Heirs of ESTELITA BURGOS-LIPAT, namely: ALAN B. LIPAT and ALFREDO B. LIPAT, JR., Petitioners, vs. Heirs of EUGENIO D.

TRINIDAD, namely: ASUNCION R. TRINIDAD, VICTOR R. TRINIDAD, IMACULADA T. ALFONSO, CELESTINA T. NAGUIAT, FERNANDO R. TRINIDAD, MICHAEL R. TRINIDAD and JOSEFINA T. NAGUIAT, Respondents. G.R. No. 185644 March 2, 2010 CORONA, J.: Facts Estelita and Alfredo Lipat obtained a loan from Pacific Banking Corporation, secured by a real estate mortgage. Due to petitioners’ failure to pay their loans, the PBC foreclosed the subject property with Eugenio D. Trinidad as the highest bidder. He was issued a certificate of sale which was registered on April 12, 1989. The petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of mortgage, extra-judicial foreclosure and certificate of sale. The RTC dismissed the complaint but granted petitioners five months and 17 days from the finality of the decision to exercise their right of redemption, a decision which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, petitioners assigned their rights over the contested property to Partas Transporation Co., Inc. (PTCI). Within the given period left for redemption, PTCI exercised the right of redemption. However, the heirs of Trinidad refused to claim the redemption money and surrender the certificate of title. Issue WON the right to redemption should have been exercised within one year from the date of registration of the certificate of sale. Ruling The one-year redemption period is the rule that generally applies to foreclosure of mortgage by a bank. The period of redemption is not tolled by the filing of a complaint or petition for annulment of the mortgage and the foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to the said mortgage. However, in Lipat, the Supreme Court upheld the RTC decision giving petitioners five months and 17 days from the finality of the trial court’s decision to redeem their foreclosed property. Lipat, already final and executory, has therefore become the law of the case between the parties, even though the said period was beyond one year from the date of registration of the sale. The CA had no power to reverse the Court’s final and executory judgment. -0THE PARENTS-TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (PTA) OF ST. MATHEW CHRISTIAN ACADEMY, GREGORIO INALVEZ, JR., ROWENA LAYUG, MALOU MALVAR, MARILOU BARAQUIO, GARY SINLAO, LUZVIMINDA OCAMPO,MARIFE FERNANDEZ, FERNANDO VICTORIO, ERNESTO AGANON and RIZALINO MANGLICMOT, represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, GREGORIO INALVEZ, JR., Petitioners,

vs. THE METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST CO., Respondent. G.R. No. 176518 DEL CASTILLO, J.: Facts Denivin and Josefina Ilagan were granted a loan by the Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. secured by a Real Estate Mortgage over parcels of land. Upon default, an extrajudicial foreclosure was conducted with Metropolitan Bank being the highest bidder and for which a Certificate of Sale was issued. During the period of redemption, a Writ of Possession was approved in favor of the Bank. On June 30, 2005, the St. Mathew Christian Academy of Tarlac, Inc., owned by the mortgagors and therefore included in one of the foreclosed lands, filed a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for Restraining Order. Issue WON St. Mathew Christian Academy of Tarlac, Inc. is really a third person which cannot be bound by the writ of possession issued by the Court. Ruling Petitioners are not "Third Parties" against whom the writ of possession cannot be issued and implemented. As a rule, it is ministerial upon the court to issue a writ of possession after the foreclosure sale and during the period of redemption. Section 7 of Act No. 3135 explicitly authorizes the purchaser in a foreclosure sale to apply for a writ of possession. It is settled that the issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty of the court. The purchaser of the foreclosed property, upon ex parte application and the posting of the required bond, has the right to acquire possession of the foreclosed property during the 12-month redemption period. Since petitioners’ possession of the subject school premises stemmed from their employment or enrollment contracts with the school, their right to possess the subject school premises cannot be adverse to that of the school and of its owners. As such, the petitioners cannot be deemed "third parties". The proper remedy for the petitioners is a separate, distinct and independent suit, provided for under Act No. 3135. -0CARMEN DEL PRADO, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES ANTONIO L. CABALLERO and LEONARDA CABALLERO, Respondents. G.R. No. 148225 NACHURA, J.: Facts March 3, 2010 March 2, 2010

It is a fundamental principle in land registration that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. ROSANILA V. were adjudicated in favor of Spouses Antonio and Leonarda Caballero in 1985. In the instant case. Ruling Petitioner’s recourse.00 for a predetermined area of 4. -0SPOUSES NORMAN K. the court ordered for the issuance of the decree of registration and the corresponding titles of the lots in favor of the Caballeros. had become incontrovertible. 2010 .: March 5. by filing the petition for registration in the same cadastral case. JR. CERTEZA. G. On June 11. 190078 DEL CASTILLO. Issue WON the petitioner’s recourse. with the specified boundaries. mentioned in its description. the discrepancy of 10. 11909.475 sq m cannot be considered a slight difference in quantity. which is in excess of the allotted area to be sold. PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK. hence. Cadastral Lot No. the parties agreed on the purchase price of P40. Inasmuch as the petition for registration of document did not interrupt the running of the period to file the appropriate petition for review and considering that the prescribed one-year period had long since expired. the decree of registration. including Cadastral Lot No. However. Petitioners. JR.000. 1991. On March 20. covering the whole Lot No.R. Respondent. but the boundaries therein laid down.Several parcels of land. in which case. AND AMADA P. 11909. Clearly. numerical data are not the sole gauge of unreasonableness of the excess or deficiency in area. J. was improper. In addition.. In the petition. It is not a reasonable excess or deficiency that should be deemed included in the deed of sale. CERTEZA. Spouses Caballero sold to Carmen del Prado. as enclosing the land and indicating its limits. she alleged that the tenor of the instrument of sale indicated that the sale was for a lump sum. 1990. vs. the vendor was bound to deliver all that was included within said boundaries even when it exceeded the area specified in the contract. Such indefeasibility commences after one year from the date of entry of the decree of registration. No. 11909 on the basis of the tax declaration covering the property. what really defines a piece of ground is not the area. calculated with more or less certainty. by filing the petition for registration in the same cadastral case. petitioner filed in the same cadastral proceedings a "Petition for Registration of Document Under PD 1529" in order that a certificate of title be issued in her name. was proper. as well as the certificate of title issued in favor of respondents. VILLAMAYOR and HERMINIO VILLAMAYOR.000 sq m. and MA.

Facts Petitioners obtained a loan from Philippine Savings Bank. MUSOR. Petitioner. In extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgages however.m.D. an Extrajudicial Foreclosure of the Real Estate Mortgage was instituted. Due to petitioners’ failure to pay their obligation. of the date of the auction (Act 3135. A corresponding Certificate of Sale was then issued in its favor and was later registered. Therefore. PS Bank emerged as the sole and highest bidder. 4). vs. Conduct of the extra-judicial foreclosure sale – a. No. 182434 March 5. G. RASAD G. HON.M.Respondents. 72002 Section 5(a) further states that: Sec. the requirement that there must be at least two bidders is not as exigent as in the case of contracts for government infrastructure projects. xxx The use of the word "bids" (in plural form) does not make it a mandatory requirement to have more than one bidder for an auction sale to be valid. Circular No. 5. They further sought the nullification of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale for allegedly having been conducted in contravention of the procedural requirements prescribed in A. the subsequent issuance of the writ of possession is likewise regular and valid.R. MANGOMPIA. Consequently. Ruling The law governing cases of extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage is Act No. 3135. No. 1594 with respect to contracts for government infrastructure projects because of the public interest involved. the extra-judicial foreclosure sale conducted in this case is regular and valid. TOMAWIS. On January 20. It is impractical and burdensome to require the two-bidder rule considering that not all auction sales are commercially attractive to prospective bidders. The two-bidder rule is provided under P. and 4 p.m. PUMBAYA. Issue WON the auction sale conducted by virtue of the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage should be declared null and void for failure to comply with the twobidder rule. A Writ of Possession was then subsequently granted. Sec. -0SULTAN YAHYA "JERRY" M. the private interest is predominant. petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion for Leave to Intervene and to Stay Issuance or Implementation of Writ of Possession. 2005. 99-10-05-0 (Re: Procedure in Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgages). No. During the auction sale. and RAMLA A. BALINDONG. The bidding shall be made through sealed bids which must be submitted to the Sheriff who shall conduct the sale between the hours of 9 a. 2010 . Therefore. AMNA A. JALILAH A.

and (4) they had been unlawfully deprived of their possession of the land. are within the SDC’s jurisdiction to grant. private respondents filed with the Shari’a Court District (SDC) an action for quieting of title of a parcel of land. who may be the opposing party against a Muslim. (3) in 1996. represented by surviving spouse RODOLFO BONGCO. Issue WON the SDC can validly take cognizance of Civil Case No. BP 129 was enacted to reorganize only existing civil courts and is a law of general application to the judiciary.VELASCO. except those for ejectment. in turn. found in Art. concurrently with the RTCs and MTCs. being the legal heirs of Acraman Radia. Jalilah A. original jurisdiction. Ruling The allegations. private respondents’ petition in Civil Case No. 1997. -0PIO DELOS REYES (Deceased). continuous. who had always been in peaceful. On the other hand. 102-97. over all personal and real actions outside the purview of Art. and adverse possession of the property. Musor are the daughters of the late Acraman Radia. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is determined from the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought. the elimination of the "cloud of doubts on the title of ownership" on the subject land. located in Marawi City. docketed as Civil Case No. On February 21. Mangompia. SDC had.. J. in which the parties involved were Muslims. The respondents alleged that: (1) They were the absolute owners of the lot subject of the complaint. vs. PD 1083 is a special law that only applies to Shari’a courts. the SDC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all actions arising from contracts customary to Muslims to the exclusion of the RTCs.: Facts Amna A. and Ramla A. MAURO DELOS REYES and IRENE BONGCO (Deceased). 102-97. Petitioners. while both courts have concurrent original jurisdiction over all other personal actions. Said jurisdictional conferment. Pumbaya. FLORES. as well as the relief sought by private respondents. In the instant case. and Tomawis’ actions had cast a cloud of doubt on their title. 102-97 sufficiently alleged the concurrent original jurisdiction of the SDC. by virtue of PD 1083. (2) Tomawis assumed ownership of the said property on the claim that he bought the same from Mangoda Radia. as the exception under PD 1083. they "were informed that their land [was] leveled and the small houses [built] thereon with their permission were removed" upon the orders of Tomawis. against Sultan Jerry Tomawis and Mangoda Radia. HONORABLE WALDO Q. represented by heirs FIDEL DELOS REYES. 143 of PD 1083. 143(1)(d) of PD 1083. While the Court recognizes the concurrent jurisdiction of the SDCs and the RTCs with respect to cases involving only Muslims. claimed that he inherited it from his late father. JR. is applicable solely when both parties are Muslims and shall not be construed to operate to the prejudice of a non-Muslim. in his capacity as Senior Deputy Executive . who.

Office of the President. No.D. industrial. He further alleged that during the pendency of the petition for exclusion or retention. which was in excess of 7 hectares. The Office of the President likewise dismissed the petitioners’ motion upon appeal. THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER (PARO) OF DINALUPIHAN BATAAN. which was later recommended by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer for approval. exclusion of his children’s properties from the coverage of operation land transfer.: Facts Pio delos Reyes applied for exclusion from the coverage of operation land transfer. or other urban purposes from which they derived adequate income to support themselves and their families. some parcels of land. 27 and LOI No. the recommendation included retention of not more than seven hectares of his tenanted land planted to rice and corn. Pio converted portions of their landholdings into residential lands. BATAAN. Fortunato Quiambao. 2010 . commercial. appealed to the DAR Secretary claiming that Pio resorted to fraud in not stating the totality of his landholdings. cancellation of certificates of land transfer covering the properties of his children issued in favor of farmer beneficiaries. under P. The parties are presumed to know the hornbook rule that judgments become final and executory only upon the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal or to file a motion for reconsideration without any appeal or motion for reconsideration having been made. The DAR Secretary found that Pio and his children owned lands used for residential. HONORABLE RENE C. in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Land Reform (formerly Department of Agrarian Reform). he concluded that the subject landholdings fell under the government’s operation land transfer program. G. 474. and cancellation of certificates of land transfer covering his retention area. hence. and FORTUNATO QUIAMBAO. 168726 CARPIO. J. March 5.R. THE MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER (MARO) OF HERMOSA AND ORANI. Petitioners should have first filed a motion for reconsideration of the 30 September 2004 order of the Office of the President. Ruling The thrust of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence. Respondents. however. Issue WON the petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by petitioners is proper. No. Pio and his children moved for reconsideration.Secretary. Specifically. which the DAR Secretary dismissed. VILLA.

Batangas. and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS. INC..Respondents. BATANGAS SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK. CUDIAMAT and CORAZON D. who resided in Ozamiz City with his wife. NASUGBU. The Balayan RTC had jurisdiction over the complaint for quieting of title. The present case is an exception to the rule that lack of jurisdiction on the subject matter can be raised at any time and is not lost by estoppel by laches. Restituto. if there is a judicial liquidation of an insolvent bank. 2010 . Court of Appeals. assailing the mortgage as being null and void as they did not authorize the encumbrance of the property. Batangas. held that as a general rule. 1999 before the RTC of Balayan a complaint "for quieting of title with damages" against the bank and the Register of Deeds of Nasugbu. 27 and LOI No. CUDIAMAT. she and spouses Restituto and Erlinda filed on August 9. Restituto Cudiamat and his brother Perfecto were the registered coowners of a 320 square meter parcel of land in Balayan. The Court. 182403 CARPIO MORALES. decided petitioners’ complaint (for about two years) would be an exercise in futility and would unjustly burden petitioners. No. G. On June 19. in fact. 1991 the bank foreclosed the property. BATANGAS. 474. CUDIAMAT. vs. as Perfecto’s widow Corazon was being evicted from the property. RESTITUTO G. obtained a loan from Batangas Savings and Loan Bank. -0ATTY. ERLINDA P.R. owing to his agrarian expertise. Petitioners. Ruling Estoppel bars the bank from raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the Balayan RTC. all claims against the bank should March 9.D. the DAR Secretary. without the knowledge and consent of Restituto.: Facts Atty. In 1998. entrusted the custody of the title to who Perfecto. To compel petitioners to re-file and relitigate their claims before the Nasugbu RTC when the parties had already been given the opportunity to present their respective evidence in a full-blown trial before the Balayan RTC which had. which was registered in Nasugbu. No. Issue WON the RTC of Balayan had no jurisdiction over the petitioners’ complaint.As this case involves the application of P. J. Inc with the said property as a security. In 1979. in Valenzuela v. Perfecto. is in a better position to make a final determination whether petitioners’ landholdings may be subject of exclusion from operation land transfer or retention.

however. CONSOLACION. LIM. And. vs. 943 to Luisa. RO-9969-(O-20449). This. cultivating and developing it." In the present case. No. RO-9969-(O-20449). and that said OCT be cancelled and a new certificate of title be issued in the name of Luisa in lieu of said OCT. VICTORIA O. J. NAMBATAC. on the other hand. Whether or not the validity of the OCT could be collaterally attacked through an ordinary civil action to quiet title. averring additionally that he and his predecessor-in-interest had been in actual possession of the property since 1937. after considering the circumstances attendant to the case. except for co-petitioner Corazon. 154270 BERSAMIN. The Court in Valenzuela. PRECY O. Petitioners. They further claimed that Spouses Oño never sold Lot No. held that the general rule should not be applied if to order the aggrieved party to refile or relitigate its case before the litigation court would be "an exercise in futility. converted the petition for reconstitution into a complaint for quieting of title. was opposed by Zosimo Oño and Teofisto Oño contending that they had the certificate of title in their possession as the successors-in-interest of Spouses Oño.R. laches. G. or adverse possession. Petitioner Restituto was 78 years old at the time the petition was filed in this Court. and paying the taxes corresponding to it. enjoying its fruits. VICENTE N. MANUGAS and POLOR O. Lim. -0TEOFISTO OÑO. Respondent. To compel him to appear and relitigate the case in the liquidation court-Nasugbu RTC when the issues to be raised before it are the same as those already exhaustively passed upon and decided by the Balayan RTC would be superfluous. Whether or not the ownership over registered land could be lost by prescription. Luisa and that the lot covered by said OCT had been sold to Luisa by Spouses Oño. 2. He prayed that the Oños be ordered to surrender the reconstituted owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. Restituto is a resident of Ozamis City. Ruling March 9.be filed in the liquidation proceeding. and his co-petitioner-wife Erlinda died during the pendency of the case. Issue 1. however. the Court finds that analogous considerations exist to warrant the application of Valenzuela.: Facts Vicente Lim filed a petition for the reconstitution of the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. 2010 . alleging that said OCT had been lost during World War II by his mother.

-0DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM. J. Prescription was not relevant to the determination of the dispute herein. and resultantly should be cancelled. all that remained to be done was the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title in her name. instead. PABLO BERENGUER. Respondents. for Lim was asserting only that the existing title registered in the name of the petitioners’ predecessors had become inoperative due to the conveyance in favor of Lim’s mother.The action was neither a direct nor a collateral attack on OCT No. BELINDA BERENGUER. considering that Lim did not base his right of ownership on an adverse possession over a certain period. represented by SECRETARY HERNANI A. his predecessor-in-interest. the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board had classified their landholdings as residential and industrial lands. The action only sought the removal of a cloud from Lim’s title. The respondents claimed that the lands were originally devoted to pasture and livestock raising. ROSARIO BERENGUER-LANDERS. The DAR Secretary. coupled with Luisa’s actual occupation of it. Sorsogon.R. RO-9969(O-20449). and REMEDIOS BERENGUER-LINTAG. 154094 BERSAMIN. Petitioner. Sorsogon. Issue WON the DAR Secretary had jurisdiction over the respondents’ landholdings. No. Lim showed that his mother had derived a just title to the property by virtue of sale and that in view of the delivery of the property. BRAGANZA. They filed in the office of DAR Regional their application for exclusion of their landholdings from CARP coverage.: Facts The respondents were the registered owners of several residential and industrial lands located in Barangay Bibincahan. cancelled their titles and issued certificates of land ownership awards. which were outside the coverage of the CARL. that title to the land had been voluntarily transferred by the registered owners themselves to Luisa. vs. to the members of the Baribag Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Development Cooperative. He insisted herein. however. and the confirmation of Lim’s ownership over the disputed property as the successor-in-interest of Luisa. and later being already classified as residential and industrial lands. CARLO BERENGUER. 2010 . covering their landholdings. G. that as early as 1981. Ruling March 9.

GUINGONA. s. which encompasses 1. 142549 March 9.: The property involved in this case is covered by OCT No. claiming to be the heirs of a certain Maria de la Concepcion Vidal.342 hectares of the Maysilo Estate. cattle rustling. G. the respondents’ landholdings were presumed to be industrial and residential lands. Petitioner. In fact. 994. Resolution No. or commercial. the excerpt from the Comprehensive Development Plan of Sorsogon. 994. However. and SENATOR TEOFISTO T. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform: xxx it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program of the Government. the Court said:” A lot inside the poblacion should be presumed residential. Respondents. commenced a special civil action for partition and accounting of the property otherwise known as Maysilo Estate covered by OCT No. Thereby. Having found only 15 cattle within the 58 hectares land during the semestral survey did not automatically mean that the landholdings were not devoted to the raising of livestock. 5 by the Sangguniang Bayan of Sorsogon. JR..The DAR Administrative Order No. THE ADMINISTRATOR. the Registers of Deeds of Caloocan City and Quezon City refused to comply with the RTC Order based on the indorsements issued by the DOJ and the . vs. Province of Rizal. and alleging that they are entitled to inherit her proportional share in the parcels of land located in Quezon City and in the municipalities of Caloocan and Malabon. 1917 with the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City. Sorsogon showed that Barangay Bibincahan was within the Central Business District of the municipality. Also.7815 hectares of infrastructure. -0FIDELA R. allegedly registered on April 19. or sale of the cattle may explain the insufficiency. Sorsogon.” There is no dispute that as early as 1981. Intermediate Appellate Court. Sorsogon. The SECRETARY OF JUSTICE. In Hilario v. ANGELES. 2010 LEONARDO-DE CASTRO. LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY. or non-agricultural unless there is a clearly preponderant evidence to show that it is agricultural. the DAR failed to establish that the landholdings were agricultural. and one head of cattle to 1. No. 9. petitioner and some individuals. The court granted the partition and accounting prayed for by plaintiffs. 1965. the respondents’ landholdings have been part of the poblacion of Sorsogon. where the respondents’ landholdings were situated. On May 3. 1993 required that properties should be considered excluded from the coverage of the CARL only if it was established that there existed the minimum ratio of one head of cattle to one hectare of land. showed that the limits of the poblacion area of the municipality included Barangay Bibincahan. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY. J.R. in Luz Farms v. More importantly. Several reasons including pestilence.

the LRA's reaction is reasonable. such issuance may contravene the policy and the purpose. given the finding that OCT No. Respondents. Ruling In Laburada v. 994 which was issued by the Rizal Register of Deeds on 3 May 1917 (and not on 19 April 1919) pursuant to Decree No. Issue WON the LRA may refuse to issue the decree of registration. even imperative. the Sheriff sold at public auction the subject property to Medina being the highest bidder thereof. 4429. vs. 36455 in Land Registration Case No. Land Registration Authority: That the LRA hesitates in issuing a decree of registration is understandable. 166730 PERALTA. -0SPOUSES FERNANDO TORRES and IRMA TORRES.LRA for it was found that there is only one OCT No. The same was reiterated in the 2007 and 2009 Manotok case. 994 dated April 19. There was sufficient basis for public respondents to refuse to comply with the RTC Order. Considering the probable duplication of titles over the same parcel of land. 1917. AMPARO MEDINA and the EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF of the RTC of Quezon City. On June 30. 1993. of the Torrens system of registration. 2010 . Rather than a sign of negligence or nonfeasance in the performance of its duty. A Certificate of Sale was thereafter issued. 1997. did not exist. On September 21. even though ordered by the court. Amparo Medina applied for the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage of the property of spouses Fernando and Irma Torres which was covered by TCT RT-61056 (354973) and which is subject of a Deed of Mortgage dated December 20. the Spouses Torres filed a Complaint for March 10.: Facts On July 28.R. The issuance by the LRA officials of a decree of registration is not a purely ministerial duty in cases where they find that such would result to the double titling of the same parcel of land. Petitioners. J. The Register of Deeds cannot be compelled by mandamus to comply with the RTC Order since there were existing transfer certificates of title covering the subject parcels of land and there was reason to question the rights of those requesting for the issuance of the TCTs. and thereby destroy the integrity. on which petitioner and her coplaintiffs in the civil case clearly anchored their rights. G. 1994. No. 1999.

Q-9938781 after more than two years had already lapsed from the time the ex-officio sheriff sold the property in question at public auction. GOLDEN HORIZON REALTY CORPORATION. the Spouses Torres cannot feign knowledge thereof..republicae ut sit litium. No. more so because the decision in Civil Case No. In the absence of evidence to the contrary. Ruling Res judicata bars the filing of Civil Case No.. the Spouses Torres first instituted Civil Case No. as a ground for dismissal.. Province of Batangas..... which. 184260 . As borne from the records of the case. namely: 1. prayed for the nullity of the real estate mortgage. Respondent. -0G. this Court must assume that no attempt to redeem the property was undertaken by the Spouses Torres and that they simply allowed their right and remedy to lapse by their inaction.R. Petitioner. Issue WON res judicata lies in the complaint..... which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation --. A conflicting doctrine would subject the public peace and quiet to the will and dereliction of individuals and prefer the regalement of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the public tranquility and happiness.the declaration of nullity of the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage conducted by the Ex-Officio Sheriff. As succinctly put in FELS Energy. Q-99-38781.. More importantly. res judicata. Q-94-18962.nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa.. x .... v. Moreso. vs... the Spouses Torres only filed their complaint in Civil Case No.public policy and necessity. among others..-x G. The validity of the real estate mortgage can no longer be attacked. Spouses Torres were not completely left without any remedy as they still had the right of redemption. Q-94-18962 has become final and Entry of Judgment has already been entered in the books. Inc. The foreclosure proceeding was an action in rem. 183612 POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES.. No.. and (2) the hardship on the individual of being vexed twice for the same cause --. is based on two grounds. and therefore. which expired one year from and after the date of the registration of the Certificate of Sale.R.

169548 March 15. No. Ruling Not even the avowed public welfare or the constitutional priority accorded to education. 2010 VILLARAMA. GOLDEN HORIZON REALTY CORPORATION. DAVID. -0TITAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION. would serve as license to destroy the sanctity of binding obligations. vs. March 15. DAVID. no reversible error was committed in sustaining respondent’s contractual right of first refusal and ordering the reconveyance of the leased portion of petitioner NDC’s property in its favor. it is doubtful if such importance can be used to confiscate private property such as the right of first refusal granted to a lessee of petitioner NDC. and MARTHA S. G. Only after the lessee has failed to exercise his right of first priority could the lessor sell the property to other buyers under the same terms and conditions offered to the lessee. MANUEL A. vs. the lessor has the legal duty to the lessee not to sell the leased property to anyone at any price until after the lessor has made an offer to sell the property to the lessee and the lessee has failed to accept it. When a lease contract contains a right of first refusal." However.. Respondents. Petitioner. invoked by petitioner PUP in the Firestone case.NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.R.: The National Development Corporation (NDC) entered into a Contract of Lease with Golden Horizon Realty Corporation (GHRC). the price to be negotiated and determined at the time the option to purchase is exercised. or under terms and conditions more favorable to the lessor. JR. Issue WON the reconveyance of the leased portion of petitioner NDC’s property is proper. Respondent. the GHRC’s right of first refusal under the lease contract was violated by the sale of the property to PUP without NDC having first offered to sell the same to GHRC despite the latter’s request for the renewal of the lease and/or to purchase the leased premises prior to the expiration of the second lease contract. J. While education may be prioritized for legislative and budgetary purposes. Petitioner. Clearly. SR. 2010 . GHRC as lessee was granted the "option to purchase the area leased.

however.. KWONG and ORO CAM ENTERPRISES. Since the property was undoubtedly part of the conjugal partnership. the sale to Titan required the consent of both spouses.: Facts The spouses Manuel A. -0LYDIA L. WILSON GAW (CHIN CHIONG). CONSTANCIO S. SAMUEL SONNIE LIM. otherwise. HEIRS OF SANTIAGO EBORA: JOSEFA EBORA PACARDO. D'ORO LAND REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. was part of the conjugal partnership. MERCEDES EBORA PABUSLAN. and therefore void. 2010 . Here. Issue WON there is sufficient ground to reconvey the property to spouses David. ALEJANDRO EBORA. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY. BARTOLOME EBORA. vs.R. In 1976. PRESCO C. MANZANO. and Martha S. ESPINO.DEL CASTILLO. the Titan failed to overturn the presumption that the property. David" and covered by TCT No. of legal age. INC. David. J. G. such disposition is void. married to Manuel A. the spouses separated de facto. Miat. ALFONSO GOKING. the Deed of Sale is void. ELEAZAR ED. purchased during the spouses’ marriage. sold the property to Titan Construction Corporation where a TCT was issued in favor of Titan. Rather. Ruling In the absence of Manuel’s consent.: March 15. BERNARDINO DEJULO EBORA. SABINA EBORA GALASINO and POLICARPIO EBORA. He prayed that the property be reconveyed to the spouses. and that a new title be issued in their names. 161137 CORONA. 156043. RAYMUNDA EBORA. PACITA EBORA PACARDO. ROA. David acquired a 602 square meter lot which was registered in the name of "MARTHA S. the presumption applies even when the manner in which the property was acquired does not appear. J. No. Sr. Martha. DAVID. Petitioner. Respondents. Thus Manuel filed a Complaint for Annulment of Contract and Recovenyance against Titan alleging that the sale executed by Martha in favor of Titan was without his knowledge and consent. Filipino. Article 124 of the Family Code requires that any disposition or encumbrance of conjugal property must have the written consent of the other spouse. Manuel was not required to prove that the property was acquired with funds of the partnership. In consonance with the Court’s ruling in Spouses Castro v.

Thus. TCT No. Roa filed a petition for annulment and cancellation of TCT No. married to Lydia Roa. Moreover. Issue WON the transferees of the heirs of Ebora acquired better right of ownership than that of the transferors. As in Sanchez. P-47. P-47. Subsequently. the case was resolved against Chacon Enterprises and in favor of the heirs of Ebora. 1983.Facts During the pendency of the case against Chacon Enterprises. the heirs of Ebora sold the entire lot covered by OCT No. which was mistakenly included by Chacon Enterprises in its application for original registration. TCT No. TCT No. without undermining the reason behind this doctrine (of protecting innocent purchasers for value). T-48097. including Josefa recognized the conveyance of Lot 18026-A to Josefa and eventually to Digno Roa. the heirs of Ebora sold and conveyed their rights to and interests in Lot 18026-A to the spouses Pacardo who assigned the property to the husband of petitioner as early as June 3. notwithstanding the fact that respondents were innocent purchasers for value. petitioner’s title was validly issued and had been undisturbed for 10 years before the title of the Ebora heirs was issued. Nonetheless. T-48097 was issued in the name of the heirs of Ebora. By reason of this decision. 48097 and its derivative titles against respondents but the RTC declared respondents as innocent purchasers for value whose titles to their respective lots should be respected. . which was annotated in OCT P-47. Without Roa’s knowledge and consent. Neither did they have anything to transfer to the vendees or successors-in-interest. Ruling Respondents are innocent purchasers for value. 1983. T24488. the heirs of Ebora lost all their rights and interest over the property. On September 29. From then on. Thereafter. She therefore possessed a superior right over those of respondents. the heirs of Ebora had nothing to adjudicate among themselves. the petitioner is entitled to the property following Sanchez v. On the same day. T-24488. and ordered the cancellation of petitioner’s title. Quinio. Petitioner never relinquished her title to respondents or to anybody else. 1977. the heirs of Ebora even confirmed the sale to Josefa and the assignment and waiver of rights in favor of petitioner’s husband in an instrument dated January 31. Indeed. was issued in the name of Digno Roa. to their co-heir Josefa Ebora Pacardo and her husband Rosalio. Other forms of encumbrances were likewise inscribed in the same TCT and the lots were thereafter sold to various respondents which resulted in the issuance of the following new TCTs in the names of the respective vendees. The corresponding deeds of absolute sale and assignment were inscribed on OCT No. spouses Pacardo assigned the property to Digno Roa. the heirs of Ebora. the heirs of Ebora again adjudicated Lot 18026-A among themselves which was inscribed in TCT No. Therefore.

The trial court held that the suit. Although appellant indeed raised the issue of jurisdiction in his answer. The trial court noted that petitioner failed to present any title or tax declaration to prove ownership or possessory right. jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the property. instead. appellant is now estopped to question the trial court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter and nature of the case having actively pursued throughout the trial. The spring cannot rise higher than its source. 183357 PEREZ. Indeed. G. It did not assert jurisdiction over the case even if it could have March 15. by filing various pleadings and presenting all relevant documentary and testimonial evidence. Estoppel sets in when a party participates in all stages of a case before challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court.As such. Issue Whether or not estoppel bars petitioner from raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction. vs. petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject matter and argued that in their complaint. the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court. On appeal. Romeo Gaza and Monina Francisco. The appellate court ruled that petitioner is estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction because he failed to file a motion to dismiss on such ground and. J. actively participated in the proceedings before the trial court. HEIRS OF EUSEBIO VILLEGAS. A reading of the complaint shows that respondents failed to state the assessed value of the disputed land. No. he had not filed a motion to dismiss on this ground nor reiterated the matter thereafter but actively participated in the proceedings. the transferees of the heirs of Ebora acquired no better right than that of the transferors. -0HONORIO BERNARDO. Respondents. being an accion publiciana. 2010 .R.: A complaint for accion publiciana was filed by the Heirs of Eusebio Villegas against Honorio Bernardo. In his appeal. Ruling Under the law as modified. Respondents had earlier filed an ejectment case against the three which case was dismissed. falls within its jurisdiction. Petitioner. the respondents failed to state the assessed value of the property in dispute. The MTC dismissed the ejectment case upon its ruling that the case is for accion publiciana.

5357 and issued TCT No.-x G. petitioner never brought up the issue of jurisdictional amount. petitioner failed to point out the omission of the assessed value in the complaint.: A parcel of land covered by TCT No.. as a result of such dismissal. by virtue of a Special Power of . No.. INC. GIL TABIJE. Winifred Gozon. After granting the decree of legal separation. MARIO SIOCHI. Clearly. Alfredo executed a Deed of Donation over the property in favor of their daughter.R. married to Elvira Gozon. not even an allegation. March 18.. 2010 CARPIO. ELVIRA GOZON. The Register of Deeds of Malabon. 5357 was registered in the name of "Alfredo Gozon.. 5357. And there was no showing. 169977 INTER-DIMENSIONAL REALTY. cancelled TCT No. INTER-DIMENSIONAL REALTY.. which was then annotated on TCT No. that the MTC was not aware of its jurisdictional authority over an accion publiciana involving property in the amount stated in the law. M-10508. and ELVIRA GOZON. indeed. Elvira filed a notice of lis pendens... Petitioner." On 23 December 1991. Petitioner. When. 169900 MARIO SIOCHI. respondents brought the case as accion publiciana before the RTC... Alfredo and Mario Siochi entered into an Agreement to Buy and Sell. While the legal separation case was still pending. Moreover. Petitioner obviously considered the dismissal to be in his favor. No. vs. Respondents... Respondents. ALFREDO GOZON. INC. is not sufficient. x . What petitioner mentioned in his Answer before the RTC was the generally phrased allegation that "the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter and the nature of the action in the above-entitled case. without annotating the Agreement and the notice of lis pendens on TCT No. Elvira filed a petition for legal separation against her husband Alfredo.. Alfredo. After a month. petitioner did not bring up the issue of jurisdictional amount that would have led the MTC to proceed with the trial of the case.R.. J.. and WINIFRED GOZON.. which was annotated on TCT 5357. M-10508 in the name of Winifred. which lacks any basis. -0G. On 26 October 1994.. ALFREDO GOZON..done so based on the assessed value of the property subject of the accion publiciana.." This general assertion. Mario then took possession of the property.... WINIFRED GOZON. involving the property... vs.

Respondents. G. the party who caused the registration of the lis pendens. JUANITO B. or (b) by the Register of Deeds upon verified petition of the party who caused the registration of the lis pendens. BERNAL. the Agreement is entirely void for it was entered without the written consent of Elvira. with whom Alfredo was separated in fact. Clearly. 2010 . vs. Thus. with Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order. However. Inc. the sale is void.Attorney executed in his favor by Winifred.: Facts March 18. 1529. as sole administrator of the property. 169336 CARPIO. In this case. Annulment of Donation and Sale. With regard to IDRI. BERNAL. Besides. Neither did Elvira. J. In this case. and MYRNA D. Ruling This case involves the conjugal property of Alfredo and Elvira. had IDRI been more prudent before buying the property. Under Section 77 of Presidential Decree No. Petitioners. OLYMPIA B. IDRI was not a buyer in good faith. Issue WON Mario has a better right over the subject land. IDRI is not a buyer in good faith. sold the property to Inter-Dimensional Realty. was unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal property. No.R. Under Article 125 of the Family Code. Alfredo was the sole administrator of the property because Elvira. M10508 and issued TCT No. Mario then filed a complaint for Specific Performance and Damages. BERNAL. Alfredo still cannot sell the property without the written consent of Elvira or the authority of the court. the lis pendens was cancelled by the Register of Deeds upon the request of Alfredo. IDRI had actual knowledge of facts and circumstances which should impel a reasonably cautious person to make further inquiries about the vendor’s title to the property. Subsequently. Without such consent or authority. the notice of lis pendens may be cancelled (a) upon order of the court. RONALD B. file a verified petition for its cancellation. There was no court order for the cancellation of the lis pendens. a conjugal property cannot be donated by one spouse without the consent of the other spouse. -0SPOUSES MELCHOR and SATURNINA ALDE. the Register of Deeds of Malabon cancelled TCT No. M-10976 to IDRI. BERNAL. it would have discovered that Alfredo’s donation of the property to Winifred was without the consent of Elvira.

Ownership is different from a certificate of title. AO-7236. the law refers to ownership which is represented by that document [the Original Certificate of Title or the Transfer Certificate of Title]. In Lee Tek Sheng v.In 1957.000 as additional consideration for the property. However. To repeat. In this case. since petitioners did not make a direct attack on the validity of OCT No. 6657. Olympia. Issue WON the respondents can claim ownership over the disputed portions of the property. However. in April 2002. the property must be reconveyed in favor of petitioners. AO-7236. An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him. Ruling The respondents claim ownership of the property based on OCT No. Case 8 in 1992. Petitioner apparently confuses certificate with title. Adriano secured a loan from Melchor and Saturnina Alde and turned over physical possession. In 1994. AO-7236. Title as a concept of ownership should not be confused with the certificate of title as evidence of such ownership although both are interchangeable. Respondents also informed petitioners. Then. Mere issuance of the certificate of title in the name of any person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be under co-ownership with persons not named in the certificate or that the registrant may only be a trustee or that other parties may have acquired interest subsequent to the issuance of the certificate of title. of the existence of OCT No. occupation and cultivation of 3 hectares of the property to Spouses Alde. Juanito and Myrna had in his possession a property which was later surveyed and designated as Cadastral Lot No. OCT No. AO-7236 and had not asked for the cancellation of the original certificate of title . OCT No. The TCT is only the best proof of ownership of a piece of land. Court of Appeals: By title. registration is not the equivalent of title. for the first time. respondents demanded from petitioners P50. father of Ronald. 1123. but is only the best evidence thereof. respondents cannot claim ownership over the disputed portions of the property absent any showing of how they acquired title over the same. Petitioners rejected respondents’ request since they already bought the entire property in 1994 and requested that respondents should turn-over to them OCT No. Besides. Adriano Bernal. the certificate cannot always be considered as conclusive evidence of ownership. Placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the Torrens system does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer be disputed. On 18 October 1994. 00073938 issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform pursuant to Republic Act No. AO-7236 was issued in the names of the Bernals. Cad 1119-D. Accordingly. AO-7236 originated from CLOA No. a certificate of title is not equivalent to title. Then Adriano had later sold the property to Spouses Aldo.

Even if the Court will consider petitioners’ counter-claim as a petition for the cancellation of OCT No. 1529. this Court cannot cancel OCT No. the MCTC still does not have jurisdiction over the cancellation of a Torrens title. AO-7236 and. thus. This case originated in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court. a direct attack on the certificate of title.as required by Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. . Any direct attack on the validity of a Torrens certificate of title must be instituted with the proper Regional Trial Court. AO-7236 and order the issuance of a new certificate of title in the name of petitioners.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful