You are on page 1of 5

PLEASANTVILLE DEV’T CORP v.

CA, 253 SCRA 10 FACTS: Edith Robillo purchased from petitioner a parcel of land designated as Lot 9, Phase II and located at Taculing Road, Pleasantville Subdivision, Bacolod City. In 1975, respondent Eldred Jardinico bought the rights to the lot from Robillo. At that time, Lot 9 was vacant. Upon completing all payments, Jardinico secured from the Register of Deeds of Bacolod City a Transfer Certificate under his name. It was then that he discovered that improvements had been introduced on said lot by respondent Wilson Kee, who had taken possession thereof. It appears that on March 26, 1974, Kee bought on installment Lot 8 of the same subdivision from C.T. Torres Enterprises, Inc. (CTTEI), the exclusive real estate agent of petitioner. Under the Contract to Sell on Installment, Kee could possess the lot even before the completion of all installment payments. Later, Kee paid CTTEI the relocation fees for the preparation of the lot plan. The amounts were paid prior to Kee’s taking actual possession of Lot 8. After the preparation of the lot plan and a copy thereof given to Kee, CTTEI through its employee accompanied Kee’s wife to inspect Lot 8. Unfortunately, the parcel of land pointed by the employee was Lot 9. Thereafter, Kee proceeded to construct his residence, a store, an auto repair shop and other improvements on the lot. After discovering that Lot 9 was occupied by Kee, Jardinico confronted him. The parties tried to reach an amicable settlement, but failed. In 1981, Jardinico’s lawyer wrote Kee, demanding that the latter remove all improvements and vacate Lot 9. When Kee refused to vacate Lot 9, Jardinico filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 3, Bacolod City (MTCC), a complaint for ejectment with damages against Kee. Kee, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against petitioner and CTTEI. ISSUE: Whether or not Kee is a builder in good faith. DECISION: Kee is a builder in good faith. The roots of the controversy can be traced in the errors committed by CTTEI when it pointed the wrong lot to Kee. Good faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his and he is ignorant of any defect or flaw in his title. And as good faith is presumed, Pleasantville has the burden of proving bad faith on the part of Kee. At the time he built the improvements on Lot 9, Kee believed that the said lot was the one he bought. He was not aware that the lot delivered to him was not Lot 8. Pleasantville failed to prove otherwise. Violation of the Contract of Sale on Installment may not be the basis to negate the presumption that Kee was a builder in good faith. Such violations have no bearing whatsoever on whether Kee was a builder in good faith, that is, on his state of mind at the time he built the improvements on Lot 9. These alleged violations may give rise to petitioner’s cause of action against Kee under the said contract (contractual breach) but may not be bases to negate the presumption that Kee was a builder in good faith.

father of respondent Cesaria Caringal. was awarded by the Bureau of Lands a free patent over the property in question and was issued an original certificate of title in his name. Petitioner failed to show sufficient proof of ownership over the land in question. After proper inspection and investigation by the Bureau of Lands. After Gregoria died. DECISION: The petitioner is not the rightful owner of the disputed land. respondent Caringal had introduced improvements on the property including the house presently occupied by respondents Dionisio Caay and Cesaria Caringal. CA. evidence for private respondents shows that respondent Demetrio Caringal filed a free patent application covering the disputed property. the original applicant for free patent. her surviving heir. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is the rightful owner of the disputed land. In 1982. the free patent application of respondent Caringal was given due course. If he claims a right granted or created by law. Batangas. In the case at bar. Poblacion. On 7 July 1986. petitioner repurchased the property from Santiago de Guzman with knowledge that the house of respondents Dionisio Caay and Cesaria Caringal was existing on the property but did not immediately eject them. . Gavino Tesorero. respondent Demetrio Caringal. A few years after. Petitioner claims that he has been in peaceful and adverse possession of the property since 1971 and this possession was confirmed by the Bureau of Lands Investigator Felix O. that his possession started in 1981 when it was sold to him by Gavino Tesorero who appeared to be the only surviving heir of Gregoria Pineda. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his opponent.. The evidence for the petitioner shows that the property was the subject of a prior Miscellaneous Sales Application filed by petitioner with the Bureau of Lands. On the other hand. the trial court rendered its decision declaring petitioner the legal owner of the disputed property. Laude. IV. the land was awarded by the Bureau of Lands to respondent Demetrio Caringal under a free patent application and was registered in his name. Balayan. Respondent Dionisio Caay was then the driver of Santiago de Guzman. filed an action for reconveyance and recovery of possession with damages against respondents Demetrio Caringal and spouses Dionisio Caay and Nazaria Caringal involving a parcel of land situated at Barangay No. Sr. It also ordered the Register of Deeds of Batangas to cancel the name and personal circumstances of respondent Caringal as the registered and to substitute the name and personal circumstances of petitioner. Manila. During this time.JAVIER v. sold the disputed property to respondent Caringal as evidenced by an affidavit executed by Tesorero. petitioner sold the land covered by his sales application to Santiago de Guzman by virtue of a deed of absolute sale. Petitioner later discovered. he must prove his claim by competent evidence. when the latter recommend that the miscellaneous sales application of petitioner be given due course. Later. During the lifetime of Gregoria. 231 SCRA 498 FACTS: Petitioner. In civil cases. Guillermo Javier. the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. Gregoria Pineda had been in possession of the property since 1942 and had applied in 1951 for a revocable permit with the Bureau of Lands in Tanduay. respondents Dionisio Caay and Cesaria Caringal constructed a house on the disputed lot with permission and upon tolerance of Santiago de Guzman.

The description and boundaries of the land allegedly possessed by petitioner and which was the subject of his application for sales patent differ from the parcel of land he described in his complaint for reconveyance. the person who claims that he has a better right to it must prove not only his ownership of the same but he must also satisfactorily prove the identity thereof. The filing of the miscellaneous sales application did not vest title upon petitioner over the property as there was no showing that his application was approved by the Bureau of Lands or that a sales patent over the property was granted to him prior to the issuance of free patent and that of the title issued in favor of respondent Caringal. Moreover. based on the evidence on record. assuming in gratia argumenti that the property which petitioner seeks to be reconveyed to him is the same as the Title in the name of respondent Caringal. petitioner has not proved his ownership of the same. But. It was held that in order to maintain an action to recover ownership of real property. failing to fix the identity of the property he claims. . In this case.petitioner as plaintiff in the trial court tried to prove his ownership over the property registered in the name of respondent Caringal by a miscellaneous sales application he filed with the Bureau of Lands and by his continuous possession thereof since 1971 when he applied for a sales patent. petitioner's action for reconveyance must fail. there is a serious doubt on the precise identity of the parcel of land the petitioner seeks to recover.

Thereafter. On June 6..SAPTO v. b. furthermore. and effective upon the heirs of the vendor. Constancio. 314. DECISIONS: a. FABIANA. now deceased. leaving no. the lower court held that although the sale between Samuel and Constancio Sapto and defendant in 1931 was never registered. On October 19. as between the parties to a sale. ISSUES: a. 103 PHIL 683 FACTS: Sapto (Moro). Nuesa. although never registered.) The deed of sale executed by appellants' predecessors in favor of the appellee over the land in question. other heirs. that even though it was never registered the sale was valid. The SC first affirmed the validity of the sale between the Sapto brothers and Fabiana. it was valid and binding upon the parties and the vendors heirs. Laureana and Vicente Sapto. and is certainly not necessary to give effect as between the parties to their deed of sale". 1931. According to the court. although never registered. however.. Possession of the land conveyed was. and ordered the plaintiffs to execute the necessary deed of conveyance in defendant's favor and its annotation in the certificate of title. When Sapto died. but was never registered. binding. transferred to Fabiana and the latter has been in the possession thereof since 1931 up to the present. is valid and binding. From this judgment. Samuel Sapto married one Dora (Bagoba) and upon his death was survived by his widow and two children. 95 Phil. After trial. In fact in the case of Medina vs.. The sale was duly approved by the Provincial Governor of Davao. ruling. Constancio Sapto died without any issue. registration is not necessary to make it valid and effective. Davao City. plaintiffs appealed to this Court. the widow and children of Samuel Sapto filed this action in the Court of First Instance of Davao for the recovery of the parcel of land sold by their predecessors to defendant Apolonio Fabiana in 1931. and Ramon as heirs of the property in question. Imaz and Warner Barnes and Co. Since no right of innocent third persons or subsequent transferees of the property in . 713. Toril. Samuel and Constancio Sapto executed a deed of sale of a portion of four hectares of the land aforementioned in favor of defendant Apolonio Fabiana. is valid and binding. he left his children Samuel. Ramon pre-deceased his two brothers. 27 Phil.) Whether or not the CFI’s order of conveyance in favor of Fabiana is valid.) Whether or not the deed of sale executed by appellants' predecessors in favor of the appellee over the land in question. 1954. the court held that "registration is intended to protect the buyer against claims of third persons arising from subsequent alienations by the vendor. it was held that the peculiar force of a title is exhibited only when the purchaser has sold to innocent third parties the land described in the conveyance. in Galanza vs. was the registered owner of a parcel of land located in Alambre. for actual notice is equivalent to registration.

the SC cited American jurisprudence and Art. and is equally binding and effective against the heirs of the vendors. which states. that the action for conveyance was actually one to quiet title. the transfer and possession of the property was a clear indication of the validity of the sale. the Sapto heirs claimed that the CFI cannot order the conveyance because the defendant’s cause of action had already prescribed. herein appellee. The property has remained and still is in the possession of the vendee of appellants' predecessors. It is. therefore. that actions to quiet title to property in the possession of the plaintiff are imprescriptible. In assailing the order. b. 480 of the New Civil Code.) The CFI’s order of conveyance in favor of Fabiana is valid. In other words. herein appellants. The SC ruled however. clear that the conveyance between appellee and his vendors are valid and binding upon the latter.question is involved herein. In ruling so. .