Property Cases Part 3

Property Cases - Atty.
Salazar
HEIRS OF LIBERATO CASTILLEJOS V. TD was issued way back in 1948 while

LA TONDEÑA INCORPORADA Liberato's TDs were dated 1982.
HEIRS OF LIBERATO CASTILLEJOS, CA: Affirmed the RTC decision stressing

Petitioners vs. that the oldest TD in favor of the respondent
LA TONDEÑA INCORPORADA, is sufficient proof that it owns the land.
Respondent Although TDs are not conclusive proof of
ownership, they are nonetheless, good
Doctrine: Tax Declaration; Action to quiet indication of possession in concept of
title owner. The respondent also exercised acts
Fact: On September 16, 1997, the of ownership and possession over the land
respondent filed a Complaint4 for Quieting of through its administrators.
Title, Declaration of Nullity and/or Issue: Whether or not CA erred in its
Nullification of Tax Declarations and decision
Damages against Liberato Castillejos
(Liberato) who perished pending trial and Ruling: The petition is partly meritorious.
was thus substituted by his heirs, herein
petitioners. An action to quiet title to property or
to remove a cloud thereon is a remedy or
Respondent alleges that it is the form of proceeding originating in equity
absolute owner of two parcels of land jurisprudence.
located at Barangay Bagbag (now
Casilagan), Bauang, La Union. For the action to prosper, two
Furthermore, it is alleged that petitioner requisites must concur, viz: (1) the plaintiff
through stealth, misrepresentation and or complainant must have a legal or an
equitable title to or interest in the real
deliberate fraud, maliciously executed an
property which is the subject matter of the
affidavit of ownership over the subject action; and (2) the deed, claim,
properties and presented the same to the encumbrance or proceeding that is being
Provincial Assessor of La Union. alleged as a cloud on plaintiff's title must be
shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative
Petitioner claims that his land and despite its prima facie appearance of
the subject properties claimed by the validity or legal efficacy.35
respondent are different from one another
because they have different boundaries. He In this case, no clear and concrete
alleged that his land was tilled by his father- evidence is extant from the records that the
properties covered by Liberato's TD Nos.
in-law since 1940 before he took
26682 and 26683 are the same parcels of
possession thereof in 1962. He planted the land described in the respondent's TDs. The
land with different crops and trees and built boundaries, nature and classification of the
a house thereon where he and his family land claimed by the parties appear to be
have continuously resided. different. The TDs proffered by the
respondent shows that the land it claims
RTC: Granted the complaint for the reason has the following boundaries: North -
that the respondent had older documents Leandro Quinzon, South – Luisa Perillo and
proving ownership. The respondent's oldest Others, East - Faustino Pichay and Others,
and West – Santiago Lucas Quinzon etc.
Tinn de Leon, Nely Dumpit, Arvin Gagajena,Julrey Garcia, Jojo Guce, Gie Gutierrez, Anj Joson, Pritz
Montalvo, Lynette Piñon, Alex Ramos,Juan Reyes & William Terencio
Property Cases - Atty. Salazar
Considering that the claim of The spouses Sillero, immediately

overlapping has not been clearly after the sale, fenced Lot No. 3154-A and
established, the Court deems it appropriate built a house thereon and thereafter sold the
to remand the case to the RTC for the same to petitioner Gil Macalino, Jr. (Gil).
conduct of a verification/relocation survey
under the direction and supervision of the Gil caused the survey of the land
Land Management Bureau of the DENR. and discovered that the portion occupied by
Gil consists of 140 square meters only and
GIL MACALINO JR. V. ARTEMIO PIS-AN not 207. Believing that he was deceived, Gil
filed a complaint for estafa against the
Macalino, Jr. v. Pis-An, G.R. No. 204056, spouses Sillero and averred that he should
[June 1, 2016] also be the owner of lot 3154-C.
FACTS A few years later or on January 18,
Emeterio Jumento is an owner of a 2005, Gil filed against Artemio a Complaint
parcel of land in Dumaguete City, Negros for Quieting of Title and Damages with the
Oriental. His children died single making RTC.
Emeterio as their sole heir, and when RTC rendered Judgment in favor of
Emeterio died Artemio(respondent), the Gil Macalino against [Artemio], declaring . . .
grandson-in-law of Emeterio, inherited the Gil Macalino the rightful owner of Lot 3154-
property. A and Lot 3154-C.
Apparently, the City of Dumaguete The CA set aside the decision of
built in the 1950's a barangay road which RTC and declared Artemio Pis-an as the
cut across said lot. As a result, Lot 3154 true and legal owner of the Sixty Seven (67)
was divided into three portions namely: Lot square meter lot known as Lot 1354-C
3154-A (the portion on the left side of the
road), Lot 3154-B (the portion which was Issue
converted into a barangay road), and Lot
3154-C (the portion on the right side of the 1. WON the complaint for quieting of
road). The sketch plan made by the title should be granted.
geodetic engineer revealed that the portion Held
occupied by Artemio, was Lot 3154-A.
NO, what the spouses Sillero bought
On May 3, 1995, Artemio and the from Artemio and his co-heirs was Lot 3154-
other heirs of Emeterio executed an Extra A, it logically follows that what they sold to
Judicial Settlement of Estate and Absolute Gil was the same and exact property. After
Sale 8 (Absolute Sale) adjudicating among all, "no one can give what one does not
themselves Lot 3154 and selling a 207- have. A seller can only sell what he or she
square meter portion of the same to the owns and a buyer can only acquire what the
spouses Wilfredo and Judith Sillero seller can legally transfer.
(spouses Sillero). The document, did not,
however, identify the portion being sold as Further, the court said that It is
Lot No. 3154-A it merely stated that the sale implausible for a former Provincial
covers 207 square meters of land. Agriculturist like Gil to buy a parcel of land
without being conscious of its area, metes and replaced with that of IVQ in the tax
and bounds, and location especially declaration of the subject property.
considering that what he was buying in this
Upon investigation, Barbosa found
case was a mere portion of a still undivided
out that the subject property was previously
lot. registered in the name of Kawilihan
Corporation under TCT No. 71507. Therese
The remedy of quieting of title is
Vargas acquired the subject property from
not Kawilihan Corporation and the date of entry
available to petitioners. (CASE DOCTRINE) of her TCT No. 159487 was November 6,
1970. On the other hand, IVQ supposedly
"Quieting of title is a common law bought the subject property from Jorge
remedy for the removal of any cloud Vargas III who, in turn, acquired it also from
upon or doubt or uncertainty with Kawilihan Corporation. The date of entry of
respect to title to real property." "In Jose Vargas III's TCT No. 223019 was
order that an action for quieting of title October 14, 1976. This title was later
reconstituted and re-numbered as TCT No.
may prosper, it is essential that the
RT-76391. The title of IVQ, TCT No.
plaintiff must have legal or equitable title 253434, was issued on August 6, 2003.
to, or interest in, the property which is
the subject-matter of the action. Legal Barbosa filed a Petition for
title denotes registered ownership, while Cancellation and Quieting of Titles against
equitable title means beneficial Jorge Vargas III, Benito Montinola, IVQ, and
ownership. In the absence of such legal the Register of Deeds of Quezon City. The
RTC granted Barbosa's petition and ordered
or equitable title, or interest, there is no the cancellation of IVQ's TCT No. 253434.
cloud to be prevented or removed." The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of
the RTC.
Petitioners anchored their Complaint on
their alleged legal title over Lot 3154-C Issue: Whether or not Barbosa is the
which as above-discussed, they do not legal owner of the subject property.
have. Hence, the action for quieting of title
is unavailable to petitioners Held: In an action to quiet title, the plaintiffs
or complainants must demonstrate a legal
IVQ LANDHOLDINGS V. REUBEN or an equitable title to, or an interest in, the
BARBOSA subject real property. Likewise, they must
show that the deed, claim, encumbrance or
IVQ LANDHOLDINGS v. REUBEN proceeding that purportedly casts a cloud
BARBOSA on their title is in fact invalid or inoperative
GR No. 193156 despite its prima facie appearance of
Jan 18, 2017 validity or legal efficacy.
IVQ adduced new pieces of
Facts: Barbosa bought from Therese documentary evidence that tended to cast
Vargas a parcel of land in Quezon City. doubt on the veracity of Barbosa's claim of
Vargas surrendered to Barbosa the TCT ownership. IVQ submitted a copy of the
No. 159487. Barbosa took possession of Certification from the Office of the Bar
the subject property and paid real estate Confidant that Espiridion J. Dela Cruz, the
taxes. Sometime in 2003, Barbosa learned notary public who supposedly notarized the
that Therese Vargas's name was cancelled said deed, is not a member of the Philippine
Bar. Anent the Deed of Absolute Sale
between Therese Vargas and Barbosa, the
notarial entries of Atty. Santiago R. Reyes in true, absolute and legitimate owner of the
said deed pertained to a deed of sale sixteen (16) parcels of land, the subject
between other individuals. matter of this case, located in Caloocan City
registered in its name; and it Declared as
Article 1358 of the New Civil Code null and void defendant CLT's Transfer
requires that the form of a contract Certificate of Title No. T-177013 and
transmitting or extinguishing real rights over ordering defendant to surrender said title to
immovable property should be in a public defendant Register of Deeds of Metro
document. Not having been properly and Manila District III;
validly notarized, the deed of sale cannot be
considered a public document. Not being A petition for review on certiorari
considered a public document, the deed is seeking to reverse and set aside the
subject to the requirement of proof under decision of CA was filed by the respondent.
Section 20, Rule 132. (Even if pieces of
evidence were not newly-discovered, the Issue: WON petitioner's TCT No. T-
SC made an exemption as the same were 177013 imposes a cloud on respondent
important for the proper determination of Phil-Ville's titles to the 16 parcels of land
ownership) subject matter of this case, as provided
in Article 476 of the Civil Code
Case remanded to CA for the conduct of
further proceedings. Ruling:
CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP V. Yes, the said TCT covers the subject
PHIL-VILLE DEVELOPMENT property.
In this case the land was awarded by the

CLT Realty Development Corp. v. Phil-Ville
court to Phil-Ville because CLTs claim was
Development and Housing Corp., G.R. No.
anchored on the title of a person named
160728, [March 11, 2015]
Hipolito and DIMSON’s these, however
were never presented in evidence for
Facts purposes of tracing the validity of titles of
CLT.
A Complaint for Quieting of Title, Thus, both requisites in order for an action
Damages and Injunction was filed by
for quieting of title to prosper have been met
respondent Phil-Ville against petitioner and
in this case: (1) respondent Phil-Ville had
the Register of Deeds of Metro Manila established its equitable title or interest in
District III. the 16 parcels of land subject of the action;
The said complaint was filed and (2) TCT No. T-177013, found to overlap
because respondent CLT claimed that they titles to said properties of respondent Phil-
have a TCT evidencing their ownership over Ville, was previously declared invalid.
the property in dispute, a parcel of land In fine, the Court of Appeals, in its
situated in Caloocan City whose title were questioned Decision and Resolution, did not
passed from various individuals and it was
commit reversible error in upholding the
expropriated by the government before its RTC Decision
acquisition.
CASE DOCTRINE
The RTC of Caloocan ruled in favor
of respondent Phil-Ville and this decision The requisites of quieting of title under
was affirmed by CA declaring Phil-Ville 476 are the cloud on title consists of: (1)
Development and Housing Corporation the
any instrument, record, claim, Fausta Baluyut, one of the registered

encumbrance or proceeding; (2) which is owners under Original Certificate of Title
apparently valid or effective; (3) but is in (OCT) No. RO-1138 (11376), as per the
truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, Project of Partition and Deed of Agreement,
voidable, or unenforceable; and (4) may dated January 2, 1974; that petitioners had
be prejudicial to the title sought to be been occupying the property by mere
quieted. tolerance; and that petitioners "have no
valid, legal and sufficient cause of action"
AQUINO V. QUIAZON against them, because their deed of sale
Aquino v. Quiazon was spurious and could not prevail over
Land Registration Decree, in favor of their
Facts: predecessor-in-interest. The predecessors-
in-interest of petitioners were among the
A complaint for Annulment and Quieting of oppositors in the land registration
Title was filed by the petitioners, they proceeding but, nevertheless, after the trial,
alleged that they were the heirs of the late the subject lot was awarded, decreed and
Epifanio Makam and Severina Bautista, who titled in favor of respondents' predecessor-
acquired a house and lot, in dispute, by in-interest,
virtue of a Deed of Sale, dated April 20,
1894; that since then, they and their Issue: WON plaintiffs have no cause of
predecessors-in-interest had been in open, action
continuous, adverse, and notorious
Held:
possession for more than a hundred years,
constructing houses and paying real estate In determining the existence of a cause of
taxes on the property; that sometime in action, only the allegations in the complaint
June 2005, they received various demand may properly be considered. For the court
letters from the respondents, claiming to do otherwise would be a procedural error
ownership over the subject property and and a denial of the plaintiff's right to due
demanding that they vacate the same; that process. In the case at bench, petitioners'
upon inquiry with the Register of Deeds they cause of action relates to an action to quiet
confirmed that the property had been titled title under Article 476 of the Civil Code.
in the name of respondents under Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 213777-R; that the A "cloud on title" is an outstanding
said title was invalid, ineffective, voidable or instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or
unenforceable; and that they were the true proceeding which is actually invalid or
owners of the property. inoperative, but which may nevertheless
impair or affect injuriously the title to
Hence, petitioners prayed that the title be property. The matter complained of must
cancelled and a new title be issued in their have a prima facie appearance of validity or
favor. legal efficacy. The cloud on title is a
H/r respondents asserted that they were the semblance of title which appears in some
absolute owners of the subject land as per legal form but which is in fact unfounded.
TCT No. 213777-R; that they had inherited The invalidity or inoperativeness of the
the same from their predecessor-in-interest, instrument is not apparent on the face of
such instrument, and it has to be proved by SYJUCO V. BONIFACIO

extrinsic evidence.
IMELDA SYJUCO vs. FELISA D.
BONIFACIO
G.R. No. 148748, January 14, 2015, 745
In order that an action for quieting of title SCRA 468
may prosper, two requisites must concur:
(1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or
equitable title or interest in the real property Case Doctrine: “an established doctrine in
subject of the action; and (2) the deed, land ownership dispute that the filing of an
claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed action to quiet title is imprescriptible if the
to be casting cloud on his title must be disputed property is in the possession of the
shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative plaintiff.”
despite its prima facie appearance of
validity or legal efficacy.
FACTS: The Syjucos are the registered
owners of a parcel of land situated in
Caloocan City covered by TCT # T-108530
It is readily apparent from the complaint that issued on March 26, 1984. They have been
petitioners alleged that (1) they had an in open, continuous and uninterrupted
interest over the subject property by virtue possession of the subject land, by
of a Deed of Sale, dated April 20, 1894; and themselves or through their predecessors-
that (2) the title of respondents under TCT in-interest since 1926 and they have been
No. 213777-R was invalid, ineffective, paying the real property taxes over the
voidable or unenforceable. Hypothetically subject land since 1949. Sometime in 1994,
admitting these allegations as true, as is Syjucos learned that the purported owner of
required in determining whether a complaint the subject land was Felisa Bonifacio who
fails to state a cause of action, petitioners was able to register the subject land in her
may be granted their claim. Clearly, the name under TCT No. 265778 on March 29,
complaint suf=ciently stated a cause of 1993. Bonifacio’s title was issued pursuant
action. In resolving whether or not the to an order dated October 8, 1992 by RTC,
complaint stated a cause of action, the trial Branch 125 of Caloocan City in the Petition
court should have limited itself to examining for Authority to Segregate. For unexplained
the suf=ciency of the allegations in the reasons, the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan
complaint. It was proscribed from inquiring issued TCT No. 265778 to Bonifacio on
into the truth of the allegations in the March 29, 1993 even before RTC - Branch
complaint or the authenticity of any of the 125 declared its Order dated October 8,
documents referred or attached to the 1992 granting Bonifacio’s petition for
complaint. segregation final and executory on April 6,
1993. On July 28, 1994, to protect their
rights and interest over the subject property,
the Syjucos lodged a special civil action for
quieting of title especially praying for
declaration of nullity and cancellation of
Bonifacio’s TCT No. 265778. Subsequently,
the Syjucos discovered that Bonifacio sold of land claiming to be the owner thereof
the subject land to VSD Realty. Bonifacio’s may wait his possession is disturbed or his
TCT # 265778 was cancelled and replaced title is attacked before taking steps to
by TCT # 285313 in the name of VSD vindicate his right, the reason for this rule
Realty. As a result, the Syjucos amended being that his undisturbed possession gives
their petition impleading VSD Realty on him a continuing right to seek the aid of a
April 25, 1995. court of equity to ascertain and determine
the nature of the adverse claim of a third
ISSUES: party and its effects on his own title, which
(1) W/N an action for quieting of title is a right can be claimed only by one who is in
direct attack on the certificates of title of possession.
Bonifacio and VSD Realty.
(2) W/N an action for quieting of title has HEIRS OF PACIFICO POCDO V. AVILO
prescribed.
HEIRS OF PACIFICO POCDO, namely,
HELD: (1) YES. The instituted action in this RITA POCDO GASIC, GOLIC POCDO,
case is clearly a direct attack on a certificate MARCELA POCDO ALFELOR, KENNETH
of title to real property. POCDO, NIXON CADOS, JACQUELINE
CADOS LEE, EFLYN CADOS, and GIRLIE
In their complaint for quieting of title, the CADOS DAPLIN, herein represented by
Syjucos specifically pray for the declaration their Attorney-in-Fact JOHN
of nullity and/or cancellation of Bonifacio’s POCDO, Petitioners,
TCT # 265778 and VSD TCT # 285313 over vs.
the subject land. ARSENIA AVILA and EMELINDA
CHUA, Respondents.
The relief sought is certainly feasible since
the objective of an action for quieting of title  As it appears, in 1894, Pocdo Pool,
as provided under Article 476 of the Civil who died in 1942, began his
Code, is precisely to quiet title, remove, occupation and claim on three lots
invalidate, annul and/or nullify a cloud on (Lots 43, 44 and 45) that were
title to real property or any interest therein eventually surveyed in his name.
by reason of any instrument, record, claims, Certificates of Ancestral Lands
encumbrance or proceeding which is Claims (CALS) were issued by the
apparently valid or effective but is in truth DENR for Lots 44 and 45, but Lot 43
and in fact, ineffective, voidable or was not approved due to
unenforceable and may be prejudicial to the Memorandum Order 98-15 issued by
title. the DENR Secretary in September
1998.
(2) NO. It is an established doctrine in land
 In the meantime, on September 14,
ownership dispute that the filing of an action
1960, Polon Pocdo, an heir of Pocdo
to quiet title is imprescriptible if the disputed
Pool, ceded his rights over the three
property is in the possession of the plaintiff.
lots to Pacifico Pocdo in exchange
One who is in actual possession of a piece
for a one hectare lot to be taken
from Lot 43. However, Pacifico  the CENRO of Baguio City issued in
entered into a contract with favor of Avila a Certificate of
Florencio Pax and Braulio Yaranon Exclusion of 993 square meters from
on November 21, 1968 revoking the the Ancestral Land Claim of the
agreement with Polon. In the Heirs of Pocdo Pool over Lot 43
contract, the 4,875 square meters
where Polon’s house was located  On April 27, 2007, the Heirs of Polon
became part of the 1-hectare given Pocdo and his wife Konon filed an
to Pax and Yaranon in exchange for affidavit of cancellation with OIC-
their services in the titling of CENRO Teodoro Suaking and on
Pacifico’s lands. that basis, Suaking cancelled the
Certificate of Exclusion. On May 8,
 On September 3, 1980, an amicable 2000, Avila complained to the
settlement was settled that Polon Regional Executive Director or RED
would again retain the 4,875 square the unlawful cancellation of her
meters and Pacifico would give the Certificate of Exclusion, and on June
5,125 square meter area, the 1, 2000, the RED issued a
remaining portion of the 1-hectare memorandum setting aside the
share of Polon, to be taken from Lot revocation and restoring the
43 after a segregation. Certificate of Exclusion.
 On April 18, 1981, Polon entered  The Affidavit of Cancellation dated

into a Catulagan with Arsenia Avila April 27, 2002 filed by the heirs of
authorizing the latter to undertake Polon Pocdo was dismissed for lack
the segregation of his one-hectare of jurisdiction and the validity of the
land from Lot 43 in accord with the Amicable Settlement, Catulagan and
amicable settlement of September 3, Deed of Waiver of Rights were
1980. In exchange, Polon would recognized.
award to her 2,000 square meters
from the 1- hectare lot.  Hence, this petition.
 After spending time, money and RTC: Lack of jurisdiction. The DENR had
effort in the execution of the survey, already declared the disputed property as
Avila gave the survey results to public land, which the State, through the
Polon prompting Polon to execute a DENR, has the sole power to dispose.
Waiver of Rights dated January 21, Thus, the claim of petitioners to quiet title is
1987. not proper since they do not have title over
the disputed property.
 Accordingly, the subdivided lots
were declared for tax purposes and CA: petitioners, in raising the issue of
the corresponding tax declaration quieting of title, failed to allege any legal or
issued to Polon and Arsenia, with equitable title to quiet. Under Article 477 of
8,010 square meters going to Polon the Civil Code, in an action to quiet title, the
and 1,993 square meters to Avila. plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to,
or interest in the real property which is the
subject matter of the action. Instead of an that the disputed property is public
action to quiet title or accion reivindicatoria, land, the trial court was therefore
the Court of Appeals stated that petitioners correct in dismissing the complaint
should have filed an accion publiciana to quiet title for lack of jurisdiction
based merely on the recovery of possession
de jure.  In an action for quieting of title, the
complainant is seeking for "an
On the validity of the Catulagan and the adjudication that a claim of title or
Waiver of Rights, the Court of Appeals held interest in property adverse to the
that petitioners have no right to question claimant is invalid, to free him from
these since they were not parties to said the danger of hostile claim, and to
documents had not participated in any remove a cloud upon or quiet title to
manner in their execution. land where stale or unenforceable
claims or demands exist." Under
ISSUE: WON PETITIONERS HAVE NO Articles 476 and 477 of the Civil
TITLE TO THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD Code, the two indispensable
SUPPORT AN ACTION FOR QUIETING requisites in an action to quiet title
OF TITLE WHEN TRIAL HAD NOT YET are: (1) that the plaintiff has a legal
COMMENCED. NONETHELESS, THE or equitable title to or interest in the
RECORD IS REPLETE OF PROOF THAT
real property subject of the action;
THE PETITIONERS HAVE RIGHTS/TITLE and (2) that there is a cloud on his
OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY title by reason of any instrument,
HELD: record, deed, claim, encumbrance or
proceeding, which must be shown to
SC: We find the petition without merit. be in fact invalid or inoperative
despite its prima facie appearance of
 Lot 43 is public land and part of the validity.
Baguio Townsite Reservation. The
DENR Decision was affirmed by the In this case, petitioners, claiming to be
Office of the President which held owners of the disputed property, allege that
that lands within the Baguio respondents are unlawfully claiming the
Townsite Reservation belong to the disputed property by using void documents,
public domain and are no longer namely the "Catulagan" and the Deed of
registrable under the Land Waiver of Rights. However, the records
Registration Act. The Office of the reveal that petitioners do not have legal or
President ordered the disposition of equitable title over the disputed property,
the disputed property in accordance which forms part of Lot 43, a public land
with the applicable rules of within the Baguio Townsite Reservation. It is
procedure for the disposition of clear from the facts of the case that
alienable public lands within the petitioners’ predecessors-in-interest, the
Baguio Townsite Reservation, heirs of Pocdo Pool, were not even granted
particularly Chapter X of a Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim over
Commonwealth Act No. 141 on Lot 43, which remains public land. Thus, the
Townsite Reservations and other trial court had no other recourse but to
applicable rules. Having established dismiss the case.
TEOFISTO ONO V. VICENTE LIM RULING:
Ono et al v Lim Quieting of title is a common law remedy for

the removal of any cloud, doubt, or
FACTS: uncertainty affecting title to real property. An
action or proceeding is deemed an attack
Lim filed in the RTC Cebu a petition for the on a title when its objective is to nullify the
reconstruction of the owners duplicate of a title, thereby challenging the judgment
OCT, that had been lost during WW2 by his pursuant to which the title was decreed. The
mother, Lisa, covering a lot located in Cebu attack is direct when the objective is to
that had been sold to Luisa by SPS Oo. annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin
Although the deed evidencing the sale had its enforcement. On the other hand, the
been lost, Antonio, the only legitimate heir attack is indirect or collateral when, in an
of SPS Oo, had executed in favor of Luisa a action to obtain a different relief, an attack
notarized document confirming the sale. on the judgment is nevertheless made as an
Petitioners opposed Lim’s petition, incident thereof. The averments readily
contending that they had the certificate of show that the action was neither a direct nor
title in their possession as the successor-in- a collateral attack on OCT No. RO-9969-(O-
interest of the SPS Oo. Lim converted the 20449), for Lim was asserting only that the
petition into a complaint for quieting of title, existing title registered in the name of the
averring that he and his predecessor-in- petitioners predecessors had become
interest had been in actual possession of inoperative due to the conveyance in favor
the property since 1937. He prayed that the of Lims mother, and resultantly should be
Oos be ordered to surrender the cancelled. Lim did not thereby assail the
reconstituted owners duplicate of the OCT validity of OCT No. RO-9969-(O-20449), or
over the land and that it be cancelled and a challenge the judgment by which the title of
new certificate be issued in the name of the lot involved had been decreed. In other
Luisa. Oos claimed that their predecessors- words, the action sought the removal of a
in-interest never sold the lot to Luisa and cloud from Lims title, and the confirmation of
that the document confirming the sale was Lims ownership over the disputed property
fabricated as Antonio’s signature was not as the successor-in-interest of Luisa.
authentic. RTC ruled in favor of Lim, having
found that he had been in peaceful
possession of the land, that their
possession had never been disturbed by the LUCASAN V. PDIC
Oos, except when the Oos seized the
harvested copra from the Lim’s caretaker, INOCENCIO Y. LUCASAN for himself and
that the signature of Antonio was genuine. as the Judicial Administrator of the
On appeal, Oos maintained that the Intestate Estate of the late JULIANITA
confirmation of sale was spurious, that the SORBITO LUCASAN, Petitioner,
property could not be acquired by the Lim’s v.s. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE
through prescription, their action could not CORPORATION (PDIC), Respondent.
be barred by laches and the action instituted
by the Lim’s constituted a collateral attack Doctrine: Cloud on title; Right of
against their registered title. CA affirmed the redemption
RTC ruling.
Facts: Petitioner Inocencio Y. Lucasan
ISSUE: (Lucasan) and his wife Julianita Sorbito
W/N the quieting of title should be (now deceased) were the owners of two lots
disallowed as it constituted a collateral situated in Bacolod City covered by their
attack respective TCT’s. On August 3, 1972,
Pacific Banking Corporation (PBC) of a public bidding. Thus, their annotations

extended a P5,000.00 loan to Lucasan. on the titles were valid, operative or
Upon failure to pay the loan, PBC filed a effective. PDIC asserted that Lucasans
collection case with the RTC of Bacolod petition is nothing but a disguised attempt to
City. compel PDIC to resell the properties at a
reduced price.
Upon failure to comply with the
obligation of the Court, the RTC issued a RTC: granted PDICs motion to dismiss
writ of execution directing the sheriff to since Notice of Embargo was issued by
effect a levy on the properties owned by virtue of a valid judgment rendered in Civil
Lucasan and sell the same at public Case entitled PBC vs. Lucasan
auction. The lots were sold at public auction
and were awarded to PBC as the highest CA: affirmed RTC
bidder.
Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of
In January 1997, Lucasan, through Lucasans complaint was proper.
counsel, wrote a letter to the Philippine
Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), Ruling: To avail of the remedy of quieting of
PBCs receiver and liquidator seeking the title, two (2) indispensable requisites must
cancellation of the certificate of sale. PDIC concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or
denied Lucasan’s request for the complainant has a legal or an equitable title
cancellation of the certificate of sale stating to or interest in the real property subject of
that the TCT’s have already become part of the action; and (2) the deed, claim,
the acquired assets of Pacific Banking encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be
Corporation by virtue of a Certificate of Sale casting a cloud on his title must be shown to
executed by the City Sheriff of be in fact invalid or inoperative despite
Bacolod. Subsequently, this document was its prima facie appearance of validity or
registered on the titles on June 5, 1981 so legal efficacy.[20] Stated differently, the
that the last day of the redemption period plaintiff must show that he has a legal or at
was June 5, 1982. least an equitable title over the real property
in dispute, and that some deed or
Lucasan then filed a petition proceeding beclouds its validity or efficacy.
denominated as declaratory relief with the Unfortunately, the foregoing requisites are
RTC of Bacolod City for the lifting and/or wanting in this case.
cancellation of the notice of embargo and
the certificate of sale. PDIC moved to Admittedly, the subject parcels of
dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of land were levied upon by virtue of a writ of
action. It averred that an action to quiet title execution issued in Civil Case No.
under Section 1 of Rule 63 may only be 12188. On May 13, 1981, a public auction of
brought when there is a cloud on, or to the subject parcels of land was held and the
prevent a cloud from being cast upon, the lots were awarded to PBC as the highest
title to real property.It asseverated that a bidder. A certificate of sale in favor of PBC
cloud on the title is an outstanding was issued on the same day, and was
instrument record, claim, encumbrance or registered and annotated on TCT Nos. T-
proceeding which is actually invalid or 68115 and T-13816 as Entry No. 112552
inoperative, but which may nevertheless on June 5, 1981. Moreover, the judgment
impair or affect injuriously the title to debtor or redemptioner had the right to
property. PDIC claimed that the notice of redeem the property from PBC within twelve
embargo was issued pursuant to a writ of (12) months from the registration of the
execution in Civil Case No. 12188, while the certificate of sale.[21] With the expiration of
certificate of sale was executed as a result the twelve-month period of redemption and
no redemption having been made, as in this 2 Requisites of an action to quiet

case, the judgment debtor or the title
redemptioner lost whatever right he had
over the land in question.[22] FACTS: February 1, 1995, petitioners,
Claudo-Reyes, filed an action to quiet title,
Lucasan admitted that he failed to reconveyance and damages against
redeem the properties within the redemption respondents, Spouses Limpe, and alleged
period, on account of his then limited that they have been occupying the disputed
financial situation.[23] It was only in January lot since 1945 through their predecessor-in-
1997 or fifteen (15) years later that he interest, Mamerto B. Reyes.
manifested his desire to reacquire the
properties. Clearly thus, he had lost They claimed that during his lifetime,
whatever right he had over Lot Nos. 1500-A Mamerto had accepted a verbal promise of
and 229-E. the former lot owner, Felipe Garcia, to give
Furthermore, Lucasan failed to the disputed lot to him in exchange for the
demonstrate that the notice of embargo and surrender of his tenancy rights as a tiller
the certificate of sale are invalid or thereof.
inoperative. In fact, he never put in issue the
validity of the levy on execution and of the To prove that Mamerto was a former tenant
certificate of sale duly registered on June 5, of Felipe; that during his lifetime he had
1981. It is clear, therefore, that the second worked on the lot; and that he owned and
requisite for an action to quiet title is, possessed the same, petitioners presented
likewise, absent. two documents, namely: (1) Certification
dated October 12, 1979 and (2)
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED "Pagpapatunay" dated November 17, 1982
allegedly executed by Simeon I. Garcia, the
CLADO-REYES V. SPOUSES LIMPE eldest son of Felipe, attesting to such facts.
Petitioners also alleged that whenever
CLADO-REYES, et al vs SPOUSES
respondents visited the lot, respondent
LIMPE [G.R. No. 163876. July 9, 2008.]
Julius Limpe would promise to deliver the
Doctrine: An action for quieting of title certificate of title to them. However,
originated in equity jurisprudence to secure sometime in October 1994, petitioners
an adjudication that a claim of title to or an received a letter from respondents asserting
interest in property, adverse to that of the ownership over the disputed lot.
complainant, is invalid, so that the
In their answer, respondents contended
complainant and those claiming under him
that they are the legal owners of the lot by
may be forever free from any danger of
virtue of a Deed of Exchange of Real Estate
hostile claim. So that he who has the right
and Deed of Absolute Sale executed on
would see every cloud of doubt over the
July 5, 1974 and February 28, 1974,
property dissipated, and he could
respectively, between them and Farm-Tech
afterwards without fear introduce the
Industries, Incorporated they presented TCT
improvements he may desire, to use and
No. T-199627, Tax Declaration and realty
even to abuse the property as he may deem
tax receipts of the lot, which were all
best.
registered and declared in their names.
RTC ruled in favor of respondents and the deed, claim, encumbrance or

held that the certificate of title, tax proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on
declarations and realty tax receipts his title must be shown to be in fact invalid
presented in court indisputably established or inoperative despite its prima facie
respondents' ownership over the lot. The appearance of validity or legal efficacy.
certificate of title was registered in
respondents' names and the realty tax (Additional info na lang to kung bakit mas
receipts showed that respondents mabigat yung evidence na pinakita ni
consistently paid the corresponding real respondent.)
property taxes. These pieces of evidence, PETITIONERS cited Section 4 of Article
said the trial court, prevail over petitioners' XIII of the 1987 Constitution and Section 2
allegation of an "undocumented promise" by of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
the former lot owner, which in itself, is Law. They hardly argued on the matter
ineffective or unenforceable under the law. neither was there positive evidence (1) that
Accordingly, the trial court ordered their predecessor had legal title, i.e., a
petitioners to reconvey the disputed lot to
certificate of land transfer; (2) that the lot
respondents. was an agricultural lot and not a commercial
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial one as contended by respondents; and (3)
court's ruling and held that petitioners that they are qualified beneficiaries under
have no title whatsoever upon which the Agrarian Reform Law.
respondents' title could cast a cloud, as they The documentary evidence petitioners
were the ones casting doubt on presented, namely, the "Certification" and
respondents' title. It held that the documents
"Pagpapatunay", did not confirm their title
allegedly executed by Simeon I. Garcia over the disputed lot. First, original copies of
showed no indicia that the alleged owner, those documents were not presented in
Felipe Garcia, donated the disputed lot to court. Second, as the appellate court
them. It further held that Simeon I. Garcia
pointed out, Simeon I. Garcia, the declarant
was not the real owner of the lot; thus, he in those documents, was not presented in
could not make an effective conveyance court to prove the veracity of their contents.
thereof. Consequently, it upheld Third, even a cursory examination of those
respondents' title over the disputed lot. documents would not show any transfer or
ISSUE: WON the petitioners have a intent to transfer title or ownership of the
cause of action to quiet title, disputed lot from the alleged owner, Felipe
reconveyance and damages against Garcia, to petitioners or their predecessor-
respondents in-interest, Mamerto B. Reyes. Fourth,
petitioners did not bother to adduce
RULING: NO. Under Articles 476 22 and evidence that Simeon I. Garcia, as the
477 23 of the New Civil Code. There are eldest son of the late Felipe Garcia,
two indispensable requisites in order that inherited the entire lot as to effectively
an action to quiet title could prosper: (1) that convey title or ownership over the disputed
the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an lot, i.e. thru extrajudicial settlement of the
equitable title to or interest in the real estate of the late Felipe Garcia. Accordingly,
property subject of the action; and (2) that the Court agree that the documents
allegedly executed by Simeon I. Garcia are Resources Corporation was no longer

purely hearsay and have no probative functional as a corporate entity, she decided
value. to cause the transfer of registration of TCT
No. 27946. She was thus surprised to learn
RESPONDENTS presented evidence that the property in question was sold by
which clearly preponderates in their favor. defendant Ex-Officio Sheriff of Quezon City
to defendants Sps. Roa in an execution
First, the transfer certificate of title, tax
sale.
declarations and realty tax receipts were all
in their names. Second, pursuant to the Ragasa then filed a
Torrens System, enjoys the conclusive complaint against Sps. and the ex-officio
presumption of validity and is the best proof sheriff of Quezon City. The RTC granted
of ownership of the lot. Third, although tax the Motion to Dismiss filed by Sps. Roa
stating that the action was barred by
declarations or realty tax receipts are not
prescription for having been filed more than
conclusive evidence of ownership, four years after the registration of the
nevertheless, they are good indicia of execution sale. Ragasa filed the present
possession in the concept of an owner, for petition for review on certiorari before the
no one in his right mind would be paying SC raising only a pure question of law.
taxes for a property that is not in his actual
or at least constructive possession. Issue: Whether or not the action is
barred by prescription.
After carefully considering the arguments of
the parties, the Court unanimously agree Held: No. The averments in petitioners'
complaint that (1) they acquired ownership
that the petitioners were not able to prove of a piece of land by tradition or delivery as
that they have any legal or equitable title a consequence of sale and (2) private
over the disputed lot. Thus, the Court find respondents subsequently purchased the
no reversible error in the assailed decisions same piece of land at an allegedly void
of the courts below. execution sale were sufficient to make out
an action to quiet title under Article 476.
RAGASA V. ROA The prevailing rule is that the right of a
plaintiff to have his title to land quieted, as
RAGASA vs ROA against one who is asserting some adverse
G.R. NO. 141964 claim or lien thereon, is not barred while the
June 30, 2006 plaintiff or his grantors remain in actual
possession of the land, claiming to be
Facts: On May 10, 1989, Ragasa entered owners thereof. (This rule can only be
into a contract with Oakland Development invoked by a complainant when he is in
Resources Corporation for the purchase in possession. If not in possession, remedy
installments of a piece of property, with must be exercised within 4 years pursuant
improvements. to Article 1146).
Despite the execution of the Deed of
Absolute Sale, Oakland Development Petition granted. RTC reversed and set
Resources Corporation failed to cause the aside. Remanded to RTC QC for further
transfer of title to plaintiffs. proceedings.
Sometime March of 1999, during

one of the trips of plaintiff Consorcia
Ragasa to the Philippines from Italy, upon
learning that Oakland Development
OLVIGA V. CA who were the real and actual occupants of

the land.
Heirs of Olviga vs CA
It is then found that that Cornelio Glor, Sr.
FACTS: was sickly, and his wife (now widowed)
Angelita Glor and her children filed for Angelita Glor, was unschooled, they failed
reconveyance of a parcel of land with the to follow up Pureza's homestead application
RTC of Caluag, Quezon against the heirs of over Lot 13 in the cadastral proceedings in
Jose Olviga. The RTC ruled in favor of the the
Glors which led to the Olvigas to appeal Municipal Court of Guinayangan Public
with the CA arguing that the action for Land Subdivision. Hence, they were not
reconveyance has already prescribed and aware of the proceedings nor did she
that they were purchasers in good faith. The receive any notice from the barangay
CA affirmed the RTC decision. captain or court sheriff.
In 1950 Lot in question was still forestland It was also established that the spouses
when Eutiquio Pureza and his father Jaime Olila and Lolita Olviga Olila, were not
cultivated it by introducing fruit bearing trees innocent purchasers for value of the land
such as coconuts, jackfruits, mangoes, from their father, and have never been in
avocado and bananas. possession. The Glors and their
On 1956 The Bureau of Lands surveyed the predecessors-in-interest (Cornelio Glor Sr.,
and Eutiquio Pureza) were the ones found
land in the name of Pureza but Godofredo
Olviga, a son of Jose Olviga, protested the to be in possession of the property.
survey but only with Glor then filed an action for reconveyance
over Lot 13.
respect to a one-half-hectare portion "sa
dakong panulukan ng Amihanan- The CA affirmed that the plaintiffs (Glors)
Silanganan." action is really one for quieting of title
that does not prescribed.
In 1960, Eutiquio Pureza filed a homestead
application over Lot 13. Without his Petitioners (Olvigas) raises the ff issues with
application having been acted upon, he the SC
transferred his rights in said lot to Cornelio
Glor in 1961. Neither the homestead They allege that:
application of Eutiquio nor the proposed
transfer of his rights to Cornelio Glor was (1) the present action has already
acted upon by the Director of Lands for prescribed;
reasons that the records of the Bureau of
(2) the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled
Lands do not disclose. that the private
In 1967, Jose Olviga obtained a registered respondents' cause of action accrued not in
title for said lot in a cadastral proceeding, in 1967 but in 1988;
fraud of the rights of Pureza and his
transferee, Cornelio Glor and his family, (3) that the Court of Appeals erred when it
failed to consider that private respondents
as mere homestead transferees cannot SAPTO ET AL V. FABIAN

maintain an action for reconveyance;
RULE FOR ACTIONS TO QUIET TITLE
(4) that the Faja and Caragay- Layno cases OVER A PROPERTY; SAPTO vs.
have no bearing and direct application to
the case at bar; FABIANA, (103 PHIL. 683) CITED. — In
Sapto vs. Fabiana, appellants' predecessors
(5) that private respondents have not sold to appellees in 1931 a parcel of land.
proven by preponderance of evidence their The sale was approved by the Provincial
ownership and possession of the disputed Governor of Davao but was never
land. registered. Possession of the land was,
however, transferred to Fabiana and the
latter has been in possession thereof from
Ruling: 1931 up to the present. The widow and
children of Samuel Sapto filed an action to
The Court ruled that there were no recover the land. This Court in affirming the
reversible error in the decision of the Court validity of the sale in favor of appellee
of Appeals. Where, the petition for review is (Fabiana) held: "No enforcement of the
DENIED. contract is in fact needed, since the delivery
of possession of the land sold had
PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION; RULE IN consummated the sale and transferred title
CASE OF AN ACTION FOR to the purchaser, registration of the contract
not being indispensable as between the
RECONVEYANCE OF A PARCEL OF
parties. Actually the action for conveyance
LAND BASED ON IMPLIED OR
was one to quiet title, i.e., to remove the
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST; EXCEPTION.
cloud cast upon appellee's ownership by the
With regard to the issue of prescription, this refusal of the appellants to recognize the
Court has ruled a number of times before sale made by their predecessors. This
that an action for reconveyance of a parcel action accrued only when appellants
of land based on implied or constructive initiated their suit to recover the land in
trust prescribes in ten years, the point of 1954. Furthermore, it is an established rule
reference being the date of registration of of American jurisprudence (made applicable
the deed or the date of the issuance of the in this jurisdiction by Art. 480 of the New
certificate of title over the property (Vda. de Civil Code) that actions to quiet title to
Portugal vs. IAC, 159 SCRA 178). But this property in the possession of the plaintiff are
rule applies only when the plaintiff is not imprescriptible.
in possession of the property, since if a
person claiming to be the owner thereof
is in actual possession of the property, POSSESSION; ACTUAL POSSESSOR OF
the right to seek reconveyance, which in A PIECE OF LAND CLAIMING TO BE
effect seeks to quiet title to the property,
does not prescribe. OWNER THEREOF MAY WAIT UNTIL HIS
POSSESSION IS DISTURBED OR HIS
TITLE IS ATTACKED; REASON
THEREFOR. — In Faja vs. Court of

Appeals:
TAN V. VALDEHUESA
There is settled jurisprudence that one who
is in actual possession of a piece Tan v. Valdehuesa (66 SCRA 61)
of land claiming to be owner thereof may Case Doctrine: The trial court treated the
wait until his possession is disturbed or his registered deed of pacto de retro as an
title is attacked before taking steps to equitable mortgage but considered the
vindicate his right, the reason for the rule unregistered deed of pacto de retro "as a
being that his undisturbed possession gives mere case of simple loan, secured by the
him a continuing right to seek the aid of a property thus sold under pacto de retro," on
court of equity to ascertain and determine the ground that no suit lies to foreclose
the nature of the adverse claim of a third an unregistered mortgage. It would appear
party and its effect on his own title, which that the trial judge had not updated himself
right can be claimed only by one who is in on law
possession. No better situation can be Facts:
conceived at the moment for Us to apply
this rule on equity than that of herein An action instituted by the plaintiff-
petitioners whose mother, Felipa Faja, was appellee Lucia Tan against the defendants-
in possession of the litigated property for no appellants Arador Valdehueza and Rediculo
less than 30 years and was suddenly Valdehueza for (a) declaration of
confronted with a claim that the land she ownership and recovery of possession
had been occupying and cultivating all these of the parcel of land described in the first
years, was titled in the name of a third cause of action of the complaint, and
person. We hold that in such a situation the (b) consolidation of ownership of two
right to quiet title to the property, to seek its portions of another parcel of
reconveyance and annul any certificate of (unregistered) land described in the
title covering it, accrued only from the time second cause of action of the complaint,
the one in possession was made aware of a purportedly sold to the plaintiff in two
claim adverse to his own, and it is only then separate deeds of pacto de retro. Parcel of
that the statutory period of prescription land described in the first cause of action
commences to run against such possessor." was the subject matter of the public
auction sale in Oroquieta, Misamis
Occidental, wherein the TAN was the
In the case at bar, private respondents highest bidder. Due to the failure of
and their predecessors-in-interest were defendant Arador Valdehueza to redeem
in actual possession of the property the said land within the period of one year
since 1950. Their undisturbed as being provided by law, MR. VICENTE D.
possession gave them the continuing ROA who was then the Ex-Officio
right to seek the aid of a court of equity Provincial Sheriff executed an ABSOLUTE
to determine the nature of the adverse DEED OF SALE in favor of the plaintiff
claim of petitioners, who in 1988 LUCIA TAN. Civil case 2002 was a
disturbed their possession complaint for injunction filed by Tan on July
24, 1957 against the Valdehuezas, to enjoin
them "from entering the above-described DOMINGO V. MOLINA

parcel of land and gathering the nuts therein
" This complaint and the MELECIO DOMINGO, Petitioner,
counterclaim were subsequently vs.
dismissed. The Valdehuezas appealed to SPOUSES GENARO MOLINA and ELENA
the lower court alleging that it erred in B. MOLINA, substituted by ESTER
making a finding on the second cause of MOLINA, Respondents
action that the transactions between the The spouses Anastacio and Flora Domingo
parties were simple loan, instead, it should bought a property in Camiling, Tarlac.
be declared as equitable mortgage. During his lifetime, Anastacio borrowed
Issue: W/N the transactions between the money from the respondent spouses
parties were simple loan? Genaro and Elena Molina (spouses
Molina). On September 10, 1978 or 10
Held: The trial court treated the registered years after Flora’s death4, Anastacio sold
deed of pacto de retro as an equitable his interest over the land to the spouses
mortgage but considered the unregistered Molina to answer for his debts. The sale to
deed of pacto de retro "as a mere case of the spouses Molina was annotated at the
simple loan, secured by the property thus OCT of the subject property.5 In 1986,
sold under pacto de retro," on the ground Anastacio died. In May 19, 1995, the sale of
that no suit lies to foreclose an unregistered Anastacio’s interest was registered under a
mortgage. It would appear that the trial TCT and transferred the entire one-half
judge had not updated himself on law undivided portion of the land to the spouses
Molina.
and jurisprudence; he cited, in support of his
ruling, article 1875 of the old Civil Code Petitioner: filed a Complaint for Annulment
and decisions of this Court circa 1910 and of Title and Recovery
1912. Under article 1875 of the Civil Code of Ownership (Complaint) against the
of 1889, registration was a necessary spouses Molina on the grounds that
requisite for the validity of a mortgage even Anastacio gave the subject property to the
as between the parties, but under article spouses Molina to serve as collateral for the
2125 of the new Civil Code (in effect since money that Anastacio borrowed and that
August 30,1950), this is no longer so. If the Anastacio could not have validly sold the
instrument is not recorded, the mortgage is interest over the subject property without
nonetheless binding between the parties. Flora’s consent, as Flora was already dead
(Article 2125, 2nd sentence). at the time of the sale
The Valdehuezas having remained in Defendants: he has been living on the

possession of the land and the realty taxes subject property owned by Anastacio since
having been paid by them, the contracts 1986. George testified, however, that aside
which purported to be pacto de retro from himself, there were also four other
transactions are presumed to be equitable occupants on the subject property. The
mortgages, 5 whether registered or not, spouses Molina asserted that Anastacio
there being no third parties involved. surrendered the title to the subject property
to answer for his debts and told the spouses
Molina that they already own half of the the spouses Molina’s exercise of attributes
land. The spouses Molina have been in of ownership over the subject property,
possession of the subject property before perfected the sale and completed the
the title was registered under their names transfer of ownership.
and have religiously paid the property’s real
estate taxes. The spouses Molina also Issue: whether the sale of a conjugal
asserted that Melecio knew of the disputed property to the spouses Molina without
sale since he accompanied Anastacio Flora’s consent is valid and legal
several times to borrow money. The last Held:
loan was even used to pay for Melecio’s
wedding. Petition denied.
RTC: Dismissed. Melecio failed to establish  There is no dispute that Anastacio

his claim that Anastacio did not sell the and Flora Domingo married before
property to the spouses Molina. The RTC the Family Code’s effectivity on
also held that Anastacio could dispose of August 3, 1988 and their property
conjugal property without Flora’s consent relation is a conjugal partnership.
since the sale was necessary to answer for The conjugal partnership of
conjugal liabilities. Anastacio and Flora was
dissolved when Flora died in
CA: that Melecio failed to prove by
1968, pursuant to Article 175 (1) of
preponderant evidence that there was fraud
the Civil Code22 (now Article 126 (1)
in the conveyance of the property to the
of the Family Code).
spouses Molina. The CA also held that
Flora’s death is immaterial because Article 130. Upon the termination of the
Anastacio only sold his rights, excluding marriage by death, the conjugal
Flora’s interest, over the lot to the spouses partnership property shall be liquidated
in the same proceeding for the
Hence, this petition.
settlement of the estate of the deceased.
Petitioner: Melecio principally argues that If no judicial settlement proceeding is
the sale of land belonging to the conjugal instituted, the surviving spouse shall
partnership without the wife’s consent is liquidate the conjugal partnership property
invalid. either judicially or extrajudicially within one
year from the death of the deceased
Melecio also claims that fraud attended the spouse. If upon the lapse of the six
conveyance of the subject property and the month period no liquidation is made, any
absence of any document evidencing the disposition or encumbrance involving
alleged sale made the transfer null and void. the conjugal partnership property of the
Finally, Melecio claims that the action has terminated marriage shall be void. x x x
not yet prescribed. (emphases supplied)
Defendant: Melecio’s counsel admitted that While Article 130 of the Family Code
Anastacio had given the lot title in payment provides that any disposition involving the
of the debt of Sps Molina and the conjugal property without prior liquidation of
constructive delivery of the title coupled with the partnership shall be void, this rule does
not apply since the provisions of the Family for the sum of ONE THOUSAND
Code shall be "without prejudice to vested PESOS (P1,000.00) which pertains
rights already acquired in accordance with to an undivided one-half (1/2)
the Civil Code or other laws." portion and subject to all other
conditions specified in the document
 An implied ordinary co-ownership x x x" supplied). At the time of the
ensued among Flora’s surviving sale, Anastacio’s undivided interest
heirs, including Anastacio, with in the conjugal properties consisted
respect to Flora’s share of the of: (1) one-half of the entire conjugal
conjugal partnership until final properties; and (2) his share as
liquidation and partition; Anastacio, Flora’s heir on the conjugal
on the other hand, owns one-half of properties.
the original conjugal partnership
properties as his share, but this is an Anastacio, as a co-owner, had the right to
undivided interest. freely sell and dispose of his undivided
interest, but not the interest of his co-
Article 493. Each co-owner shall have the owners. Consequently, Anastactio’s sale to
full ownership of his part and of the fruits the spouses Molina without the consent of
and benefits pertaining thereto, and the other co-owners was not totally void, for
he may therefore alienate, assign or Anastacio’s rights or a portion thereof were
mortgage it, and even substitute another thereby effectively transferred, making the
person in its enjoyment, except when spouses Molina a co-owner of the subject
personal rights are involved. But the effect property to the extent of Anastacio’s
of the alienation or the mortgage, with interest. This result conforms with the well-
respect to the co-owners, shall be limited established principle that the binding force
to the portion which may be allotted to of a contract must be recognized as far as it
him in the division upon the termination is legally possible to do so (quando res non
of the co-ownership. valet ut ago, valeat quantum valere potest).
Thus, Anastacio, as co-owner, cannot claim The spouses Molina would be a trustee for
title to any specific portion of the conjugal the benefit of the co-heirs of Anastacio in
properties without an actual partition being respect of any portion that might belong to
first done either by agreement or by judicial the co-heirs after liquidation and partition.
decree. Nonetheless, Anastacio had the
right to freely sell and dispose of his
undivided interest in the subject property.
 The OCT annotation of the sale to

the spouses Molina reads
that "[o]nly the rights, interests
and participation of Anastacio
Domingo, married to Flora Dela
Cruz, is hereby sold, transferred,
and conveyed unto the said vendees
MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL the supposedly uninterrupted possession by

AIRPORT AUTHORITY V. HEIRS OF MCIAA was not sufficiently established, and
GAVINA ILJORDAN that the respondents had remained the
registered owners of the lot. On appeal,
MCIAA v Heirs of Ijordan MCIAA motion for reconsideration was
denied.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Julian executed a Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement and Sale covering the subject lot W/N the subject property was validly
located in Lapu-Lapu in favor of CAA, the conveyed to the petitioner
predecessor-in-interest of petitioner MCIAA RULING:
who, since then, remained in material,
continuous, uninterrupted and adverse No. As correctly found by the lower courts,
possession of the property. Later on, the Deed and Tax Declaration would
respondents caused the judicial buttress its right to the possession and
reconstitution of the original certificate of ownership of the subject lot insufficient to
title covering the subject lot. The OCT over substantiate the right of MCIAA to the relief
the lot was reconstituted in the names of sought. The lower courts also found that the
respondents’ predecessor-in-interest, they Deed was void as far as the respondents’
asserted that they had not sold their shares shares I the subject lot was concerned, but
in the subject lot, and had not authorized valid as to Julian’s share. Such conclusion
Julian to sell their shares to MCIAA’s was based on the absence of the authority
predecessor-in-interest. MCIAA sued the from his co-heirs to convey their shares.
respondents for cancellation of title for their Hence, the conveyance by Julian of the
failure to surrender the owner’s copy of the entire property pursuant to the Deed did not
OCT. petitioner alleges that the certificate of bind the respondents for lack of their
title conferred no right in favor of the consent and authority in his favor. As such,
respondents because the lot had already the Deed had no legal effect as to their
been sold to the Government, that the shares in the property.
property had been declared for tax
purposes in the name of BAT, and by the
virtue of the Deed, the respondents came
under the legal obligation to surrender the TORRES V. LAPINID
certificate of title for cancellation to enable
VICENTE TORRES, JR. Petitioners, vs.
the issuance of a new one. Respondents
LORENZO LAPINID AND JESUS
moved to dismiss the complaint contending
VELEZ, Respondents.
that the Deed and the Tax Declaration had
no probative value to support MCIAA’s Doctrine: Co-ownership
cause of action. That what MCIAA
submitted was a mere photocopy of the Facts: On 4 February 2006, Vicente V.
Deed, that the sale was unenforceable Torres, Jr., Mariano Velez, and Carlos
because it was only Julian who had Velez (petitioners) filed a Complaint6 before
executed the same without obtaining their RTC Cebu City praying for the nullification
consent or authority as co-owners. RTC of the sale of real property by respondent
dismissed MCIAA’s complaint, that the more Jesus Velez in favor of Lapinid; the recovery
appropriate thing that MCIAA should have of possession and ownership of the
done was to check the decreed owners of property; and the payment of damages.
the lot, instead of merely relying on the tax
declaration issued in the name of Pedro Petitioners allege, along with Jesus
Cuizon and on the statement of Juilian, that Velez, that they are co-owners of several
parcels of land located at Cogon, Carcar, Issue: Whether or not Lapinid is bound
Cebu. Following an action for partition of the by the agreement that the sale of lands
parcels of land, the parties agreed that must be joint because he is a successor
Mariano, Vicente, and Jesus were jointly in interest.
authorized to sell the said properties and
receive the proceeds thereof and distribute Ruling: We deny the petition.
them to all the co-owners. The latter was
later excluded. It was later discovered that Admittedly, Jesus sold an area
Lapinid was occupying a specific portion of ofland to Lapinid on 9 November 1997. To
the 3000 square meters of Lot No. 4389 by simplify, the question now iswhether Jesus,
virtue of a deed of sale executed by Jesus as a co-owner, can validly sell a portion of
the property heco-owns in favor of another
The petitioners prayed that the deed person. We answer in the affirmative.
of sale be declared null and void arguing
that the sale of a definite portion of a co- A co-owner has an absolute
owned property without notice to the other ownership of his undivided and proindiviso
co-owners is without force and effect. share in the co-owned property.17 He has
Further, the complainants prayed for the right to alienate, assign and mortgage it,
payment of rental fees amounting to even to the extent of substituting a third
₱1,000.00 per month from January 2004 or person in its enjoyment provided that no
from the time of deprivation of property in personal rights will be affected. Hence, his
addition to attorney’s fees and litigation co-owners have no right to enjoin a coowner
expenses. who intends to alienate or substitute his
abstract portion or substitute a third person
Jesus avers that he is the majority in its enjoyment.
co-owner of lot 4389 after several co-
owners had already sold their shares to him
In a catena of decisions,21 the
in various dates of 1985, 1990 and 2004.
Supreme Court had repeatedly held that no
Hence, it was unnecessary to give notice of
individual can claim title to a definite or
the sale as the lot was already adjudicated
concrete portion before partition of co-
in his favor. He clarified that he only agreed
owned property. Each co-owner only
with the 2001 Compromise Agreement
possesses a right to sell or alienate his ideal
believing that it only pertained to the
share after partition. However, in case he
remaining parcels of land excluding Lot No.
disposes his share before partition, such
4389.
disposition does not make the sale or
Regarding the forcible entry case alienation null and void. What will be
against Lapinid, it was dismissed since it affected on the sale is only his proportionate
was proven that the latter was a buyer in share, subject to the results of the partition.
good faith
With regard to the 2001 compromise
RTC: dismissed the complaint. agreement, as early as 9 November 1997,
Lapinid already became a co-owner of the
CA: affirmed the decision. It validated the property and thus, vested with all the rights
sale and ruled that the compromise enjoyed by the other co-owners.
agreement did not affect the validity of the Accordingly, when the compromise
sale previously executed by Jesus and agreement was executed without Lapinid’s
Lapinid. It likewise dismissed the claim for consent, said agreement could not have
rental payments, attorney’s fees and affected his ideal and undivided share.
litigation expenses of the petitioners.
DAILISAN V. CA so he was substituted by his heirs, herein

respondents
Jose S. Dailisan vs. CA and the hrs. of the
Federico Pugao,et al, respondents. RTC found that respondents failed to
disprove the validity of the deed of absolute
[G.R. No. 176448. July 28, 2008.] sale, ruled in favor of petitioner and ordered
the partition of the subject property.
Doctrine: As a co-owner of the property,
one has a right to demand for partition, a On appeal, CA concluded that the deed of
right which does not prescribe. Also, sale is fictitious and invalid (ground: no
delivery was already effected since a public proof of consideration), and hence could not
instrument was executed and Jose already serve as basis of any claim of ownership. It
possessed it. all that is left is the also noted that petitioner should have filed
an action for specific performance to compel
segregation of the property.
Federico to honor the deed of absolute sale;
FACTS: Petitioner filed a Complaint for yet the right to file such action, had already
expired.
partition before the RTC Quezon City,
alleging that he purchased 1/4 of the land of ISSUE: Whether or not the right of
Federico Pugao for identified as Lot 16 in petitioner’s to an action for partition has
Bago Bantay, QC covered by a TCT. prescribed
According to petitioner, he had paid RULING: No. In resolving this issue, the
Federico several installments which totaled Court first ruled that the Deed of Sale is
to P6K. And instead of executing the deed valid as the respondents were unable to
of sale, Federico requested to mortgage the overcome the presumption of validity of the
land to the petitioner for P10,000. Such loan deed of absolute sale as well as the
was paid after 3months. After which regularity in its execution.
petitioner and Federico executed a deed of
absolute sale on 5 February 1979. Petitioner's action before the RTC was
However, when Petitioner asked for the
properly captioned as one for partition
partition of the lot Federico refused and
even sent a notice of eviction against because there are sufficient allegations in
petitioner. the complaint that he is a co-owner of the
property. The regime of CO-OWNERSHIP
Federico admitted the execution of such exists when ownership of an undivided
mortgage however he denied the validity thing or right belongs to different persons.
deed of absolute sale, and alleged that By the nature of a co-ownership, a co-owner
when he was seriously ill in January of
1992, petitioner, with a certain Atty. cannot point to a specific portion of the
Juanitas, made him sign pages of what the property owned in common as his own
former told him to be parts of the real estate because his share therein remains
mortgage he had earlier executed in favor of intangible.
petitioner. Federico filed a complaint for
falsification and ejectment against petitioner The description "undivided 1/4 portion" in
before the barangay, but attempts at the Deed of Sale shows that the portion sold
conciliation failed. is still undivided and not sufficiently
identified. While the description provides a
Federico passed away while this case was
pending before the trial court. And guide for identifying the location of the lot
sold, there was no indication of its exact
metes and bounds. This is the reason why rights" were inherited by his two daughters,
petitioner was constrained to cause the Mary, the mother of Fernando Santos, and
survey of the property. As a co-owner of Isabel, the deceased mother of Rodolfo
Eusebio’s wife. The parties concerned
the property, therefore, petitioner has the
agreed that the leasehold rights will be
right to demand partition, a right which placed in the name of Eusebio but agreed
does not prescribe. that they will pay pro-rata to their portion.
Fernando Santos transferred his rights to
(additional info na lang yung nasa baba Rohimust Santos who is his brother.
about kaylan nagkakaron ng ownership
which is from the time of dilevery) Eusebio filed a suit against
Rohimust Santos for determination of their
Ownership of the thing sold is acquired only participations in the co-ownership. The trial
from the time of delivery, either actual or court found that, as a result of Eusebio’s
constructive. Article 1498 provides that payments, his share in the lot had to be
when the sale is made through a public increased from 383 sqm to 611.30 sqm,
with the participation of Santos being
instrument, the execution shall be
decreased to 200 sq. m. The trial court also
equivalent to the delivery of the thing which provided for the demolition of any building
is the object of the contract, if from the deed or part thereof, claimed by either party,
the contrary does not appear or cannot be which would be within the area assigned to
inferred. The Court notes that Federico had the other party. No mention of
already delivered the portion he sold to compensation was made.
petitioner, subject to the execution of a
The IAC initially affirmed the
technical survey, when he executed the judgment of the Trial Court in toto.
deed of absolute sale, which is a public However, on Motion for Reconsideration
instrument. filed by Santos, it rendered a Resolution
amending its previous affirmance, holding
In view of the delivery in law, coupled with that Santos "has the legal right to retain the
petitioner's actual occupation of the portion house together with its improvements and
where his house stands, all that is needed is the possession thereof until full payment of
its segregation from the rest of the property. the value thereof".
The Decision of the RTC-QC is Issue: Whether or not Santos is a

REINSTATED. possessor in good faith entitled to
reimbursement of useful expenses.
Held: No. Article 546 presupposes, but

EUSEBIO V IAC does not establish, possession in good faith.
Under Article 526, a possessor in good faith
RODOLFO EUSEBIO v. IAC is someone who is not aware that there
GR No. 72188 exists in his title or mode of acquisition any
Sep 15, 1986 flaw which invalidates it. In the case at bar,
the possession of the parties was in the
Facts: The subject property was part of a concept of lessees of the lot, which was not
subdivision which was initially occupied by possession in good faith.
Philip Zinsineth as a lessee of GA, Inc. He
had constructed a house and garage The provision of the Civil Code
thereon. After his death, his "leasehold which should be applicable is Article 543,
which provides:
"ART. 543. Each one of the Issue: Should Lucusan forfeit the cattle
participants of a thing he originally had?
possessed in common shall
be deemed to have Held:
exclusively possessed the
part which may be allotted to Yes. There is no doubt that hundreds of
him upon the division thereof, cattle belonging to plaintiff have been driven
for the entire period during into or wandered into defendant’s land. No
which the co-possession actual evidence exists that all these missing
lasted. Interruption in the
possession of the whole or a animals were taken by defendant or his
part of a thing possessed in men; but in view of the proof that his men
common shall be to the on two occasions drove away more than 30
prejudice of all the heads of cattle, it is not erroneous to believe
possessors. However, in that the others must have also driven away
case of civil interruption, the on subsequent or prior occasions, applying,
Rules of Court shall apply."
by analogy, the principle that one who stole
If there were buildings or parts of a a part of the stolen money must have also
building, found in the definite 611.30 sqm taken the larger sum lost by the offended
area assigned to Eusebio, he will be party. The circumstances disclosed in the
deemed to have been in exclusive record show that defendant acted in bad
possession thereof since April 15, 1974, faith.
and he can keep or demolish these
improvements without paying any
compensation therefor to Santos.
Under Art. 383 (now 473) if the commingling
CA Resolution reversed. Case remanded to of two things is made in bad faith the one
trial court for partition. responsible for it will lose his share.
SIARI VALLEY ESTATE V. LUCASAN SOTTO V. REYES
Siari Valley Estate v. Lucasan Sotto vs Reyes
Facts: FACTS:
Siari Valley Estate brought an action to The property that is the subject of this case
recover about 200 heads of cattle that were originally belonged to the conjugal
driven or wandered from its pasture lands partnership of the spouses Florentino Rallos
into the adjoining ranch of Lucasan. and Maria Fadullon. When Florentino Rallos
Lucasan himself admitted such commixtion died, the parcels of land in question,
although, he says, plaintiff had already together with the other
retrieved its animals. Which cattle belonged
to plaintiff and which belonged to him could properties comprising the estate of the
no longer be determined. The lower court deceased, descended in testate succession
found for plaintiff. to his sole heirs, his widow, Maria Fadullon,
and two children, named Concepcion Rallos
and Carmen Rallos. The lawyer to whom On June 13, 1967, the herein private
the Rallos heirs entrusted the settlement of respondents filed suit in the Court of First
the estate was Atty. Filemon Sotto -in which Instance of Cebu against petitioner Marcelo
he married Carmen Rallos. Carmen died in Sotto. The complaint was based mainly
1945 upon the theory that a trust relation was
established and created with respect to
the said properties, with Atty. Filemon
Competing for the ownership of the five lots Sotto as trustee and as cestuis que trust,
are the direct descendants and blood his mother-in-law, Maria Fadullon Vda.
relatives of Florentino Rallos and Maria de Rallos; his wife, Carmen Rallos; and
his sister-in-law, Concepcion Rallos
Fadullon, opposed by the administrator of
(predecessor in interest of herein private
the intestate estate of Atty. Sotto. The
children of Concepcion Rallos, or the respondents)
grandchildren of Florentino Rallos and
Maria Fadullon, some of whom are assisted
by their spouses, are the plaintiffs in this
case. Defendant administrator represents
Atty. Sotto's children out of wedlock. It is RTC CEBU - dismissed the complaint
claimed by the defendant that Atty. Sotto urging that that no express trust relation
was at the time of his death the owner of the existed between Atty. Filemon Sotto on one
five lots in question. hand and Maria Fadullon Vda. de Rallos,
Carmen Rallos and Concepcion Rallos on
the other with respect to the lots in question;
that there was no implied trust subsisting
In 1962, while Atty. Sotto was under between Atty. Sotto and the said heirs and
guardianship, Cesar Sotto, his nephew and that there was actual partition between them
protegee and one of the guardians judicially whereby the 5 lots were given to Carmen
appointed to take care of his estate, Rallos as her share.
delivered to Pilar Teves, one of the herein
plaintiffs, certain documents which had lain Court of Appeals - said that upon the facts
in secrecy in the private files of Atty. Sotto - and under the law, Atty. Sotto
The revelation of Cesar Sotto, however, led
the plaintiffs to the discovery that all the can be regarded as the constructive trustee
properties in question were now titled in the of his wife and of the widow and
name of Atty. Sotto, and were in danger of descendants of Florentino Rallos; that Atty.
falling into the hands of his children out of Sotto's special relations with the Rallos
wedlock, who are total heirs inhibited him from any act or conduct
that could put his interests above or in direct
strangers to the spouses Rallos and collision with the interests of those who had
Fadullon. reposed their trust and confidence in him.
Petitioners now contend that the Court of

Appeals erred in finding that Don Filemon
Sotto became a cotrustee by virtue of his EXPRESS TRUST; CREATION; ARTICLE

subsequent marriage to Carmen Rallos. 1444, NEW CIVIL CODE. — Under the law
on Trusts, it is not necessary that a
RULING: document expressly states and provides for
The Court ruled that the acts and conduct of the express trust, for no particular words are
required for the creation of an express trust,
the Ralloses and Atty. Sotto fostered a
close and fiduciary relationship between it being sufficient that a trust is clearly
them. Upon the facts and under the law, intended. (Article 1444, New Civil Code). An
Atty. Sotto can be regarded as the express trust is created by the direct and
constructive trustee of his wife and of the positive acts evidencing an intention to
widow and descendants of Florentino create a trust. Thus, a motion filed by the
Rallos. heirs of a deceased in the probate
proceedings to terminate the same since
they had the desire to preserve the
properties of the estate in co-ownership, in
For the settled rule is that: effect created an express trust among the
heirs.
'The relation between parties, in order to be

a "fiduciary relation" CO-OWNERSHIP IS A FORM OF TRUST;
OBLIGATION OF CO-OWNERS. — Co-
need not be legal, but may be moral, social,
ownership is a form of trust and every co-
domestic or merely personal;
owner is a trustee for the other. In
and where by reason of kinship, business coownership, the relationship of each co-
association, disparity in age or owner to the other co-owners is fiduciary in
character and attribute. Whether
physical or mental condition or other established by law or by agreement of the
reason, the grantee is in an especially co-owners, the property or thing held pro-
indiviso is impressed with a fiducial nature
intimate position with regard to another and
that each co-owner becomes a trustee for
the latter reposes a degree of
the benefit of his co-owners and may not do
trust and confidence in the former, any act prejudicial to the interest of his co
confidential relationship exists which owners.
prohibits the one entrusted from seeking a

selfish benefit for himself
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST; BASED ON
during the course of relationship, and FIDUCIARY RELATION; WHAT
affords a basis for imposing a CONSTITUTES FIDUCIARY RELATION.
— The relation between parties in order to
constructive trust.' be fiduciary need not be legal, but by moral,
social, domestic or merely personal; and
RATIO:
where by reason of kinship, business
association, disparity in age or physical or
mental condition or other reason, the (a) that the trustee has performed
grantee is in an especially intimate position unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting
with regard to another and the latter to an ouster of the cestui que trust;
reposes a degree of trust and confidence in
the former, confidential relationship exist (b) that such positive acts of repudiation
which prohibits the one entrusted from have been made known to the cestui que
seeking a selfish benefit for himself during trust; and (c) that the evidence thereon
the course of relationship, and affords a should be clear and conclusive.
basis for imposing a constructive trust.
EFFECTS OF ACTS OF OWNERSHIP

EXERCISED BY TRUSTEE OVER TRUST
PROPERTY. — A fiduciary relationship may
exist even if the title to the property subject
to the trust appears in the name of the
trustee alone, because in cases of
trusteeship, the legal title usually appears in
the name of the trustee, while the equitable
title remains with the cestui que trust. The
trustee cannot repudiate the trust by relying
on the registration of the property in his
name, since this is one of the well-known
limitations upon the finality of
a decree of registration, nor can he deprive

the cestui que trust of their property while in
trust by means of a testamentary disposition
in favor of another.
POSSESSION CANNOT RIPEN INTO

OWNERSHIP; EXCEPTION. —
From the standpoint of acquisitive

prescription, or prescription of ownership, a
trustee's possession of a trust property as a
general rule is not adverse and therefore
cannot ripen into a title by prescription.
Adverse possession in such a case requires
the concurrence of the following
circumstances:

Property Cases Part 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Property Cases Part 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Property Cases - Atty.

HEIRS OF LIBERATO CASTILLEJOS V. TD was issued way back in 1948 while

HEIRS OF LIBERATO CASTILLEJOS, CA: Affirmed the RTC decision stressing

Considering that the claim of The spouses Sillero, immediately

In this case the land was awarded by the

any instrument, record, claim, Fausta Baluyut, one of the registered

such instrument, and it has to be proved by SYJUCO V. BONIFACIO

 On April 18, 1981, Polon entered  The Affidavit of Cancellation dated

TEOFISTO ONO V. VICENTE LIM RULING:

Ono et al v Lim Quieting of title is a common law remedy for

Pacific Banking Corporation (PBC) of a public bidding. Thus, their annotations

no redemption having been made, as in this 2 Requisites of an action to quiet

RTC ruled in favor of respondents and the deed, claim, encumbrance or

allegedly executed by Simeon I. Garcia are Resources Corporation was no longer

Sometime March of 1999, during

OLVIGA V. CA who were the real and actual occupants of

as mere homestead transferees cannot SAPTO ET AL V. FABIAN

THEREFOR. — In Faja vs. Court of

them "from entering the above-described DOMINGO V. MOLINA

The Valdehuezas having remained in Defendants: he has been living on the

RTC: Dismissed. Melecio failed to establish  There is no dispute that Anastacio

 The OCT annotation of the sale to

MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL the supposedly uninterrupted possession by

DAILISAN V. CA so he was substituted by his heirs, herein

The Decision of the RTC-QC is Issue: Whether or not Santos is a

Held: No. Article 546 presupposes, but

Petitioners now contend that the Court of

Sotto became a cotrustee by virtue of his EXPRESS TRUST; CREATION; ARTICLE

'The relation between parties, in order to be

prohibits the one entrusted from seeking a

EFFECTS OF ACTS OF OWNERSHIP

a decree of registration, nor can he deprive

POSSESSION CANNOT RIPEN INTO

From the standpoint of acquisitive

You might also like