You are on page 1of 9

G.R. No.

L-48268 October 30, 1978 only have commenced in 1977 and prescription could
HEIRS OF SEGUNDO UBERAS vs. COURT OF not lie. Wherefore, the respondent court's order of
FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS dismissal is set aside and the case is
OCCIDENTAL remanded to respondent court for trial and
determination on the merits.
Facts

The plaintiff assailed the decision of the CFI in G.R. No. 167232, July 31, 2009
dismissing the complaint filed by heirs of Segundo DBT Mar-bay Construction, Inc.
Uberas against Soledad Rapiz, and the children of vs Ricaredo Panes, etc.
Pedro Uberas on the ground of prescription and Ponente: Nachura
contending that the action is imprescriptible because
it is one for partition and to quiet title to the property in Facts:
question, declaring the declaration of heirship and A parcel of land was conveyed by Regalado to DBT
deed of sale executed by defendants to be null and through a dacion en pago for services rendered. On
void ab initio. The plaintiffs are the children and June 24, 1992, the respondents Panes and his sons
successors in interest of Segundo Uberas and Albino filed a complaint for quieting of title with damages and
Uberas, while the defendants are the surviving spouse, petition for injunction against Regalado and DBT.
Soledad Rapiz, and the children of Pedro Uberas, as
well as Alejandra Uberas who is impleaded as an In the complaint, Ricaredo alleged that he is the lawful
unwilling co-plaintiff. Segundo, Albino, Francisca, owner of the land which he had declared for taxation
Pedro and Alejandra, all surnamed Uberas, the first purposes in his name. Respondents alleged that per
four (4) already deceased, are legitimate children of certificate issued by the DENR the land was verified to
the spouses Juan Uberas and Dominga Mendoza who be correct and on file.
originally own the land in question. Through fraudulent
acts and malicious scheme, the land was transferred Respondents also claimed the Ricaredo and his
under the name of the surviving spouse, Soledad immediate family had been and still are in actual
Rapiz, and the children of Pedro Uberas, and later possession of the subject property, and their
claimed sole ownership and possession of the entire possession preceded the 2nd world war. To perfect his
property. As already indicated, respondent court in its title, Ricaredo filed with the RTC QC.
questioned order, dismissed the complaint on the
ground that it was barred by prescription "as more than Respondents averred that in the process of complying
ten (10) years had elapsed counted from the with the registration, it was found out that a portion of
registration of the extrajudicial declaration of heirship the land was with the subdivision plan of Regalado
and the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title solely which was conveyed by Regalado to DBT.
in the names of Pedro Uberas and Alejandra Uberas.
The complaint was raised November 3, 1977 while On December 28, 1993, then defendants Spouses
the title was transferred to Soledad Rapiz and her Jaime and Rosario Tabangcura (Spouses
children December 2, 1966. Reconsideration of the Tabangcura) filed their Answer with Counterclaim,
dismissal order having been denied by respondent claiming that they were buyers in good faith and for
court,petitioners filed the present petition for review. value when they bought a house and lot covered by
TCT No. 211095 from B.C. Regalado, the latter being
Issue a subdivision developer and registered owner thereof,
Whether or not the action for quieting of title for the on June 30, 1986. When respondent Abogado Mautin
said property is imprescriptible. entered and occupied the property, Spouses
Tabangcura filed a case for Recovery of Property
Held: before the RTC, Quezon City, Branch 97 which
rendered a decision in their favor.
Yes, the action for quieting of title for the said property
is imprescriptible. That an action to quiet title to On its part, DBT, traversing the complaint, alleged that
property in the possession of plaintiff is imprescriptible it is the legitimate owner and occupant of the subject
and that where there are material facts to be inquired property pursuant to a dacion en pago executed by
into and resolved on the basis of evidence adduced by B.C. Regalado in the formers favor; that respondents
the parties which will determine the legal precepts to were not real parties-in-interests because Ricaredo
be applied, as in this case, the complaining party was a mere claimant whose rights over the property
should be given full opportunity to prove his case is had yet to be determined by the RTC where he filed
fully applicable here according to Faja vs. Court of his application for registration; that the other
Appeals. Also, respondent court manifestly failed to respondents did not
take into account the averments of petitioners' allege matters or invoke rights which would entitle
complaint that they "and defendants are co-owners them to the relief prayed for in their complaint; that
and possessors of the property" and that "the the complaint was premature; and that the action
malicious and illegal acts committed by defendants inflicted a chilling effect on the lot buyers of DBT.
were known to the plaintiffs only during this year 1977,
after Soledad Rapiz and her children were already RTC's Ruling:
claiming full ownership and possession of the whole of The testimony of Ricaredo that he occupied the
the property," thus, the period for prescription would property since he was only 16 had not been rebutted;
Ricaredo's occupation and cultivation of the land for derogation of that of the registered owner shall be
more than 30 years vested him equitable ownership. acquired by adverse possession. Consequently, in the
instant case, proof of possession by the respondents is
DBT filed a motion for reconsideration based on the immaterial and inconsequential.
grounds of prescription and laches. While this motion
was still pending, judge Bacalla died. Note:

Then an intervenor claimed that portions of the subject - action for reconveyance can be barred by
land was part of the estate of certain Don Jose de prescription. When an action for reconveyance is
Ocampo. based on fraud, it must be filed within four (4) years
from discovery of the fraud, and such discovery is
CA's Ruling: CA reversed and set aside the RTC deemed to have taken place from the issuance of the
Orders dated November 8, 2001 and June 17, 2002 original certificate of title. On the other hand, an action
and reinstated the RTC Decision dated June 15, 2000. for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive
The CA held that the properties described and trust prescribes in ten (10) years from the date of the
included in TCT No. 200519 are located in San issuance of the original certificate of title or transfer
Francisco del Monte, San Juan del Monte, Rizal and certificate of title. The rule is that the registration of an
Cubao, Quezon City while the subject property is instrument in the Office of the RD constitutes
located in Brgy. Pasong Putik, Novaliches, Quezon constructive notice to the whole world and therefore
City. Furthermore, the CA held that Engr. Vertudazo's the discovery of the fraud is deemed to have taken
testimony that there is a gap of around 1,250 meters place at the time of registration.
between Lot 503 and Psu 123169 was not disproved
or refuted. The CA found that Judge Juanson
committed a procedural infraction when he entertained VDA. DE AVILES v. CA
issues and admitted evidence presented by DBT in its
Motion for Reconsideration which were never raised in
the pleadings and proceedings prior to the rendition of An action to quiet title or to remove cloud may not
the RTC Decision. The CA opined that DBT's claims of be brought for the purpose of settling a boundary
laches and prescription clearly appeared to be an dispute.
afterthought. Lastly, the CA held that DBT's Motion for
Reconsideration was not based on grounds FACTS:
enumerated in the Rules of Procedure.
Eduardo Aviles, the predecessor of the petitioners is
Issues: the bother of defendant Camilo. They inherited their
(1) Did the RTC err in upholding DBT's defenses of lands from their parents and have agreed to subdivide
prescription and laches as raised in the latter's Motion the same amongst themselves. The area alloted (sic)
for Reconsideration? (2) Which between DBT and the to Eduardo Aviles is 16,111 square meters more or
respondents have a better right over the subject less, to Anastacio Aviles is 16,214 square meters more
property? or less, while the area alloted to defendant Camilo
Aviles is 14,470 square meters more or less.
Held:
(1) Affirmative. The facts demonstrating the lapse of Defendants land composed of the riceland portion of
the prescriptive period be otherwise sufficiently and his land is 13,290 square meters, the fishpond portion
satisfactorily apparent on the record; either in the is 500 square meters and the residential portion is 680
averments of the plaintiff's complaint, or otherwise square meters, or a total of 14,470 square meters.
established by the evidence. However, the conclusion
reached by the RTC in its assailed Order was
The Petitioners claim that they are the owners of the
erroneous. The RTC failed to consider that the action
fish pond which they claim is within their area.
filed before it was not simply for reconveyance but an
Defendant Camilo Aviles asserted a color of title over
action for quieting of title which is imprescriptible.
the northern portion of the property with an area of
approximately 1,200 square meters by constructing a
Therefore, laches will not apply to this case, because
bamboo fence (thereon) and moving the earthen dikes,
respondents' possession of the subject property has
thereby molesting and disturbing the peaceful
rendered their right to bring an action for quieting of
possession of the plaintiffs over said portion.
title imprescriptible and, hence, not barred by laches.
Moreover, since laches is a creation of equity, acts or
conduct alleged to constitute the same must be Petitioners say that the fences were created to unduly
intentional and unequivocal so as to avoid injustice. encroach to their property but the defendant said that
he merely reconstructed the same.
Thus, respondents' claim of acquisitive Petitioners brought an action to quiet title but were
prescription over the subject property is baseless. denied thus this case.
Under Article 1126 of the Civil Code, acquisitive
prescription of ownership of lands registered under the ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioners filed the right action
Land Registration Act shall be governed by special
laws. Correlatively, Act No. 496, as amended by PD
No. 1529, provides that no title to registered land in
RULING: ISSUE: Whether or not there was a sale between
No, Petitioners filed the wrong action. This is obviously Josefina and Nicanora.
a boundary dispute and as such the action must fail.
HELD: Yes. There is no question that petitioner
Nicanora paid P1,500.00 to respondent Josefina as
Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real purchase price of one-half of the lot now covered by
property or any interest therein, by reason of any TCT No. II, for respondent Court of Appeals found as a
instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding fact "that plaintiffs really paid for a portion of the lot in
which is apparently valid or effective but is, in truth and question pursuant to their agreement with the
in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, defendants that they would own one-half (1/2) of the
and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be land." That sale, although not consigned in a public
brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title. instrument or formal writing, is nevertheless valid and
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from binding between petitioners and private respondents,
being cast upon a title to real property or any interest for the time-honored rule is that even a verbal contract
therein. of sale or real estate produces legal effects between
the parties. Although at the time said petitioner paid
P1,000.00 as part payment of the purchase price on
Petitioners fail to point out any any instrument, record, January 19, 1946, private respondents were not yet
claim, encumbrance or proceeding that could been a the owners of the lot, they became such owners on
cloud to their title. In fact, both plaintiffs and January 24, 1947, when a deed of sale was executed
defendant admitted the existence of the agreement of in their favor by the Villarin spouses. In the premises,
partition dated June 8, 1957 and in accordance Article 1434 of the Civil Code, which provides that
therewith, a fixed area was allotted to them and that "when a person who is not the owner of a thing sells or
the only controversy is whether these lands were alienates and delivers it, and later the seller or grantor
properly measured. acquires title thereto, such title passes by operation of
law to the buyer or grantee," is applicable. Petitioners
A special civil action for quieting of title is not the therefore became owners of the one-half portion of the
proper remedy for settling a boundary dispute, and that lot in question by virtue of a sale which, though not
petitioners should have instituted an ejectment suit evidenced by a formal deed, was nevertheless proved
instead. An action for forcible entry, whenever by both documentary and parole evidence.
warranted by the period prescribed in Rule 70, or for
recovery of possession de facto, also within the Heirs of Jose Olviga vs. Heirs of Cornelio Glor
prescribed period, may be availed of by the petitioners, G.R. No. 104813, 21 October 1993
in which proceeding the boundary dispute may be fully
threshed out. Facts: In 1950, then twelve-year-old Eutiquio Pureza
and his father cleared and cultivated Lot 13, Pls-84 of
Guinayangan Public Land Subdivision which
FELIX BUCTON AND NICANORA GABAR measured more or less 54,406 sq.m. They
BUCTON, petitioners, vs. ZOSIMO GABAR, introduced in 1954 improvements such as trees of
JOSEFINA LLAMOSO GABAR AND THE coconut, jackfruit, mangoes, avocado and bananas.
HONORABLE COURT OF Upon the land's release for disposition, the Bureau of
APPEALS, respondents. Lands surveyed it in Eutiquio Pureza's name.
Godofredo (Jose Olviga's son and brother of
FACTS: This action for specific performance filed by petitioners Virgilio and Lolita Olviga-Olila) protested
the plaintiffs prays, inter-alia, that defendants-spouses thesurvey but without respect to the half-a-
be ordered to execute in favor of plaintiffs a deed of hectare portion "sa dakong panulukan ng
sale of the western half of a parcel of land having an Amihanan-Silanganan" which he claimed. Godofredo's
area of 728 sq. m. covered by TCT No. II of the office protest is of public record in the Bureau of Lands and
of the Register of Deeds of Misamis Oriental. Plaintiffs' itstated that he admitted the lot belonged to Eutiquio
evidence tends to show that sometime in 1946 except for the half-a-hectare portion included in the
defendant Josefina Llamoso Gabar bought the above- survey. Eutiquio filed a homestead application in 1960
mentioned land from the spouses Villarin on for Lot 13, but since no action was done on his
installment basis, to wit, P500 down, the balance application, he transferred his rights to the lot in 1961
payable in installments. Josefina entered into a verbal to Cornelio Glor, Sr.. The Bureau of Lands'
agreement with her sister-in-law, plaintiff Nicanora
Gabar Bucton, that the latter would pay one-half of the records did not disclose why there was no action for
price (P3,000) and would then own one-half of the Eutiquio's homestead application and the proposed
land. In January, 1947 the spouses Villarin executed transfer of rights to the land to Cornelio, Sr. The elder
the deed of sale of the land abovementioned in favor Cornelio was sickly and since his wife Angelita was
of defendant Josefina Llamoso Gabar, Exhibit I, to unschooled, she and her children failed to follow up
whom was issued on June 20, 1947 TCT No. II, Eutiquio's homestead application in the cadastral
cancelling OCT No. 6337. Plaintiffs then sought to proceedings held at the Municipal Court of
obtain a separate title for their portion of the land in Guinayangan Public Land Subdivision. Angelita
question. Defendants repeatedly declined to testified that she was never notified about the outcome
accommodate plaintiffs. of said proceedings. The non-posting of the hearing of
cadastral proceedings was confirmed by Virgilio. The
Olvigas were Glors' neighbors. Jose claimed on the
other hand adjoining lands Lot 12 and 13 in the is only from that time that the statutory period of
cadastral proceeding. He falsely omitted that there prescription commences to run against him/her. It also
were persons claiming possession and adverse stated that the actual possessor of a piece of land
interests in Lot 13 and Eutiquio's sale of rights to claiming to be its owner may wait until disturbance of
Cornelio Sr. in 1961. Thus in 1967, the lands were his/her possession or the attack of his/her title before
awarded without contest to Jose Olviga and taking steps in vindication of his/her right because his
subsequently registered under Original Certificate of undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to
Title No. 0-12713. Jose requested later in 1971 that seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and
the land be splitted into two separate lots with separate determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third
titles. TCT Nos. T-103823 and T-103824 were party and its effect on his own title, which right can be
subsequently issued to Lots 12 and 13 respectively, claimed only by one who is in possession.
and he later on transferred Lot 13 to his daughter
Lolita and her husband Jaime Olila. Cornelio's widow Heirs of Valientes vs. Hon. Ramas Digest
Angelita filed in the Regional Trial Court of Calauag, G.R. No. 157852: December 15, 2010
Quezon an action against the heirs of Jose Olviga to
reconvey that parcel of land to her and her heirs. The HEIRS OF DOMINGO VALIENTES, Petitioners, v.
RTC rendered judgment in Angelita's favor after due Hon. ReInerio (Abraham) B. Ramas, Acting
trial, and it ordered the Olvigas' to reconvey the land Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 29, 9th Judicial
and pay attorney's fees. Jose Olviga's heirs appealed Region, San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur and Vilma
the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals, but it V. Minor, Respondents.
affirmed the trial court's judgment in its 13 January
1992 decision (CA-G.R. CV No. 30542). It also found LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
that spouses Jaime and Lolita Olviga-Olila were not in
possession of the disputed land nor innocent FACTS:
purchasers for value and that the Glors and their
predecessor-in-interest Eutiquio Pureza were the Petitioners claim that they are the heirs of Valientes
possessors. who, before his death, was the owner of a parcel of
land in Zamboanga delSur. In 1939, Valientes
Issues addressed by the Supreme Court: The Olviga mortgaged the subject property to secure his loan to
heirs asked for petition for review of the CA's the spouses Belen. In the 1950s, the Valientes family
purportedly attempted, but failed, to retrieve the
decision and the following issues were raised, subject property from the spouses Belen. Through an
1. Whether or not plaintiffs' action is for quieting of title allegedly forged document captioned VENTA
that does not prescribe, and assuming DEFINITIVA purporting to be a deed of sale of the
subject property between Valientes and the spouses
their demand is for reconveyance of the land being Belen, the latter obtained title over the land. On
based on implied trust, prescribes in ten (10) February 28, 1970, the legitimate children of the late
years? Valientes, had their Affidavit of Adverse Claim. Upon
the death of the spouses Belen, their surviving heirs
HELD: executed an extra-judicial settlement with partition and
The Supreme Court held that an action for sale in favor of private respondent Minor, the present
reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or possessor of the subject property. On June 20, 1979,
constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years, the point Minor filed with the then CFI a "PETITION FOR
of reference being the date of registration of the deed CANCELLATION OF MEMORANDUM OF
of the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over ENCUMBRANCE APPEARING IN THE TITLE IN HER
the property. But this rule applies only when the POSSESSION" which the RTC granted. On the other
plaintiff is not in possession of the property, since if a hand, petitioners filed a complaint for the cancellation
person claiming to be the owner thereof is in actual of the title in Minors possession and its
possession of the property, the right to seek reconveyanceto them. On this complaint, Minor filed
reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss on the ground of forum
property, does not prescribe. shopping and litis pendentia, which the RTC
dismissed. Undeterred, Minor filed a Motion for
2. Whether the Glors' cause of action accrued not in Reconsideration which was granted. Petitioners filed a
1967 but in 1988, and as mere homestead Motion for Reconsideration based on this decision
transferees, cannot maintain an action for which was denied. They appealed it to the CA, which
reconveyance? It was also held that the Glors and although found that there was no forum shopping nor
their predecessors-in-interest Cornelio Glor, Sr. and litis pendentia, dismissed the case on the ground of
Eutiquio Pureza were in actual possession of the prescription and laches.
property since 1950. Their undisturbed
possession gave them continuing right to seek aid of ISSUE:
a court of equity to determine nature of Olviga's
adverse claim, who in 1988, disturbed their Whether or not prescription or laches has already set
possession. Thus, the right to quiet the property's title in to bar the filing of the case at hand.
which seeks reconveyance and annulment of any
certificate of title, accrues only from the time the HELD: Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED
possessor was made aware of the adverse claim and it
CIVIL CODE; PRESCRIPTION to the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan who, on 19
August 1982, caused the annotation thereof on TCT
When the plaintiff is in possession of the subject No. T-21204 as Entry No. 83188.
property, the action, being in effect that of quieting of
title to the property, does not prescribe. In the case at Not long thereafter, a public auction of the subject
bar, petitioners are not in possession of the subject parcel of land was held on 24 September 1982, at
property. In this case, if it were to be considered as which respondent Republic submitted its bid
that of enforcing an implied trust, should have for P3,500, which is the amount of the judgment on the
therefore been filed within ten years from the issuance bond. Hence, on that same day, a Sheriff's Certificate
of TCT to spouses Belen.But, the case was instituted of Sale[3] was issued in favor of the Republic as the
beyond the prescriptive period. winning bidder.
On 5 October 1982, the same Certificate of Sale was
As to the alternative defense of petitioners, applying registered and annotated on TCT No. T-21204 as
Arts. 1141, 1134 and 1137 of the Civil Code, thus Entry No. 83793, thereby giving the spouses Calacala
entitling them to a 30 year period to assail the title, the a period of one (1) year therefrom within which to
Court ruled that the applicable law in this instant case redeem their property. Unfortunately, they never did up
is Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as to the time of their respective deaths on 13 January
the Property Registration Decree (since it is more 1988 and 8 January 1994.
specific that the general rules of the above mentioned
articles of the Civil Code). Under the Torrens System Claiming ownership of the same land as legal heirs of
as enshrined in P.D. No. 1529, the decree of the deceased spouses, petitioners filed with the
registration and the certificate of title issued become Regional Trial Court at Rosales, Pangasinan a
incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from complaint[4] for Quieting of Title and Cancellation of
the date of entry of the decree of registration, without Encumbrance on TCT No. T-21204 against
prejudice to an action for damages against the respondents Republic and Sheriff Juan C. Marquez. In
applicant or any person responsible for the fraud. their complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 1239-
R and raffled to Branch 53 of the court, petitioners
It took petitioners 28 before filing this case. This period prayed, inter alia, for the cancellation of Entries No.
is unreasonably long for a party seeking to enforce its 83188 and 83793 on TCT No. T-21204 or the
right to file the appropriate case. Thus, petitioners declaration of said entries as null and void.
claim that they had not slept on their rights is patently
To the complaint, respondent Republic interposed
unconvincing.
a Motion to Dismiss[5] grounded on the (1) complaint's
failure to state a cause of action and (2) prescription of
The Decision of the CA and the Resolution are
petitioners' right to redeem.
AFFIRMED.
Issue: whether the trial court's dismissal of petitioners'
complaint for Quieting of Title was proper
Calacala vs RP
Held:
Facts:
Spouses Camilo Calacala and Conchita Calacala, Under Article 476 of the New Civil Code, the remedy
predecessors-in-interest of the herein petitioners, are may be availed of only when, by reason of any
the registered owners of a parcel of land situated at instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding,
Barangay Balincanaway, Rosales, Pangasinan and which appears valid but is, in fact, invalid, ineffective,
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-21204 of voidable or unenforceable, a cloud is thereby casts on
the Registry of Deeds of Pangasinan. the complainant's title to real property or any interest
therein.
To secure the provisional release of an accused in a
criminal case then pending before the then Court of
In turn, Article 477 of the same Code identifies the
First Instance (CFI) of Pangasinan, the spouses
party who may bring an action to quiet title, thus:
offered their aforementioned parcel of land as a
property bond in said case.
Article 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable
For failure of the accused to appear at his scheduled title to, or interest in the real property which is the
arraignment on 4 November 1981, the CFI ordered the subject-matter of the action. He need not be in
bond forfeited in favor of the government, and, possession of said property.
following the bondman's failure to produce in court the
body of the accused, rendered judgment against the Verily, for an action to quiet title to prosper, two (2)
bond in the amount of P3,500.00. indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (1) the
Thereafter, the court issued a Writ of plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title
Execution[1] directing the provincial sheriff to effect a to or interest in the real property subject of the action;
levy on the subject parcel of land and to sell the same and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
at a public auction to satisfy the amount of the bond. In claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown
compliance with the writ, the deputy provincial sheriff to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima
issued on 26 July 1982 a Notice of Levy[2] addressed facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.
Unfortunately, the foregoing requisites are wanting in G.R. No. L-38387 January 29, 1990
this case.
To start with, petitioners base their claim of legal title HILDA WALSTROM, petitioner-appellant, vs.
not on the strength of any independent writing in their FERNANDO MAPA, JR., VICTORINO A. MAPA,
favor but simply and solely on respondent Republic's MARIA C.M. DE GOCO, FERNANDO MAPA, III,
failure to secure the Certificate of Final Sale, execute MARIO L. MAPA, and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS
an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership and obtain a OF THE PROVINCE OF BENGUET, respondents-
writ of possession over the property in dispute within appellees.
ten (10) years from the registration of the Certificate of
Sale. Facts:

Petitioners' reliance on the foregoing shortcomings or Cacao Dianson, has a free patent application, he filed
inactions of respondent Republic cannot stand. with the District Land Office in Baguio City a letter
For one, it bears stressing that petitioners' protesting the construction in April, 1956 by Josefa
predecessors-in-interest lost whatever right they had Abaya Mapa of on the parcel of land (described as
over land in question from the very moment they failed "portion A") of one of the parcels of land covered by
to redeem it during the 1-year period of redemption. his Free Patent Application.
Certainly, the Republic's failure to execute the acts
referred to by the petitioners within ten (10) years from The controversy was referred to Bureau of Lands
the registration of the Certificate of Sale cannot, in any Investigator Antonio Mejia. He found that Josefa
way, operate to restore whatever rights petitioners' Abaya Mapa has filed a Miscellaneous Sales
predecessors-in-interest had over the same. For sure, Application, the same was awarded to her on May 12,
petitioners have yet to cite any provision of law or rule 1934. The purchase price has been paid in full in 1943
of jurisprudence, and we are not aware of any, to the evidenced by an Official Receipt. Cacao Dianson filed
effect that the failure of a buyer in a foreclosure sale to a Free Patent Application for the same parcel of land
secure a Certificate of Final Sale, execute an Affidavit on June 1, 1956, alleging that the said land was first
of Consolidation of Ownership and obtain a writ of occupied by his father, Dianson, in 1884.
possession over the property thus acquired, within ten
(10) years from the registration of the Certificate of The regional land officer of Dagupan City decided that
Sale will operate to bring ownership back to him whose Free Patent Application of Cacao Dianson should
property has been previously foreclosed and sold. As exclude Portion "A" which is covered by the
correctly observed by the trial court, the Republic's Miscellaneous Sales Application of Josefa Abaya
failure to do anything within ten (10) years or more Mapa. Two years after the death of Dianson, Walstrom
following the registration of the Sheriff's Certificate of filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that
Sale cannot give rise to a presumption that it has Dianson is her predecessor in interest, the motion for
thereby waived or abandoned its right of ownership or reconsideration resulted in setting aside the decision of
that it has prescribed, 'for prescription does not lie the Regional land officer. Mapa then appealed to the
against the government', nor could it 'be bound or Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources
estopped by the negligence or mistakes of its officials reinstated the decision of the Regional land officer,
and employees' . then Gabriela Walstrom filed for motion for
reconsideration but was denied. While Walstrom filed
Moreover, with the rule that the expiration of the 1-year for a second motion for reconsideration of the order of
redemption period forecloses the obligor's right to DANR, Mapa filed a motion for execution. DANR
redeem and that the sale thereby becomes absolute, granted the motion for execution. Walstrom then filed a
the issuance thereafter of a final deed of sale is at best petition for relief with the DANR but then pending the
a mere formality and mere confirmation of the title that petition, she died. The heirs of Mapa pursued the
is already vested in the purchaser. case. This petition of Walstrom remained unresolved,
according to petitioner Hilda Walstrom, daughter of
With the reality that petitioners are not holders of any Gabriela Walstrom, she was compelled to file an action
legal title over the property subject of this case and are in the court because the 1 year prescriptive period
bereft of any equitable claim thereon, the very first provided for in Sec 38 of Land Registration act was
requisite of an action to quiet title, i.e., that the plaintiff about to lapse.
or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or
interest in the real property subject matter of the Issues:
action, is miserably wanting in this case.
For another, and worse, petitioners never put in issue, *Whether or not Walstroms civil complaint against the
as in fact they admit in their pleadings, the validity of respondents praying for nullification of the Mapas
the Sheriff's Certificate of Sale duly registered on 5 sales patent and certificates of title issued by the
October 1982. On this score, the second requisite of register of deeds under Section 38 of Act 496 or the
an action to quiet title, namely, that the deed, claim, Land Registration Act is valid.
encumbrance or proceeding alleged to cast cloud on a
plaintiff's title is in fact invalid or inoperative despite its Ruling of the Court
prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy, is
likewise absent herein.
SEC. 38 of Act 496 or the Land Registration Act in ten years from the issuance of the Torrens title over
provides that a decree of registration may be reopened the property.
or reviewed by the proper Regional Trial Court upon
the concurrence of five essential requisites, to wit: (a) The court upheld the decision of the trial court.
that the petitioner has a real and a dominical right; (b)
that he has been deprived thereof;(c) through fraud; ARDELL v. BARTOLOME G.R. No. L-
(d) that the petition is filed within one year from the 4656 November 18, 1912
issuance of the decree; and (e) that the property has
not as yet been transferred to an innocent purchaser FACTS: Petitioner Vicenta Ortiz y Felin de Pardell and
for value. respondent Matilde Ortiz y Felin Bartolome were the
existing heirs of the late Miguel Ortiz and Calixta Felin.
An examination of the records of the case shows non- On 1888, Matilde and co-defendant Gaspar de
concurrence of the essential elements enumerated Bartolome y Escribano took it upon themselves without
above. an judicial authorization or even extra judicial
agreement the administration of the properties of the
The first element is patently not present because the late Calixta and Miguel. These properties included a
petitioner cannot allege that she has already a real and house in Escolta Street, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; a house in
dominical right to the piece of property in controversy Washington Street, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; a lot in
since the decision of the regional land officer was Magallanes Street, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; parcels of rice
upheld by the DANR secretary. That the petitioner's land in San Julian and Sta. Lucia; and parcels of land
Free Patent Application shall exclude the disputed in Candon, Ilocos Sur. Vicenta filed an action in
portion "A" of Lot No. 1, which, instead, shall be court asking that the judgement be rendered in
included in the Mapas' Miscellaneous Sales restoring and returning to them one half of the total
Application. value of the fruits and rents, plus losses and damages
from the aforementioned properties. However,
The second element is also absent, the petitioner respondent Matilde asserted that she never refused to
cannot aver that she was deprived of property because give the plaintiff her share of the said properties.
she did not have a real right over portion "A". Vicenta also argued that Matilde and her husband,
Gaspar are obliged to pay rent to the former for their
occupation of the upper story of the house in Escolta
As to the third element, the records are bereft of any Street.
indication that there was fraud in the issuance of the
certificates of title. ISSUE: Is defendant Matilde Ortiz, as co-owner of the
house on Calle Escolta, entitled, with her husband, to
The court also finds that the lower court was correct in reside therein, without paying to her co-owner, Vicenta
holding that the case does not fall under any of the Ortiz, one-half of the rents which the upper story would
exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative have produced, had it been rented to a stranger?
remedies. Instead of invoking Section 38, the petitioner
should have pressed for the speedy resolution of her RULING: No. The Court ruled that the spouses are not
petition with the DANR. The petitioners fear that since liable to pay rent. Their occupation of the said property
the one-year prescriptive period for seeking judicial was a mere exercise of their right to use the same as a
relief provided for in Sec. 38 of the Land Registration co-owner. Each co-owner or tenant in common of
Act was about to lapse, she was compelled to file the undivided realty has the same rights therein as the
action to nullify said patent is not correct. others; he may use and enjoy the same without other
limitation except that he must not prejudice the rights
The court has ruled before in Amerol vs. Bagumbaran of his co-owners, but until a division is effected, the
that notwithstanding the irrevocability of the Torrens respective parts belonging to each can not be
title already issued in the name of another person, he determined; each co-owner exercises joint dominion
can still be compelled under the law to reconvey the and is entitled to joint use. Matilde Ortiz and her
subject property to the rightful owner. After all, the husband occupied the upper story, designed for use as
Torrens system was not designed to shield and protect a dwelling, in the house of joint ownership; but the
one who had committed fraud or misrepresentation record shows no proof that, by so doing, Matilde
and thus holds title in bad faith. occasioned any detriment to the interests of the
community property, nor that she prevented her sister
In an action for reconveyance, the decree of Vicenta from utilizing the said upper story according to
registration is respected as incontrovertible. What is her rights. It is to be noted that the stores of the lower
sought instead is the transfer of the property, in this floor were rented and an accounting of the rents was
case the title thereof, which has been wrongfully or duly made to the plaintiffs.
erroneously registered in another person's name, to its
rightful and legal owner, or to one with a better right.

Yet, the right to seek reconveyance based on an


implied or constructive trust is not absolute nor is it
imprescriptible. An action for reconveyance based on
an implied or constructive trust must perforce prescribe
Iglesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119673, law shall be made respecting an establishment of
July 26, 1996 religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The
DECISION free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed.
PUNO, J.:
[The Court however] reject petitioners
I. THE FACTS postulate. Petitioners public broadcast on TV of its
religious program brings it out of the bosom of internal
Several pre-taped episodes of the TV belief. Television is a medium that reaches even the
program Ang Iglesia ni Cristo of the religious group eyes and ears of children. The Court iterates the rule
Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) were rated X i.e., not for that the exercise of religious freedom can be regulated
public viewing by the respondent Board of Review by the State when it will bring about the clear and
for Moving Pictures and Television (now MTRCB). present danger of some substantive evil which the
These TV programs allegedly offend[ed] and State is duty bound to prevent, i.e., serious detriment
constitute[d] an attack against other religions which is to the more overriding interest of public health, public
expressly prohibited by law because of petitioner morals, or public welfare. A laissez faire policy on the
INCs controversial biblical interpretations and its exercise of religion can be seductive to the liberal mind
attacks against contrary religious beliefs. but history counsels the Court against its blind
adoption as religion is and continues to be a volatile
Petitioner INC went to court to question the area of concern in our country today. . . [T]he Court]
actions of respondent Board. The RTC ordered the shall continue to subject any act pinching the space for
respondent Board to grant petitioner INC the the free exercise of religion to a heightened scrutiny
necessary permit for its TV programs. But on appeal but we shall not leave its rational exercise to the
by the respondent Board, the CA reversed the RTC. irrationality of man. For when religion divides and its
The CA ruled that: (1) the respondent Board has exercise destroys, the State should not stand still.
jurisdiction and power to review the TV program Ang
Iglesia ni Cristo, and (2) the respondent Board did not 2. YES, respondent Board gravely abuse
act with grave abuse of discretion when it denied its discretion when it prohibited the airing of
permit for the exhibition on TV of the three series petitioners religious program.
of Ang Iglesia ni Cristo on the ground that the
materials constitute an attack against another religion. [A]ny act that restrains speech is hobbled by
The CA also found the subject TV series indecent, the presumption of invalidity and should be greeted
contrary to law and contrary to good customs. with furrowed brows. It is the burden of the respondent
Dissatisfied with the CA decision, petitioner INC Board to overthrow this presumption. If it fails to
appealed to the Supreme Court. discharge this burden, its act of censorship will be
struck down. It failed in the case at bar.
II. THE ISSUES
The evidence shows that the respondent
(1) Does respondent Board have the power to Board x-rated petitioners TV series for attacking
review petitioners TV program? either religions, especially the Catholic Church. An
examination of the evidence . . . will show that the so-
(2) Assuming it has the power, did respondent called attacks are mere criticisms of some of the
Board gravely abuse its discretion when it prohibited deeply held dogmas and tenets of other religions. The
the airing of petitioners religious program? videotapes were not viewed by the respondent court
as they were not presented as evidence. Yet they were
III. THE RULING considered by the respondent court as indecent,
contrary to law and good customs, hence, can be
[The Court voted 13-1 to REVERSE the prohibited from public viewing under section 3(c) of PD
CA insofar as the CA sustained the action of the 1986. This ruling clearly suppresses petitioner's
respondent Boards X-rating petitioners TV Program freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free
Series Nos. 115, 119, and 121. It also voted 10-4 to exercise of religion. xxx.
AFFIRM the CA insofar as the CA it sustained the
jurisdiction of the respondent MTRCB to review The respondent Board may disagree with the
petitioners TV program entitled Ang Iglesia ni Cristo.] criticisms of other religions by petitioner but that gives
it no excuse to interdict such criticisms, however,
1. YES, respondent Board has the power unclean they may be. Under our constitutional
to review petitioners TV program. scheme, it is not the task of the State to favor any
religion by protecting it against an attack by another
Petitioner contends that the term television religion. . . In fine, respondent board cannot squelch
program [in Sec. 3 of PD No. 1986 that the the speech of petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo simply
respondent Board has the power to review and because it attacks other religions, even if said religion
classify] should not include religious programs like its happens to be the most numerous church in our
program Ang Iglesia ni Cristo. A contrary country. In a State where there ought to be no
interpretation, it is urged, will contravene section 5, difference between the appearance and the reality of
Article III of the Constitution which guarantees that no freedom of religion, the remedy against bad theology is
better theology. The bedrock of freedom of religion is
freedom of thought and it is best served by
encouraging the marketplace of duelling ideas. When
the luxury of time permits, the marketplace of ideas
demands that speech should be met by more speech
for it is the spark of opposite speech, the heat of
colliding ideas that can fan the embers of truth.

In x-rating the TV program of the


petitioner, the respondents failed to apply the clear and
present danger rule. In American Bible Society v. City
of Manila, this Court held: The constitutional guaranty
of free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship carries with it the right to disseminate
religious information. Any restraint of such right can be
justified like other restraints on freedom of expression
on the ground that there is a clear and present
danger of any substantive evil which the State has the
right to prevent. In Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope
Workers Union, we further ruled that . . . it is only
where it is unavoidably necessary to prevent
an immediate and grave danger to the security and
welfare of the community that infringement of religious
freedom may be justified, and only to the smallest
extent necessary to avoid the danger.

The records show that the decision of the


respondent Board, affirmed by the respondent
appellate court, is completely bereft of findings of
facts to justify the conclusion that the subject video
tapes constitute impermissible attacks against another
religion. There is no showing whatsoever of the type of
harm the tapes will bring about especially the gravity
and imminence of the threatened harm. Prior restraint
on speech, including religious speech, cannot be
justified by hypothetical fears but only by the showing
of a substantive and imminent evil which has taken the
life of a reality already on ground.

SERING v. PLAZO- Action for Ejectment


Anyone of the co-owners of an immovable may bring
an action in ejectment.

FACTS:
Sering won an ejectment suit against Spouses Plazo
and Suan. On appeal with the CFI, respondents
learned that Sering is not the sole owner of the
property and they moved to implead the other co-
owners because they think that they are indispensable
parties to the case. Court granted and ordered Sering
to amend complaint.
Due to the failure of the petitioner to amend the
complaint, the case was dismissed.

ISSUE:
Whether the other co-owners are indispensable to the
ejecment case

HELD:
No, according to Art 478 Anyone of the co-owners may
bring an action in ejectment (whether the action is
forcible entry or unlawful detainer). The matter to be
determined is the prior physical possession of the
plaintiff which was correctly alleged.