You are on page 1of 6


Prepared by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1

CASE No. 129

G.R. No. 108532 March 9, 1999

 Lazaro Ba-a owned a land which he sold to Pablo Taneo,
father of Pablito on Sept 18, 1941 by virtue of an
Escritura de Venta.
 July 19, 1951: Gilig & wife filed case for recovery of
property against Pablo.
 March 7, 1964: Pablo constituted house in question
erected on land of Plutarco Vacalares as family home
but notarized only on May 2, 1965 and registered with
Register of Deeds on June 24, 1966.
 June 24, 1964: Judgment in favor of Gilig, ordering
Pablo to pay Gilig P5,000 for damages.
 Nov. 22, 1965: Writ of Execution issued against Pablo’s
 Dec.1, 1965: Notice of Levy executed wherein
properties in dispute were among those levied. One
land was about 5 hectares while the other was a family
home. Both are located at Igpit, Opol, Misamis Oriental.
 Feb. 12, 1966: lands were sold in public bidding where
Gilig was highest bidder.
 March 2, 1966: Certificate of Sale registered with
Register of Deeds.
 April 20, 1966: Rufino Arriola filed case against Gilig for
recovery of property and/or annulment of sale with
damages. RTC & CA dismissed case declaring alleged
sale executed by Gilig in favor of Arriola as null & void
for being fictitious & executed in fraud of creditors.

Feb. 9, 1968: Taneo failed to redeem land so final deed
of conveyance was executed, definitely selling,
transferring & conveying property to Gilig.
Oct. 13, 1973: Pablo’s application for free patent on
land in question was approved. Such was unknown to
Gilig. Patent & title were issued on Dec. 10, 1980.
Nov. 5, 1985: Taneo, et al., filed action to declare deed
of conveyance void and quiet title over land with prayer
for writ of preliminary injunction. They alleged that:
1. They were children & heirs of Pablo Taneo & Narcisa
Valaceras who died on Feb. 12, 77 & Sept 12, 84
2. Property acquired through free patent & as such, it’s
inalienable and not subject to encumbrance for
payment of debt pursuant to CA No. 141.
3. They continuously, openly and peacefully possessed
lands until Feb. 9, 1968 when Sheriff Yasay issued
deed of conveyance in favor of Gilig, including their
family home which was extrajudicially constituted in
accordance with law.
4. Gilig was able to obtain tax declaration and such
cast doubt over their title and ownership.
Respondents contentions:
1. He lawfully acquired properties through Sheriff’s
sale on Feb. 12, 1966.
2. Sale became final as no redemption was made
within 1 year from registration of certificate of sale.
3. CA confirmed validity of sale in case, Arriola v. Gilig.
4. Lazaro Ba-a, original owner of land, sold land to
Pablo Taneo on Sept. 18, 1941 proven by an
Escritura de Venta. Even if it was a private land,
Taneo filed an application for free patent which
became final only in 1979.
5. He presented counterclaim that petitioners still
possessed land and thus he has been deprived of
acts of ownership and possession and prayed for
payment of rentals.
RTC Ruling: DISMISSED. Declared null & void OCT & Free
Patent under Pablo Taneo’s name & directed Register of
Deeds to cancel such. Likewise declare Gilig as absolute
& legal owner of land & house in question and is

Presiding Judge). WON the family home was constituted by Pablo and thus exempt from execution  NO. forced sale/attachment. for debts .  Thus. Proper interpretation would be that all existing family residences at the time of FC effectivity are considered family homes & are PROSPECTIVELY entitled to benefits accorded to family home under FC.  CC Art. Pablo was no longer the lawful owner and he no longer had rights over the property that he could transfer to his heirs. prohibition on alienation only began on OCT. But the application for free patent was approved only on OCT. claiming that land under free patent. such as land in dispute. Taneo. It aims to preserve and keep in family of homesteader that portion of public land State had gratuitously given to him. But such is subject to right of repurchase by homesteader. 10. Family home’s deemed constituted on house and lot from time it’s occupied in the family residence and continues as long as beneficiaries actually reside therein.  Petitioners claim that Pablo constituted home as early as 1964. CA. CA: doesn’t mean that Article 153 has retroactive effect such that all existing family residences are deemed to have been constituted as family home at time of their occupation prior to effectivity of FC & are exempt from execution for payment of obligations incurred prior to FC effectivity.  FC Art. Thus. conveyance thru Sheriff’s sale was not violative of law because the judgment obligation of Taneo’s against Gilig arose on JUNE 24. 141  NO. 118.  But SC ruled in Manacop vs. It’s exempt from execution. Alienation is impliedly permitted after that 5 year period. when application was approved. except as provided and to extent of value allowed by law. Commonwealth Act No. 1966 and final deed of conveyance was executed on FEB. 19. CA: Homestead laws were designed to distribute disposable agricultural lots of State to land-destitute citizens for their home and cultivation. 9. 10. ISSUES and RATIO: 1. 1964. 1980. It’s a real right which is gratuitous. 19. 141. Family home: dwelling place of a person and his family. all of these took place after property was sold. Ordered petitioners to pay reasonable rental. CA Ruling: RTC Ruling AFFIRMED. 1973. can’t be alienated or encumbered. Intent of the law is clear as SC has ruled in Republic vs.  entitled to possess same and ordering petitioners vacate house and to refrain from disturbing Gilig’s peaceful possession. It can’t be seized by creditors except in special cases. State prohibits sale/encumbrance within 5 years after grant of patent. Debts contracted prior to the application are not covered by the prohibition. invoke Sec. 2. inalienable & free from attachment. It confers upon family the right to enjoy property which must remain with person constituting it and his heirs. 153: Registration no longer needed. Porciongcola and Gonzaga vs. 12. 224-251: Family home may be constituted judicially (by filing petition and with court approval) or extrajudicially (recording of public instrument in proper registry of property declaring establishment of family home). 1973 and lasted until Dec.  But the prohibition in the provision does not apply to the Taneo’s which provides that prohibition on alienation begins on date of approval of application and it will end 5 years after the issuance of the patent (affirmed in Amper v. Meaning. et al. 1968. WON land in dispute can’t be encumbered pursuant to Sec. his widow/heirs within 5 years. properties were levied & sold on FEB. In fact. 118 of CA No. Ratio of law: give homesteader or patentee every chance to preserve for himself and his family land which the State had gratuitously given to him as reward for his labor in cleaning and cultivating it. 1985 or 5 years after free patent was issued on Dec. constituted over dwelling place and land on which it’s situated.. Cited Oliveros vs.

2005 BELEN SAGAD ANGELES. 7. “CORAZON” ANGELES MAGLAYA. forced sale/attachment and among these is for debts incurred before the declaration was recorded in the Registry of Property.  CA Ruling: REVERSED RTC ruling on the grounds that Belen‘s motion being a demurrer (under Sec 1 Rule 33) thereby waived her right to present opposing evidence. RULING: Petition denied for lack of merit. b) She has been in open and continuous possession of the status of legitimate child as testified by 4 witnesses.  Franscisco died intestate in 1998 leaving behind 4 parcels of land and a building. Shows that constitution was just an afterthought to escape execution of property but to no avail . Court of Appeals: A legitimate child is a product of and therefore implies a valid and lawful marriage.  Corazon‘s reply: a) records of parents‘ marriage in the Civil Registrar of Bacolor. CC provides for some instances when family home’s NOT EXEMPTED from execution. property is not exempt from attachment.  Tison vs. Belen attacked the legitimacy of Corazon. they are the surviving heirs. A child is presumed legitimate only if conceived or born in wedlock.  Furthermore. married before a Judge and ratified two months later in religious rites. vs. She has also failed to present the marriage contract between her parents. She claims that she is the sole legitimate heir of Francisco Angeles and Genoveva Mercado. Francisco presented himself to be single that time).  incurred prior to FC effectivity. Francisco and Genoveva. second wife of Francisco. The presumption of legitimacy in the FC actually fixes a status for the child . 1964 and instrument constituting it as family home was registered on JAN. 1964 before the house was erected on MAR. respondent. constitution was violative of law since it was erected not on the land of Pablo but on land of Plutarco Vacalares. J.R. and that Corazon has sufficiently established her filiation. instead of Corazon. PATERNITY AND FILIATION Prepared by: Michael Joseph Nogoy. Belen averred that she and Francisco legally adopted Concesa Yamat during their marriage. the family home is not exempted from execution or forced sale. be proclaimed the admistratrix of Francisco‘s estate. Since money judgment/debt was rendered/incurred on JAN. No.: FACTS:  Corazon Angeles-Maglaya filed a petition for letters of administratix and her appointment as administratix of the intestate estate of Francisco Angeles. 153798 September 2. Applicable law would be CC which required registration. petitioner. c) Her birth certificate was presented containing a handwritten word ―”Yes”‖ under the question ―”Legitimate?”  RTC Ruling: DISMISSED petition for lack of proof of filiation as legitimate child. ISSUE: WON Corazon is a legitimate child of Francisco and Genoveva? HELD: NO. saying that her birth certificate was not signed by Francisco. House should be constructed on a land NOT belonging to another. Besides. 24.  After establishing the circumstances of her marriage to Francisco (i. and together with Belen Angeles.  Belen opposed this petition and prayed that she. Article 164: Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate. 1966. JD 1 CASE No. 130 G. Pampanga were destroyed. ALELI PONENTE: GARCIA.e. 24.

In the case at bar. . respondent never questioned what would necessarily be a bigamous marriage between Belen and Francisco. there is no absolute proof of Francisco‘s marriage to Corazon‘s mother Genoveva. due to these evidences. In fact. However this is not the issue in this case. Record of birth in civil registry 2. Admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or private handwritten instrument signed by parent concerned. The signature of the father is a necessary requirement in determining legitimate filiation and it can not be made dependent on the declaration of the attending physician or midwife or mother of the newborn child. Only the husband can contest the legitimacy of a child born to his wife. Birth certificate 2. this petition has become moot and academic. Presumption of legitimacy may only be availed upon proof of the factual basis that child‘s parents were legally married and that his/her conception of birth occurred during the marriage. since Corazon predicated her petition for administration on her being a legitimate child who was legally married to her mother. However. and not conclusive proof of her legitimate filiation. Open and continuous possession of the status of legitimate child 4. Under Article 172. Lastly. Since the lower court has ruled with finality that she is not legitimate since no proof has been given as to the marriage of her parents. this was not signed by Francisco or Genoveva. legitimate filiation of the child can be established by the following modes: 1. she alleged that petitioner is the ―surviving spouse of the decedent. School and government records 3. Photographs of her wedding and testimonies. The intent of the law is to prevent the status of a child born in wedlock from being uncertain. Corazon also filed a petition against the adoption of Consesa Yamat. It was signed only by the attending physician. This document is only evidence of the birth of the child. in her petition. alleging that as the legitimate child of Francisco. it should be noted that the surviving spouse is preferred over the next of kin of decedent. In the absence of these foregoing evidence. Evidence that respondent showed: 1. photographs are not sufficient evidence of filiation as settled in jurisprudence. the court concedes that even in the absence of direct evidence of marriage of parents. Also. she should have been notified of the adoption proceedings. No solemnizing officer was called to witness. Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court. filiation is proved by: 3. court conceded that Corazon might be natural child of Francisco and Genoveva. No marriage certificate or contract was offered in evidence. Next of kin refers to the heirs.     born in wedlock and that civil status cannot be attacked collaterally. The same holds true for the school and government records which were unsigned by Francisco    and the execution of which he had no part in. Although respondent was able to show a birth certificate. RULING: Decision of CA is REVERSED and the order of the trial court REINSTATED. On the matter of administration.

sued Jose for recovery of 2/3 share of the property. . 1981)  Jose died intestate on February 6. not by Jose and his wife. 2001 IDA C.  CA Ruling: REVERSED the decision of the RTC. 131 GR No.  RTC Ruling: While there was indeed no consideration for the deed of sale executed by Jose in favor of Ida. They allege that it is highly improbable for Ida to have paid the supposed consideration of P150. but said deed constitutes a valid donation. They claim that Jose’s share in the property ipso jure belongs to them because they are the only legal heirs of their brother. SANTIAGO.  Thereafter. Santiago owned a parcel of land. the Nicolasa and Amanda filed an action before the RTC of Manila seeking to recover Jose’s 1/3 share over the property. SANTIAGO and HON. who died intestate and without issue. CA noted that the birth certificate of Ida showed that Ida was born of different parents. vs. (Ida was the owner of 1/3 pro indiviso share). (April 20. JD1 CASE No. on the other hand. J. claims that she is the daughter of Jose and argued that the purported sale of the property was in fact a donation to her. respondents. his sisters Nicolasa and Amanda Santiago. According to the RTC. recognizing their right of ownership over portions of the property. petitioner.  Alleging that Jose had fraudulently registered it in his name alone. FACTS:  Jose T. 132305 December 4.PONENTE: QUISUMBING. AMANDA T. Ida was the daughter of Jose given the following evidences: 1) The decisions in the two ejectment cases filed by the Santiago's which stated that Ida was his daughter.  RTC Ruling: In favor of the sisters. LABAGALA.000 for the sale of the subject property because Ida was unemployed and without any visible means of livelihood at the time of the alleged sale. Apart from the Santiago’s testimonies. 2) Jose’s income tax return which listed Ida as his daughter. 1984. NICOLASA T. PATERNITY AND FILIATION Prepared by: Michael Joseph Nogoy. COURT OF APPEALS.  Ida.

. o Birth certificate supports this allegation: Ida was the child of the spouses Leon Labagala and Cornelia Cabrigas. If this is not her birth certificate. but the act may be shown to have been in reality a donation. they are outrightly denying that she is a child of Jose. instead. Esperanza (wife of Jose). WON the purported deed of sale was valid  NO. the sale is void. A careful reading would reveal that it contemplates situations where doubts exists that a child is a ma’s child by his wife. (Meaning.ISSUES and RATIO: 1. Jose did not have the right to transfer ownership of the entire property to petitioner since 2/3 thereof belonged to his sisters. This article should be read in conjunction with the other articles in the same chapter on paternity and filiation in the Civil Code. or some other act or contract. asserting that she is not at all their brother’s child. the Santiago’s are not assailing Ida’s legitimate status but are. she stated that Cornelia is the sister of her mother. RULING: The petition is DENIED and the decision of the CA is AFFIRMED. but in her petition in SC. It does not refer to situations where a child is alleged not to be the child at all of a particular couple. which makes the sale void. there is no valid sale in this case.) In this case. The reliance of Ida on Article 263 of the Civil Code is misplaced. being a minor at the time. Ida denies she is “Ida Labagala” but she is “Ida Santiago”. Conflicting statements that affect her credibility 2. o During her testimony before RTC. Ida could not have given her consent to the contract. including one of sale. then where is hers? She did not present any though it is the easiest thing to do to contest the allegations. WON the Santiago’s could still impugn the filiation of Ida as the daughter of Jose in this action for recovery of title and possession  NO. absent which there can be no valid contract. Article 1471 of the Civil Code provides: If the price is simulated. Ida admittedly did not pay any centavo for the property. Consent of the contracting parties is among the essential requisites of a contract. and the husband denies the child filiation. There is no valid sale. Ida denied knowing Cornelia Cabrigas (mother of Ida Labagala in the birth certificate). Moreover. the Santiago’s were not impugning Ida’s legitimacy as a child of Jose. Clearly.