , in a motion filed in the same /!8 (Judge +on, !eli)e <atividad), +ilario and Dres )ra ed for an order of e2ecution alleging that since the chose neither to )a the 8gnacios for the buildings nor to sell to them the residential lot, the 8gnacios should be ordered to remove the structure at their own e2)ense and to restore +ilario and Dres in the )ossession of said lot, (fter hearing, the motion was granted b Judge <atividad, +ence, the )etition for certiorari was filed b the 8gnacios )ra ing for (a) a restraint and annulment of the order of e2ecution issued b Judge <atividad? (b) an order to com)el +ilario and Dres to )a them the sum of "#,000 for the buildings, or sell to them the residential lot for "43? or (c) a rehearing of the case for a determination of the rights of the )arties u)on failure of e2tra6judicial settlement, The Su)reme /ourt set aside the writ of e2ecution issued b Judge <atividad and ordered the lower court to hold a hearing in the )rinci)al case wherein it must determine the )rices of the buildings and of the residential lot where the are erected, as well as the )eriod of time within which +ilario and Dres ma e2ercise their o)tion either to )a for the buildings or to sell their land, and, in the last instance, the )eriod of time within which the 8gnacios ma )a for the land, all these )eriods to be counted from the date the judgment becomes e2ecutor or una))ealable, (fter such hearing, the court shall render a final judgment according to the evidence )resented b the )arties? with costs against +ilarion and Dres, 1. Rig0t of retention of %ui-der in good fait0 The owner of the building erected in good faith on a land owned b another, is entitled to retain the )ossession of the land until he is )aid the value of his building, under article 43$, (rticle 43$ )rovides that D<ecessar e2)enses shall be refunded to ever )ossessor? but onl the )ossessor in good faith ma retain the thing until such e2)enses are made good to him, 5seful e2)enses shall be refunded to the )ossessor in good faith with the same right of retention, the )erson who has defeated him in the )ossession having the o)tion of
)ro*erty' +!!" ( #6 )
refunding the amount of the e2)enses or )a ing the increase in value which the thing ma have ac4uired in conse4uence thereof,E +. 2*tion of t0e -ando1ner to *ay for t0e %ui-ding or se-- 0is -and to t0e o1ner of t0e %ui-ding. Rig0t of re/otion on-y avai-a%-e if 0e c0ose t0e -atter and t0e o1ner of t0e %ui-ding cannot *ay The owner of the land, u)on the other hand, has the o)tion, under article $%&, either to )a for the building or to sell his land to the owner of the building, (rticle $%& )rovides that DThe owner of land on which an thing has been built, sown or )lanted in good faith, shall have the right to a))ro)riate as his own the wor@, sowing or )lanting, after the )a ment of the indemnit stated in articles 43$ and 434, or to oblige the one who built or )lanted to )a the )rice of the land, and the one who sowed, the )ro)er rent,E +e cannot however refuse both to )a for the building and to sell the land and com)el the owner of the building to remove it from the land where it is erected, +e is entitled to such remotion onl when, after having chosen to sell his land, the other )art fails to )a for the same, ". 2rder a/ends >udg/ent su%stantia--y and t0us nu-- and void The order of Judge <atividad com)elling the 8gnacios to remove their buildings from the land belonging to +ilario and Dres onl because the latter chose neither to )a for such buildings nor to sell the land, is null and void, for it amends substantiall the judgment sought to be e2ecuted and is, furthermore, offensive to articles $%& and 43$ of the /ivil /ode, . 2rigina- decision did not %eco/e fina- as it fai-ed to deter/ine t0e va-ue of t0e %ui-dings and of t0e -ot. and t0e ti/e to 10ic0 t0e o*tion /ay %e e9ercised 8n the decision of Judge !eli2, the rights of both )arties were well defined under articles $%& and 43$ of the /ivil /ode, but it failed to determine the value of the buildings and of the lot where the are erected as well as the )eriods of time within which the o)tion ma be e2ercised and )a ment should be made, these )articulars having been left for determination a))arentl after the judgment has become final, The )rocedure is erroneous, for after the judgment has become final, no additions can be made thereto and nothing can be done therewith e2ce)t its e2ecution, (nd e2ecution cannot be had, the sheriff being ignorant as to how, for how much, and within what time ma the o)tion be e2ercised, and certaint no authorit is vested in him to settle these matters which involve e2ercise of judicial discretion, Thus, the judgment rendered b Judge !eli2 has never become final, it having left matters to be settled for its com)letion in a subse4uent )roceeding, matters which remained unsettled u) to the time the )etition is filed in the )resent case, [41] 3gnao v. 3A, [G.R. No. 6+86&. =anuary 18' 1##1.] Third Division, !ernan (J): $ concur $acts( ( lot situated in =arrio Tabon, .unici)alit of Kawit, /avite, with an area of 3$4 s4, m, was originall owned b =alta:ar 8gnao who married twice, 8n his first marriage, he had 4 children, namel Justo (the father of !lorencio), ;eon, Juan and 8sidro, 8n his second marriage, =alta:ar had also 4 children but the latter waived their rights over the controverted land in favor of Justo, Thus, Justo owned 4A7 of the land which was waived b his half6brothers and sisters )lus his &A7 share or a total of 3A7, Thereafter, Justo ac4uired the &A7 share of ;eon for "300,00 which he later sold to his son !lorencio for the same amount, Ghen Justo died, !lorencio inherited the 3A7 share of his father Justo )lus his &A7 share of the land which he bought or a total of %A7 (re)resenting 400,3 s4, m,) Juan and 8sidro, on the other hand, had &A7 share (%%,'3 s4, m,) each of the land or a total of &$$,3 s4, m, Thus, !lorencio and his uncles Juan and 8sidro were co6owners of a )arcel of land, "ursuant to an action for )artition filed b !lorencio 8gnao (/ivil /ase <6&%7&), the then /!8 /avite in a decision dated % !ebruar &*'3 directed the )artition of the aforesaid land, alloting &$$,3 s4, m, or #A7 thereof to Juan and 8sidro, and giving the remaining )ortion with a total area of #%%,3 s4, m, to )etitioner !lorencio, +owever, no actual )artition was ever effected,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( #8 )
-n &' Jul &*'7, !lorencio instituted a com)laint for recover of )ossession of real )ro)ert against Juan and 8sidro before the /!8 /avite (/ivil /ase #%%#), 8n his com)laint, !lorencio alleged that the area occu)ied b the # houses built b Juan and 8sidro e2ceeded the &$$,3 s4, m, )reviousl alloted to them b the trial court in /ivil /ase <6&%7&, (n ocular ins)ection was conducted b the lower court? which found that the houses of Juan and 8sidro actuall encroached u)on a )ortion of the land belonging to !lorencio, 5)on agreement of the )arties, the trial court ordered a licensed geodetic engineer to conduct a surve to determine the e2act area occu)ied b the houses of Juan and 8sidro, The surve subse4uentl disclosed that the house of Juan occu)ied 4# s4, m, while that of 8sidro occu)ied 3* s4, m, of !lorencioBs land or a total of &0& s4, m, 8n its decision, the trial court (thru Judge ;uis ;, >ictor) ruled that although Juan and 8sidro occu)ied a )ortion of !lorencioBs )ro)ert , the should be considered builders in good faith, The trial court observed that based on the facts of the case, it would be useless and unsuitable for !lorencio to e2ercise the first o)tion (of a))ro)riating )art of the house standing on his lot) since this would render the entire houses of Juan and 8sidro worthless, The trial court then a))lied the ruling in the similar case of 1rana vs, /ourt of ())eals, where the Su)reme /ourt had advanced a more Dwor@able solutionE, Thus, it ordered !lorencio to sell to Juan and 8sidro those )ortions of his land res)ectivel occu)ied b the latter at "40,00 )er s4, m,, and to e2ecute the necessar deed of conve ance to the Juan and 8sidro? without )ronouncement as to costs, !lorencio a))ealed to the 8(/, -n #' (ugust &*73, the ())ellate /ourt (Second /ivil /ases Division), )romulgated a decision, affirming the decision of the trial court, +ence the )etition for review b certiorari, The Su)reme /ourt modified the decision a))ealed from, The /ourt directed !lorencio to e2ercise his o)tion to either a))ro)riate as his own the )ortions of the houses of Juan and 8sidro 8gnao occu) ing his land u)on )a ment of indemnit in accordance with (rticles 34% and 347 of the /ivil /ode, or sell to )rivate res)ondents the &0& s4, m, occu)ied b them at such )rice as ma be agreed u)on? within $0 da s from entr of judgment, Should the value of the land e2ceed the value of the )ortions of the houses that Juan and 8sidro have erected thereon, the latter ma choose not to bu the land but the must )a reasonable rent for the use of the )ortion of !lorencioBs land as ma be agreed u)on b the )arties, 8n case of disagreement, the rate of rental and other terms of the lease shall be determined b the trial court, -therwise, Juan and 8sidro ma remove or demolish at their own e2)ense the said )ortions of their houses encroaching u)on !lorencioBs land? Githout costs, 1. ,o<o1ners 0o-d *ro*erty in co//on do/inion' 1it0 eac0 an o1ner of s0are (a%stract and undeter/ined unti- *artition is effected "rior to )artition, all the co6owners hold the )ro)ert in common dominion but at the same time each is an owner of a share which is abstract and undetermined until )artition is effected, (s cited in 'use5io vs. #nter&ediate Appellate Court, Dan undivided estate is co6ownershi) b the heirs,E (s co6owners, the )arties ma have une4ual shares in the common )ro)ert , 4uantitativel s)ea@ing, =ut in a 4ualitative sense, each co6 owner has the same right as an one of the other co6owners, 9ver co6owner is therefore the owner of the whole, and over the whole he e2ercises the right of dominion, but he is at the same time the owner of a )ortion which is trul abstract, because until division is effected such )ortion is not concretel determined, +. Artic-e 8 (rticle 447 )rovides that Dthe owner of the land on which an thing has been built, sown or )lanted in good faith, shall have the right to a))ro)riate as his own the wor@s, sowing or )lanting, after )a ment of the indemnit )rovided for in articles 34% and 347, or to oblige the one who built or )lanted to )a the )rice of the land, and the one who sowed, the )ro)er rent, +owever, the builder or )lanter cannot be obliged to bu the land if its value is considerabl more than that of the building or trees, 8n such case, he shall )a reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to a))ro)riate the building or trees after )ro)er indemnit , The )arties shall agree u)on the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fi2 the terms thereof,E
)ro*erty' +!!" ( ## )
". Artic-e 8 does not a**-y to a co<o1ner. e9ce*t co<o1ners0i* is ter/inated 8n the case of Spouses del Ca&po vs. A5esia, it was held that (rticle 447 of the /ivil /ode cannot a))l where a co6owner builds, )lants or sows on the land owned in common for then he did not build, )lant or sow u)on land that e2clusivel belongs to another but of which he is a co6owner, The co6owner is not a third )erson under the circumstances, and the situation is governed b the rules of co6ownershi), +owever, when the co6ownershi) is terminated b a )artition and it a))ears that the house of an erstwhile co6owner has encroached u)on a )ortion )ertaining to another co6owner which was however made in good faith, then the )rovisions of (rticle 447 should a))l to determine the res)ective rights of the )arties, . Rig0t to a**ro*riate 1orks or to o%-ige %ui-der to *ay t0e *rice of t0e -and %e-ongs to t0e -ando1ner (s held in 8ue&uel vs. 9laes, it was categoricall ruled that the right to a))ro)riate the wor@s or im)rovements or to oblige the builder to )a the )rice of the land belongs to the landowner, =oth the trial court and the ())ellate /ourt erred when the )erem)toril ado)ted the Dwor@able solutionE in the case of 1rana vs, /ourt of ())eals, and ordered the owner of the land, !lorencio, to sell to Juan and 8sidro, the )art of the land the intruded u)on, thereb de)riving !lorencio of his right to choose, Such ruling contravened the e2)licit )rovisions of (rticle 447 to the effect that Dthe owner of the land shall have the right to a))ro)riate or to oblige the one who built to )a the )rice of the land,E The law is clear and unambiguous when it confers the right of choice u)on the landowner and not u)on the builder and the courts, 4. Deter/ination of *rice to %e *aid *re/ature The 4uestion on the )rice to be )aid on the land need not be discussed as this would be )remature inasmuch as !lorencio has et to e2ercise his o)tion as the owner of the land, [4+] 3nter<regiona- Deve-o*/ent ,or*oration v. ,A [G.R. No. L<"#&66. =u-y ++' 1#64.] !irst division, /astro (J): 4 concur, & on leave $acts( 8n civil case 7&*3 in the /!8 8loilo (=ranch $, 8nter6Regional Develo)ment /or)oration vs, 8sidro 9strada), for the annulment of sales and damages and involving land ownershi), the /ourt through Judge /astrence >eloso, ordered Jose and 8sabel =aIe: ()resident and treasurer, res)ectivel , of the 8nter6Regional Develo)ment /or)oration) or their )rivies to immediatel vacate the )ossession of ;ots & and %, "lan "su6 &&74*% to 8sidro (, 9strada, third6)art )laintiff, and not to molest, disturb or in an manner interfere with his )ossession thereof, The cor)oration a))ealed? nonetheless, Judge >eloso issued, on ' .a &*'$, a )artial writ of e2ecution )ending a))eal, and )ossession of the two lots was delivered to 9strada, following which the latter, on #3 .a &*'$, leased the lots to Ricardo /aballero for a term of &0 ears, starting with the cro) ear &*'$6'4, -n Jul %, &*'$ the cor)oration filed a s)ecial civil action for certiorari with the /ourt of ())eals, )ra ing that Judge >eloso be enjoined from enforcing the )artial writ of e2ecution, +olding that the said Judge did not abuse his discretion in ordering )artial e2ecution, the /ourt of ())eals, on &% -ctober &*'$, dismissed the )etition, This decision became final, 3 da s before entr of judgment, or on &3 <ovember &*'$, the cor)oration filed civil case *3%#, for injunction and damages, against the lessee /aballero to settle the 4uestion of ownershi) of the sugar cro) for &*'$6'4 which the cor)oration alleged to have )lanted in good faith on the lands litigated in civil case 7&*3, -n &% Januar &*'4, Judge Sancho T, 8nserto of the /!8 8loilo (=ranch &) enjoined Ricardo /aballero in /ivil /ase *3%# (8nter6Regional Develo)ment /or)oration vs, Ricardo /aballero) from cutting and milling the sugar cane cro) which the com)an asserts to have )lanted in good faith, /aballero moved for reconsideration, but before the court could act on his motion, he filed a )etition for certiorari with the /(, -n
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1!! )
$0 Se)tember &*'4 the a))ellate court )romulgated its decision setting aside Judge 8nsertoBs )reliminar injunction, The cor)oration filed a )etition for review on certiorari with the Su)reme /ourt, The /ourt resolved to treat the case as a s)ecial civil action u)on consideration of the allegations contained, the issues raised, and the arguments adduced, The /ourt also issued a TR- )reventing the /( from e2ecuting its decision, and )reventing /aballero and his assigns from cutting the sugar cane, The Su)reme /ourt set aside the judgment of the /ourt of ())eals and the restraining order issued is made )ermanent, without )rejudice, however, to the final outcome in case *3%# of the /!8 8loilo? without costs, 1. )re-i/inary in>unction in case #4&+ and t0e *artia- 1rit of e9ecution *ending a**ea- issued in case 81#4 are co/*-e/entary and not interfering 1it0 eac0 ot0er. A%sent inco/*ati%i-ity' doctrine t0at e5ua- courts 0ave no *o1er to interfere does not a**-y The )reliminar injunction issued in case *3%# (b Judge 8nserto enjoining /aballero from cutting and milling the sugar cane) and the )artial writ of e2ecution )ending a))eal issued in case 7&*3 (b Judge >eloso ordering the =aIe: s)ouses to vacate and surrender )ossession of the )arcels of land and not to molest or disturb 9stradaBs, /aballeroBs lessor, )ossession thereof) do not interfere with the other? but as a matter of fact the order of Judge 8nserto com)lements that of Judge >eloso, The latter refers to the land itself, the ownershi) of which was the onl issue adjudged in the decision )ending a))eal, while the former refers to the sugar cane cro) standing thereon, (bsent an incom)atibilit between the orders issued b Judges 8nserto and >eloso, the doctrine that no court has the )ower to interfere b injunction with the judgment or decrees of another court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction, having e4ual )ower to grant the relief, does not a))l , +. Lando1ner does not i*so facto ac5uire o1ners0i* of 10at 0as %een *-anted. good fait0 is issue True it is that under article 440 of the /ivil /ode the ownershi) of )ro)ert includes the right of accession to ever thing attached thereto either naturall or artificiall , and that under article 4&3, trees, )lants and growing fruits, while the are attached to the land, are immovable )ro)ert ? it is e4uall true that when a )erson )lants in good faith on land belonging to another, the landowner does not i)so facto ac4uire ownershi) of what has been )lanted? he must first indemnif the )lanter before he can a))ro)riate the same, 8n the )resent case, the )etitioner has alleged good faith in )lanting the sugar cane, thus giving rise to a conflict of rights which )oses the issue of the )rotection of the alleged )lanter in good faith without causing injustice to the landowner, ". Gat0ering cro*s e9isting as Bstrada:s rig0t of o1ners0i* and *ossession *re/ature The /ourt of ())eals erred in holding that the gathering of the cro)s e2isting on the land is )art of 9stradaBs right of ownershi) and )ossession, as this, in effect )rematurel held that the )etitioner is a )lanter in bad faith, The issues as to who )lanted and whether the )lanter )lanted in good faith are the ver issues )osed in case *3%#, which is et )ending, . )rocedure. )eris0a%i-ity of goods a--o1 t0e 0earing of *etition for certiorari even if /otion for reconsideration is *ending in t0e -o1er court The /ourt of ())eals did not err in entertaining the )etition for certiorari even if a motion for reconsideration had not et been resolved b the /ourt of !irst 8nstance, in view of the urgenc of securing a definitive ruling on the sugar cane cro), which is )erishable, [4"] =acinto v. Director of Lands [G.R. No. +&"6 . Dece/%er "1' 1#+&.] 9n =anc, -strand (J): ' concur $acts( During the )eriod from &*&& to &*&$, sales certificates were issued b the =ureau of ;ands to !ran@ G, /ar)enter for more than &00 lots of the Tala and "iedad !riar ;ands states located in <ovaliches, /aloocan, Ri:al including the lots %'0, %*0, %*&, %*3, %*%, %*' %*7, %**, '00, '0&, *30, *3&, *3#, *3$, *34,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1!1 )
*33, *3%, *3', and &030, The total area of the land covered b the sales certificates being over &,4*0 hectares and the )urchase )rice amounting to about "3%,%00, of which amount /ar)enter u) to the ear &*#$, had )aid in installments the sum of "&%,#'#, 5nder a judgment rendered against /ar)enter in the /!8 of .anila (/ivil /ase #4%0'), e2ecution was levied u)on all of his right, title and interest in the lots )urchased together with the im)rovements thereon, and on &% <ovember &*#$, the sheriff of Ri:al sold the )ro)ert to <icanor Jacinto, The sheriffBs sale was registered in the =ureau of ;ands, assignments of the =ureau of ;andsB sales certificates were dul recorded, and certificates of assignment were issued and delivered to <icanor Jacinto in Se)tember &*#4, -n $& .arch &*#3, the .etro)olitan Gater District instituted )roceedings in the /!8 Ri:al for the condemnation of certain )arcels of land situated in the munici)alit of /aloocan for the construction of an earth dam and a first6class highwa $ @ilometers long, in connection with the so6called (ngat Gater Gor@s "roject, and on the same date the /!8 Ri:al issued an order authori:ing the .etro)olitan Gater District to ta@e )ossession of said )arcels of land u)on de)osit with the )rovincial treasurer of the sum of "$,000 as the )rovisional value, fi2ed b the court, of the )arcels so to be condemned, = virtue of this order, the .etro)olitan Gater District entered into occu)ation of the land and began the construction of )ermanent im)rovements thereon, /o)ies of the com)laint as well as of the order of $& .arch &*#3, were filed with the register of deeds of the "rovince of Ri:al on && !ebruar &*#%, to be recorded as notices of lis )endens, The lots enumerated above were included in the land sought to be e2)ro)riated and <icanor Jacinto was made a )art defendant in the )roceedings, +e admitted the e2istence of the right of condemnation and the necessit for the e2)ro)riation, but demanded the sum of "%4,7$*,$$ as indemnit for the e2)ro)riation, (s the actual )urchase )rice to be )aid b the )urchaser from the 1overnment onl amounts to "&$,'#3, including interest, the .etro)olitan Gater District considered JacintoBs demand e2cessive and declined to )a the claim, 8n the month of Jul &*#%, the a))licant tendered )a ment to the Director of ;ands of the sum of "4,%30 to cover the remaining balance of the sales )rice of the lots in 4uestion and demanded a corres)onding deed of conve ance for said lots, The Director of ;ands, u)on the advice of the (ttorne 61eneral, rejected the tender and refused to e2ecute and deliver the instrument of conve ance demanded from him, ())licant filed a )etition for a writ of mandamus to com)el the Director of ;ands to e2ecute a deed of conve ance in favor of the a))licant for the lots enumerated belonging to the Tala !riar ;ands 9state in <ovaliches, The Su)reme /ourt ordered the Director of ;ands to receive the balance of the )urchase mone for an or all of the lots in 4uestion if and when )a ment thereof is tendered b Jacinto, and denied the )etition as to the e2ecution of deeds of conve ance? without costs, 1. )ro*rietary rig0ts' e9ce*t t0at of occu*ation' not affected %y conde/nation *roceedings The )ro)rietar rights, e2ce)t the right of occu)ation, are not affected b the condemnation )roceedings until the title has )assed to the )laintiff and that does not occur until the award of com)ensation or damages has been satisfied, +. )etition for a 1rit of /anda/us not *ro*er re/edy to co/*e- a conveyance .andamus is not the )ro)er remed to enforce )urel contract rights, such as that in the )resent case sought to be enforced, (&7 R, /, ;,, &#&? Fuiogue vs, Romualde:, 4% "hil,, $$',) ". Land is *atri/onia- *ro*erty of t0e Govern/ent. Duty to e9ecute deeds of conveyance devo-ved u*on t0e Governor<GeneraThe writ cannot issue in the )resent case unless it a))ears that the Director of ;ands Dunlawfull neglects the )erformance of an act which the law s)eciall enjoins as a dut resulting from an office, trust, or station,E (Section ###, /ode of /ivil "rocedure,) The land in 4uestion is )rivate or )atrimonial )ro)ert of the "hili))ine 1overnment and we can find no law s)eciall enjoining u)on the Director of ;ands the dut to e2ecute deeds of conve ance to )urchasers of such lands? on the contrar , that dut , under section 3%' of the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1!+ )
(dministrative /ode, a))ears to devolve u)on the 1overnor61eneral, . Director of Land 0as duty to receive *urc0ase /oney *aya%-e under Act 11+! = section &4 of (ct <o, &&#0 the Director of ;ands is charged with the dut of receiving the )urchase mone )a able under that (ct and ma therefore be com)elled b mandamus to receive, as a )urel ministerial act, such )urchase mone when tendered, [4 ] =agua-ing v. ,A [G.R. No. # +8". Carc0 ' 1##1.] !irst Division, 1anca co (J): 4 concur $acts( ( certain )arcel of land is located in Sta, /ru:, Tagoloan, .isamis -riental with an area of &%,43# s4, m,, forming )art of an island in a non6navigable river, bounded b the Tagoloan river on the north, south, and east and b the )ortion belonging to >icente <eri on the west, 1anita 'duave clai&s that she inherited the land from her father, !elomino !actura, together with his co6heirs, Reneiro !actura and (ldenora !actura, and ac4uired sole ownershi) of the )ro)ert b virtue of a Deed of 92tra Judicial "artition with sale, The land is declared for ta2 )ur)oses under Ta2 Declaration #%&$' with an area of &%,43# s4, m, Since the death of her father on 3 .a &*4*, 9duave had been in )ossession of the )ro)ert although the ta2 declaration remains in the name of the deceased father, The entire land had an area of &%,43# s4, m, a))earing in the deed of e2trajudicial )artition, while in ta2 declaration the area is onl 4,*$' s4, m,, and she reasoned out that she included the land that was under water, The land was eroded sometime in <ovember &*%4 due to t )hoon 8neng, destro ing the bigger )ortion and the im)rovements leaving onl a coconut tree, 8n &*%% due to the movement of the river de)osits on the land that was not eroded increased the area to almost half a hectare and in &*'0 9duave started to )lant banana trees, 8n &*'$, .a2imo and (nuncita Jagualing as@ed her )ermission to )lant corn and bananas )rovided that the )revent s4uatters to come to the area, 9duave engaged the services of a surve or who conducted a surve and )laced concrete monuments over the land, 9duave also )aid ta2es on the land in litigation, and mortgaged the land to the ;u:on Suret and /o,, for a consideration of "%,000,00, The land was the subject of a reconve ance case, in the /!8 .isamis -riental (=ranch >, /aga an de -ro /it , /ivil /ase 37*#), between Janita 9duave vs, +eirs of (ntonio !actura, which was the subject of judgment b com)romise in view of the amicable settlement of the )arties, dated $& .a &*'*, The heirs of (ntonio !actura had ceded a )ortion of the land with an area of &,#7* s4, m,, to Janita 9duave in a notarial document of conve ance, )ursuant to the decision of the /!8, after a subdivision of the lot %# "ls6'**, and containing &,#7* s4, m, was designated as ;ot %#6(, and the subdivision )lan was a))roved as "ls6'**6"sd6 $ &0600&'7#, 9duave also a))lied for concession with the =ureau of .ines to e2tract #00 m of grave, and after an ocular ins)ection the )ermit was granted, 9duave, after )ermit was granted, entered into an agreement with Tagoloan (ggregates to e2tract sand and gravel, which agreement was registered in the office of the Register of Deeds, Ma:i&o and Anuncita 1agualing assert that the are the real owners of the land in litigation containing an area of &7,000 s4, m, During the t )hoon 8neng in &*%4 the river control was washed awa causing the formation of an island, Jagualing started occu) ing the land in &*%*, )aid land ta2es as evidenced b ta2 declaration #%$70 and ta2 recei)ts, and ta2 clearances, (ctual occu)ation of the land b Jagualing included im)rovements and the house, Rud gondo and Janita 9duave filed with the RT/ .isamis -riental an action to 4uiet title andAor remove a cloud over the )ro)ert in 4uestion against Jagualing, -n &' Jul &*7' the trial court dismissed the com)laint for failure of 9duave to establish b )re)onderance of evidence their claim of ownershi) over the land in litigation, The court found that the island is a delta forming )art of the river bed which the government ma use to reroute, redirect or control the course of the Tagoloan River, (ccordingl , it held that it was outside the commerce of man and )art of the )ublic domain, citing (rticle 4#0 of the /ivil /ode, (s such it cannot be registered under the land registration law or be ac4uired b )rescri)tion, The trial court, however, recogni:ed
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1!" )
the validit of JagualingBs )ossession and gave them )referential rights to use and enjo the )ro)ert , The trial court added that should the State allow the island to be the subject of )rivate ownershi), the Jagualings have rights better than that of 9duave, -n a))eal to the /ourt of ())eals, the court found that the island was formed b the branching off of the Tagoloan River and subse4uent thereto the accumulation of alluvial de)osits, =asing its ruling on (rticles 4%$ and 4%3 of the /ivil /ode, the /ourt of ())eals reversed the decision of the trial court, declared 9duave as the lawful and true owners of the land subject of the case and ordered Jagualing to vacate the )remises and deliver )ossession of the land to 9duave, +ence, the )resent )etition, The Su)reme /ourt found no error committed b the a))ellate court, denied the )etition for lac@ of sufficient merit, and affirmed the decision of the /ourt of ())eals? without )ronouncement as to costs, 1. Bvidence not *ro*er-y a**reciated %y tria- court. ,A *ro*er-y a**-ied Artic-e &" The a))ellate court reversed the decision of the trial court because it did not ta@e into account the other )ieces of evidence in favor of the )rivate res)ondents, The com)laint was dismissed b the trial court because it did not acce)t 9duaveBs e2)lanation regarding the initial discre)anc as to the area the claimed (4*$'s4,m, v, &%43# s4,m,)? because it favored the theor that 9duave became interested in the land onl in &*'* not for agricultural )ur)oses but in order to e2tract gravel and sand, which is belied b other circumstances tantamount to acts of ownershi) e2ercised b 9duave over the )ro)ert )rior to said ear (e,g, the )a ment of land ta2es thereon, the monuments )laced b the surve or whose services were engaged b 9duave, the agreement entered into b 9duave and Tagoloan (ggregates to e2tract gravel and sand, which agreement was dul registered with the Register of Deeds)? because it disregarded the testimon of # disinterested witnesses (1ergorio <eri, as to metes and bounds of the )ro)ert and the effect of the t )hoon? and /andida 9hem, as to the careta@er agreement between her and 9duave) without e2)laining wh it doubted their credibilit , !rom the evidence thus submitted, the a))ellate court had sufficient basis for the finding that the )ro)ert of 9duave actuall e2isted and was identified )rior to the branching off or division of the river, The /ourt of ())eals, therefore, )ro)erl a))lied (rticle 4%$ of the /ivil /ode which allows the ownershi) over a )ortion of land se)arated or isolated b river movement to be retained b the owner thereof )rior to such se)aration or isolation, +. 3s-and for/ed in a non<naviga%-e and non<f-oata%-e river. Artic-e &4 The )arcel of land is )art of an island that formed in a non6navigable and non6flotable river? from a small mass of eroded or segregated outcro) of land, it increased to its )resent si:e due to the gradual and successive accumulation of alluvial de)osits, The /ourt of ())eals did not err in a))l ing (rticle 4%3 of the /ivil /ode, 5nder this )rovision, the island belongs to the owner of the land along the nearer margin as sole owner thereof? or more accuratel , because the island is longer than the )ro)ert of 9duave, the are deemed i)so jure to be the owners of that )ortion which corres)onds to the length of their )ro)ert along the margin of the river, ". Land for/ed %y accretion %e-ongs to ri*arian o1ner' even 1it0out a s*ecific act of *ossession over it. Land 0o1ever /ay yie-d to adverse *ossession of t0ird *arty if ri*arian o1ner fai-s to assert c-ai/ ;ands formed b accretion belong to the ri)arian owner, This )referential right is, under (rticle 4%3, also granted the owners of the land located in the margin nearest the formed island for the reason that the are in the best )osition to cultivate and attend to the e2)loitation of the same, 8n fact, no s)ecific act of )ossession over the accretion is re4uired, 8f, however, the ri)arian owner fails to assert his claim thereof, the same ma ield to the adverse )ossession of third )arties, as indeed even accretion to land titled under the torrens s stem must itself still be registered, . Doctrine of ac5uisitive *rescri*tion
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1! )
The )ro)ert ma be ac4uired b adverse )ossession for the re4uired number of ears under the doctrine of ac4uisitive )rescri)tion, JagualingBs )ossession cannot be considered in good faith, however, because the are )resumed to have notice of the status of 9duave as ri)arian owners who have the )referential right to the island as recogni:ed and accorded b law? the ma claim ignorance of the law, s)ecificall (rticle 4%3 of the /ivil /ode, but such is not, under (rticles $ and 3#% of the same code, an ade4uate and valid defense to su))ort their claim of good faith, +ence, not 4ualif ing as )ossessors in good faith, the ma ac4uire ownershi) over the island onl through uninterru)ted adverse )ossession for a )eriod of thirt ears, = their own admission, Jagualing have been in )ossession of the )ro)ert for onl about &3 ears, and thus, the island cannot be adjudicated in their favor, 4. 2rigin of is-and not tack-ed as case is not %et1een o**osing ri*arian o1ners %ut %et1een a ri*arian o1ner and one in *ossession of t0e -and There is no need to ma@e a final determination regarding the origins of the island, i,e,, whether the island was initiall formed b the branching off or division of the river and covered b (rticle 4%$ of the /ivil /ode, in which case there is strictl no accession because the original owner retains ownershi), or whether it was due to the action of the river under (rticle 4%3, or whether it was caused b the abru)t segregation and washing awa of the stoc@)ile of the river control, which ma@es it a case of avulsion under (rticle 43*, as the case is not between )arties as o))osing ri)arian owners contesting ownershi) over an accession but rather between a ri)arian owner and the one in )ossession of the island, &. Guasi in Re/. =udg/ent conc-usive u*on t0e *arties and does not %ind t0e ?tate and ot0er ri*arian o1ners The /ourt is not )re)ared to concede that the island is a delta which should be outside the commerce of man and that it belongs to the State as )ro)ert of the )ublic domain in the absence of an showing that the legal re4uirements to establish such a status have been satisfied, which dut )ro)erl )ertains to the State, Since the )etition is an u)shot of the action to 4uiet title brought b 9duave against Jagualing, it is thus not technicall an action in rem or an action in )ersonam, but characteri:ed as 4uasi in rem, which is an action in )ersonam concerning real )ro)ert , Thus, the judgment in )roceedings of this nature is conclusive onl between the )arties and does not bind the State or the other ri)arian owners who ma have an interest over the island involved herein, [44] Laure- v. Garcia [G.R. No. #+!1" E #+! 6. =u-y +4' 1##!.] -jeda v, .acaraig L1,R, <o, *#04', Jul #3, &**0,M 9n =anc, 1utierre:, Jr, (J): 3 concur $acts( The subject Ro))ongi )ro)ert is one of the four )ro)erties in Ja)an ac4uired b the "hili))ine government under the Re)arations (greement entered into with Ja)an on * .a &*3%, the other lots being the <am)eidai "ro)ert (site of "hili))ine 9mbass /hancer ), the Kobe /ommercial "ro)ert (/ommercial lot used as warehouse and )ar@ing lot of consulate staff), and the Kobe Residential "ro)ert (a vacant residential lot), The )ro)erties and the ca)ital goods and services )rocured from the Ja)anese government for national develo)ment )rojects are )art of the indemnification to the !ili)ino )eo)le for their losses in life and )ro)ert and their suffering during Gorld Gar 88, The Re)arations (greement )rovides that re)arations valued at ]330 million would be )a able in #0 ears in accordance with annual schedules of )rocurements to be fi2ed b the "hili))ine and Ja)anese governments ((rticle #, Re)arations (greement), R( &'7*, the Re)arations ;aw, )rescribes the national )olic on )rocurement and utili:ation of re)arations and develo)ment loans? those which belong to the government and which ma be availed of b )rivate entities, The Ro))ongi )ro)ert was ac4uired from the Ja)anese government under the Second Tear Schedule and listed under the heading D1overnment SectorE, through Re)arations /ontract $00 dated #' June &*37, The Ro)onggi )ro)ert consists of the land and building Dfor the /hancer of the "hili))ine 9mbass ,E (s intended, it became the site of the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1!4 )
"hili))ine 9mbass until the latter was transferred to <am)eidai on ## Jul &*'% when the Ro))ongi building needed major re)airs, Due to the failure of our government to )rovide necessar funds, the Ro))ongi )ro)ert has remained undevelo)ed since that time, During the incumbenc of "resident (4uino, a )ro)osal was made b former "hili))ine (mbassador to Ja)an, /arlos J, >alde:, to lease the subject )ro)ert to Kajima /or)oration, a Ja)anese firm, in e2change of the construction of # buildings in Ro))ongi, & building in <am)eidai, and the renovation of the "hili))ine /hancer in <am)eidai, The 1overnment did not act favorabl to said )ro)osal, but instead, on && (ugust &*7%, "resident (4uino created a committee to stud the dis)osition or utili:ation of "hili))ine government )ro)erties in To@ o and Kobe though (-6$, and (- $6( to $6D, -n #3 Jul &*7', the "resident issued 9#*% entitling non6!ili)ino citi:ens or entities to avail of re)arationsB ca)ital goods and services in the event of sale, lease or dis)osition, The four )ro)erties in Ja)an including the Ro))ongi were s)ecificall mentioned in the first DGhereasE clause, (midst o))osition b various sectors, the 92ecutive branch of the government has been )ushing, with great vigor, its decision to sell the re)arations )ro)erties starting with the Ro))ongi lot, Two )etitions for )rohibition were filed see@ing to enjoin res)ondents, their re)resentatives and agents from )roceeding with the bidding for the sale of the $,&'* s4, m, of land at $0% Ro))onggi, 36/home .inato6@u, To@ o, Ja)an scheduled on #& !ebruar &**0? the tem)orar restaining order of which was granted b the court on #0 !ebruar &**0, 8n 1,R, <o, *#04', a writ of mandamus was )ra ed for to com)el the res)ondents to full disclose to the )ublic the basis of their decision to )ush through with the sale of the Ro))ongi )ro)ert ins)ite of strong )ublic o))osition and to e2)lain the )roceedings which effectivel )revent the )artici)ation of !ili)ino citi:ens and entities in the bidding )rocess, (fter multi)le motions for e2tension to file comment b the res)ondents, the Su)reme /ourt resolved to decide the # cases? thereb granting the )etitions and enjoining the res)ondents from )roceeding with the sale of the Ro))ongi )ro)ert in To@ o, Ja)an, The /ourt also made )ermanent the #0 !ebruar &**0 tem)orar restaining order, 1. Ro*onggi -ot is a *ro*erty of *u%-ic do/inion The nature of the Ro))ongi lot as )ro)ert for )ublic service is e2)ressl s)elled out, 8t is dictated b the terms of the Re)arations (greement and the corres)onding contract of )rocurement which bind both the "hili))ine government and the Ja)anese government, that these were assigned to the government sector and that the Ro))ongi )ro)ert itself was s)ecificall designated under the Re)arations (greement to house the "hili))ine 9mbass , There can be no doubt that it is of )ublic dominion unless it is convincingl shown that the )ro)ert has become )atrimonial? which res)ondents have failed to show, +. )ro*erty of *u%-ic do/inion outside t0e co//erce of /an (s )ro)ert of )ublic dominion, the Ro))ongi lot is outside the commerce of man, 8t cannot be alienated, 8ts ownershi) is a s)ecial collective ownershi) for general use and enjo ment, an a))lication to the satisfaction of collective needs, and resides in the social grou), The )ur)ose is not to serve the State as a juridical )erson, but the citi:ens? it is intended for the common and )ublic welfare and cannot be the object of a))ro)riation, ". )ertinent *rovisions of t0e ,ivi- ,ode (rticle 4&* )rovides that D)ro)ert is either of )ublic dominion or of )rivate ownershi),E (rticle 4#0 )rovides that )ro)ert of )ublic dominion includes D(&) those intended for )ublic use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, )orts and bridges constructed b the State, ban@s, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character? (#) those which belong to the State, without being for )ublic use, and are intended for some )ublic service or for the develo)ment of the national wealth,E (rticle 4#& )rovides that Dall other )ro)ert of the State, which is not of the character stated in the )receding article, is )atrimonial )ro)ert ,E 8n the )resent case, the Ro))ongi )ro)ert is correctl classified under )aragra)h # of (rticle 4#0 of the /ivil /ode as )ro)ert belonging to the State and intended for some )ublic service,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1!& )
. ,onversion to *atri/onia- *ro*erty 0a**en if *ro*erty is 1it0dra1n fro/ *u%-ic use. A%andon/ent /ust %e certain and *ositive act %ased on correct -ega- *re/ises The fact that the Ro))ongi site has not been used for a long time for actual 9mbass service does not automaticall convert it to )atrimonial )ro)ert , (n such conversion ha))ens onl if the )ro)ert is withdrawn from )ublic use (Cebu <6ygen an8 A4e(y ene Co. v. :er4) e!, 66 5CRA $%1 [1975]+ , ( )ro)ert continues to be )art of the )ublic domain, not available for )rivate a))ro)riation or ownershi) Duntil there is a formal declaration on the )art of the government to withdraw it from being such (Igna4)o v. ,)re4(or o2 "an8!, 10% ./) . **5 [1960]+ (n abandonment of the intention to use the Ro))ongi )ro)ert for )ublic service and to ma@e it )atrimonial )ro)ert under (rticle 4## of the /ivil /ode must be definite, (bandonment cannot be inferred from the non6use alone s)eciall if the non6use was attributable not to the governmentBs own deliberate and indubitable will but to a lac@ of financial su))ort to re)air and im)rove the )ro)ert (5ee He)r! o2 Fe )no 5an()ago v. "azarao, 166 5CRA *6% [19%%]+ , (bandonment must be a certain and )ositive act based on correct legal )remises, 8n the )resent case, the recent (dministrative -rders authori:ing a stud of the status and conditions of government )ro)erties in Ja)an were merel directives for investigation but did not in an wa signif a clear intention to dis)ose of the )ro)erties, !urther 9- #*% does not declare that the )ro)erties lost their )ublic character, but merel intends to ma@e the )ro)erties available to foreigners and not to !ili)inos alone in case of a sale, lease or other dis)osition, 4. RA &&46 does not aut0oriDe t0e dis*osition of Ro**ongi *ro*erty as it is outside t0e co//erce of /an. B2 +#& a/ended nationa-ity *rovision for t0e sa-e of *rocure/ents for t0e *rivate sector' not t0e *rocure/ents for t0e govern/ent (t0e -atter 10ic0 inc-udes Ro**ongi *ro*erty) 9- #*% is based on the wrong )remise or assum)tion that the Ro))ongi and the three other )ro)erties were earlier converted into alienable real )ro)erties, R( &'7* differentiates the )rocurements for the government sector and the )rivate sector (Sections # and &#, R( &'7*), -nl the )rivate sector )ro)erties can be sold to end6users who must be !ili)inos or entities owned b !ili)inos, 8t is this nationalit )rovision which was amended b 9- #*%, !urther, Section %$ (c) of R( %%3' (the /(R" ;aw) which )rovides as one of the sources of funds for its im)lementation, the )roceeds of the dis)osition of the )ro)erties of the 1overnment in foreign countries, did not withdraw the Ro))ongi )ro)ert from being classified as one of )ublic dominion when it mentions "hili))ine )ro)erties abroad, Section %$ (c) refers to )ro)erties which are alienable and not to those reserved for )ublic use or service, R( %%3', therefore, does not authori:e the 92ecutive De)artment to sell the Ro))ongi )ro)ert , 8t merel enumerates )ossible sources of future funding to augment (as and when needed) the (grarian Reform !und created under 9- #**, -bviousl an )ro)ert outside of the commerce of man cannot be ta))ed as a source of funds, &. ,onf-ict of -a1 ru-e does not a**-y 10en conf-ict of -a1 situation does not e9ist ( conflict of law rule cannot a))l when no conflict of law situation e2ists, ( conflict of law situation arises onl when: (&) There is a dis)ute over the title or ownershi) of an immovable, such that the ca)acit to ta@e and transfer immovables, the formalities of conve ance, the essential validit and effect of the transfer, or the inter)retation and effect of a conve ance, are to be determined? and (#) ( foreign law on land ownershi) and its conve ance is asserted to conflict with a domestic law on the same matters, +ence, the need to determine which law should a))l , 8n the )resent case, none of the above elements e2ists, 6. 3ssue on t0e aut0ority of officia-s to dis*ose *ro*erty %e-onging to state' and not va-idity of o1ners0i* or tit-e' in 5uestion. governed %y )0i-i**ine -a1 The issues are not concerned with validit of ownershi) or title, There is no 4uestion that the )ro)ert belongs to the "hili))ines, The issue is the authorit of the res)ondent officials to validl dis)ose of )ro)ert belonging to the State, (nd the validit of the )rocedures ado)ted to effect its sale, This is governed b "hili))ine ;aw, The rule of le2 situs does not a))l , 8. 2*inion of ?ecretary of =ustice irre-evant. 3ssue of 10et0er t0e *ro*erty can %e so-d *recedes
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1!6 )
t0e issue of 10o can ac5uire The assertion that the o)inion of the Secretar of Justice sheds light on the relevance of the le2 situs rule is mis)laced, The o)inion does not tac@le the alienabilit of the real )ro)erties )rocured through re)arations nor the e2istence in what bod of the authorit to sell them, 8n discussing who are ca)able of ac4uiring the lots, the Secretar merel e2)lains that it is the foreign law which should determine who can ac4uire the )ro)erties so that the constitutional limitation on ac4uisition of lands of the )ublic domain to !ili)ino citi:ens and entities wholl owned b !ili)inos is ina))licable, There is no need to discuss who can ac4uire the Ro))ongi lot when there is no showing that it can be sold, #. A**rova- of t0e )resident of t0e reco//endation of t0e co//ittee to se-- t0e Ro**ongi *ro*erty *re/ature' and 1it0out force and effect of -a1 The subse4uent a))roval on 4 -ctober &*77 b "resident (4uino of the recommendation b the investigating committee to sell the Ro))ongi )ro)ert was )remature or, at the ver least, conditioned on a valid change in the )ublic character of the Ro))ongi )ro)ert , .oreover, the a))roval does not have the force and effect of law since the "resident alread lost her legislative )owers, The /ongress had alread convened for more than a ear, 1!. ;0ere is no -a1 aut0oriDing t0e conveyance of t0e Ro**ongi *ro*erty. ,onveyance /ust %e aut0oriDed %y -a1 enacted %y ,ongress and re5uires e9ecutive and -egis-ative concurrence Section '* (f) of the Revised (dministrative /ode of &*&' (/onve ances and contracts to which the 1overnment is a )art ) )rovides that Din cases in which the 1overnment of the Re)ublic of the "hili))ines is a )art to an deed or other instrument conve ing the title to real estate or to an other )ro)ert the value of which is in e2cess of "&00,000, the res)ective De)artment Secretar shall )re)are the necessar )a)ers which, together with the )ro)er recommendations, shall be submitted to the /ongress of the "hili))ines for a))roval b the same, Such deed, instrument, or contract shall be e2ecuted and signed b the "resident of the "hili))ines on behalf of the 1overnment of the "hili))ines unless the 1overnment of the "hili))ines unless the authorit therefor be e2)ressl vested b law in another officer,E The re4uirement has been retained in Section 47, =oo@ 8 of the (dministrative /ode of &*7' (9- #*#? -fficial authori:ed to conve real )ro)ert ), which )rovides that DGhenever real )ro)ert of the 1overnment is authori:ed b law to be conve ed, the deed of conve ance shall be e2ecuted in behalf of the government b the following: (&) for )ro)ert belonging to and titled in the name of the Re)ublic of the "hili))ines, b the "resident, unless the authorit therefor is e2)ressl vested b law in another officer? (#) for )ro)ert belonging to the Re)ublic of the "hili))ines but titled in the name of an )olitical subdivision or of an cor)orate agenc or instrumentalit , b the e2ecutive head of the agenc or instrumentalit ,E Thus, it is not for the "resident to conve valuable real )ro)ert of the government on his or her own sole will, (n such conve ance must be authori:ed and a))roved b a law enacted b the /ongress, 8t re4uires e2ecutive and legislative concurrence, 11. 1#8# case on t0e Ro**ongi *ro*erty( 2>eda v. Bidding ,o//ittee. 3ssue different The resolution of the Su)reme /ourt in -jeda v, =idding /ommittee, et al,, did not )ass u)on the constitutionalit of 9- #*% nor did it u)hold the authorit of the "resident to sell the Ro))ongi )ro)ert , The /ourt stated that the constitutionalit of the e2ecutive order was not the real issue and that resolving the constitutional 4uestion was Dneither necessar nor finall determinative of the case,E The /ourt noted that DLGMhat )etitioner ultimatel 4uestions is the use of the )roceeds of the dis)osition of the Ro))ongi )ro)ert ,E 8n em)hasi:ing that Dthe decision of the 92ecutive to dis)ose of the Ro))ongi )ro)ert to finance the /(R" cannot be 4uestionedE in view of Section %$ (c) of R( %%3', the /ourt did not ac@nowledge the fact that the )ro)ert became alienable nor did it indicate that the "resident was authori:ed to dis)ose of the Ro))ongi )ro)ert , The resolution should be read to mean that in case the Ro))ongi )ro)ert is re6classified to be )atrimonial and alienable b authorit of law, the )roceeds of a sale ma be used for national economic develo)ment )rojects including the /(R", 1+. ,onstitutiona- 5uestions raised in t0e ?u*re/e ,ourt
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1!8 )
The /ourt does not ordinaril )ass u)on constitutional 4uestions unless these 4uestions are )ro)erl raised in a))ro)riate cases and their resolution is necessar for the determination of the case (.eo0 e v. ;era, 65 ./) . 56 [19*7]+. The /ourt will not )ass u)on a constitutional 4uestion although )ro)erl )resented b the record if the case can be dis)osed of on some other ground such as the a))lication of a statute or general law (5) er v. "ou)!v) e an8 Na!/v) e R. Co., 21* -.5. 175, [1909], Ra) roa8 Co99)!!)on v. .u 9an Co., *12 -.5. $96 [19$1]+. 1". 7a-ue of t0e Ro**ongi *ro*erty. %esides econo/ic and financia- %enefits The Ro))ongi )ro)ert is valuable not so much because of the inflated )rices fetched b real )ro)ert in To@ o but more so because of its s mbolic value to all !ili)inos R veterans and civilians ali@e, The Ro))ongi )ro)ert is not just li@e an )iece of )ro)ert , 8t was given to the !ili)ino )eo)le in re)aration for the lives and blood of !ili)inos who died and suffered during the Ja)anese militar occu)ation, for the suffering of widows and or)hans who lost their loved ones and @indred, for the homes and other )ro)erties lost b countless !ili)inos during the war, The To@ o )ro)erties are a monument to the braver and sacrifice of the !ili)ino )eo)le in the face of an invader, Ro))ongi is a reminder that cannot R should not R be dissi)ated, [4&] Leung Lee v. ?trong Cac0inery [G.R. No. L<11&48. $e%ruary 14' 1#18.] !irst Division, /arson (J): 3 concur, $ too@ no )art, $acts( The D/om)aIia (gricola !ili)inaE bought rice6cleaning machiner from the machiner com)an , and e2ecuted a chattel mortgage thereon to secure )a ment of the )urchase )rice, 8t included in the mortgage deed the building of strong materials in which the machiner was installed, without an reference to the land on which it stood, The indebtedness secured b this instrument not having been )aid when it fell due, the mortgaged )ro)ert was sold b the sheriff, in )ursuance of the terms of the mortgage instrument, and was bought in b the machiner com)an , The mortgage was registered in the chattel mortgage registr , and the sale of the )ro)ert to the machiner com)an in satisfaction of the mortgage was annotated in the same registr on #* December &*&$, -n &4 Januar &*&4, the D/om)aIia (gricola !ili)inaE e2ecuted a deed of sale of the land u)on which the building stood to the machiner com)an , but this deed of sale, although e2ecuted in a )ublic document, was not registered and made no reference to the building erected on the land and would a))ear to have been e2ecuted for the )ur)ose of curing an defects which might be found to e2ist in the machiner com)an Bs title to the building under the sheriffBs certificate of sale, The machiner com)an went into )ossession of the building at or about the time when this sale too@ )lace, that is to sa , the month of December &*&$, and it has continued in )ossession ever since, (t or about the time when the chattel mortgage was e2ecuted in favor of the machiner com)an , the D/om)aIia (gricola !ili)inaE e2ecuted another mortgage to ;eung Tee u)on the building, se)arate and a)art from the land on which it stood, to secure )a ment of the balance of its indebtedness to ;eung Tee under a contract for the construction of the building, 5)on the failure of the mortgagor to )a the amount of the indebtedness secured b the mortgage, ;eung Tee secured judgment for that amount, levied e2ecution u)on the building, bought it in at the sheriffBs sale on or about the &7 December &*&4, and had the sheriffBs certificate of sale dul registered in the land registr of the "rovince of /avite, (t the time when the e2ecution was levied u)on the building, the machiner com)an , which was in )ossession, filed with the sheriff a sworn statement setting u) its claim of title and demanding the release of the )ro)ert from the lev , Thereafter, u)on demand of the sheriff, ;eung Tee e2ecuted an indemnit bond in favor of the sheriff in the sum of "&#,000, in reliance u)on which the sheriff sold the )ro)ert at )ublic auction to the )laintiff, who was the highest bidder at the sheriffBs sale, The current action was instituted to recover )ossession of the building from the machiner com)an , The
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1!# )
/ourt gave judgment in favor of the machiner com)an , rel ing u)on (rticle &4'$ and the fact that the com)an had its title to the building registered )rior to the date of the registr of )laintiffBs certificate, +ence the a))eal, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment with costs against the a))ellant, 1. Bui-ding se*arate fro/ -and does not affect c0aracter as rea- *ro*erty. Registry of c0atte/ortgage does not affect c0aracter of t0e %ui-ding and t0e /ac0ineries insta--ed t0erein The /hattel .ortgage ;aw contem)lates and ma@es )rovision for mortgages of )ersonal )ro)ert ? and the sole )ur)ose and object of the chattel mortgage registr is to )rovide for the registr of D/hattel mortgages,E mortgages of )ersonal )ro)ert e2ecuted in the manner and form )rescribed in the statute, The building of strong materials in which the machiner was installed was real )ro)ert , and the mere fact that the )arties seem to have dealt with it se)arate and a)art from the land on which it stood in no wise changed its character as real )ro)ert , 8t follows that neither the original registr in the chattel mortgage registr of the instrument )ur)orting to be a chattel mortgage of the building and the machiner installed therein, nor the annotation in that registr of the sale of the mortgaged )ro)ert , had an effect whatever so far as the building was concerned, +. )ossession %efore s0eriff:s sa-e' not Artic-e 1 6" (on good fait0)' contro--ing as to o1ners0i* of *ro*erty The ruling cannot be sustained on the ground of (rticle &4'$, second )aragra)h, but on the ground that the agreed statement of facts discloses that neither the )urchase of the building b )laintiff nor his inscri)tion of the sheriffBs certificate of sale in his favor was made in good faith, and that the machiner com)an must be held to be the owner of the )ro)ert under the third )aragra)h of the above cited article of the code, it a))earing that the com)an first too@ )ossession of the )ro)ert ? and further, that the building and the land were sold to the machiner com)an long )rior to the date of the sheriffBs sale to the )laintiff, ". Good fait0 an essentia- re5uisite of Hinscri*tionI of *ro*erty in registry' even if not /entioned un-ike in H*ossessionI and Htit-eI. ,onstruction s0ou-d not defeat t0e *ur*ose of -a1 9ven if (rticle &4'$ of the /ivil /ode re4uire Dgood faith,E in e2)ress terms, in relation to D)ossessionE and Dtitle,E but contain no e2)ress re4uirement as to Dgood faithE in relation to the Dinscri)tionE of the )ro)ert in the registr , it remains an essential re4uisite of registration as it could not have been the intention of the legislator to base the )referential right secured this article of the code u)on an inscri)tion of title in bad faith, Such an inter)retation )laced u)on the language of this section would o)en wide the door to fraud and collusion, The )ublic records cannot be converted into instruments of fraud and o))ression b one who secures an inscri)tion therein in bad faith, The force and effect given b law to an inscri)tion in a )ublic record )resu))oses the good faith of him who enters such inscri)tion? and rights created b statute, which are )redicated u)on an inscri)tion in a )ublic registr , do not and cannot accrue under an inscri)tion Din bad faith,E to the benefit of the )erson who thus ma@es the inscri)tion, . ,onstruction of Artic-e 1 6" as to issue of good fait0 8t is alwa s to be understood on the basis of the good faith mentioned in the first )aragra)h? therefore, it having been found that the second )urchasers who record their )urchase had @nowledge of the )recious sale, the 4uestion is to be decided in accordance with the following )aragra)h, (lthough article &4'$, in its second )aragra)h, )rovides that the title of conve ance of ownershi) of the real )ro)ert that is first recorded in the registr shall have )reference, this )rovision must alwa s be understood on the basis of the good faith mentioned in the first )aragra)h? the legislator could not have wished to stri@e it out and to sanction bad faith, just to com)l with a mere formalit which, in given cases, does not obtain even in real dis)utes between third )ersons, 4. Bad fait0( 2ne cannot c-ai/ ac5uisition of tit-e in good fait0 if kno1-edgea%-e of defect or -ack
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 11! )
of tit-e -ne who )urchases real estate with @nowledge of a defect or lac@ of title in his vendor cannot claim that he has ac4uired title thereto in good faith as against the true owner of the land or of an interest therein? and the same rule must be a))lied to one who has @nowledge of facts which should have )ut him u)on such in4uir and investigation as might be necessar to ac4uaint him with the defects in the title of his vendor, ( )urchaser cannot close his e es to facts which should )ut a reasonable man u)on his guard, and then claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor, +is mere refusal to believe that such defect e2ists, or his willful closing of his e es to the )ossibilit of the e2istence of a defect in his vendorBs title, will not ma@e him an innocent )urchaser for value, if it afterwards develo)s that the title was in fact defective, and it a))ears that he had such notice of the defect as would have led to its discover had he acted with that measure of )recaution which ma reasonabl be re4uired of a )rudent man in a li@e situation, &. ;est of good fait0 1ood faith, or the lac@ of it, is in its last anal sis a 4uestion of intention? but in ascertaining the intention b which one is actuated on a given occasion, the /ourt is necessaril controlled b the evidence as to the conduct and outward acts b which alone the inward motive ma , with safet , be determined, So it is that Dthe honest of intention,E Dthe honest lawful intent,E which constitutes good faith im)lies a Dfreedom from @nowledge and circumstances which ought to )ut a )erson on in4uir ,E and so it is that )roof of such @nowledge overcomes the )resum)tion of good faith in which the courts alwa s indulge in the absence of )roof to the contrar , D1ood faith, or the want of it, is not a visible, tangible fact that can be seen or touched, but rather a state or condition of mind which can onl be judged of b actual or fancied to@ens or signs,E (M) 8er v!. G) 9an, 55 ;(., 50$, 505& C2. Car8ena! v!. ') er, 10% Ca ., 250& :reau6#Renou8e(, Cy0re!! "u9ber Co. v!. 5/a8e , 52 "a. Ann., 209$#209%& .)nGer(on :ro!. Co. v!. :ro9 ey, 119 ')4/., %, 10, 17.+ [46] Lo*eD v. 2rosa [G.R. Nos. L<1!816<18. $e%ruary +8' 1#48.] 9n =anc, !eli2 (J): &0 concur, $acts( 9nri4ue ;o)e: is a resident of =ala an, =atangas, doing business as ;o)e:6/astelo Sawmill, Sometime in .a &*4%, >icente -rosa, Jr, invited ;o)e: to ma@e an investment in the theatre business ("la:a Theatre, 8nc,), (lthough ;o)e: e2)ressed his unwillingness to invest in the business, he agreed to su))l the lumber necessar for the construction of the )ro)osed theatre and at -rosaBs behest and assurance that the latter would be )ersonall liable for an account that the said construction might incur, ;o)e: further agreed that )a ment therefor would be on demand and not cash on deliver basis, "ursuant to said verbal agreement, ;o)e: delivered the lumber for the theater on &' .a &*4%, u) to 4 December of the same ear, The "la:a # Theatre was erected on a )iece of land with an area of %'*,&' m formerl owned b >icente -rosa, Jr,, and was ac4uired b the cor)oration on #3 Se)tember &*4%, The total cost of the materials amounted to "%#,#33,73, of which ;o)e: was )aid onl "#0,747,30, thus leaving a balance of "4&,''&,$3, -rosa and =elarmino Rustia, cor)oration )resident, )romised ;o)e: to obtain a ban@ loan to satisf the balance, to which assurance ;o)e: had to accede, 5n@nown to him, however, as earl as <ovember &*4%, the cor)oration alread got a loan for "$0,000 from the "<= with the ;u:on Suret /om)an as suret , and the cor)oration in turn e2ecuted a mortgage on the land and building in favor of said com)an as counter6securit , (s the land at that time was not et brought under the o)eration of the Torrens S stem, the mortgage on the same was registered on &% <ovember &*4%, under (ct $$44, Subse4uentl , when the cor)oration a))lied for the registration of the land under (ct 4*%, such mortgage was not revealed and thus -/T -6$*& was corres)ondingl issued on -ctober #3, &*4', without an encumbrance a))earing thereon, >icente -rosa, Jr, e2ecuted, on &' .arch &*4', an alleged Ddeed of assignmentE of his 4#0 shares of stoc@ of the "la:a Theater, 8nc,, at "&00 )er share or with a total value of "4#,000 in favor of the creditor, and as the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 111 )
obligation still remained unsettled, ;o)e: filed on &# <ovember &*4', a com)laint with the /!8 =atangas (/ivil /ase 430&, later R63') against >icente -rosa Jr, and "la:a Theatre, 8nc,, )ra ing that defendants be sentenced to )a him jointl and severall the sum of "4&,''&,$3 with legal interest from the filing of the action? that in case defendants fail to )a the same, that the building and the land covered b -/T -6$*& owned b the cor)oration be sold at )ublic auction and the )roceeds thereof be a))lied to said indebtedness? or that the 4#0 shares of the ca)ital stoc@ of the "la:a Theatre, 8nc,, assigned b >icente -rosa, Jr,, to said )laintiff be sold at )ublic auction for the same )ur)ose? and for such other remedies as ma be warranted b the circumstances, "laintiff also caused the annotation of a notice of lis )endens on said )ro)erties with the Register of Deeds, The suret com)an , in the meantime, u)on discover that the land was alread registered under the Torrens S stem and that there was a notice of lis )endens thereon, filed on &' (ugust &*47, or within the &6 ear )eriod after the issuance of the certificate of title, a )etition for review of the decree of the land registration court dated &7 -ctober &*4', in order to annotate the lights and interests of the suret com)an over said )ro)erties, -))osition thereto was offered b ;o)e:, asserting that the amount demanded b him constituted a )referred lien over the )ro)erties of the obligors? that the suret com)an was guilt of negligence when it failed to )resent an o))osition to the a))lication for registration of the )ro)ert ? and that if an annotation of the rights and interest of said suret would ever be made, same must be subject to the lien in his favor, The two cases were heard jointl and in a decision dated $0 -ctober &*3#, the lower /ourt held that -rosa and the "la:a Theatre, 8nc,, were jointl liable for the un)aid balance of the cost of lumber used in the construction of the building and the )laintiff thus ac4uired the materialmanBs lien over the same? the lien being merel confined to the building and did not e2tend to the land on which the construction was made, "laintiff tried to secure a modification of the decision in so far as it declared that the obligation of therein defendants was joint instead of solidar and that the lien did not e2tend to the land, but same was denied b order of the court of #$ December &*3#, The matter was thus a))ealed to the /ourt of ())eals, which affirmed the lower courtBs ruling, and then to the Su)reme /ourt, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the decision a))ealed from, with costs against a))ellant, 1. Bui-ding is se*arate and distinct fro/ -and Ghile it is true that generall , real estate connotes the land and the building constructed thereon, it is obvious that the inclusion of the building, se)arate and distinct from the land, in the enumeration of what ma constitute real )ro)erties could mean onl one thing R that a building is b itself an immovable )ro)ert (42. "eung =ee v. 5(rong 'a4/)nery+. 8n the absence of an s)ecific )rovision of law to the contrar , a building is an immovable )ro)ert , irres)ective of whether or not said structure and the land on which it is adhered to belong to the same owner, +. Artic-e 1#+" (4). Lien c0arged to *ro*erty for 10ic0 credit 1as /ade ( close e2amination of (rticle &*#$ (3) of the /ivil /ode reveals that the law gives )reference to unregistered refectionar credits onl with res)ect to the real estate u)on which the refection or wor@ was made, This being so, the inevitable conclusion must be that the lien so created attaches merel to the immovable )ro)ert for the construction or re)air of which the obligation was incurred, 8n the case at bar, the lien for the un)aid value of the lumber used in the construction of the building attaches onl to said structure and to no other )ro)ert of the obligors, Thus, the materialmanBs lien could be charged onl to the building for which the credit was made or which received the benefit of refection, the interest of the mortgagee over the land is su)erior and cannot be made subject to the said materialmanBs lien, [48]
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 11+ )
Cacasiano v. Diokno [G.R. No. #66& . August 1!' 1##+.] 9n =anc, .edialdea (J): &# concur $acts( -n &$ June &**0, the .unici)alit of "arana4ue )assed -rdinance 7%, s, &**0 which authori:ed the closure of J, 1abrielle, 1,1, /ru:, =a anihan, ;t, 1arcia 92tension and -)ena Streets located at =aclaran, "araIa4ue, .etro .anila and the establishment of a flea mar@et thereon, The said ordinance was a))roved b the munici)al council )ursuant to .// -rdinance #, s, &*'*, authori:ing and regulating the use of certain cit andAor munici)al streets, roads and o)en s)aces within .etro)olitan .anila as sites for flea mar@et andAor vending areas, under certain terms and conditions, -n #0 Jul &**0, the .etro)olitan .anila (uthorit a))roved -rdinance 7%, s, &**0 of the munici)al council subject to conditions, -n #0 June &**0, the munici)al council issued a resolution authori:ing the "araIa4ue .a or to enter into contract with an service coo)erative for the establishment, o)eration, maintenance and management of flea mar@ets andAor vending areas, -n 7 (ugust &**0, the munici)alit and "alan ag, a service coo)erative, entered into an agreement whereb the latter shall o)erate, maintain and manage the flea mar@et with the obligation to remit dues to the treasur of the munici)al government of "araIa4ue, /onse4uentl , mar@et stalls were )ut u) b "alan ag on the said streets, -n &$ Se)tember &**0 =rig, 1en, .acasiano, "<" Su)erintendent of the .etro)olitan Traffic /ommand, ordered the destruction and confiscation of stalls along 1,1, /ru: and J, 1abrielle St, in =aclaran, These stalls were later returned to "alan ag, -n &% -ctober &**0, .acasiano wrote a letter to "alan ag giving the latter &0 da s to discontinue the flea mar@et? otherwise, the mar@et stalls shall be dismantled, -n #$ -ctober &**0, the munici)alit and "alan ag filed with the trial court a joint )etition for )rohibition and mandamus with damages and )ra er for )reliminar injunction, -n &' December &**0, the trial court issued an order u)holding the validit of -rdinance 7% s, &**0 of the .unici)alit of "araIa4ue and enjoining .acasiano from enforcing his letter6order against "alan ag, +ence, a )etition for certiorari under Rule %3 was filed b .acasiano thru the -S1, The Su)reme /ourt granted the )etition, and reversed and set aside the &' December &**0 decision of the RT/ which granted the writ of )reliminar injunction enjoining the "<" Su)erintendent, .etro)olitan Traffic /ommand from enforcing the demolition of mar@et stalls along J, 1abrielle, 1,1, /ru:, =a anihan, ;t, 1arcia 92tension and -)ena streets, 1. )ro*erty of *rovinces' cities and /unici*a-ities. )ro*erty for *u%-ic use The )ro)ert of )rovinces, cities and munici)alities is divided into )ro)ert for )ublic use and )atrimonial )ro)ert ((rt, 4#$, /ivil /ode), (s to )ro)ert for )ublic use, (rticle 4#4 of /ivil /ode )rovides that D)ro)ert for )ublic use, in the )rovinces, cities and munici)alities, consists of the )rovincial roads, cit streets, the s4uares, fountains, )ublic waters, )romenades, and )ublic wor@s for )ublic service )aid for b said )rovinces, cities or munici)alities, (ll other )ro)ert )ossessed b an of them is )atrimonial and shall be governed b this /ode, without )rejudice to the )rovisions of s)ecial laws,E 8n the )resent case, thus, J, 1abrielle 1,1, /ru:, =a anihan, ;t, 1acia 92tension and -)ena streets are local roads used for )ublic service and are therefore considered )ublic )ro)erties of the munici)alit , +. )ro*erties for *u%-ic service dee/ed *u%-ic and under a%so-ute contro- of ,ongress "ro)erties of the local government which are devoted to )ublic service are deemed )ublic and are under the absolute control of /ongress (.rov)n4e o2 Fa9boanga 8e Nor(e v. C)(y o2 Fa9boanga, 22 5CRA 1**$ [196%]+. ". Loca- govern/ents 0ave no aut0ority to regu-ate use of *u%-ic *ro*erties un-ess aut0ority is vested u*on %y ,ongress. e.g. ,-osure of roads ;ocal governments have no authorit whatsoever to control or regulate the use of )ublic )ro)erties unless s)ecific authorit is vested u)on them b /ongress, -ne such e2am)le of this authorit given b /ongress to
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 11" )
the local governments is the )ower to close roads as )rovided in Section &0, /ha)ter 88 of the ;ocal 1overnment /ode (=" $$'), which states D( local government unit ma li@ewise, through its head acting )ursuant to a resolution of its sangguniang and in accordance with e2isting law and the )rovisions of this /ode, close an baranga , munici)al, cit or )rovincial road, street, alle , )ar@ or s4uare, <o such wa or )lace or an )art thereof shall be closed without indemnif ing an )erson )rejudiced thereb , ( )ro)ert thus withdrawn from )ublic use ma be used or conve ed for an )ur)ose for which other real )ro)ert belonging to the local unit concerned might be lawfull used or conve ed,E . Lega- *rovision s0ou-d %e read and inter*reted in accordance 1it0 %asic *rinci*-es a-ready esta%-is0ed %y -a1. LGF 0as no *o1er to -ease a road avai-a%-e to *u%-ic and ordinari-y used for ve0icu-ar traffic The legal )rovision (/ha)ter 88, Section &0 of the ;1/) which gives authorit to local government units to close roads and other similar )ublic )laces should be read and inter)reted in accordance with basic )rinci)les alread established b law, These basic )rinci)les have the effect of limiting such authorit of the )rovince, cit or munici)alit to close a )ublic street or thoroughfare, (rticle 4#4 <// la s down the basic )rinci)le that )ro)erties of )ublic dominion devoted to )ublic use and made available to the )ublic in general are outside the commerce of man and cannot be dis)osed of or leased b the local government unit to )rivate )ersons, (side from the re4uirement of due )rocess which should be com)lied with before closing a road, street or )ar@, the closure should be for the sole )ur)ose of withdrawing the road or other )ublic )ro)ert from )ublic use when circumstances show that such )ro)ert is no longer intended or necessar for )ublic use or )ublic service, Ghen it is alread withdrawn from )ublic use, the )ro)ert then becomes )atrimonial )ro)ert of the local government unit (;15) (Ar()4 e $22 NCC& Cebu <6ygen v. :er4) e!, 66 5CRA $%1 [1975]+, 8t is onl then that the ;15 can Duse or conve them for an )ur)ose for which other real )ro)ert belonging to the local unit concerned might be lawfull used or conve ed,E +owever, those roads and streets which are available to the )ublic in general and ordinaril used for vehicular traffic are still considered )ublic )ro)ert devoted to )ublic use, 8n such case, the ;15 has no )ower to use it for another )ur)ose or to dis)ose of or lease it to )rivate )ersons, 4. Re-ated case' ,e%u 29ygen v. Berci--es 8n /ebu -2 gen v, =ercilles, the /it /ouncil of /ebu, through a resolution, declared the terminal road of ., =orces Street, .abolo, /ebu /it as an abandoned road, the same not being included in the /it Develo)ment "lan, Thereafter, the /it /ouncil )assed another resolution authori:ing the sale of the said abandoned road through )ublic bidding, The /ourt held that the /it of /ebu is em)owered to close a cit street and to vacate or withdraw the same from )ublic use, Such withdrawn )ortion becomes )atrimonial )ro)ert which can be the object of an ordinar contract &. Re-ated case' Dacanay v. Asistio 8n Dacana v, (sistio, the dis)uted areas from which the mar@et stalls are sought to be evicted are )ublic streets, ( )ublic street is )ro)ert for )ublic use hence outside the commerce of man ((rts, 4#0, 4#4, /ivil /ode), =eing outside the commerce of man, it ma not be the subject of lease or other contract (>illanueva, et al, v, /astaIeda and .acalino, &3 S/R( &4# citing the .unici)alit of /avite v, Rojas, $0 S/R( %0#? 9s)iritu v, .unici)al /ouncil of "o:orrubio, &0# "hil, 7%*? and .u ot v, De la !uente, 47 -,1, 47%0), The right of the )ublic to use the cit streets ma not be bargained awa through contract, The interests of a few should not )revail over the good of the greater number in the communit whose health, )eace, safet , good order and general welfare, the res)ondent cit officials are under legal obligation to )rotect, The leases or licenses granted b the /it 1overnment to stallholders are null and void for being contrar to law, The 92ecutive -rder issued b the acting .a or authori:ing the use of +eroes del B*% Street as a vending area for stallholders contravenes the general law that reserves cit streets and roads for )ublic use, The 92ecutive -rder ma not infringe u)on the vested right of the )ublic to use cit streets for the )ur)ose the were intended to serve: i,e,, as arteries of travel for vehicles and )edestrians,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 11 )
6. 3n gratia argu/enti' ordinance cannot %e va-id-y i/*-e/ented as /unici*a-ity 0as not co/*-ied 1it0 conditions i/*osed %y t0e CCA for t0e a**rova- of t0e ordinance 9ven assuming, in gratia argumenti, that the munici)alit has the authorit to )ass the dis)uted ordinance, the same cannot be validl im)lemented because it cannot be considered a))roved b the .etro)olitan .anila (uthorit due to non6com)liance b the munici)alit of the conditions im)osed b the former for the a))roval of the ordinance, The allegations of the munici)alit that the closed streets were not used for vehicular traffic and that the majorit of the residents do not o))ose the establishment of a flea mar@et on said streets are unsu))orted b an evidence that will show that the first condition has been met, ;i@ewise, the designation b the .unici)alit of a time schedule during which the flea mar@et shall o)erate is absent (fourth condition), 8. Bac-aran area congested. esta%-is0/ent of f-ea /arket on /unici*a-ity streets does not 0e-* so-ve *ro%-e/ of congestion 8t is of )ublic notice that the streets along =aclaran area are congested with )eo)le, houses and traffic brought about b the )roliferation of vendors occu) ing the streets, To license and allow the establishment of a flea mar@et along J, 1abrielle, 1,1, /ru:, =a anihan, ;t, 1arcia 92tension and -)ena streets in =aclaran would not hel) in solving the )roblem of congestion but rather leads to inconvenience to children as the normal trans)ortation flow is disru)ted, to )ollution and deterioration of health of residents due to the garbage left b the vendors on the streets, !urther, ambulances and fire engines are not able to use the roads for a more direct access to the fire area and thus lose valuable time that should have been s)ent in saving )ro)erties and lives, (nd further, the ambulances and )eo)le rushing )atients to St, Rita +os)ital located along 11 /ru: Street are dela ed as the are unable to )ass through said street due to the stalls and vendors, #. )o1ers of -oca- govern/ent unit not a%so-ute The )owers of a local government unit are not absolute, The are subject to limitations laid down b the /onstitution and the laws such as our /ivil /ode, .oreover, the e2ercise of such )owers should be subservient to )aramount considerations of health and well6being of the members of the communit , 9ver local government unit has the sworn obligation to enact measures that will enhance the )ublic health, safet and convenience, maintain )eace and order, and )romote the general )ros)erit of the inhabitants of the local units, =ased on this objective, the local government should refrain from acting towards that which might )rejudice or adversel affect the general welfare, 1!. Genera- *u%-ic 0as -ega- rig0t to de/and t0e restoration of city streets to t0eir s*ecific *u%-ic *ur*ose (s in the Dacana case, the general )ublic have a legal right to demand the demolition of the illegall constructed stalls in )ublic roads and streets and the officials of munici)alit have the corres)onding dut arising from )ublic office to clear the cit streets and restore them to their s)ecific )ublic )ur)ose, 11. A**-ica%i-ity of t0e Dacanay case. ,ontracts %y Loca- Govern/ent governed %y t0e originater/s and conditions' and t0e -a1 in force at ti/e t0e rig0ts 1ere vested (s in the Dacana case, both cases involve an ordinance which is void and illegal for lac@ of basis and authorit in laws a))licable during its time, +owever, =" $$' (;ocal 1overnment /ode), has alread been re)ealed b R('&%0 (;ocal 1overnment /ode of &**&) which too@ effect on & Januar &**#, Section 3(d) of the new /ode )rovides that rights and obligations e2isting on the date of effectivit of the new /ode and arising out of contracts or an other source of )restation involving a local government unit shall be governed b the original terms and conditions of the said contracts or the law in force at the time such rights were vested, [4#] Cakati Leasing v. Aearever ;e9ti-es [G.R. No. L<48 &#. Cay 1&' 1#8".]
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 114 )
Second Division, de /astro (J): 3 concur, & concur in result $acts( To obtain financial accommodations from .a@ati ;easing and !inance /or)oration, Gearever Te2tile .ills, discounted and assigned several receivables with the former under a Receivable "urchase (greement, To secure the collection of the receivables assigned, Gearever Te2tile e2ecuted a /hattel .ortgage over certain raw materials inventor as well as a machiner described as an (rtos (ero Dr er Stentering Range, 5)on GeareverBs default, .a@ati ;easing filed a )etition for e2trajudicial foreclosure of the )ro)erties mortgage to it, +owever, the De)ut Sheriff assigned to im)lement the foreclosure failed to gain entr into GeareverBs )remises and was not able to effect the sei:ure of the machiner , .a@ati ;easing thereafter filed a com)laint for judicial foreclosure with the /!8 Ri:al (=ranch >8, /ivil /ase $%040), (cting on )etitionerBs a))lication for re)levin, the lower court issued a writ of sei:ure, the enforcement of which was restrained u)on GeareverBs filing of a motion for reconsideration, The lower court finall issued on && !ebruar &*7&, an order lifting the restraining order for the enforcement of the writ of sei:ure and an order to brea@ o)en the )remises of Gearever to enforce said writ, The lower court reaffirmed its stand u)on GeareverBs filing of a further motion for reconsideration, -n &$ Jul &*7&, the sheriff enforcing the sei:ure order, re)aired to the )remises of Gearever and removed the main drive motor of the subject machiner , -n #' (ugust &*7&, the /ourt of ())eals, in certiorari and )rohibition )roceedings filed b Gearever, set aside the -rders of the lower court and ordered the return of the drive motor sei:ed b the sheriff )ursuant to said -rders, after ruling that the machiner in suit cannot be the subject of re)levin, much less of a chattel mortgage, because it is a real )ro)ert )ursuant to (rticle 4&3 of the new /ivil /ode, The a))ellate court also rejected the argument that Gearever is esto))ed from claiming that the machine is real )ro)ert b constituting a chattel mortgage thereon, ( motion for reconsideration was filed b .a@ati ;easing, which was later denied, .a@ati ;easing brought the case to the Su)reme /ourt b review b writ of certiorari, The Su)reme /ourt reversed and set aside the decision and resolution of the /ourt of ())eals, and reinstated the orders of the lower court, with costs against Gearever Te2tiles, 1. ,ase not /oot and acade/ic 1it0 t0e return of t0e seiDed /otor Ghen the subject motor drive was returned, it was made une4uivocabl clear that said action )rejudice to a motion for reconsideration of the /ourt of ())eals decision, as shown b the signed b GeareverBs re)resentative, /onsidering that .a@ati ;easing has reserved its right to )ro)riet of the /(B decision, the contention of Gearever that the )etition has been mooted b ma not be sustained, was without recei)t dul 4uestion the such return
+. ?i/i-ar case. Bsto**e- a**-ies to *arties as 0aving treated t0e 0ouse as *ersona-ty D(lthough there is no s)ecific statement referring to the subject house as )ersonal )ro)ert , et b ceding, selling or transferring a )ro)ert b wa of chattel mortgage defendants6a))ellants could onl have meant to conve the house as chattel, or at least, intended to treat the same as such, so that the should not now be allowed to ma@e an inconsistent stand b claiming otherwise, 5nli@e in the 8 a cases, ;o)e: vs, -rosa, Jr, N "la:a Theatre, 8nc, N ;eung Tee vs, !,;, Strong .achiner N Gilliamson, wherein third )ersons assailed the validit of the chattel mortgage, it is the defendants6a))ellants themselves, as debtors mortgagors, who are attac@ing the validit of the chattel mortgage in this case, The doctrine of esto))el therefore a))lies to the herein defendants a))ellants, having treated the subject house as )ersonalt E (Tumalad v, >icencio), -ne who has so agreed is esto))ed from den ing the e2istence of the chattel mortgage, ". )ronounce/ent on esto**e- invo-ving c0atte- /ortgage a**-ies to /ac0inery There is no logical justification to e2clude the rule out the )resent case from the a))lication of the )ronouncement in Tumalad v, >icencio, 8f a house of strong materials ma be considered as )ersonal )ro)ert for )ur)oses of e2ecuting a chattel mortgage thereon as long as the )arties to the contract so agree and no
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 11& )
innocent third )art will be )rejudiced thereb , there is absolutel no reason wh a machiner , which is movable in its nature and becomes immobili:ed onl b destination or )ur)ose, ma not be li@ewise treated as such, . ,0atte- /ortgage treating rea- *ro*erty as *ersona- *ro*erty va-id' as -ong as t0ird *arties are not *re>udiced The characteri:ation of the subject machiner as chattel is indicative of intention and im)resses u)on the )ro)ert the character determined b the )arties, (s stated in Standard -il v, Jaramillo, , it is undeniable that the )arties to a contract ma b agreement treat as )ersonal )ro)ert that which b nature would be real )ro)ert , as long as no interest of third )arties would be )rejudiced thereb , 4. B5uity *revents res*ondent to i/*ugn t0e efficacy of t0e c0atte- /ortgage 94uit dictates that one should not benefit at the e2)ense of another, Geareverf could not be allowed to im)ugn the efficac of the chattel mortgage after it has benefited therefrom, &. Cac0inery and Bngineering ?u**-ies v. ,A not a**-ica%-e. ;u/a-ad case /ore in *arity 1it0 case The case of .achiner and 9ngineering Su))lies, 8nc, v, /(, *% "hil, '0, heavil relied u)on b the /ourt of ())eals, is not a))licable to the )resent case as the nature of the machiner and e4ui)ment involved therein as real )ro)erties never having been dis)uted nor in issue, and the were not the subject of a /hattel .ortgage, 5ndoubtedl , the Tumalad case bears more nearl )erfect )arit with the )resent case to be the more controlling juris)rudential authorit , [&!] Cana-o v. 3A, [G.R. No. & 64". A*ri- +&' 1#8#.] Third Division, 1utierre: Jr, (J): $ concur, & too@ no )art $acts( The de -cam)os and the Santoses claim to be the co6owners of # )arcels of land containing an area of $$,%$44 hectares, more or less, and )resentl embraced within T/T T644#03 and T64$#*7 res)ectivel , both of the Registr of =ataan? that the T/Ts were ac4uired b the de -cam)os and the Santoses b virtue of Sales "atents 3$$* and 3$7' issued on &' <ovember &*'# and $ !ebruar &*'$, res)ectivel , b the Director of ;ands under /( &4&("ublic ;and ;aw), -n # -ctober &*'&,in view of the re)resentation of "lacido and (rmando .analo that the have in actual, )eaceful, continuous and o)en )ossession of the )arcels of land in /abcaben, .ariveles, =ataan since &*44 as evidence b their documents dul filed with the =ureau of !orestr and of ;ands, although the same were still then )art of the 5,S, .ilitar Reservation? the Director of ;ands issued !ree "atents 3##7*' and 30#*'' to the .analos, b virtue of !ree "atent ())lication (88864) 307 and (88864) 3&* filed with the =ureau of ;ands under the )rovisions of Section 44, /ha)ter >88 of the "ublic ;and ;aw, and b virtue of which -/Ts #*% and #*' were res)ectivel issued in the names of the )etitioners covering the dis)uted )arcels of land, -n &7 -ctober &*'$, the de -cam)os and the Santoses instituted an action for the cancellation of the .analosB titles over certain )arcels of land, The former )ra ed that their titles over the said )arcels of land be declared as the true and valid ones, (fter hearing, the trial court found for the de -cam)os and the Santoses and ordered the cancellation of the .analosB titles over the lots in dis)ute, -n a))eal, the a))ellate court sustained the trial courtBs decision, +ence, the .analos filed a )etition for review b certiorari, The Su)reme /ourt denied the )etition, and affirmed the decision of the /ourt of ())eals? with costs against the .analos, 1. )rivate res*ondents de 2ca/*o and ?antos 0ave -ega- *ersona-ity to fi-e
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 116 )
Ghen the lots in dis)ute were certified as dis)osable on &* .a &*'&, and free )atents were issued covering the same, the said lots ceased to be )art of the )ublic domain and, therefore, the Director of ;ands lost jurisdiction over them, Since the lots were no longer )art of the )ublic domain, holders of the titles based on free )atents ac4uired subse4uent to the declaration of alienabilit and dis)osabilit , have the )ersonalit to file the case against )ersons whom the alleged were in )ossession of void titles (!ee He)r! o2 7anaG .anga@aran .a()@ayan v. 'ar()nez, 1$2 5CRA 252, 25%#260 [19%6]& 4)()ng (/e 5u9a) 4a!e+. +. Land in for/er Ci-itary Reservation /ade dis*osa%-e in 1#61. ,0aracter unc0anged during transfer fro/ F? to t0e )0i-i**ines in 1#&4 8t is not correct to sa that when the 5,S, .ilitar Reservation in =ataan, of which the land in 4uestion forms )art, was turned over to the "hili))ine government, the same automaticall became a dis)osable land of the )ublic domain, The ownershi) and control over said reservation was transferred to the "hili))ine government, but its nature as a militar reservation remained unchanged, Said )arcels of land became a dis)osable land of )ublic domain onl on &* .a &*'&, )er certification of the =ureau of !orestr ("roject 46(, /6/, .a) #%6 40), 8ts dis)osition onl b sale was dul authori:ed )ursuant to the )rovisions of R( #'4, 8f the land in 4uestion became immediatel dis)osable u)on its turn over to the "hili))ine government in &*%3, then there is no need to certif it to be dis)osable in &*'&, The land, thus, continued to be a militar reservation land while in the custod of the "hili))ine government until it was certified alienable in &*'&, ". Fnc-assified -and re/ains as is unti- re-eased and rendered o*en for dis*osition 8n Re)ublic v, 8ntermediate ())ellate /ourt, (&33 S/R( 4&#, 4&764&* L&*7'M), it was held that the classification of )ublic lands is an e2clusive )rerogative of the 92ecutive De)artment of the 1overnment and not of the /ourts, 8n the absence of such classification, the land remains as unclassified land until it is released therefrom and rendered o)en to dis)osition (5e4. %, CA 1$1, a! a9en8e8J =ng!on v. 5e4re(ary o2 Agr)4u (ure an8 Na(ura Re!our4e!, 12* 5CRA $$1 [19*]& Re0ub )4 v. Cour( o2 A00ea !, 99 5CRA 7$2 [19%0]), This should be so under time6honored /onstitutional )rece)ts, This is also in consonance with the Regalian doctrine that all lands of the )ublic domain belong to the State (5e4!. % E 10, Ar(. NI;, 197* Con!()(u()on+, and that the State is the source of an asserted right to ownershi) in land and charged with the conservation of such )atrimon (Re0ub )4 v. Cour( o2 A00ea !, %9 5CRA 6$% [1979]+. . $inding of facts of ,A conc-usive a%sent t0e recogniDed e9ce*tions 8t is not the function of the Su)reme /ourt to evaluate each )iece of evidence )resented before the lower court, Suffice it to sa that we find the conclusions of the lower court and a))ellate courts am)l su))orted b evidence and the time6honored doctrine is a))lied? that absent the recogni:ed e2ce)tions, the findings of fact of the /ourt of ())eals are conclusive on the )arties and the Su)reme /ourt? and that this /ourt decides a))eals which onl involve 4uestions of law, (5ee ./) )00)ne Na()ona :anG v. Cour( o2 A00ea !, 159 5CRA $**, $$5 [19%%]+. 4. Cana-o:s tit-e nu-- and void as it 1as o%tained in contravention 1it0 t0e re5uire/ents *rovided %y -a1 The big tract of land in .ariveles, =ataan to which the )arcels of land involved in the case belong was formerl a )ortion of the 5,S, .ilitar Reservation in .ariveles, =ataan which was turned over to the "hili))ine 1overnment onl on ## December &*%3 (Re0ub )4 v. CA, %9 5CRA 6$% [1979]+. 5nder such a situation, the /ourt seriousl doubts whether "lacido .analo and their )redecessors in6interest could have been in )ossession of the land since &*44 as the claimed because Dlands covered b reservation are not subject to entr , and no lawful settlement on them can be ac4uired (Re0ub )4 v. CA, 76 5CRA 1$6 [1976]+,E Thus, the .analos a))eared not to have satisfied the re4uirement of )ossession since 4 Jul &*43, !urther, one of the re4uisites before a free )atent could be issued would be an ocular ins)ection, <othing was shown that such had been made, ;astl , the =ureau of ;ands had no jurisdiction to acce)t the .analo a))lication in ()ril &*%' as the lands were not et surve ed, The surve )lans were onl a))roved on &' June &*'&, the annotations that the land became dis)osable and alienable made onl on &* .a &*'&, Their titles to the land
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 118 )
in 4uestion, thus, are null and void, having been obtained in contravention with the re4uirements )rovided b law, [&1] Canarang v. 2fi-ada [G.R. No. L<81"". Cay 18' 1#4&.] 9n =anc, ;abrador (J): &0 concur $acts( -n 7 Se)tember *3&, ;ucia D, .anarang obtained a loan of "#00 from 9rnesto 9steban, and to secure its )a ment she e2ecuted a chattel mortgage over a house of mi2ed materials erected on a lot on (lvarado Street, .anila, (s .anarang did not )a the loan as agreed u)on, 9steban brought an action against her in the munici)al court of .anila for its recover , alleging that the loan was secured b a chattel mortgage on her )ro)ert , Judgment having been entered in 9stebanBs favor, e2ecution was issued against the same )ro)ert mortgaged, =efore the )ro)ert could be sold .anarang offered to )a the sum of "#'' (amount of the judgment of "#30, the interest thereon, the costs, and the sheriffBs fees), but the sheriff refused the tender unless the additional amount of "#%0 re)resenting the )ublication of the notice of sale in two news)a)ers be )aid also, So the .anarangs brought the suit to com)el the sheriff to acce)t the amount of "#'' as full )a ment of the judgment and to annul the )ublished notice of sale, 8t is to be noted that in the com)laint filed in the munici)al court, a co) of the chattel mortgage is attached and mention made of its registration, and in the )ra er re4uest is made that the house mortgaged be sold at )ublic auction to satisf the debt, 8t is also im)ortant to note that the house mortgaged was levied u)on at .anarangBs re4uest, ?7/e 4a!e 2a4(! 8o no( 9en()on 4)r4u9!(an4e! o2 (/e 4a!e a! 8e4)8e8 )n (/e 9un)4)0a 4our( (o e eva(e (/e 4a!e (o (/e Cour( o2 F)r!( In!(an4eA The /ourt of !irst 8nstance denied the )etition, holding that although real )ro)ert ma sometimes be considered as )ersonal )ro)ert , the sheriff was in dut bound to cause the )ublication of the notice of its sale in order to ma@e the sale valid or to )revent its being declared void or voidable, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment a))ealed, with costs, 1. Bui-ding is rea- *ro*erty' genera- ru-e. e9ce*tions The general )rinci)le of law is that a building )ermanentl fi2ed to the freehold becomes a )art of it, that )rima facie a house is real estate, belonging to the owner of the land on which it stands, even though it was erected against the will of the landowner, or without his consent, The general rule does not a))l (&) where the im)rovement is made with the consent of the landowner, and )ursuant to an understanding either e2)ressed or im)lied that it shall remain )ersonal )ro)ert , or (#) to a building which is wrongfull removed from the land and )laced on the land of the )erson removing it, +. ,riterion to deter/ine *ro*erty as *ersona- or rea(mong the )rinci)al criteria for determining whether )ro)ert remains )ersonall or becomes realt are anne2ation to the soil, either actual or construction, and the intention of the )arties, ". )ersona- *ro*erty /ay retain c0aracter %y agree/ent "ersonal )ro)ert ma retain its character as such where it is so agreed b the )arties interested even though anne2ed to the realt , or where it is affi2ed in the soil to be used for a )articular )ur)ose for a short )eriod and then removed as soon as it has served its )ur)ose, . Bui-ding of /i9ed /ateria-s /ay %e su%>ect of a c0atte- /ortgage
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 11# )
( building of mi2ed materials ma be the subject of a chattel mortgage, in which case it is considered as between the )arties as )ersonal )ro)ert , (!ee "una v!. Bn4arna4)on $% <G No. 7, 0. 266$& 5(an8ar8 <) v!. 3aran) o, $$ ./) ., 6*0& an8 ,e 3e!u! v!. Guan ,ee Co. 72 ./) ., $6$+ , The matter de)ends on the circumstances and the intention of the )arties, 4. Rea- and *ersona- *ro*erty are rea- and *ersona- *ro*erty as t0ey /ean ordinari-y under t0e Ru-es of B9ecution The rules on e2ecution do not allow, and should not be inter)reted as to allow, the s)ecial consideration that )arties to a contract ma have desired to im)art to real estate as )ersonal )ro)ert , when the are not ordinaril so, Sales on e2ecution affect the )ublic and third )ersons, The regulation governing sales on e2ecution are for )ublic officials to follow, The form of )roceedings )rescribed for each @ind of )ro)ert is suited to its character, not to the character which the )arties have given to it or desire to give it, The regulations were never intended to suit the consideration that )arties, ma have )rivatel given to the )ro)ert levied u)on, 9nforcement of regulations would be difficult were the convenience or agreement of )rivate )arties to determine or govern the nature of the )roceedings, &. House of /i9ed /ateria- -evied u*on on e9ecution is rea- *ro*erty The house of mi2ed materials levied u)on on e2ecution, although subject of a contract of chattel mortgage between the owner and a third )erson, is real )ro)ert within the )urview of Rule $*, section &%, of the Rules of /ourt as it has become a )ermanent fi2ture on the land, which is real )ro)ert , ($2 A9. 3ur. 199#200& "eung =ee v!. 5(rong 'a4/)nery Co., *7 ./) ., 6$$& Re0ub )4 v!. Cen)za, e( a ., 90 ./) ., 5$$& "a8era, e( a . v!. Ho8ge! [C. A], $% <G 5*7$.+. [&+] Canec-ang v. 3A, [G.R. No. L<&&464. ?e*te/%er "!' 1#8&.] Second Division, !ernan (J): 4 concur $acts( (driano .aneclang, et,al,, )etitioners, filed before the then /!8 "angasinan (=ranch H8) a com)laint for 4uieting of title over a certain fish)ond located within 4 )arcels of land belonging to them situated in =arrio Salomague, =ugallon, "angasinan, and the annulment of Resolutions $7 and *3 of the .unici)al /ouncil of =ugallon, "angasinan, -n &3 (ugust &*'3, the trial court dismissed the com)laint u)on a finding that the bod of water traversing the titled )ro)erties is a cree@ constituting a tributar of the (gno River (therefore )ublic in nature and not subject to )rivate a))ro)riation)? and held that Resolution $7, ordering an ocular ins)ection of the /a angan /ree@ situated between =arrios Salomague Sur and Salomague <orte, and Resolution *3 authori:ing )ublic bidding for the lease of all munici)al ferries and fisheries were )assed b the members of the .unici)al /ouncil of =ugallon, "angasinan in the e2ercise of their legislative )owers, .anaclang a))ealed said decision to the 8(/, which affirmed the same on #* ()ril &*7$, +ence, the )etition for review on certiorari, =efore the res)ondents were able to comment on the )etition, the )etitioners manifested that for lac@ of interest on the )art of res)ondent (lfredo .a:a, the awardee in the )ublic bidding of the fish)ond, as the )arties desire to amicabl settle the case b submitting to the /ourt a /om)romise (greement )ra ing that judgment be rendered recogni:ing the ownershi) of the )etitioners over the land the bod of water found within their titled )ro)erties, The Su)reme /ourt dismissed the )etition for lac@ of merit, and set aside the /om)romise (greement and declare the same null and void for being contrar to law and )ublic )olic , 1. ?ti*u-ations nu-- and void for %eing contrary to -a1 and *u%-ic *o-icy The sti)ulations contained in the /om)romise (greement )arta@e of the nature of an adjudication of
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1+! )
ownershi) of the fish)ond in dis)ute, which was originall a cree@ forming a tributar of the (gno River, ( cree@, defined as a recess or arm e2tending from a river and )artici)ating in the ebb and flow of the sea, is a )ro)ert belonging to the )ublic domain which is not susce)tible to )rivate a))ro)riation and ac4uisitive )rescri)tion ('er4a8o v!. 'un)4)0a .re!)8en( o2 'a4abebe+ , and as a )ublic water, it cannot be registered under the Torrens S stem in the name of an individual (Diego v, /(? .angaldan v, .anaoag) and considering further that neither the mere construction of irrigation di@es b the <ational 8rrigation (dministration which )revented the water from flowing in and out of the subject fish)ond, nor its conversion into a fish)ond, alter or change the nature of the cree@ as a )ro)ert of the )ublic domain, The /om)romise (greement, thus, is null and void and of no legal effect, the same being contrar to law and )ublic )olic , +. Cunici*a- counci- aut0oriDed to *ass -a1s dea-ing 1it0 its /unici*a- 1aters The .unici)alit of =ugallon, acting thru its dul 6constituted munici)al council is clothed with authorit to )ass, as it did the two resolutions dealing with its munici)al waters, ". )u%-ication a constructive notice to t0e 10o-e 1or-d. due *rocess fo--o1ed "etitioners were not de)rived of their right to due )rocess as mere )ublication of the notice of the )ublic bidding suffices as a constructive notice to the whole world, [&"] Cani-a Lodge 6&1 v. ,A [G.R. No. L< 1!!1. ?e*te/%er "!' 1#6&.] Tarlac Develo)ment /or), v, /( L1,R, <o, ;64&0&#, Se)tember $0, &*'%,M !irst Division, /astro (J): $ concur, & concurs in the result, $acts( -n #% June &*03 the "hili))ine /ommission enacted (ct &$%0 which authori:ed the /it of .anila to reclaim a )ortion of .anila =a , The reclaimed area was to form )art of the ;uneta e2tension, The (ct )rovided that the reclaimed area Dshall be the )ro)ert of the /it of .anilaE and that Dthe /it of .anila is hereb authori:ed to set aside a tract of the reclaimed land formed b the ;uneta e2tension at the north end not to e2ceed 300 feet b %00 feet in si:e, for a hotel site, and to lease the same, with the a))roval of the 1overnor 1eneral, to a res)onsible )erson or cor)oration for a term not to e2ceed ** ears,E Subse4uentl , the "hili))ine /ommission )assed on &7 .a &*0' (ct &%3', amending (ct &$%0, so as to authori:e the /it of .anila either to lease or to sell the )ortion set aside as a hotel site, The total area reclaimed was a little over #3 hectares, The /it of .anila a))lied for the registration of the reclaimed area, and on #0 Januar &*&&, -/T &*0* was issued in the name of the /it of .anila, -n &$ Jul &*&& the /it of .anila, affirming a )rior sale dated &% Januar &*0*, conve ed 3,34$,0' s4, m, of the reclaimed area to the .anila ;odge <o, '%&, =enevolent and "rotective -rder of 9l@s of the 5,S,(, (="-9) on the basis of which T/T #&*3 was issued to the latter over the )arcel of land which was )art of ;uneta 92tension in the District of 9rmita, !or the remainder of the ;uneta 92tension, i,e, after segregating therefrom the )ortion sold to the .anila ;odge <o, '%&, ="-9, a new /ertificate of Title #&*% was issued on &' Jul &*&& to the /it of .anila, .anila ;odge subse4uentl sold said 3,34$,0' s4, m, to the 9l@s /lub, 8nc,, to which was issued T/T %'477, The registered owner, DThe 9l@s /lub, 8nc,,E was later changed b court order to D.anila ;odge <o, '%&, =enevolent and "rotective -rder of 9l@s, 8nc,E 8n Januar &*%$ the ="-9 )etitioned the /!8 .anila, =ranch 8>, for the cancellation of the right of the /it of .anila to re)urchase the )ro)ert , This )etition was granted on &3 !ebruar &*%$, -n &* <ovember &*%$ the ="-9 sold the land together with all the im)rovements thereon to the Tarlac Develo)ment /or)oration which )aid "&,'00,000 as down )a ment and mortgaged to the vendor the same realt to secure the )a ment of the balance to be )aid in 4uarterl installments, (t the time of the sale, there was no annotation of an subsisting lien on the title to the )ro)ert , -n &# December &*%$ T/T '$444 was issued to TD/, 8n June &*%4 the /it of .anila filed with the /!8 .anila a )etition for the reannotation of its
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1+1 )
right to re)urchase? the court, after hearing, issued an order, dated <ovember &*, &*%4, directing the Register of Deeds of the /it of .anila to reannotate in toto the entr regarding the right of the /it of .anila to re)urchase the )ro)ert after 30 ears, !rom this order TD/ and ="-9 a))ealed to the Su)reme /ourt which on $& Jul &*%7 affirmed the trial courtBs order of reannotation, but reserved to TD/ the right to bring another action for the clarification of its rights, -n #7 ()ril &*'&, as a conse4uence of such reservation, TD/ filed a com)laint against the /it of .anila and .anila ;odge '%&, ="-9 with the /!8 .anila )ra ing that 9ntr 4%07AT6&%$3 found in T/T '$444 covering the )arcel of land with buildings and im)rovements thereon )urchased from ="-9 be cancelled? that .anila )a s TDS the sum of "&00,000 as damages, that TD/ reserve the right to recover amounts from ="-9 in case that the judgment on the )arcel of land declares it a )ublic )ar@, The /it of .anila set u) a s)ecial and affirmative defense claiming that TD/ is not a )urchaser in good faith, .anila ;odge '%& admitted to have sold the land in good faith, and that it had received 4uarterl installments from TD/ until &3 -ctober &*%4 when the latter failed without justifiable cause to )a the subse4uent installments, (fter due trial the court a 4uo rendered on &4 Jul &*'# its decision finding the subject land to be )art of the D)ublic )ar@ or )la:aE and, therefore, )art of the )ublic domain, The court conse4uentl declared that the sale of the subject land b the /it of .anila to .anila ;odge <o, '%&, ="-9, was null and void? that )laintiff TD/ was a )urchaser thereof in good faith and for value from ="-9 and can enforce its rights against the latter? and that ="-9 is entitled to recover from the /it of .anila whatever consideration it had )aid the latter, !rom said decision, TD/ and .anila ;odge '%&, ="-9 a))ealed to the /ourt of ())eals, 8n its decision )romulgated on $0 June &*'3, the /ourt of ())eals concurred in the findings and conclusions of the lower court u)on the ground that the are su))orted b the evidence and are in accordance with law, and accordingl affirmed the lower courtBs judgment, +ence, the )etitions for review on certiorari, The Su)reme /ourt denied the )etitions for lac@ of merit, and affirmed the decision of the /ourt of ())eals, at )etitionerBs cost, 1. ?tatutory ,onstruction. ,ourts /ust give effect to t0e genera- -egis-ative intent 8t is a cardinal rule of statutor construction that courts must give effect to the general legislative intent that can be discovered from or is unraveled b the four corners of the statute, and in order to discover said intent, the whole statute, and not onl a )articular )rovision thereof, should be considered, 8n the )resent case, it is thus necessar to anal :e all the )rovisions of (ct &$%0, as amended, in order to unravel the legislative intent, +. Grant of *u%-ic nature strict-y construed against t0e grantee The grant made b (ct &$%0 of the reclaimed land to the /it of .anila is a grant of a D)ublicE nature, the same having been made to a local )olitical subdivision, Such grants have alwa s been strictl construed against the grantee, -ne com)elling reason given for the strict inter)retation of a )ublic grant is that there is in such grant a gratuitous donation of, )ublic mone or resources which results in an unfair advantage to the grantee and for that reason, the grant should be narrowl restricted in favor of the )ublic, This reason for strict inter)retation obtains relative to the aforesaid grant for although the /it of .anila was to )a for the construction of such wor@ and timber bul@heads or sea walls as ma be necessar for the ma@ing of the ;uneta e2tension, the area to be reclaimed would be filled at the e2)ense of the 8nsular 1overnment and without cost to the /it of .anila, with material dredged from .anila =a , +ence, the letter of the statute should be narrowed to e2clude matters which if included would defeat the )olic of the legislation, ". Rec-ai/ed area of *u%-ic do/inion' intended for *u%-ic use The reclaimed area, an e2tension to the ;uneta, is declared to be )ro)ert of the /it of .anila? and is of )ublic dominion, intended for )ublic use, 8t cannot be )atrimonial )ro)ert as (ct &$%0, as amended, )rovides b necessar im)lication, that the /it of .anila could not dis)ose of the reclaimed area without being authori:ed b the lawma@ing bod ,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1++ )
. 21ners0i* defined (rticle $47 of the /ivil /ode of S)ain )rovides that Downershi) is the right to enjo and dis)ose of a thing without further limitations than those established b law,E The right to dis)ose ( jus dis)onendi) of oneBs )ro)ert is an attribute of ownershi), 4. ?tatutory ,onstruction. every 1ord' c-ause of statute inter*reted in a 1ay t0at no *art %eco/es ino*erative or su*erf-uous 8f the reclaimed area were )atrimonial )ro)ert of the /it , the latter could dis)ose of it without need of the authori:ation )rovided b the statute, and the authori:ation to set aside, lease, or sell given b the statute would indeed be su)erfluous, To so construe the statute as to render the term Dauthori:e,E which is re)eatedl used b the statute, su)erfluous would violate the elementar rule of legal hermeneutics that effect must be given to ever word, clause, and sentence of the statute and that a statute should be so inter)reted that no )art thereof becomes ino)erative or su)erflous, To authori:e means to em)ower, to give a right to act, (ct &$%0 furthermore 4ualifies the verb Dauthori:eE with the adverb Dhereb ,E which means Db means of this statute or section,E +ence without the authori:ation e2)ressl given b (ct &$%0, the /it of .anila could not lease or sell even the northern )ortion? much less could it dis)ose of the whole reclaimed area, (t most, onl the northern )ortion reserved as a hotel site could be said to be )atrimonial )ro)ert , for, b e2)ress statutor )rovision it could be dis)osed of, and the title thereto would revert to the /it should the grantee fail to com)l with the terms )rovided b the statute, &. )resu/*tion of fu-- kno1-edge of *rior -a1s and -egis-ation 10en -a1/aking %ody enacts a statute 8t is )resumed that when the lawma@ing bod enacted the statute, it had full @nowledge of )rior and e2isting laws and legislation on the subject of the statute and acted in accordance or with res)ect thereto, 8f b another )revious law, the /it of .anila could alread dis)ose of the reclaimed area, which it could do if such area were given to it as its )atrimonial )ro)ert , it would be a su)erfluit for (ct &$%0 to authori:e the /it to dis)ose of the reclaimed land, 6. B9tension to Luneta is a-so a *u%-ic *ark or *-aDa and for *u%-ic use The reclaimed area, being an De2tension to the ;uneta in the /it of .anila,E it is of the same nature or character as the old ;uneta, (nent this matter, it has been said that a )ower to e2tend (or continue an act or business) cannot authori:e a transaction that is totall distinct, 8t is not dis)uted that the old ;uneta is a )ublic )ar@ or )la:a and it is so considered b Section 73* of the Revised -rdinances of the /it of .anila, +ence the De2tension to the ;unetaE must be also a )ublic )ar@ or )la:a and for )ublic use, 8. B9tension defined 92tension signifies enlargement in an direction R in length, breadth, or circumstance, #. Bays' roadsteads' coast sea' in-ets and s0ores are *art of t0e nationa- do/ain o*en for *u%-ic use ( ba is nothing more than an inlet of the sea, "ursuant to (rticle & of the ;aw of Gaters of &7%%, ba s, roadsteads, coast sea, inlets and shores are )arts of the national domain o)en to )ublic use, These are also )ro)ert of )ublic ownershi) devoted to )ublic use, according to (rticle $$* of the /ivil /ode of S)ain, 8n the )resent case, the reclaimed area was formerl a )art of the .anila =a , 1!. A0en s0ore or *art of %ay is rec-ai/ed' it does not -ose c0aracter of %eing *ro*erty for *u%-ic use Ghen the shore or )art of the ba is reclaimed, it does not lose its character of being )ro)ert for )ublic use, according to 1overnment of the "hili))ine 8slands vs, /abangis, Ghen the tract of land owned b a )rivate individual wears awa and later on is submerged in water in ordinar tides (thus becoming )art of the shore),
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1+" )
until the 1overnment later on underta@es the dredging of the estuar and dum)ing the sand and silt from estuar on the low lands com)letel submerged in water forming the reclaimed lots, the belong to the )ublic domain for )ublic use, +ence, a )art of the shore, and for that )ur)ose, a )art of the ba , did not lose its character of being for )ublic use after it was reclaimed, 11. B9*ressio unius est e9c-usio a-terius. ?out0ern *ortion is not t0e nort0ern *ortion aut0oriDed to %e -eased or so-d (ct &$%0, as amended, authori:ed the lease or sale of the northern )ortion of the reclaimed area as a hotel site, The subject )ro)ert is not that northern )ortion authori:ed to be leased or sold? the subject )ro)ert is the southern )ortion, +ence, a))l ing the rule of e2)resio unius est e2clusio alterius, the /it of .anila was not authori:ed to sell the subject )ro)ert , The a))lication of this )rinci)le of statutor construction becomes the more im)erative inasmuch as not onl must the )ublic grant of the reclaimed area to the /it of .anila be strictl construed against the /it of .anila, but also because a grant of )ower to a munici)al cor)oration, as ha))ens in this case where the cit is authori:ed to lease or sell the northern )ortion of the ;uneta e2tension, is strictl limited to such as are e2)ressl or im)liedl authori:ed or necessaril incidental to the objectives of the cor)oration, 1+. )ro*erty of *u%-ic use. 3ntention to consider *ro*erty for *u%-ic use i/*ortant' not actuaconstruction or -ayout (rticle $44 of the /ivil /ode of S)ain )rovides that D)ro)ert of )ublic use, in )rovinces and in towns, com)rises the )rovincial and town roads, the s4uares, streets, fountains, and )ublic waters, the )romenades, and )ublic wor@s of general service )aid for b such towns or )rovinces,E ( )ar@ or )la:a, such as the e2tension to the ;uneta, is undoubtedl com)rised in said article, "ro)erties of )rovinces and towns for )ublic use are governed b the same )rinci)les as )ro)erties of the same character belonging to the )ublic domain, 8n order to be )ro)ert of )ublic domain an intention to devote it to )ublic use is sufficient, 8t is not necessar , therefore, that a )la:a be alread construed or laid out as a )la:a in order that it be considered )ro)ert for )ublic use, 8t is sufficient that it be intended to be such, 1". ,onversion of *ro*erty of *u%-ic us to *atri/onia- *ro*erty re5uires e9*-icit dec-aration %y t0e e9ecutive and t0e -egis-ative de*art/ent (s held in 8gnacio vs, The Director of ;ands, it is onl the e2ecutive and )ossibl the legislative de)artment that has the authorit and the )ower to ma@e the declaration that said )ro)ert is no longer re4uired for )ublic use, and until such declaration is made the )ro)ert must continue to form )art of the )ublic domain, 8n the )resent case, there has been no such e2)licit or une4uivocal declaration, The courts are undoubtedl not )rimaril called u)on, and are not in a )osition, to determine whether an )ublic land is still needed for the )ur)oses s)ecified in (rticle 4 of the ;aw of Gaters, 1 . ,ircu/stantia- evidence far re/oved in ti/e to %e considered conte/*oraneous to t0e enact/ent of Act 1"&! (ll items of alleged circumstantial evidence are acts far removed in time from the date of the enactment of (ct &$%0 such that the cannot be considered contem)oraneous with its enactment, .oreover, it is not far6 fetched that this mass of circumstantial evidence might have been influenced b the antecedent series of invalid acts, i,e, the /it Bs having obtained over the reclaimed area -/T &*0* (#0 Januar &*&&)? the sale made b the /it of the subject )ro)ert to .anila ;odge <o, '%&? and the issuance to the latter of T/T #&*3, 8t cannot be gainsaid that if the subse4uent acts constituting the circumstantial evidence have been based on, or at least influenced, b those antecedent invalid acts and Torrens titles, the can hardl be indicative of the intent of the lawma@ing bod in enacting (ct &$%0 and its amendator act, 14. Cention as %oundary o1ner is not a /eans of ac5uiring tit-e -/T '$$$ (&$ <ovember &*$3), covering the lot where the (merican 9mbass L/hancer M stands, states that the )ro)ert is Dbounded on the <orthwest b )ro)erties of (rm and <av /lub and 9l@s /lub,E 9ven if said
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1+ )
boundaries were delineated b the "hili))ine ;egislature in (ct 4#%*, this does not mean that the ;egislature Drecogni:ed and conceded the e2istence of the 9l@s /lub )ro)ert as a )rivate )ro)ert and not as a )ublic )ar@ or )la:a, ( contrar argument is non se4uitur, )lain and sim)le, Said -riginal /ertificate of Title cannot be considered as an inconvertible declaration that the 9l@s /lub was in truth and in fact the owner of such boundar lot, Such mention as boundar owner is not a means of ac4uiring title nor can it validate a title that is null and void, 1&. Govern/ent not esto**ed %y /istake or errors on t0e *art of its agents The 1overnment is never esto))ed b mista@es or errors on the )art of its agents, and esto))el does not a))l to a munici)al cor)oration to validate a contract that is )rohibited b law or its against )ublic )olic , 8n the )resent case, the &$ Jul &*&& sale e2ecuted b the cit of .anila to .anila ;odge was certainl a contract )rohibited b law, 9sto))el cannot be urged even if the /it of .anila acce)ted the benefits of such contract of sale and the .anila ;odge <o, '%& had )erformed its )art of the agreement, for to a))l the doctrine of esto))el against the /it of .anila in this case would be tantamount to enabling it to do indirectl what it could not do directl , 16. ?a-e void and e9istent. cannot %e ratified %y -a*se of ti/e or %y e9*ress ratification The sale of the subject )ro)ert e2ecuted b the /it of .anila to the .anila ;odge <o, '%&, ="-9, was void and ine2istent for lac@ of subject matter, 8t suffered from an incurable defect that could not be ratified either b la)se of time or b e2)ress ratification, The .anila ;odge <o, '%& therefore ac4uired no right b virtue of the said sale, +ence to consider now the contract ine2istent as it alwa s has been, cannot be, as claimed b the .anila ;odge <o, '%&, an im)airment of the obligations of contracts, for there was in contem)lation of law, no contract at all, 18. Good fait0 of *urc0aser cannot create tit-e 10ere none e9ist The ine2istence of said sale can be set u) against an one who asserts a right arising from it, not onl against the first vendee but also against all its successors, which are not )rotected b law, The doctrine of bona fide )urchaser without notice does not a))l where there is a total absence of title in the vendor, and the good faith of the )urchaser cannot create title where none e2ists, [& ] Canotok Rea-ty v. ;ecson [G.R. No. L< 6 64. August 1#' 1#88.] Third Division, 1utierre: Jr, (J): 4 concur $acts( .anoto@ Realt filed a com)laint against <ilo .adlangawa for recover of )ossession and damages with the then /!8 .anila, Said court rendered judgment, declaring .adlangawa as a builder or )ossessor in good faith? ordering the com)an to recogni:e the right of .adlangawa to remain in ;ot $43, =loc@ &, of the /lara Tambunting Subdivision until after he shall have been reimbursed b the com)an the sum of "',300,00, without )ronouncement as to costs, <ot satisfied with the trial courtBs decision, the com)an a))ealed to the /ourt of ())eals and u)on affirmance b the latter of the decision below, the com)an elevated its case to the Su)reme /ourt, -n &$ Jul &*'', the Su)reme /ourt issued a resolution dated && Jul &*'' den ing the com)an Bs )etition for lac@ of merit, -n 3 (ugust &*'', the com)an filed with the trial court (Judge Jose +, Tecson), a motion for the a))roval of the com)an Bs e2ercise of o)tion and for satisfaction of judgment, )ra ing that the court issue an order: a) a))roving the e2ercise of the com)an Bs o)tion to a))ro)riate the im)rovements introduced b .adlangawa on the )ro)ert ? b) thereafter, .adlangawa be ordered to deliver )ossession of the )ro)ert in 4uestion to the com)an , -n ' -ctober &*'', the judge held that in view of )eculiar circumstances which su)ervened the institution of the case, e,g, the introduction of certain re)airs of and other substantial im)rovements on the controverted )ro)ert , the motion for a))roval was denied, (fter a denial of its motion for reconsideration,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1+4 )
the com)an filed the )resent )etition for mandamus alleging that the judge committed grave abuse of discretion in den ing his motion to e2ercise o)tion and for e2ecution of judgment on the grounds that under (rticles 447 and 34% of the /ivil /ode, the e2ercise of o)tion belongs to the owner of the )ro)ert and that u)on finalit of judgment, the )revailing )art is entitled, as a matter of right, to its e2ecution which is onl a ministerial act on the )art of the judge, -n #7 December &*70, "D &%%* was issued )roviding for the e2)ro)riation of the Tambunting 9state, +owever, this decree was challenged before the Su)reme /ourt in 1R 33&%% (9lisa R, .anoto@, et al, v, <ational +ousing (uthorit , et al,), -n #& .a &*7', the /ourt rendered a decision in the 9lisa .anoto@ case ruling that "D &%%* is unconstitutional for being violative of the due )rocess clause, Thus, the )resent )etition has not been rendered moot and academic b the decision in .anoto@ v, <+(, The Su)reme /ourt granted the )etition and ordered Judge Tecson to immediatel issue a writ of e2ecution ordering the .adlangawa to vacate the dis)uted )remises and deliver )ossession of the same to the com)an , .anoto@ Realt , 1. A0en decision %eco/es fina- and e9ecutory' >udge incu/%ent to issue necessary 1rit of e9ecution Ghen the decision of the trial court became final and e2ecutor , it became incumbent u)on the trial court judge to issue the necessar writ for the e2ecution of the same, There is no basis for the judge to den the )etitionerBs motion to avail of its o)tion to a))ro)riate the im)rovements made on its )ro)ert , +. A0en decision %eco/es fina-' no addition can %e /ade t0ereto 8n Duenas v. Mandi (&3& S/R( 3$0, 343), it was held that Dafter a judgment has become final, no additions can be made thereto, and nothing can be done therewith e2ce)t its e2ecution, otherwise there would be no end to legal )rocesses, (Fabu ar v. Cour( o2 A00ea !, 119 5CRA *29+I The judge cannot den the issuance of a writ of e2ecution because the .adlangawa was adjudged a builder in good faith or on the ground of D)eculiar circumstances which su)ervened after the institution of this case, li@e, for instance, the introduction of certain major re)airs of and other substantial im)rovementsE because the o)tion given b law either to retain the )remises and )a for the im)rovements thereon or to sell the said )remises to the builder in good faith belongs to the owner of the )ro)ert , ". 2*tions avai-a%-e to t0e *arties 8n 8ue&e v. 9laes (& S/R( &&3*, &&%$), it was held that Dunder (rticle 447, the right to a))ro)riate the wor@s or im)rovements or Jto oblige the one who built or )lanted to )a the )rice of the landB belongs to the owner of the land, The onl right given to the builder in good faith is the right to reimbursement for the im)rovements? the builder, cannot com)el the owner of the land to sell such land to the former,E . Bui-der in good fait0 8n *az Mercado, et al. v. !on. Court of Appeals, et al., (1R ;64400&, &0 June &*77), it was held that Dto be deemed a builder in good faith, it is essential that a )erson assert title to the land on which he builds? i,e,, that he be a )ossessor in conce)t of owner, (Ar(. 525, C)v) Co8e& "o0ez, In4. v. ./) . Ba!(ern 7ra8)ng Co., In4., 9% ./) . *$%+ and that he be unaware Jthat there e2ists in his title or mode of ac4uisition an flaw which invalidates it,B (Ar(. 526, C)v) Co8e& Grana8o! v. 'on(on, %6 ./) . $2& Arr)o a v. Go9ez 8e a 5erna, 1$ ./) . 627& 5ee a !o 'ano(oG Rea (y, In4. v. C.A., 1*$ 5CRA *29, 4)()ng Cara9 v. "aure(a, 10* 5CRA 7+ 8t is such a builder in good faith who is given the right to retain the thing, even as against the real owner, until he has been reimbursed in full not onl for the necessar e2)enses but also for useful e2)enses, (Ar(. 5$6, C)v) Co8e& .o )4ar0)o v. CA., 129 5CRA 51& 5ar9)en(o v. Agana, 129 5CRA 122& 42, Oue(o v. C.A. ,122 5CRA 206+I 4. Good fait0 cease after fi-ing of t0e co/*-aint
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1+& )
8n Mindanao Acade&y, #nc. v. ;ap (&$ S/R( &*0, &*%), it was held that Dalthough the bad faith of one )art neutrali:es that of the other and hence as between themselves their rights would be as if both of them had acted in good faith at the time of the transaction, this legal fiction of (Ta))Bs good faith ceased when the com)laint against him was filed, and conse4uentl the courtBs declaration of liabilit for the rents thereafter is correct and )ro)er, ( )ossessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits onl so long as his )ossession is not legall interru)ted, and such interru)tion ta@es )lace u)on service of judicial summons (Ar(!. 5$$ an8 112*, C)v) Co8e+.I &. Re*airs and i/*rove/ents introduced after t0e fi-ing of t0e co/*-aint in %ad fait0 The re)airs and im)rovements introduced b the builder after the com)laint was filed cannot be considered to have been built in good faith, much less, justif the denial of the landownerBs e2ercise of o)tion, 6. 3/*rove/ents gutted %y fire' %ui-der:s rig0t to retain e9tinguis0ed Since the im)rovements have been gutted b fire, and therefore, the basis for the builderBs right to retain the )remises has alread been e2tinguished without the fault of the landowner, there is no other recourse for the builder but to vacate the )remises and deliver the same to the landowner, [&4] Ca*a v. 3nsu-ar Govern/ent [G.R. No. L<"6#". $e%ruary 1#' 1#!8.] !irst Division, Gillard (J): # concur, & concur in result $acts( .a)a sought to register a tract of land of about &% hectares in e2tent, situated in the barrio San (ntonio, .andurriao, munici)alit of 8loilo before the /ourt of ;and Registration, Judgment was rendered in favor of .a)a and the 1overnment has a))ealed, ( motion for a new trial was made and denied in the lower court, but no e2ce)tion was ta@en to the order den ing it, ())eal was made before the Su)reme /ourt, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment of the court below, with the costs against the a))ellant, 1. Ru-ing of t0e -o1er court in re-ation to ?ection 4 ' *aragra*0 & of Act #+& Section 34, )aragra)h % of (ct *#% )rovides that Dall )ersons who b themselves or their )redecessors in interest have been in the o)en, continuous e2clusive, and notorious )ossession and occu)ation of agricultural )ublic lands, as defined b said act of /ongress of & Jul &*0#, under a bona fide claim of ownershi) e2ce)t as against the 1overnment, for a )eriod of &0 ears ne2t )receding the ta@ing effect of this act, e2ce)t when )revented b war, or force majeure, shall be conclusivel )resumed to have )erformed all the conditions essential to a 1overnment grant and to have received the same, and shall be entitled to a certificate of title to such land under the )rovisions of this cha)ter,E 8n the )resent case, the lower court ruled that Dfrom the evidence adduced it a))ears that the land in 4uestion is lowland, and has been uninterru)tedl , for more than twent ears, in the )ossession of the )etitioner and his ancestors as owners and the same has been used during the said )eriod, and u) to the )resent, as fish )onds, ni)a lands, and salt de)osits, The witnesses declare that the land is far from the sea, the town of .olo being between the sea and the said land,E +. Definition of agricu-tura- -and as used in Act #+& rat0er its /eaning as to its nature The issue is not what is agricultural land, but what definition has been given to that )hrase b the act of /ongress, The )hrase Dagricultural )ublic landsE as defined b the act of /ongress of & Jul &*0# is found not onl in section 34 but in other )arts of (ct *#%, and it seems that the same construction must be given to the )hrase wherever it occurs in an )art of that law, ". Bffect if agricu-tura- -and is taken to /ean e9c-usive-y to %e t0at of its nature' as c-ai/ %y attorney<generaThe claim of the (ttorne 61eneral seems to be that no lands can be called agricultural lands unless the are
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1+6 )
such b their nature, 8f the contention of the (ttorne 61eneral is correct, and this land because of its nature is not agricultural land, 8t could not allow the land to be entered as a homestead, for /ha)ter 8 of (ct *#% allows the entr of homesteads onl u)on Dagricultural )ublic landsE in the "hili))ine 8slands, as defined b the act of /ongress of & Jul &*0#, 8t could not sell it in accordance with the )rovisions of /ha)ter 88 of (ct *#%, for section &0 onl authori:es the sale of Dunreserved nonmineral agricultural )ublic land in the "hili))ine 8slands, as defined in the act of /ongress of & Jul &*0#, 8t could not lease it in accordance with the )rovisions of /ha)ter 888 of the said act, for section ## relating to leases limits them to Dnonmineral )ublic lands, as defined b section &7 and #0 of the act of /ongress of & Jul &*0#, The 1overnment could not give a free )atent to this land to a native settler, in accordance with the )rovisions of /ha)ter 8>, for that relates onl to Dagricultural )ublic land, as defined b act of /ongress of & Jul &*0#, . ?ection 1" and 14 of t0e Act *rovides on-y se/%-ance of t0e definition of t0e *0rase Section &$ )rovides that Dthe 1overnment of the "hili))ine 8slands, subject to the )rovisions of this act and e2ce)t as herein )rovided, shall classif according to its agricultural character and )roductiveness, and shall immediatel ma@e rules and regulations for the lease, sale, or other dis)osition of the )ublic lands other than timber or mineral lands, but such rules and regulations shall not go into effect of have the force of law until the have received the a))roval of the "resident, and when a))roved b the "resident the shall be submitted b him to /ongress at the beginning of the ne2t ensuing session thereof and unless disa))roved or amended b /ongress at said session the shall at the close of such )eriod have the force and effect of law in the "hili))ine 8slands: "rovided, That a single homestead entr shall not e2ceed &% hectares in e2tent,E -n the other hand, Section &3 )rovides that Dthe 1overnment of the "hili))ine 8slands is hereb authori:ed and em)owered on such terms as it ma )rescribe, b general legislation, to )rovide for the granting or sale and conve ance to actual occu)ants and settlers and other citi:ens of said 8slands such )arts and )ortions of the )ublic domain, other than timber and mineral lands, of the 5nited States in said 8slands as it ma deem wise, not e2ceeding si2teen hectares to an one )erson and for the sale and conve ance of not more than one thousand and twent 6four hectares to an cor)oration or association of )ersons: "rovided, that the grant or sale of such lands, whether the )urchase )rice be )aid at once or in )artial )a ments shall be conditioned u)on actual and continued occu)anc , im)rovement, and cultivation of the )remises sold for a )eriod of not less than five ears, during which time the )urchaser or grantee can not alienate or encumber said land or the title thereto? but such restriction shall not a))l to transfers of rights and title of inheritance under the laws for the distribution of the estates of decedents,E <either one of these sections gives an e2)ress definition of the )hrase Dagricultural land,E 4. Cet0od to deciding t0e 5uestion 10et0er -and is agricu-tura- -and. Agricu-tura- -and are t0ose *u%-ic -ands ac5uired fro/ ?*ain 10ic0 are neit0er /inera- or ti/%er -ands There seem to be onl $ )ossible wa s of deciding the 4uestion whether the land is agricultural, The first is to sa that no definition of the )hrase Dagricultural landE can be found in the act of /ongress? the second, that there is a definition of that )hrase in the act and that it means land which in its nature is agricultural? and, third, that there is a definition in the act and that the )hrase means all of the )ublic lands ac4uired from S)ain e2ce)t those which are mineral or timber lands, The court below ado)ted the latter view, and held that the land, not being timber or mineral land, came within the definition of agricultural land, and that therefore Section 34 )aragra)h %, (ct *#% was a))licable thereto, &. ,onstruction of t0e *0rase Hagricu-tura- -andI cannot %e -eft to re/ain uncertain The objection to ado)ting the construction on account of its uncertaint is em)hasi:ed when it is consider that whether certain land was or was not agricultural land would be a 4uestion that would finall have to be determined b the courts, unless there is some e2)ress )rovision of the law authori:ing the administrative officers to determine the 4uestion for themselves, (fter homesteads have been entered, lands, sold, and leases made b the administrative officers ()ursuant to Section # of (ct *#%, Section &$, Section #%, Section $4) on the theor that the lands were agricultural lands b their nature, to leave the matter of their true character o)en for subse4uent action b the courts would be to )roduce an evil that should if )ossible be avoided, The
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1+8 )
construction of the )hrase would never be entirel free from objection, but the /ourt believes that the construction ado)ted is less objectionable than an other one that has been suggested, 6. )o1er to deter/ine nature of -and %y ,0ief of t0e Bureau of )u%-ic Lands *ursuant to Act #+& Section # of (ct *#% relating to homesteads )rovides that the /hief of The =ureau of "ublic ;ands shall summaril determine whether the land described is )rima facie under the law subject to homestead settlement, Section &$, relating to the sale of )ublic lands, )rovides sim)l that the /hief of the =ureau of "ublic ;ands shall determine from the certificate of the /hief of the =ureau of !orestr whether the land a))lied for is more valuable for agricultural than for timber )ur)oses, but it sa s nothing about his decisions as to whether it is or is not agricultural land in its nature, Section #% relating to the lease of )ublic lands )rovides that the /hief of the =ureau of "ublic ;ands shall determine from the certificate of the /hief of the =ureau of !orestr whether the land a))lied for is more valuable for agricultural than for timber )ur)oses and further summaril determine from available records whether the land is or is not mineral and does not contain de)osits of coal or salts, Section $4 relating to free )atents to native settlers ma@es no )rovision for an determination b the /hief of =ureau of "ublic ;ands in regard to the character of the land a))lied for, 8. =ones v. 3nsu-ar Govern/ent not conf-icting. c0aracter of -and not raised in t0at case' %ut t0e -a1 *ertaining to agricu-tura- -ands There is nothing in this case of Jones vs, The 8nsular 1overnment which at all conflicts with the result here arrived at, The 4uestion as to whether the lands there involved were or were not agricultural lands within the meaning of the sections was neither discussed nor decided, 8n fact, it a))ears from the decision that those lands, which were in the "rovince of =enguet, were within the strictest definition of the )hrase Dagricultural lands,E 8t a))ears that such lands had been cultivated for more than twelve ears, Ghat that case decided was, not that the lands therein involved and other lands referred to in the decision b wa of illustration were not agricultural lands but that the law there in 4uestion and the other laws mentioned therein were not rules and regulations within the meaning of section &$, [&&] Cercado v. ,A [G.R. No. L< !!1. =une 1!' 1#88.] !irst Division, <arvasa (J): 4 concur $acts( ;olita /, =ulaong, !lorentino (gulto, Severino Sala sa , Susana =ernardino (the =ulaong 1rou)), from &*3% to &*'#, have been individual lessees of stalls in the )ublic mar@et of =aliuag, =ulacan, The mar@et was destro ed b fire on &' !ebruar &*3%? the members of the =ulaong 1rou) constructed new stalls therein at their e2)ense? and the thereafter )aid rentals thereon to the .unici)alit of =aliuag, 8n &*'#, the members of the grou) sub6leased their individual stalls to other )ersons: "a: .ercado, /arolina S, /hico, ;uciana /abrera, Joa4uin 8gnacio, 9lmer !lores, and (velina /, <ucom (the .ercado 1rou)), (fter the .ercado 1rou) had been in )ossession of the mar@et stalls for some months, the munici)al officials of =aliuag cancelled the long standing leases of the =ulaong 1rou) and declared the )ersons com)rising the .ercado 1rou) as the rightful lessees of the stalls in 4uestion, in substitution of the former, The munici)al authorities justified the cancellation of the leases of the =ulaong 1rou) b invo@ing the )rovisions of .unici)al -rdinance &4, dated &4 December &*%4, which )rohibited the sub6leasing stalls b the lessees thereof, as well as a #* .a &*'$ directive of the -ffice of the "resident re4uiring enforcement of said -rdinance &4, Recognition of the .ercado 1rou)Bs rights over the stalls was subse4uentl manifested in .unici)al -rdinance 4*, a))roved on 3 Jul &*'$, The members of the =ulaong 1rou) sued, The filed several individual com)laints with the /!8 see@ing recover of their stalls from the .ercado 1rou) as well as damages, Their theor was anchored on their claimed ownershi) of the stalls constructed b them at their own e2)ense, and their resulting right, as such owners, to sub6lease the stalls, and necessar , to recover them from an )erson withholding )ossession
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1+# )
thereof from them, The .ercado 1rou) thereafter filed motions for summar judgment, asserting that in light of the admissions made at the )re6trial and in the )leadings, no issue remained under genuine controversion, to which the =ulaong 1rou) objected, (ssuming the indifference of the /ourt and the other grou) to its o))osition, the former )resented affidavits and de)ositions to )rove the value of the im)rovements, for which the were see@ing reimbursement, to which the .ercado 1rou) did not res)ond, -n #4 -ctober &*'3, Judge =enigno "uno rendered a summar judgment in all the cases, 8t rejected the claim of the .unici)alit of =aliuag that it had automaticall ac4uired ownershi) of the new stalls constructed after the old stalls had been ra:ed b fire, declaring the members of the =ulaong 1rou) to be builders in good faith, entitled to retain )ossession of the stalls res)ectivel )ut u) b them until and unless indemnified for the value thereof The decision also declared that the =ulaong and .ercado 1rou)s had e2ecuted the sub6letting agreements with full awareness that the were thereb violating -rdinance &4? the were thus in )ari delicto, and hence had no cause of action one against the other and no right to recover whatever had been given or demand )erformance of an thing underta@en, The .ercado 1rou) and the .unici)alit filed on &4 <ovember &*'3, motions for reconsideration of the summar judgment, notice of which had been served on them on $ <ovember &*'3, These were denied, and notice of the order of denial was received b them on &7 December &*'3, -n ' Januar &*'%, the .ercado 1rou) filed a notice of a))eal, an a))eal bond and a motion for e2tension of time to file their record on a))eal, =ut b -rder dated * Januar &*'%, the Trial /ourt directed inter alia the e2ecution of the judgment, adjudging that its decision had become final because the a))eal documents had Dnot been seasonabl filed,E The writ was issued, and the .ercado 1rou)Bs motion to 4uash the same and to re6o)en the case was denied, The 1rou) went to the /ourt of ())eals, instituting in that court a s)ecial civil action of certiorari and )rohibition Dto annul that )ortion of the summar judgment awarding damages to the =ulaong 1rou) and to restrain the Judge and the "rovincial Sheriff of =ulacan from enforcing the same,E The a))ellate /ourt rendered judgment on &4 .a &*'% affirming the judgment of the lower court, holding that the judgment had become final and certiorari or )rohibition could not be availed of as a substitute for the grou)Bs lost a))eal, -nce again, the .ercado 1rou) moved for reconsideration of an adverse judgment, and once again were rebuffed, (n a))eal b wa of certiorari was filed before the Su)reme /ourt, The Su)reme /ourt dismissed the )etition and affirmed the a))ealed judgment, with costs against the .ercado 1rou), 1. ,ourt %ound %y factua- 0o-ding of t0e ,A' un-ess t0ere are reasons to de*art 5)on the factual findings of the /ourt of ())eals, b which this court is bound, and ta@ing account of well established )recedent from which there is no )erceivable reason in the )remises to de)art, there is no 4uestion that the the .ercado 1rou) had failed to )erfect an a))eal from the summar judgment within the reglementar )eriod fi2ed b the Rules of /ourt, The record discloses that the received co) of the summar judgment on $ <ovember &*'3? that on &4 <ovember &*'3, or after the la)se of && da s from recei)t of said decision, the filed their motion for reconsideration of said decision? that on &7 December &*'3, the received co) of the order den ing their motion for reconsideration? and that the did not file their notice of a))eal, a))eal bond and motion for e2tension of time until ' Januar &*'%, or #0 da s after recei)t of the order den ing their motion for reconsideration, The notice of a))eal, a))eal bond and motion for e2tension were, therefore, )resented & da after the e2)iration of the $06da )eriod to )erfect an a))eal, +. ,o/*utation of "!<day reg-e/entary *eriod 8n accordance with Section $, Rule 4& of the Rules of /ourt, the $06da reglementar )eriod of a))eal shall be deducted the Dtime during which a motion to set aside the judgment or order or for a new trial has been )ending,E ". =urisdiction of t0e -o1er court. )arties recogniDed >urisdiction 10en t0ey fi-ed *-eadings 5nder the law, the Trial /ourt validl ac4uired jurisdiction not onl over the )ersons of the )arties but also
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1"! )
over the subject matter of the actions at bar, The )arties com)osing the .ercado 1rou) cannot dis)ute this? the recogni:ed the /ourtBs com)etence when the filed their answers to the com)laints without 4uestioning the /ourtBs jurisdiction of the subject6matter? indeed neither at that time nor at an other time thereafter did an one of them ever raise the 4uestion, . =urisdiction not -ost %y any error in t0e e9ercise t0ereof co//itted %y t0e court. Brroneous >udg/ent does not render decision void. Brror of >udg/ent revie1a%-e %y a**ea-' not %y s*ecia- action of certiorari or *ro0i%ition Jurisdiction, once ac4uired, is not lost b an error in the e2ercise thereof that might subse4uentl be committed b the court, Ghere there is jurisdiction over the )erson and the subject matter, the decision of all other 4uestions arising in the case is but an e2ercise of that jurisdiction, (nd when a court e2ercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while engaged in that e2ercise does not de)rive it of the jurisdiction being e2ercised when the error is committed, 8f it did, ever error committed b a court would de)rive it of jurisdiction and ever erroneous judgment would be a void judgment, This, of course, cannot be allowed, The administration of justice would not survive such a rule, .oreover, an error that the /ourt ma commit in the e2ercise of its jurisdiction, being merel an error of judgment, is reviewable onl b a))eal, not b the s)ecial civil action of certiorari or )rohibition, 4. )ecu-iar scenario. ?u//ary >udg/ent re5uested %y t0e Cercado Grou* The )etitioners (.ercado 1rou)) were the )arties who, as defendants, had moved for summar judgment, The @new or were su))osed to @now that, as stated b the Rules, their motion would be granted if Dthe )leadings, de)ositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that, e2ce)t as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to an material fact and that the are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law,E The @new that the =ulaong 1rou), had in fact o))osed their motion and had )ointed out )recisel the need for a hearing on the controverted matter of damages, That the did not join in the move to have a hearing on the issue of damages is an indication that the considered it unnecessar , Ghen the =ulaong 1rou), a))arentl in view of the /ourtBs and the .ercado 1rou)Bs indifference to the notion of having a hearing on the matter of damages im)licitl indicating the belief of the su)erfluit of a hearing, )resented affidavits and de)ositions to )rove the value of the im)rovements, for which the were see@ing reimbursement, the .ercado 1rou) did not as@ that the matter be ventilated at a hearing, or submit counter6 affidavits, as was their right, The made no res)onse whatever, The were evidentl 4uite confident of obtaining a favorable judgment, and that such an eventualit would )reclude the claimed reimbursement or recover of damages, (s it turned out, the were wrong in their )rognostication, &. Ru-e in su//ary >udg/ent 8t is onl the ascertainment of the character of the issues raised in the )leadings R as genuine, or sham or fictitious R which can be done b de)ositions, admissions, or affidavits? the resolution of such issues as are found to be genuine should be made u)on )roof )roferred at a formal hearing, The )eculiar circumstances of the )resent case o)erate to e2clude it from the sco)e of the rule, 8t is an e2ce)tion that should however be ta@en, as affirming and not eroding the rule, 6. Lessees cannot %e considered %ui-ders in good fait0 The members of the =ulaong grou) were admittedl lessees of s)ace in the )ublic mar@et? the therefore could not, and in truth never did ma@e the claim, that the were owners of an )art of the land occu)ied b the mar@et so that in res)ect of an new structure )ut u) b them thereon, the could be deemed builders in good faith (in accordance with (rticle 3#% of the /ivil /ode), To be deemed a builder in good faith, it is essential that a )erson assert title to the land on which he builds? i,e,, that he be a )ossessor in conce)t of owner, and that he be unaware Dthat there e2ists in his title or mode of ac4uisition an flaw which invalidates it, 8t is such a builder in good faith who is given the right to retain the thing, even as against the real owner, until he has been reimbursed in full not onl for the necessar e2)enses but also for useful e2)enses, -n the other hand, unli@e the builder in good faith, a lessee who Dma@es in good faith useful im)rovements which are
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1"1 )
suitable to the use for which the lease is intended, without altering the form or substance of the )ro)ert leased,E can onl claim )a ment of Done6half of the value of the im)rovementsE or, Dshould the lessor refuse to reimburse said amount, remove the im)rovements, even though the )rinci)al thing ma suffer damage thereb ,E 8. ?u//ary >udg/ent a fina- >udg/ent' not an inter-ocutory dis*osition or order The summar judgment rendered on #4 -ctober &*'3 was not an interlocutor dis)osition or order but a final judgment within the meaning of Section #, Rule 4& of the Rules of /ourt, = that summar judgment the /ourt finall dis)osed of the )ending action, leaving nothing more to be done b it with res)ect to the merits, thus )utting an end to the litigation as its level, #. Re/edy to a fina- >udg/ent is an a**eaThe remed available against a final judgment was an a))eal in accordance with Rule 4& of the Rules of /ourt, The availabilit of the right of a))eal obviousl )recluded recourse to the s)ecial civil action of certiorari, This is a2iomatic, 8t is a )ro)osition made )lain b Section & of Rule %3 which la s down as a condition for the filing of a certiorari )etition that there be Jno a))eal, nor an )lain, s)eed and ade4uate remed in the ordinar course of law, The remed to obtain a reversal or modification of the judgment on the merits is a))eal, This is true even if the error, or one of the errors, ascribed to the /ourt rendering the judgment is its lac@ of jurisdiction of the subject matter, or the e2ercise of )ower in e2cess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of fact or of law set out in its decision, The e2istence and availabilit of the right of a))eal )roscribes a resort to certiorari, one of the re4uisites for availment of the latter remed being )recisel that Dthere should be no a))eal,E There ma to be sure, be instances when certiorari ma e2ce)tionall be )ermitted in lieu of a))eal, as when their a))eal would be inade4uate, slow, insufficient, and will not )rom)tl relieve a )art from the injurious effect of the judgment com)lained of, or to avoid future litigations, none of which situations obtains in the )resent case, (nd certain it is that the s)ecial civil action of certiorari cannot be a substitute for a))eal, s)eciall where the right to a))eal has been lost through a )art Bs fault or ine2cusable negligence, The judgment became final and has thus gone be ond the reach of an court to modif in an substantive as)ect, 1!. =udg/ent contrary to e9*ress *rovisions 10ic0 %eco/es fina- and e9ecutory' %inding and effective as any va-id >udg/ent That the judgment of the Trial /ourt a))lied the wrong )rovision of the law in the resolution of the controvers has ceased to be of an conse4uence, i,e, instead of the legal )rovision governing lesseesB rights over im)rovements on leased realt , the judgment invo@ed that relative to the rights of builders in good faith, ( judgment contrar to the e2)ress )rovisions of a statute is of course erroneous, but it is not void? and if it becomes final and e2ecutor , it becomes as binding and effective as an valid judgment? and though erroneous, will henceforth be treated as valid, and will be enforced in accordance with its terms and dis)ositions, [&6] Cercado v. Cunici*a- )resident of Caca%e%e [G.R. No. "6#8&. Carc0 1' 1#" .] Second Division, Dia: (J): 4 concur $acts( .ariano .ercado, the original owner of the hacienda, in order to facilitate the cutting and trans)ortation of firewood and other )roducts, )roduced on the said hacienda, towards the <asi River on the east or towards ;imasan cree@ on the west, connected the two recesses or bodies of water in 4uestion b means of e2cavation and, after having so connected them, made other e2cavations at both ends towards the said directl connecting both bodies of water, and which later became @nown as the =atasan6;imasan or "inac =uIgalun cree@, Said =atasan6;imasan or "inac =uIgalun cree@ or canal alread e2isted at the time of the institution of the registration )roceedings wherein judgment was rendered resulting in the issuance of
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1"+ )
certificate of title $#* in favor of Romulo .ercado, -n the )lan of the land, which was )resented in the said case, the aforesaid cree@ a))ears? and at the time the case was tried as well as when the certificate of title was issued in favor of the Romulo .ercado, none of the herein defendants nor the 8nsular 1overnment filed o))osition or objection thereto, -nce the said =atasan6;imasan or "inac =uIgalun cree@ or canal was o)ened from the <asi River to ;imasan cree@, not onl the residents of the hacienda and those who visited it but also some of the residents of the nearb barrios and munici)alities began to use it as a means of communication in attending to their needs, sometimes with the )ermission of the owners of the hacienda, and at other times without even the latterBs @nowledge, 8t was then that Romulo .ercado, the a))ellantBs (9ufemia .ercado) )redecessor in interest, decided to convert the said cree@ into a fish )ond and with that object in view, in &*#7 he closed the two o)enings thereof towards the <asi River on one side and ;imasan cree@ on the other side, The Secretar of /ommerce ordered Romulo .ercado to remove the two di@es which he had constructed at both ends of the cree@ named =atasan6;imasan or "inac =uIgalun, which traverses )art of the hacienda described in certificate of title $#* of the registr of deeds of "am)anga, and formerl belonging to Romulo .ercado, but which now belonging to the 9ufenua b virtue of a formal donation made to her, 9ufemia .ercado a))ealed the order of the Secretar of /ommerce with the /!8 "am)anga? which later dismissed said a))eal, holding the cree@ in 4uestion as )ro)ert of the )ublic domain, +ence, the )resent )etition, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment a))ealed from, with costs against the a))ellant, 1. Notice cannot constitute sufficient evidence ( mere notice does not constitute sufficient evidence that the cree@ in 4uestion is the )ro)ert of the )ublic domain, Such evidence cannot be given an weight, as it was not established that an one ever obtained the )rivilege of fishing in the =atasan6;imasan cree@, such )rivilege being )laced at )ublic auction, +. )u%-ic and )rivate o1ners0i* under t0e ?*anis0 ,ivi- ,ode of 188# As to *u5lic 9+nership< (rticles $$* of the S)anish /ivil /ode of &77* )rovides that )ro)ert of )ublic ownershi) includes Dthat devoted to )ublic use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, )orts and bridges constructed b the State, riverban@s, shores, roadsteads, and that of a similar character,E (rticle 40' of the same /ode )rovides that D(&) Rivers and their natural channels? (#) /ontinuous or intermittent waters from s)rings or broo@s running in then natural channels and the channels themselves? ($) Gaters rising continuousl or intermittentl on lands of )ublic? 222 (7) Gaters which flow continuousl or intermittentl from lands belonging to )rivate )ersons, to the State, to )rovinces, or to towns from the moment the leave such lands? 222E are of )ublic ownershi), As to *rivate 9+nership< (rticle 407 of the S)anish /ivil /ode of &77* )rovides that D(&) Gaters, either continuous or intermittent rising on )rivate estates, while the run through them? (#) ;a@es and )onds and their beds when formed b nature on such estates? ($) Subterranean waters found therein? (4) Rain waters falling thereon as long as the remain within their boundaries? and (3) The channels of flowing streams, continuous or intermittent formed b rain water, and those of broo@s crossing estates which are not of )ublic ownershi)E are of )rivate ownershi), !urther, Dthe water, bed, ban@s, and floodgates of a ditch or a4ueduct are deemed to be an integral )art of the estate or building for which the waters are intended, The owners of estates through or along the boundaries of which the a4ueduct )asses can assert no ownershi) over it, nor an right to ma@e use of its beds or ban@s, unless the base their claim on title deed which s)ecif the right or the ownershi) claimed,E ". Artic-e !8(4) s*eaks of c0anne- of creeks and not t0e creek itse-f ())ellant cannot invo@e in her favor the (rticle 407 (3) on the ground that although it is true that the =atasan6 ;imasan or "inac =uIgalun cree@ )asses through her hacienda, it is none the less true that it is not included in
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1"" )
an of the @inds of )rivate )ro)ert therein enumerated, The a))ellant and her )redecessors in interest, in closing the two o)enings of the said cree@ and converting it into a fish )ond, not onl a))ro)riated for themselves the channel of the said cree@ but also the cree@ itself, . ,reek and %rook distinguis0ed ( cree@ is not a broo@ because the latter is but a short, almost, continuous stream of water (,)44)onar)o 8e a Rea A4a8e9)a B!0a1o a+, while the former is a recess or arm e2tending from a river, which )artici)ates in the ebb and flow of the sea, (15 Bn4)4 o0e8)a 3ur)8)4a B!0a1o a, 216.+ 4. ,reeks are *ro*erty of *u%-ic do/ain (rticle $$* )rovides that canals, rivers, torrents, and those of a similar character are )ro)ert of )ublic ownershi), and the similarit between rivers, canals, and cree@s undoubtedl obvious on the ground that, as has been stated, a cree@ is no other than arm e2tending from a river, !urthermore, under article 40', the =atasan6;imasan or "inac =uIgalun cree@ ma be considered as belonging to the class of )ro)ert enumerated in )aragra)h 7 thereof, (nd, in addition to the foregoing, the /ontentious /ourt of S)ain (Tribunal /ontencioso de 9s)aIa) in a decision dated June #3, &7*0, laid down the doctrine that cree@s are )ro)ert of the )ublic domain (&3 9nciclo)edia Juridica 9s)aIola, #&%), &. Fse and en>oy/ent of a creek /ay %e ac5uired or -ost t0roug0 *rescri*tion 9ven granting that the =atasan6;imasan cree@ ac4uired the )ro)ortions which it had, before it was closed, as a result of e2cavations made b the laborers of the a))ellantBs )redecessor in interest, it being a fact that, since the time it was o)ened as a water route between the <asi River and ;imasan cree@, the owners thereof as well as strangers, that is, both the residents of the hacienda and those of other nearb barrios and munici)alities, had been using it not onl for their bancas to )ass through but also for fishing )ur)oses, if the a))ellant and her )redecessors in interest had ac4uired an right to the cree@ in 4uestion b virtue of e2cavations which the had made thereon, the had lost such right through )rescri)tion inasmuch as the failed to obtain, and in fact the have not obtained, the necessar authori:ation to devote it to their own use to the e2clusion of all others, The use and enjo ment of a cree@, as an other )ro)ert susce)tible of a))ro)riation, ma be ac4uired or lost through )rescri)tion, and the a))ellant and her )redecessors in interest certainl lost such right through the said cause, and the cannot now claim it e2clusivel for themselves after the general )ublic had been o)enl using the same from &*0% to &*#7, 6. ;it-e does not confer any rig0t to t0e creek 8t is useless for the a))ellant to allege that she has obtained certificate of title $#* in her favor because the said certificate does not confer u)on her an right to the cree@ in 4uestion, inasmuch as the said cree@, being of the )ublic domain, is included among the various e2ce)tions enumerated in section $* of (ct 4*% to which the said certificate is subject b e2)ress )rovision of the law, and furthermore, because it so a))ears in the certificate itself, 8. Govern/ent of t0e )0i-i**ine 3s-ands v. ?antos does not a**-y in *resent case The doctrine laid down in the case of the 1overnment of the "hili))ine 8slands vs, Santos (1,R, <o, #'#0#, )romulgated Se)tember #, &*#', not re)orted) is not a))licable in the )resent case because the subject matter in that case is not of the same nature as the =atasan6;imasan or "inac =uIgalun cree@, The thing involved therein was sim)l a date or, in the words of the trial court, a low de)ression on the defendantBs land where there was a waterwa )assable b bancas at high tide, but which com)letel dried u) at low tide and during the dr season, The thing involved herein, the =atasan6;imasan cree@, is )erfectl navigable b bancas throughout the ear, !urthermore, in the case of 5rbano Santos, the cree@ in 4uestion was closed a few ears after e2cavations had been made in the land under consideration, [&8]
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1" )
Cindanao Bus v. ,ity Assessor [G.R. No. L<1686!. ?e*te/%er +#' 1#&+.] 9n =anc, ;abrador (J): ' concur, $ too@ no )art, $acts( .indanao =us /om)an is a )ublic utilit engaged in trans)orting )assengers and cargoes b motor truc@s in .indanao? having its main offices in /aga an de -ro, The com)an is also owner to the land where it maintains and o)erates a garafe, a re)air sho), blac@smith and car)entr sho)s? the machineries are )lace therein on wooden and cement )latforms, The /it (ssessor of /aga an de -ro /it assessed at "4,400 said maintenance and re)air e4ui)ment, The com)an a))ealed the assessment to the =oard of Ta2 ())eals on the ground that the same are not realt , The =oard of Ta2 ())eals of the /it sustained the cit assessor, so the com)an filed with the /ourt of Ta2 ())eals a )etition for the review of the assessment, The /ourt of Ta2 ())eal (/T( /ase '&0) held that the /om)an was liable to the )a ment of the realt ta2 on its maintenance and re)air e4ui)ment, +ence, the com)an filed a )etition for review with the Su)reme /ourt, The Su)reme /ourt set aside the decision subject of the )etition for review and the e4ui)ment in 4uestion declared not subject to assessment as real estate for the )ur)oses of the real estate ta2, Githout costs, 1. Cac0inery /ade i//ova%-e /ust %e essentia- and *rinci*a- e-e/ents of an industry or 1orks "aragra)h 3 of (rticle 4&3 of the <ew /ivil /ode ()reviousl (rticle $44, )aragra)h 3, of the old /ivil /ode) which )rovides machiner , rece)tacles, instruments or im)lements intended b the owner of the tenement for an industr or wor@s which ma be carried on in a building or on a )iece of land, and which tend directl to meet the needs of the said industr or wor@s are immovable )ro)erties, .ovable e4ui)ments to be immobili:ed in contem)lation of the law must first be Dessential and )rinci)al elementsE of an industr or wor@s without which such industr or wor@s would be Dunable to function or carr on the industrial )ur)ose for which it was established,E +. Cac0inery essentia- to industry in Berkenkotter v. ,u Fn>ieng. Cac0inery incidenta- in *resent case 8t cannot be said that the incor)oration of the machiner and e4ui)ment in the central of the .abalacat Sugar /om)an was not )ermanent in character because, as essential and )rinci)al elements of a sugar central, without them the sugar central would be unable to function or carr on the industrial )ur)ose for which it was established, 8nasmuch as the central is )ermanent in character, the necessar machiner and e4ui)ment installed for carr ing on the sugar industr for which it has been established must necessaril be )ermanent, 8n contrast, the trans)ortation business could be carried on without the re)air or service sho) if its rolling e4ui)ment is re)aired or serviced in another sho) belonging to another, ". Cac0inery incidenta- to industry are not i//o%i-iDed. e9a/*-es .ovables which become immobili:ed b destination because the are essential and )rinci)al elements in the industr are distinguished from those which ma not be so considered immobili:ed because the are merel incidental, not essential and )rinci)al, Thus, cash registers, t )ewriters, etc,, usuall found and used in hotels, restaurants, theaters, etc, are merel incidentals and are not and should not be considered immobili:ed b destination, for these businesses can continue or carr on their functions without these e4ui)ments, (irline com)anies use for@lifts, jee)6wagons, )ressure )um)s, 8.= machines, etc, which are incidentals, not essentials, and thus retain their movable nature, -n the other hand, machineries of breweries used in the manufacture of li4uor and soft drin@s, though movable in nature, are immobili:ed because the are essential to said industries? but the deliver truc@s and adding machines which the usuall own and use and are found within their industrial com)ounds are merel incidentals and retain their movable nature, . ;rans*ortation %usiness not carried on in a %ui-ding' tene/ent or s*ecified -and. e5ui*/ent t0us are not rea- estate (side from the element of essentialit , (rticle 4&3 (3) also re4uires that the industr or wor@s be carried on in a building or on a )iece of land, 8n the case of =er@en@otter vs, /u 5njieng, the Dmachiner , li4uid containers,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1"4 )
and instruments or im)lementsE are found in a building constructed on the land, ( sawmill would also be installed in a building on land more or less )ermanentl , and the sawing is conducted in the land or building, 8n contrast, .indanao =us /om)an Bs trans)ortation business is not carried on in a building, tenement or on a s)ecified land, so said e4ui)ment ma not be considered real estate within the meaning of (rticle 4&3 (c) of the /ivil /ode, [&#] Ciranda v. $adu--on [G.R. No. L<8++!. 2cto%er +#' 1#44.] 9n =anc, .ontema or (J): 7 concur $acts( 8n &*$* ;ucio Tio was the owner of a )arcel of land, lot &37*6J of the =anilad 9state, /ebu, under T/T &0347, -n * December &*$*, a )ower of attorne in favor of one 9steban !adullon e2ecuted b ;ucio Tio was registered in the land records of /ebu /it and annotated at the bac@ of the T/T, -n the same date the deed of mortgage in favor of the /ebu .utual =uilding and ;oan (ssociation was also annotated on the same certificate of title, 8n &*4%, on the strength of the said )ower of attorne !adullon sold the )ro)ert to the s)ouses Dionisio Segarra and /lemencia <, de Segarra with right to re)urchase within the short )eriod of $0 da s, 5)on failure of !adullon to ma@e the re)urchase within the )eriod, the Segarras within &0 da s after the e2)iration of the )eriod filed a sworn )etition for the consolidation of their ownershi) and registered said )etition in the office of the Register of Deeds on &3 .a &*4%, ())rised of the sale of his )ro)ert , ;ucio Tio on 4 June &*4%, filed a com)laint in the /!8 /ebu, /ivil /ase &7& to annul the sale, (fter hearing the trial court rendered judgment annulling the sale?canceling the new /ertificate of Torrens Title $*# on the )ro)ert in the name of the Segarras, and ordered a new one to be issued in the name of ;ucio Tio and his wife Salvacion .iranda, The Segarras a))ealed to the /ourt of ())eals under /(61R, %3306R and the said Tribunal affirmed the a))ealed decision and further re4uired the Segarras to )a Tio the reasonable rentals on the )ro)ert from the filing of the action until said )ro)ert shall have been returned to the latter, 5)on the decision becoming final the corres)onding writ of e2ecution was issued directing the Sheriff to )ut Tio in )ossession of the lot, 8t turned out however that during the )ossession of the )ro)ert b the Segarras the had introduced im)rovements thereon consisting of a building of $ rooms and a storage room, and one artesian well, with tower and water tan@ and a cement flooring covering about &A$ of the lot which according to the Segarras cost them "3,$00, The filed a motion with the trial court claiming that the were )ossessors in good faith of the lot in 4uestion, and that the had introduced the im)rovements aforementioned in good faith and as@ed the court to order Tio to )a for the said im)rovements valued at "3,$00 or to allow them to bu the land should Tio decide not to )a for the im)rovements, -n #7 (ugust &*3#, the trial court ordered Tio to )a the Segarras the sum of "3,$00 or otherwise allow the latter to )urchase the lot, Tio filed a motion for reconsideration claiming that the Segarras are )ossessors and builders in bad faith, and e2)lained his lac@ of o))osition for the reimbursement with the understanding that the trial court was sufficientl informed and im)ressed with the bad faith with which defendants bought the land and introduced im)rovements thereon, 5)on the denial of his motion for reconsideration, he too@ the a))eal, The /ourt of ())eals certified the case to the Su)reme /ourt on the o)inion that the case involved onl 4uestions of law, ("u4)o 7)o a(er on !u44ee8e8 by 5a va4)on ')ran8a, /)! @)2e, a2(er /)! 8e9)!e& (/e 4a!e 2a4(! 8)8 no( 0rov)8e @/en+ The Su)reme /ourt set aside the a))ealed order of #7 (ugust &*3# and the order of &3 -ctober &*3#, den ing )laintiffBs motion for reconsideration are set aside? with costs against !adullon and the s)ouses Segarra, 1. Good fait0 1anting in t0e /anner t0e -ot 1as so-d. ,o--usion or cons*iracy vis<K<vis s0ort
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1"& )
*eriod of rede/*tion Ghile the evidence did not disclose a collusion or cons)irac between !adullon and the Segarras, et, considering the short )eriod of one month within which to redeem and the surrounding circumstances, the )ossibilit of such collusion lingers, -bviousl there was in this transaction a )revailing intention of railroading the )ro)ert into a new ownershi) as ma be )roven b the fact that said )urchasers filed a sworn )etition for consolidating their ownershi) barel &0 da s after the e2)iration of $0 da s, i,e, on &$ ()ril &$, &*4%, and registered with the office of Register of Deeds for /ebu &# da s thereafter, i,e, on &3 .a &*4%, +. Good fait0 1anting in t0e /anner t0e -ot 1as so-d. 3n5uiry on t0e agent:s *o1er of attorney The alleged )ower of attorne e2ecuted b the late ;ucio Tio in favor of a))ellant !adullon was registered in the land record of the Register of Deeds of /ebu /it and annotated at the bac@ of T/T &0347 on #* December &*$*, -n the same date, the deed of mortgage in favor of the /ebu .utual =uilding and ;oan (ssociation was annotated in the said Torrens title, This encumbrance alone should have been sufficient to )ut the Segarra s)ouses u)on an in4uir as to the authorit of !adullon to sell to them the same )ro)ert % ears later, but the did not, !urther, the Segarras did not re4uire !adullon to )roduce his )ower of attorne , Ghile it is true that said )ower of attorne is annotated at the bac@ of the Torrens title of Tio, it was still incumbent u)on the Segarras to ascertain the sco)e and authorit of !adullon under said )ower of attorne , !adullon e2ecuted the sale with the right to re)urchase within the e2traordinar short )eriod of $0 da s, This circumstance, again, should have )laced the Segarras on their guards, @nowing, as the did, that the were dealing with an agent under a )ower of attorne e2ecuted before the war, ". 2rder to *ay rent an indicatu/ t0at t0e -o1er courts *erceive defendants as *ossessors in %ad fait0 !rom the decisions of the lower courts, one can logicall infer that the conclusion of the two courts, to sa it more mildl , that the defendants were not )ossessors in good faith, The fact that the /ourt of ())eals sentenced the defendants to )a rentals is an indication, even )roof that defendants were considered )ossessors and builders in bad faith, or at least that the were not )ossessors and builders in good faith, ( builder in good faith ma not be re4uired to )a rentals, +e has a right to retain the land on which he has built in good faith until he is reimbursed the e2)enses incurred b him, "ossibl he might be re4uired to )a rental onl when the owner of the land chooses not to a))ro)riate the im)rovement and re4uires the builder in good faith to )a for the land, but that the builder is unwilling or unable to bu the land, and then the decide to leave things as the are and assume the relation of lessor and lessee, and should the disagree as to the amount of the rental then the can go to the court to fi2 that amount, !urthermore, .iranda (Tio) in her brief sa s [ without denial or refutation on the )art of !adullon and the Segarra s)ouses [ that the latter a))lied for a building )ermit to construct the im)rovements in 4uestion on 4 December &*4% and the )ermit was granted on && Januar &*4', about seven months after the received the summons on &0 June &*4%, [6!] Conserrat v. ,eron [G.R. No. "6!68. ?e*te/%er +6' 1#"".] 9n =anc, >illa6real (J): 4 concur $acts( 9nri4ue .onserrat, was the )resident and manager of the .anila Tellow Ta2icab /om)an and the owner of &,#00 common shares of stoc@ thereof, -n #3 .arch &*$0, in consideration of the interest shown and the financial aid e2tended him in the organi:ation of the cor)oration b /arlos 1, /eron, .onserrat assigned to the former the usufruct of half of the said common shares of stoc@? the corres)onding certificate of stoc@ <o, ', having been issued in the name of /eron to that effect on #4 .arch &*$0, Said assignment or transfer onl gave the transferee the right to enjo , during his lifetime, the )rofits which might be derived from the shares assigned him, )rohibiting him from selling, mortgaging, encumbering, alienating or otherwise e2ercising an act im)l ing absolute ownershi) of all or an of the shares in 4uestion, the transferor having reserved for himself and his heirs the right to vote derived from said shares of stoc@ and to recover the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1"6 )
ownershi) thereof at the termination of the usufruct (92hibit (), The Stoc@ certificate was recorded in the name of /eron and the deed of transfer was noted on )age ## of the Stoc@ and Transfer =oo@ of the .anila Tellow Ta2icab /om)an , -n #% !ebruar &*$&, /eron mortgaged to 9duardo R, .atute, )resident of 9rma 8nc,, some shares of stoc@ of the .anila Tellow Ta2icab, among which were the %00 common shares of stoc@ in 4uestion, for the sum of "$0,000, /eron endorsed to .atute the certificate of stoc@, of which .atute has been in )ossession ever since, Ghen /eron mortgaged the shares to .atute, he did not inform .atute of the e2istence of the document (92hibit () and the latter never had an @nowledge thereof, /eron continued as secretar of the .anila Tellow Ta2icab until 3 .a &*$&, the date when the notation of 92hibit ( in 4uestion a))earing in the boo@s of the cor)oration and the same date when the shares of stoc@ were sold at )ublic auction to satisf /eronBs debt to .atute, ?Ca!e 2a4(! 8o no( 0rov)8e 2or 8e(a) ! on /o@ (/e 4a!e @a! )n!()(u(e8 )n (/e CFI 'an) aA The /!8 .anila rendered judgment in favor of the )laintiff declaring the )laintiff the owner of the %00 shares of stoc@? and declaring the mortgage constituted on the ownershi) of the shares of stoc@ null and void and without force and effect, although the mortgage on the usufruct enjo ed b the mortgage debtor /eron in the said %00 shares of stoc@ is hereb declared valid? with costs against the defendants, 9rma 8nc, and the Sheriff of .anila, the defendants therein, a))ealed from the decision, The Su)reme /ourt reversed the judgment a))ealed from and absolved defendants from the com)laint therein? with costs against the a))ellee, 1. ?ection "4 of t0e ,or*oration La1 does not re5uire entry e9ce*t of transfers of s0ares of stock in order t0at suc0 transfers /ay %e va-id as against t0ird *ersons. Section $3 of the /or)oration ;aw )rovides that Dthe ca)ital stoc@ of stoc@ cor)orations shall be divided into shares for which certificates signed b the )resident or the vice6)resident, countersigned b the secretar or cler@ and sealed with the seal of the cor)oration, shall be issued in accordance with the b 6laws, Shares of stoc@ so issued are )ersonal )ro)ert and ma be transferred b deliver of the certificate endorsed b the owner or his attorne in fact or other )erson legall authori:ed to ma@e the transfer, <o transfer, however, shall be valid, e2ce)t as between the )arties, until the transfer is entered and noted u)on the boo@s of the cor)oration so as to show the names of the )arties to the transaction, the date of the transfer, the number of the certificate, and the number of shares transferred?E and that Dno share of stoc@ against which the cor)oration hold an un)aid claim shall be transferable on the boo@s of the cor)oration,E +. Aords in statute to %e taken in t0eir natura-' *-ain and ordinary signification 8t is a rule of statutor construction that the words of a statute are to be ta@en in their natural, )lain and ordinar signification in accordance with the common and a))roved usage of the language, giving to words of common use their )o)ularl acce)ted meaning and to technical terms or words of art, their acce)ted s)ecial signification, unless there is reason to believe from the conte2t of the statute that such words have been used in another sense, 8n the )resent case, inasmuch as it does not a))ear from the te2t of the /or)oration ;aw that an attem)t was made to give a s)ecial signification to the word DtransferE, we it shall be construed according to its acce)ted meaning in ordinar )arlance, ". ;ransfer defined Diccionario de la Acade&ia de la Lengua Castellana) The word DtransferenciaE (transfer) is defined as Daccion efecto de tarnsferirE (the act and effect of transferring)? and the verb DtransferirE, as Dceder o renunciar en otro el derecho o dominio 4ue se tiene sobre una cosa, haci^ndole dueIo de ellaE (to assign or waive the right in, or absolute ownershi) of, a thing in favor of another, ma@ing him the owner thereof), La+ Dictionary of =,ords and *hrases>) DTransferB means an act b which )ro)ert of one )erson is vested in
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1"8 )
another, and Jtransfer of sharesB, as used in 5niform Stoc@ Transfer (ct, im)lies an means whereb one ma be divested of and another ac4uire ownershi) of stoc@,D . ,0atte- /ortgage defined Section $ of (ct &307, as amended b (ct #4*%, defines the )hrase Dhi)oteca mobiliariaE (chattel mortgage) as Da conditional sale of )ersonal )ro)ert as securit for the )a ment of a debt, or the )erformance of some other obligation s)ecified therein, the condition being that the sale shall be void u)on the seller )a ing to the )urchaser a sum of mone or doing some other act named, 8f the condition is )erformed according to its terms the mortgage and sale immediatel become void, and the mortgagee is thereb divested of his title,E 4. ;ransfer in a c0atte- /ortgage a /ere security for t0e *ay/ent of t0e /ortgage de%t (lthough a chattel mortgage, accom)anied b deliver of the mortgaged thing, transfers the title and ownershi) thereof to the mortgage creditor, such transfer is not absolute but constitutes a mere securit for the )a ment of the mortgage debt, the transfer in 4uestion becoming null and void from the time the mortgage debtor com)lies with his obligation to )a his debt, &. ;ransfer in a c0atte- /ortgage not t0e transfer conte/*-ated in ?ection "4 of t0e ,or*oration La1' i.e. A%so-ute and unconditiona- conveyance of tit-e and o1ners0i* of a s0are of stock ( JtransferB is the act b which the owner of a thing delivers it to another with the intent of )assing the rights which he has in it to the latter, and a chattel mortgage is not within the meaning of such term, (Nob e v. F(. 59)(/ M/o e!a e Gro4ery, 127 .a4., 1$,17& *$ <G . 662& $6 "RA [N5] $55+. The chattel mortgage is not the transfer referred to in section $3 of (ct &43* (the /or)oration ;aw) which transfer should be entered and noted u)on the boo@s of a cor)oration in order to be valid, and which, as has alread been said, means the absolute and unconditional conve ance of the title and ownershi) of a share of stoc@, The entr and notation of a chattel mortgage u)on the boo@s of the cor)oration is not a necessar re4uisite to its validit , 6. Catute (Br/a 3nc.) a conditiona- *urc0aser in good fait0 9rma, 8nc,, as a conditional )urchaser of the shares of stoc@ in 4uestion given as securit for the )a ment of his credit, ac4uired in good faith /eronBs right and title to the %00 common shares of stoc@ evidenced b certificate <o, ' of the .anila Tellow Ta2icab /om)an ,, and as such conditional )urchaser in good faith, it is entitle to the )rotection of the law, 9vidence would show that .atute found the shares, as recorded in the Stoc@ and Transfer =oo@ of the com)an , free from all liens and encumbrances and made no reference made to the deed 92hibit (, [61] CA?? v. ,A [G.R. No. L<4 4+&. August +4' 1#8&.] Second Division, !eria (J): 4 concur, & too@ no )art $acts( The /it of Dagu)an filed a com)laint against the former <ational Gaterwor@s and Sewerage (uthorit (<(G(S(), now the .etro)olitan Gaterwor@s and Sewerage S stem (.GSS), for recover of the ownershi) and )ossession of the Dagu)an Gaterwor@s S stem, <(G(S( inter)osed as one of its s)ecial defenses R( &$7$ which vested u)on it the ownershi), )ossession and control of all waterwor@s s stems throughout the "hili))ines and as one of its counterclaims the reimbursement of the e2)enses it had incurred for necessar and useful im)rovements amounting to "#33,000,00, Judgment was rendered b the trial court in favor of the cit on the basis of a sti)ulation of facts, The trial court found <(G(S( to be a )ossessor in bad faith and hence not entitled to the reimbursement claimed b it, <(G(S( a))ealed to the then /ourt of ())eals and argued in its lone assignment of error that the cit should have been held liable for the amorti:ation of the balance of the loan secured b <(G(S( for the im)rovement of the Dagu)an Gaterwor@s S stem, The a))ellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, .GSS, successor6in6 interest of the <(G(S(, a))ealed ()etition for review on certiorari) to the Su)reme /ourt raising the sole
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1"# )
issue of whether or not it has the right to remove all the useful im)rovements introduced b <(G(S( to the Dagu)an Gaterwor@s S stem, notwithstanding the fact that <(G(S( was found to be a )ossessor in bad faith, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the decision of the a))ellate court, with costs against .GSS, 1. )ractice. ,o//on error in >oining t0e court as *arty res*ondent in an a**ea- under Ru-e 4 of t0e Ru-es of ,ourt 8t is a common error of joining the court (be it a Regional Trial /ourt, the 8ntermediate ())ellate /ourt, or the Sandiganba an) as a )art res)ondent in an a))eal b certiorari to this /ourt under Rule 43 of the Rules of /ourt, The onl )arties in an a))eal b certiorari are the a))ellant as )etitioner and the a))ellee as res)ondent, (C2. B G! C ub v!. Rov)ra, %0 ./) . 272+ The court which rendered the judgment a))ealed from is not a )art in said a))eal, 8t is in the s)ecial civil action of certiorari under Section 3 of Rule %3 of the Rules of /ourt where the court or judge is re4uired to be joined as )art defendant or res)ondent, The joinder of the 8ntermediate ())ellate /ourt or the Sandiganba an as )art res)ondent in an a))eal b certiorari is necessar in cases where the )etitioner6a))ellant claims that said court acted without or in e2cess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, (n e2am)le of this is a case where the )etitioner6a))ellant claims that the 8ntermediate ())ellate /ourt or the Sandiganba an acted with grave abuse of discretion in ma@ing its findings of fact, thus justif ing the review b this court of said findings of fact, (5ee (/e e64e0()on! (o (/e ru e o2 4on4 u!)vene!! o2 (/e 2)n8)ng! o2 2a4( o2 (/e In(er9e8)a(e A00e a(e Cour( or (/e 5an8)ganbayan )n (/e 4a!e o2 5a4ay v!. 5an8)ganbayan, G.R. No!. 66$97#9%, 3u y 10, 19%6.+ 8n such a case, the )etition for review on certiorari under Rule 43 of the Rules of /ourt is at the same time a )etition for certiorari under Rule %3, and the joinder of the 8ntermediate ())ellate /ourt or the Sandiganba an becomes necessar , (C2. ")anga "u9ber Co90any v!. ")anga 7)9ber Co., In4., 'ar4/ *1, 1977, 76 5CRA 197+. +. Re/ova%i-ity of usefu- i/*rove/ent s0ou-d 0ave in t0e counterc-ai/. )-eadings cou-d not %e dee/ed a/ended to confor/ to t0e evidence The )rocedural objection of the /it is technicall correct, as that assuming that .GSS (<(G(S() has the right to remove the useful im)rovements, such im)rovements were not actuall identified, and hence a rehearing would be re4uired which is im)ro)er at the current stage of the )roceedings? and finall , that such im)rovements, even if the could be identified, could not be se)arated without causing substantial injur or damage to the Dagu)an Gaterwor@s S stem? <(G(S( should have alleged its additional counterclaim in the alternative 6 for the reimbursement of the e2)enses it had incurred for necessar and useful im)rovements or for the removal of all the useful im)rovements it had introduced, 8n the )resent case, no evidence whatsoever had been introduced b .GSS on the issue of removabilit of the im)rovements and the case was decided on a sti)ulation of facts, /onse4uentl , the )leadings could not be deemed amended to conform to the evidence, ". )ossessor in %ad fait0 does not 0ave t0e rig0t to re/ove usefu- i/*rove/ents (rticle 44* of the /ivil /ode of the "hili))ines )rovides that Dhe who builds, )lants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, )lanted or sown without right to indemnit ,E (s a builder in bad faith, <(G(S( lost whatever useful im)rovements it had made without right to indemnit (5an(o! v!. 'oD)4a, 3an. *1, 1969, 26 5CRA 70*+. . 2n-y *ossessor in good fait0 0as rig0t to %e refunded for usefu- e9*enses 1it0 rig0t of retention unti- rei/%ursed. or re/ova- of usefu- i/*rove/ents 1it0out da/age to t0e *rinci*a- t0ing 5nder (rticle 34% of said code, onl a )ossessor in good faith shall be refunded for useful e2)enses with the right of retention until reimbursed? and under (rticle 34' thereof, onl a )ossessor in good faith ma remove useful im)rovements if the can be done without damage to the )rinci)al thing and if the )erson who recovers the )ossession does not e2ercise the o)tion of reimbursing the useful e2)enses, 4. )ossessor in %ad fait0 0as rig0t to re/ove i/*rove/ents for *ure -u9ury or /ere *-easure'
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1 ! )
*rovided suc0 suffers no in>ury t0ere%y The right given a )ossessor in bad faith is to remove im)rovements a))lies onl to im)rovements for )ure lu2ur or mere )leasure, )rovided the thing suffers no injur thereb and the lawful )ossessor does not )refer to retain them b )a ing the value the have at the time he enters into )ossession ((rticle 34*, 8d,), &. Cindanao Acade/y v. La* 8n .indanao (cadem , 8nc, vs, Ta) (&$ S/R( &*0), it was held that Dif the defendant constructed a new building, as he alleges, he cannot recover its value because the construction was done after the filing of the action for annulment, thus rendering him a builder in bad faith who is denied b law an right of reimbursement,E Ghat this /ourt allowed a))ellant Ta) to remove were the e4ui)ment, boo@s, furniture and fi2tures brought in b him, because the were outside of the sco)e of the judgment and ma be retained b him, 6. ,ar%one-- v. ,A cannot invoke to /odify t0e *rovisions of t0e ,ode. ,ase is not a *recedent The decision in the case of /arbonell vs, /ourt of ())eals (%* S/R( **) cannot be invo@ed to modif the clear )rovisions of the /ivil /ode of the "hili))ines that a )ossessor in bad faith is not entitled to reimbursement of useful e2)enses or to removal of useful im)rovements, 8n said case, the lower courts found that res)ondents 8nfantes were )ossessors in good faith, -n a))eal, the !irst Division of this /ourt reversed the decision of the /ourt of ())eals and declared )etitioner /arbonell to have the su)erior right to the land in 4uestion, -n the 4uestion of whether or not res)ondents 8nfantes were )ossessors in good faith, four .embers ruled that the were not, but as a matter of e4uit allowed them to remove the useful im)rovements the had introduced on the land, Justice Teehan@ee (now /hief Justice) concurred on the same )remise as the dissenting o)inion of Justice .uIo: "alma that both the conflicting bu ers of the real )ro)ert in 4uestion, namel )etitioner /arbonell as the first bu er and res)ondents 8nfantes as the second bu er, ma be deemed )urchasers in good faith at the res)ective dates of their )urchase, Justice .uIo: "alma dissented on the ground that since both )urchasers were undoubtedl in good faith, res)ondents 8nfantesB )rior registration of the sale in good faith entitled them to the ownershi) of the land, 8nasmuch as onl four .embers concurred in ruling that res)ondents 8nfantes were )ossessors in bad faith and two .embers ruled that the were )ossessors in good faith, said decision does not establish a )recedent, [6+] Navarro v. )ineda [G.R. No. L<18 4&. Nove/%er "!' 1#&".] 9n =anc, "aredes (J): 7 concur $acts( -n &4 December &*3*, Rufino 1, "ineda and his mother Juana 1on:ales (married to 1regorio "ineda), borrowed from /onrado ", <avarro, the sum of "#,330,00, )a able % months after said date or on &4 June &*3*, To secure the indebtedness, Rufino e2ecuted a document ca)tioned DDeed of Real 9state and /hattel .ortgages D, whereb Juana 1on:ales, b wa of Real 9state .ortgage h )othecated a )arcel of land, belonging to her, registered with, the register of Deeds of Tarlac, under T/T #3''%, and Rufino 1, "ineda, b wa of /hattel .ortgage, mortgaged his #6stor residential house, having a floor area of *&# s4,m,, erected on a lot belonging to (tt , >icente /astro, located at San Ro4ue, Tarlac, Tarlac? and & motor truc@, registered in his name, under .otor >ehicle Registration /ertificate (6&'&703, =oth mortgages were contained in one instrument, which was registered in both the -ffice of the Register of Deeds and the .otor >ehicles -ffice of Tarlac, The "inedas failed to )a the mortgage debt when it became due, The were granted an e2tension u) to $0 June &*%0, but the li@ewise failed to )a on the said da , The were granted another e2tension u) to $0 Jul &*%0, but the li@ewise failed and refused to )a , -n &0 (ugust &*%0, <avarro filed a com)laint for foreclosure of the mortgage and for damages, which consisted of li4uidated damages in the sum of "300,00 and &#C )er annum interest on the )rinci)al, effective on the date of maturit , until full )aid, -n #4 !ebruar &*%&, the lower court dismissed the com)laint with
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1 1 )
regards to 1regorio "ineda? ordering Juana 1on:ales and s)ouses Rufino "ineda and Ramona Re es to )a /onrado <avarro the sum of "#,330 with &#C com)ounded interest )lus "300 as li4uidated damages and the cost of the suit from &4 June &*%0 within *0 da s from recei)t of the co) of the decision, else the )ro)erties mentioned in the deed of real estate and chattel mortgage be sold to reali:e said mortgage debt in accordance with the )ertinent )rovisions of (ct $&$3 and (rticle &4 of (ct &307? and ordering Rufino "ineda and Ramona Re es to deliver the )ersonal )ro)erties to the "rovincial Sheriff of Tarlac immediatel after the la)se of *0 da s in default of such )a ment, The judgment was a))ealed directl to the Su)reme /ourt, 4uestioning the lower courtBs decision in holding the deed of real estate and chattel mortgages a))ended to the com)laint valid, notwithstanding that the house of Rufino "ineda was made subject of the chattel mortgage for the reason that it is erected on a land that belongs to a third )erson, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the decision a))ealed from, with costs against a))ellants, 1. Bui-ding is i//ova%-e *ro*erty (rticle 4&3 of the <ew /ivil /ode, in classif ing a house as immovable )ro)ert , ma@es no distinctions whether the owner of the land is or is not the owner of the building? the fact that the land belongs to another is immaterial, it is enough that the house adheres to the land? that in case of immovables b incor)oration, such as houses, trees, )lants, etc? the /ode does not re4uire that the attachment or incor)oration be made b the owner of the land, the onl criterion being the union or incor)oration with the soil, ( building is an immovable )ro)ert , irres)ective of whether or not said structure and the land on which it is adhered to, belong to the same owner (;o)e: vs, -rosa, ;eung Tee vs, Strong .achiner /o,), +. Lo1er ,ourt:s Decision *redicated on t0e doctrine of esto**e- and not on-y on t0e ground t0at t0e 0ouse /ortgaged 1as erected on t0e -and 10ic0 %e-onged to a t0ird *erson The trial court did not )redicate its decision declaring the deed of chattel mortgage valid solel on the ground that the house mortgaged was erected on the land which belonged to a third )erson, but also and )rinci)all on the doctrine of esto))el, in that Dthe )arties have so e2)ressl agreedE in the mortgage to consider the house as a chattel Dfor its smallness and mi2ed materials of sawali and woodE, 8n the )resent case, Rufino "ineda grou)ed the house with the truc@ which is inherentl a movable )ro)ert , The house which was not even declared for ta2ation )ur)oses was small and made of light construction materials: 1,8, sheets roofing, sawali and wooden walls and wooden )osts? built on land belonging to another, /learl , the house in 4uestion was treated as )ersonal or movable )ro)ert , b the )arties to the contract themselves, ". )ro*erty /ay 0ave a c0aracter different fro/ t0at i/*uted to it %y *arties in a contract' %ut suc0 *ro*erty re/ains in its actua- c0aracter as regards t0ird *ersons 10o are not *arties in t0e contract. ?u//ary of re-evant cases 8n construing (rts, $$4 and $$3 of the S)anish /ivil /ode (corres)onding to (rts, 4&3 and 4&%, <,/,/,), for )ur)oses of the a))lication of the /hattel .ortgage ;aw, it was held that under certain conditions, a )ro)ert ma have a character different from that im)uted to it in said articles, 8t is undeniable that the )arties to a contract ma b agreement, treat as )ersonal )ro)ert that which b nature would be real )ro)ert (5(an8ar8 <) v!. 3aran) o+. DThere can not be an 4uestion that a building of mi2ed materials ma be the subject of a chattel mortgage, in which case, it is considered as between the )arties as )ersonal )ro)ert , The matter de)ends on the circumstances and the intention of the )arties, "ersonal )ro)ert ma retain its character as such where it is so agreed b the )arties interested even though anne2ed to the realt E, ( $2 A9. 3ur. 209#210, 4)(e8 )n 'anarang, e( a . v!. <2) a8a, e( a . ), The view that )arties to a deed of chattel mortgage ma agree to consider a house as )ersonal )ro)ert for the )ur)oses of said contract, is good onl insofar as the contracting )arties are concerned, 8t is based, )artl , u)on the )rinci)les of esto))el (Bvange )!(a v!. A (o 5ure(y+ , 8n a case, a mortgaged house built on a rented land, was held to be a )ersonal )ro)ert not onl because the deed of mortgage considered, it as such, but also because it did not form an integral )art of the land (Bvange )!(a
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1 + )
v!. Aba8, [CA]+, for it is now well settled that an object )laced on land b one who has onl a tem)orar right to the same, such as a lessee or usufructuar , does not become immobili:ed b attachment (;a 8ez v!. Cen(ra A (agra4)a, 4)(e8 )n ,avao 5a@9) v!. Ca!() o+ , +ence, if a house belonging to a )erson stands on a rented land belonging to another )erson, it ma be mortgaged as a )ersonal )ro)ert if so sti)ulated in the document of mortgage, 8t should be noted, however, that the )rinci)le is )redicated on statements b the owner declaring his house to be a chattel, a conduct that ma conceivabl esto) him from subse4uent claiming otherwise ("a8era, e( a . v!. C.M. Ho8ge!, e( a ., [CA]+ , The doctrine, therefore, gathered from these cases is that although in some instances, a house of mi2ed materials has been considered as a chattel between the )arties and that the validit of the contract between them, has been recogni:ed, it has been a constant criterion nevertheless that, with res)ect to third )ersons, who are not )arties to the contract, and s)eciall in e2ecution )roceedings, the house is considered as an immovable )ro)ert ((rt, &4$&, <ew /ivil /ode), . ,ases cited are not a**-ica%-e The cases cited b a))ellants are not a))licable to the )resent case, The 8 a cases refer to a building or a house of strong materials, )ermanentl adhered to the land, belonging to the owner of the house himself, 8n the case of ;o)e: vs, -rosa, the subject building was a theater, built of materials worth more than "%#,000,00 attached )ermanentl to the soil, 8n these two cases and in the ;eung Tee /ase, third )ersons assailed the validit of the deed of chattel mortgages? in the )resent case, it was one of the )arties to the contract of mortgages who assailed its validit , [6"] 2as (Cunici*a-ity of) v. Roa [G.R. No. L<+!16. Nove/%er + ' 1#!&.] !irst Division, Gillard (J): $ concur $acts( The .unici)alit brought the action for the recover of a tract of land in the )ueblo of -as, claiming that it was a )art of the )ublic s4uare of said town, while the Roa alleged that he was the owner of the )ro)ert , The munici)alit claims ownershi) in view of a document (minutes of the #' !ebruar &7*# meeting of the )rinci)alia of the town) stating that the land was bought in &7$# b the townBs )arish )riest? that erection of houses in said land is )rohibited b order of the corregidor of <ueva /aceres? and that the re)air of the building was )rohibited u)on the owner thereof, Jose /astillo, Said document was signed b Roa himself, Ghen the building on the land was destro ed b t )hoon on &$6&4 .a &7*$, authorities of the town ordered the demolition thereof and declared that the owner of the building, Jose /astillo, had no right to reconstruct said building as the land did not belong to him, This resolution was also signed b Roa, Roa, on the other hand, claims that Juana Ricarte and Juana Ri4ui:a sold the land to Juan Roco in &7'%, and that on &' December &7*4, Jose /astillo sold it to Roa, <o deed of conve ance from Juan Roco to Jose /astillo was )resented b evidence, but with /astillo testif ing that he bought the )ro)ert b verbal agreement with Roco, his father6in6law, Roa, after his )urchase in &7*4, )rocured a )ossessor of information which was allowed b an order of the justice of the )eace of -as on the &* Januar &7*3, and recorded in the Registr of "ro)ert on the #7 .arch of the same ear, (s earl as &73#, the .unici)alit has constructed thereon buildings for the storage of )ro)ert of the State, 4uarters for the cuadrilleros, and others of a li@e character, Roa was also able to construct a substantial building on the said after he Dac4uiredE the )ro)ert from /astillo, ?No 4a!e 2a4(! 0rov)8)ng 8e(a) ! o2 /o@ (/e 4a!e @a! 2) e8 by o@er 4our(, nor (/e a4(ua Du8g9en( o2 !a)8 4our(A The Su)reme /ourt modified the judgment a))ealed from and declared the .unici)alit is the owner of the land and that it has the o)tion of bu ing the building thereon, which is the )ro)ert of the defendant, or of selling to him the land on which it stands, The /ourt also declared .unici)alit is entitled to recover the costs
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1 " )
of both instances, and ordered the judgment entered after the e2)iration of #0 da s and the records of the case remanded to the lower court for )ro)er action, 1. )roof s0ou-d %e /anifest-y against decision for t0e factua- finding to %e reversed 8n this state of the evidence, we can not sa that the )roof is )lainl and manifestl against the decision of the lower court, 5nless it is so, the finding of fact made b that court can not be reversed, (,e a Ra9a v!. ,e a Ra9a, 201 -. 5., *0*.+ +. ?tate/ents signed %y Roa co/*etent' %ut not conc-usive' evidence against 0i/. Roa not esto**ed The two statements signed b Roa, one in &7*# and the other in &7*$, are com)etent evidence against him, The are admissions b him to the effect that at that time the )ueblo was the owner of the )ro)ert in 4uestion, The are, of course, not conclusive against him, +e was entitled to, and did )resent evidence to overcome the effect of these admissions, The evidence does not ma@e out a case of esto))el against him, (sec, $$$, )ar, &, /ode of /ivil "rocedure,) The admissibilit of these statements made b Roa do not rest u)on section #'7 of the /ode of /ivil "rocedure, which relates to declarations or admissions made b )ersons not a )art to the suit, but it rests u)on the )rinci)le that when the defendant in a suit has himself made an admission of an fact )ertinent to issue involved, it can be received against him, ". )urc0aser in %ad fait0. )rescri*tion re5uire/ent of "! years not /et The )resent action was commenced on the &' December &*0#, There is no evidence of an adverse occu)ation of this land for $0 ears, conse4uentl the e2traordinar )eriod of )rescri)tion does not a))l , The defendant can not rel u)on the ordinar )eriod of )rescri)tion of &0 ears because he was not a holder in good faith, +e @new at that time of his )urchase in &7*4, and had so stated in writing, that the )ueblo was the owner of the )ro)ert , So that, even if the statute of limitations ran against a munici)alit in reference to a )ublic s4uare, it could not avail the defendant in the )resent case, . )ro*erty is a *atri/onia- *ro*erty of t0e ?tate (s earl as &73#, the land had been used b the munici)alit constructed thereon buildings for the storage of )ro)ert of the State, 4uarters for the cuadrilleros, and others of a li@e character, 8t therefore had ceased to be )ro)ert used b the )ublic and had become a )art of the bienes )atrimoniales of the )ueblo, (/ivil /ode, arts, $4&, $44,) 4. Bot0 Roa and t0e Cunici*a-ity in %ad fait0. t0erefore' rig0ts deter/ined as if %ot0 are in good fait0 Roa constructed the building in bad faith for he had @nowledge of the fact that his grantor was not the owner thereof, There was a bad faith also on the )art of the .unic)alit in accordance with the e2)ress )rovisions of article $%4 since it allowed Roa to construct the building without an o))osition on its )art and to so occu) it for 7 ears, The rights of the )arties must, therefore, be determined as if the both had acted in good faith, (rticle $%4 of the /ivil /ode )rovides that where there has been bad faith, not onl on the )art of the )erson who built, sowed, or )lanted on anotherBs land, but also on the )art of the owner of the latter, the rights of both shall be the same as if the had acted in good faith, =ad faith on the )art of the owner is understood whenever the act has been e2ecuted in his )resence with his @nowledge and tolerance and without objection, (rticle $%& of the /ivil /ode )rovides that Dthe owner of the land on which the building, sowing, or )lanting is done in good faith shall have a right to a))ro)riate as his own the wor@, sowing, or )lanting after the indemnit mentioned in articles 43$ and 434, or, to oblige the )erson who has built or )lanted, to )a him the value of the land and to force the )erson who sowed to )a the )ro)er rent,E [6 ] )acific $ar/s v. Bsguerra [G.R. No. L<+168". Nove/%er +#' 1#&#.]
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1 )
9n =anc, /astro (J): 7 concur, & concurs in result $acts( -n several occasions from & -ctober &*3% to # .arch &*3' the /arried ;umber /om)an sold and delivered lumber and construction materials to the 8nsular !arms, 8nc, which the latter used in the construction of % buildings at its com)ound in =olinao, "angasinan, of the total )rocurement )rice of "&3,000, the sum of "4,'&0,&7 has not been )aid b 8nsular !arms, 8nc, /onse4uentl , on &' -ctober &*37 the /om)an instituted /ivil /ase D6''3 with the /!8 "angasinan to recover the said un)aid balance from the 8nsular !arms, -n (ugust #$, &*%& the trial court rendered judgment sustaining the /om)an Bs claim, The judgment6debtor did not a))eal? so on &* December &*%& the corres)onding writ of e2ecution was issued, -n &% Januar &*%# the sheriff levied u)on the % buildings, -n $0 Januar &*%#, the "acific !arms filed a third6)art claim asserting ownershi) over the levied buildings which it had ac4uired from the 8nsular !arms b virtue of a deed of absolute sale e2ecuted on #& .arch &*37, about ' months before the /om)an filed the )resent action (/ivil case D6''3), Shielded b an indemnit bond of "',&#0 )ut u) b the /om)an and the /osmo)olitan 8nsurance /om)an , the sheriff )roceeded with the announced )ublic auction on &# !ebruar &*%# and sold the levied buildings to the /om)an for "%,&&0,'7, (sserting absolute and e2clusive ownershi) of the buildings in 4uestion, the "acific !arms filed a com)laint on &4 .a &*%# against the /om)an and the sheriff with the /!8 "angasinan, )ra ing that judgment be rendered, (a) declaring null and void the lev and judicial sale of the % buildings, and (b) adjudging the defendants jointl and severall liable to the )laintiff in the sum of "#,000 b wa of actual damages and for such amount as the court ma deem )ro)er and just to im)ose b wa of e2em)lar damages and for costs of the suit, (fter due trial and on $0 .a &*%$, the court rendered judgment annulling the lev of &% Januar &*%# and the certificate of sale of &# !ebruar &*%#, The court, however, denied the )laintiffBs claim for actual and e2em)lar damages on the ground that it was not D)re)ared to find that there was gross negligence or bad faith on the )art of an of the defendants,E +ence, the a))eal, The Su)reme /ourt reversed the judgment, and dismissed the com)laint, The /ourt granted, however in view of the e4uities attendant in the case, "acific !arms a )eriod of $0 da s from the date of the finalit of the judgment, within which it ma e2ercise the o)tion of redeeming the % buildings, b )a ing /arried ;umber /om)an the sum of "4,'&0,&7 with legal interest from #$ Se)tember &*%& until the said amount shall have been full )aid? without )ronouncement as to costs, 1. De Barretto v. 7i--anueva not a**-ica%-e The case De =arretto, et al, vs, >illanueva, et al,, ;6&4*$7 (% S/R( *#7) is ina))licable in the )resent case because it concerned not one but two or more )referred creditors who, )ursuant to articles ##4# and ##4* of the /ivil /ode, must necessaril be convened and the nature and e2tent of their res)ective claims ascertained, (s held, before there can be a )ro rata )a ment of credits entitled to )reference as to the same s)ecific real )ro)ert , there must first be some )roceeding where the claims of all the )referred creditors ma be bindingl adjudicated, such as insolvenc , the settlement of a decedentBs estate under Rule 7' of the Rules of /ourt, or li4uidation )roceedings of similar im)ort, The )resent case, however, does not involve a 4uestion of )reference of credits, and is not one where two or more creditors have se)arate and distinct claims against the same debtor who has insufficient )ro)ert , +. ,arried Lu/%er ,o/*any is an un*aid furnis0er of /ateria-s The a))ellant is an un)aid furnisher of materials, 8t is undenied and undeniable that the a))ellant furnished lumber and construction materials to the 8nsular !arms which the latter used in the construction of the si2 buildings, ;i@ewise unchallenged is the lower courtBs factual finding that out of the total )rocurement )rice of "&3,000, the amount of "4,'&0,&7 remains outstanding and un)aid b the 8nsular !arms, 8nc, ". A**-ication %y ana-ogy of t0e ru-es of accession suffice' no need to decide on t0e e9istence of a /ateria-/an:s -ien. A**-ication of Artic-e 6 %y ana-ogy
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1 4 )
The a))lication b analog of the rules of accession would suffice for a just adjudication, (rticle 44' of the /ivil /ode )rovides that Dthe owner of the land who ma@es thereon )ersonall or through another, )lantings, constructions or wor@s with the materials of another, shall )a their value? and, if he acted in bad faith, he shall also be obliged to the re)aration of damages, The owner of the materials shall have the right to remove them onl in case he can do so without injur to the wor@ constructed, or without the )lantings, constructions or wor@s being destro ed, +owever, if the landowner acted in bad faith, the owner of the materials ma remove them in an event with a right to be indemnified for damages,E The legal )rovision contem)lates a )rinci)al and an accessor , the land being considered the )rinci)al, and the )lantings, constructions or wor@s, the accessor , The owner of the land who in good faith, whether )ersonall or through another, ma@es constructions or wor@s thereon, using materials belonging to somebod else, becomes the owner of the said materials with the obligation however of )ra ing for their value, The owner of the materials, on the other hand, is entitled to remove them, )rovided no substantial injur is caused to the landowner, -therwise, he has the right to reimbursement for the value of his materials, ())l ing article 44' b analog , the buildings are considered as the )rinci)al and the lumber and construction materials that went into their construction as the accessor , Thus the a))ellee, if it does own the si2 buildings, must bear the obligation to )a for the value of the said materials? the a))ellant R which a))arentl has no desire to remove the materials, and even if it were minded to do so, cannot remove them without necessaril damaging the buildings R has the corres)onding right to recover the value of the un)aid lumber and construction materials, . ,o/*ensation s0ou-d %e %orne %y t0e *erson 10o %enefited %y t0e accession Gell6established in juris)rudence is the role that com)ensation should be borne b the )erson who has been benefited b the accession, <o doubt, the a))ellee benefited from the accession, i,e,, from the lumber and materials that went into the construction of the si2 buildings, 8t should therefore shoulder the com)ensation due to the a))ellant as un)aid furnisher of materials, 4. )acific $ar/s not a %uyer in good fait0 so as to e9onerate it fro/ /aking co/*ensation The a))elleeBs stance that it is an innocent )urchaser for value and in good faith is o)en to grave doubt because of certain facts of substantial im)ort (evident from the records) that cannot esca)e notice? and thus cannot )ossibl e2onerate it from ma@ing com)ensation, !irst, J, (ntonio (raneta is not onl the )resident of the 8nsular !arms but also a director and counsel of "acific !arms, Second, (tt , (madeo Santiago Jr, of J, (ntonio (ranetaBs law firm, re)resented 8nsular !arms in /ivil /ase D6''3 is the same law er for the )resent action, Third, 8nsular !arms and "acific !arms are housed in adjacent rooms at the 8nsular ;ife =uilding as earl as #& .arch &*37, 8t ma be reasonable that (raneta as )resident of 8nsular !arm @new about the un)aid balance of the )urchase )rice of the lumber and construction materials su))lied or furnished b the a))ellant to the 8nsular !arms, /uriousl , 8nsular !arms never moved to im)lead "acific !arms as a necessar )art 6 defendant in /ivil /ase D6''3, &. ,arried Lu/%er not as advantageous-y situated as )acific $ar/s. ,urrent action *ro*er /arried ;umber not as advantageousl situated as "acific !arms, There being no se)arate registr of )ro)ert for buildings and no )rocedure )rovided b law for registering or annotating the claim of an un)aid furnisher of materials, it was hel)less to )revent the sale of the )ro)ert built from lumber and construction materials it furnished, =ut certainl , because it has a right, )ursuant to article 44', to reimbursement for the value of its un)aid materials, the a))ellant could )ursue an remed available to it under the law in order to enforce the said right, Thus, the a))ellant acted correctl in bringing an action (D6''3) against the 8nsular !arms, 8nc, and enforcing its right of reimbursement through the e2ecution of the final judgment it obtained in the said case against the si2 buildings in the )ossession of the a))ellee who now stands to benefit therefrom, 8t follows, as a necessar corollar , that the sale at )ublic auction conducted b the defendant sheriff of the si2 buildings described in the certificate of sale dated &# !ebruar &*%#, was valid and effective, [64]
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1 & )
)an-i-io v. Cercado [G.R. No. 18661. Carc0 +&' 1#+".] !irst Division, -strand (J): ' concur $acts( <icolas "anlilio, 9uti4uiano /u ugan, and Si2to Timbol ()laintiffs) are the owners of various )arcels of land in the munici)alit of .e2ico, "am)anga, !rom &*&& until (ugust, &*&*, the )arcels of land belonging to them were divided b a small river @nown as the 9stero (bacan, The defendants (tilano .ercado and /iriaco "im)ing are the owners of various )arcels of land which, )reviousl to the month of (ugust &*&*, were situated to the east of the land of the )laintiffs and were not touched b the (bacan River, During the said month, a ver heav flood occurred in the (bacan River and when the flood subsided, the river no longer flowed in the channel through the lands of the )laintiffs but had o)ened a new course for itself through the lands of the defendants where it still continues to flow, This new course was the course of the river )revious to the ear &*&&, 8t ma be noted that in the ears &*&% and &*&' a cadastral surve was made of the district where the lands of both the )laintiffs and the defendants are situated and that u)on the )lans of that surve the then course of the river is e2cluded from the cadaster and set a)art as a )ublic stream, (fter the termination of the &*&* rain season and earl in the ear &*#0, a com)laint was made to the )rovincial board of "am)anga b various land owners, including the defendants (tilano .ercado and /iriaco "im)ing, setting forth that the new course of the river was destro ing their land and rendering it useless and as@ing that the river be returned to its former channel, The com)laint was endorsed to the district engineer and on &0 June &*#0, the defendants (tilano .ercado and /iriaco "im)ing, accom)anied b the defendant district engineer (.anuel Re es), )roceeded to the )oint where the river had first begun to change its course, and after locating this )oint u)on the cadastral )lan, )roceeded with laborers of the defendants (tilano .ercado and /iriaco "im)ing to e2cavate the old bed of the river for the )ur)ose of causing the river to return to this bed, -n #3 June &*#0, a )etition for a writ of injunction was filed b the )laintiffs to restrain the defendants from entering u)on the lands, and from disturbing the )laintiffs in their )eaceful )ossession of the same, The also )ra for damages for tres)ass on the land, Defendant .ercado and "im)ing set u) a counterclaim for "40,000, alleging that the )laintiffs, b )lacing bamboo sta@es in the River (bacan, caused it to change its course, thus invading said defendantsB lands and causing damages in the sum mentioned, The court absolved the defendants (landowners .ercado and "im)ing, district engineer .anuel Re es, and "am)anga /onstabular /ommander Telesforo .artine:) from the com)laint and the )laintiffs from the counterclaim, without cost, !rom this judgment, all of the )arties a))eal, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment a))ealed from, without cost, 1. Action of river not t0e on-y and fina- deter/ining factor in t0e a%andon/ent of a river %ed Ghile the abandonment of the bed ma be the conse4uence of the riving changing its course, it is not necessaril the action of the river itself which is the onl and final determining factor in such abandonment, (rticle $'0 of the /ivil /ode cannot be solel relied on to have the conclusion that the old bed of the river (bacan became i)so facto absolutel abandoned u)on the river var ing its course in &*&*, +. Bstero A%acan is a *u%-ic strea/. Action of t0e govern/ent to return t0e river to its o-d course The river is a )ublic stream? its bed is of )ublic ownershi) and was definitel located and determined in the cadastral surve , 8n the case of a )ublic stream, the bed is of )ublic ownershi) and the )ublic cannot be considered absolutel divested of this ownershi) until there is some indication of an intention of the )art of the 1overnment to ac4uiesce in the change in the course of the stream, The 1overnment is not com)elled to stand idl b and let nature ta@e its course is clearl indicated b article $'# of the /ivil /ode, (s soon as )racticable after the river changed its course, ste)s were ta@en under the direction of the 1overnment functionaries to bring it bac@ into its old course and wor@ was continued until interru)ted b the )resent action, This certainl does not indicate abandonment on the )art of the 1overnment, ". ,-ai/ for da/ages. Bvidence fa--s s0ort
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1 6 )
(s to the claim for damages, the evidence undoubtedl shows that the )laintiffs )laced bamboo sta@es across the river and that the sta@es ma have caused an accumulation of sand or sediment which in turn ma have contributed to the change in the course of the river, such evidenced however falls short of showing that this was the )rimar cause of the change and of the damage to the defendantsB )ro)ert , [6&] )ecson v. ,A [G.R. No. 11481 . Cay +&' 1##4.] !irst Division, Davide Jr (J): $ concur, & on leave $acts( "edro ", "ecson was the owner of a commercial lot located in Kamias Street, Fue:on /it , on which he built a 46door #6store a)artment building, !or his failure to )a realt ta2es amounting to "&#,000,00, the lot was sold at )ublic auction b the /it Treasurer of Fue:on /it to .amerto <e)omuceno who in turn sold it on &# -ctober &*7$ to the s)ouses Juan <uguid and 9rlinda Tan6<uguid, for "&0$,000,00, "ecson challenged the validit of the auction sale in /ivil /ase F64&4'0 before the RT/ Fue:on /it , 8n its decision of 7 !ebruar &*7*, the RT/ dismissed the com)laint, but as to the <uguidBs claim that the sale included the a)artment building, it held that the issue concerning it was Dnot a subject of the litigation,E 8n resolving <uguidBs motion to reconsider this issue, the trial court held that there was no legal basis for the contention that the a)artment building was included in the sale,=oth )arties then a))ealed the decision to the /ourt of ())eals (/(61R /> #*$)&, 8n its decision of $0 ()ril &**#, the /ourt of ())eals affirmed in toto the assailed decision, 8t also agreed with the trial court that the a)artment building was not included in the auction sale of the commercial lot, The )etition to review the said decision was subse4uentl denied b the Su)reme /ourt, 9ntr of judgment was made on #$ June &**$, -n <ovember &**$, <uguid filed with the trial court a motion for deliver of )ossession of the lot and the a)artment building, citing (rticle 34% of the /ivil /ode, (cting thereon, the trial court issued on &3 <ovember &**$ the challenged order, ordering <uguid to reimburse "ecson the construction cost of "3$,000 and u)on such )a ment, <uguid is entitled to immediate issuance of a writ of )ossession over the lot and im)rovements thereon, The /ourt also held that as <uguid has been declared the uncontested owner of the lot in 4uestion as )er 9ntr of Judgment of the Su)reme /ourt dated #$ June &**$, "ecson should )a to <uguid rent of no less than "#&,000,00 )er month from said date (as this is the ver same amount )aid monthl b the tenants occu) ing the lot), such rent being offset against the amount )ertaining to the construction cost, "ecson moved for the reconsideration of the order but it was not acted u)on b the trial court, 8nstead, on &7 <ovember &**$, the trial court issued a writ of )ossession directing the de)ut sheriff Dto )lace Juan <uguid in )ossession of subject )ro)ert located at '* Kamias Road, Fue:on /it , with all the im)rovements thereon and to eject therefrom all occu)ants therein, their agents, assignees, heirs and re)resentatives,E "ecson then filed with the /ourt of ())eals a s)ecial civil action for certiorari and )rohibition assailing the order of &3 <ovember &**$ (/(61R S" $#%'*), 8n its decision of ' June &**4, the /ourt of ())eals affirmed in )art the order of the trial court citing (rticles 447 of the /ivil /ode, The /ourt of ())eals ruled that "ecsonBs 4uest to be restored in )ossession of the )remises is rendered moot and academic as the de)ut sheriff has enforced the writ of )ossession and the )remises had been turned over to <uguidBs )ossession? and ordered "ecson to account for an and all fruits of the im)rovements received b him starting #$ June &**$ with the amount of "3$,000 to be offset therefrom, (ggrieved b the /ourt of ())ealsB decision, "ecson filed the )etition for review on certiorari, The Su)reme /ourt set aside the decision of the /ourt of ())eals in /(61R S" $#%'* and the -rder of &3 <ovember &**$ of the RT/, =ranch &0&, Fue:on /it in /ivil /ase F64&4'0, The /ourt remanded the case to the trial court for it to determine the current mar@et value of the a)artment building on the lot, !or this )ur)ose, the )arties shall be allowed to adduce evidence on the current mar@et value of the a)artment building, The value so determined shall be forthwith )aid b <uguid to "ecson, otherwise "ecson shall be
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1 8 )
restored to the )ossession of the a)artment building until )a ment of the re4uired indemnit , 1. )ertinent *rovisions( Artic-e 8 and Artic-e 4 & of t0e ,ivi- ,ode (rticle 447 )rovides that Dthe owner of the land on which an thing has been built, sown or )lanted in good faith, shall have the right to a))ro)riate as his own the wor@s, sowing or )lanting, after )a ment of the indemnit )rovided for in articles 34% and 347, or to oblige the one who built or )lanted to )a the )rice of the land, and the one who sowed, the )ro)er rent, +owever, the builder or )lanter cannot be obliged to bu the land if its value is considerabl more than that of the building or trees, 8n such case, he shall )a reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to a))ro)riate the building or trees after )ro)er indemnit , The )arties shall agree u)on the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fi2 the terms thereof, ($%&a)E while (rticle 34% )rovides that D<ecessar e2)enses shall be refunded to ever )ossessor? but onl the )ossessor in good faith ma retain the thing until he has been reimbursed therefor, 5seful e2)enses shall be refunded onl to the )ossessor in good faith with the same right of retention, the )erson who has defeated him in the )ossession having the o)tion of refunding the amount of the e2)enses or of )a ing the increase in value which the thing ma have ac4uired b reason thereof, (43$a)E +. A**-ica%i-ity of Artic-es 8 and 4+& (rticle 447 refers to a land whose ownershi) is claimed b two or more )arties, one of whom has built some wor@s, or sown or )lanted something, The building, sowing or )lanting ma have been made in good faith or in bad faith, The rule on good faith laid down in (rticle 3#% of the /ivil /ode shall be a))lied in determining whether a builder, sower or )lanter had acted in good faith, ". ?trict a**-ication of Artic-e 8( does not a**-y to o1ner 10o su%se5uent-y -oses o1ners0i* of -and %y sa-e or donation. ,o-eongco v. Rega-ado (rticle 447 does not a))l to a case where the owner of the land is the builder, sower, or )lanter who then later loses ownershi) of the land b sale or donation, (s held in Coleongco vs. Regalado, (rticle $%& of the old /ivil /ode is not a))licable in the case, for Regalado constructed the house on his own land before he sold said land to /oleongco, (rticle $%& a))lies onl in cases where a )erson constructs a building on the land of another in good or in bad faith, as the case ma be, 8t does not a))l to a case where a )erson constructs a building on his own land, for then there can be no 4uestions as to good or bad faith on the )art of the builder, 9lsewise stated, where the true owner himself is the builder of wor@s on his own land, the issue of good faith or bad faith is entirel irrelevant, . A**-ication of Artic-e 8 %y ana-ogy in *reventing a state of forced co<o1ners0i* The )rovision on indemnit in (rticle 447 ma be a))lied b analog considering that the )rimar intent of (rticle 447 is to avoid a state of forced co6ownershi) and that the )arties, including the two courts below, agree that (rticles 447 and 34% of the /ivil /ode are a))licable and indemnit for the im)rovements ma be )aid although the differ as to the basis of the indemnit , 4. Artic-e 4 & does not state t0e /anner to deter/ine va-ue of usefu- i/*rove/ents. 7a-ue to %e %ased on /arket or *resent va-ue' not t0e cost during ti/e of construction (rticle 34% does not s)ecificall state how the value of the useful im)rovements should be determined, 8n 1avier vs. Concepcion, 1r. , the /ourt )egged the value of the useful im)rovements consisting of various fruits, bamboos, a house and camarin made of strong material based on the mar@et value of the said im)rovements, 8n Sar&iento vs. Agana, des)ite the finding that the useful im)rovement, a residential house, was built in &*%' at a cost of between "7,000,00 to "&0,000,00, the landowner was ordered to reimburse the builder in the amount of "40,000,00, the value of the house at the time of the trial, 8n De Guz&an vs. De la %uente, the landowner was re4uired to )a the D)resent valueE of the house, a useful im)rovement, 8n the )resent case, the lower court erred in holding the cost of construction of the a)artment building in &*%3, and not its current mar@et value, is sufficient reimbursement for necessar and useful im)rovements made b "ecson,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1 # )
&. 2%>ective of Artic-e 4 & is to ad/inister >ustice %et1een *arties invo-ved. ,urrent va-ue of t0e *ro*erty' to *revent un>ust enric0/ent to one of t0e *arties. )arties: rig0t to adduce evidence on *resent /arket va-ue of i/*rove/ent The objective of (rticle 34% of the /ivil /ode is to administer justice between the )arties involved, 8n this regard, as stated in Rivera vs. Ro&an Catholic Arch5ishop of Manila , the said )rovision was formulated in tr ing to adjust the rights of the owner and )ossessor in good faith of a )iece of land, to administer com)lete justice to both of them is such a wa as neither one nor the other ma enrich himself of that which does not belong to him, 1uided b this )rece)t, it is therefore the current mar@et value of the im)rovements which should be made the basis of reimbursement, ( contrar ruling would unjustl enrich the )rivate res)ondents who would otherwise be allowed to ac4uire a highl valued income6 ielding 46unit a)artment building for a measl amount, /onse4uentl , the )arties should therefore be allowed to adduce evidence on the )resent mar@et value of the a)artment building u)on which the trial court should base its finding as to the amount of reimbursement to be )aid b the landowner, 6. Bui-der in good fait0:s rig0t of retention unti- inde/nification for i/*rove/ents. no rents due The trial court erred in ordering "ecson to )a monthl rentals e4ual to the aggregate rentals )aid b the lessees of the a)artment building, Since <uguid has o)ted to a))ro)riate the a)artment building, "ecson is thus entitled to the )ossession and enjo ment of the a)artment building, until he is )aid the )ro)er indemnit , as well as of the )ortion of the lot where the building has been constructed, This is so because the right to retain the im)rovements while the corres)onding indemnit is not )aid im)lies the tenanc or )ossession in fact of the land in which it is built, )lanted or sown, (s "escon has not been )aid, he was entitled to retain ownershi) of the building and, necessaril , the income therefrom, [66] )eo*-e:s Bank v. Da0ican Lu/%er [G.R. No. L<164!!. Cay 1&' 1#&6.] 9n =anc, Di:on (J): 7 concur, $acts( -n 7 Se)tember &*47, (tlantic 1ulf N "acific /om)an of .anila ((T;(<T8/) sold and assigned all its right in the Dahican lumber concession to Dahican ;umber /om)an (D(;/-) for "300,000,00 of which onl the amount of ]30,000,00 was )aid, Thereafter, to develo) the concession, D(;/- obtained various loans from the "eo)leBs =an@ ("#00,000,00, as of &$ Jul &*30), D(;/- also obtained, through the =an@, a loan of ]#30,000,00 from the 92)ort68m)ort =an@ of Gashington D,/, (through 3 )romissor notes of ]30,000,00 each, maturing on different dates), e2ecuted b both D(;/- and the Dahican (merican ;umber /or)oration (D(./-), a foreign cor)oration and a stoc@holder of D(;/-, all )a able to the =(<K, (s securit , D(;/- e2ecuted on &$ Jul &*30 a deed of mortgage covering live )arcels of land situated in the )rovince of /amarines <orte, together with all the buildings and other im)rovements e2isting thereon and all the )ersonal )ro)erties of the mortgagor located in its )lace of business in the munici)alities of .ambulao and /a)alonga, /amarines <orte in favor of the =(<K, -n the same date, D(;/- e2ecuted a second mortgage on the same )ro)erties in favor of (T;(<T8/ to secure )a ment of the un)aid balance of the sale )rice of the lumber concession amounting to the sum of ]430,000,00, =oth deeds contained a )rovision e2tending the mortgage lien to )ro)erties to be subse4uentl ac4uired b the mortgagor, =oth mortgages were registered in the -ffice of the Register of Deeds of /amarines <orte, 8n addition thereto D(;/- and D(./- )ledged to the =(<K ',#*% shares of stoc@ of D(;/- and *,#7% shares of D(./- to secure the same obligations, 5)on D(;/-Bs and D(./-Bs failure to )a the fifth )romissor note u)on its maturit , the =(<K )aid the same to the 92)ort68m)ort =an@ of Gashington D,/, and the latter assigned to the former its credit and the first mortgage securing it, Subse4uentl , the =(<K gave D(;/- and D(./- u) to & ()ril &*3$ to )a the overdue )romissor note, (fter &$ Jul &*30, D(;/- )urchased various machineries, e4ui)ment, s)are )arts and su))lies in addition
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 14! )
to, or in re)lacement of some of those alread owned and used b it, "ursuant to the )rovision of the mortgage deeds 4uoted heretofore regarding Dafter ac4uired )ro)ertiesE, the =(<K re4uested D(;/- to submit com)lete lists of said )ro)erties but the latter failed to do so, 8n connection with these )urchases, there a))eared in the boo@s of D(;/- the sum of "43#,7%0,33 as due to /onnell =ros, /om)an (/-<<9;) and the sum of "#,&3&,%'7,$4 to D(./-, -n &% December &*3#, the =oard of Directors of D(;/- )assed a resolution agreeing to rescind the alleged sales of e4ui)ment, s)are )arts and su))lies b /-<<9;; and D(./- to it, Thereafter, the corres)onding agreements of rescission of sale were e2ecuted, -n #$ Januar &*3$, the =(<K, in its own behalf and that of (T;(<T8/, demanded that the agreements be cancelled but /-<<9;; and D(./- refused to do so, (s a result, on &# !ebruar &*3$, (T;(<T8/ and the =(<K, commenced foreclosure )roceedings in the /!8 /amarines <orte against D(;/- and D(./-, 5)on motion of the )arties, the /ourt, on $0 Se)tember &*3$, issued an order transferring the venue of the action to the /!8 .anila (/ivil /ase #0*7'), -n $0 (ugust &*37, u)on motion of all the )arties, the /ourt ordered the sale of all the machineries, e4ui)ment and su))lies of D(;/-, and the same were subse4uentl sold for a total consideration of "&'3,000,00 which was de)osited in court )ending final determination of the action, = a similar agreement one half ("7',300,00) of this amount was considered as re)resenting the )roceeds obtained from the sale of the Dundebated )ro)ertiesE (those not claimed b D(./- and /-<<9;;), and the other half as re)resenting those obtained from the sale of the Dafter ac4uired )ro)ertiesE, (fter due trial, the /ourt, on &3 Jul &*%0, rendered Judgment against Dahican ;umber /o, ordering it to )a the ban@, (T;(<T8/, /-<<9; and D(./-? and adjudicating the half of the sum reali:ed from sale of the )ro)erties unto the )laintiffs? and the other half to both the )laintiffs and defendant D(./- and /-<<9;;, The /ourt further ordered that the cost of the receivershi) shall be borne b the =an@, (tlantic, /onnell and D(./-, -n the following da , the /ourt issued a su))lementar decision ordering the sale at )ublic auction of lands object to the mortgages if D(;/- fails to )a the ban@ and (tlantic, Therafter, all the )arties a))ealed, The Su)reme /ourt modified the a))ealed judgment and affirmed in all other res)ects, Gith costs, 1. 2n Hafter ac5uired *ro*erties'I sti*u-ation is c-ear and va-id The sti)ulation in the Deed of .ortgage states that all )ro)ert of ever nature, buildings, machiner , etc, ta@en in e2change or re)lacement b the mortgagor Dshall immediatel be and become subject to the lien of this mortgage in the same manner and to the same e2tent as if now included thereinE, <o clearer language could have been chosen, !urther, such sti)ulation is common is neither unlawful nor immoral, its obvious )ur)ose being to maintain, to the e2tent allowed b circumstances, the original value of the )ro)erties given as securit , 8t is onl logical in all cases where the )ro)erties given as collateral are )erishable or subject to inevitable wear and tear or were intended to be sold, or to be used (thus subject to wear and tear)? the shall be re)laced with others to be thereafter ac4uired b the mortgagor, such understanding either e2)ress or im)lied, 8f such )ro)erties were of the nature alread referred to, it would be )oor judgment on the )art of the creditor who does not see to it that a similar )rovision is included in the contract, +. Registry of c0atte- /ortgage as to affect t0ird *arty does not a**-y to t0e case Though it is the law in this jurisdiction that, to affect third )ersons, a chattel mortgage must be registered and must describe the mortgaged chattels or )ersonal )ro)erties sufficientl to enable the )arties and an other )erson to identif them, such law does not a))l to the )resent case (Prea!on+, ". A0et0er o-d or ne1 civi- code to %e used as guide irre-evant in t0is case The mortgages in 4uestion were e2ecuted on &$ Jul &*30 with the old /ivil /ode still in force, There can be no doubt that the )rovisions of said code must govern their inter)retation and the 4uestion of their validit , 8t ha))ens, however, that (rticles $$4 and &7'' of the old /ivil /ode are substantiall re)roduced in (rticle 4&3 and #&#', res)ectivel , of the new /ivil /ode, 8t is, therefore, immaterial in this case whether we ta@e the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 141 )
former or the latter as guide in deciding the )oint under consideration, . ,ivi- code does not define rea- *ro*erty %ut enu/erates t0e/ (rticle 4&3 does not define real )ro)ert but enumerates what are considered as such, among them being machiner , rece)tacles, instruments or re)lacements intended b the owner of the tenement for an industr or wor@s which ma be carried on in a building or on a )iece of land, and shall tend directl to meet the needs of the said industr or wor@s, 4. ,0atte-s *-ace in rea- *ro*erties /ortgaged 1it0in t0e o*eration of Art 14 (4)' and +1+6 of t0e Ne1 ,ivi- ,ode. 3--ustrative cases( Berkenkotter v. ,u Fn>ieng and ,u Fn>ieng Hi>os v. Ca%a-acat ?ugar The chattels, )laced in the real )ro)erties mortgaged to )laintiffs, came within the o)eration of (rt, 4&3, )aragra)h 3 and (rt, #&#' of the new /ivil /ode, This is consistent with )revious rulings of the court, (&) 8n =er@en@otter vs, /u 5njieng (%& "hil, %%$), (rticle $$4 L3M of the old /ivil /ode gives the character of real )ro)ert to machiner , li4uid containers, instruments or re)lacements intended b the owner of an building or land for use in connection with an industr or trade being carried on therein and which are e2)ressl ada)ted to meet the re4uirements of such trade or industr ? and (#) 8n /u 5njieng +ijos vs, .abalacat Sugar /o, (37 "hil, 4$*), a mortgage constituted on a sugar central includes not onl the land on which it is built but also the buildings, machiner and accessories installed at the time the mortgage was constituted as well as the buildings, machiner and accessories belonging to the mortgagor, installed after the constitution thereof, &. HAfter ac5uired *ro*ertiesI i//o%i-iDed. No need for second registration as ,0atte- Cortgage in -ig0t of e9isting rea- estate /ortgage The Dafter ac4uired )ro)ertiesE were )urchased in connection with, and for use in the develo)ment of its lumber concession and that the were )urchased in addition to, or in re)lacement of those alread e2isting in the )remises on &$ Jul &*30, 8n law, the must be deemed to have been immobili:ed, with the result that the real estate mortgages involved therein, which were registered as such, did not have to be registered a second time as chattel mortgages in order to bind the Dafter ac4uired )ro)ertiesE and affect third )arties, 6. Davao ?a1/i-- case not on a-- fours. 3ntent of *arties re-evant The facts in the Davao Sawmill case are not on all fours with the current case, 8n the former, Davao Sawmill had re)eatedl treated the machiner therein involved as )ersonal )ro)ert b e2ecuting chattel mortgages thereon in favor of third )arties, while in the )resent case the )arties had treated the Dafter ac4uired )ro)ertiesE as real )ro)erties b e2)ressl and une4uivocall agreeing that the shall automaticall become subject to the lien of the real estate mortgages e2ecuted b them, 8n the Davao Sawmill decision it was stated that the characteri:ation of the )ro)ert as chattels b the a))ellant is indicative of intention and im)resses u)on the )ro)ert the character determined b the )arties, 8n the )resent case, the characteri:ation of the Dafter ac4uired )ro)ertiesE as real )ro)ert was made not onl b one but b both interested )arties, There is, therefore, more reason to hold that such consensus im)resses u)on the )ro)erties the character determined b the )arties who must now be held in esto))el to 4uestion it, 8. 7a-deD v. ,entra- A-tagracia re-evant. Mno1-edge of su**-iers of rea- /ortgage sti*u-ations >alde: vs, /entral (ltagracia 8nc, (##3 5,S, 37) was 4uoted in the Davao Sawmill case, holding that machiner )laced on )ro)ert b a tenant does not become immobili:ed, et, when the tenant )laces it there )ursuant to contract that it shall belong to the owner, it then becomes immobili:ed as to that tenant and even as against his assignees and creditors who had sufficient notice of such sti)ulation, 8n the )resent case, the Dafter ac4uired )ro)ertiesE are not dis)uted to be )laced on and be used in the develo)ment of its lumber concession, and agreed further that the same shall become immediatel subject to the lien constituted b the 4uestioned mortgages, D(./- and /-<<9;;, having full notice of such sti)ulation, must be deemed barred from den ing that the )ro)erties in 4uestion had become immobili:ed,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 14+ )
#. ,onne-- and Da/co not Hun*aid su**-iersI. ;0ey do not 0ave su*erior rig0t to -ien D(./- was a stoc@holder and /-<<9;; was not onl a stoc@holder but the general agent of D(;/-, !urther, the re)ort of the auditors and its anne2es show that neither D(./- nor /-<<9;; had su))lied an of the goods of which the res)ectivel claimed to be the un)aid seller? that all items were su))lied b different )arties, 8f D(;/- still owes them an amount in this connection, as financiers, the can not claim an right over the Dafter ac4uired )ro)ertiesE su)erior to the lien constituted thereon b virtue of the deeds of mortgage under foreclosure, 1!. Defense of H*re/aturityI does not 0o-d if de%tor is inso-vent Ghen the law )ermits the debtor to enjo the benefits of the )eriod notwithstanding that he is insolvent b his giving a guarant for the debt, that must mean a new and efficient guarant , must concede that the causes of action for collection of the notes were not )remature, 8n the )resent case, )laintiffs, as a matter of grace, conceded an e2tension of time to )a u) to & ()ril &*3$, months after the action to foreclose was filed &# !ebruar &*3$? without debate that D(;/- was alread insolvent at the date of the time of filing, 11. )roceeds fro/ t0e sa-e of Hafter ac5uired *ro*ertiesI and t0e Hunde%ated *ro*ertiesI a1arded e9c-usive-y to *-aintiff 8n view of the /ourtBs o)inion sustaining the validit of the mortgages in relation thereto, that )roceeds obtained from the sale of the Dafter ac4uired )ro)ertiesE and the Dundebated )ro)ertiesE should be awarded e2clusivel to the )laintiffs in )a ment of the mone obligations secured b the mortgages under foreclosure, 1+. ,-ai/s for da/ages su**orted The law ((rticles &$&$ and &$&4 of the <ew /ivil /ode) )rovides that creditors are )rotected in cases of contracts intended to defraud them, and that an third )erson who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting )art , Similar liabilit is demandable under (rts, #0 and #& R which ma be given retroactive effect ((rts, ##3#63$) R or under (rts, &*0# and #&'% of the -ld /ivil /ode, 8n the )resent case, the facts clearl show that D(;/- and D(./-, after failing to )a the fifth )romissor note u)on its maturit , cons)ired jointl with /-<<9;; to violate the )rovisions of the fourth )aragra)h of the mortgages under foreclosure b attem)ting to defeat )laintiffsB mortgage lien on the Dafter ac4uired )ro)ertiesE, 1". B9*enses of receivers0i* considered. ot0er da/ages cannot %e co/*uted /onsidering that the sale of the real )ro)erties subject to the mortgages under foreclosure has not been effected, and considering further the lac@ of evidence showing that the true value of all the )ro)erties alread sold was not reali:ed because their sale was under stress, The true elements or factors that should determine the amount of damages that )laintiffs are entitled to recover from defendants are not )resent, +owever, all the e2)enses of the Receivershi), which was deemed necessar to safeguard the rights of the )laintiffs, should be borne b all the defendants, jointl and severall , in the same manner that all of them should )a to the )laintiffs, jointl and severall , the attorne Bs fees awarded in the a))ealed judgment, [68] )0i-i**ine Refining v. =ar5ue [G.R. No. 14!&. Carc0 +4' 1#"4.] 9n =anc, .alcolm (J): * /oncur $acts( -n var ing dates the "hili))ine Refining /o,, 8nc,, and !rancisco Jar4ue e2ecuted three mortgages, denominated as Dchattel mortgageE on the motor vessels "andan and Oarago:a, The first two mortgages do not have an a))ended affidavit of good faith, while the third contains such, The third mortgage was subscribed b Jar4ue and .< =rin@ (in what ca)acit the latter signed is not disclosed) and was not registered in the customs house until &' .a &*$#, or within the )eriod of $0 )rior to the commencement of insolvenc )roceedings against Jar4ue, ( fourth mortgage was e2ecuted b Jar4ue and Ramon (boiti: on the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 14" )
motorshi) Oarago:a and was entered in the chattel mortgage registr of the register of deeds on &# .a &*$#, or again within the $06da )eriod before the institution of insolvenc )roceedings, ( )etition was filed with the /!8 /ebu on # June &*$# in which it was )ra ed that !rancisco Jar4ue be declared an insolvent debtor, with the result that an assignment of all the )ro)erties of the insolvent debtor, was e2ecuted in favor of Jose /orominas, The )etition on the matter of Jar4ueBs insolvenc was granted, +owever, the judge declined to order the foreclosure of the mortgages, but on the contrar sustained the s)ecial defenses of fatal defectiveness of the mortgages, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment, with costs against a))ellant, 1. Ad/ira-ty >urisdiction of court raised to 1arrant court to sit en %anc The case was decided b the court in banc, as a motion was )resented b counsel for the a))ellant in which it was as@ed that the case be heard and determined b the court sitting in banc because the admiralt jurisdiction of the court was involved, and this motion was granted in regular course, -n further investigation it a))ears that this was an error because the mere mortgage of a shi) is a contract entered into b the )arties to it without reference to navigation or )erils of the sea, and does not, therefore, confer admiralt jurisdiction, (=ogart vs, Steamboat John Ja L&734M, &' +ow,, $**,) +. 7esse-s are *ersona- *ro*erty under civi- and co//on -a1 >essels are considered )ersonal )ro)ert under the civil law, (/ode of /ommerce, article 373,) Similarl under the common law, vessels are )ersonal )ro)ert , 5nder the common law, vessels are )ersonal )ro)ert although occasionall referred to as a )eculiar @ind of )ersonal )ro)ert , ". ,0atte- /ortgage of a vesse-' distinguis0ed to c0atte- /ortgage of ot0er *ersona-ity Since the term D)ersonal )ro)ert E includes vessels, the are subject to mortgage agreeabl to the )rovisions of the /hattel .ortgage ;aw, ((ct &307, section #,) 8ndeed, it has heretofore been acce)ted without discussion that a mortgage on a vessel is in nature a chattel mortgage, The onl difference between a chattel mortgage of a vessel and a chattel mortgage of other )ersonalit is that it is not now necessar for a chattel mortgage of a vessel to be noted in the registr of the register of deeds, but it is essential that a record of documents affecting the title to a vessel be entered in the record of the /ollector of /ustoms at the )ort of entr , -therwise a mortgage on a vessel is generall li@e other chattel mortgages as to its re4uisites and validit , ". ,0atte- /ortgage of a vesse- 1it0out affidavit of good fait0 is unenforcea%-e against t0ird *ersons Section 3 of the /hattel .ortgage ;aw deemed it a re4uirement to have an affidavit of good faith a))ended to the mortgage and recorded therewith, The absence of the affidavit vitiates a mortgage as against creditors and subse4uent encumbrancers, (s a conse4uence a chattel mortgage of a vessel wherein the affidavit of good faith re4uired b the /hattel .ortgage ;aw is lac@ing, is unenforceable against third )ersons, [6#] )iansay v. David [G.R. No. L<1# &8. 2cto%er "!' 1#& .] 9n =anc, /ocne)cion (J): &0 concur $acts( -n && December &*4$, /onrado S, David received a loan of "$,000 with interest at &#C )er annum from /laudia =, >da, de 5 Kim, and to secure the )a ment of the same, David e2ecuted a chattel mortgage on a house situated at &#3* Sande Street, Tondo, .anila, The chattel mortgage was registered with the Register of Deeds of .anila on &* December &*47, -n &0 !ebruar &*3$, the mortgaged house was sold at )ublic auction to satisf the indebtedness to /laudia =, >da, de 5 Kim, and the house was sold to /laudia =,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 14 )
>da, de 5 Kim in the said foreclosure )roceedings, -n ## .arch &*34, >da, de 5 Kim sold the same house to Salvador "iansa for "3,000,00, -n ## <ovember &*4*, David mortgaged the said house to .arcos .angubat, -n & .arch &*3%, .angubat filed a com)laint against David with the /!8 .anila (/ivil /ase #*0'7), for the collection of the loan of "#,000, -n #4 .arch &*3%, the com)laint was amended to include "iansa and >da, de 5 Kim as )art defendants and )ra ing that auction sale of &0 !ebruar &*3$ and the deed of absolute sale between >da, De 5 Kim and "iansa be annulled, The /ourt ordered David to )a .angubat the sum of "#,000, damages and attorne Bs fees? but dismissed the case against 5 Kim and "iansa , The case was a))ealed to the /ourt of ())eals, which affirmed the decision but setting aside the award of damages in favor of 5 Kim, 8n the e2ecution of /ivil /ase #*0'7, which was affirmed b the /ourt of ())eals (/(61R #&'*'6R), the house which had been bought b 5 Kim at the foreclosure )roceedings and sold b her to "iansa was levied u)on at the instance of .angubat, To )revent the sale at )ublic auction of the house in 4uestion, "iansa and 5 Kim filed a )etition for certiorari and mandamus with )reliminar injunction in the /( (/(6 1R #7*'46R, /laudia =, >da, de 5 Kim and Salvador "iansa vs, +on, Judge Jesus T, "ere:, et al,), (cting u)on the said )etition, the /( denied the )etition to lift or discharge the writ of e2ecution on #7 ()ril &*%&, Thereu)on, or on $& Jul &*%&, "iansa and 5 Kim instituted the )resent action at the /!8 .anila (/ivil /ase 4'%%4), against David and .angubat, (fter due hearing the lower court issued the order a))ealed from granting said motion and dismissing the com)laint, with costs against the "iansa and 5 Kim, ( reconsideration of said order having been denied, "iansa and 5 Kim inter)osed an a))eal directl to the Su)reme /ourt, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the orders affirmed from, with costs against "iansa and >da, De 5 Kim, 1. Bui-ding and construction *artake t0e nature of t0e *rinci*a- t0ing' i.e. -and Since it is a rule in the law that buildings and constructions are regarded as mere accessories to the land (following the Roman ma2im omne 4uod solo inaedificatur solo credit) it is logical that said accessories should )arta@e of the nature of the )rinci)al thing, which is the land, forming, as the do, but a single object (res) with it in contem)lation of law ("a8era v. Ho8ge!+. +. Act of registering in ,0atte- Cortgage register of an interest in t0e nature of rea- *ro*erty is futi-e Tthe registration of the document in the registr of chattels is merel a futile act, where the interest conve ed is in the nature of real )ro)ert , The registration of the chattel mortgage of a building of strong materials )roduced no effect as far as the building is concerned ("eung =ee v!. 5(rong 'a4/)nery Co., 4)(e8 )n "a8era v. Ho8ge!+. ". No rig0t ac5uired %y c0atte- Cortgage creditor 10o *urc0ase rea- *ro*erty at e9tra<>udiciaforec-osure sa-e ( mortgage creditor who )urchases real )ro)erties at an e2tra6 judicial foreclosure sale thereof b virtue of a chattel mortgage constituted in his favor, which mortgage has been declared null and void with res)ect to said real )ro)erties, ac4uires no right thereto b virtue of said saleB, (,e a R)va v!. A/ >ee, 4)(e8 )n "a8era v. Ho8ge!+. 8n the )resent case, 5 Kim had no right to foreclose the alleged chattel mortgage constituted in her favor, because it was in realit a mere contract of an unsecured loan, 8t follows that the Sheriff was not authori:ed to sell the house as a result of the foreclosure of such chattel mortgage, (nd 5 Kim could not have ac4uired the house at )ublic auction, she could not have sold it validl to Salvador "iansa , . House /ay %e -evied u*on as it re/ained t0e *ro*erty of /ortgage de%tor The mere fact that the dis)ositive )art of the decision in /ivil /ase #*0'7 states that the com)laint is
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 144 )
dismissed with res)ect to defendants /laudia =, de 5 Kim, ;eonardo 5 Kim and Salvador "iansa is of no moment because the chattel mortgage e2ecuted b David in favor of /laudia =, de 5 Kim might not be annulled but still it did not transmit an right from David to 5 Kim, "iansa in /ivil /ase 4'%%4 cannot assail the right of .angubat to lev e2ecution u)on the house in 4uestion because it had remained the )ro)ert of defendant David, 4. ,0atte- /ortgage of a 0ouse %et1een *arties is va-id' %ut does not %ind t0ird *ersons. )-aintiffs 0ave no cause of action Regardless of the validit of a contract constituting a chattel mortgage on a house, as between the )arties to said contract (Standard -il /o, of <,T, vs, Jaramillo), the same cannot and does not bind third )ersons, who are not )arties to the aforementioned contract or their )rivies (;eung Tee vs, Strong .achiner /o,? 9vangelista vs, (lto Suret ? <avarro vs, "ineda), (s a conse4uence, the sale of the house in 4uestion in the )roceedings for the e2tra6judicial foreclosure of said chattel mortgage, is null and void insofar as defendant .angubat is concerned, and did not confer u)on .rs, 5 Kim, as bu er in said sale, an dominical right in and to said house (De la Riva vs, (h Tee), so that she could not have transmitted to her assignee, "iansa , an such right as against .angubat, 8n short, )laintiffs have no cause of action against the defendants herein, [8!] )-easantvi--e Deve-o*/ent v. ,A [G.R. No. 6#&88. $e%ruary 1' 1##&.] Third Division, "anganiban (J): 4 concur, & too@ no )art $acts( 9dith Robillo )urchased from "leasantville Develo)ment /or)oration a )arcel of land designated as ;ot *, "hase 88 and located at Taculing Road, "leasantville Subdivision, =acolod /it , 9ldred Jardinico bought the rights to the lot from Robillo, (t that time, ;ot * was vacant, -n the other hand, on #% .arch &*'4, Kee bought on installment ;ot 7 of the same subdivision from /,T, Torres 9nter)rises, 8nc, (/TT98), the e2clusive real estate agent of "leasantville Develo)ment, 5nder the /ontract to Sell on 8nstallment, Kee could )ossess the lot even before the com)letion of all installment )a ments, -n #0 Januar &*'3, Kee )aid /TT98 the relocation fee of "30,00 and another "30,00 on #' Januar &*'3, for the )re)aration of the lot )lan, These amounts were )aid )rior to KeeBs ta@ing actual )ossession of ;ot 7, (fter the )re)aration of the lot )lan and a co) thereof to Kee, /TT98 through its em)lo ee, Oenaida -ctaviano, accom)anied KeeBs wife, Donabelle Kee, to ins)ect ;ot 7, 5nfortunatel , the )arcel of land )ointed b -ctaviano was ;ot *, Thereafter, Kee )roceeded to construct his residence, a store, an auto re)air sho) and other im)rovements on the lot, 5)on com)leting all )a ments, Jardinico secured on &* December &*'7 from the Register of Deeds of =acolod /it T/T &0%$%' in his name, 8t was then that he discovered that im)rovements had been introduced on ;ot * b Gilson Kee, who had ta@en )ossession thereof, (fter the discover , Jardinico confronted Kee, The )arties tried to reach an amicable settlement, but failed, -n $0 Januar &*7&, JardinicoBs law er wrote Kee, demanding that the latter remove all im)rovements and vacate ;ot *, Ghen Kee refused to vacate, Jardinico filed with the .T// a com)laint for ejectment with damages against Kee, Kee, in turn, filed a third6)art com)laint against "leasantville and /TT98, The .T// held that the erroneous deliver of ;ot * to Kee was attributable to /TT98, The .T// also found that "leasantville had alread rescinded its contract with Kee over ;ot 7 for the latterBs failure to )a the installments due, and that Kee had not contested the rescission, The rescission was effected in &*'*, before the com)laint was instituted, The .T// concluded that Kee no longer had an right over the lot subject of the contract between him and "leasantville, /onse4uentl , Kee must )a reasonable rentals for the use of ;ot *, and, furthermore, he cannot claim reimbursement for the im)rovements he introduced on said lot, The .T// thus ordered Kee to vacate ;ot *, to remove all structures and im)rovements he introduced thereon, and to )a the Jardinico rentals of "&3,00 a da com)uted from the time the suit was filed on &# .arch &*7&
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 14& )
until he vacateds the )remises? such amount bearing an interest of &#C )er annum, The .T// also ordered /TT8 and "leasantville to )a Jardinico in solidum for the amount of "$,000 as attorne Bs fees and "'00 as cost and litigation e2)enses, -n a))eal, the RT/ =acolod /it (=ranch 47) ruled that "leasantville and /TT98 were not at fault or were not negligent and found Kee a builder in bad faith, Thus, the a))ellate court affirmed the decision with res)ect to the order to vacate the )remises of ;ot *, the removal of the structure and im)rovements introduced thereon at KeeBs e2)ense, and to )a a rental of "&3,00 a da until he vacates the )remises, with an interest of &#C )er annum, The /ourt further rendered judgment against Kee to )a Jardinico the sum of "$,000,00 as attorne Bs fees, )lus costs of litigation? dismissed the third6)art com)laint against "leasantville /TT98, and reversed the order "leasantville and /TT98 to )a Jardinico attorne Bs fees and costs of litigation, !ollowing the denial of his motion for reconsideration on #0 -ctober &*7%, Kee a))ealed directl to the Su)reme /ourt, which referred the matter to the /ourt of ())eals, "ending resolution of the case before the /ourt of ())eals, Jardinico and Kee on #4 Jul &*7' entered into a deed of sale, wherein the former sold ;ot * to Kee, Jardinico and Kee did not inform the /ourt of ())eals of such deal, The a))ellate court ruled that Kee was a builder in good faith (entitled to rights under (rticles 447, 34% and 347 of the /ivil /ode), as he was unaware of the Dmi26u)E when he began construction of the im)rovements on ;ot 7, 8t further ruled that the erroneous deliver was due to the negligence of /TT98, and that such wrong deliver was li@ewise im)utable to its )rinci)al, "leasantville? and thus ordered the /TT98 and "leasantville to be solidaril liable for the demolition e2)enses and value of im)rovements destro ed or rendered useless in case Jardinico decides to a))ro)riate the im)rovements and thereafter remove the structures? or for the amount re)resenting the value of ;ot * that Kee should )a to Jardinico if Jardinico chose to sell the land to Kee, The a))ellate court ordered /TT98 and "leasantville to )a in solidum the amount of "$,000,00 to Jardinico as attorne Bs fees, as well as litigation e2)enses? and ruled that the award of rentals was without basis, !urther, the a))ellate court remanded the case to the court of origin for the determination of the actual value of the im)rovements and the )ro)ert (;ot *), "leasantville filed the )etition for review on certiorari, The Su)reme /ourt )artiall granted the )etition, and modified the decision of the /ourt of ())eals b declaring Gilson Kee a builder in good faith? and that "leasantville Develo)ment and /,T, Torres 9nter)rises solidaril liable for damages due to negligence (however, since the amount andAor e2tent of such damages was )roven during the trial, the same cannot now be 4uantified and awarded), The /ourt also ordered "leasantville Develo)ment and /,T, Torres 9nter)rises to )a in solidum the amount of "$,000,00 to Jardinico as attorne Bs fees, as well as litigation e2)enses, The /ourt dis)ensed with the award of rentals to Jardinico, 1. Mee a %ui-der in good fait0. )rudent acts to ascertain -and to %ui-d on 5nder the Torrens s stem of land registration, Kee is )resumed to have @nowledge of the metes and bounds of the )ro)ert with which he is dealing, =ut as Kee is a la man not versed in the technical descri)tion of his )ro)ert , he had to find a wa to ascertain that what was described in T/T %*3%& matched ;ot 7, Thus, he went to the subdivision develo)erBs agent and a))lied and )aid for the relocation of the lot, as well as for the )roduction of a lot )lan b /TT98Bs geodetic engineer, 5)on KeeBs recei)t of the ma), his wife went to the subdivision site accom)anied b /TT98Bs em)lo ee, -ctaviano, who authoritativel declared that the land she was )ointing to was indeed ;ot 7, +aving full faith and confidence in the re)utation of /TT98, and because of the com)an Bs )ositive identification of the )ro)ert , Kee saw no reason to sus)ect that there had been a misdeliver , The ste)s Kee had ta@en to )rotect his interests were reasonable, There was no need for him to have acted e26abundantia cautela, such as being )resent during the geodetic engineerBs relocation surve or hiring an inde)endent geodetic engineer to counterchec@ for errors, for the final deliver of subdivision lots to their owners is )art of the regular course of ever da business of /TT98, =ecause of
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 146 )
/TT98Bs blunder, what Kee had ho)ed to forestall did in fact trans)ire, Kee had acted in the manner of a )rudent man in ascertaining the identit of his )ro)ert , +. ?cenario of %ad fait0 i/*ro%a%-e. Good fait0 *resu/ed 8t is thus highl im)robable that a )urchaser of a lot would @nowingl and willingl build his residence on a lot owned b another, deliberatel e2)osing himself and his famil to the ris@ of being ejected from the land and losing all im)rovements thereon, not to mention the social humiliation that would follow, 1ood faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his and his ignorance of an defect or flaw in his title, (nd as good faith is )resumed, the one alleging bad faith has the burden of )roving bad faith, ". ,ontractua- %reac0 cannot %e t0e %asis to negate t0e *resu/*tion of %ui-der in good fait0 >iolations of )aragra)hs ## and #% of the /ontract of Sale on 8nstallment have no bearing whatsoever on whether Kee was a builder in good faith, i,e, on his state of mind at the time he built the im)rovements on ;ot *, These alleged violations ma give rise to "leasantvilleBs cause of action against Kee under the said contract (contractual breach), but ma not be bases to negate the )resum)tion that Kee was a builder in good faith, . Rescission does not negate t0e neg-igence of ,;;B3 The /ontract of Sale on 8nstallment covering ;ot 7 between "leasantville and Kee, which was rescinded long before the )resent action was instituted, has no relevance on the liabilit of "leasantville, as such fact does not negate the negligence of its agent in )ointing out the wrong lot to Kee, Such circumstance is relevant onl as it gives Jardinico a cause of action for unlawful detainer against Kee, 4. Recovery of da/ages not 1aived Kee did not contracted awa his right to recover damages resulting from "leasantvilleBs negligence, Such waiver would be contrar to )ublic )olic and cannot be allowed, DRights ma be waived, unless the waiver is contrar to law, )ublic order, )ublic )olic , morals, or good customs, or )rejudicial to a third )erson with a right recogni:ed b law,E &. )rinci*a- res*onsi%-e for acts of agent if da/aged caused to t0ird *ersons. Agent is *ersona--y -ia%-e for da/ages if 0e e9ceeds 0is aut0ority The )rinci)al is res)onsible for the acts of the agent, done within the sco)e of his authorit , and should bear the damage caused to third )ersons, -n the other hand, the agent who e2ceeds his authorit is )ersonall liable for the damages, 8n the )resent case, /TT98 was acting within its authorit as the sole real estate re)resentative of "leasantville when it made the deliver to Kee, 8n acting within its sco)e of authorit , it was, however, negligent, 8t is this negligence that is the basis of "leasantvilleBs liabilit , as )rinci)al of /TT98, )er (rticles &*0* and &*&0 of the /ivil /ode, 6. Deed of ?a-e %et1een Mee and =ardinico /ere-y regu-ates t0e reci*roca- rig0ts of t0e *arties and 0as no effect on t0e -ia%i-ity of )-easantvi--e The deed of sale regulates the reci)rocal rights of Kee and Jardinico? it stressed that the had reached an agreement inde)endent of the outcome of the case, The Dterms and conditions in the said deed of sale are strictl for the )arties theretoE and that Dthere is no waiver made b either of the )arties in said deed of whatever favorable judgment or award the /ourt of ())eals ma ma@e in KeeBs and JardinicoBs favor against "leasantville and /TT98,E The deed of sale can have no effect on the liabilit of "leasantville, "leasantvilleBs liabilit is grounded on the negligence of its agent, 8. )-easantvi--e su**osed-y -ia%-e for da/ages due to agents neg-igence. Due to -ack of evidence' no da/ages due "leasantvilleBs liabilit lies in the negligence of its agent /TT98, !or such negligence, "leasantvilleBs should be held liable for damages, The e2tent andAor amount of damages to be awarded is a factual issue which should be determined after evidence is adduced, +owever, there is no showing that such evidence was
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 148 )
actuall )resented in the trial court? hence no damages could be awarded, #. A**e--ate court erred in /odification of t0e a**-ication of t0e -a1 on ground of e5uity The rights of Kee and Jardinico vis6a6vis each other, as builder in good faith and owner in good faith, res)ectivel , are regulated b law (i,e,, (rts, 447, 34% and 347 of the /ivil /ode), 8t was error for the /ourt of ())eals to ma@e a Dslight modificationE in the a))lication of such law, on the ground of De4uit E, (t an rate, Kee and Jardinico have amicabl settled through their deed of sale their rights and obligations with regards to ;ot *, Thus, the /ourt deleted the dis)ositive )ortion of the /ourt of ())ealsB Decision holding "leasantville and /TT98 solidaril liable for demolition e2)enses or the amount )ertaining to the value of the lot, whichever is a))licable in the e2ercise of the landownerBs o)tions, 1!. A1ard of attorney:s fees -ies 1it0 t0e discretion of t0e court de*ending on t0e case:s circu/stances The award of attorne Bs fees lies within the discretion of the court and de)ends u)on the circumstances of each case, The Su)reme /ourt shall not interfere with the discretion of the /ourt of ())eals, Jardinico was com)elled to litigate for the )rotection of his interests and for the recover of damages sustained as a result of the negligence of "leasantvileBs agent, 11. No need to re/and t0e case for t0e deter/ination of t0e va-ue and t0e -and 8n view of the deed of sale entered into b Kee and Jardinico, which deed governs the rights of Jardinico and Kee as to each other, there is also no further need to remand the case to the court of origin Dfor determination of the actual value of the im)rovements and the )ro)ert (;ot *), as well as for further )roceedings in conformit with (rticle 447 of the <ew /ivil /ode,E [81] )rudentia- Bank v. )anis [G.R. No. L<4!!!8. August "1' 1#86.] !irst Division, "aras (J): 4 concur, $acts( -n &* <ovember &*'&, !ernando (, .agcale and Teodula =alu ut .agcale secured a loan of "'0,000,00 from "rudential =an@, To secure )a ment of this loan, the .agcales e2ecuted in favor of "rudential =an@ a deed of Real 9state .ortgage over a #6store , semi6concrete residential building with warehouse s)ace (total area of #%$ s4,m,)? and granting u)on the mortgagee the right of occu)anc on the lot where the )ro)ert is erected, ( rider is also included in the deed that in the event the Sales "atent on the lot is issued of =ureau of ;ands, the Register of Deeds is authori:ed to hold the Registration until the mortgage is cancelled or annotate the encumbrance on the title u)on authorit from the Secretar of (griculture and <atural Resources, which title with annotation release in favor of the mortgage, The Real 9state .ortgage was registered under the "rovisions of (ct $$44 with the Registr of Deeds of Oambales on #$ <ovember &*'&, Subse4uentl , the .agcales secured an additional loan from "rudential =an@, secured b another deed of Real 9state .ortgage registeed with the Registr of Deeds in -longa)o /it , on # .a &*'$, -n #4 ()ril &*'$, the Secretar of (griculture issued .iscellaneous Sales "atent 4''% over the )arcel of land, )ossessor rights over which were mortgaged to rudential =an@, in favor of the .agcales, -n the basis of the "atent, and u)on its transcri)tion in the Registration =oo@ of the "rovince of Oambales, -/T "6#334 was issued in the name of !ernando .agcale, b the 926-ficio Register of Deeds of Oambales, on &3 .a &*'#, !or failure of the .agcales to )a their obligation to the =an@ after it became due, the deeds of Real 9state .ortgage were e2trajudiciall foreclosed, /onse4uent to the foreclosure was the sale of the )ro)erties mortgaged to the ban@ as the highest bidder in a )ublic auction sale conducted b the /it Sheriff on &# ()ril &*'7, The auction sale was held des)ite written re4uest from the .agcales through counsel, dated #* .arch
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 14# )
&*'7, for the /it Sheriff to desist from going with the scheduled )ublic auction sale, The issue was raised to the /! Oambales and -longa)o /it which, on $ <ovember &*'7, declared the deeds of Real 9state .ortgage as null and void, The ban@ filed a motion for reconsideration on &4 December &*'7, which the court denied on &0 Januar &*'* for lac@ of merit, +ence, the )etition, The Su)reme /ourt modified the decision of the /!8 Oambales N -longa)o, declaring that the Deed of Real 9state .ortgage for "'0,000,00 is valid but ruling that the Deed of Real 9state .ortgage for an additional loan of "#0,000,00 is null and void, without )rejudice to an a))ro)riate action the 1overnment ma ta@e against )rivate res)ondents, 1. Bui-ding se*arate and distinct fro/ t0e -and 8n the enumeration of )ro)erties under (rticle 4&3 of the /ivil /ode of the "hili))ines, it is obvious that the inclusion of JbuildingB se)arate and distinct from the land, in said )rovision of law can onl mean that a building is b itself an immovable )ro)ert , (;o)e: vs, -rosa, Jr,, et al,, ;6&07&'6&7, !eb, #7, &*37? (ssociated 8nc, and Suret /o,, 8nc, vs, 8 a, et al,, ;6&07$'6$7, .a $0, &*37), +. Bui-ding can %e /ortgaged a*art fro/ t0e -and it is %ui-t. *ossessory rig0ts /ay %e va-id-y transferred in a deed of /ortgage Ghile a mortgage of land necessaril includes, in the absence of sti)ulation of the im)rovements thereon, buildings? still a building b itself ma be mortgaged a)art from the land on which it has been built, Such a mortgage would be still a real estate mortgage for the building would still be considered immovable )ro)ert even if dealt with se)aratel and a)art from the land (;eung Tee vs, Strong .achiner /o,, $' "hil, %44), "ossessor rights over said )ro)erties before title is vested on the grantee, ma be validl transferred or conve ed as in a deed of mortgage (>da, de =autista vs, .arcos, $ S/R( 4$7 L&*%&M), ". A va-id rea- estate /ortgage /ay %e constituted on t0e %ui-ding erected on t0e -and %e-onging to anot0er The original mortgage was e2ecuted (&* <ovember &*'&) before the issuance of the final )atent (#4 ()ril &*'#) and before the government was divested of its title to the land (&3 .a &*'#), an event which ta@es effect onl on the issuance of the sales )atent and its subse4uent registration in the -ffice of the Register of Deeds (>isa an Realt 8nc, vs, .eer, *% "hil, 3&3? Director of ;ands vs, De ;eon, &&0 "hil, #7? Director of ;ands vs, Jurado, ;6&4'0#, .a #$, &*%&? "eIa, D;aw on <atural ResourcesE, ), 4*), 8n the case at bar, it is evident that the mortgage e2ecuted b .agcale on his own building which was erected on the land belonging to the government is to all intents and )ur)oses a valid mortgage, . )u%-ic -and act and RA 6"! not vio-ated in first /ortgage (s to restrictions a))earing to the .agcalesB title? Sections &#&, &## and &#4 of the "ublic ;and (ct refer to land alread ac4uired under the "ublic ;and (ct or an im)rovement thereon, Section # of R( '$0 refers to encumbrance or alienation before the )atent is issued because it refers s)ecificall to encumbrance or alienation on the land itself and does not mention an thing regarding the im)rovements e2isting thereon, =oth have no a))lication to the assailed mortgage in the case at bar? as the former, the mortgage was e2ecuted before such eventualit , and the latter, it does not encumber nor alienate the land, 4. Cortgage /ade after issuance of ?a-es )atent an 2,; *ro0i%ited. Bsto**e- does not give va-idating effect to a void contract (s regards the second mortgage e2ecuted, such mortgage e2ecuted after the issuance of the sales )atent and of the -riginal /ertificate of Title, falls s4uarel under the )rohibitions stated in Sections &#&, &## and &#4 of the "ublic ;and (ct and Section # of R( '$0, and is therefore null and void, 9ven if the title was voluntar surrendered to the ban@ for the mortgage to be annotated without the )rior a))roval of the .inistr of <atural Resources? in )ari delicto ma not be invo@ed to defeat the )olic of the State neither ma the doctrine of esto))el give a validating effect to a void contract, 8ndeed, it is generall considered that as between )arties to
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1&! )
a contract, validit cannot be given to it b esto))el if it is )rohibited b law or is against )ublic )olic (&* (m, Jur, 70#), 8t is not within the com)etence of an citi:en to barter awa what )ublic )olic b law see@s to )reserve (1on:alo "u at N Sons, 8nc, vs, De los (mas and (lino, su)ra? (rsenal vs, 8(/, &4$ S/R( 34 L&*7%M), Such does not, however, )reclude new contracts that ma be entered into in accordance with the re4uirements of the law, (n new transaction, however, would be subject to whatever ste)s the 1overnment ma ta@e for the reversion of the land in its favor, [8+] )unsa-an v. vda. De Lacsa/ana [G.R. No. L<446+#. Carc0 +8' 1#8".] !irst Division, .elencio6+errera (J): 3 concur # $acts( (ntonio "unsalan, Jr,, was the former registered owner of a )arcel of land consisting of $40 m situated in =amban, Tarlac, 8n &*%$, "unsalan mortgaged the land to "<= (Tarlac =ranch) for "&0,000,00, but for failure to )a said amount, the )ro)ert was foreclosed on &% December &*'0, "<= (Tarlac =ranch) was the highest bidder in said foreclosure )roceedings, +owever, the ban@ secured title thereto onl on &4 December &*'', 8n the meantime, in &*'4, while the )ro)ert was still in the alleged )ossession of "unsalan and with the alleged ac4uiescence of "<= (Tarlac =ranch), and u)on securing a )ermit from the .unici)al .a or, "unsalan constructed a warehouse on said )ro)ert , "unsalan declared said warehouse for ta2 )ur)oses for which he was issued Ta2 Declaration 3%&*, "unsalan then leased the warehouse to one +ermogenes Sibal for a )eriod of &0 ears starting Januar &*'3, -n #% Jul &*'7, a Deed of Sale was e2ecuted between "<= (Tarlac =ranch) and ;acsamana over the )ro)ert , This contract was amended on $& Jul &*'7, )articularl to include in the sale, the building and im)rovement thereon, = virtue of said instruments, ;acsamana secured title over the )ro)ert in her name (T/T &'$'44) as well as se)arate ta2 declarations for the land and building, -n ## <ovember &*'*, "unsalan commenced suit for D(nnulment of Deed of Sale with DamagesE against "<= and ;acsamana before the /!8 Ri:al, =ranch HHH8, Fue:on /it , essentiall im)ugning the validit of the sale of the building as embodied in the (mended Deed of Sale, The /!8 dismissed the case on the ground of im)ro)er venue on #3 ()ril &*70, finding that the Dwarehouse allegedl owned and constructed b the )laintiff on the land of the "<= situated in the .unici)alit of =amban, "rovince of Tarlac, which warehouse is an immovable )ro)ert )ursuant to (rticle 4&3 (&) of the <ew /ivil /ode? and, as such the action of the )laintiff is a real action affecting title to real )ro)ert which, under Section #, Rule 4 of the <ew Rules of /ourt, must be tried in the )rovince where the )ro)ert or an )art thereof lies,E "unsalan filed a .otion for Reconsideration of the -rder, which the /ourt denied on & Se)tember &*70, +ence, the )etition for /ertiorari, The Su)reme /ourt denied the )etition without )rejudice to the refilling of the case b "unsalan in the )ro)er forum? with cost against the )etitioner, 1. Bui-dings are a-1ays i//ova%-e under t0e ,ode =uildings are alwa s immovable under the /ode, ( building treated se)aratel from the land on which it stood is immovable )ro)ert and the mere fact that the )arties to a contract seem to have dealt with it se)arate and a)art from the land on which it stood in no wise changed its character as immovable )ro)ert , +. Annu-/ent or rescission of sa-e of rea- *ro*erty does not o*erate to efface t0e o%>ective of recovering rea- *ro*erty 9ven if one does not directl see@ the recover of title or )ossession of the )ro)ert , his action for annulment of sale and his claim for damages are closel intertwined with the issue of ownershi) of the building which, under the law, is considered immovable )ro)ert , the recover of which is )etitionerBs )rimar objective, The
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1&1 )
)revalent doctrine is that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real )ro)ert does not o)erate to efface the fundamental and )rime objective and nature of the case, which is to recover said real )ro)ert , 8t is a real action, ". Lack of a--egation of i/*ro*er venue does not 1arrant case to *roceed as it a-so re5uire ot0er indis*ensa%-e *arty The contention that the case should )roceed as the res)ondent failed to allege im)ro)er venue and, therefore, issues had alread been joined, is untenable, (n indis)ensable )art e2ist besides the )arties in the (mended /ontract of Sale, the validit of which is being 4uestioned, 8t would be futile to )roceed with the case against one res)ondent alone, [8"] Gue/ue- v. 2-aes [G.R. No. L<11!8 . A*ri- +#' 1#&1.] 9n =anc, "aredes (J): * concur $acts( (ngel S, -laes and his wife, Juliana "rudente, registered owners of lot &0*3 of the San !rancisco de .alabon 9state, located in Rosario, /avite, sought the recover of the )ossession of the said lot and rentals therefore in /ivil /ase 344# /!8 /avite, from (lejandro Fuemuel and his wife Ru)erta Solis, who claimed to be in )ossession under the tolerance of the former, -n &% .arch &*34, the trial court ordered Fuemuels to return the )ossession of lot &0*3 to the -laes s)ouses and to )a the latter "#0 a month from Januar &*34, until the shall have vacated the )remises, The Fuemuels did not a))eal from said decision which became final on ## ()ril &*34, Thereafter, the -laes s)ouses sought the e2ecution of the decision, To forestall ejectment, the Fuemuels filed on & Jul &*34 the com)laint (/ivil /ase 33&7, /!8 /avite), The Fuemuels see@ to reduce the monthl rental of "#0 fi2ed in /ivil /ase 344#, and to com)el the -laes s)ouses to sell to them the )ortion of the lot &0*3 where their house is erected, The -laes s)ouses filed a motion to dismiss on * Jul &*34, alleging lac@ of cause of action, res adjudicata? )rescri)tion, and the cause of action, if an , is barred b the FuemuelsB failure to set it u) as a counter6claim in /ivil /ase 344#, -n &' Se)tember &*34, the trial court dismissed the com)laint, without )ronouncement as to costs, (n a))eal was ta@en b the Fuemuels to the /ourt of ())eals (/(61R &47$'6R) which, b the agreement of the )arties, certified the case to the /ourt, The e2 )arte )etition filed b the Fuemuels in the Su)reme /ourt on * (ugust &*3%, as@ing that a writ of )reliminar injunction be issued to the "rovincial Sheriff of /avite and the -laes, enjoining them from demolishing the house of the Fuemuels until there is a final decision in said /ase &47$', was denied on &4 (ugust &*3%, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the order a))ealed from, with costs against the Fuemuels, 1. ;0e ,o/*-aint states no cause of action. 3f t0e rent i/*osed %y court are found e9cessive' t0e Gue/ue-s are free to vacate t0e *ro*erty ( cause of action )resu))oses a right of the )laintiff and a violation of such right b the defendant, (ccording to the com)laint itself, the rental of "#0 monthl and the order to vacate, were )rovided in a )rior judgment (/ivil /ase 344#) which is final and its validit is not assailed, There being no law that fi2es the rental of the same land at ' &A#C of its alleged mar@et value, the )laintiffs have no right thereto, or a right which could be violated, The defendants are not com)elling the )laintiffs to rent the )ro)ert but wanted them to vacate the )remises (/ivil /ase 344#), 8f the rental determined b the trial court were e2cessive, the )laintiffs are free to vacate the )ro)ert , !or )laintiffs to insist on )ossessing the )ro)ert and fi2ing the rentals themselves, would have no legal sanction at all, +. Bui-der in good fait0( Rig0t to a**ro*riate 1orks or i/*rove/ents %e-ong to o1ner of t0e -and'
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1&+ )
%ui-der:s rig0t to rei/%urse/ent. Bui-der cannot co/*e- o1ner of t0e -and to se-- -and 5nder (rticle 447, the right to a))ro)riate the wor@s or im)rovements or Dto oblige the one who built or )lanted to )a the )rice of the landE belongs to the owner of the land, The onl right given to the builder in good faith is the right to reimbursement for the im)rovements? the builder, cannot com)el the owner of the land to sell such land to the former, This is assuming that the )laintiffs are builders in good faith, ". Gue/ue-s not %ui-ders in good fait0. Bui-der %ui-ds under c-ai/ of tit-e The Fuemuels are not builders in good faith, (rticle 447 of the new /ivil /ode, (e4uivalent to (rticle $%& of the old /ivil /ode) is intended to a))l onl to a case where one builds, or sows, or )lants on land in which he believes himself to have a claim of title and not to lands wherein oneBs onl interest is that of tenant, under a rental contract, which is the )resent case (A buro v!. ;) anueva, 7 ./) ., 277+, The tenant cannot be said to be a builder in good faith as he has no )retension to be owner (R)vera v!. 7/a) an8, $% ./) ., *96& !ee a !o * 'anre!a $(/ B8. 00. 215#216+. . Gue/ue-s are -essees !rom the )leadings and the documentar evidence submitted, it is indis)utable that the land in 4uestion originall belonged to the government as )art of the !riar ;ands 9state and the title thereto was in the name of the government until it was )urchased b (ga)ita Solis who a))lied, thru the =ureau of ;ands, to )urchase the land b installments, The corres)onding Sale /ertificate 3$&, effective & Jul &*0* was e2ecuted, 8n -laes s)ousesB com)laint, the alleged that the are the owners of lot &0*3 and that the Fuemuels have been occu) ing southeastern half )ortion thereof, without an right thereto, e2ce)t the tolerance of the -laes s)ouses, The Fuemuels were not unaware of the flaw in their title, if an , and that their true relation with the -laes s)ouses was that of tenant and landlord, and, that their rights are governed b (rticle &3'$ in relation to article 47' of the old /ivil /ode, (rticle &3'$ )rovides that Da lessee shall have with res)ect to useful and voluntar im)rovements, the same right which are granted the usufructuaries,E (rticle 47' )rovides that Dthe usufructuar ma ma@e on the )ro)ert held in usufruct an im)rovements, useful or recreative, which he ma deem )ro)er, )rovided he does not change its form or substance, but he shall have no right to be indemnified therefor, +e ma , however, remove such im)rovements, should it be )ossible to do so without injur to the )ro)ert E, . Lessee cannot co/*e- -essor to *ay for t0e i/*rove/ents or to se-- t0e -and. Rig0t to re/ove i/*rove/ents if it can %e done 1it0out da/age to t0e -and !rom (rticles 47' and &3'$, it can clearl be inferred that the Fuemuels cannot even com)el the -laes s)ouses to )a for the im)rovements the former made in the )ro)ert or to sell the latterBs land, The FuemuelsB onl right, is to remove the im)rovements, if it is )ossible to do so without damage to the land, 4. 3dentity of case 4 + and 4418. Assu/ing ot0er1ise' covered %y Res >udicata 8n /ase 344#, the matter of the rental was in issue, and the same was considered and decided b the trial court, which ordered the Fuemuels therein Dto )a a reasonable com)ensation of "#0 a month beginning with Januar , &*34, until the shall have left the )remisesE, 8n the )resent case (33&7), the )arties are the identical )arties in /ivil /ase 344#, the same lot &0*3 is the subject matter of both cases? the same issue, namel , the amount of the rental is involved, 9ven assuming that Fuemuels have a cause of action, the doctrine of res judicata alread o)erates against them, &. Lot *urc0ased %y Aga*ita ?o-is. Assu/ing ot0er1ise' covered %y )rescri*tion ;ot &0*3 was )urchased b (ga)ita Solis from the 1overnment on & Jul &*0*, (fter full )a ment of the )urchase )rice, T/T &0''& covering said lot was issued to said (ga)ita Solis on 7 June &*$$, (ssuming that the Fuemuels or their alleged )redecessor6in6interest, had a cause of action for claiming the ownershi) of )ortions of said lot, such cause of action accrued at the latest on 7 June &*$$, The statute of limitations )rovide that the Fuemuels or their )redecessor had &0 ears from said date, within which to file the corres)onding action? which cannot be had as the Fuemuels filed the com)laint after more than #& ears or on
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1&" )
& Jul &*34, 6. $ai-ure to set u* a counterc-ai/ in ,ivi- ,ase 4 + Ghether the cause of action is for recover of ownershi) or for an alleged right to )urchase the )ro)ert , or for reimbursement for some im)rovements, the Fuemuels should have set it u) as a counterclaim in /ivil /ase 344#, because same was necessaril connected with, or arose out of the transactions involved in /ivil /ase 344# (Section %, Rule &0, Rules of /ourt), 8. De =esus v. Be-ar/ino does not a**-y 8n De 1esus, et al. vs. "elar&ino, et al. (1R ;6%%%3, $0 June &*34? -1 Jul &*34, ), $0%4), it was held that Dwhere the com)laint was dismissed not because of an evidence )resented b the )arties, or as a result of a trial on the merits, but merel on a motion to dismiss filed b the defendants, the sufficienc of the motion should be tested on the strength of the allegation of facts contained in the com)laint and no otherE, which has been inter)reted to a))l to cases where the motion to dismiss is based solel on the ground of lac@ of cause of action, /onsidering the fact that (&) 8n the )resent case, documentar evidence and the records of the /ivil /ase 344# were )resented and considered b the trial court? and (#) in the De Jesus case, the onl ground for dismissal was the lac@ of cause of action, while in the )resent case, aside from said ground, )laintiffs alleged other grounds, the said ruling finds no a))lication, [8 ] Re*u%-ic v. A-agad [G.R. No. &&8!6. =anuary +&' 1#8#.] Second Division, Sarmiento (J): 4 concur $acts( -n && -ctober &*3&, .elitona, /armen (with s)ouse 9s)iridion Kolimlim), Justo, /arlos, ;ibrada (with s)ouse 9merson (bano), Demetrio, and (ntonio (lagad filed an a))lication for registration of their title over a )arcel of land situated at ;inga, "ila, ;aguna, with an area of 7,&#%$ hectares (surve )lan "su6 &&%*'&), which was amended after the land was divided into two )arcels, namel , ;ot & with an area of 3,#4'% hectares and ;ot # with an area of #,74#& hectares (surve )lan "su6##%*'&, amendment #), The Re)ublic o))osed the a))lication on the stereo6t )ed ground that a))licants and their )redecessors have not been in )ossession of the land o)enl , continuousl , )ublicl and adversel under a bona fide claim of ownershi) since #% Jul &7*4 and the land has not ceased to be a )art of the )ublic domain, 8t a))ears that barrio fol@ also o))osed the a))lication, -n &% Januar &*3%, b virtue of a final judgment in said case, su))lemented b orders issued on #& .arch &*3% and &$ (ugust &*3%, the (lagads were declared owners of ;ot & and the remaining )ortion, or ;ot #, was declared )ublic land, Decree <63&4'* was entered and -/T 06 40&, dated &7 -ctober &*3%, was issued in the names of the (lagads, 8n (ugust &*%%, the (lagads filed before the .unici)al /ourt of "ila, ;aguna (/ivil /ase 3#) an action to evict the barrio fol@ occu) ing )ortions of ;ot &, -n 7 (ugust &*%7, judgment was rendered in the eviction case ordering the barrio fol@ therein to return )ossession of the )remises to the (lagads, The barrio fol@ did not a))eal, The Re)ublic filed a )etition for Dannulment of title and reversion, insofar as the &,4# hectare northwestern )ortion on end of ;ot & is concerned, contending that such is foreshore land, and that the (lagads could not have had an im)erfect title to it as it was the barrio fol@ who filled u) the land to elevate the land to its )resent condition, The /ourt, on % -ctober &*'0, issued a writ of )reliminar injunction enjoining the "rovincial Sheriff of ;aguna or his de)uties from enforcing the writ of e2ecution issued in /ivil /ase 3#, and the (lagads from selling, mortgaging, dis)osing or otherwise entering into an transaction affecting the area, The case was set for )re6trial on % Jul &*'&, to which the attorne re)resenting the Re)ublic did not a))ear, -n &% Jul &*'&, the court dismissed the com)laint, The Re)ublic filed a motion for reconsideration, was set for hearing, and finall denied b the court, ())eal was made to the /ourt of ())eals, which sustained the trial
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1& )
court for failure to show in the record on a))eal that the a))eal was )erfected on time, +ence, the a))eal, The Su)reme /ourt reversed the decision of the lower courts, and reinstated the Re)ublicBs com)laint and thus remanded the case to the trial court for further )roceedings, 1. ?tate cannot %e %ound %y or esto**ed fro/ t0e /istakes or neg-igent acts of its officia-s or agents The State cannot be bound b , or esto))ed from, the mista@es or negligent acts of its official or agents, much more, non6suited as a result thereof, This is so because the state as a )ersona in law is the judicial entit , which is the source of an asserted right to ownershi) in land under the basic doctrine embodied in the &*$3 /onstitution as well as the )resent charter, 8t is charged moreover with the conservation of such )atrimon , There is need therefore of the most rigorous scrutin before )rivate claims to )ortions thereof are judiciall accorded recognition, Such )rimordial consideration, not the a))arent carelessness, much less the ac4uiescence of )ublic officials, is the controlling norm, +. Ra/os v. ,entra- Bank' and Ni-o v. Ro/ero not a**-ica%-e to t0e *resent case The cases of Ramos v, /entral =an@ of the "hili))ines and <ilo v, Romero, are not a))licable, 8n Ramos, the /ourt a))lied esto))el u)on finding of bad faith on the )art of the State (the /entral =an@) in deliberatel reneging on its )romises, 8n <ilo, the /ourt denied efforts to im)ugn the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that the defendant had been Derroneousl E re)resented in the com)laint b the /it (ttorne when it should have been the /it .a or, on a holding that the /it (ttorne , in an event, could have abl defended the /it (Davao /it ), 8n both cases, it is seen that the acts that gave rise to esto))el were voluntar and intentional in character, in which cases, it could not be said that the 1overnment had been )rejudiced b some negligent act or omission, ". Res >udicata is not an i/*edi/ent to reversion of *ro*erty. Re*u%-ic v. ,A' re5uisites for a *rior >udg/ent to %eco/e a %ar Res judicata is not an im)ediment to reversion of )ro)ert , 8n Re)ublic v, /ourt of ())eals, the /ourt stated that a certificate of title ma be ordered cancelled (Re0ub )4 v. An)9u!, e( a .+, and the cancellation ma be )ursued through an ordinar action therefor, This action cannot be barred b the )rior judgment of the land registration court, since the said court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter, (nd if there was no such jurisdiction, then the )rinci)le of res judicata does not a))l , !or it is a well6settled rule that for a )rior judgment to constitute a bar to a subse4uent case, the following re4uisites must concur? (&) it must be a final judgment? (#) it must have been rendered b a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the )arties? ($) it must be a judgment on the merits? and (4) there must be, between the first and second actions, identit of )arties, identit of subject matter and identit of cause of action ('un)4)0a )(y o2 ,ae( v!. C$ 9* 5CRA 50*& 'en8oza v!. Arr)e(a, e( a ., 91 5CRA 11*+ . )ro*erty of *u%-ic do/inion( )ro*erty for *u%-ic use or *u%-ic service D"ro)ert E, according to the /ivil /ode, Dis either of )ublic dominion or of )rivate ownershi),E "ro)ert is of )ublic dominion if it is (&) intended for )ublic use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, )orts and bridges constructed b the State, ban@s, shores, roadsteads and others of similar character?or if it (#) belongs to the State, without being for )ublic use, and are intended for some )ublic service or for the develo)ment of the national wealth, 4. )atri/onia- *ro*erty and *ro*erty of *u%-ic do/inion D(ll other )ro)ert of the State which is not of the character mentioned in article L4#0M, is )atrimonial )ro)ert ,E meaning to sa , )ro)ert Do)en to dis)ositionE b the 1overnment, or otherwise, )ro)ert )ertaining to the national domain, or )ublic lands, "ro)ert of the )ublic dominion, on the other hand, refers to things held b the State b regalian right, The are things res )ublicae in nature and hence, inca)able of )rivate a))ro)riation, Thus, under the )resent /onstitution, DLwMith the e2ce)tion of agricultural lands, all
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1&4 )
other natural resources shall not be alienated,E &. )u%-ic Do/inion' as to 1aters (rticle 30# )rovides that D(&) Rivers and their natural beds? (#) /ontinuous or intermittent waters of s)rings and broo@s running in their natural beds and the beds themselves? ($) Gaters rising continuousl or intermittentl on lands of )ublic dominion? (4) ;a@es and lagoons formed b <ature on )ublic lands, and their beds? (3) Rain waters running through ravines or sand beds, which are also of )ublic dominion? (%) Subterranean waters on )ublic lands? (') Gaters found within the :one of o)eration of )ublic wor@s, even if constructed b a contractor? (7) Gaters rising continuousl or intermittentl on lands belonging to )rivate )ersons, to the State, to a )rovince, or to a cit or munici)alit from the moment the leave such lands? and (*) The waste waters of fountains, sewers and )ublic establishmentsE are of )ublic dominion, 8t is also ordained in (rticle 44 of the S)anish ;aw of Gaters of $ (ugust &7%% that Dnatural )onds and la@es e2isting u)on )ublic lands and fed b )ublic waters, belong to the )ublic domain, ;a@es, )onds, and )ools e2isting u)on the lands of )rivate individuals, or the State or )rovinces, belong to the res)ective owners of such lands, and those situated u)on lands of communal use belong to their res)ective J)ueblos,BE 6. Laguna de Bay is a -ake (,o-egio de ?an =ose case). Hig0est 2rdinary De*t0 ;aguna de =a has long been recogni:ed as a la@e, ;aguna de =a is a bod of water formed in de)ressions of the earth? it contains fresh water coming from rivers and broo@s or s)rings, and is connected with .anila =a b the "asig River, 8nasmuch as ;aguna de =a is a la@e, the /ourt must resort to the legal )rovisions governing the ownershi) and use of la@es and their beds and shores, in order to determine the character and ownershi) of the )arcels of land in 4uestion, The recourse to legal )rovisions is necessar , for under (rticle '4 of the ;aw of Gaters, Dthe natural bed or basin of la@es is the ground covered b their waters when at their highest ordinar de)thE and in which case, it forms )art of the national dominion, Ghen ;aguna de =a Bs waters are at their highest ordinar de)th has been defined as the highest de)th of the waters of ;aguna de =a during the dr season, such de)th being the Dregular, common, natural, which occurs alwa s or most of the time during the ear, -therwise, where the rise in water level is due to the De2traordinar E action of nature, rainfall for instance, the )ortions inundated thereb are not considered )art of the bed or basin of the bod of water in 4uestion, 8t cannot therefore be said to be foreshore land but land outside of the )ublic dominion, and land ca)able of registration as )rivate )ro)ert , 8. $ores0ore -and ( foreshore land has been defined as Dthat )art of (the land) which is between high and low water and left dr b the flu2 and reflu2 of the tides,E or DThe stri) of land that lies between the high and low water mar@s and that is alternativel wet and dr according to the flow of the tide,E 8f the submergence, however, of the land is due to )reci)itation, it does not become foreshore, des)ite its )ro2imit to the waters, #. ,ourt not a trier of facts. not enoug0 evidence to arrive a conc-usive dis*osition. Re/and The case has to be decided alongside the above )rinci)les and regretfull , the /ourt cannot ma@e a ruling because it is not a trier of facts, and it is in )ossession of no evidence to assist it in arriving at a conclusive dis)osition, The /ourt thus remanded the case to the court a 4uo to determine whether or not the )ro)ert subject of controvers is foreshore, [84] Re*u%-ic v. ,A [G.R. No. L< "1!4. August "1' 1#8 .] =autista v, /( L1,R, <o, ;64$&*0, (ugust $&, &*74,M Second Division, /uevas (J): 4 concur, & on leave, & too@ no )art, $acts( ( lot with an area of &',$&& s4,m, situated in =arrio "inagba anan, "ila, ;aguna and #0 meters from the shore of ;aguna de =a ? was )urchased b =enedicto del Rio from (ngel "ili on &* ()ril &*0*, The Deed
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1&& )
of Sale evidencing said )urchase is dul recorded with the Registr of Deeds of Sta, /ru:, ;aguna, The land was declared for ta2 )ur)oses beginning the ear &*&7, and the realt ta2es thereon had been )aid since &*47, Ghen =enedicto del Rio died in &*3', his heirs e2trajudiciall )artitioned his estate and the subject )arcel )assed on to his son, Santos del Rio, as the latterBs share in the inheritance, Santos del Rio filed his a))lication for registration of said )arcel on * .a &*%%, The a))lication was o))osed b the Director of ;ands and b )rivate o))ositors, )etitioners in 1,R, <o, ;64$&*0, Sometime before &*%%, )rivate o))ositors obtained )ermission from Santos del Rio to construct duc@ houses on the land in 4uestion, (lthough there was no definite commitment as to rentals, some of them had made voluntar )a ments to )rivate res)ondent, 8n violation of the original agreement, )rivate o))ositors constructed residential houses on the land which )rom)ted )rivate res)ondent to file an ejectment suit against the former in &*%%, .eanwhile, during the latter )art of &*%3 and in &*%%, )rivate o))ositors had simultaneousl filed their res)ective sales a))lications with the =ureau of ;ands, and in &*%%, the o))osed Santos del RioBs a))lication for registration, The /!8 ;aguna dismissed the a))lication for registration, ())licant a))ealed and obtained a favorable judgment from the /ourt of ())eals, setting aside that of the trial court, The Director of ;ands and the )rivate o))ositors filed their res)ective "etitions for Review of said decision, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment affirmed from, and ordered the registration of the land described in the a))lication in favor of Santos del Rio, a))licant )rivate res)ondent? with costs against )rivate )etitioners, 1. ,-assification of *ro*erty as eit0er of *u%-ic do/inion or of *rivate o1ners0i*. )u%-ic -ands J *u%-ic do/inion "ro)ert , which includes )arcels of land found in "hili))ine territor , is either of )ublic dominion or of )rivate ownershi), "ublic lands, or those of )ublic dominion, have been described as those which, under e2isting legislation are not the subject of )rivate ownershi), and are reserved for )ublic )ur)oses, The <ew /ivil /ode enumerates )ro)erties of )ublic dominion in (rticles 4#0 and 30# thereof, (rticle 40# includes Dthose intended for )ublic use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, )orts and bridges constructed b the State, ban@s, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character? and Dthose which belong to the State without being for )ublic use, and are intended for some )ublic service or for the develo)ment of the national wealthE as )ro)ert belonging to )ublic dominion, (rticle 30# adds Drivers and their natural beds?E Dcontinuous or intermittent waters of s)rings and broo@s running in their natural beds and the beds themselves?E Dwaters rising continuousl or intermittentl on lands of )ublic dominion?E and D la@es and lagoons formed b <ature on )ublic lands and their beds?E to the enumeration, +. B9tent of a -ake %ed The e2tent of a la@e bed is defined in (rtcile '4 of the ;aw of Gaters of &7%%, as Dthe natural bed or basin of la@es, )onds, or )ools, is the ground covered b their waters when at their highest ordinar de)th,E ". Hig0est 2rdinary De*t0 in a -ake. Deter/inant is rainfa-- and not gravitationa- *u-- (tides) The )hrase Dhighest ordinar de)thE has been inter)reted in the case of 1overnment, vs, /olegio de San Jose to be the highest de)th of the waters of ;aguna de =a during the dr season, such de)th being the Dregular, common, natural, which occurs alwa s or most of the time during the ear? or thus rain Dfalling directl on or flowing into ;aguna de =a from different sources,E Ghile the waters of a la@e are also subject to the same gravitational forces that cause the formation of tides in seas and oceans, this )henomenon is not a regular dail occurrence in the case of la@es, The alternation of high tides and low tides, which is an ordinar occurrence, could hardl account for the rise in the water level of the ;aguna de =a as observed 463 months a ear during the rain season? rather, it is the rains which bring about the inundation of a )ortion of the land in 4uestion, Since the rise in the water level which causes the submersion of the land occurs during a shorter )eriod than the level of the water at which the land is com)letel dr , the latter should be considered as the Dhighest ordinar de)thE of ;aguna de =a , The land sought to be registered, therefore, is not )art of the bed
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1&6 )
or basin of ;aguna de =a , . $ores0ore -and defined. Definition does not a**-y to -and ad>acent to -ake !oreshore land is that )art of (the land) which is between high and low water and left dr b the flu2 and reflu2 of the tides? or the stri) of land that lies between the high and low water mar@s and that is alternatel wet and dr according to the flow of the tide, 8n the )resent case, since the inundation of a )ortion of the land near the la@e is not due to Dflu2 and reflu2 of tides,E it thus cannot be considered a foreshore land within the meaning cited b the Director of ;ands, 4. )ur*ose of -and registration under ;orrens ?yste/ The )ur)ose of land registration under the Torrens S stem is not the ac4uisition of lands but onl the registration of title which a))licant alread )ossesses over the land, Registration under the Torrens ;aw was never intended as a means of ac4uiring ownershi), ())licant in this case asserts ownershi) over the )arcel of land he see@s to register and traces the roots of his title to a )ublic instrument of sale in favor of his father from whom he inherited said land, &. ;a9 dec-aration strong evidence of o1ners0i* ac5uired %y *rescri*tion. a-so 2*en' continuous' *u%-ic' *eacefu-' e9c-usive and adverse *ossession of t0e -and ())licant )resents ta2 declarations covering the land since &*&7 and also ta2 recei)ts dating bac@ to &*47, Ghile it is true that b themselves ta2 recei)ts and declarations of ownershi) for ta2ation )ur)oses are not incontrovertible evidence of ownershi), the become strong evidence of ownershi) ac4uired b )rescri)tion when accom)anied b )roof of actual )ossession of the )ro)ert , !urther, a))licant b himself and through his father before him, has been in o)en, continuous, )ublic, )eaceful, e2clusive and adverse )ossession of the dis)uted land for more than $0 ears, counted from &* ()ril &*0*, when the land was ac4uired from a third )erson b )urchase, Since a))licant has )ossessed the subject )arcel in the conce)t of owner with just title and in good faith, his )ossession need onl last for ten ears in order for ordinar ac4uisitive )rescri)tion to set in, ())licant has more than satisfied this legal re4uirement, 6. =udicia- confir/ation of i/*erfect tit-e 9ven if the land sought to be registered is )ublic land, a))licant would be entitled to a judicial confirmation of his im)erfect title, since he has also satisfied the re4uirements of the "ublic ;and (ct (/( &4& as amended b R( &*4#), Section 47 of the (ct enumerates as among the )ersons entitled to judicial confirmation of im)erfect title, such as Dthose who, b themselves or through their )redecessors6in6interest, have been in the o)en, continuous, e2clusive, and notorious )ossession and occu)ation of agricultural lands of the )ublic domain, under bona fide claim of ownershi), for at least thirt ears immediatel )receding the filing of the a))lication for confirmation of title,E 8. Rec-a/ation re5uires *ro*er *er/ission. rec-ai/ed -and does not auto/atica--y %e-ong to *arty rec-ai/ing t0e sa/e "rivate )ersons cannot, b themselves reclaim land from water bodies belonging to the )ublic domain without )ro)er )ermission from government authorities, (nd even if such reclamation had been authori:ed, the reclaimed land does not automaticall belong to the )art reclaiming the same as the ma still be subject to the terms of the authorit earlier granted, 8n the )resent case, )rivate o))ositors6)etitioners failed to show )ro)er authorit for the alleged reclamation, therefore, their claimed title to the litigated )arcel must fall, #. ;o-erance of *ossession cannot ri*en into o1ners0i* (s the )rivate o))ositors6)etitioners entered into )ossession of the land with the )ermission of, and as tenants of, the a))licant del Rio? the fact that some of them at one time or another did not )a rent, Their use of the land and their non6)a ment of rents thereon were merel tolerated b a))licant and these could not have affected the character of the latterBs )ossession which has alread ri)ened into ownershi) at the time of the filing of this a))lication for registration, -nl )ossession ac4uired and enjo ed in the conce)t of owner can
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1&8 )
serve as the root of a title ac4uired b )rescri)tion, [8&] Re*u%-ic v. ,A [G.R. No. L<&1& 6. 2cto%er 1+' 1#8 .] !irst Division, 1utierre: Jr, (J): 3 concur $acts( =enjamin Tancinco, (:ucena Tancinco Re es, .aria Tancinco 8m)erial and .ario /, Tancinco are registered owners of a )arcel of land covered b T/T T67*'0* situated at =arrio 5bihan, .e caua an, =ulacan bordering on the .e caua an and =ocaue rivers, -n #4 June &*'$, the Tancincos filed an a))lication for the registration of $ lots adjacent to their fish)ond )ro)ert ("su6&$&7*#: ;ot &, $$7$' s4,m,? ;ot #, 3,43$ s4,m,? ;ot $, &*73 s4, m,) -n 3 ()ril &*'4, (ssistant "rovincial !iscal (mando /, >icente, in re)resentation of the =ureau of ;ands filed a written o))osition to the a))lication for registration, -n % .arch &*'3, the Tancincos filed a )artial withdrawal of the a))lication for registration with res)ect to ;ot $ of "lan "su6&$&7*# in line with the recommendation of the /ommissioner a))ointed b the /ourt, -n ' .arch &*'3, ;ot $ was ordered withdrawn from the a))lication and trial )roceeded onl with res)ect to ;ots & and # covered b "lan "su6&$&7*#, -n #% June &*'%, the lower court rendered a decision granting the a))lication on the finding that the lands in 4uestion are accretions to the TancincosB fish)onds covered b T/T 7*'0*, -n $0 Jul &*'%, the Re)ublic a))ealed to the /ourt of ())eals, -n &* (ugust &*7#, the a))ellate court rendered a decision affirming in toto the decision of the lower cost? without costs, +ence, the )etition for certiorari to set aside the decision of the /(, The Su)reme /ourt granted the )etition, reversed and set aside the decision a))ealed from, and ordered the )rivate res)ondents to move bac@ the di@es of their fish)onds to their original location and return the dis)uted )ro)ert to the river to which it belongs, 1. )o1er to revie1 vested in t0e ,ourt. Binding effect of t0e findings of facts %y -o1er court not a%so-ute The rule that the findings of fact of the trial court and the /ourt of ())eals are binding u)on this /ourt admits of certain e2ce)tions, The /ourt retains the )ower to review and rectif the findings of fact of said courts when (&) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirel on s)eculations, surmises and conjectures? (#) when the inference made is manifestl mista@en, absurd, and im)ossible? ($) where there is grave abuse of discretion? (4) when the judgment is based on a misa))rehension of facts? and (3) when the court, in ma@ing its findings, went be ond the issues of the case and the same are contrar to the admissions of both a))ellant and a))ellee (Caro )na In8u!(r)e! In4. v. C'5 5(o4G :roGerage, In4., 97 5CRA 7*$+. +. No accretion to s*eak of as t0e transfer of dikes is /an</ade and artificia-. Artic-e 46 N,, There is no accretion to s)ea@ of under (rticle 43' of the <ew /ivil /ode because what actuall ha))ened is that the )rivate res)ondents sim)l transferred their di@es further down the river bed of the .e caua an Rivers, and thus, if there is an accretion to s)ea@ of, it is man6made and artificial and not the result of the gradual and im)erce)tible sedimentation b the waters of the river, (rticle 43' of the <ew /ivil /ode )rovides that Dto the owners of lands adjoining the ban@s of rivers belong the accretion which the graduall receive from the effects of the current of the waters,E ". Accretion' re5uisites (rticle 43' re4uires the concurrence of three re4uisites before an accretion covered b this )articular )rovision is said to have ta@en )lace, The are (&) that the de)osit be gradual and im)erce)tible? (#) that it be made through the effects of the current of the water? and ($) that the land where accretion ta@es )lace is
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1&# )
adjacent to the ban@s of rivers, . A--uvion as e9c-usive 1ork of nature indis*ensa%-e The re4uirement that the de)osit should be due to the effect of the current of the river is indis)ensable, This e2cludes from (rt, 43' of the <ew /ivil /ode all de)osits caused b human intervention, (lluvion must be the e2clusive wor@ of nature, 8n the instant case, there is no evidence whatsoever to )rove that the addition to the said )ro)ert was made graduall through the effects of the current of the .e caua an and =ocaue rivers? but there is evidence that the alleged alluvial de)osits were artificial and man6made and not the e2clusive result of the current of the .e caua an and =ocaue rivers, The alleged alluvial de)osits came into being not because of the sole effect of the current of the rivers but as a result of the transfer of the di@e towards the river and encroaching u)on it, 4. Reason in giving ri*arian o1ner t0e rig0t to any -and or a--uvion de*osited %y a river The reason behind the law giving the ri)arian owner the right to an land or alluvion de)osited b a river is to com)ensate him for the danger of loss that he suffers because of the location of his land, 8f estates bordering on rivers are e2)osed to floods and other evils )roduced b the destructive force of the waters and if b virtue of lawful )rovisions, said estates are subject to incumbrances and various @inds of easements, it is )ro)er that the ris@ or danger which ma )rejudice the owners thereof should be com)ensated b the right of accretion, (Cor(e! v. C)(y o2 'an) a, 10 ./) . 567), 8n the )resent case, the ri)arian owner does not ac4uire the additions to his land caused b s)ecial wor@s e2)ressl intended or designed to bring about accretion, Ghen the )rivate res)ondents transferred their di@es towards the river bed, the di@es were meant for reclamation )ur)oses and not to )rotect their )ro)ert from the destructive force of the waters of the river, &. Ad>udication of -and in 5uestion as *rivate *ro*erty is nu-- and void The conclusion that can be made from said alleged accretion being declared for ta2ation )ur)oses onl in &*'# is that areas could not have been there in &*$*, The e2isted onl after the )rivate res)ondents transferred their di@es towards the bed of the .e caua an river in &*3&, Ghat )rivate res)ondents claim as accretion is reall an encroachment of a )ortion of the .e caua an river b reclamation, Thus, the lower court cannot validl order the registration of ;ots & N # in the names of the )rivate res)ondents, These lots were )ortions of the bed of the .e caua an river and are therefore classified as )ro)ert of the )ublic domain under (rticle 4#0 )aragra)h & and (rticle 30#, )aragra)h & of the /ivil /ode of the "hili))ines, The are not o)en to registration under the ;and Registration (ct, The adjudication of the lands in 4uestion as )rivate )ro)ert in the names of the )rivate res)ondents is null and void, [86] Re*u%-ic v. 3A, [G.R. No. 6"!84. =une ' 1##!.] Second Division, "aras (J): 4 concur $acts( /laiming that the ac4uired the )ro)ert b virtue of a document which the alleged to be a S)anish title originall issued in the name of =ernardo .erchan, the .erchans filed a com)laint dated ' (ugust &*'4 against Re)ublic of the "hili))ines for 4uieting of title over said )ro)ert located in Sitio de .ala)ianbato alias (rras, =arrio de ( uti, ;ucban, Fue:on, containing an area of &%% hectares, more or less, The 1overnment moved to dismiss the com)laint on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case because the land is )art of a forest reserve established b "roclamation 4# (&4 -ctober &*#&), and b "roclamation '&% (#% .a &*4&) which declared the area as )art of the D.ts, =anahaw6San /ristobal <ational "ar@,E The motion was denied, The .erchans filed a motion to declare the 1overnment in default for failure to file its answer within the reglementar )eriod, The latter motion was granted, The 1overnment filed for a motion for reconsideration, -n &7 December &*'3, Judge .anolo ;, .adella rendered a decision declaring the .erchans as owners of
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 16! )
the land subject of the litigation, .eanwhile, the Su)reme /ourt rendered a resolution declaring null and void all judicial acts, decisions, orders and resolutions )erformed )romulgated and issued b then Judge .adella after # Januar &*'%, ( motion to set aside the decision of &7 December &*'3 was filed, -n #& ()ril &*'%, Judge Delia ", .edina now )residing in the trial court, issued an order declaring the 1overnmentBs motion for reconsideration moot and academic in light of the aforementioned resolution? and re4uired the .erchans to file an answer to the motion to set aside the decision of December &*'3, Thereafter, and on #$ Jul #$, the motion to vacate was granted, .otion for reconsideration was filed b the .erchans, but were denied, -n &% Se)tember &*'%, the .erchans filed a manifestation assailing the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case, which was denied, Thereafter on #' Se)tember &*'%, the .erchans filed with the /ourt of ())eals a )etition for certiorari and )rohibition with )reliminar injunction against Judge .edina, -n #* <ovember &*'', the /( denied the )etition for certiorari and lifted the restraining order that it )reviousl issued, .eanwhile, while the case above was )ending before the /( and on #* December &*'%, % months after the effectivit of "D 7*#, the .erchans filed an a))lication for the registration of the )arcel of land involved in /ivil /ase '740 (;R/ <6&033), The trial court, this time )resided b Judge =enigno ., "uno, issued an order setting the case for )re6trial, !or failure of 1overnmentBs counsel to attend the scheduled hearing, the trial court issued an order declaring the said failure as a waiver to )resent evidence and to cross6e2amine the .erchansB witnesses and declared the case submitted for decision, -n $ .arch &*70, the trial court rendered its decision in favor of the .erchans, The 1overnment a))ealed to the then 8(/, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court, +ence, the )etition, The Su)reme /ourt reversed the decision of the a))ellate court, and dismissed /ivil /ase '740 and Registration /ase <6&033, 1. Docu/ent not a ?*anis0 tit-e The document itself dated #* Jul &7'0, allegedl a S)anish title, is a mere instrument e2ecuted b =ernardo .erchan, )rivate res)ondentsB )redecessor6in6interest, claiming )ossession over the land described therein which he sought to be recogni:ed b the government during the S)anish regime, The document does not sa it is a title, nor does it state that =ernardo .erchan has ac4uired ownershi) over the land, The document does not contain the s)ecific area of the land which is claimed to be owned b the .erchans, +. Land in 5uestion *roc-ai/ed as *art of a forest reserved %y )roc-a/ation + and 61&. $orest -ands or forest reserves not ca*a%-e of *rivate a**ro*riation. )ossession does not convert t0e/ to *rivate *ro*erty The land in 4uestion was )roclaimed )art of a forest reserve b virtue of "roclamation 4# (&4 -ctober &*#&), This )roclamation was su)erseded b "roclamation '&% (#% .a &*4&) establishing the .ts, =anahaw6San /ristobal <ational "ar@, 8t is alread a settled rule that forest lands or forest reserves are not ca)able of )rivate a))ro)riation, and )ossession thereof, however long, can not convert them into )rivate )ro)ert (;ano v. Govern9en( o2 (/e ./) )00)ne I! an8!, $1 ./) . 161 [1920]& A8orab e v. ,)re4(or o2 Fore!(ry, 107 ./) . $01 [1960]& ,)re4(or o2 Fore!(ry v. 'u1oz, 1*2 ./) . 6*7 [196%]& Re0ub )4 v. ,e a Cruz, 67 5CRA 221 [1975]& ,)re4(or o2 "an8! v. Reye! an8 A )n!unur)n v. ,)re4(or o2 "an8!, 6% 5CRA 177 [1975]& Re0ub )4 v. Cour( o2 A00ea !, %9 5CRA 6$% [1979]& Re0ub )4 v. An)9a!, 56 5CRA $99 [197$]& ,)re4(or o2 "an8! v. Cour( o2 A00ea !, 1** 5CRA 701 [19%$]& Re0ub )4 v. Cour( o2 A00ea !, 1*5 5CRA 156 [19%5]& ,)re4(or o2 "an8! v. R)va!, 1$1 5CRA *29 [19%6]+ unless such lands are reclassified and considered dis)osable and alienable b the Director of !orestr (Re0ub )4 v. Cour( o2 A00ea !, 15$ 5CRA $76 [19%7]+. 8n the )resent case, there is no )roof of reclassification b the Director of !orestr that the land in 4uestion is dis)osable or alienable, ". Lands not under ;orrens ?yste/ considered unregistered. )D 8#+ (1& $e%ruary 1#6&) Gith the )assage of "D 7*#, effective &% !ebruar &*'%, S)anish Titles can no longer be used as evidence of
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 161 )
land ownershi), 5nder the same decree, lands not under the Torrens S stem shall be considered as unregistered, [88] Reynante v. ,A [G.R. No. #4#!6. A*ri- 8' 1##+.] Second Division, "aras (J): 3 concur $acts( .ore than 30 ears ago, Jose Re nante was ta@en as tenant b the late Don /osme /arlos, over a fish)ond located at =arrio ;i)utan, .e caua an, =ulacan with an area of &77,'&& s4, m, (T/T #3%&7, ;and Registr of =ulacan), During the tenanc , Re nante constructed a ni)a hut where he and his famil lived and too@ care of the ni)a )alms (sasahan) he had )lanted on lots & and # covering an area of 3,0*% s4, m, and %,0&& s4, m, res)ectivel , These lots are located between the fish)ond covered b T/T #3%&7 and the ;i)utan (formerl .e caua an) River, Re nante harvested and sold said ni)a )alms without interference and )rohibition from an bod , <either did the late Don /osme /arlos 4uestion his right to )lant the ni)a )alms near the fish)ond or to harvest and a))ro)riate them as his own, (fter the death of Don /osme /arlos, his heirs entered into a written agreement denominated as DSinum)aang Sala sa ng "agsasauli ng Kara)atanE dated #* <ovember &*74 with Re nante whereb the latter for and in consideration of the sum of "#00,000 turned over the fish)ond he was tenanting to the heirs of Don /osme /arlos and surrendered all his rights therein as careta@er or Dbanta 6@asama at taga)amahala,E "ursuant to the said written agreement, Re nante surrendered the fish)ond and the # huts located therein to the heirs of Don /osme /arlos, The heirs of ;eoncio and Dolores /arlos, and the heirs of 1orgonio and /once)cion /arlos thereafter leased the said fish)ond to one /arlos de la /ru:, Re nante continued to live in the ni)a hut constructed b him on lots & and # and to ta@e care of the ni)a )alms he had )lanted therein, -n &' !ebruar &*77, the heirs formall demanded that Re nante vacate said )ortion since the latter had alread been indemnified for the surrender of his rights as a tenant, Des)ite recei)t thereof, Re nante refused and failed to relin4uish )ossession of lots & and #, -n ## ()ril &*77, the heirs filed a com)laint for forcible entr with )reliminar mandator injunction against rd Re nante with the .T/ .e caua an =ulacan (=ranch &, $ Judicial Region, /ivil /ase &3#%) alleging that the latter b means of strateg and stealth, too@ over the )h sical, actual and material )ossession of lots & and # b residing in one of the @ubos or huts bordering the ;i)utan River and cutting off andAor dis)osing of the sasa or ni)a )alms adjacent thereto, -n &0 Januar &*7*, the trial court rendered its decision dismissing the com)laint and finding that Re nante had been in )rior )ossession of lots & and #, rd The heirs a))ealed to the RT/ .alolos =ulacan (=ranch 7, $ Judicial Region) and on 7 (ugust &*7* it rendered its decision in favor of the heirs, and reversed the decision of the lower court, The /ourt ordered Re nante to restore )ossession of the )iece of land, together with the sasa or ni)a )alms )lanted theron? without )ronouncement as to attorne Bs fees, and each )art bearing their res)ective costs of the suit, !rom said decision, Re nante filed with the /ourt of ())eals a )etition for review, -n #7 !ebruar &**0, the /ourt of ())eals rendered its decision (/(61R &*&'&), affirming the decision of the lower court in toto, and thus denied the )etition see@ing to issue a restraining order, -n 3 <ovember &**0, the /ourt of ())eals denied the motion for reconsideration filed b Re nante, +ence, the )etition for review on certiorari, The Su)reme /ourt reversed and set aside the decision of the /ourt of ())eals dated #7 !ebruar &**0 and reinstated the decision of the .T/ .e caua an, =ulacan (=ranch 8), 1. Action for forci%-e entry (n action for forcible entr is merel a 4uieting )rocess and actual title of the )ro)ert is never determined, (
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 16+ )
)art who can )rove )rior )ossession can recover such )ossession even against the owner himself, Ghatever ma be the character of his )rior )ossession, if he has in his favor )riorit in time, he has the securit that entitles him to remain on the )ro)ert until he is lawfull ejected b a )erson having a better right b accion )ubliciana or accion reinvindicatoria (Ger9an 'anage9en( E 5erv)4e!, In4. v. Cour( o2 A00ea !, G.R. No. 76216, 5e0(e9ber 1$, 19%9, 177 5CRA $95, $9%, $99+. -n the other hand, if a )laintiff cannot )rove )rior )h sical )ossession, he has no right of action for forcible entr and detainer even if he should be the owner of the )ro)ert (")zo v. Caran8ang, 7* ./) . $69 [19$2]+. 8n the )resent case, the /ourt of ())eals could not legall restore the heirsB )ossession over lots & and # sim)l because Re nante has clearl )roven that he had )rior )ossession over lots & and #, +. Reynante in *rior *ossession Re nante was in )ossession of the 4uestioned lots for more than 30 ears, +e was the careta@er of the fish)ond owned b the late Don /osme /arlos for more than 30 ears and that he constructed a ni)a hut adjacent to the fish)ond and )lanted ni)a )alms therein, This fact is bolstered b the DSinum)aang Sala sa D e2ecuted b 9)ifanio ;ucero, ()olonio D, .orte, and /arling Dumala , all of whom are disinterested )arties with no motive to falsif that can be attributed to them, e2ce)t their desire to tell the truth, .oreover, an occular ins)ection was conducted b the trial court dated # December &*77 which was attended b the )arties and their res)ective counsels, The court observed that the controversial )remises is be ond the titled )ro)ert of the )laintiffs but situated along the ;i)utan, .e caua an River it being a )art of the )ublic domain, -n the other hand, the heirs based their claim of )ossession over lots & and # sim)l on the written agreement signed b )etitioner whereb the latter surrendered his rights over the fish)ond, There is nothing, however, on the document that the tenant was giving other matters not mentioned in the document, <either was there an mention of the hut and ni)a )alms for such to be included in the subse4uent least to de la /ru:, a a circumstance that gives the im)ression that said hut and )alms do not belong to the heirs, ". Dis*uted -ands not inc-uded in ;,; +4&18 The dis)uted lots involved in the )resent case are not included in T/T #3%&7 as )er verification made b the !orest .anagement =ureau, De)artment of 9nvironment and <atural Resources, That tract of land situated at =arrio ;i)utan, .e caua an, =ulacan containing an area of &,&&0' hectares as described in the )lan )re)ared and surve ed b 1eodetic 9ngineer Restituto =uan for Re nante falls within (lienable and Dis)osable ;and (for fish)ond develo)ment) under "roject &3 )er =,!,;,/, .a) $&## dated 7 .a &*7', . Re5uisites of accretion (ccretion benefits a ri)arian owner when the following re4uisites are )resent: (&) that the de)osit be gradual and im)erce)tible? (#) that it resulted from the effects of the current of the water? and (c) that the land where accretion ta@es )lace is adjacent to the ban@ of a river (Re0ub )4 v. Cour( o2 A00ea !, G.R. No. "#616$7, <4(ober 12, 19%$, 1*2 5CRA 51$, 4)(e8 )n Agu!()n v. In(er9e8)a(e A00e a(e Cour(, G.R. No!. 66075#76, 3u y 5, 1990, 1%7 5CRA 21%+. 4. Accretion does not auto/atica--y %eco/e registered -and 1ranting without conceding that lots & and # were created b alluvial formation and while it is true that accretions which the ban@s of rivers ma graduall receive from the effect of the current become the )ro)ert of the owner of the ban@s ((rticle 43'), such accretion to registered land does not )reclude ac4uisition of the additional area b another )erson through )rescri)tion, 8n #gnacio Grande, et al. v. !on. Court of Appeals, et al. (1R ;6&'%3#, $0 June &*%#, &&3 "hil, 3#&) it was held that Dan accretion does not automaticall become registered land just because the lot which receives such accretion is covered b a Torrens Title, -wnershi) of a )iece of land is one thing? registration under the Torrens s stem of that ownershi) is another, -wnershi) over the accretion received b the land adjoining a river is governed b the /ivil /ode, 8m)rescri)tibilit of registered land is )rovided in the registration law, Registration under the ;and Registration and /adastral (ct does not vest or give title to the land, but merel confirms and, thereafter, )rotects the title alread )ossessed b the owner, ma@ing it im)rescri)tible b occu)ation of third )arties, =ut to obtain this )rotection, the land
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 16" )
must be )laced under the o)eration of the registration laws, wherein certain judicial )rocedures have been )rovided,E 8n the )resent case, assuming that the heirs had ac4uired the alluvial de)osit (the lot in 4uestion), b accretion, still their failure to register said accretion for a )eriod of 30 ears subjected said accretion to ac4uisition through )rescri)tion b third )ersons, [8#] Ron5ui--o v. ,A [G.R. No. "" &. Carc0 +!' 1##1.] Second Division, Regalado (J): 4 concur $acts( Rosendo del Rosario was a registered owner of a )arcel of land @nown as ;ot $4, =loc@ *, Sulucan Subdivision, situated at Sam)aloc, .anila and covered b T/T $4'*' of the Registr of Deeds of .anila, !lorencia and (m)aro del Rosario were daughters of said Rosendo del Rosario, (djoining said lot is a dried6 u) )ortion of the old 9stero /alubcub occu)ied b .ario /, Ron4uillo since &*43, =oth del Rosario and Ron4uillo have filed with the =ureau of ;ands miscellaneous sales a))lication for the )urchase of the abandoned river bed @nown as 9stero /alubcub and their sales a))lications, dated 3 (ugust &*37 and &$ -ctober &*3*, res)ectivel , are still )ending action before the =ureau of ;ands, Del Rosario clai&s that long before &*$0, when T/T $4'*' over ;ot $4 was issued in the name of Rosendo del Rosario, the latter had been in )ossession of said lot including the adjoining dried6u) )ortion of the old 9stero /alubcub, having bought the same from (rsenio (r:aga, Sometime in &*$3, said titled lot was occu)ied b 8sabel Roldan with the tolerance and consent of del Rosario on condition that the former will ma@e im)rovements on the adjoining dried6u) )ortion of the 9stero /alubcub, 8n the earl )art of &*43 defendant occu)ied the eastern )ortion of said titled lot as well as the dried6u) )ortion of the old 9stero /alubcub which abuts del RosarioBs titled lot, (fter a relocation surve of the land in 4uestion sometime in &*%0, del Rosario learned that Ron4uillo was occu) ing a )ortion of their land and thus demanded Ron4uillo to vacate said land when the latter refused to )a the reasonable rent for its occu)anc , +owever, des)ite said demand Ron4uillo refused to vacate, -n the other hand, Ron?uillo clai&s that sometime before &*43 he was living with his sister who was then residing or renting Del RosarioBs titled lot, 8n &*43 he built his house on the dis)uted dried6u) )ortion of the 9stero /alubcub with a small )ortion thereof on the titled lot of del Rosario, ;ater in &*%&, said house was destro ed b a fire which )rom)ted him to rebuild the same but, this time it was built onl on the dried6u) )ortion of the old 9stero /alubcub without touching an )art of del RosarioBs titled land, +e further claims that said dried6u) )ortion is a land of )ublic domain, Rosendo, (m)aro and !lorencia del Rosario lodged a com)laint with the /!8 .anila )ra ing, among others, that the be declared the rightful owners of the dried6u) )ortion of 9stero /alubcub, Ron4uillo filed a motion to dismiss the com)laint on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case since the dried6u) )ortion of 9stero /alubcub is )ublic land and, thus, subject to the dis)osition of the Director of ;ands, The Del Rosarios o))osed the motion arguing that since the are claiming title to the dried6u) )ortion of 9stero /alubcub as ri)arian owners, the trial court has jurisdiction, The resolution of the motion to dismiss was deferred until after trial on the merits, -n #% December &*%#, the trial court rendered judgment ordering Ron4uillo to deliver to del Rosario the )ortion of the land covered b T/T $4'*' which is occu)ied b him and to )a for the use and occu)ation of said )ortion of land at the rate of "3 a month from the date of the filing of the com)laint until such time as he surrenders the same to del Rosario and declaring Del Rosario to be the owners of the dried6u) )ortion of estero /alubcub which is abutting del RosarioB )ro)ert ? with costs against Ron4uillo, -n a))eal (/(61R $#4'*6R), the /ourt of ())eals affirmed the decision of the trial court on #3 Se)tember &*'3 and declared that since 9stero /alubcub had alread dried6u) wa bac@ in &*$0 due to the natural change in the course of the waters, under (rticle $'0 of the old /ivil /ode which it considers a))licable to the )resent case, the abandoned river bed belongs to the Del Rosarios as ri)arian owners, /onse4uentl , res)ondent court o)ines, the dried6u) river bed is )rivate land and does not form )art of the land of the )ublic
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 16 )
domain, 8t stated further that even assuming for the sa@e of argument that said estero did not change its course but merel dried u) or disa))eared, said dried6u) estero would still belong to the ri)arian owner, citing its ruling in the case of "in:on vs, Rama, 5)on motion of Ron4uillo, res)ondent court modified its decision on #7 Januar &*'% b setting aside the first )ortion of the trial courtBs decision ordering Ron4uillo to surrender to the Del Rosarios that )ortion of land covered b T/T $4'*' occu)ied b the former, based on the formerBs re)resentation that he had alread vacated the same )rior to the commencement of this case, +owever, the a))ellate court u)held its declaration that the Del Rosarios are the rightful owners of the dried6u) river bed, +ence, the )etition for review, -n &' .a &*'%, the Su)reme /ourt issued a resolution re4uiring the Solicitor 1eneral to comment on the )etition in behalf of the Director of ;ands as an indis)ensable )art in re)resentation of the Re)ublic of the "hili))ines, and who, not having been im)leaded, was subse4uentl considered im)leaded as such in the /ourtBs resolution of &0 Se)tember &*'%, 8n his .otion to (dmit /omment, the Solicitor 1eneral manifested that )ursuant to a re4uest made b this office with the =ureau of ;ands to conduct an investigation, the /hief of the ;egal Division of the =ureau sent a communication informing him that the records of his office do not show that .ario Ron4uillo, Rosendo del Rosario, (m)aro del Rosario or !lorencia del Rosario has filed an )ublic land a))lication covering )arcels of land situated at 9stero /alubcub, .anila as verified b its Records Division, The )osition ta@en b the Director of ;ands (in his comment on $ Se)tember &*'7, in the 4 .a &*7* re)l , and &' (ugust &*7* comment) e2)licates that (rticle $'0 of the old /ode does not a))l as the abandoned riverbed as such was abandoned not b the natural change in the course of the river but b the dr ing u) of the bed caused b human activit , The Director of ;ands also added that the del Rosario and Ron4uillo have claimed )ending sales a))lications over the dried )ortion of the estero (admitting thus that it is )ublic land under the authorit of the =ureau of ;ands), which were rejected as the .anila /it 9ngineerBs -ffice needed the dried )ortion of the estero for drainage )ur)oses, -n #* June &*'*, !lorencia del Rosario manifested to this /ourt that Rosendo, (m)aro and /asiano del Rosario have all died, and that she is the onl one still alive among the )rivate res)ondents in the case, 8n a resolution dated #0 Januar &*77, the /ourt re4uired Ron4uillo to im)lead one =enjamin Dia: )ursuant to the formerBs manifestation that the land adjacent to the dried6u) river bed has alread been sold to the latter, and the Solicitor 1eneral was also re4uired to in4uire into the status of the investigation being conducted b the =ureau of ;ands, 8n com)liance therewith, the Solicitor 1eneral )resented a letter from the Director of ;ands to the effect that neither of the )arties involved in the )resent case has filed an )ublic land a))lication, -n $ ()ril &*7*, Ron4uillo filed an (mended "etition for /ertiorari, this time im)leading the Develo)ment =an@ of the "hili))ines (D=") which subse4uentl bought the )ro)ert adjacent to the dried6u) river bed from =enjamin Dia:, 8n its resolution dated &0 Januar &**0, the /ourt ordered that D=" be im)leaded as a )art res)ondent, -n &$ Se)tember &**0, D=" filed a .anifestationA /om)liance stating that D="Bs interest over T/T &$*#&3 issued in its name (formerl T/T $4'*' of the Del Rosarios and T/T &$3&'0 of =enjamin Dia:) has been transferred to S)ouses >ictoriano and "acita (, Tolentino )ursuant to a Deed of Sale dated && Se)tember &**0, The Su)reme /ourt reversed and set aside the remaining effective )ortion of the a))ealed decision which declares Del Rosario as ri)arian owner of the dried6u) )ortion of 9stero /alubcub, 1. $indings of a**e--ate court conc-usive to t0e ?u*re/e ,ourt. B9ce*tions The jurisdiction of the Su)reme /ourt in cases brought to it from the /ourt of ())eals in a )etition for certiorari under Rule 43 of the Rules of /ourt is limited to the review of errors of law, and that said a))ellate courtBs finding of fact is conclusive u)on this /ourt, +owever, there are certain e2ce)tions, such as (&) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirel on s)eculation, surmises or conjectures? (#) when the inference made is manifestl absurd, mista@en or im)ossible? ($) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the a))reciation of facts? (4) when the judgment is )remised on a misa))rehension of facts? (3) when the findings of fact are conflicting? and (%) when the /ourt of ())eals in ma@ing its findings went be ond the issues of the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 164 )
case and the same is contrar to the admissions of both a))ellant and a))ellee, +. Bvidence revea- c0ange in t0e course of river not caused %y natura- forces ( careful )erusal of the evidence )resented b both )arties in the case at bar will reveal that the change in the course of 9stero /alubcub was caused, not b natural forces, but due to the dum)ing of garbage therein b the )eo)le of the surrounding neighborhood, There is nothing in the testimon of lone witness !lorencia del Rosario nor in said relocation )lan which would indicate that the change in the course of the estero was due to the ebb and flow of the waters, -n the contrar , the testimon of the witness belies such fact, while the relocation )lan is absolutel silent on the matter, The inesca)able conclusion is that the dried6u) )ortion of 9stero /alubcub was occasioned, not b a natural change in the course of the waters, but through the active intervention of man, ". Artic-e "6! of t0e o-d ,ivi- ,ode a**-ies on-y to natura- c0ange in t0e course of t0e 1aters. La1 c-ear' no roo/ for inter*retation (rticle $'0 of the old /ivil /ode which )rovides that Dthe beds of rivers, which are abandoned because of a natural change in the course of the waters, belong to the owners of the ri)arian lands throughout the res)ective length of each, 8f the abandoned bed divided tenements belonging to different owners the new dividing line shall be e4uidistant from one and the other,E The law is clear and unambiguous? and leaves no room for inter)retation, (rticle $'0 a))lies onl if there is a natural change in the course of the waters, The rules on alluvion do not a))l to man6made or artificial accretions #$ nor to accretions to lands that adjoin canals or esteros or artificial drainage s stems, /onsidering the finding that the dried6u) )ortion of 9stero /alubcub was actuall caused b the active intervention of man, it follows that (rticle $'0 does not a))l to the )resent case and, hence, the Del Rosarios cannot be entitled thereto su))osedl as ri)arian owners, . Dried u* *ortion of Bstero ,a-u%cu% %e-ongs to *u%-ic do/ain. Land used for drainage *ur*oses cannot %e su%>ect of a /isce--aneous sa-es a**-ication The dried6u) )ortion of 9stero /alubcub should thus be considered as forming )art of the land of the )ublic domain which cannot be subject to ac4uisition b )rivate ownershi), This is made more evident in the letter, dated #7 ()ril &*7*, of the /hief of the ;egal Division of the =ureau of ;ands, stating that the alleged a))lication filed b Ron4uillo no longer e2ists in its records as it must have alread been dis)osed of as a rejected a))lication for the reason that other a))lications covering 9stero /alubcub, Sam)aloc, .anila for areas other than that contested in the )resented case, were all rejected b the office because of the objection inter)osed b the /it 9ngineerBs office that the need the same land for drainage )ur)oses, Since the land is to be used for drainage )ur)oses the same cannot be the subject of a miscellaneous sales a))lication, 4. De- Rosario and Ron5ui--o esto**ed fro/ c-ai/ing -and is not *u%-ic -and The fact that Ron4uillo and del Rosario filed their sales a))lications with the =ureau of ;ands covering the subject dried6u) )ortion of 9stero /alubcub cannot but be deemed as outright admissions b them that the same is )ublic land, The are now esto))ed from claiming otherwise, [#!] Ro9as v. ;uason [G.R. No. L<"688. Dece/%er +1' 1#!6.] !irst Division, Torres (J): 4 concur $acts( -n &* !ebruar &*0%, attorne s Rosado, San: N -)isso, on behalf of "edro ", Ro2as, a))lied for the registration of the estate owned b Ro2as (+acienda de San "edro .acati) in accordance with the )rovisions of the ;and Registration (ct, Said hacienda was ac4uired b Ro2as b inheritance under the will of his late father, Jose =onifacio Ro2as, 5baldo, The )ro)ert consists of 4 )arcels of land, irregular sha)e, designated on the accom)an ing )lan under the letters D(E to DDE, containing a total area of &,'%& hectares 3& ares and 3 centares, e4uivalent to &',%&3,&03 s4,m,, and assessed at "4&3,##&,$4, of which "3*,*04 corres)onded to the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 16& )
)ortion of said hacienda included within the limits of the cit of .anila and "#3%,'%* corres)onded to that )ortion situated in the "rovince of Ri:al, The building constructed of strong materials, called the D/asa6 FuintaE or D/asa de 8ngenieros,E belonging also to Ro2as, is erected within )arcel D/,E occu) ing, together with its a))urtenances, an area of 7,4$0 s4,m,, and was assessed at "*7,33',$4, The hacienda was not mortgaged nor that an )erson has an right to or an interest therein? and it is almost wholl occu)ied, under lease, b about 4#* tenants whose names, residences, and )ostal addresses, as well as the residence of the owner of the )ro)ert and of his attorne in fact, are stated in the a))lication, -n #4 ()ril, Ro2as re4uested the summoning of the )ersons therein named, and stated in addition that the total area of the hacienda is &',%&$,3*3,*& s4,ms,, as s)ecified in the corrections made to the technical descri)tion, -n #4 Jul &*0%, Ro2as amended his a))lication and gave the )ostal address and names of several occu)ants of the )ro)ert ? and b other amendments to his original )etition dated $0 (ugust and #3 Se)tember &*0%, rectifications are made in the boundaries of the hacienda, the last of which re)resents a decrease of &,44%,'0 s4,ms,, or &4 ares and 4%,'0 centares which must be deducted from the original descri)tion, The owners of the adjoining )ro)erties having been summoned and notified b means of sub)oenas and notices )ublished in the dail )a)ers, one of them, Julia Tuason, a))eared and b a document dated &0 Se)tember &*0%, set forth her o))osition to the registration and authentication of the title of Ro2as, as regards the )arcel mar@ed D/,E for the reason that two old monuments which had se)arated their res)ective )ro)erties had been )ulled down and new ones erected without her consent, and in her o)inion the latter included a considerable )ortion of the land owned b her, The munici)alit of San "edro .acati also filed o))osition to the re4uested registration, alleging that the land occu)ied b the munici)al building and the )ublic school had been in the )ossession of the town from time immemorial, and that all the land occu)ied b roads, highwa s, lanes, and )ublic landing )laces belonged to the )ublic domain and should be e2cluded from registration in favor of Ro2as, -n &7 Se)tember &*0%, the attorne for (lejandro (guirre and /onsolacion (guirre also filed o))osition to said a))lication for registration alleging that the # )arcels of land owned b them had been im)ro)erl included within the bounds of said hacienda in the )arcel mar@ed D/,E the second said )arcels, which is the onl subject of the res)ective bill of e2ce)tions and a))eal inter)osed b them, consists of a building lot situated in /alle San "edro, o))osite the first )arcel of land, which was the subject of another bill of e2ce)tions and a))eal b the Ro2as? said second )arcels measures &0 meters and 7' centimeters on its front and rear, and * meters and #0 centimeters along each of its sides, its boundaries being stated, -n &' -ctober &*0%, the court rendered decision, overruling the o))osition made b Julia Tuason, b the munici)alit of San "edro .acati, and b (lejandro and /onsolacion (guirre as to the second )arcel, and ordered the registration of the +acienda of San "edro .acati in favor of "edro Ro2as e2cluding the )arcel of land with a frontage of #$ S)anish ards and a de)th of #4 S)anish ards occu)ied b the munici)al building, which the government has the right to use without the )a ment of rent therefor, so long as the same is occu)ied b the said building or b another in substitution thereof and used for the )ublic good and for official )ur)oses, Julia Tuason, the munici)alit of San "edro .acati, and (lejandro and /onsolacion (guirre, e2ce)ted to said judgment and moved for a new trial on the ground that the same was contrar to law and to the weight of the evidence? said motion was overruled, Tuason, (guirre and the munici)alit of San "edro .acati again e2ce)ting, The res)ective bills of e2ce)tions having been )resented, the same were forwarded in the ordinar manner to the Su)reme /ourt, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment a))ealed from as regards Julia Tuason and the munici)alit of San "edro .acati, declared the a))eal of (lejandro and /onsolacion (guirre to be abandoned, and ordered Tuason, the (guirres and the munici)alit of San "edro to )a their res)ective share of the costs, 1. No evidence s0o1ing =u-ia ;uason o1ns t0e stri* of -and on t0e %ank of t0e creek. Re-ief is a**-ication of survey The record does not show that the boundar of the land of Julia Tuason was inclosed b monuments belonging to her or that the cree@ which divides the sitio or 8sland of Suavo from the land of the said
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 166 )
hacienda is included within the TuasonBs land, since in the bill of sale e2ecuted b the )rocurador general of the (ugustinian friars on #7 .arch &7*$, to Julia Tuason, no mention is made of monuments erected thereon nor of an cree@ e2isting in the large tract of land )urchased b her, e2ce)t that the land is situated in the barrio of Suavo and that it is bounded on two sides b the +acienda of San "edro .acati, <or does the record show that there was more land on the side of the hacienda, forming )art of the barrio or sitio of Suavo , not included in the tract ac4uired b Tuason from the (ugustinian !athers, and that said cree@ traversed said barrio from one end to the other, or the TuasonBs land, in order to affirm on good grounds that her land e2tended to the o))osite ban@ of the aforesaid cree@, Thus, from the fact that the land of Julia Tuason was bounded on two sides b the +acienda of San "edro .acati it does not follow that the stri) of a few meters in width on the ban@ of the cree@ belonged to her, there being no evidence in su))ort thereof, and if her statement were true, she would have a))lied for a surve and demarcation of her )ro)ert in accordance with the area of the same stated in her title deed? and if she did not do so it must be because she renounces its verification in this manner or for some other reason, +. ?tri* of -and occu*ied %y tenants of t0e 0acienda The stri) of land, irregular in sha)e, running )arallel to the cree@ and forming a )ortion of its ban@, has alwa s been occu)ied b tenants of the hacienda as being an integral )ortion thereof, even at the time when the land owned b Julia Tuason belonged to the (ugustinian !athers, the original owners thereof, The haciendaBs tenants were never molested or interfered with b the (ugustinian !athers or their tenants, nor later b Julia Tuason or her tenants when cultivating the stri) of land, Said tenants when cultivating the land did not cross the cree@, it being recogni:ed as the boundar line between both )ro)erties, ". ,reek 1ider in 1861 8n &7'& the said cree@ was wider, having then a width of about 4 S)anish ards, small bancas )l ing on it around the 8sland of Suavo ,, and some of the monuments of the hacienda were 4 meters distant from the ban@, others # meters, and some & meter, The )roven fact that said cree@ was wider in &7'& is the best e2)lanation as to wh some of the monuments of the +acienda of San "edro .acati are at some distance from the ban@ of the same, . No -ega- reason for ;uason to o1n stri* of -and <o legal reason whatever e2ists wh the slow increase which has ta@en )lace on the haciendaBs side should be considered as belonging to Tuason, inasmuch as the latter does not own the bed of the cree@ and because it ma be assumed that the slow decrease in the width thereof benefited both )ro)erties e4uall since Tuason has not been able to show or )rove that her land has been thereb reduced, 4. Accretions %e-ong to ri*arian o1ners (rticle $%% of the /ivil /ode in dealing with the right of accession to real )ro)ert )rovides that Drhe accretions which ban@s of rivers ma graduall receive from the effects of the currents belong to the owners of the estates bordering thereon,E The )rovision is )erfectl a))licable to the stri) of land, which, on account of the accretion, has come to be undeniable increase in the land of the hacienda inasmuch as it has increased all along the ban@ of the cree@, the gradual effect of the currents? and even though the law does not re4uire an e2)ress act of )ossession of the accretion which has enlarged the estate, it is certain that the owner of the hacienda has )ossessed it for more than $0 ears through his tenants, who have been cultivating their res)ective )arcels of land together with the corres)onding )ortion of the said stri) down to the ban@ of said cree@, &. 2-d /onu/ents of no i/*ortance in t0is case The situation of the old monuments and the )lacing of new ones in the intervening s)ace is of no im)ortance, inasmuch as it has alread been shown that Tuason has no title to the accretion which b s)ontaneous increase formed the stri) of land between the cree@ and the monuments, and no )roof is offered in the record that the land of Julia Tuason reached the other side of the cree@ toward the +acienda of San "edro .acati,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 168 )
6. Cunici*a-ity of ?an )edro Cacati /ere-y en>oys usufruct of t0e *-ots occu*ied %y t0e /unici*a- %ui-ding and to1n ce/etery Ro2as is the owner of the building lots and )ortions of land to which the o))osition of the munici)alit of San "edro .acati refers? the latter has onl the usufruct of the )lot occu)ied b the munici)al building as long as the same or an other building of a )ublic and official nature is erected thereon? the munici)alit can not dis)ose of it as a )ro)ert of its own because, according to the documents offered in evidence b Ro2as, the S)anish 1overnment had recogni:ed the dominion of Ro2asB )redecessor over the land occu)ied b said munici)al building and b the town cemeter , and the grant made b the owner was ever understood to be onl of the usufruct thereof so long as used for )ublic )ur)oses, the same being returnable to him u)on ceasing to be used for such )ur)ose, 8. )rescri*tion unavai-ing to *-ot occu*ied %y *u%-ic sc0oo8n connection with the land occu)ied b the )ublic school of said town, no o))osition based on ordinar or on e2traordinar )rescri)tion ma be made b the munici)alit because the )lot was granted onl for the )ur)ose of erecting thereon a )ublic school, and the )ossession thereof, on the )art of the munici)alit , was sim)l usufructuar , the government of the "rovince of .anila having recogni:ed the title thereto which )ertained to Ro2as, owner of the hacienda, whereof the said )lot forms a )art, The )ossession thereof b the munici)alit has been but for a few ears onl , Ghen the school building having been destro ed, the land was abandoned, "rescri)tion thus can not be invo@ed because the )ossession thereof was interru)ted and ceased man ears since, #. Aguirres: a**ea- a%andoned The attorne for (lejandro and /onsolacion (guirre e2ce)ted to the decision of &' -ctober &*0%, whereb their claim to the second )arcel of land was dismissed, Their bill of e2ce)tions, entered in the general register under $'77, was dul forwarded, <otwithstanding the fact that the time )rescribed has been e2ceeded, the (guirres have not filed their brief nor notified Ro2as regarding the same, Ro2as re4uested in a )etition on #% June &*0' that the (guirresB a))eal be considered as having been abandoned, Said re4uest is held to be well based and in accordance with the law, [#1] Ru%iso vs. Rivera [GR L<11 !6' "! 2cto%er 1#16] 9n =anc, Torres LJM: 3 concur, & too@ no )art $acts( =onifacio 1elito sold his share in the )ilot boat >alentina, consisting of #A$ interest therein, to the /hinaman S Fui, the co6owner of the other &A$ interest in said vessel? wherefore this vendor is no longer entitled to e2ercise an action whatever in res)ect to the boat in 4uestion, 1elito was one of the )artnershi) owners of the >alentina, as in fact his name a))ears in the certificate of )rotection issued b the =ureau of /ustoms, and the rights he held are evidenced b the articles of )artnershi)? but, the whole ownershi) in the vessel having been consolidated in behalf of the /hinaman S Fui, this latter, in the use of his right as the sole owner of the >alentina, sold this boat to !lorentino 9, Rivera for "#,300, on 4 Januar &*&3, which facts are set forth in a deed ratified on the same date before a notar , This document was registered in the =ureau of /ustoms on &' .arch &*&3, (fter the sale of the boat to the defendant Rivera, suit having been brought in the justice of the )eace court against the /hinaman S Fui to enforce )a ment of a certain sum of mone , the latterBs creditor !austo Rubiso, Rubiso later ac4uired said vessel at a )ublic auction sale and for the sum of "33,43, The certificate of sale and adjudication of the boat in 4uestion was issued b the sheriff on behalf of !austo Rubiso, in the office of the /ollector of /ustoms, on #' Januar &*&3 and was also entered in the commercial registr on &4 .arch &*&3,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 16# )
-n &0 ()ril &*&3, the )laintiffs brought suit in the /!8 and alleged in the com)laint that his clients were the owners of the )ilot boat named >alentina, which had been in bad condition since &*&4 and was stranded in Tinglo , =auan, =atangas? and that !lorentino 9, Rivera too@ charge or )ossession of said vessel without the @nowledge or consent of the )laintiffs and refused to deliver it to them, under claim that he was the owner thereof, (fter the hearing of the case and the introduction of documentar evidence, the judgment of % Se)tember &*&3, was rendered, , in which the defendant and a))ellant was ordered to )lace at the dis)osal of the !austo Rubiso the )ilot boat in litigation, <o s)ecial finding was made for costs, The defendant a))ealed and moved for a new trial, This motion was denied and a))ellant e2ce)ted, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment, with the costs against the a))ellant, 1. 3nscri*tion in registry is necessary and indis*ensa%-e (rticle 3'$ of the /ode of /ommerce )rovides in its first )aragra)h that merchant vessels constitute )ro)ert which ma be ac4uired an transferred b an of the means recogni:ed b law, The ac4uisition of a vessel must be included in a written instrument, which shall not )roduce an effect with regard to third )ersons if not recorded in the commercial registr , Gith the enactment of (ct &*00 on &7 .a &*0*, said article was amended and a))ears as Section # of that (ct? amending solel in charging the 8nsular /ollector of /ustoms with the fulfillment of the duties of the commercial register concerning the registering of vessels, 8n both laws, 8nscri)tion in the commercial registr is necessar and indis)ensable in order that the )urchaserBs rights ma be maintained against a claim filed b a third )erson, The legal rule set down in the .ercantile /ode subsists, inasmuch as the amendment solel refers to the official who shall ma@e the entr ? but, with res)ect to the rights of two )urchases, whichever of them first registered his ac4uisition of the vessel in the one entitled to enjo the )rotection of the law, +. Bven if *u%-ic auction is su%se5uent to *rivate *urc0ase' rig0t of first to register is *ri/ary !lorentino 9, RiveraBs rights cannot )revail over those ac4uired b !austo Rubiso in the ownershi) of the )ilot boat >alentina, inasmuch as, though the latterBs ac4uisition of the vessel at )ublic auction, on #$ Januar &*&3, was subse4uent to its )urchase b Rivera, nevertheless the sale at )ublic auction was antecedentl record in the office of the /ollector of /ustoms, on Januar #', and entered in the commercial registr (an unnecessar )roceeding) on .arch 4? while the )rivate and voluntar )urchase made b Rivera on a )rior date was not recorded in the office of the /ollector of /ustoms until &' .arch &*&3, Rubiso, who was careful to record his ac4uisition, o))ortunel and on )rior date, has, according to the law, a better right than the defendant Rivera who subse4uentl recorded his )urchase, The latter is a third )erson, who was directl affected b the registration which the )laintiff made of the ac4uisition, ". Bffects of registration to -ia%i-ities of a vesseGhen the absolute owner of the )urchased boat, declaring the latter to be free of all encumbrance and all claims b strangers for, )ursuant to article 37# of the .ercantile /ode, after the bill of the judicial sale at auction has been e2ecuted and recorded in the commercial registr , all the other liabilities of the vessel in favor of the creditors shall be considered canceled, . ?0i*s or vesse-s are of t0e nature and condition of rea- *ro*erty. Artic-e 46" of ,ode of ,o//erce vis<K<vis Artic-e 1 6" of t0e ,ivi- ,ode Shi)s or vessels, whether moved b steam or b sail, )arta@e, to a certain e2tent, of the nature and conditions of real )ro)ert , on account of their value and im)ortance in the world commerce? and for this reason the )rovisions of article 3'$ of the /ode of /ommerce are nearl identical with article &4'$ of the /ivil /ode, 4. No inde/nity for -osses and da/ages (side from the fact that, subse4uent to the date when the judgment a))ealed from was rendered, the vessel in 4uestion emerged unharmed from the )lace where it was stranded, and was, at the time of the trial, anchored
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 18! )
in the )ort of .aricaban, the record certainl does not furnish an )ositive evidence of the losses and damages alleged to have been occasioned, -n the other hand, it cannot be affirmed that the defendant acted in bad faith s)ecificall because he ac4uired the vessel on a date )rior to that of its ac4uisition at )ublic auction b the )laintiff Rubiso, who, for the reasons aforestated, is true and sole owner of said )ilot boat, [#+] ?an Diego v. Contesa [G.R. No. L<16#84. ?e*te/%er +#' 1#&+.] 9n =anc, Re es J=; (J): 7 concur $acts( (fter trial in /ivil /ase ''0 of the /!8 =ulacan, on com)laint of Jose, .aria, and 5rbano, all surnamed Dde la /ru:E, to recover a )arcel of land and damages from 1il San Diego and Rufina San Diego, the /ourt rendered a decision declaring the deed of sale null and void, ordering the San Diegos to vacate the land u)on )a ment of the sum "$,300 b the de la /ru:es within $0 da s after the decision becomes final, dismissing the counterclaim of the de la /ru:es, without )ronouncement as to costs, The court found that the dis)uted )ortion of a )arcel of land belonged to the de la /ru:es through hereditar succession? that the San Diegos built a house on the land in good faith, having ac4uired the land from /atalina (nastacio, mother of the de la /ru:es, b )urchase for "&,000,00, During the )roceedings, the San Diegos filed a third6)art com)laint against said vendor, The vendor (mother of the de la /ru:es) subse4uentl died? hence, the de la /ru:es, who were the )laintiffs, became at the same time third6)art defendants in substitution of their deceased mother, The court voided the sale on the ground that the vendor had no right to the land, but u)held the defense of the San Diegos as builders in good faith, -n a))eal b the de la /ru:es, the /ourt of ())eals affirmed in toto the lower courtBs decision, and the same, thereafter, became final and e2ecutor , -ver # ears later, the San Diegos, who were in )ossession of the )arcel of land in litigation, moved to e2ecute )aragra)h (b) of the dis)ositive )ortion of the decision in order to collect the sum of "$,300,00 and thereafter to vacate the )remises, The motion was denied b the court, and a motion for reconsideration was li@ewise of no avail, +ence, the instant )etition for mandamus was filed to com)el the judge to issue the writ a))lied for, The Su)reme /ourt granted the writ )ra ed for, and ordered the /!8 =ulacan to issue the writ of e2ecution in favor of San Diegos, /osts against de la /ru: 1. =udg/ent %ased on rig0t of retention due to *ossessors in good fait0. No renta- re5uired during *eriod of retention The judgment affirmed b the /ourt of ())eals, and now final, e2)licitl ordains the )a ment b the de la /ru:es of the amount of "$,300,00 Dwithin $0 da s after this decision becomes finalE to the San Diegos, 8f it also orders the San Diegos to vacate onl u)on such )a ment, it did so in recognition of the right of retention granted to )ossessors in good faith b (rticle 34% of the /ivil /ode of the "hili))ines, This )rovision is e2)ressl made a))licable to builders in good faith ((rticle 447), The right of retention thus granted is merel a securit for the enforcement of the )ossessorBs right to indemnit for the im)rovements made b him, (s a result, the )ossessor in good faith, in retaining the land and its im)rovements )ending reimbursement of his useful e2)enditure, is not bound to )a an rental during the )eriod of retention? otherwise, the value of his securit would be im)aired (cf, Tufe2is vs, /hunaco (/,(,) $% -,1, #433), +. 2*tions of t0e -ando1ner. Decision -i/ited to a**ro*riation of t0e i/*rove/ent 10ic0 t0e -ando1ner did not o%>ect to. Decision fina- and cannot %e a-tered <ormall the landowner has the o)tion to either a))ro)riate the im)rovement or to sell the land to the )ossessor, This o)tion is no longer o)en to the landowners herein because the decision in the former suit limits them to the first alternative b re4uiring the San Diegos to vacate the land (and surrender the im)rovements) u)on )a ment of "$,300,00, 9videntl , the /!8 and the /( o)ined that the de la /ru:esB suit
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 181 )
to recover the )ro)ert was an e2ercise of their right to choose to a))ro)riate the im)rovements and )a the indemnit fi2ed b law, The de ;a /ru:es ac4uiesced in this view, since the did not as@ for the modification of the judgment and allowed it to become final, /onse4uentl , the can no longer insist on selecting another alternative? nor can the be heard now to urge that the value of the indemnit , set at "$,300,00, is e2orbitant, for the same reason that the judgment fi2ing that amount is no longer subject to alteration, ". ,ourt:s duty to e9ecute a fina- >udg/ent. Arit of Canda/us The judgment ordering )a ment to the San Diegos of "$,300,00, b wa of indemnit , having become final, and the $0 da s for its )a ment having ela)sed, the /!8 has the ministerial dut to order its e2ecution (Fu ue(a v!. .are8e!, 62 ./) . 5& :uenaven(ura v!. Gar4)a, 7% ./) . 759& A9or v!. 3ugo, 17 ./) . 70*& ;)Cu)era v!. :ara1a, 7% ./) . $56+. That dut is com)ellable b mandamus? and the e2ecution is leviable on an )ro)ert of the de la /ru:es, including the land now in 4uestion and its im)rovements, [#"] ?antos v. Co>ica [G.R. No. L<+4 4!. =anuary "1' 1#&#.] 9n =anc, /a)istrano (J): &0 concur, & too@ no )art $acts( -n &* .arch &*3*, Teodorico, /armen, (ntero, >idal, /atalina, .elanio, .anuel, !elicidad, (urelio, "acita and 9leuteria, all surnamed (llanigue (being brothers and sisters), brought an action (/ivil /ase #&'6 R) before the /!8 Ri:al against their sister, ;oren:a (llanigue, her husband, Simeon Santos, .aria San (gustin and !elicidad San (gustin, for )artition of a $%06s4, m, lot situated at San Dionisio, "araIa4ue, Ri:al, and for the annulment of certain conve ances involving the same, Defendants having been declared in default, the trial court, after hearing the )laintiffsB evidence, rendered judgment ordering the )artition of the lot among the && )laintiffs and the defendant ;oren:a (llanigue, 8n a subse4uent order the court set off ;oren:a (llanigueBs share against the amount that she had failed to )a as rents to the )laintiffs as directed in the decision, ( writ of e2ecution was issued on the judgment ordering the defendants to vacate the lot and deliver its )ossession to the )laintiffs, ;eonardo Santos, not a )art defendant but a son of defendants Simeon Santos and ;oren:a (llanigue, owned a house standing on the lot, +e filed with the sheriff a third6)art claim, and with the court, a motion to recall the writ of e2ecution insofar as his house was concerned, The motion was denied, -n &3 .arch &*%#, the defendants and movant ;eonardo Santos having failed to remove their houses from the lot within the )eriod given them, the court ordered the sheriff to demolish said houses, -n # ()ril &*%#, ;eonardo Santos and the defendants in the case, as )etitioners, filed in the Su)reme /ourt a )etition for certiorari and )rohibition (1R ;6&*%&7), against Judge (ngel +, .ojica, the "rovincial Sheriff of Ri:al and the )laintiffs in the case, as res)ondents, 8n its decision of #7 !ebruar &*%4, the Su)reme /ourt denied the )etition after finding that ;eonardo Santos did not follow the )rocedure sanctioned b law in vindicating his alleged ownershi), i,e,, he should have filed an ordinar civil action to vindicate his alleged ownershi) of the house and the )ortion of land on which it was built, (fter the said decision of the Su)reme /ourt had become final, the lower court (Judge (ngel +, .ojica), on motion of the )laintiffs in the same /ivil /ase #&'6R, ordered the demolition of the defendantsB houses, The defendants having voluntaril removed their houses, the onl house that remained standing on the lot was that belonging to ;eonardo Santos, Subse4uentl , the Judge, on motion of the )laintiffs, issued an order dated * December &*%3, directing the sheriff to demolish the house of ;eonardo Santos, +ence, the )resent )etition for certiorari and )rohibition in the Su)reme /ourt, The Su)reme /ourt denied the )etition, with costs against the )etitioner ;eonardo Santos, 1. ?uccessor<in<interest %ound %y t0e >udg/ent in ,ivi- ,ase +16<R
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 18+ )
;eonardo Santos is bound b the judgment in /ivil /ase <o, #&'6R because he is a successor6in6interest of his )arents, Simeon Santos and ;oren:a (llanigue, defendants in /ivil /ase #&'6 R, and his right, if an , is claimed under them, The fact that the sale to ;eonardo Santos from his )arents was registered, is of no moment because, he is bound b the judgment against them, +. 3/*rove/ent of t0e 0ouse /ade after *redecessor<in<interest 1ere su//oned. ?antos a %ui-der in %ad fait0' no rig0t of inde/nity ;eonardo SantosB house having been built and reconstructed (after .arch &*%#) into a bigger one after his )redecessors6in6interest, his )arents, had been summoned in &*3* in /ivil /ase #&'6R, he must be deemed a builder in bad faith, (s builder in bad faith he lost the im)rovement made b him consisting of the reconstructed house to the owners of the land without right to indemnit , )ursuant to (rticle 44* of the /ivil /ode (D+e who builds, )lants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, )lanted or sown without right to indemnit ,E) ". 2*tions of t0e -ando1ner in good fait0 The owners of the land became owners of the im)rovement consisting of the house built in bad faith if the chose to a))ro)riate the accession, ((rticle 443 and 44*, /ivil /ode,) +owever, said owners could choose instead the demolition of the im)rovement or building at the e2)ense of the builder, )ursuant to (rticle 430 of the /ivil /ode, which, in )art, )rovides DThe owner of the land on which an thing has been built, )lanted or sown in bad faith ma demand the demolition of the wor@, or that the )lanting or sowing be removed, in order to re)lace things in their former condition at the e2)ense of the )erson who built, )lanted or sowed,E 8n the )resent case, the (llanigue brothers and sisters chose to have the house or im)rovement built b ;eonardo Santos demolished )ursuant to their motion for demolition, . Res =udicata. 3dentity of t0e case The )resent )etition is barred b the )rior judgment of the /ourt in 1R ;6&*%&7, "etitioner ;eonardo Santos, was one of the )etitioners in that case against the same official and )rivate res)ondents in the instant )etition? having an identit of subject matter (the )ortion of the lot and the house standing on said )ortion alleged b )etitioner to belong to him), and identit of cause of action (the order of the Judge for the removal or demolition of the houses standing on the lot), The )rior judgment, based on merits, had become final, The judgment thus in 1R ;6&*%&7 is res judicata in the instant case on the 4uestion of the validit of the order of demolition of * December &*%3, [# ] ?antos v. Coreno [G.R. No. L<148+#. Dece/%er ' 1#&6.] 9n =anc, =eng:on J" (J): * concur $acts( The Oobel famil of S)ain formerl owned a vast trac@ of marshland in .acabebe, "am)anga called +acienda San 9steban, which was administered and managed b the ( ala /ia, !rom &7%0 to &*#4 ( ala /ia,, devoted the hacienda to the )lanting and cultivation of ni)a )alms from which it gathered ni)a sa) or DtubaE, 8t o)erated a distiller )lant in barrio San 9steban to turn ni)a tuba into )otable alcohol which was in turn manufactured into li4uor, (ccessibilit through the ni)a )alms dee) into the hacienda )osed as a )roblem? thus ( ala /ia dug canals leading towards the haciendaBs interior where most of them interlin@ed with each other, The canals facilitated the gathering of tuba and the guarding and )atrolling of the hacienda b securit guards called DarundinesE, = the gradual )rocess of erosion these canals ac4uired the characteristics and dimensions of rivers, 8n &*#4 ( ala /ia shifted from the business of alcohol )roduction to bangus culture, 8t converted +acienda San 9steban from a forest of ni)a groves to a web of fish)onds, Sometime in &*#3 or &*#% ( ala /ia,, sold a )ortion of +acienda San 9steban to Roman Santos who also transformed the swam) land into a fish)ond, 8n
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 18" )
so doing, he closed and built di@es across Sa)ang .alauling .aragul, FuiIorang Silab, "e)angebunan, =ulacus, <igui and <asi, The closing of the man6made canals in +acienda San 9steban drew com)laints from residents of the surrounding communities, /laiming that the closing of the canals caused floods during the rain season, and that it de)rived them of their means of trans)ortation and fishing grounds, said residents demanded re6o)ening of those canals, Subse4uentl , .a or ;a:aro Tambao of .acabebe, accom)anied b )olicemen and some residents went to +acienda San 9steban and o)ened the closure di@es at Sa)ang .alauling .aragul, <igui and FuiIorang Silab, Ghereu)on, Roman Santos filed /ivil /ase 4477 in the /!8 "am)anga which )reliminaril enjoined .a or Tambao and others from demolishing the di@es across the canals, The munici)al officials of .acabebe countered b filing a com)laint (/ivil /ase 43#') in the same court, The /!8 "am)anga rendered judgment in both cases against Roman Santos who immediatel elevated the case to the Su)reme /ourt, 8n the meantime, the Secretar of /ommerce and /ommunications conducted his own investigation, found and declared on 7 <ovember &*$0 that the streams closed b Roman Santos were natural, floatable and navigable and were utili:ed b the )ublic for trans)ortation since time immemorial, +owever, on 7 .a &*$& the said official revo@ed his decision and declared the streams in 4uestion )rivatel owned because the were artificiall constructed, Subse4uentl , u)on authorit granted under (ct $*7# the Secretar of /ommerce and /ommunications entered into a contract with Roman Santos whereb the former recogni:ed the )rivate ownershi) of % streams and the latter turned over for )ublic use # artificial canals and bound himself to maintain them in navigable state, The "rovincial =oard of "am)anga and the munici)al councils of .acabebe and .asantol objected to the contract, +owever, the Secretar of Justice, in his o)inion dated % .arch &*$4, u)held its legalit , Roman Santos withdrew his a))eals in the Su)reme /ourt, -n #3 !ebruar &*$3 the munici)alit of .acabebe and the Oobel famil e2ecuted an agreement whereb the recogni:ed the nature of the streams mentioned in "ano)ioBs re)ort as )ublic or )rivate, de)ending on the findings in said re)ort, This agreement was a))roved b the Secretar of "ublic Gor@s and /ommunications on #' !ebruar &*$3 and confirmed the ne2t da b the munici)al council of .acabebe under Resolution $%, -n &# June &*$3 however, the Secretar of Justice issued an o)inion holding that the contract e2ecuted b the Oobel famil and the munici)alit of .acabebe has no validit , Still, des)ite the ruling of the Secretar of Justice, the streams in 4uestion remained closed, 8n &*$* administrative investigations were again conducted b various agencies of the 92ecutive branch of our government culminating in an order of "resident .anuel Fue:on immediatel before the national elections in &*4& re4uiring the o)ening of Sa)ang .acanduling .aragul, .acabacle, =albaro and /ansusu, Said streams were again closed in &*4# allegedl u)on order of "resident Fue:on, Roman Santos ac4uired in &*40 from the Oobel famil a larger )ortion of +acienda San 9steban wherein are located #3 streams which were closed b ( ala /ia, &7 ears later or in &*30, /ongress enacted R( #03%, Thereafter, on &3 (ugust &*37, Senator de la Rosa re4uested in writing the Secretar of "ublic Gor@s and /ommunications to )roceed in )ursuance of Re)ublic (ct <o, #03% against fish)ond owners in the )rovince of "am)anga who have closed rivers and a))ro)riated them as fish)onds without color of title, -n the same da , =enigno .usni and other residents in the vicinit of +acienda San 9steban )etitioned the Secretar of "ublic Gor@s and /ommunications to o)en the following streams: =albaro, =atasan .atua, =unga, /ansusu, .acabacle, .acanduling .aragul, .ariablus .alate, .atalabang .aisac, <igui, FuiIorang Silab, Sa)ang .aragul and Se)ung =ato, -n #0 -ctober &*37 .usni and his co6)etitioners amended their )etition to include other streams: =albaro, =alili, =anawa, =atasan .atua, =ato, =engco, =unga, =utabuta, /amastiles, /ansusu, /ela, Don Tim)o, .abalanga, .abutol, .acabacle, .acabacle 4ng, 8ba, .acanduling .aragul, .alauli, .agasawa, .ariablus .alate, .asamaral, .atalabang .aisac, .ariablus, $ <igui, "ita, FuiIorang Silab, Sa)ang .aragul, Se)ung =ato, Sinag and Tumbong, -n .arch #, 4, &0, $0 and $&, and & ()ril &*3*, the Secretar of "ublic Gor@s and /ommunications rendered his decisions ordering the o)ening and restoration of the channel of all the streams e2ce)t Sa)ang .alauling .aragul, FuiIorang Silab, <igui,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 18 )
"e)angebonan, <asi and =ulacus, within $0 da s, -n #* ()ril &*3*, after recei)t of the Secretar Bs decision, Roman Santos filed a )etition with the /!8 .anila for injunction against the Secretar of "ublic Gor@s and /ommunications and Julian /, /argullo, (s )ra ed for, )reliminar injunction was granted on 7 .a &*3*, -n ()ril #* and &# June &*3*, Roman Santos received the decision of the Secretar of "ublic Gor@s and /ommunications dated .arch &0 and .arch $0, .arch $&, and & ()ril &*3*, /onse4uentl , on June #4, &*3* he as@ed the court to cite in contem)t Secretar !lorencio .oreno, 5ndersecretar ., D, =autista and Julian /argullo for issuing and serving u)on him the said decisions des)ite the e2istence of the )reliminar injunction, The /ou rt however ruled that Secretar .oreno, 5ndersecretar =autista and /argullo acted in good faith, and hence were merel Dadmonished to desist from an and further action in this /ourt, with the stern warning, however, that a re)etition of the acts com)lained of shall be dealt with severel ,E -n &7 Jul &*3* the trial court declared all the streams under litigation )rivate, and made the writ of )reliminar injunction )ermanent, The Secretar of "ublic Gor@s and /ommunications and Julian /argullo a))ealed to the Su)reme /ouurt from the order of &' Jul &*3* issued in connection with Roman SantosB motion for contem)t and from the decision of the lower court on the merits of the case, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the decision a))ealed from, e2ce)t as to Sa)ang /ansusu which was declared )ublic and thus as to which the judgment of the lower court was reversed, <o costs, 1. Cotion for reconsideration not re5uired as a condition *recedent to >udicia- re-ief in RA +!4&. ,ongress intend decision of ?ecretary of )u%-ic Aorks and ,o//unication to %e fina- and e9ecutory su%>ect to a ti/e-y revie1 %y t0e courts R( #03% does not re4uire the filing of a motion for reconsideration as a condition )recedent to judicial relief, !rom the conte2t of the law, the intention of the legislators to forego a motion for reconsideration manifests itself clearl , R( #03% underscores the urgenc and summar nature of the )roceedings authori:ed thereunder, Thus in Section # thereof the Secretar of "ublic Gor@s and /ommunications under )ain of criminal liabilit is dut bound to terminate the )roceedings and render his decision within a )eriod not e2ceeding *0 da s from the filing of the com)laint, 5nder the same section, the )art res)ondent concerned is given not more than $0 da s within which to com)l with the decision of the Secretar of "ublic Gor@s and /ommunications, otherwise the removal of the dams would be done b the 1overnment at the e2)ense of said )art , /ongress has )recisel )rovided for a s)eed and a most e2)editious )roceeding for the removal of illegal obstructions to rivers and on the basis of such a )rovision it would be )re)osterous to conclude that it had in mind to re4uire a )art to file a motion for reconsideration an additional )roceeding which would certainl lengthen the time towards the final settlement of e2isting controversies, The logical conclusion is that /ongress intended the decision of the Secretar of "ublic Gor@s and /ommunications to be final and e2ecutor subject to a timel review b the courts without going through formal and time consuming )reliminaries, +. Guestion of ,onstitutiona-ity rig0t-y aired %efore a co/*etent court. not 1it0in co/*etence of ?ecretary of )u%-ic Aorks and ,o//unications The )etitioner assailed the constitutionalit of R( #03% and the jurisdiction of the Secretar of "ublic Gor@s and /ommunications to order the demolition of dams across rivers or streams, Those 4uestions are not within the com)etence of said Secretar to decide u)on a motion for reconsideration, The are )urel legal 4uestions, not administrative in nature, and should )ro)erl be aired before a com)etent court as was rightl done b the )etitioner, ". A**ea- of t0e decision of t0e ?ecretary to t0e )resident dis*ensed 1it0 as ?ecretary is a-ter<ego of t0e )resident (s to the failure of Roman Santos to a))eal from the decision of the Secretar of "ublic Gor@s and /ommunications to the "resident of the "hili))ines, suffice it to state that such a))eal could be dis)ensed
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 184 )
with because said Secretar is the alter ego of the "resident, The actions of the former are )resumed to have the im)lied sanction of the latter, . Action correct-y fi-ed 1it0 t0e ,$3 Cani-a. )ur*ose is to revie1 t0e decision of t0e ?ecretary' even if t0e reso-ution of controversy rests in t0e o1ners0i* of t0e strea/s. ?ection 1 of Ru-e 4' not section "' is contro--ing The mere fact that the resolution of the controvers would wholl rest on the ownershi) of the streams involved would not necessaril classif it as a real action, The )ur)ose of the suit is to review the decisions of the Secretar of "ublic Gor@s and /ommunications, to enjoin him from enforcing them and to )revent him from ma@ing and issuing similar decisions concerning the streams in +acienda San 9steban, The acts of the Secretar of "ublic Gor@s are /ommunications are the object of the litigation, hence, the suit ought to be filed in the /!8 whose territorial jurisdiction encom)asses the )lace where the Secretar is found or is holding office, !or the rule is that outside its territorial limits, the court has no )ower to enforce its orders, Section $ of Rule 3 of the Rules of /ourt does not a))l to determine venue of this action, Section of the same rule a))lies, Section & )rovides that Dcivil actions in /!8s ma be commenced and tried where the defendant or an of the defendants resides or ma be found, or where the )laintiff or an of the )laintiffs resides, at the election of the )laintiff,E Thus, in the )resent case, the )etition for injunction was correctl filed in the /!8 .anila as the Secretar of "ublic Gor@s and /ommunications and Julian /argullo are found and hold office in the /it of .anila, 4. Revie1 of ?ecretary:s decision %y t0e court. in5uiry -i/ited to evidence *resented during t0e ad/inistrative *roceedings Ghether the action instituted in the /!8 be for mandamus, injunction or certiorari is not ver material, 8n reviewing the decision of the Secretar of "ublic Gor@s and /ommunications, the /!8 shall confine its in4uir to the evidence )resented during the administrative )roceedings, 9vidence not )resented therein shall not be admitted and considered b the trial court, (s held )reviousl b the /ourt, Dthe findings of the Secretar can not be enervated b new evidence not laid before him, for that would be tantamount to holding a new investigation, and to substitute for the discretion and judgment of the Secretar the discretion and judgment of the court, to whom the statute had not entrusted the case, 8t is immaterial that the action should be one for )rohibition or injunction and not one for certiorari? in either event the case must be resolved u)on the evidence submitted to the Secretar , since a judicial review of e2ecutive decisions does not im)ort a trial de novo, but onl an ascertainment of whether the e2ecutive findings are not in violation of the /onstitution or of the laws, and are free from fraud or im)osition, and whether the find reasonable su))ort in the evidence,E Thus, it was an error for the lower court to conduct a trial de novo, &. RA +!4& is not unconstitutionaThe /ourt has held in ;ovina v, .oreno that said law is constitutional, 8t cannot be held that the law is constitutional but a))lied unconstitutionall as the )etitionerBs di@es were demolished through an administrative, not judicial, )roceeding, Such conclusion amount in effect to declaring the law unconstitutional, stated inversel , <ote that the law )rovides for an e2)editious administrative )rocess to determine whether or not a dam or di@e should be declared a )ublic nuisance and ordered demolished, (nd to sa that such an administrative )rocess, when )ut to o)eration, is unconstitutional is tantamount to sa ing that the law itself violates the /onstitution, 6. RA +!4& a**-ies to + ty*es of %odies of 1ater R( #03% a))lies to two t )es of bodies of water, namel , (&) )ublic navigable rivers, streams, coastal waters, waters or waterwa s and (b) areas declared as communal fishing grounds, 8. Bui-ding of da/s' dikes or ot0er 1orks on naviga%-e *u%-ic 1aters a *u%-ic nuisance Section & of R( #03% law )rovides that Dthe construction or building of dams, di@es or an other wor@s which encroaches into an )ublic navigable river, stream, coastal waters and an other navigable )ublic waters or
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 18& )
waterwa s as well as the construction or building of dams, di@es or an other wor@s in areas declared as communal fishing grounds, shall be ordered removed as )ublic nuisances or as )rohibited constructions as herein )rovided,E #. Contano v. 3nsu-ar Govern/ent (/arc0-ands not susce*ti%-e to a**ro*riation %y occu*ation) not a**-ica%-e The doctrine in .ontano vs, 8nsular 1overnment, that a marshland which is inundated b the rise of tides belong to the State and is not susce)tible to a))ro)riation b occu)ation, has no a))lication in the )resent ccase inasmuch as in said case the land subject matter of the litigation was not et titled and )recisel 8sabelo .ontano sought title thereon on the strength of &0 earsB occu)ation )ursuant to )aragra)h %, section 3 of (ct *#% of the "hili))ine /ommission, Ghereas, +acienda San 9steban is titled land and )rivate ownershi) thereof b ( ala /ia, has been recogni:ed b the King of S)ain and later b the "hili))ine 1overnment when the same was registered under (ct 4*%, 1!. 3n>unction *ro*er if *erson constructs a da/ across a *u%-ic cana-' 10ic0 is situated 1it0in a *u%-ic -and D<o )rivate )erson has a right to usur) )ossession of a watercourse, branch of a river, or la@e of the )ublic domain and use, unless it shall have been )roved that he constructed the same within )ro)ert of his e2clusive ownershi), and such usur)ation constitutes a violation of the legal )rovisions which e2)licitl e2clude such waterwa s from the e2clusive use or )ossession of a )rivate )art ,E (=autista v, (larcon, #$ "hil %$&) 8nversel , and as indicated in said case, a )rivate )erson ma ta@e )ossession of a watercourse if he constructed the same within his )ro)ert , 11. )u%-ic and )rivate o1ners0i* under t0e ?*anis0 ,ivi- ,ode of 188#. ?*anis0 La1 of Aaters of 18&& As to *u5lic 9+nership< (rticles $$* of the S)anish /ivil /ode of &77* )rovides that )ro)ert of )ublic ownershi) includes Dthat devoted to )ublic use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, )orts and bridges constructed b the State, riverban@s, shores, roadsteads, and that of a similar character,E (rticle 40' of the same /ode )rovides that D(&) Rivers and their natural channels? (#) /ontinuous or intermittent waters from s)rings or broo@s running in then natural channels and the channels themselves? ($) Gaters rising continuousl or intermittentl on lands of )ublic? (4) ;a@es and )onds formed b nature on )ublic lands, and their beds? (3) Rain waters running through ravines or sand beds, the channels of which are of )ublic ownershi)? (%) Subterranean waters on )ublic lands? (') Gaters found within the :one of o)eration of )ublic wor@s, even though constructed under contract? Gaters which flow continuousl or intermittentl from lands belonging to )rivate )ersons, to the State, to )rovinces, or to towns from the moment the leave such lands? and (*) The waste waters of fountains, sewers, and )ublic institutionsE are of )ublic ownershi), !urther, (rticle '# of the S)anish ;aw of Gaters (7 (ugust &7%%) )rovides that Dthe water6beds on )ublic land, of cree@s through which s)ring waters run, are a )art of the )ublic domain, The natural water6beds or channels of rivers are also )art of the )ublic domain,E As to *rivate 9+nership< (rticle 407 of the S)anish /ivil /ode of &77* )rovides that D(&) Gaters, either continuous or intermittent rising on )rivate estates, while the run through them? (#) ;a@es and )onds and their beds when formed b nature on such estates? ($) Subterranean waters found therein? (4) Rain waters falling thereon as long as the remain within their boundaries? and (3) The channels of flowing streams, continuous or intermittent formed b rain water, and those of broo@s crossing estates which are not of )ublic ownershi)E are of )rivate ownershi), !urther, (rticle '& of the S)anish ;aw of Gaters (7 (ugust &7%%) )rovides that Dthe water6beds of all cree@s belong to the owners of the estates or lands over which the flow,E !urther, Dthe water, bed, ban@s, and floodgates of a ditch or a4ueduct are deemed to be an integral )art of the estate or building for which the waters are intended, The owners of estates through or along the boundaries of which the a4ueduct )asses can assert no ownershi) over it, nor an right to ma@e use of its beds or ban@s, unless the base their claim on title deed which s)ecif the right or the ownershi) claimed,E
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 186 )
1+. ,0aracter of cana-s %ased on t0e estate over 10ic0 t0ey f-o1. ,ana-s of *rivate o1ners0i* "ursuant to (rticle '& of the S)anish ;aw of Gaters of $ (ugust &7%%, and (rticle 407(3) of the S)anish /ivil /ode, channels of cree@s and broo@s belong to the owners of estates over which the flow, The channels, therefore, of the streams in 4uestion which ma be classified as cree@s, belong to the owners of +acienda San 9steban, !urther, the said streams, considered as canals, of which the originall were, are of )rivate ownershi) in contem)lation of (rticle $$*(&) of the S)anish /ivil /ode, /anals constructed b )rivate )ersons within )rivate lands and devoted e2clusivel for )rivate use must be of )rivate ownershi), The streams, e2ce)t for Sa)ang /ansusu, being artificial and devoted e2clusivel for the use of the hacienda owner and his )ersonnel, are of )rivate ownershi) and hence, the dams across them should not be ordered demolished as )ublic nuisances, 1". Cercado v. Cunici*a- )resident of Caca%e%e not t0e sa/e as *resent case 8n .ercado v, .unici)al "resident of .acabebe, the =atasan6;imasan cree@ was originall dug b the estate owner who, subse4uentl allowed said cree@ to be used b the )ublic for navigation and fishing )ur)oses for a )eriod of ## ears, The cree@ could have been of )rivate ownershi) had not its builder lost it b )rescri)tion, ())l ing the )rinci)le therein enunciated to the )resent case, the conclusion would be inevitabl in favor of )rivate ownershi), considering that the owners of +acienda San 9steban held them for their e2clusive use and )rohibited the )ublic from using them, 1 . Cercado case cannot %e a**-ied in t0e *resent case due to differences in factua- *re/ises 8n his o)inion of &# June &*$3, the Secretar of Justice answered in the negative the 4uer of the Secretar of "ublic Gor@s and /ommunications whether the latter can declare of )rivate ownershi) those streams which Dwere dug u) artificiall E, because it was assumed that the streams were used Db the )ublic as fishing ground and in trans)orting their commerce in bancas or in small crafts without the objection of the )arties who dugE them (a))l ing .ercado v, .unici)alit of .acabebe), +owever, the facts, as then found b the =ureau of "ublic Gor@, do not su))ort the factual )remise that the streams in 4uestion were used b the )ublic Dwithout the objection of the )arties who dugE them, The /ourt cannot therefore ta@e as controlling in determining the merits of this case the factual )remises and the legal conclusion contained in said o)inion, 14. ,ase different fro/ cases invo-ving da//ed natura- navigationa- strea/s The )resent case should be differentiated from those cases where the /ourt held illegal the closing andAor a))ro)riation of rivers or streams b owners of estates through which the flow for )ur)oses of converting them into fish)onds or other wor@s, 8n those cases, the watercourses which were dammed were natural navigable streams and used habituall b the )ublic for a long time as a means of navigation, /onse4uentl , the belong to the )ublic domain either as rivers )ursuant to (rticle 40'(&) of the S)anish /ivil /ode of &77* or as )ro)ert devoted to )ublic use under (rticle $$* of the same /ode, Ghereas, the streams involved in the )resent case were artificiall made and denoted to the e2clusive use of the hacienda owner, 1&. ?a*ang ,ansusu is a natura- strea/' a *u%-ic strea/' 10ic0 %e-ongs to t0e *u%-ic do/ain Sa)ang /ansusu, being a natural stream and a continuation of the /ansusu River, admittedl a )ublic stream, belongs to the )ublic domain, 8ts closure therefore b the )redecessors of Roman Santos was illegal, 16. ,ase invo-ving *etition for t0e o*ening of ?a*ang Ca-au-ing' and ot0er strea/s' c-osed. )arties t0ereto e9c-uded in *resent case The )etition for the o)ening of Sa)ang .alauling .aragul, FuiIorang Silab, <igui, "e)angebunan, <asi and =ulacus was dismissed b the Secretar of "ublic Gor@s and /ommunications and the case considered closed, The said administrative decision has not been 4uestioned in this a))eal b either )art , +ence, the are deemed e2cluded herein, 18. Lo1er court /ade no finding of conte/*t to %e revie1 %y t0e ?u*re/e ,ourt
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 188 )
Gith res)ect to the issue of contem)t of court on the )art of the Secretar of "ublic Gor@s and /ommunications and Julian /argullo for the alleged issuance of administrative decisions ordering demolition of di@es involved in this case after the writ of injunction was granted and served, suffice it to state that the lower court made no finding of contem)t of court, <ecessaril , there is no conviction for contem)t reviewable b this /ourt and an discussion on the matter would be academic, [#4] ?ar/iento v. Agana [G.R. No. 46+88. A*ri- "!' 1#8 .] Second Division, .elencio6+errera (J): 3 concur $acts( Ghile 9rnesto >alentino was still courting his wife (Rebecca ;oren:o), the latterBs mother had told him the cou)le could build a residential house on a lot of &43 s4, ms, (;ot D of a subdivision in "araIa4ue), 8n &*%', 9rnesto did construct a residential house on the land at a cost of "7,000,00 to "&0,000,00, 8t was )robabl assumed that the wifeBs mother was the owner of the land and that, eventuall , it would somehow be transferred to the s)ouses, 8t subse4uentl turned out that the land had been titled in the name of .r, N .rs, Jose /, Santos, Jr, who, on ' Se)tember &*'4, sold the same to ;eonila Sarmiento, The following % Januar &*'3, Sarmiento as@ed 9rnesto and wife to vacate and, on #& ()ril &*'3, filed an 9jectment suit against them, 8n the evidentiar hearings before the .unici)al /ourt, Sarmiento submitted the deed of sale of the land in her favor, which showed the )rice to be "&3,000,00, -n the other hand, 9rnesto testified that the then cost of the residential house would be from "$0,000,00 to "40,000,00, The figures were not 4uestioned b Sarmiento, -n &' -ctober &*'', the .unici)al /ourt found that the >alentinos had built the residential house in good faith, and, disregarding the testimon of 9rnesto, that it had a value of "#0,000,00, 8t then ordered 9rnesto and wife to vacate the land after Sarmiento has )aid them the mentioned sum of "#0,000,00, The 9jectment suit was elevated to the /!8 "asa where, after the submission of memoranda ()ursuant to the )rovisions of R( %0$&) and on #* .arch &*'*, said /ourt rendered a modif ing decision under (rticle 447 of the /ivil /ode, Sarmiento was re4uired, within %0 da s, to e2ercise the o)tion to reimburse 9rnesto and wife the sum of "40,000,00 as the value of the residential house, or the o)tion to allow them to )urchase the land for "#3,000,00, Sarmiento did not e2ercise an of the two o)tions within the indicated )eriod, and 9rnesto was then allowed to de)osit the sum of "#3,000,00 with the /ourt as the )urchase )rice for the land, Sarmiento then instituted the instant /ertiorari )roceedings, The Su)reme /ourt dismissed the )etition for certiorari, without )ronouncement as to costs, 1. 7a-entinos in good fait0 9rnesto >alentino and his wife were builders in good faith in view of the )eculiar circumstances under which the had constructed the residential house, (s far as the @new, the land was owned b 9rnestoBs mother6in6 law who, having stated the could build on the )ro)ert , could reasonabl be e2)ected to later on give them the land, +. Artic-e 8 of t0e ,ivi- ,ode 8n regards to builders in good faith, (rticle 447 of the /ode )rovides that DThe owner of the land on which an thing has been built, sown or )lanted in good faith, shall have the right to a))ro)riate as his own the wor@s, sowing or )lanting, after )a ment of the indemnit )rovided for in articles 34% and 347, or to oblige the one who built or )lanted to )a the )rice of the land, and the one who sowed, the )ro)er rent, +owever, the builder or )lanter cannot be obliged to bu the land if its value is considerabl more than that of the building or trees, 8n such case, he shall )a reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to a))ro)riate the building or trees after )ro)er indemnit , The )arties shall agree u)on the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fi2 the terms thereof,E
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 18# )
". 2*tions avai-a%-e for o1ner of t0e -and The owner of the building erected in good faith on a land owned b another, is entitled to retain the )ossession of the land until he is )aid the value of his building, under article 43$ (now (rticle 34%), The owner of the land, u)on the other hand, has the o)tion, under article $%& (now (rticle 447), either to )a for the building or to sell his land to the owner of the building, =ut he cannot as res)ondents here did, refuse both to )a for the building and to sell the land and com)el the owner of the building to remove it from the land where it is erected, +e is entitled to such remotion onl when, after having chosen to sell his land, the other )art fails to )a for the same, 8n the )resent case, the )rovision for the e2ercise b Sarmiento of either the o)tion to indemnif the >alentinos in the amount of "40,000,00, or the o)tion to allow the >alentinos to )urchase the land at "#3,000,00, in the /ourtBs o)inion, was a correct decision, The order of the trial court com)elling the >alentinos to remove the building on SarmientoBs land because the latter chose neither to )a for such buildings nor to sell the land, is null and void, for it amends substantiall the judgment sought to be e2ecuted and is, furthermore, offensive to articles $%& (now (rticle 447) and 43$ (now (rticle 34%) of the /ivil /ode,E (8gnacio vs, +ilario, '% "hil, %03, %07 L&*4%M), [#&] ?erg:s )roducts v. ),3 Leasing [G.R. No. 1"66!4. August ++' +!!!.] Third division, "anganiban (J): $ concur $acts( -n &$ !ebruar &**7, "/8 ;easing and !inance, 8nc, filed a com)laint for sum of mone , with an a))lication for a writ of re)levin (/ivil /ase F6*76$$300), -n % .arch &**7, u)on an e26)arte a))lication of "/8 ;easing, judge issued a writ of re)levin directing its sheriff to sei:e and deliver the machineries and e4ui)ment to "/8 ;easing after 3 da s and u)on the )a ment of the necessar e2)enses, -n #4 .arch &**7, the sheriff )roceeded to )etitionerBs factor , sei:ed one machiner with word that the return for the other machineries, -n #3 .arch &**7, )etitioners filed a motion for s)ecial )rotective order, invo@ing the )ower of the court to control the conduct of its officers and amend and control its )rocesses, )ra ing for a directive for the sheriff to defer enforcement of the writ of re)levin, -n % ()ril &**7, the sheriff again sought to enforce the writ of sei:ure and ta@e )ossession of the remaining )ro)erties, +e was able to ta@e two more, but was )revented b the wor@ers from ta@ing the rest, -n ' ()ril &**7, the went to the /( via an original action for certiorari, /iting the (greement of the )arties, the a))ellate court held that the subject machines were )ersonal )ro)ert , and that the had onl been leased, not owned, b )etitioners? and ruled that the Dwords of the contract are clear and leave no doubt u)on the true intention of the contracting )arties,E 8t thus affirmed the &7 !ebruar &**7 -rder, and the $& .arch &**7 Resolution of the lower court, and lifted the )reliminar injunction issued on &3 June &**7, ( subse4uent motion for reconsideration was denied on #% !ebruar &***, +ence, the )etition for review on certiorari, The Su)reme /ourt denied the )etition and affirmed the decision of the /ourt of ())eals? with costs against )etitioners, 1. )etition for revie1 on certiorari is c-ear-y under Ru-e 4 The )etition need not e2)ressl indicate if it is being filed under Rule 43 or Rule %3 of the Rules of /ourt, as it is clear that the )resent recourse is under Rule 43? the conclusion of such su))orted b the title of the "etition, which is D"etition for Review on /ertiorari,E +. Brror in i/*-eading t0e =udge as res*ondent not ground to dis/iss t0e case Ghile the judge should not have been im)leaded as a res)ondent, substantial justice re4uires that such la)se b itself should not warrant the dismissal of the )resent "etition, The /ourt ma deems it )ro)er to remove, motu )ro)rio, the name of the Judge from the ca)tion of the case,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1#! )
". Arit of re*-evin issued for recovery of *ersona- *ro*erty Rule %0 of the Rules of /ourt )rovides that writs of re)levin are issued for the recover of )ersonal )ro)ert onl , Section $ )rovides that u)on the filing of such affidavit and a))roval of the bonds the court shall issue an order and the corres)onding writ of re)levin describing the )ersonal )ro)ert alleged to be wrongfull detained and re4uiring the sheriff forthwith to ta@e such )ro)ert into his custod , . Cac0inery i//ova%-e *ro*erties %y incor*oration The machiner were essential and )rinci)al elements of their chocolate6ma@ing industr , +ence, although each of them was movable or )ersonal )ro)ert on its own, all of them have become Dimmobili:ed b destination because the are essential and )rinci)al elements in the industr ,E The machines are thus, real, not )ersonal, )ro)ert )ursuant to (rticle 4&3 (3) of the /ivil /ode, 4. )arties esto**ed 10en *arties sti*u-ated *ro*erties as *ersona-. *ro*erty t0us su%>ect to 1rit of seiDure /ontracting )arties ma validl sti)ulate that a real )ro)ert be considered as )ersonal, (fter agreeing to such sti)ulation, the are conse4uentl esto))ed from claiming otherwise, 5nder the )rinci)le of esto))el, a )art to a contract is ordinaril )recluded from den ing the truth of an material fact found therein, Thus, said machines are )ro)er subjects of the Grit of Sei:ure (4o90are 7u9a a8 v. ;)4en4)o+. &. ?i/i-ar cases 8n Trinidad v, >icencio, the /ourt u)held the intention of the )arties to treat a house of strong materials as a )ersonal )ro)ert because it had been made the subject of a chattel mortgage, ())l ing Tumalad, the /ourt in .a@ati ;easing and !inance /or), v, Gearever Te2tile .ills also held that the machiner used in a factor and essential to the industr was a )ro)er subject of a writ of re)levin because it was treated as )ersonal )ro)ert in a contract, 6. ;0ird *arties acting in good fait0 not affected %y sti*u-ation to consider rea- *ro*erty as *ersonaThe holding that the machines should be deemed )ersonal )ro)ert )ursuant to the ;ease (greement is good onl insofar as the contracting )arties are concerned, +ence, while the )arties are bound b the (greement, third )ersons acting in good faith are not affected b its sti)ulation characteri:ing the subject machiner as )ersonal, 8n the )resent case, however, there is no showing that an s)ecific third )art would be adversel affected, 8. ;it-e to *ro*erty s0ou-d %e deter/ined at tria-. Re/edies under Ru-e &! eit0er to *ost a counter<%ond or to 5uestion t0e sufficiency of t0e *-aintiff:s %ond The validit and the nature of the contract are the lis mota of the civil action )ending before the RT/, ( resolution of the 4uestions whether the (greement is a loan and not a lease, or whether the (greement is invalid, therefore, is effectivel a resolution of the merits of the case, +ence, the should be threshed out in the trial, not in the )roceedings involving the issuance of the Grit of Sei:ure, (s held in ;a TondeIa Distillers v, /(, the /ourt e2)lained that the )olic under Rule %0 was that 4uestions involving title to the subject )ro)ert should be determined in the trial, 8n that case, the /ourt noted that the remed of defendants under Rule %0 was either to )ost a counter6bond or to 4uestion the sufficienc of the )laintiffBs bond, The were not allowed, however, to invo@e the title to the subject )ro)ert , #. ;it-e to *ro*erty s0ou-d %e deter/ined at tria-. no *-ace in a *etition for certiorari under Ru-e &4 or in a *etition for revie1 under Ru-e 4. The 4uestions whether the (greement is a loan and not a lease, or whether the (greement is invalid re4uire a determination of facts and a )resentation of evidence, both of which have no )lace in a )etition for certiorari in the /( under Rule %3 or in a )etition for review in the /ourt under Rule 43,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1#1 )
1!. Agree/ent *resu/ed to %e va-id and %inding The (greement must be )resumed to be valid and binding as the law between the )arties? as there is nothing on record to show that it has been nullified or annulled, 8n the )resent case, )etitioners assailed it first onl in the RT/ )roceedings, which had ironicall been instituted b res)ondent, (s in the .a@ati ;easing and !inance case, even granting that he charge is true, such fact alone does not render a contract void ab initio, but can onl be a ground for rendering said contract voidable, or annullable )ursuant to (rticle &$*0 of the new /ivil /ode, b a )ro)er action in court, 11. ,onse5uences cannot %e %-a/ed on t0e ,ourt for t0e *etitioners: fai-ure to avai- of re/edies under ?ection 4' Ru-e &! of t0e Ru-es of ,ourt "etitionersB arguments, that the sei:ure will lead to the unem)lo ment of their wor@ers and nullif all efforts to rehabilitate the cor)oration, do not )reclude the im)lementation of the Grit, ;aw and juris)rudence su))ort its )ro)riet , Such conse4uences should not be blamed on this /ourt, but on the )etitioners for failing to avail themselves of the remed under Section 3 of Rule %0, which allows the filing of a counter6bond, [#6] ?i%a- v. 7a-deD [G.R. No. +&+68. August ' 1#+6.] Second Division, Johnson (J): 3 concur $acts( -n && .a &*#$, the de)ut 6sheriff of the "rovince of Tarlac, b virtue of a writ of e2ecution in civil case #0#0$ of the /!8 .anila (.acondra N /o,, 8nc, vs, ;eon Sibal), levied an attachment on ;eon SibalBs 7 )arcels of land for the sum of "4,#'$,*$, # months later, or on $0 Jul &*#$, .acondra N /o,, 8nc,, bought said )arcels of land, at the auction held b the sheriff of the "rovince of Tarlac, Githin & ear from the sale of said )arcels of land, or on #4 Se)tember &*#$, Sibal )aid "#,000 to .acondra for the account of the redem)tion )rice of said )arcels of land, without s)ecif ing which said amount was to be a))lied, The redem)tion )rice of the )arcels was reduced to "#,3'*,*' including interest, -n #* ()ril &*#4, the de)ut sheriff of the "rovince of Tarlac, b virtue of a writ of e2ecution in civil case &$0& of the "rovince of "am)anga (9miliano J, >alde: vs, ;eon Sibal &,_), attached the )ersonal )ro)ert of Sibal located in Tarlac, among which was included the sugar cane in 4uestion in the ' )arcels of land described in the com)laint, +e also attached SibalBs real )ro)ert in Tarlac, including rights, interest and )artici)ation therein, which consists of && )arcels of land and a house and camarin situated in one of said )arcels, -n *6&0 .a &*#4, the de)ut sheriff sold at )ublic auction said )ersonal )ro)erties to 9miliano J, >alde:, who )aid therefor the sum of "&,330, of which "%00 was for the sugar cane, -n #3 June &*#4, 7 of the && )arcels, including the camarin and the house were bought b >alde: at the auction held b the sheriff for the sum of "&#,#00, The $ remaining )arcels were released from attachment b virtue of claims )resented b /a ugan and Ti:on, -n the same date, .acondra sold and conve ed to >alde: for "#,3'*,*' all of its rights and interest in the 7 )arcels of land ac4uired b it in connection with civil case #0#0$ of the /!8 .anila, -n &4 December &*#4, action was commenced in the /!8 of the "rovince of Tarlac, The )laintiff alleged that the de)ut sheriff of Tarlac "rovince attached and sold to >alde: the sugar cane )lanted b the )laintiff and his tenants on ' )arcels of land, and that within & ear from the date of the attachment and sale the )laintiff ordered to redeem said sugar cane and tendered to >alde: the amount sufficient to cover the )rice )aid b the latter, with ta2es and interests, and that >alde: refused to acce)t the mone and return the sugar cane to the )laintiff, (fter hearing and on #7 ()ril &*#%, the judge (;u@ban) rendered judgment in favor of the defendant holding that the sugar cane in 4uestion was )ersonal )ro)ert and, as such, was not subject to redem)tion? among others, +ence, the a))eal,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1#+ )
1. )aragra*0 +' Artic-e "" of t0e ,ivi- ,ode inter*reted %y t0e ;ri%una- ?u*re/o de Bs*ana as t0at gro1ing cro*s /ay %e considered as *ersona- *ro*erty Sugar cane ma come under the classification of real )ro)ert as Dungathered )roductsE in )aragra)h # of article $$4 of the /ivil /ode, which enumerates as real )ro)ert as DTrees, )lants, and ungathered )roducts, while the are anne2ed to the land or form an integral )art of an immovable )ro)ert ,E That article, however, has received in recent ears an inter)retation b the Tribunal Su)remo de 9s)aIa, which holds that, under certain conditions, growing cro)s ma be considered as )ersonal )ro)ert , (Decision of .arch &7, &*04, vol, *', /ivil Juris)rudence of S)ain,) Thus, under S)anish authorities, )ending fruits and ungathered )roducts ma be sold and transferred as )ersonal )ro)ert , (lso, the Su)reme /ourt of S)ain, in a case of ejectment of a lessee of an agricultural land, held that the lessee was entitled to gather the "roducts corres)onding to the agricultural ear because said fruits did not go with the land but belonged se)aratel to the lessee, (nd further, under the S)anish .ortgage ;aw of &*0*, as amended, the mortgage of a )iece of land does not include the fruits and )roducts e2isting thereon, unless the contract e2)ressl )rovides otherwise, +. Canresa ad/its gro1ing cro*s as *ersona- *ro*erty .anresa, the eminent commentator of the S)anish /ivil /ode, in discussing section $$4 of the /ivil /ode, in view of the recent decisions of the Su)reme /ourt of S)ain, admits that growing cro)s are sometimes considered and treated as )ersonal )ro)ert , ". )aragra*0 +' Artic-e " of t0e ,ivi- ,ode corres*onds to Artic-e &4 of t0e ,ivi- ,ode of Louisiana (rticle 4%3 of the /ivil /ode of ;ouisiana, which corres)onds to )aragra)h # of article $$4 of the /ivil /ode, )rovides: DStanding cro)s and the fruits of trees not gathered, and trees before the are cut down, are li@ewise immovable, and are considered as )art of the land to which the are attached,E . Louisiana >uris*rudence( Gro1ing cro*:s /o%i-iDation %y antici*ation Standing cro)s and the fruits of trees not gathered and trees before the are cut down are considered as )art of the land to which the are attached,B but the immovabilit )rovided for is onl one in abstracto and without reference to rights on or to the cro) ac4uired b others than the owners of the )ro)ert to which the cro) is attached, The e2istence of a right on the growing cro) is a mobili:ation b antici)ation, a gathering as it were in advance, rendering the cro) movable 4uoad the right ac4uired therein, Juris)rudence recogni:es the )ossible mobili:ation of the growing cro), (/iti:ensB =an@ vs, Gilt:, $& ;a, (nn,, #44? "orche vs, =odin, #7 ;a, (nn,, '%&? Sandel vs, Douglass, #' ;a, (nn,, %#*? ;ewis vs, Klot:, $* ;a, (nn,, #%',? as cited in ;umber /o, vs, Sheriff and Ta2 /ollector L&0% ;a,, 4&7M, c,f, /iti:enBs =an@ v, Gilt: L$& ;a, (nn,, #44M) 4. Louisiana >uris*rudence( ?tanding cro*s as i//ova%-e or /ova%-e %ased on o1ned and -eased *re/ises. seiDure %y creditors Standing cro)s are considered as immovable and as )art of the land to which the are attached, and the fruits of an immovable gathered or )roduced while it is under sei:ure are considered as ma@ing )art thereof, and inure to the benefit of the )erson ma@ing the sei:ure, =ut the evident meaning of these articles is, where the cro)s belong to the owner of the )lantation, the form )art of the immovable, and where it is sei:ed, the fruits gathered or )roduced inure to the benefit of the sei:ing creditor, ( cro) raised on leased )remises in no sense forms )art of the immovable, 8t belongs to the lessee, and ma be sold b him, whether it be gathered or not, and it ma be sold b his judgment creditors, ("orche vs, =odin L#7 ;a, (n,, '%&M) &. Louisiana >uris*rudence( La1 cannot %e inter*reted resu-t in a%surd conse5uences 8f cro) necessaril forms )art of the leased )remises the result would be that it could not be sold under e2ecution se)arate and a)art from the land, 8f a lessee obtain su))lies to ma@e his cro), the factorBs lien would not attach to the cro) as a se)arate thing belonging to his debtor, but the land belonging to the lessor would be affected with the recorded )rivilege, The law cannot be construed so as to result in such absurd conse4uences,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1#" )
6. A/erican >uris*rudence( gro1ing cro*s %y year-y -a%or and cu-tivation *ersona- *ro*erty The settled doctrine followed in the State of /alifornia and other states in connection with the attachment of )ro)ert and e2ecution of judgment is, that growing cro)s raised b earl labor and cultivation are considered )ersonal )ro)ert , (ll annual cro)s which are raised b earl manurance and labor, and essentiall owe their annual e2istence to cultivation b man, ma be levied on as )ersonal )ro)ert , /ro)s, whether growing or standing in the field read to be harvested, are, when )roduced b annual cultivation, no )art of the realt , The are, therefore, liable to voluntar transfer as chattels, 8t is e4uall well settled that the ma be sei:ed and sold under e2ecution, 8. 7a-id sa-e of a t0ing not yet in e9istence. t0ing /ust %e o1ned %y t0e vendor ( valid sale ma be made of a thing, which though not et actuall in e2istence, is reasonabl certain to come into e2istence as the natural increment or usual incident of something alread in e2istence, and then belonging to the vendor, and the title will vest in the bu er the moment the thing comes into e2istence, (9merson vs, 9uro)ean Railwa /o,, %' .e,, $7'? /utting vs, "ac@ers 92change, #& (m, St, Re),, %$,) The thing sold, however, must be s)ecific and identified, The must be also owned at the time b the vendor, (+ull vs, +ull, 47 /onn,, #30 L40 (m, Re),, &%3M,) #. ?ource of *rovisions on e9ecution of >udg/ent in ,ode of ,ivi- )rocedure (Act 1#!). Gro1ing cro*s are *ersona- *ro*erty Section 430 and most of the other sections of the /ode of /ivil "rocedure relating to the e2ecution of judgments were ta@en from the /ode of /ivil "rocedure of /alifornia, Section 430 of the /ode of /ivil "rocedure enumerates the )ro)ert of a judgment debtor which ma be subjected to e2ecution, and reads as D(ll goods, chattels, mone s, and other )ro)ert , both real and )ersonal, shall be liable to e2ecution,E The Su)reme /ourt of /alifornia, under section %77 of the /ode of /ivil "rocedure of that state, to which the /ode of /ivil "rocedure was )attered, has held, without variation, that growing cro)s were )ersonal )ro)ert and subject to e2ecution, 1!. ,0atte- Cortgage La1 recogniDes gro1ing cro*s as *ersona- *ro*erty (ct &307, the /hattel .ortgage ;aw, full recogni:es that growing cro)s are )ersonal )ro)ert , Section # of said (ct )rovides that D(ll )ersonal )ro)ert shall be subject to mortgage, agreeabl to the )rovisions of this (ct, and a mortgage e2ecuted in )ursuance thereof shall be termed a chattel mortgage,E Section ' in )art )rovides that D8f growing cro)s be mortgaged the mortgage ma contain an agreement sti)ulating that the mortgagor binds himself )ro)erl to tend, care for and )rotect the cro) while growing,E The above )rovisions of (ct &307 were enacted on the assum)tion that Dgrowing cro)sE are )ersonal )ro)ert , 11. )ersona- *ro*erty inc-udes ungat0ered *roducts. )aragra*0 +' Artic-e "" of t0e ,ivi- ,ode /odified %y Act 1#! and 14!8 "aragra)h # of article $$4 of the /ivil /ode has been modified b section 430 of (ct <o, &*0 and b (ct <o, &307 in the sense that Dungathered )roductsE as mentioned in said article of the /ivil /ode have the nature of )ersonal )ro)ert ? or that in the sense that, for the )ur)oses of attachment and e2ecution, and for the )ur)oses of the /hattel .ortgage ;aw, Dungathered )roductsE have the nature of )ersonal )ro)ert , 8n other words, the )hrase D)ersonal )ro)ert E should be understood to include Dungathered )roducts,E 8n the case at bar, the sugar cane in 4uestion was )ersonal )ro)ert and was not subject to redem)tion, 1+. A%sence fro/ tria- and fai-ure to cross<e9a/ine -end 1eig0t to t0e evidence *resented %y t0e ot0er *arty The absence of the )laintiff from the trial and his failure to cross6e2amine the defendant have lent considerable weight to the evidence then )resented for the defense, The court has been inclined to to give more weight to the evidence adduced b him than to the evidence adduced b the )laintiff, with res)ect to the ownershi) of )arcels of land,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1# )
1". Lack of evidence of %ad fait0 in *-anting *a-ay in 5uestioned *arce-s entit-es *-aintiff to N of t0e cro* There being no evidence of bad faith on the )laintiffBs )art, in )lanting the )ala in the dis)uted )arcels of land and harvested therefrom &*0 cavans, he is therefore entitled to one6half of the cro), or *3 cavans, not &*0 cavans as ordered b the lower court, [#8] ?tandard 2i- v. =ara/i--o [G.R. No. +!"+#. Carc0 1&' 1#+".] !irst Division, Street (J): % concur $acts( -n #' <ovember &*##, 1ervasia de la Rosa >da, de >era was the lessee of a )arcel of land situated in the /it of .anila and owner of the house of strong materials built thereon, u)on which date she e2ecuted a document in the form of a chattel mortgage, )ur)orting to conve to Standard -il /om)an of <ew Tor@ b wa of mortgage both the leasehold interest in said lot and the building which stands thereon, (fter said document had been dul ac@nowledged and delivered, Standard -il caused the same to be )resented to Joa4uin Jaramillo, as register of deeds of the /it of .anila, for the )ur)ose of having the same recorded in the boo@ of record of chattel mortgages, 5)on e2amination of the instrument, Jaramillo o)ined that it was not chattel mortgage, for the reason that the interest therein mortgaged did not a))ear to be )ersonal )ro)ert , within the meaning of the /hattel .ortgage ;aw, and registration was refused on this ground onl , The cause was brought to the Su)reme /ourt u)on demurrer inter)osed b Joa4uin Jaramillo, register of deeds of the /it of .anila, to an original )etition of the Standard -il /om)an of <ew Tor@, see@ing a )erem)tor mandamus to com)el the res)ondent to record in the )ro)er register a document )ur)orting to be a chattel mortgage e2ecuted in the /it of .anila b 1ervasia de la Rosa, >da, de >era, in favor of the Standard -il /om)an of <ew Tor@, The Su)reme /ourt overruled the demurrer, and ordered that unless Jaramillo inter)oses a sufficient answer to the )etition for mandamus b Standard -il within 3 da s of notification, the writ would be issued as )ra ed, but without costs, 1. =ara/i--o' register of deeds' does not 0ave >udicia- or 5uasi<>udicia- *o1er to deter/ine nature of docu/ent registered as c0atte- /ortgage Section &*7 of the (dministrative /ode, originall of Section &3 of the /hattel .ortgage ;aw ((ct &307 as amended b (ct #4*%), does not confer u)on the register of deeds an authorit whatever in res)ect to the D4ualification,E as the term is used in S)anish law, of chattel mortgages, +is duties in res)ect to such instruments are ministerial onl , The efficac of the act of recording a chattel mortgage consists in the fact that it o)erates as constructive notice of the e2istence of the contract, and the legal effects of the contract must be discovered in the instrument itself in relation with the fact of notice, Registration adds nothing to the instrument, considered as a source of title, and affects nobod Bs rights e2ce)t as a s)ecies of notice, Thus, it is dut for the register of deed to acce)t the )ro)er fee and )lace the instrument on record, as his duties in res)ect to the registration of chattel mortgages are of a )urel ministerial character? and no )rovision of law can be cited which confers u)on him an judicial or 4uasi6judicial )ower to determine the nature of an document of which registration is sought as a chattel mortgage, 8t ma be noted that in an administrative ruling b James -strand, Judge of the fourth branch of /!8 .anila th (* Judicial District) and later Su)reme /ourt Justice, )rovided the same )osition that the Register of Deeds has no authorit to )ass u)on the ca)acit of the )arties to a chattel mortgage which is )resented to him for record, The issue where the chattel mortgage is held ineffective against third )arties as the mortgaged )ro)ert is real instead of )ersonal is a 4uestion determine b the courts of justice and mot b the register of deeds,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1#4 )
+. Artic-e "" and ""4 of t0e ,ivi- ,ode does not su**-y a%so-ute criterion on distinction %et1een rea- and *ersona- *ro*erty for *ur*ose of t0e a**-ication of t0e ,0atte- Cortgage La1 (rticle $$4 and $$3 of the /ivil /ode su))l no absolute criterion for discriminating between real )ro)ert and )ersonal )ro)ert for )ur)oses of the a))lication of the /hattel .ortgage ;aw, Those articles state rules which, considered as a general doctrine, are law in this jurisdiction? but it must not be forgotten that under given conditions )ro)ert ma have character different from that im)uted to it in said articles, 8t is undeniable that the )arties to a contract ma be agreement treat as )ersonal )ro)ert that which b nature would be real )ro)ert ? and it is a familiar )henomenon to see things classed as real )ro)ert for )ur)oses of ta2ation which on general )rinci)le might be considered )ersonal )ro)ert , -ther situations are constantl arising, and from time to time are )resented to the Su)reme /ourt, in which the )ro)er classification of one thing or another as real or )ersonal )ro)ert ma be said to be doubtful, ". 3ssue 10et0er interest is in nature of rea- *ro*erty not re-evant to t0e issue of *-acing t0e docu/ent on record in ,0atte- Cortgage 8n ;eung Tee vs, !ran@ ;, Strong .achiner /o, and Gilliamson ($' "hil,, %44), the Su)reme /ourt held that where the interest conve ed is of the nature of real )ro)ert , the )lacing of the document on record in the chattel mortgage register is a futile act, That decision is not decisive of the 4uestion before the Su)reme /ourt, which has reference to the function of the register of deeds in )lacing the document on record, [##] 3nvo-untary inso-vency of )au- ?troc0ecker v. Ra/ireD [G.R. No. 186!!. ?e*te/%er +&' 1#++.] !irst Division, Romualde: (J): ' concur $acts( +alf6interest in the business ((ntigua =otica Ramire:) was mortgaged with !idelit N Suret /o, on &0 .arch &*&*, and registered in due time in the registr of )ro)ert , while another mortgage was made with 8ldefonso Ramire: on ## Se)tember &*&* and registered also in the registr , Raised in the lower court, the trial court declared the mortgage of !idelit N Suret /o, entitled to )reference over that of 8ldefonso Ramire: and another mortgage b /once)cion ( ala, ( ala did not a))eal, but Ramire: did, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment a))ealed from with costs against the a))ellant, 1. 3nterest in %usiness /ay %e su%>ect of /ortgage Gith regard to the nature of the )ro)ert mortgaged which is one6half interest in the business, such interest is a )ersonal )ro)ert ca)able of a))ro)riation and not included in the enumeration of real )ro)erties in articles $$3 of the /ivil /ode, and ma be the subject of mortgage, (ll )ersonal )ro)ert ma be mortgaged, (Sec, ', (ct &307,) +. Descri*tion of /ortgage *ro*erty sufficient The descri)tion contained in the document is sufficient, The law (sec, ', (ct &307) re4uires onl a descri)tion of the mortgaged )ro)ert shall be such as to enable the )arties to the mortgage, or an other )erson, after reasonable in4uir and investigation, to identif the same, 8n the case at bar, Dhis half interest in the drug business @nown as (ntigua =otica Ramire:, located at /alle Real <os, &#$ and &#3, District of 8ntramuros, .anila "hili))ine 8slandsE is sufficient, ". Artic-e 1#++ (1<") of t0e ,ivi- ,ode a**-ica%-e on-y to /ortgage *ro*erty in *ossession <umbers &, #, and $ of the article &*## of the /ivil /ode are not a))licable as neither the debtor, nor himself, is in )ossession of the )ro)ert mortgaged, which is, and since the registration of the mortgage has been, legall in )ossession of the suret com)an (Sec, 4, (ct, &307? .e ers vs, Thein, &3 "hil,, $0$)
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1#& )
. ?ti*u-ation a%out *ersona- *ro*erty not a /ortgage u*on *ro*erty 8n no wa can the mortgage e2ecuted be given effect as of the date of the sale of the store in 4uestion? as there was a mere sti)ulation about )ersonal securit during said date, but not a mortgage u)on )ro)ert , and much less u)on the )ro)ert in 4uestion, [1!!] ;an Gueto v. ,A [G.R. No. L<"4& 8. $e%ruary +6' 1#86.]. Reso-ution 9n =anc, "aras (J): &0 concur, & votes to den reconsideration, & dissents, # too@ no )art $acts( Restituta Tagalinar 1uangco de "ombuena received the 4uestioned lot (;ot $046= of the /adastre Surve of the .unici)alit of /entro, .isamis -ccidental) either as a )ur)orted donation or b wa of )urchase on && !ebruar &*#' for "30,00 as the alleged consideration thereof, The transaction too@ )lace during her motherBs lifetime (her father having )redeceased the mother) and consummated while Restituta was alread married to her husband Juan "ombuena, -n ## Januar &*$3, Juan filed an a))lication of Torrens title over the land for himself and his su))osed co6owner Restituta, -n ## <ovember &*$7, a decision was )romulgated (1;R/ &%$7, /adastral /ase &#) )ronouncing Juan (married to Restituto) as the owner of the land, -n ## Se)tember &*4* a contract of lease over the lot was entered into between "ershing Tan Fueto and Restituta (with the consent of her husband) for a )eriod of &0 ears, .eanwhile, -n #' December &*%0 Restituta sued Tan Fueto for unlawful detainer (the lease contract having e2)ired) before the .unici)al /ourt of -:amis /it , -n ## ()ril &*%#, as a conse4uence of the cadastral case, an -/T was issued in JuanBs name, -n &0 -ctober &*%#, Tan Fueto and Juan entered into a barter agreement whereb Tan Fueto became the owner of the dis)uted lot, and the s)ouses in turn became the owners of a )arcel of land with the house constructed thereon )reviousl owned (that is, before the barter) b Tan Fueto, Thereafter, Tan Fueto constructed on the dis)uted land a concrete building, without an objection on the )art of Restituta, The .unici)al court ruled in favor of the s)ouses in the unlawful detainer case? but on a))eal in the /!8, the entire case was dismissed because of an understanding (barter) entered into b Juan and Tan Fueto, Restituta sued both Juan and Tan Fueto for reconve ance of the title over the registered but dis)uted lot, for annulment of the barter, and for recover of the land with damages, The /!8 and the /ourt of ())eals found the dis)uted lot as )ara)hernal and that Tan Fueto was a builder in bad faith, These findings were regarded b the Su)reme /ourt as findings of facts and thus ordinaril conclusive u)on the /ourt, Tan Fueto filed for a motion for reconsideration of the Su)reme /ourt decision dated &% .a &*7$, The Su)reme /ourt set aside its decision )romulgated on &% .a &*7$, and rendered a new one declaring the 4uestioned lot together with the building thereon, as Tan FuetoBs e2clusive )ro)ert ? without costs, 1. $indings of t0e -o1er courts ordinary conc-usive u*on t0e ,ourt. e9ce*tion' if erroneous The findings of the /ourt of !irst 8nstance and the /ourt of ())eals were regarded b the Su)reme /ourt as findings of facts and thus ordinaril conclusive u)on the /ourt, (ssuming the are factual findings, still if the are erroneous inferences from certain facts, the cannot bind the /ourt, +. Land not transferred to Restituta %y donation' for it to %e *ara*0ernaThe oral donation of the lot cannot be a valid donation inter6vivos because it was not e2ecuted in a )ublic instrument ((rt, '4*, /ivil /ode), nor as a valid donation mortis causa for the formalities of a will were not com)lied with, The allegation that the transfer was a conve ance to Restituta of her hereditar share in the estate of her mother (or )arents) cannot be sustained for the contractual transmission of future inheritance is
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1#6 )
generall )rohibited, ". Land is con>uga-' not *ara*0erna-. 21ners0i* %y tradition The land is conjugal, not )ara)hernal, -wnershi) was ac4uired b the s)ouses b tradition (deliver ) as a conse4uence of the contract of sale (See (rt, '&#, /ivil /ode) with "30,00 (then a considerable amount) as the cause or consideration of the transaction, The lot is therefore conjugal, having been ac4uired b the s)ouses thru onerous title (the mone used being )resumabl conjugal, there being no )roof that Restituta had )ara)hernal funds of her own), . ?a-e not fictitious nor si/u-ated. A--egation of si/u-ation cannot *re>udice a stranger The sale cannot be said to be fictitious or simulated (and therefore void) as there was a valid consideration therefor, (ssuming that there had indeed been a simulation, the )arties thereto cannot use said simulation to )rejudice a stranger to said strategem (li@e )etitioner herein), 4. ;an Gueto recogniDed Restituta as an o1ner' not t0e o1ner Tan Fueto admitted Restituta was Dan ownerE (not the owner) of the lot in his (nswer, and this is true, for she was a co6owner (with Juan, and therefore Dan owner,E) There is no admission of RestitutaBs e2clusive ownershi), &. Assu/ing ;an Gueto recogniDed Restituta as t0e o1ner. %ad fait0 of one neutra-iDes t0e %ad fait0 of t0e ot0er 9ven assuming that des)ite registration of the lot as conjugal, Tan Fueto nursed the belief that the lot was actuall RestitutaBs (ma@ing him in bad faith), still RestitutaBs failure to )rohibit him from building des)ite her @nowledge that construction was actuall being done, ma@es her also in bad faith, The net resultant of mutual bad faith would entitle Tan F eto to the rights of a builder in good faith ((rt, 447, /ivil /ode), ergo, reimbursement should be given him if Restituta decides to a))ro)riate the building for herself ((rt, 447, /ivil /ode), 6. ;an Gueto an o1ner<*ossessor Tan Fueto having bartered his own lot and small house with the 4uestioned lot with Juan (who has been adverted to b a court decision and b the -/T a conjugal owner) ma be said to be the owner6)ossessor of the lot, /ertainl he is not merel a )ossessor or builder in good faith (this )hrase )resu))oses ownershi) in another)? much less is he a builder in bad faith, +e is a builder6)ossessor (jus )ossidendi) because he is the owner himself, 8. =us *ossessionis' >us *ossidendi. good fait0 and %ad fait0 The /ha)ter on "ossession (jus )ossessionis, not jus )ossidendi) in the /ivil /ode refers to a )ossessor other than the owner, The difference between a builder (or )ossessor) in good faith and one in bad faith is that the former is not aware of the defect or flaw in his title or mode of ac4uisition while the latter is aware of such defect or flaw ((rt, 3#%, /ivil /ode), =ut in either case there is a flaw or defect, 8n the )resent case, there is no such flaw or defect because it is Tan Fueto himself (not somebod else) who is the owner of the )ro)ert , [1!1] ;u/a-ad v. 7icencio [G.R. No. L<"!16". ?e*te/%er "!' 1#61.] 9n =anc, Re es J=; (J): &0 concur $acts( -n & Se)tember &*33 >icencio and Simeon, defendants6a))ellants, e2ecuted a chattel mortgage in favor of the Tumalads, )laintiff6a))ellees over their house of strong materials located at 330 8nt, $, Fue:on =oulevard, Fuia)o, .anila, over ;ot %6= and '6=, =loc@ #334, which were being rented from .adrigal N /om)an , 8nc, The mortgage was registered in the Registr of Deeds of .anila on # Se)tember &*33, The
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1#8 )
mortgage was e2ecuted to guarantee a loan of "4,700,00 received from the Tumalads, )a able within one ear at &#C )er annum, The mode of )a ment was "&30,00 monthl , starting Se)tember, &*33, u) to Jul &*3%, and the lum) sum of "$,&30 was )a able on or before (ugust, &*3%, 8t was also agreed that default in the )a ment of an of the amorti:ations would cause the remaining un)aid balance to become immediatel due and )a able, the /hattel .ortgage enforceable, and the Sheriff of .anila authori:ed the .ortgagorBs )ro)ert after necessar )ublication, Ghen >icencio and Simeon defaulted in )a ing, the mortgage was e2trajudiciall foreclosed, and on #' .arch &*3%, the house was sold at )ublic auction )ursuant to the said contract, (s highest bidder, the Tumalads were issued the corres)onding certificate of sale, -n &7 ()ril &*3%, the Tumalads commenced /ivil /ase 4$0'$ in the munici)al court of .anila, )ra ing, among other things, that the house be vacated and its )ossession surrendered to them, and for >icencio and Simeon to )a rent of "#00,00 monthl from #' .arch &*3% u) to the time the )ossession is surrendered, -n #& Se)tember &*3%, the munici)al court rendered its decision in favor of the Tumalads, +aving lost therein, a))ealed to the court a 4uo (/ivil /ase $0**$) which also rendered a decision against them, -n a))eal, the case was certified to the Su)reme /ourt b the /ourt of ())eals (/(61,R, <o, #'7#46R) for the reason that onl 4uestions of law are involved, "laintiffs6a))ellees failed to file a brief and this a))eal was submitted for decision without it, <earl a ear after the foreclosure sale the mortgaged house had been demolished on &4 and &3 Januar &*3' b virtue of a decision obtained b the lessor of the land on which the house stood, The Su)reme /ourt reversed the decision a))ealed from and entered another dismissing the com)laint, with costs against )laintiffs6a))ellees, 1. Ans1er a /ere state/ent and not evidence. A--egations or aver/ents deter/ines >urisdiction 8t has been held in Su)ia and =atiaco vs, Fuintero and ( ala that Dthe answer is a mere statement of the facts which the )art filing it e2)ects to )rove, but it is not evidence? and further, that when the 4uestion to be determined is one of title, the /ourt is given the authorit to )roceed with the hearing of the cause until this fact is clearl established, 8n the case of S vs, Dalman, wherein the defendant was also a successful bidder in an auction sale, it was li@ewise held b the /ourt that in detainer cases the claim of ownershi) Dis a matter of defense and raises an issue of fact which should be determined from the evidence at the trial,E Ghat determines jurisdiction are the allegations or averments in the com)laint and the relief as@ed for, #, $raud and deceit renders a contract voida%-e or annu--a%-e' and not void a% initio. ,-ai/ of o1ners0i* %y virtue of voida%-e contract fai-s 1it0out evidence t0at ste*s 1ere /ade to annu- t0e sa/e !raud or deceit does not render a contract void ab initio, and can onl be a ground for rendering the contract voidable or annullable )ursuant to (rticle &$*0 of the <ew /ivil /ode, b a )ro)er action in court, 8n the )resent case, the charge of fraud, deceit or tric@er , the conterntions are not su))orted b evidence, !urther, there is nothing on record to show that the mortgage has been annulled, <either is it disclosed that ste)s were ta@en to nullif the same, +ence, defendants6a))ellantsB claim of ownershi) on the basis of a voidable contract which has not been voided fails, ". Bui-dings as i//ova%-e The rule about the status of buildings as immovable )ro)ert is stated in ;o)e: vs, -rosa, Jr, and "la:a Theatre, 8nc,, cited in (ssociated 8nsurance Suret /o,, 8nc, vs, 8 a, et al, &% to the effect that the inclusion of the building, se)arate and distinct from the land, in the enumeration of what ma constitute real )ro)erties (art, 4&3, <ew /ivil /ode) could onl mean one thing that a building is b itself an immovable )ro)ert irres)ective of whether or not said structure and the land on which it is adhered to belong to the same owner, . Deviations a--o1ed' *arties: treat/ent of rea- *ro*erty as *ersona- *ro*erty. cases /ertain deviations, however, have been allowed for various reasons, 8n the case of .anarang and Manarang
)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1## )
vs. 9filada, it was held that Dit is undeniable that the )arties to a contract ma b agreement treat as )ersonal )ro)ert that which b ,nature would be real )ro)ert E, citing Standard 9il Co&pany of $e+ ;or6 vs. 1ara&illo, 8n the latter case, the mortgagor conve ed and transferred to the mortgagee b wa of mortgage Dthe following described )ersonal )ro)ert ,E The D)ersonal )ro)ert E consisted of leasehold rights and a building, 8n the case of Luna vs. 'ncarnacion, the subject of the contract designated as /hattel .ortgage was a house of mi2ed materials, and the /ourt held therein that it was a valid /hattel mortgage because it was so e2)ressl designated and s)ecificall that the )ro)ert given as securit Dis a house of mi2ed materials, which b its ver nature is considered )ersonal )ro)ert ,E 8n $avarro vs. *ineda, the /ourt stated that the view that )arties to a deed of chattel mortgage ma agree to consider a house as )ersonal )ro)ert for the )ur)oses of said contract, Jis good onl insofar as the contracting )arties are concerned, 8t is based, )artl , u)on the )rinci)le of esto))elB ('vangelista vs. Alto Surety), 8n a case, a mortgaged house built on a rented land was held to be a )ersonal )ro)ert , not onl because the deed of mortgage considered it as such, but also because it did not form )art of the land, for it is now settled that an object )laced on land b one who had onl a tem)orar right to the same, such as the lessee or usufructuar , does not become immobili:ed b attachment (@aldez vs. Central Altagracia, 4)(e8 )n Davao Sa+&ill vs. Castillo), +ence, if a house belonging to a )erson stands on a rented land belonging to another )erson, it ma be mortgaged as a )ersonal )ro)ert as so sti)ulated in the document of mortgage, 8t should be noted, however that the )rinci)le is )redicated on statements b the owner declaring his house to be a chattel, a conduct that ma conceivabl esto) him from subse4uentl claiming otherwise, (Ladera vs. C.$. !odges), 4. House treated %y *arties as c0atte-. factors to deter/ine 8n the contract, the house on rented land is not onl e2)ressl designated as /hattel .ortgage? it s)ecificall )rovides that Dthe mortgagor voluntaril cedes, sells and transfers b wa of /hattel .ortgage the )ro)ert together with its leasehold rights over the lot on which it is constructed and )artici)ation?E whcih could onl have meant to conve the house as chattel, or at least, intended to treat the same as such, so that the should not now be allowed to ma@e an inconsistent stand b claiming otherwise, .oreover, the subject house stood on a rented lot to which defendants6a))ellants merel had a tem)orar right as lessee, and although this can not in itself alone determine the status of the )ro)ert , it does so when combined with other factors to sustain the inter)retation that the )arties, )articularl the mortgagors, intended to treat the house as )ersonalit , 1!. Bsto**e-. )arty in c0atte- /ortgage cannot 5uestion va-idity of c0atte- /ortgage entered into 8nli@e in the 8 a cases, ;o)e: vs, -rosa, Jr, and "la:a Theatreand ;eung Tee vs, !, ;, Strong .achiner and Gilliamson, wherein third )ersons assailed the validit of the chattel mortgage, it is the defendants6a))ellants themselves, as debtors6mortgagors, who are attac@ing the validit of the chattel mortgage in this case, The doctrine of esto))el therefore a))lies to the herein defendants6a))ellants, having treated the subject house as )ersonalt , 11. ,0atte- /ortgage covered %y Act 14!8' ,0atte- Cortgage La1 /hattel mortgages are covered and regulated b the /hattel .ortgage ;aw, (ct &307, Section &4 of this (ct allows the mortgagee to have the )ro)ert mortgaged sold at )ublic auction through a )ublic officer in almost the same manner as that allowed b (ct $&$3, as amended b (ct 4&&7, )rovided that the re4uirements of the law relative to notice and registration are com)lied with, 8n the )resent case, the )arties s)ecificall sti)ulated that Dthe chattel mortgage will be enforceable in accordance with the )rovisions of S)ecial (ct $&$3, 1+. Cortgagors entit-ed to re/ain in *ossession 1it0out rent 1it0in rede/*tion *eriod <earl a ear after the foreclosure sale the mortgaged house had been demolished on &4 and &3 Januar &*3' b virtue of a decision obtained b the lessor of the land on which the house stood, The /!8 sentenced the mortgagors to )a a monthl rent of "#00,00 from the time the chattel mortgage was foreclosed until when it was torn down b the sheriff, The /ourt ruled that the mortgagors were entitled to remain in )ossession without an obligation to )a rent during the one ear redem)tion )eriod after the foreclosure sale, Section % of (ct $&$3 )rovides that the debtor6mortgagor ma , at an time within one ear from and after the date of the
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +!! )
auction sale, redeem the )ro)ert sold at the e2tra judicial foreclosure sale, Section ' of the same (ct allows the )urchaser of the )ro)ert to obtain from the court the )ossession during the )eriod of redem)tion: but the same )rovision e2)ressl re4uires the filing of a )etition with the )ro)er /!8 and the furnishing of a bond, 8t is onl u)on filing of the )ro)er motion and the a))roval of the corres)onding bond that the order for a writ of )ossession issues as a matter of course, <o discretion is left to the court, 8n the absence of such a com)liance, as in the instant case, the )urchaser can not claim )ossession during the )eriod of redem)tion as a matter of right, 8n such a case, the governing )rovision is Section $4, Rule $*, of the Revised Rules of /ourt which also a))lies to )ro)erties )urchased in e2trajudicial foreclosure )roceedings, 1". Renta-s received during rede/*tion *eriod credited to rede/*tion *rice =efore the e2)iration of the &6 ear )eriod within which the judgment6debtor or mortgagor ma redeem the )ro)ert , the )urchaser thereof is not entitled, as a matter of right, to )ossession of the same, Thus, while it is true that the Rules of /ourt allow the )urchaser to receive the rentals if the )urchased )ro)ert is occu)ied b tenants, he is, nevertheless, accountable to the judgment6debtor or mortgagor as the case ma be, for the amount so received and the same will be dul credited against the redem)tion )rice when the said debtor or mortgagor effects the redem)tion, Differentl stated, the rentals receivable from tenants, although the ma be collected b the )urchaser during the redem)tion )eriod, do not belong to the latter but still )ertain to the debtor of mortgagor, The rationale for the Rule, it seems, is to secure for the benefit of the debtor or mortgagor, the )a ment of the redem)tion amount and the conse4uent return to him of his )ro)erties sold at )ublic auction, (Re es vs, +amada, reiterating /han v, 9s)e) 1 . ,ase *re/ature-y fi-ed The )eriod of redem)tion had not et e2)ired when action was instituted in the court of origin, and that )laintiffs6a))ellees did not choose to ta@e )ossession under Section ', (ct $&$3, as amended, which is the law selected b the )arties to govern the e2trajudicial foreclosure of the chattel mortgage, <either was there an allegation to that effect, Since )laintiffs6a))elleesB right to )ossess was not et born at the filing of the com)laint, there could be no violation or breach thereof, Gherefore, the original com)laint stated no cause of action and was )rematurel filed, 14. ,ourt:s aut0ority to revie1 errors not assigned 9ven if there was no assignment of error to that effect, the Su)reme /ourt is clothed with am)le authorit to review )al)able errors not assigned as such if it finds that their consideration is necessar in arriving at a just decision of the case, [1!+] F? v. ,ar-os [G.R. No. &+#4. ?e*te/%er 1' 1#11.] 9n =anc, )er curiam: 4 concur, $acts( 8gnacio /arlos has been a consumer of electricit furnished b the .anila 9lectric Railroad and ;ight /om)an for a building containing the residence of the accused and $ other residences, -n &3 .arch &*0*, re)resentatives of the com)an , believing that more light is consumed than what is shown in the meter, installed an additional meter on a )ole outside /arlosB house to com)are actual consum)tion (#,300 @ilowatts against #$$ @ilowatts), .ar@s on the insulation of the meter )oints to the use of Djum)er,E !urther, the consum)tion registered in the inside meter is not the reasonable amount for the number of lights installed in /arlosB building, -n the strength of a search warrant dul served b a )olice officer, a Djum)erE was found in a drawer of a small cabinet in the room of the defendantBs house were the meter was installed, 8n the absence of an e2)lanation for /arlosB )ossession of said device, the )resum)tion raised was that /arlos was the owner of the device whose onl use was to deflect the current from the meter, Thus, it was deduced that from &$ !ebruar , &*0* and until $ .arch &*&0, /arlos was found to have ta@en
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +!1 )
#,#'$ @ilowatts of electric current, worth "*0*,#0, the electricit being the )ro)ert of the .anila 9lectric Railroad and ;ight /om)an , a cor)oration doing business in the "hili))ine 8slands, without the consent of the owner thereof, Thus, he was charged with the crime of theft, ( warrant for the arrest of /arlos was issued b Judge Jen@ins on 4 .arch and )laced in the hands of the sheriff, The sheriffBs return shows that the defendant gave bond for his a))earance, -n &4 .arch, the counsel for the defendant demurred to the com)laint claiming the court has no jurisdiction over the )erson of the accused, and that the facts do not constitute a )ublic offense, The demurrer was overruled, and as defendant refused to )lead, a )lea of not guilt was entered for him, (fter due trial, /arlos was found guilt and was sentenced to & ear, 7 months and #& da s in )rison, and was ordered to indemnif .anila 9lectric Railroad and ;ight com)an in the sum of "7%3,#% with subsidiar im)risonment in case of insolvenc ? and to )a the costs, !rom this judgment, defendant a))ealed, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment a))ealed from? with costs against the a))ellant, 1. F? v. Grant and Mennedy. overru-e of de/urrer on issue invo-ving a--eged -ack of *re-i/inary investigation The 4uestion whether Dthe court erred in overruling the objection of the accused to the jurisdiction of the court, because he was not given a )reliminar investigation as re4uired b law, and in overruling his demurrerE is the same as was raised in 5S v, 1rant and Kenned (&7 "hil &##), where after a thorough e2amination and due consideration, decided adversel to a))ellantBs contention, <o sufficient reason is )resented wh the /ourt should not follow the doctrine enunciated in that case, +. Rig0t of o1ners0i* of e-ectric current secured %y artic-e 416<418 of t0e )ena- ,ode The right of ownershi) of electric current is secured b articles 3&' and 3&7 of the "enal /ode? the a))lication of these articles in cases of substraction of gas, a fluid used for lighting, and in some res)ects resembling electricit , is confirmed b the rule laid down in the decisions of the su)reme court of S)ain Januar #0, &77', and ()ril &, &7*', construing and enforcing the )rovisions of articles 3$0 and 3$& of the )enal code of that countr , articles identical with articles 3&' and 3&7 of the code in forceE in the "hili))ines (5S v, 1enato), ". ;est of *ro*er su%>ect of -arceny The true test of what is a )ro)er subject of larcen seems to be not whether the subject is cor)oreal or incor)oreal, but whether it is ca)able of a))ro)riation b another than the owner, 8t is true that electricit is no longer, as formerl , regarded b electricians as a fluid, but its manifestations and effects, li@e those of gas, ma be seen and felt, There is nothing in the nature of gas used for illuminating )ur)oses which renders it inca)able of being feloniousl ta@en and carried awa , 8t is a valuable article of merchandise, bought and sold li@e other )ersonal )ro)ert , susce)tible of being severed from a mass or larger 4uantit , and of being trans)orted from )lace to )lace (Co99on@ea (/ v. 5/a@+. 9lectricit , the same as gas, is a valuable article of merchandise, bought and sold li@e other )ersonal )ro)ert and is ca)able of a))ro)riation b another, . 3--u/inating gas su%>ect of -arceny even in t0e a%sence of statute !urther, it is well6settled that illuminating gas ma be the subject of larcen , even in the absence of a statute so )roviding, (,e4)!)on! o2 !u0re9e 4our( o2 50a)n, 3anuary 20, 1%%7. an8 A0r) 1, 1%97, !u0ra& a !o (Bng an8+ Oueen v!. F)r(/, ". R. 1 C. C., 172, 11 Co6 C. C., 2*$& Oueen v!. M/)(e, * C. E >., *6*, 6 Co6 C. C., 21*& Moo8! v!. .eo0 e, 222 I ., 29*, 7 ". R. A., 520& Co99on@ea (/ v!. 5/a@, $ A en ('a!!.+, *0%& 5(a(e v!. Me 9an, *$ ')nn., 221, N. M. Re0., *%5, an8 25 Cy4., 0. 12, no(e 10.+ 4. No consent %y co/*any for defendant to /isa**ro*riate e-ectricity The com)an had a contract with the defendant to furnish him with current for lighting )ur)oses, 8t could not sto) the misa))ro)riation without cutting off the current entirel , 8t could not reduce the current so as to just furnish sufficient for the lighting of two, three, or five lights, as claimed b the defendant that he used during
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +!+ )
the most of this times but the current must alwa s be sufficientl strong to furnish current for the thirt lights, at an time the defendant desired to use them, There is no indication that the com)an wished the electricit to be ta@en, and no @nowledge b the defendant that the com)an wished him to ta@e the current, and no mutual understanding between the com)an and the defendant, and no measures of inducement of an @ind were em)lo ed b the com)an for the )ur)ose of leading the defendant into tem)tation, and no )reconcert whatever between him and the com)an : The original design to misa))ro)riate this current was formed b the defendant absolutel inde)endent of an acts on the )art of the com)an or its agents, &. ,onso-idation of co/*-aint covering a *eriod %eneficia-' rat0er t0an *re>udicia- to t0e defendant <one of the essential rights of the defendant were shown to have been )rejudiced b reason of the fact that the com)laint covered the entire )eriod, 8f twelve distinct and se)arate com)laints had been filed against the defendant, one for each month, the sum total of the )enalties im)osed might have been ver much greater than that im)osed b the court in this case, The covering of the entire )eriod b one charge has been beneficial, if an thing, and not )rejudicial to the rights of the defendant, The electricit was stolen from the same )erson, in the same manner, and in the same )lace, 8t was substantiall one continuous act, although the Djum)erE might have been removed and re)laced dail or monthl , 6. ,ontinuous act. Ana-ogy of a *erson stea-ing gas %y /eans of a *i*e ( )erson stole gas for the use of a manufactor b means of a )i)e, which drew off the gas from the main without allowing it to )ass through the meter, The gas from this )i)e was burnt ever da , and turned off at night, The )i)e was never closed at its junction with the main, and conse4uentl alwa s remained full of gas, 8t was held, that if the )i)e alwa s remained full, there was, in fact, a continuous ta@ing of the gas and not a series of se)arate ta@ings, 8t was held also that even if the )i)e had not been @e)t full, the ta@ing would have been continuous, as it was substantiall all one transaction,E (Reg)na v!. F)r(/, ". R., 1 C. C., 172& 11 Co6 C. C., 2*$. C)(e8 on 0. 75% o2 M/ar(onL! Cr)9)na #"a@, vo . 1, 10(/ e8.+ [1!"] F? v. ;a/%unting [G.R. No. 1&41". =anuary 18' 1#+1.] 9n =anc, Street (J): 4 concur $acts( -n Januar &*&7, .anuel Tambunting and his wife became occu)ants of the u))er floor of the house situated at 44$, /alle 9vangelista, .anila, 8n this house the .anila 1as /or)oration had )reviousl installed a))aratus for the deliver of gas on both the u))er and lower floors, consisting of the necessar )i)ing and a gas meter, which last mentioned a))aratus was installed below, Ghen the occu)ants at whose re4uest this installation had been made vacated the )remises, the gas com)an disconnected the gas )i)e and removed the meter, thus cutting off the su))l of gas from said )remises, 5)on # June &*&*, one of the ins)ectors of the gas com)an visited the house in 4uestion, while .anuel Tambunting was not home, and found that gas was being used, without the @nowledge and consent of the gas com)an , for coo@ing in the 4uarters occu)ied b the Tambuntings, 5)on arrival, Tambunting admitted that he was using gas without @nowledge of the com)an for #6$ months but denied ma@ing the connection where the meter used to be installed, =efore the institution of the case in the /!8, the accused had been unsuccessfull )rosecuted for an infraction of section 304 of the Revised -rdinances of the cit of .anila, under a com)laint charging that the accused, not being a registered installer of gas e4ui)ment, had )laced a gas installation in the house at 44$, /alle 9vangelista, ;ater, the gas com)an sued .anuel Tambunting at the /!8 .anila? which later found the accused guilt of stealing a 4uantit of gas belonging to the .anila 1as /or)oration, and sentencing him to undergo im)risonment for # months and & da (arresto ma or) with the accessories )rescribed b law? to indemnif
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +!" )
the said cor)oration in the sum of "#, with subsidiar im)risonment in case of insolvenc ? and to )a the costs, Tambunting a))ealed, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment with modification, it being understood that the amount of the indemnit which the accused shall )a to the gas com)an is "4, instead of "#, with subsidiar im)risonment for one da in case of insolvenc ? with costs against the a))ellant, 1. Rig0t of o1ners0i* of e-ectric current' gas' f-uid used for -ig0ting The right of the ownershi) of electric current is secured b articles 3&' and 3&7 of the "enal /ode? the a))lication of these articles in cases of substraction of gas, a fluid used for lighting, and in some res)ects resembling electricit , is confirmed b the rule laid down in the decisions of the su)reme court of S)ain of Januar #0, &77', and ()ril &, &7*', construing and enforcing the )rovisions of articles 3$0 and 3$& of the "enal /ode of S)ain, articles identical with above articles 3&' and 3&7, These e2)ressions were used in a case which involved the substraction and a))ro)riation of electrical energ and the court held, in accordance with the analog of the case involving the theft of gas, that electrical energ could also be the subject of theft (!ee -5 v. Gena(o, 15 ./) ., 170, 175& -5 v. Car o!, 21 ./) ., 55*+ +. Land/ark case as to issue 10et0er taking of gas constitute -arceny The ta@ing of gas ma constitute larcen has never before been the subject of adjudication in the Su)reme /ourt, but the decisions of S)anish, 9nglish, and (merican courts all answer the 4uestion in the affirmative, (See 5S vs, /arlos, #& "hil,, 33$, 3%0,) ". Gas 0as c0aracter of *ersona- *ro*erty' and /ay %e su%>ect of -arceny There is nothing in the nature of gas used for illuminating )ur)oses which renders it inca)able of being feloniousl ta@en and carried awa , 8t is a valuable article of merchandise, bought and sold li@e other )ersonal )ro)ert , susce)tible of being severed from a mass or larger 4uantit and of being trans)orted from )lace to )lace, ;i@ewise water which is confined in )i)es and electricit which is conve ed b wires are subjects of larcen (Ruling /ase ;aw, >ol, &', ), $4), . =ustification of t0e )+ *er /ont0 c0arge The court was justified in fi2ing the value of the gas at "# )er month, which is the minimum charge for gas made b the gas com)an , however small the amount consumed, "resumabl , no )erson desiring to use gas at all for domestic )ur)oses can )urchase the commodit at a lower rate )er month than "#, There was evidence, however, before the court showing that the general average of the monthl bills )aid b consumers throughout the cit for the use of gas in a @itchen e4ui))ed li@e that used b the accused is from "&7 to "#0, while the average minimum is about "7 )er month, Ge thin@ that the facts above stated are com)etent evidence? and the conclusion is inevitable that the accused is at least liable to the e2tent of the minimum charge of "# )er month, (bsolute certaint as to the full amount ta@en is of course im)ossible, because no meter was used? but absolute certaint u)on this )oint is not necessar , when it is certain that the minimum that could have been ta@en was worth a determinable amount, 4. Ac5uitta- in *rosecution for vio-ation of city ordinance not %ar to *rosecution for sa/e offense under t0e genera- -a1 of t0e -and (c4uittal of the charge of illegal gas installation in violation of Section 304 of the Revised -rdinances of .anila does not bar his )rosecution for the offense of theft, since the two offenses are of totall distinct nature, !urthermore, a )rosecution for violation of a cit ordinance is not ordinaril a bar to a subse4uent )rosecution for the same offense under the general law of the land, (5S vs, 1arcia 1avieres, &0 "hil,, %*4,) [1! ] 7da. De NaDareno v. ,A [G.R. No. #8! 4. =une +&' 1##&.]
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +! )
Second Division, Romero (J): 4 concur $acts( ( )arcel of land situated in Telegra)o, "untod, /aga an de -ro /it is said to have been formed as a result of sawdust dum)ed into the dried6u) =alacanas /ree@ and along the ban@s of the /aga an river, Sometime in &*'*, Jose Salasalan and ;eo Raba a leased the subject lots on which their houses stood from one (ntonio <a:areno, )etitionersB )redecessor6in6interest, 8n the latter )art of &*7#, Salasalan and Raba a allegedl sto))ed )a ing rentals, (s a result, (ntonio <a:areno and )etitioners filed a case for ejectment with the .T/ /aga an de -ro /it , =ranch 4, ( decision was rendered against Salasalan and Raba a, which decision was affirmed b the RT/ .isamis -riental, =ranch #0, The case was remanded to the .unici)al trial court for e2ecution of judgment after the same became final and e2ecutor , "rivate res)ondents filed a case for annulment of judgment before the RT/ .isamis -riental, =ranch #4 and subse4uentl , a case for certiorari for restraining order andAor writ of )reliminar injunction with the RT/ of .isamis -riental, =ranch #3? both of which were dismissed, The decision of the lower court was finall enforced with the )rivate res)ondents being ejected from )ortions of the subject lots the occu)ied, =efore he died, (ntonio <a:areno caused the a))roval b the =ureau of ;ands of the surve )lan designated as "lan /sd6&0%6003'& with a view to )erfecting his title over the accretion area being claimed b him, =efore the a))roved surve )lan could be released to the a))licant, however, it was )rotested b )rivate res)ondents before the =ureau of ;ands, The re)ort of the ;and 8nvestigator, made in com)liance with the order of the District ;and -fficer, recommended the Surve "lan .S86&060%60003'&6D (;ot $%$0#, /ad, #$') in the name of (ntonio <a:areno be cancelled and that )rivate res)ondents be directed to file a))ro)riate )ublic a))lication, =ased on the re)ort, the Regional Director of the =ureau of ;ands rendered a decision ordering an amendment to the surve )lain of <a:areno b segregating therefrom the areas occu)ied b the )rivate res)ondents, (ntonio <a:areno filed a motion for reconsideration with the 5ndersecretar of <atural Resources and -8/ of the =ureau of ;ands? which was denied, The )etitioners Desam)arada vda, De <a:areno and ;eticia Ta)ia <a:ero filed a case before the RT/, branch ##, for the annulment of the verification, re)ort and recommendation, decision and order of the =ureau of ;ands regarding the )arcel of land, The RT/ dismissed the com)laint for failure to e2haust administrative remedies, resulting to the finalit of the administrative decision of the =ureau of ;ands, -n a))eal, the /ourt of ())eals affirmed the decision of the RT/ dismissing the com)laint, +ence, the )etition, The Su)reme /ourt dismissed the )etition for lac@ of merit, 1. Accretion %e-ongs to t0e ri*arian o1ners. re5uisites (rticle 43' of the /ivil /ode )rovides that Dto the owners of land adjoining the ban@s of rivers belong the accretion which the graduall receive from the effects of the current of the waters,E 8n the case of Meneses v. CA, it was held that accretion, as a mode of ac4uiring )ro)ert under (rticle 43' of the /ivil /ode, re4uires the concurrence of these re4uisites: (&) that the de)osition of soil or sediment be gradual and im)erce)tible? (#) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river (or sea)? and ($) that the land where accretion ta@es )lace is adjacent to the ban@s or rivers (or the sea coast), These are called the rules on alluvion which if )resent in a case, give to the owners of lands adjoining the ban@s of rivers or streams an accretion graduall received from the effects of the current of waters, +. A--uvion in *resent case not accu/u-ated %y action of 1aters or current The a))lication of the rules on alluvion cannot be made in the )resent case as the first and second re4uirements of the rules were not met, Thus, the <a:arenos cannot claim the rights of a ri)arian owner, = their own admission, the accretion was formed b the dum)ing of boulders, soil and other filling materials on )ortions of the =alacanas /ree@ and the /aga an River bounding their land, 8t cannot be claimed, therefore, that the accumulation of such boulders, soil and other filling materials was gradual and im)erce)tible, resulting from the action of the waters or the current of the =alacanas /ree@ and the /aga an River,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +!4 )
". ,urrent defined 8n +ilario v, /it of .anila, it was held that the word DcurrentE indicate the )artici)ation of the bod of water in the ebb and flow of waters due to high and low tide, . )etitioners esto**ed in t0e denying t0e *u%-ic c0aracter of -and and >urisdiction of t0e Bureau of Lands "etitioners are esto))ed from den ing the )ublic character of the subject land, as well as the jurisdiction of the =ureau of ;ands when the late (ntonio <a:areno filed his .iscellaneous Sales ())lication .S( (16%) 3'&, The mere filing of said ())lication constituted an admission that the land being a))lied for was )ublic land, having been the subject of Surve "lan .S86&060%60003'&6D which was conducted as a conse4uence of (ntonio <a:arenoBs .iscellaneous Sales ())lication wherein said land was described as an orchard, Said descri)tion b (ntonio <a:areno was controverted b the findings of the ocular ins)ection that said land actuall covers a dr )ortion of =alacanas /ree@ and a swam) )ortion of /aga an River, 4. $indings of ad/inistrative agencies 10ic0 0ave ac5uired e9*ertise in t0eir >urisdiction fina-. not revie1a%-e %y t0e ,ourts The =ureau of ;ands classified the subject land as an accretion area which was formed b de)osits of sawdust in the =alacanas /ree@ and the /aga an river, in accordance with the ocular ins)ection conducted b the =ureau of ;ands, 8t has often enough held that findings of administrative agencies which have ac4uired e2)ertise because their jurisdiction is confined to s)ecific matters are generall accorded not onl res)ect but even finalit , (gain, when said factual findings are affirmed b the /ourt of ())eals, the same are conclusive on the )arties and not reviewable b the Su)reme /ourt, &. ?i/i-ar cases 10ere a--uvion is artificia-. Can</ade accretion *art of *u%-ic do/ain 8n Repu5lic v. CA, it was ruled that the re4uirement that the de)osit should due to the effect of the current of the river is indis)ensable, This e2cludes from (rticle 43' of the /ivil /ode all de)osits caused b human intervention, "utting it differentl , alluvion must be the e2clusive wor@ of nature, Thus, in Aiongco v. Director of Lands, et al., where the land was not formed solel b the natural effect of the water current of the river bordering said land but is also the conse4uence of the direct and deliberate intervention of man, it was deemed a man6made accretion and, as such, )art of the )ublic domain, 8n the )resent case, the subject land was the direct result of the dum)ing of sawdust b the Sun >alle ;umber /o, conse4uent to its sawmill o)erations, (s the accretion site was the result of the late (ntonio <a:arenoBs labor consisting in the dum)ing of boulders, soil and other filling materials into the =alacanas /ree@ and /aga an River bounding his land, the same would still be )art of the )ublic domain, 6. ?u%>ect -and %eing *u%-ic' Bureau of Lands and 2ffice of t0e ?ecretary of Agricu-ture and Natura- Resources 0ave >urisdiction The subject land is )ublic land, a fortiori, the =ureau of ;ands, as well as the -ffice of the Secretar of (griculture and <atural Resources have jurisdiction over the same in accordance with the "ublic ;and ;aw, 8. Ad/inistrative re/edies e90austed. Regiona- Director of Bureau of Lands: decision entered for and %y aut0ority of t0e Director of Lands (dministrative remedies have been e2hausted in the )resent case, 8t would be incongruous to a))eal the decision of the Regional Director of the =ureau of ;ands acting for and b the authorit of the Director of the =ureau of ;ands to an -fficer68n6/harge of the =ureau of ;ands, #. Fndersecretary of De*art/ent of Agricu-tura- and Natura- Resources 0as aut0ority to revie1 decisions or orders of t0e Director of -ands 1it0 res*ect to *u%-ic -ands under t0e ad/inistration of t0e Bureau and t0e De*art/ent 8n the case of !a&oy v. Secretary of Agriculture and $atural Resources , it was held that the 5ndersecretar
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +!& )
of (griculture and <atural Resources ma modif , ado)t, or set aside the orders or decisions of the Director of ;ands with res)ect to 4uestion involving )ublic lands under the administration and control of the =ureau of ;ands and the De)artment of (griculture and <atural Resources, +e cannot, therefore, be said to have acted be ond the bounds of his jurisdiction under Sections $, 4 and 3 of the "ublic ;and ;aw (/( &4&), Section $ )rovides that Dthe Secretar of (griculture and <atural Resources shall be the e2clusive officer charged with carr ing out the )rovisions of this (ct through the Director of ;ands who shall act under his immediate control,E while Section 4 )rovides that Dsubject to said control, the Director of ;ands shall have direct e2ecutive control of the surve , classification, lease, sale or an other form of concession or dis)osition and management of the lands of the )ublic domain, and his decisions as to 4uestions of fact shall be conclusive when a))roved b the Secretar of (griculture and <atural Resources,E 8n the )resent case, when Rolleo 8gnacio acted on the motion for reconsideration of the late (ntonio <a:areno, he was acting on said motion as an 5ndersecretar of the De)artment of (griculture and <atural Resources? notwithstanding the fact that he was an D-fficer6in6chargeE of the =ureau of ;ands, 1!. B9ecution order does not a1ard *ortions of su%>ect -and to *rivate res*ondents %ut /ere-y segregated t0e *etitioner:s tit-ed -and fro/ t0e su%>ect -and. Does not %ar *etitioner:s a**-ication 8t is incorrect for )etitioners to assume that res)ondent "alad awarded )ortions of the subject land to )rivate res)ondents Salasalans and Ra abas as the had not et been issued )atents or titles over the subject land, The e2ecution order merel directed the segregation of )etitionersB titled lot from the subject land which was actuall being occu)ied b )rivate res)ondents before the were ejected from it, =ased on the finding that )rivate res)ondents were actuall in )ossession or were actuall "alad, being the Director of ;ands and in the e2ercise of this administrative discretion, directed )etitioners to vacate the subject land on the ground that )rivate res)ondents have a )referential right, being the occu)ants thereof, "aladBs (Director of ;and) e2ecution order merel im)lements +ilarioBs order, 8t should be noted that )etitionersB own a))lication still has to be given due course, 11. Director of Lands aut0oriDed to e9ercise e9ecutive contro- over any for/ of concession' dis*osition and /anage/ent of -ands of t0e *u%-ic do/ain. Brror in >udg/ent not annu--a%-e %y certiorari The Director of ;ands is authori:ed to e2ercise e2ecutive control over an form of concession, dis)osition and management of the lands of the )ublic domain, +e ma issue decisions and orders as he ma see fit under the circumstances as long as the are based on the findings of fact, 8n the case of Cali5o v. "allesteros, it was held that where, in the dis)osition of )ublic lands, the Director of ;ands bases his decision on the evidence thus )resented, he clearl acts within his jurisdiction, and if he errs in a))raising the evidence, the error is one of judgment, but not an act or grave abuse of discretion annullable b certiorari, [1!4] 7da. De ;antoco v. Cunci*a- ,ounci- of 3-oi-o [G.R. No. + #4!. Carc0 +4' 1#+&.] 9n =anc, >illamor (J): ' concur $acts( The widow of Tan Toco sued the munici)al council of 8loilo for the amount of "4#,*%%,40, being the )urchase )rice of two stri)s of land, one on /alle J, ., =asa consisting of 3*# s4, m,, and the other on /alle (ldiguer consisting of 3* s4, m,, which the munici)alit of 8loilo had a))ro)riated for widening said street, The /!8 8loilo sentenced the said munici)alit to )a the Tantoco the amount so claimed, )lus the interest, Said judgment was a))ealed, and was affirmed b the Su)reme /ourt, -n account of lac@ of funds the munici)alit of 8loilo was unable to )a the said judgment, wherefore )laintiff had a writ of e2ecution issue against the )ro)ert of the said munici)alit , b virtue of which the sheriff attached two auto truc@s used for street s)rin@ling, one )olice )atrol automobile, the )olice stations on .abini street, and in .olo and .andurriao and the concrete structures, with the corres)onding lots, used as
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +!6 )
mar@ets b 8loilo, .olo, and .andurriao, (fter notice of the sale of said )ro)ert had been made, and a few da s before the sale, the )rovincial fiscal of 8loilo filed a motion with the /!8 )ra ing that the attachment on the said )ro)ert be dissolved, that the said attachment be declared null and void as being illegal and violative of the rights of the munici)alit , = order of &# (ugust &*#3, the /ourt declared the attachment levied u)on the aforementioned )ro)ert of the munici)alit null and void, thereb dissolving the said attachment, !rom this order Tantoco has a))ealed b bill of e2ce)tions, The Su)reme /ourt affirmed the judgment a))ealed from with costs against Tantoco, 1. Cunici*a-ities: ca*acity to sue and to %e sued. ,a*acity to ac5uire *ro*erty The munici)al law, section #&%3 of the (dministrative /ode, )rovides that D.unici)alities are )olitical bodies cor)orate, and as such are endowed with the faculties of munici)al cor)orations, to be e2ercised b and through their res)ective munici)al government in conformit with law, 8t shall be com)etent for them, in their )ro)er cor)orate name, to sue and be sued, to contract and be contracted with, to ac4uire and hold real and )ersonal )ro)ert for munici)al )ur)oses, and generall to e2ercise the )owers hereinafter s)ecified or otherwise conferred u)on them b law,E The (dministrative /ode does not s)ecif the @ind of )ro)ert that a munici)alit ma ac4uire, +. )ro*erty of *rovinces and /unici*a-ities (rticle $4$ of the /ivil /ode divides the )ro)ert of )rovinces and (munici)alities) into )ro)ert for )ublic use and )atrimonial )ro)ert , (ccording to article $44 of the /ode, )rovincial roads and foot6)ath, s4uares, streets, fountains, and )ublic waters, drives and )ublic im)rovements of general benefit built at the e2)ense of the said towns or )rovinces, are )ro)ert for )ublic use, (ll other )ro)ert )ossessed b the said towns and )rovinces is )atrimonial and shall be subject to the )rovision of the /ivil /ode e2ce)t as )rovided b s)ecial laws, ". Distinction according to Canresa. of -itt-e *ractica- i/*ortance in vie1 of different *rinci*-es under A/erican Ru-e /ommenting u)on article $44, .anresa sa s that D8n accordance with administrative legislationE (S)anish) we must distinguish, as to the )atrimonial )ro)ert of the towns, Dbetween that of common benefit and that which is )rivate )ro)ert of the town, The first differs from )ro)ert for )ublic use in that generall its enjo ment is less, as it is limited to neighbors or to a grou) or class thereof? and furthermore, such use, more or less general, is not intrinsic with this @ind of )ro)ert , for b its ver nature it ma be enjo ed as though it were )rivate )ro)ert , The third grou), that is, )rivate )ro)ert , is used in the name of the town or )rovince b the entities re)resenting it and, li@e an )rivate )ro)ert , giving a source of revenue,E Such distinction, however, is of little )ractical im)ortance in this jurisdiction in view of the different )rinci)les underl ing the functions of a munici)alit under the (merican rule, . )ro*erty of *u%-ic do/ain a**-ies to /unici*a- *ro*erty for *u%-ic use. %ot0 not 1it0in t0e co//erce of /an The )rinci)le governing )ro)ert of the )ublic domain of the State is a))licable to )ro)ert for )ublic use of the munici)alities as said munici)al )ro)ert is similar in character, The )rinci)le is that the )ro)ert for )ublic use of the State is not within the commerce of man and, conse4uentl , is unalienable and not subject to )rescri)tion, ;i@ewise, )ro)ert for )ublic use of the munici)alit is not within the commerce of man so long as it is used b the )ublic and, conse4uentl , said )ro)ert is also inalienable, 4. F? La1 and =uris*rudence( Cunici*a- *ro*erties for *u%-ic use' %ut not *ro*erties for 5uasi< *rivate *ur*oses' e9e/*ted fro/ attac0/ent and e9ecution (s e2)ounded b Mc8uillin in Municipal Corporations (>ol, $, )ar,&&%0): State statutes often )rovide that court houses, jails other buildings owned b munici)alities and the lots on which the stand shall be e2em)t from attachment and e2ecution, =ut inde)endent of e2)ress statutor e2em)tion, as a general )ro)osition,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +!8 )
)ro)ert , real and )ersonal, held b munici)al cor)orations, in trust for the benefit of their inhabitants, and used for )ublic )ur)oses, is e2em)t, "ublic buildings, school houses, streets, s4uares, )ar@s, wharves, engines and engine houses, and the li@e, are not subject to e2ecution, So cit waterwor@s, and a stoc@ of li4uors carried in a town dis)ensar , are e2em)t, The reason for the e2em)tion is obvious, .unici)al cor)orations are created for )ublic )ur)oses and for the good of the citi:ens in their aggregate or )ublic ca)acit , That the ma )ro)erl discharge such )ublic functions cor)orate )ro)ert and revenues are essential, and to den them these means the ver )ur)ose of their creation would be materiall im)eded, and in some instances )racticall destro it, There is something ver re)ugnant to the moral sense in the idea that a munici)al cor)oration should contract debts, and that having no resources but the ta2es which are due to it these should not be subjected b legal )rocess to the satisfaction of its creditors, This consideration, deduced from the )rinci)les of moral e4uit has onl given wa to the more enlarged contem)lation of the great and )aramount interests of )ublic order and the )rinci)les of government, Thus, tt is generall held that )ro)ert owned b a munici)alit , where not used for a )ublic )ur)ose but for 4uasi )rivate )ur)oses, is subject to e2ecution on a judgment against the munici)alit , and ma be sold, This rule a))lies to shares of stoc@ owned b a munici)al cor)oration and the li@e, =ut the mere fact that cor)orate )ro)ert held for )ublic uses is being tem)oraril used for )rivate )ur)oses does not ma@e it subject to e2ecution, (s stated in Corpus 1uris (>ol, #$, ), $33), Dthe rule is that )ro)ert held for )ublic uses, such as )ublic buildings, streets, s4uares, )ar@s, )romenades, wharves landing )laces, fire engines, hose and hose carriages, engine houses, )ublic mar@ets, hos)itals, cemeteries, and generall ever thing held for governmental )ur)oses, is not subject to lev and sale under e2ecution against such cor)oration, The rule also a))lies to funds in the hands of a )ublic officer, ;i@ewise it has been held that ta2es due to a munici)al cor)oration or count cannot be sei:ed under e2ecution b a creditor of such cor)oration, =ut where a munici)al cor)oration or count owns in its )ro)rietar , as distinguished from its )ublic or governmental ca)acit , )ro)ert not useful or used for a )ublic )ur)ose but for 4uasi )rivate )ur)oses, the general rule is that such )ro)ert ma be sei:ed and sold under e2ecution against the cor)oration, )recisel as similar )ro)ert of individuals is sei:ed and sold, =ut )ro)ert held for )ublic )ur)oses is not subject to e2ecution merel because it is tem)oraril used for )rivate )ur)oses, although if the )ublic use is wholl abandoned it becomes subject to e2ecution, Ghether or not )ro)ert held as )ublic )ro)ert is necessar for the )ublic use is a )olitical, rather than a judicial 4uestion, Ghere )ro)ert of a munici)al or other )ublic cor)oration is sought to be subjected to e2ecution to satisf judgments recovered against such cor)oration, the 4uestion as to whether such )ro)ert is leviable or not is to be determined b the usage and )ur)oses for which it is held,E &. F? La1 and =uris*rudence( 3nsurance /oney derived fro/ destroyed /unici*a- *ro*erty e9e/*t fro/ e9ecution -ike1ise e9e/*ted 8f munici)al )ro)ert e2em)t from e2ecution is destro ed, the insurance mone stands in lieu thereof and is also e2em)t ('4Ou) )n+. 6. F? La1 and =uris*rudence( Ce/%ers or in0a%itants not *ersona--y -ia%-e for de%ts of t0e /unici*a-ity The members or inhabitants of a munici)al cor)oration )ro)er are not )ersonall liable for the debts of the munici)alit , e2ce)t that in the <ew 9ngland States the individual liabilit of the inhabitant is generall maintained ('4Ou) )n+. 8. F? =uris*rudence( A0arf a *ro*erty for *u%-ic use and not su%>ect to attac0/ent 8n City of $e+ 9rleans vs. Louisiana Construction Co., Ltd. (&40 5, S,, %34? $3 ;aw, ed,, 33%), it was held that a wharf for unloading sugar and molasses, o)en to the )ublic, was )ro)ert for the )ublic use of the /it of <ew -rleans and was not subject to attachment for the )a ment of the debts of the said cit , 8n Blein vs. City of $e+ 9rleans (*7 5 S,, &4*? #3 ;aw, ed,, 4$0), it was held that a )ublic wharf on the ban@s of the .ississi))i River was )ublic )ro)ert and not subject to e2ecution for the )a ment of a debt of the /it of <ew -rleans where said wharf was located, 8t was held that land was )ublic )ro)ert as necessar as a )ublic
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +!# )
street and was not subject to e2ecution on account of the debts of the cit , 8t was further held that the fees collected were also e2em)t from e2ecution because the were a )art of the income of the cit , #. ;ufe9is v. 2-aguera. ?*ecia- concession of t0e rig0t to usufruct in a *u%-ic /arket cannot %e attac0ed -ike any ordinary rig0t 8t was held in Tufe2is v, -laguera, where the )ublic mar@et had been levied u)on b virtue of the e2ecution arising from the debt of the munici)alit of 1uinobatan, that Deven though a creditor is un4uestionabl entitled to recover out of his debtorBs )ro)ert , et when among such )ro)ert there is included the s)ecial right granted b the 1overnment of usufruct in a building intended for a )ublic service, and when this )rivilege is closel related to a service of a )ublic character, such right of the creditor to the collection of a debt owed him b the debtor who enjo s the said s)ecial )rivilege of usufruct in a )ublic mar@et is not absolute and ma be e2ercised onl through the action of a court of justice with res)ect to the )rofits or revenue obtained under the s)ecial right of usufruct enjo ed b debtor, The s)ecial concession of the right to usufruct in a )ublic mar@et cannot be attached li@e an ordinar right, because that would be to )ermit a )erson who has contracted with the state or with the administrative officials thereof to conduct and manage a service of a )ublic character, to be substituted, without the @nowledge and consent of the administrative authorities, b one who too@ no )art in the contract, thus giving rise to the )ossibilit of the regular course of a )ublic service being disturbed b the more or less legal action of a grantee, to the )rejudice of the state and the )ublic interests, The )rivilege or franchise granted to a )rivate )erson to enjo the usufruct of a )ublic mar@et cannot lawfull be attached and sold, and a creditor of such )erson can recover his debt onl out of the income or revenue obtained b the debtor from the enjo ment or usufruct of the said )rivilege, in the same manner that the rights of the creditors of a railroad com)an can be e2ercised and their creditors collected onl out of the gross recei)ts remaining after deduction has been made therefrom of the o)erating e2)enses of the road, D 1!. ,0aracter of *ro*erty for *u%-ic use %asis 10y *ro*erty of a /unici*a-ity necessary for govern/enta- *ur*oses /ay not %e attac0ed The movable and immovable )ro)ert of a munici)alit , necessar for governmental )ur)oses, ma not be attached and sold for the )a ment of a judgment against the munici)alit , The su)reme reason for this rule is the character of the )ublic use to which such @ind of )ro)ert is devoted, The necessit for government service justifies that the )ro)ert of )ublic use of the munici)alit be e2em)t from e2ecution just as it is necessar to e2em)t certain )ro)ert of )rivate individuals in accordance with section 43# of the /ode of /ivil "rocedure, 11. Cunici*a- inco/e e9e/*t fro/ -evy and e9ecution 9ven the munici)al income is e2em)t from lev and e2ecution, 8n .unici)al /or)orations b Dillon (>ol, &, ), 4%'), it was stated that Dmunici)al cor)orations are instituted b the su)reme authorit of a state for the )ublic good, The e2ercise, b delegation from the legislature, a )ortion of the sovereign )ower, The main object of their creation is to act as administrative agencies for the state, and to )rovide for the )olice and local government of certain designated civil divisions of its territor , To this end the are invested with certain governmental )owers and charged with civil, )olitical, and munici)al duties, To enable them beneficiall to e2ercise these )owers and discharge these duties, the are clothed with the authorit to raise revenues, chiefl b ta2ation, and subordinatel b other modes, as b licenses, fines, and )enalties, The revenue of the )ublic cor)oration is the essential means b which it is enabled to )erform its a))ointed wor@, De)rived of its regular and ade4uated su))l of revenue, such a cor)oration is )racticall destro ed, and the ends of its erection thwarted, =ased u)on considerations of this character, it is the settled doctrine of the law that not onl the )ublic6)ro)ert but also the ta2es and )ublic revenues of such cor)orations cannot be sei:ed under e2ecution against them, either in the treasur or when in transit to it, Judgments rendered for ta2es, and the )roceeds of such judgments in the hands of officers of the law, are not subject to e2ecution unless so declared b statute, The doctrine of the inviolabilit of the )ublic revenues b the creditor is maintained, although the cor)oration is in debt, and has no means of )a ment but the ta2es which it is authori:ed to collect,E
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +1! )
[1!&] 7ia>ar v. ,A [G.R. No. 66+# . Dece/%er 1+' 1#88.] !irst Division, .edialdea (J): $ concur, & on leave $acts( The s)ouses Ricardo and ;eonor ;adrido were the owners of ;ot '3&& of the /adastral Surve of "ototan situated in baranga /awa an, "ototan, 8loilo (&34,#%' s4, ms,, T/T T6#&*40 of the Register of Deeds of 8loilo), S)ouses Rosendo and (na Te were also the registered owners of a )arcel of land described in their title as ;ot '$40 of the /adastral Surve of "ototan, -n % Se)tember &*'$, Rosendo Te, with the conformit of his wife, sold this lot to (ngelica !, >iajar and /elso !, >iajar for "3,000, ( Torrens title was later issued in the latterBs names, ;ater, (ngelica >iajar had ;ot '$40 relocated and found out that the )ro)ert was in the )ossession of Ricardo T, ;adrido, /onse4uentl , she demanded its return but ;adrido refused, The )iece of real )ro)ert which used to be ;ot '$40 of the /adastral Surve of "ototan was located in baranga 1uibuanogan, "ototan, 8loilo? that it consisted of #0,07* s4,ms,? that at the time of the cadastral surve in &*#%, ;ot '3&& and ;ot '$40 were se)arated b the Suague River? that the area of &&,7&* s4,ms of what was ;ot '$40 has been in the )ossession of ;adrido? that the area of &4,0$% s4,ms,, which was formerl the river bed of the Suague River )er cadastral surve of &*#%, has also been in the )ossession of ;adrido? and that the >iajars have never been in actual )h sical )ossession of ;ot '$40, -n &3 !ebruar &*'4, (ngelica and /elso >iajar instituted a civil action for recover of )ossession and damages against Ricardo T, ;adrido (/ivil /ase *%%0) with the /!8 8loilo, Summoned to )lead, ;adrido filed his answer with a counterclaim, The >iajars filed their re)l to the answer, Subse4uentl , the com)laint was amended to im)lead Rosendo Te as another defendant, The >iajars sought the annulment of the deed of sale and the restitution of the )urchase )rice with interest in the event the )ossession of defendant ;adrido is sustained, Te filed his answer to the amended com)laint and he counterclaimed for damages, The >iajars answered the counterclaim, During the )endenc of the case, /elso >iajar sold his rights over ;ot '$40 to his mother and co6)laintiff, (ngelica !, >iajar, !or this reason, (ngelica !, >iajar a))ears to be the sole registered owner of the lot, -n #3 .a &*'7, Ricardo ;adrido died, +e was substituted in the civil action b his wife, ;eonor ", ;adrido, and children, namel : ;ourdes ;adrido68gnacio, 9ugenio ", ;adrido and .anuel ", ;adrido, as )arties defendants, (fter trial on the merits, a second amended com)laint which included damages was admitted, -n &0 December &*7&, the trial court rendered its decision in favor of ;adrido, dismissing the com)laint of (ngelica and /elso >iajar with costs against them, declaring ;eonor ", ;adrido, ;ourdes ;adrido68gnacio, 9ugenio ", ;adrido and .anuel ", ;adrido as owner of the )arcel of land indicated as ;ots ( and = in the s@etch )lan situated in baranga s /awa an and 1uibuanogan, "ototan, 8loilo, and containing an area of #3,733 s4,ms,, and )ronouncing that as owners of the land, the ;adridos are entitled to the )ossession thereof, <ot satisfied with the decision, the >iajars a))ealed to the /ourt of ())eals, The /ourt of ())eals affirmed the decision of the court a 4uo on #* December &*7% (/(61R /> %**4#), The >iajars filed a )etition for review on certiorari, The Su)reme /ourt dismissed the )etition for lac@ of merit without )ronouncement as to costs, 1. Accretion %e-ongs to ri*arian o1ners (rticle 43' of the <ew /ivil /ode )rovides that Dto the owners of lands adjoining the ban@s of rivers belong the accretion which the graduall receive from the effects of the current of the waters,E +. ,0ange in t0e course of t0e river graduaThe )resum)tion is that the change in the course of the river was gradual and caused b accretion and erosion (.artine: /aIas vs, Tuason, 3 "hil, %%7? "a atas 9state 8m)rovement /o, vs, Tuason, 3$ "hil, 33? /,+,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +11 )
+odges vs, 1arcia, &0* "hil, &$$), 8n the )resent case, the lower court correctl found that the evidence introduced b the >iajars to show that the change in the course of the Suague River was sudden or that it occurred through avulsion is not clear and convincing, The ;adridos have sufficientl established that for man ears after &*#% a gradual accretion on the eastern side of ;ot '3&& too@ )lace b action of the current of the Suague River so that in &*'* an alluvial de)osit of #*,*&# s4,ms, (#,**&# hectares), more or less, had been added to ;ot '3&& (;ot (: &4,0$% s4,ms,, ;ot =, &&,7&* s4,ms, and ;ot /, which is not in litigation, 4,03' s4,ms), The established facts indicate that the eastern boundar of ;ot '3&& was the Suague River based on the cadastral )lan, !or a )eriod of more than 40 ears (before &*40 to &*70) the Suague River overflowed its ban@s earl and the )ro)ert of the defendant graduall received de)osits of soil from the effects of the current of the river, The conse4uent increase in the area of ;ot '3&& due to alluvion or accretion was )ossessed b the defendants whose tenants )lowed and )lanted the same with corn and tobacco, The 4uondam river bed had been filled b accretion through the ears, The land is alread )lain and there is no indication on the ground of an abandoned river bed, 5nder the law, accretion which the ban@s or rivers ma graduall receive from the effects of the current of the waters becomes the )ro)ert of the owners of the lands adjoining the ban@s, ((rt, $%%, -ld /ivil /ode? (rt, 43', <ew /ivil /ode which too@ effect on $0 (ugust &*30 L;ara v, Del Rosario, *4 "hil, ''7M, Therefore, the accretion to ;ot '3&& which consists of ;ots ( and = belong to the ;adridos, ". $inding of facts %y -o1er court conc-usive u*on ?u*re/e ,ourt The trial court found that the change in the course of the Suague River was gradual and this finding was affirmed b the /ourt of ())eals, The Su)reme /ourt found no valid reason to disturb the finding of fact, . ?ection 4 and & of Act #&' Land Registration Act Section 43 of (ct 4*% )rovides that Dthe obtaining of a decree of registration and the entr of a certificate of title shall be regarded as an agreement running with the land, and binding u)on the a))licant and all successors in title that the land shall be and alwa s remain registered land, and subject to the )rovisions of this (ct and all (cts amendator thereof,E Section 4% of the same act )rovides that D<o title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be ac4uired b )rescri)tion or adverse )ossession,E 4. Registration does not *rotect ri*arian o1ner against di/inution of t0e area of registered -and. 3nter*retation of Artic-e "&& of t0e ,ivi- ,ode 1it0 t0e Land Registration Act J ;orrens ?yste/ The rule that registration under the Torrens S stem does not )rotect the ri)arian owner against the diminution of the area of his registered land through gradual changes in the course of an adjoining stream is well settled, 8n *ayatas 'state #&prove&ent Co. vs. Auason (3$ "hil, 33), it was ruled that (rticle $%% of the /ivil /ode )rovides that Dan accretions which the ban@s of rivers ma graduall receive from the effects of the current belong to the owners of the estates bordering thereon,E (ccretions of that character are natural incidents to land bordering on running streams and are not affected b the registration laws, 8t follows that registration does not )rotect the ri)arian owner against diminution of the area of his land through gradual changes in the course of the adjoining stream, Similarl in C.$. !odges vs. Garcia (&0* "hil, &$$), it was ruled that if the land in 4uestion has become )art of oneBs estate as a result of accretion, it follows that said land now belongs to him, The fact that the accretion to his land used to )ertain to anotherBs estate, which is covered b a Torrens /ertificate of Title, cannot )reclude the former from being the owner thereof, Registration does not )rotect the ri)arian owner against the diminution of the area of his land through gradual changes in the course of the adjoining stream, (ccretions which the ban@s of rivers ma graduall receive from the effect of the current become the )ro)ert of the owners of the ban@s ((rt, $%% of the -ld /ivil /ode? (rt, 43' of the <ew), Such accretions are natural incidents to land bordering on running streams and the )rovisions of the /ivil /ode in that res)ect are not affected b the Registration (ct, &. No da/ages recovera%-e fro/ Ladridos (s the ;adridos are the owners of the )remises in 4uestion, no damages are recoverable from them,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +1+ )
[1!6] 7i--anueva v. ,astaneda [G.R. No. L<&1"11. ?e*te/%er +1' 1#86.] !irst Division, /ru: (J): $ concur, & on leave $acts( -n ' <ovember &*%&, the munici)al council of San !ernando ado)ted Resolution #&7 authori:ing some #4 members of the !ernandino 5nited .erchants and Traders (ssociation to construct )ermanent stalls and sell in the vicinit of the )ublic mar@et of San !ernando, "am)anga, along .ercado Street, a stri) of land measuring &# b '' meters on which stands a conglomeration of vendors stalls together forming what is commonl @nown as a tali)a)a, The action was )rotested on &0 <ovember &*%&, where the /!8 "am)anga (=ranch #, /ivil /ase #040) issued a writ of )reliminar injunction that )revented >illanueva, et,al, from constructing the said stalls until final resolution of the controvers , -n &7 Januar &*%4, while the case was )ending, the munici)al council of San !ernando ado)ted Resolution #*, which declared the subject area as Dthe )ar@ing )lace and as the )ublic )la:a of the munici)alit ,E thereb im)liedl revo@ing Resolution #&7, s, &*%&, -n # <ovember &*%7, the lower court decided the case and held that the land occu)ied b >illanueva et,al,, being )ublic in nature, was be ond the commerce of man and therefore could not be the subject of )rivate occu)anc , The writ of )reliminar injunction was made )ermanent, The decision was a))arentl not enforced, as >illanueva, et,al, were not evicted from the )lace and that b &*'&, the and the &#7 other )ersons were assigned s)ecific areas or s)ace allotments therein for which the )aid dail fees to the munici)al government, -n &# Januar &*7#, however, the (ssociation of /oncerned /iti:ens and /onsumers of San !ernando filed a )etition for the immediate im)lementation of Resolution #*, to restore the subject )ro)ert Dto its original and customar use as a )ublic )la:a,E -n &4 June &*7#, after investigation b the munici)al attorne , .acalino as -8/ of the office of the ma or of San !ernando issued a resolution re4uiring the munici)al treasurer and engineer to demolish the stalls, >illanueva, et,al, filed a )etition for )rohibition with the /!8 "am)anga (/ivil /ase %4'0), on #% June &*7#, The court denied the )etition on &* Jul &*7#, and the motion for reconsideration on 3 (ugust &*7#, )rom)ting >illanueva, et,al, to come to the Su)reme /ourt on certiorari, The Su)reme /ourt dismissed the )etition, affirmed the &* Jul &*7# decision and the 3 (ugust &*7# order of the lower court, and lifted the tem)orar restraining order issued on * (ugust &*7#? the decision being immediatel e2ecutor ? with costs against >illanueva, et,al, 1. Land reserved for a *u%-ic *-aDa (ccording to former San !ernando .a or Rodolfo +i:on, who later became governor of "am)anga, the <ational "lanning /ommission had reserved the area for a )ublic )la:a as earl as &*3&, This intention was reiterated in &*%4 through the ado)tion of Resolution #*, The )lace occu)ied b >illanueva et,al from which the are sought to be evicted is a )ublic )la:a, There is no reason to disturb the findings in /ivil /ase #040 in the current case /ivil /ase %'40, +. )u%-ic *-aDa %eyond t0e co//erce of /an and cannot %e su%>ect of -ease or any contractuaundertaking. Cunici*a-ity of ,avite v. Ro>as ( )ublic )la:a is be ond the commerce of man and so cannot be the subject of lease or an other contractual underta@ing, This rule was settled as earl as in .unici)alit of /avite v, Rojas (&*&3), where the /ourt declared as null and void the lease of a )ublic )la:a of the said munici)alit in favor of a )rivate )erson, This is )ursuant to (rticle $44 of the /ivil /ode which )rovides that D)ro)ert for )ublic use in )rovinces and in towns com)rises the )rovincial and town roads, the s4uares, streets, fountains, and )ublic waters, the )romenades, and )ublic wor@s of general service su))orted b said towns or )rovinces?E and (rticle &#'& which )rescribes that ever thing which is not outside the commerce of man ma be the object of a contract, Thus, )la:as and streets, li@e common lands, rivers, fountains, etc,, which are for )ublic use are communal things that cannot be sold because the are b their ver nature outside of commerce of man, 8n leasing a
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +1" )
)ortion of the )la:a or )ublic )lace, the .unici)alit e2ceeded its authorit in the e2ercise of its )owers b e2ecuting a contract over a thing of which it could not dis)ose, nor is it em)owered so to do, That being the case, the contract of lease is null and void and of no force or effect because it is contrar to the law and the thing leased cannot be the object of a contract, ". )ortion of side1a-k a-so %eyond co//erce of /an. Cuyot v. de- a $uente 8n .u ot v, de la !uente, it was held that the /it of .anila could not lease a )ortion of a )ublic sidewal@ on "la:a Sta, /ru:, being li@ewise be ond the commerce of man, The sidewal@, forming )art of the )ublic )la:a of Sta, /ru:, could not be a )ro)er subject matter of the contract, as it was not within the commerce of man ((rticle &$4', new /ivil /ode, and article &#'&, old /ivil /ode), (n contract entered into b the /it of .anila in connection with the sidewal@, is i)so facto null and ultra vires, (.unici)alit of /avite vs, Ro2as, et al,, $0 "hil, %0$,) The sidewal@ was intended for and was used b the )ublic, in going from one )lace to another (The streets and )ublic )laces of the cit shall be @e)t free and clear for the use of the )ublic, and the sidewal@s and crossings for the )edestrians, and the same shall onl be used or occu)ied for other )ur)oses as )rovided b ordinance or regulation LSec, &&&*, Revised -rdinances of the /it of .anila,M The booths served as fruit stands for their owners and often, if not alwa s, bloc@ed the free )assage of )edestrians who had to ta@e the )la:a itself which used to be clogged with vehicular traffic, . ;o1n *-aDas are *ro*erties of *u%-ic do/inion' and devoted to *u%-ic use. Bs*iritu v. )oDorru%io The town )la:a cannot be used for the construction of mar@et stalls, s)eciall of residences, and that such structures constitute a nuisance subject to abatement according to law, Town )la:as are )ro)erties of )ublic dominion, to be devoted to )ublic use and to be made available to the )ublic in general, The are outside the commerce of man and cannot be dis)osed of or even leased b the munici)alit to )rivate )arties (9s)iritu v, .unici)al /ouncil of "o:orrubio), 4. 23, of t0e office of t0e /ayor 0ad aut0ority to issuing order to de/o-is0 t0e sta--s as dec-ared %y >udicia- and -egis-ative aut0orities. 3nvestigation /ere-y a deference to t0e re5uire/ents of due *rocess The officer6in6charge of the office of the ma or had the dut to clear the area and restore it to its intended use as a )ar@ing )lace and )ublic )la:a of the munici)alit of San !ernando, conformabl to the orders from the court (/ivil case #040) and the council (Resolution #*, s, &*%4), 8t is not correct to sa that he had acted without authorit or ta@en the law into his hands in issuing his order, 9ven without the investigation and recommendation of the munici)al attorne , the ma or was justified in ordering the area cleared on the strength alone of its status as a )ublic )la:a as declared b the judicial and legislative authorities, 8n calling first for the investigation (which >illanueva, et,al, saw fit to bo cott), he was just scru)ulousl )a ing deference to the re4uirements of due )rocess, to remove all taint of arbitrariness in the action he was called u)on to ta@e, &. Genera- Ae-fare ,-ause. )o-ice *o1er de-egated to t0e /unici*a-ity The )roblems caused b the usur)ation of the )lace are covered b the )olice )ower as delegated to the munici)alit under the general welfare clause, This authori:es the munici)al council Dto enact such ordinances and ma@e such regulations, not re)ugnant to law, as ma be necessar to carr into effect and discharge the )owers and duties conferred u)on it b law and such as shall seem necessar and )ro)er to )rovide for the health and safet , )romote the )ros)erit , im)rove the morals, )eace, good order, comfort, and convenience of the munici)alit and the inhabitants thereof, and for the )rotection of )ro)ert therein,E This authorit was validl e2ercised in this case through the ado)tion of Resolution #*, s, &*%4, b the munici)al council of San !ernando, 6. )o-ice *o1er cannot %e %argained a1ay t0roug0 contract "olice )ower cannot be surrendered or bargained awa through the medium of a contract, 9ver contract
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +1 )
affecting the )ublic interest suffers a congenital infirmit in that it contains an im)lied reservation of the )olice )ower as a )ostulate of the e2isting legal order, This )ower can be activated at an time to change the )rovisions of the contract, or even abrogate it entirel , for the )romotion or )rotection of the general welfare, Such an act will not militate against the im)airment clause, which is subject to and limited b the )aramount )olice )ower, [1!8] )rovince of @a/%oanga de- Norte v. ,ity of @a/%oanga [G.R. No. L<+ 9n =anc, =eng:on (J): 7 concur, & on leave !. Carc0 +8' 1#&8.]
$acts( "rior to its incor)oration as a chartered cit , the .unici)alit of Oamboanga used to be the )rovincial ca)ital of the then Oamboanga "rovince, -n &# -ctober &*$%, /ommonwealth (ct $* was a))roved converting the .unici)alit of Oamboanga into Oamboanga /it , Section 30 of the (ct also )rovided that Dbuildings and )ro)erties which the )rovince shall abandon u)on the transfer of the ca)ital to another )lace will be ac4uired and )aid for b the /it of Oamboanga at a )rice to be fi2ed b the (uditor 1eneral,E The )ro)erties and buildings referred to consisted of 30 lots and some buildings constructed thereon, located in the /it of Oamboanga and covered individuall b Torrens certificates of title in the name of Oamboanga "rovince, The lots are utili:ed as the /a)itol Site (& lot), School site ($ lots), +os)ital site ($ lots), ;e)rosarium ($ lots), /uruan school (& lot), Trade school (& lot), =urleigh school (# lots), burleigh (* lots), high school )la ground (# lots), h dro6electric site (& lot), san ro4ue (`& lot), and another #$ vacant lots, 8n &*43, the ca)ital of Oamboanga "rovince was transferred to Di)olog and on &% June &*47, R( #7% created the munici)alit of .olave and ma@ing it the ca)ital of Oamboanga "rovince, -n #% .a &*4*, the ())raisal /ommittee formed b the (uditor 1eneral, )ursuant to /( $*, fi2ed the value of the )ro)erties and buildings in 4uestion left b Oamboanga "rovince in Oamboanga /it at "&,#*4,#44,00, +owever, on &4 Jul &*3&, a /abinet Resolution was )assed, conve ing all the said 30 lots and buildings thereon to Oamboanga /it for "&,00, effective as of &*43, when the )rovincial ca)ital of the Oamboanga "rovince was transferred to Di)olog, -n % June &*3#, R( '&& was a))roved dividing the )rovince of Oamboanga into Oamboanga del <orte and Oamboanga del Sur, (s to how the assets and obligations of the old )rovince were to be divided between the two new ones, Section % of the law )rovided that Du)on the a))roval of the (ct, the funds, assets and other )ro)erties and the obligations of the )rovince of Oamboanga shall be divided e4uitabl between the "rovince of Oamboanga del <orte and the "rovince of Oamboanga del Sur b the "resident of the "hili))ines, u)on the recommendation of the (uditor 1eneral,E -n && Januar &*33, the (uditor 1eneral a))ortioned the assets and obligations of the defunct "rovince of Oamboanga, a))ortioning 34,$*C for Oamboanga del <orte and 43,%&C for Oamboanga del Sur, -n &' .arch &*3*, the 92ecutive Secretar , b order of the "resident, issued a ruling holding that Oamboanga del <orte had a vested right as owner (should be co6owner )ro6indiviso) of the )ro)erties mentioned in Section 30 of /( $*, and is entitled to the )rice thereof, )a able b Oamboanga /it , This effectivel revo@ed the /abinet Resolution of &4 Jul &*3&, The Secretar of !inance then authori:ed the /ommissioner of 8nternal Revenue to deduct an amount e4ual to #3C of the regular internal revenue allotment for the /it of Oamboanga for the 4uarter ending $& .arch &*%0, then for the 4uarter ending $0 June &*%0, and again for the first 4uarter of the fiscal ear &*%06&*%&, The deductions, all aggregating "3',$'$,4% was credited to the )rovince of Oamboanga del <orte, in )artial )a ment of the "'04,##0,03 due it, +owever, on &' June &*%&, R( $0$* was a))roved amending Section 30 of /( $* b )roviding that Dall buildings, )ro)erties and assets belonging to the former )rovince of Oamboanga and located within the /it of Oamboanga are hereb transferred, free of charge, in favor of the said /it of Oamboanga,E -n &# Jul &*%&, the Secretar of !inance ordered the /ommissioner of 8nternal Revenue to sto) from effecting further )a ments to Oamboanga del <orte and to return to Oamboanga /it the sum of "3',$'$,4% ta@en from it out
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +14 )
of the internal revenue allotment of Oamboanga del <orte, Oamboanga /it admits that since the enactment of R( $0$*, "4$,0$0,&& of the "3',$'$,4% has alread been returned to it, This constrained Oamboanga del <orte to file on 3 .arch &*%#, a com)laint entitled DDeclarator Relief with "reliminar .andator 8njunctionE in the /!8 Oamboanga del <orte against Oamboanga /it , the Secretar of !inance and the /ommissioner of 8nternal Revenue, -n 4 June &*%#, the lower court ordered the issuance of )reliminar injunction as )ra ed for, (fter trial and on &# (ugust &*%$, judgment was rendered declaring R( $0$* unconstitutional as it de)rives the )rovince of its )rivate )ro)erties, ordered the cit to )a the )rovince the sum of "'04,#00,03 and in relation to this ordered the finance secretar to direct the /ommissioner of 8nternal revenue to deduct from its regular 4uarterl internal revenue allotment e4uivalent to #3C, #3C from the regular 4uarterl internal revenue allotment for the /it and to remit the same to the )rovince until the sum has been full )aid? ordered the )rovince to e2ecute the corres)onding )ublic instrument deeding to the cit the 30 )arcels of land and the im)rovements thereon under the certificates of title u)on full )a ment? dismissed the counterclaim of the cit ? and declared )ermanent the )reliminar mandator injunction issued on 7 June &*%', The )rovince filed a motion to reconsider )ra ing that the /it be ordered instead to )a the "'04,##0,03 in lum) sum with %C interest )er annum, -ver the cit Bs o))osition, the lower court granted the )rovinceBs motion, +ence, the a))eal to the Su)reme /ourt, The Su)reme /ourt set aside the decision a))ealed from and entered another ordering the cit to return to the )rovince in lum) sum the amount of "4$,0$0,&& which the cit too@ bac@ from the )rovince out of the sum of "3',$'$,4% )reviousl )aid to the latter, and ordering the cit to effect )a ments in favor of the )rovince of whatever balance remains of the )rovincesBs 34,$*C share in the #% )atrimonial )ro)erties, after deducting therefrom the sum of "3',$'$,4%, on the basis of Resolution ' dated #% .arch &*4* of the ())raisal /ommittee formed b the (uditor 1eneral, b wa of 4uarterl )a ments from the allotments of the /it , in the manner originall ado)ted b the Secretar of !inance and the /ommissioner of 8nternal Revenue? without costs, 1. )rocedura- as*ect. Ru-es aut0oriDe conversion of *roceedings to an ordinary action =rushing aside the )rocedural )oint concerning the )ro)riet of declarator relief filed in the lower court on the assertion that the law had alread been violated and that the )rovince of Oamboanga del <orte sought to give it coercive effect, since assuming the same to be true, the Rules an wa authori:e the conversion of the )roceedings to an ordinar action, the /ourt )roceeded to the more im)ortant and )rinci)al 4uestion of the validit of R( $0$*, +. )ro*erty o1ned %y /unici*a-ity in its govern/entaca*acity' *ro*erty is *u%-ic. ,ongress 0as a%so-ute contro- over it 8f the )ro)ert is owned b the munici)alit (meaning munici)al cor)oration) in its )ublic and governmental ca)acit , the )ro)ert is )ublic and /ongress has absolute control over it, =ut if the )ro)ert is owned in its )rivate or )ro)rietar ca)acit , then it is )atrimonial and /ongress has no absolute control, The munici)alit cannot be de)rived of it without due )rocess and )a ment of just com)ensation, ". )ro*erties of *rovinces' cities and /unici*a-ities (rticle 4#$ of the /ivil /ode )rovides that Dthe )ro)ert of )rovinces, cities and munici)alities, is divided into )ro)ert for )ublic use and )atrimonial )ro)erl ,E (rticle 4#4 of the same code )rovides that D)ro)ert for )ublic use, in the )rovinces, cities, and munici)alities, consists of the )rovincial roads, cit streets, munici)al streets, the s4uares, fountains, )ublic waters, )romenades, and )ublic wor@s for )ublic service )aid for b said )rovinces, cities, or munici)alities, (ll other )ro)ert )ossessed b an of them is )atrimonial and shall be governed b this /ode, without )rejudice to the )rovisions of s)ecial laws,E . A**-ication of Artic-e + N,,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +1& )
a. )ro*erties *atri/onia- e9ce*t for *-ayground ())l ing the norm in the /ivil /ode, all the )ro)erties in 4uestion, e2ce)t the two (#) lots used as +igh School )la grounds, could be considered as )atrimonial )ro)erties of the former Oamboanga )rovince, 9ven the ca)itol site, the hos)ital and le)rosarium sites, and the school sites will be considered )atrimonial for the are not for )ublic use, %. B>usde/ Generis' *ro*erties not inc-uded in H*u%-ic 1orks for *u%-ic serviceI The would not fall under the )hrase D)ublic wor@s for )ublic serviceE for it has been held that under the e usde& generis rule, such )ublic wor@s must be for free and indiscriminate use b an one, just li@e the )receding enumerated )ro)erties in the first )aragra)h of (rticle, 4#4, The )la grounds, however, would fit into this categor , This was the norm a))lied b the lower court, c. =uris*rudence (nd it cannot be said that its actuation was without juris)rudential )recedent for in Municipality of Cat5alogan v. Director of Lands, and in Municipality of Aaclo5an v. Director of Lands, * it was held that the ca)itol site and the school sites in munici)alities constitute their )atrimonial )ro)erties, This result is understandable because, unli@e in the classification regarding State )ro)erties, )ro)erties for )ublic service in the munici)alities are not classified as )ublic, 4. A**-ication of t0e La1 of Cunici*a- ,or*orations a. )ro*erties devoted to *u%-ic service are dee/ed *u%-ic ())l ing the norm obtaining under the )rinci)les constituting the law of .unici)al /or)orations, all those of the 30 )ro)erties in 4uestion which are devoted to )ublic service are deemed )ublic? the rest remain )atrimonial, 5nder this norm, to be considered )ublic, it is enough that the )ro)ert be held and devoted for governmental )ur)oses li@e local administration, )ublic education, )ublic health, etc, %. =uris*rudence Su))orting juris)rudence are found in the following cases: (&) !inunangan v. Director of Lands, where it was stated that Dwhere the munici)alit has occu)ied lands distinctl for )ublic )ur)oses, such as for the munici)al court house, the )ublic school, the )ublic mar@et, or other necessar munici)al building, the /ourt will, in the absence of )roof to the contrar , )resume a grant from the State in favor of the munici)alit ? but, as indicated b the wording, that rule ma be invo@ed onl as to )ro)ert which is used distinctl for )ublic )ur)oses,E (#) @iuda de Aantoco v. Municipal Council of #loilo held that munici)al )ro)erties necessar for governmental )ur)oses are )ublic in nature, Thus, the auto truc@s used b the munici)alit for street s)rin@ling, the )olice )atrol automobile, )olice stations and concrete structures with the corres)onding lots used as mar@ets were declared e2em)t from e2ecution and attachment since the were not )atrimonial )ro)erties, ($) Municipality of "atangas v. Cantos, held s4uarel that a munici)al lot which had alwa s been devoted to school )ur)oses is one dedicated to )ublic use and is not )atrimonial )ro)ert of a munici)alit , &. RA "!"# va-id insofar as it affects + -ots *revious-y used %y t0e *rovince in its govern/entaca*acity R( $0$* is valid insofar as it affects the lots used as ca)itol site, school sites and its grounds, hos)ital and le)rosarium sites and the high school )la ground sites, a total of #4 lots, since these were held b the former Oamboanga )rovince in its governmental ca)acit and therefore are subject to the absolute control of /ongress, 6. Bur-eig0 -ots constitute a**urtenant grounds of t0e Bur-eig0 sc0oo-s and *artake of t0e nature of t0e sa/e The eight =urleigh lots are adjoining each other and in turn are between the two lots wherein the =urleigh
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +16 )
schools are built, Said eight lots constitute the a))urtenant grounds of the =urleigh schools and )arta@e of the nature of the same, 8. Bui-dings on + -ots are *u%-ic. Assu/*tion %ased on 0istory' and ,0aracter of %ui-dings as accessory to t0e -and The records do not disclose whether the were constructed at the e2)ense of the former "rovince of Oamboanga, /onsidering however the fact that said buildings must have been erected even before &*$% when /( $* was enacted and the further fact that )rovinces then had no )ower to authori:e construction of buildings such as those in the )resent case at their own e2)ense, it can be assumed that said buildings were erected b the <ational 1overnment, using national funds, +ence, /ongress could ver well dis)ose of said buildings in the same manner that it did with the lots in 4uestion, =ut even assuming that )rovincial funds were used, still the buildings constitute mere accessories to the lands, which are )ublic in nature, and so, the follow the nature of said lands, i,e,, )ublic, .oreover, said buildings, those located in the cit , will not be for the e2clusive use and benefit of cit residents for the could be availed of also b the )rovincial residents, The )rovince then, and its successors6in6interest, are not reall de)rived of the benefits thereof, #. )rovince cannot %e de*rived of its s0are in t0e va-ue of t0e +& ot0er -ots R( $0$* cannot be a))lied to de)rive Oamboanga del <orte of its share in the value of the rest of the #% remaining lots which are )atrimonial )ro)erties since the are not being utili:ed for distinctl governmental )ur)oses, The fact that these #% lots are registered strengthens the )ro)osition that the are trul )rivate in nature, 1!. Registration cannot convert *u%-ic *ro*erty to *rivate The fact that the #4 lots used for governmental )ur)oses are registered is of no significance since registration cannot convert )ublic )ro)ert to )rivate, 11. La1 of Cunici*a- ,or*orations *revai-s over t0at of ,ivi- ,ode. Dire conse5uence of 0o-ding *ro*erty for *u%-ic service si/i-ar to ordinary *rivate *ro*erty The /ourt is more inclined to u)hold the view that the controvers is more along the domains of the ;aw of .unici)al /or)orations (State v, "rovince) than along that of /ivil ;aw, The /ourt is not inclined to hold that munici)al )ro)ert held and devoted to )ublic service is in the same categor as ordinar )rivate )ro)ert , The conse4uences are dire, (s ordinar )rivate )ro)erties, the can be levied u)on and attached, The can even be ac4uired thru adverse )ossession, all these to the detriment of the local communit , 1+. La1 of Cunici*a- ,or*oration' for t0e *ur*ose of Artic-e + N,,' considered Hs*ecia- -a1I The classification of )ro)erties other than those for )ublic use in the munici)alities as )atrimonial under (rticle 4#4 of the /ivil /ode is Dwithout )rejudice to the )rovisions of s)ecial laws,E !or )ur)oses of the article, the )rinci)les obtaining under the ;aw of .unici)al /or)orations can be considered as Ds)ecial lawsE, +ence, the classification of munici)al )ro)ert devoted for governmental )ur)oses as )ublic should )revail over the /ivil /ode classification in this )articular case, 1". )rovince not gui-ty of -ac0es 5nder /( $*, Section 30, the cause of action in favor of the defunct Oamboanga "rovince arose onl in &*4* after the (uditor 1eneral fi2ed the value of the )ro)erties in 4uestion, Ghile in &*3&, the /abinet resolved to transfer said )ro)erties )racticall for free to Oamboanga /it , a reconsideration thereof was seasonabl sought, 8n &*3#, the old )rovince was dissolved, (s successor6in6interest to more than half of the )ro)erties involved, Oamboanga del <orte was able to get a reconsideration of the /abinet Resolution in &*3*, 8n fact, )artial )a ments were effected subse4uentl and it was onl after the )assage of R( $0$* in &*%& that the )resent controvers arose, "laintiff brought suit in &*%#, (ll the foregoing, thus, are negative laches, 1 . @a/%oanga de- Norte entit-ed to 4 ."#O s0are in t0e a/ounts co--ected in t0e +& *atri/onia)ro*erty' +!!" ( +18 )
*ro*erties. )ay/ent cannot %e *aid in -u/* su/ Oamboanga del <orte is still entitled to collect from the /it of Oamboanga the formerBs 34,$*C share in the #% )ro)erties which are )atrimonial in nature, said share to be com)uted on the basis of the valuation of said #% )ro)erties as contained in Resolution ', dated #% .arch &*4*, of the ())raisal /ommittee formed b the (uditor 1eneral, The share, however, cannot be )aid in lum) sum, e2ce)t as to the "4$,0$0,&& alread returned to the /it , as the return of said amount to the cit was without legal basis, R( $0$* too@ effect onl on &' June &*%& after a )artial )a ment of "3',$'$,4% had alread been made, Since the law did not )rovide for retroactivit , it could not have validl affected a com)leted act, +ence, the amount of "4$,0$0,&& should be immediatel returned b the /it to the )rovince, The remaining balance, if an , in the amount of )laintiffBs 34,$*C share in the #% lots should then be )aid b the /it in the same manner originall ado)ted b the Secretar of !inance and the /ommissioner of 8nternal Revenue, and not in lum) sum, (rticle &&%* of the /ivil /ode on reci)rocal obligations invo@ed b )laintiff to justif lum) sum )a ment is ina))licable since there has been so far in legal contem)lation no com)lete deliver of the lots in 4uestion, The titles to the registered lots are not et in the name of Oamboanga /it ,
)ro*erty' +!!" ( +1# )

Haystacks: Property Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Haystacks: Property Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Haystacks

Some %i&hts %eserved$

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

)ro*erty' +!!" ( 1& )

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

)ro*erty' +!!" ( +" )

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

)ro*erty' +!!" ( & )

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)

)ro*erty' +!!" ( 4& )

Haystacks (Berne Guerrero)