Land Title Case Digest – Module 5

Ventura vs Abuda
G.R No. 202932 October 23, 2013

Facts:
Socorro Torres (Socorro) and Esteban Abletes (Esteban) were married on 9
June 1980. Although Socorro and Esteban never had common children,
both of them had children from prior marriages: Esteban had a daughter
named Evangeline Abuda (Evangeline),and Socorro had a son, who was
the father of Edilberto U. Ventura, Jr. (Edilberto),the petitioner in this case.
Evidence shows that Socorro had a prior subsisting marriage to Crispin
Roxas (Crispin) when she married Esteban. Socorro married Crispin on 18
April 1952. This marriage was not annulled, and Crispin was alive at the
time of Socorro's marriage to Esteban.
Esteban's prior marriage, on the other hand, was dissolved by virtue of his
wife's death in 1960.
According to Edilberto, sometime in 1968, Esteban purchased a portion of a
lot situated at 2492 State Alley, Bonifacio Street, Vitas, Tondo, Manila (Vitas
property). The remaining portion was thereafter purchased by Evangeline
on her father's behalf sometime in 1970. 4 The Vitas property was covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 141782, dated 11 December 1980, issued
to "Esteban Abletes, of legal age, Filipino, married to Socorro Torres." 5
On 6 September 1997, Esteban sold the Vitas and Delpan properties to
Evangeline and her husband, Paulino Abuda (Paulino). 
Esteban passed away on 11 September 1997, while Socorro passed away on
31 July 1999.
Sometime in 2000, Leonora Urquila (Leonora), the mother of Edilberto,
discovered the sale. Thus, Edilberto, represented by Leonora, filed a
Petition for Annulment of Deeds of Sale before the RTC-Manila. Edilberto
alleged that the sale of the properties was fraudulent because Esteban's
signature on the deeds of sale was forged. Respondents, on the other hand,
argued that because of Socorro's prior marriage to Crispin, her subsequent
marriage to Esteban was null and void. Thus, neither Socorro nor her heirs
can claim any right or interest over the properties purchased by Esteban
and respondents.
The RTC-Manila dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The RTC-Manila
ruled that the marriage between Socorro and Esteban was void from the
beginning.
The CA sustained the decision of the RTC-Manila.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Edilberto has a right on the land that was for sale.

RULING:
No.
In unions between a man and a woman who are incapacitated to marry
each other, the ownership over the properties acquired during the
subsistence of that relationship shall be based on the actual contribution of
the parties.
It is necessary for each of the partners to prove his or her actual
contribution to the acquisition of property in order to be able to lay claim to
any portion of it. Presumptions of co-ownership and equal contribution do
not apply.
The title itself shows that the Vitas property is owned by Esteban alone.
The phrase "married to Socorro Torres" is merely descriptive of his civil
status, and does not show that Socorro co-owned the property.The
evidence on record also shows that Esteban acquired ownership over the
Vitas property prior to his marriage to Socorro, even if the certificate of title
was issued after the celebration of the marriage. Registration under the
Torrens title system merely confirms, and does not vest title.
Edilberto claims that Esteban s actual contribution to the purchase of the
Delpan property was not sufficiently proven since Evangeline shouldered
some of the amortizations.Thus, the law presumes that Esteban and
Socorro jointly contributed to the acquisition of the Delpan property.
Civil Law - Art. 1238. Payment made by a third person who does not
intend to be reimbursed by the debtor is deemed to be a donation, which
requires the debtor s consent. But the payment is in any case valid as to the
creditor who has accepted it.
Thus, it is clear that Evangeline paid on behalf of her father, and the parties
intended that the Delpan property would be owned by and registered
under the name of Esteban.
 Supapo vs De Jesus
G.R No. 198356 April 20,2015

FACTS:
The Spouses Supapo filed a complaint 5 for accion publiciana against
Roberto and Susan de Jesus (Spouses de Jesus), Macario Bernardo (Macario),
and persons claiming rights under them (collectively, the respondents), with
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Caloocan City.
The complaint sought to compel the respondents to vacate a piece of
land located in Novaliches, Quezon City, described as Lot 40, Block 5 (subject
lot). The subject lot is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. C-
28441 6 registered and titled under the Spouses Supapo's names. The land has
an assessed value of thirty-nine thousand nine hundred eighty pesos
(P39,980.00) as shown in the Declaration of Real Property Value (tax
declaration) issued by the Office of the City Assessor of Caloocan. 7
The Spouses Supapo did not reside on the subject lot. They also did not
employ an overseer but they made sure to visit at least twice a year. 8 During
one of their visits in 1992, they saw two (2) houses built on the subject lot. The
houses were built without their knowledge and permission. They later
learned that the Spouses de Jesus occupied one house while Macario occupied
the other one. 9
The Spouses Supapo demanded from the respondents the immediate
surrender of the subject lot by bringing the dispute before the
appropriate Lupong Tagapamayapa. The Lupon issued a Katibayan Upang
Makadulog sa Hukuman (certificate to file action) for failure of the parties to settle
amicably. 
Issue:
Whether or not the cause of action has prescribed?
Ruling:
No.

Accion publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of

possession of realty independent of title. It refers to an ejectment suit filed after the
expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful
withholding of possession of the realty.

In the present case, the Spouses Supapo filed an action for the recovery of possession of
the subject lot but they based their better right of possession on a claim of ownership.

This Court has held that the objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to recover
possession only, not ownership. However, where the parties raise the issue of
ownership, the courts may pass upon the issue to determine who between the parties
has the right to possess the property.

This adjudication is not a final determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for the
purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the issue of ownership is
inseparably linked to the issue of possession. The adjudication of the issue of
ownership, being provisional, is not a bar to an action between the same parties
involving title to the property. The adjudication, in short, is not conclusive on the issue
of ownership.

Thus, while we will dissect the Spouses Supapo’s claim of ownership over the subject
property, we will only do so to determine if they or the respondents should have the
right of possession. Having thus determined that the dispute involves possession over a
real property, we now resolve which court has the jurisdiction to hear the case.

In the present case, the Spouses Supapo alleged that the assessed value of the subject
lot, located in Metro Manila, is P39,980.00. This is proven by the tax declaration issued
by the Office of the City Assessor of Caloocan. The respondents do not deny the
genuineness and authenticity of this tax declaration.

Given that the Spouses Supapo duly complied with the jurisdictional requirements, we
hold that the MeTC of Caloocan properly acquired jurisdiction over the complaint for
accion publiciana. The cause of action has not prescribed

|||
||