Desiderio Dalisay Investments, Inc. vs.

Social Security System

GR. No. 231053, April 4, 2018
Justice Velsco Jr.

FACTS: Social Security SysteM filed a case before the Social Security Commission
against the Dalisay Group of Companies (DGC) for the collection of unremitted SSS
premium contributions of the latter's employees. The parties, however, failed to arrive at
an agreement as to the appraised value thereof. Thus, no negotiation took place.

SSS' Committee met with the corporation, represented by Atty. Cabarroguis. During
said meeting, Atty. Cabarroguis explained that he has "the authority to offer in the
amount of 2 million pesos. He also gave them an assurance that that they will turn the
properties over to SSS free of liens and encumbrances and that his clients are ready to vacate
the premises and you can have it occupied anytime

In this respect, petitioner argues that Atty. Cabarroguis did not have the requisite
authority to make said representations and thereby bind the corporation. DDII thus
maintains that the offer to SSS remained at P3,500,000

The RTC resolved the case in favor of DDII, holding that there was no
perfected dacion in payment between the parties. 

ISSUES:

DOCTRINE:

- Article 476 of the Civil Code provides that Whenever there is a cloud on title to
real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth
and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial
to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.

- In dacion en pago, property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a debt in

money.The debtor delivers and transmits to the creditor the former's ownership
over a thing as an accepted equivalent of the payment or performance of an
outstanding debt.
 Spouses Jaime and Catherine Basa vs. Angeline Loyvda de Senly Loy
GR. No. 204131, June 4, 2018
Justice Del Castillo

FACTS: This case revolves around a 496-square meter residential lot situated in New
Lucban, Baguio City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-30086 in the name of
Manuel Carantes and herein respondent Robert Carantes.

The subject property was mortgaged to respondent Angeline Loy and her husband in
1994. Spouses Jaime and Catherine Basa, spouses Juan and Erlinda Ogale, spouses
Rogelio and Lucena Lagasca, and spouses Cresencio and Eleadora Apostol filed
before Branch 7 of the Baguio RTC a petition for quieting of title with prayer for
injunctive relief and damages against respondents Angeline Loy, Robert Carantes, the
Registry of Deeds for Baguio City, and the Baguio City Sheriff and Assessor's Office. 

They thus prayed that the documents, instruments, and proceedings relative to the sale
of the subject property to respondent Angeline Loy be cancelled and annulled, and that
they be awarded damages and declared owners of the respective portions sold to them.
Considering that the petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving the truth of
their claims even by preponderance of evidence, the court is left with no recourse but to
deny the reliefs prayed for in their petition. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration
but the RTC denied it thereafter.

The Court thus finds that the evidence adduced during the ex-parte hearing was
unsatisfactory and inconclusive affirming the RTC decision.

ISSUES:

a. Whether the Court of Appeals erred on affirming the decision of the Regional
Trial Court on cancelling proceedings relative to the sale of the subject property.

RULING:

a. The CA correctly found that petitioners' failure to append the original copies of
the deeds of sale was inexcusable; that the document that was appended to their
motion for reconsideration was different from what was presented and marked
during the ex-parte hearing.

DOCTRINE:

- In order that an action for quieting of title may prosper, it is essential that the
plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the property which is
the subject-matter of the action. Legal title denotes registered ownership, while
equitable title means beneficial ownership. In the absence of such legal or
equitable title, or interest, there is no cloud to be prevented or removed.
 Jose S. Ocampo vs. Ricardo S. Ocampo,Sr.
GR. No. 227894, July 5, 2017
Justice Velasco Jr.

FACTS: Petitioner Jose S. Ocampo and respondent Ricardo S. Ocampo are full-
blooded brothers being sons of the late Basilio Ocampo and Juliana Sunglao. Ricardo
filed a petition for partition and annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
102822 ("Subject Property"). Ricardo alleged that he and Jose are co-owners of the
Subject Property, which was a conjugal property left by their parents.

The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription. Respondent filed a
Motion for Reconsideration and other supplemental pleadings, but they were denied by
the trial court. Respondent thus elevated the matter to the CA, which declared the
RTC's January 21, 1994 Order null and void. Petitioner filed a motion for extension of
time to file a petition for review on certiorari before this Court, but the same was denied
in a minute resolution.

The RTC ruled in favor of respondent. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was
denied in an Order dated May 21, 2012. Thus, he filed a Notice of Appeal, which was
granted in the Order dated July 10, 2012. Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of RTC.

ISSUES:

a. Whether CA committed a reversible error in dismissing the appeal and in

affirming the RTC Decision.
b. The CA erred in sustaining that the ESW is a void or inexistent contract.

RULING:

a. The CA did not err. They essentially ruled that the case for partition and
annulment of title did not prescribe. The CA Decision was eventually affirmed by
the Second Division of this Court in G.R. No. 149287 by virtue of a minute
Resolution dated September 5, 2001, which became final and executory and was
entered into the Book of Entries of Judgments on October 16, 2001. The CA
explained that prescription is inapplicable. While the appellate court's observation
is proper, it is inadequate as it fails to sufficiently explain why the rule on the
imprescriptibility and indefeasibility of Torrens titles do not apply.
b. The CA did not err on sustaining that the ESW is an inexistent contract. Given
the falsity of the ESW, it becomes apparent that petitioner obtained the
registration through fraud. This wrongful registration gives occasion to the
creation of an implied or constructive trust under Article 1456 of the New Civil
 Code. The petition is denied, The Regional Trial Court shall proceed with the
partition of the subject lot with dispatch.

DOCTRINE:

- Time and again, this Court has ruled that courts, under the principle of equity, will
not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of
laches when to do so, manifest wrong or injustice would result.
 Jose Bernas vs. Estate of Felife Yu Han Yat
GR. No. 195908, Aug. 15, 2018
Justice Caguioa

FACTS: The present case involves a parcel of land known as Lot 824-A-4 (subject
property), covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-28758 (30627) PR-9639
(TCT No. 30627), located at Brgy. Matandang Balara, Quezon City, consisting of 30,000
square meters, more or less, which is part of Lot 824 of the Piedad Estate containing an
area of 147,072 square meters registered in the name of respondent Felipe Yu Han Yat
(Yu Han Yat).

Yu Han Yat subdivided the subject property into 60 lots under Subdivision Plan duly
approved by the Bureau of Lands on August 13, 1991, as part of his plan to develop
and convert the subject property.

Meanwhile, petitioners Jose A. Bernas (Bernas) and Felomena S. Mejia (Mejia) claimed
ownership over the subject property. On December 20, 1993, the RTC issued an
Order granting Bernas' application for preliminary injunction. The Court finds the
respondents to have amply proven their entitlement to the relief. Petitioner in this case
has failed to convince this Court to act otherwise. On August 12, 1994, Yu Han Yat filed
an Amended Petition. The Trial court issued a decision in favor of the estate of Nava.
Yu Han Yat appealed the above Decision of the RTC to the CA.

ISSUES:

a. Whether petitioners complied with Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
when they filed the Petitions dated April 15, 2011 and April 20, 2011
b. Whether the filing of the Petitions constituted forum shopping; whether Petitions
are barred by res judicata
c. Whether the CA ruling that the property covered by respondent's title is the same
as the property subject of TCT No. 336663 is supported by the evidence on
record
d. Whether the CA erred when it took judicial notice of proceedings in other cases
before it

RULING:

a. YES, but the petition falls within the exceptions. Some of the exceptions are

present inthis case. The rulings alone of the RTC and the CA were
contradictory, to the point thatthey differ on their rulings on each of the issues
presented in this case. Further, and aswill be discussed in detail later on, the CA
committed grave abuse of discretion inarriving at certain factual findings and
 legal conclusions. The Court must perform conduct a judicious examination of
the records to arrive at a just conclusion for this case.
b. NO to both. Respondent's assertions fail to convince. Petitioners did not commit
forum shopping by filing separate appeals.
c. YES. First, petitioners' argument that Yu Han Yat's title, TCT No. 30627, does
not coverthe same property as their title, TCT No. 336663, is because TCT No.
30627 came fromTCT No. 8047 which, in turn, bears an annotation that it is "a
transfer from TCT No.3633/T- R," a title that covers a property situated in
Murphy, Quezon City. They pointout that, in contrast, TCT No. 336663 covers a
parcel of land located in Piedad Estatein Quezon City.
d. YES. Neither of the exceptions exists in this
case. The parties were not informed, much less their consent taken, of the fact
that the CA would take judicial notice of these cases.
 Fe Yabut vs. Romeo Alcantara
GR. No.200349, March 6, 2017

FACTS: Romeo Alcantara filed a Complaint of Reconveyance claiming that he is the

true owner of parcel of agricultural- residential land located in Balangasan, Pagadian
City, known as Lots 6509-C and 6509-D, Pls- 119 (now Lots 8780 and 8781, CAD-
11910, respectively) with a combined area of 2.5 hectares more or less. He claimed that
he owns it since the time he bought the said lot in 1960 from Pantaleon Suazola. It was
said that Tiburcio Ballesteros purportedly employed fraud to have the said property.
Ballesteros then sold the lots to his daughter, Fe B. Yabut

Andoy’s heirs laid out their claims on portions of SA 10279: Faustino Andoy Jamisola on
Lot No. 6509, Faustina Jamisola de Calivo on Lot No. 6576, and Olivia Jamisola de
Libutan on Lot Nos. 6586 and 7098. Bacause of this, Ballesteros was forced to file a
case of forcible entry against Jamisola siblings in 1938 before the local Municipal
Justice of Peace. This was later elevated to the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga.
Unfortunately, Ballesteros was imprisoned for three (3) years at the Capas, Tarlac
concentration camp. During his absence on August 20, 1946, Andoy’s son Faustino
Andoy Jamisola, sold the said lot covered an area of six (6) hectares to Pantaleon
Suazola identified as Lot No. 6509-A.

When Ballesteros returned to Pagadian in 1946 he learned about the sale between the
Faustino and Suazola. He then recognized the said sale in an affidavit, despite the
covered property being part of sa 10279 due to deference to Suazola’s son, who was
his compadre. On September 3, 1952, Suazola filed Free Patent Application No. V9352
(FPA No. V8352) over what he identified as Lot No. 4111, which turned out to be whole
11.5 hectares of Lot No. 6509.Thus, Ballesteros filed a Letter Protest to the Director of
Lands against Suazola’s FPA No. V8352. On August 11,1953, the Director of Lands
ruled the rejection of Andoy’s sales application and recognize Ballesteros instead. The
Jamisola siblings then appealed to the Secretary of Department of Agriculture and
Natural Resources (DANR). In line with the landless policy Ballesteros then filed a
motion for reconsideration contending that the Jamisolas were not landless and they
owned several tracts of land. Through to the new evidence presented, the sales
application of Ballesteros should be further given due course. The Jamisola siblings
filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of First Instance (CFI) but the same was
dismissed. They elevated the case to the Supreme Court Which was docketed as G. R
No. L-17466.

On August 12 and September 12,1960, Alcantara bought Lot Nos. 6509-C and 6509-D
from Suazola’s heirs and applied for a Free Patent Lot No. 6509-C on October 15, 1960
and another over Lot No. 6509-Don April 25,1962.
On September 18,1965, the Supreme Court, in G.R. No. L-17466 upheld the CFI’S
dismissal of the petition filed by Jamisola Siblings as well as September 3, 1955
ORDER of the DANR granting the MR of Ballesteros.

ISSUES:

a. Whether or not there is legal basis to support the reconveyance of the properties
in question in favor of the Alcantaras.
b. Whether or not the CFI erred when it held that the Director of Lands and DANR
had not acted with grave abuse of discretion in rejecting Suazola’s free patent
application.

RULING:

a. No, the respondents miserably failed to prove that they are the actual owners of
the parcel of land that they are claiming. They failed to present adequate
evidence pointing to any legal and valid source of a right over said lots.
b. No, because the respondents failed to show that they, in fact the real owner of
the Lots. It now becomes clear that before the registration of title over the subject
properties in the name of Ballesteros, the same had been public land as such,
could have been possibly owned by any private person with a judicially confirmed
title over the same. To reiterate, Alcantara merely filed free patent applications,
which were, unfortunately, never granted.

Herminio M. De Guzman vs. Tabangao Realty Inc.

GR. No. 154262, February11, 2015
FACTS: Serafin de Guzman and Josefino de Guzman applied for and were granted permission
to distribute oil and lubricating products manufactured and marketed by Filipinas Shell
Petroleum Corporation sometime in 1980. (FSPC). Serafin and Josefino purchased oil and
lubricating products on credit from FSPC during the course of their business, but they eventually
failed to pay for their credit purchases from FSPC. As a result, FSPC filed a monetary complaint
against Serafin and Josefino before the RTC of Manila.

FSPC eventually levied on a parcel of land owned by Serafin and his wife, which was auctioned
off to Tabangao Realty Incorporated. The title was annotated with the Sheriff's Certificate of
Sale. The De Guzman spouses did not redeem the subject property within one year of the
Sheriff's Certificate of Sale being registered on the transfer Certificate of Title.

Petitioners filed a Complaint for Quiet Title against respondent on October 19, 2001,
alleging that they are the intestate heirs of the De Guzman spouses and the proper
owners of the property. Instead of responding, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss
on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The motion was
granted by the Regional Trial Court.

ISSUES:

a. Whether the trial court committed an error in dismissing the petitioner’s complaint
for quieting of title on the ground of failure to state a cause of action
b. Whether the Rules of Court may be applied retroactively when at the time of
expiration of the redemption period, it was Rule 39, Section 35 of the 1964 Rules
of Court which was in effect
c. Whether in filing a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint based on failure to state a
cause of action, the respondent was deemed to have admitted all the allegations
in said Complaint

RULING:

a. No, the trial court did not commit an error in dismissing the petitioner’s complaint
for quieting of title on the ground of failure to state a cause of action because for
an action to quiet a title to prosper.
b. Yes, under jurisprudence, Rule 39, Section 33 of the 1997 Rules of Court can be
applied retroactively to cases still pending and undetermined at the time of its
passage, such as the present case.
c. No, while the general rule is that a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to
state a cause of action in the complaint hypothetically admits the truth of the facts
alleged therein, there are exceptions to the general rule such as conclusions of
law; inferences or conclusions drawn from facts not alleged in the Complaint;
expressions of opinions unsupported by factual premises; and mere epithets
charging fraud

Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation vs. Bonifacio

GR.No. 167391, June 8, 2011
FACTS: Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation is the registered owner of
three parcels of land designated as Lots 1-G-1, 1-G-2 and 1-G-3 of the subdivision plan
Psd-1-13-006209. Said parcels of land form part of Lot 23-A of the Maysilo Estate... in
the name of Isabel Gil de Sola as the judicial administratrix of the estate of Gonzalo
Tuason and thirty-one (31) others. Phil-Ville acquired the lots by purchase from N. Dela
Merced and Sons, Inc. on July 24, 1984.

The alleged heirs of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal filed a petition for the partition of the
properties. The CFI granted the petition and appointed three commissioners to
determine the most equitable division of the properties.

The appellate court explained that a party who has not been impleaded in a case
cannot be bound by a writ of possession issued in connection therewith. The Court of
Appeals rendered a Decision granting Rosauro R. Aquino's petition and setting aside
the RTC's Order of September 9, 1996, which granted Eleuteria Rivera's prayer for
partition and adjudicated in her favor portions of Lots 23, 28-A-1 and 28-A-2 of the
Maysilo Estate.  The appellate court likewise set aside the Order and the Writ of
Possession dated December 26, 1996.

The appellate court held that the RTC had no jurisdiction to hear Phil-Ville's complaint...
as it effectively seeks to annul the Order dated May 25, 1962 of the CFI in LRC No.
4557, which directed the substitution of the late Eleuteria Rivera and her co-heirs in
place of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal as registered owners on OCT No. 994.

ISSUES:

a. Whether TCT No. C-314537 in the name of Eleuteria Rivera constitutes a cloud
over petitioner's titles over portions of Lot 23-A of the Maysilo Estate.

RULING:

a. Ultimately, petitioner submits that a cloud exists over its titles because TCT No.
C-314537 in the name of Eleuteria Rivera purports to cover the same parcels of
land covered by petitioner's TCT Nos. 270921, 270922 and 270923. Thus, while
petitioner was not able to demonstrate that respondents' TCT No. C-314537 in
the name of Eleuteria Rivera constitutes a cloud over its title, it has nevertheless
successfully established its ownership over the subject properties and the validity
of its titles which entitles it to declaratory relief.

DOCTRINE:
- Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud upon,
doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to real property.  Whenever there is a cloud on
title to real property or any interest in real property by reason of any instrument,
record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that is apparently valid or effective,
but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and
may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or
to quiet the title.  

Guillermo Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc.

GR. No.195834, November 9, 2016
 Justice Bersamin

FACTS: This is an action for injunction and quieting of title to determine who owns the property
occupied by the plaintiffs and intervenor, Ciriano C. Mijares. Additionally, to prevent the
defendant Patricia Inc., from evicting the plaintiffs from their respective improvements
along Juan Luna Street, plaintiffs applied for a preliminary injunction in their Complaint
pending the quieting of title on the merits.

The complaint was amended to include different branches of the Metropolitan Trial
Courts of Manila. A Complaint-in-Intervention was filed by the City of Manila as owner of
the land occupied by the plaintiffs. Another Complaint-in-Intervention by Ciriano Mijares
was also filed alleging that he was similarly situated as the other plaintiffs. A preliminary
injunction was granted and served on all the defendants.

To resolve the question about the boundaries of the properties of the City of Manila and
respondent Patricia, Inc., the RTC appointed, with the concurrence of the parties, three
geodetic engineers as commissioners. Then after such findings the RTC rendered
judgment in favor of the petitioners and against Patricia, Inc., permanently enjoining the
latter from doing any act that would evict the former from their respective premises, and
from collecting any rentals from them.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC's judgment and dismissed the
complaint. The CA declared that the petitioners were without the necessary interest,
either legal or equitable title, to maintain a suit for quieting of title; castigated the RTC
for acting like a mere rubber stamp of the majority of the commissioners; opined that the
RTC should have conducted hearings on the reports of the commissioners; ruled as
highly improper the adjudication of the boundary dispute in an action for quieting of title
The CA denied the motions for reconsideration.

ISSUES:

a. Whether the petitioners showed that they were real parties in interest to demand
either injunction or quieting of title.

RULING:

a. No. Even assuming that the RTC had jurisdiction over the cause of action for
quieting of title, the petitioners failed to allege and prove their interest to maintain
the suit. Hence, the dismissal of this cause of action was warranted. The
petitioners did not claim ownership of the land itself, and did not show their
authority or other legal basis on which they had anchored their alleged lawful
occupation and superior possession of the property. On the contrary, they only
 contended that their continued possession of the property had been for more
than 30 years; that they had built their houses in good faith; and that the area
had been declared an Area for Priority Development (APD) under Presidential
Decree No. 1967, as amended. 

DOCTRINE:

- An action to quiet title or remove the clouds over the title is a special civil action
governed by the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.
Specifically, an action for quieting of title is essentially a common law remedy
grounded on equity. The competent court is tasked to determine the respective
rights of the complainant and other claimants, not only to put things in their
proper place, to make the one who has no rights to said immovable respect and
not disturb the other, but also for the benefit of both, so that he who has the right
would see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he could
afterwards without fear introduce the improvements he may desire, to use, and
even to abuse the property as he deems best. 

Filipinas Eslon Manufacturing Corp. vs. Heirs of Basilio Llanes

 GR. No. 194114, March 27, 2019
Justice Caguioa

FACTS: Petitioner is a manufacturer of "eslon pipes and accessories." Its

manufacturing plant is located within a 50,528 square-meter land, known as Lot B-2,
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. (TCT) T-17460 (a.f.), which is situated in
Barrio Sta. Felomina, Iligan City.

On February 2, 1994, Atty. Alfredo Busico, counsel for [respondents] Heirs of Basilio
Llanes, wrote a Letter to the management of [petitioner] FEMCO informing them that its
plant site may have encroached into his clients' properties

The RTC, in its Decision, held that "the evidence is indubitable that NO decision was
signed and rendered by Hon. Teodulo Tandayag, the detailed presiding judge of the
then Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte adjudicating Cad. Lot No. 1911 in favor
of Basilio Llanes on April 17, 1968. Aside from the other facts such as the absence of a
cadastral answer of Basilio Llanes and the testimony of Atty. Macaraya that the
cadastral records show that Lot 1911 has not been adjudicated to any person or entity.

ISSUES:

a. Whether/not FEMCO’s Complaint for Quieting of Title is prohibited collateral

attack on a certificate of title.

RULING:

a.  No. As a rule, an action to quiet title or to remove the clouds over a title is
a special civil actiongoverned by the Section 1, paragraph 2 of Rule 63 of the
Rules of Court. It is a common law remedygrounded on equity. The competent
court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainantand other
claimants for the benefit of the both, so that he who has the right would see every
cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he could afterwards without fear
introduce the improvements hemay desire, to use and to abuse the property. 

Desiderio Dalisay Investments, Inc. vs. Social Security System

GR. No. 231053, April 4, 2018
FACTS: Sometime in the year 1976, respondent Social Security System (SSS) filed a
case before the Social Security Commission (SSC) against the Dalisay Group of
Companies (DGC) for the collection of unremitted SSS premium contributions of the
latter's employees.

On March 11, 1977, Desiderio Dalisay, then President of petitioner Desiderio Dalisay
Investments, Inc. (DDII), sent a Letter to SSS offering the subject land and building to
offset DGC's liabilities subject of the aforementioned cases at P3,500,000.

In said complaint, DDII asserted that it is the owner of the subject property. It averred
that when SSS filed the abovementioned cases, the late Desiderio Dalisay, during his
lifetime and as president of the company, offered the property appraised at P3,500,000
to SSS for the offsetting of said amount against DGC's total liability to SSS. SSS
accepted such but only in the amount of P2,000,000 and subject to certain conditions. It
also insists that while negotiations with SSS were still ongoing, it decided to vacate the
subject property in favor of SSS to show goodwill on its part. Unfortunately, the
negotiations were not fruitful as they failed to agree on the terms and conditions set
forth by SSS.

Furthermore, DDII insists that Atty. Cabarroguis' alleged acceptance of the proposals of
SSS was not covered by any Board Resolution or Affidavit of Consent by the corporate
and individual owners of the properties. Thus, according to DDII, there was no meeting
of the minds between the parties. Consequently, there was no dation in payment to
speak of, contrary to the claim of SSS. With these, DDII asserted that SSS owes it
P43,208,270.99 as back rentals for its use of the property from 1982 onwards. It also
prayed for attorney's fees and costs of litigation.

ISSUES:

a. Whether or not there was a perfected dacion en pago; and if answered in the

affirmative, whether or not SSS validly acquired title or interest over the subject
properties.

RULING:

a. Yes there is a perfected Dacion en pago. SSS has a legitimate title and interest
over the properties in question. As a result, SSS' claim which allegedly casts a
cloud on DDII's title is valid and operative, and consequently, the action for
quieting of title filed by DDII will not prosper. The Supreme Court denied the
petition. 
DOCTRINE:

- Among other modes, an obligation is extinguished by payment or performance.

There is payment when there is delivery of money or performance of an
obligation. Corollary thereto, Article 1245 of the Civil Code provides for a special
mode of payment called dacion in payment.

Residents of Lower Atab & Teacher’s Village, Barangay Sto. Tomas Proper,
Baguio City vs. Sta. Monica Industrial and Development Corp.
GR. No. 198878, October 15, 2014
FACTS: Residents of Lower Atab & Teachers’ Village, Sto. Tomas Proper Barangay,
Baguio City – filed a civil case for quieting of title with damages against respondent Sta.
Monica Industrial and Development Corporation. 

The Complaint in said case essentially alleged that petitioners are successors and
transferees-in-interest of Torres, the supposed owner of an unregistered parcel of land
in Baguio City which Torres possessed and declared for tax purposes in 1918; that they
are in possession of the subject property in the concept of owner, declared their
respective lots and homes for tax purposes, and paid the real estate taxes thereon; that
in May 2000, respondent began to erect a fence on the subject property, claiming that it
is the owner of a large portion thereof.

Respondent claimed that petitioners have no cause of action; that TCT No. T- 63184 is
a valid and subsisting title; that the case for quieting of title constitutes a collateral attack
upon TCT No. T-63184; and that petitioners have no title to the subject property and are
mere illegal occupants thereof. Thus, it prayed for the dismissal of Civil Case No. 4946-
R and an award of exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs
in its favor.

The Baguio RTC issued a Decision is in favor of the respondents. In an appeal to the
CA, petitioners insisted that they have a cause of action against respondent for quieting
of title and damages. CA decides the same with the RTC.

ISSUES:

a. Whether the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the
Petitioners have no cause of action.

RULING:

a. No. Petitioners do not have legal or equitable title to the subject property.
Evidently, there are no certificates of title in their respective names. And by their
own admission in their pleadings, specifically in their pre-trial brief and
memorandum before the trial court, they acknowledged that they applied for the
purchase of the property from the government, through town site sales
applications coursed through the DENR.

Heirs of Pacifico Pocido vs. Arsenia Avila and Emelinda Chua

GR. No. 199146, March 19, 2014

FACTS: In June 2000, Pacifico Pocdo, who was later substituted by his heirs upon his
death, filed a complaint to quiet title over a 1,728-square meter property (disputed
property) located in Camp 7, Baguio City, and covered by Tax Declaration 96-06008-
106641.

Pacifico claimed that the disputed property is part of Lot 43, TS-39, which originally
belonged to Pacifico’s father, Pocdo Pool. The disputed property is allegedly different
from the one- hectare portion alloted to Polon Pocdo, the predecessor-in-interest of the
defendants Arsenia Avila and Emelinda Chua, in a partition made by the heirs of Pocdo
Pool. Pacifico alleged that the defendants unlawfully claimed the disputed property,
which belonged to Pacifico.

Having exhausted administrative remedies, the Heirs of Pacifico Pocdo challenged the
OP resolution before the Court of Appeals, but this petition was dismissed for having
been filed late. The Supreme Court dismissed the Heirs’appeal from this decision. The
instant case, Civil Case 4710-R, before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch
61 was filed by Pacifico Pocdo against Arsenia Avila and Emelinda Chua in June 2000.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court held
that the DENR had already declared the disputed property as public land, which the
State, through the DENR, has the sole power to dispose. 

The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioners, in raising the issue of quieting of title, failed
to allege any legal or equitable title to quiet. Thus, the Court ofAppeals affirmed the trial
court’s resolution, subject to the right of petitioners to file the appropriate action.

ISSUES:

a. Whether the court of appeals erred in ruling that the RTC had no jurisdiction
since it is the courts, not the DENR, that has jurisdiction over actions involving
possession of lands, even assuming without admitting, that the land is a public
land.
b. Whether the court of appeals erred in finding that the petitioners have no title to
the property that would support an action for quieting of title when trial had not
yet commenced. nonetheless, the record is replete of proof that the petitioners
have rights/title over the subject property.

RULING:
a. No. The trial court was therefore correct in dismissing the complaint to quiet title
for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court had no jurisdiction to determine who among
the parties have better right over the disputed property which is admittedly still
part of the public domain.
b. No. In this case, petitioners, claiming to be owners of the disputed property,
allege that respondents are unlawfully claiming the disputed property by using
void documents, namely the "Catulagan" and the Deed of Waiver of Rights.
However, the records reveal that petitioners do not have legal or equitable title
over the disputed property, which forms part of Lot 43, a public land within the
Baguio Town site Reservation.

Juanario G. Campit vs. Isidra B. Gripa

GR. No. 195443, September 17, 2014
 Justice Brion

FACTS: Subject of this case is a 2. 7360-hectare agricultural land situated in Umangan,

Mangatarem, Pangasinan, presently occupied by respondents Isidra B. Gripa, Pedro
Bardiaga, and Severino Bardiaga, represented by his son Rolando Bardiaga, but
covered by TCT No. 122237 issued in the petitioner’s name. The petitioner claimed to
have purchased the property from his father Jose Campit in 1977.

The Court, in these cases, cancelled the titles of the petitioner and his father Jose
because they were obtained through the misrepresentation of the petitioner’s
grandfather, Isidro Campit. The respondents further contended that they have long
desired to divide the subject property among themselves, but the petitioner adamantly
refused to surrender his title to the property to them, or to the Register of Deeds,
despite their formal demand.

The RTC proceeded to hear the case and, in a decision dated August 13, 2008, ruled in
the respondents’ favor. On appeal, the CA, in a decision dated May 13, 2010, affirmed
the RTC. The petitioner moved to reconsider, but the CA denied his motion in a
resolution dated January 27, 2011, hence, the filing of the present petition for review on
certiorari with this Court.

ISSUES:

a. Whether the respondents are always been in possession of the subject property.

RULING:

a. Yes. Considering that the action for annulment and cancellation of title filed by
the respondents is substantially in the nature of an action for reconveyance
based on an implied or constructive trust, combined with the fact that the
respondents have always been in possession of the subject property

Jose S. Ocampo vs. Ricardo S. Ocampo Sr.

GR. No. 227894, July 5, 2017
FACTS: Petitioners and respondent are brothers, both sons of the Basilio Ocampo and Juliana
Sunglao In the complaint, respondent alleged that her and petitioner are co-owners of
the 150 sq. m. lot left behind by their parents. The subject property was originally
registered in their parents’ names.

Respondent claims that petitioner and his wife conspired in falsifying his signature on a
notarized Extra-Judicial Settlement with Waiver and effecting the transfer of the property
in the name of petitioner under TCT No. 102822, which was issued on November 24,
1970.

The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription. However, the CA
declared the RTC’s decision null and void. Thereafter, respondent filed a motion for writ
of execution before the RTC. However, the motion was denied on the ground that there
is nothing to execute since the setting aside of the RTC Order calls for the case to be
tried on the merits. Thus, the RTC set the case for pre-trial.

The RTC ruled in favor of the respondent. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. In
dismissing the petition, the CA found that respondent was able to prove that his
signature on the ESW is not genuine, based on his and his wife’s testimony, as well as
the NBI report. According to the CA, this finding of forgery was also supported by
petitioner’s own admission on cross-examination that he was not present when the
ESW was executed. Based on the evidence presented, the preponderance of evidence
weighed in favor of respondent and against petitioner.

ISSUES:

a. Whether or not the action for annulment of title and partition has already
prescribed

RULING:

a. In this case, the complaint for partition and annulment of the title was only more
than twenty (20) years since the assailed title was issued. However, both
petitioner and respondent were residing at the subject property at the time the
complaint was filed. Considering that respondent was in actual possession of the
disputed land at the time of the filing of the complaint title. Since it was already
established that respondent’s signature on the ESW, which was the basis of petitioner’s
title over the property, was forged, then it is only necessary for the cloud on respondent’s
title to be removed.
 Efren Tandog vs. Renato Macapagal
GR. No. 144208; September 11, 2007

FACTS: The subject of the controversy is a land consisting of 147,991 square meters
situated at Sitio Inarawan, Barangay Inuman, San Isidro, Antipolo City. The above-
named petitioners claim that they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in
actual, open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the land since time
immemorial. They trace their rights to Casimiro Policarpio, unmarried, who died in 1945.
He was survived by his nephews and nieces, now deceased, except Maria Bautista
Catanyag. She and Casimiro’s grand nieces and grand nephews (herein petitioners)
have continued possessing and cultivating the land.

When petitioners decided to apply for the judicial registration of the property, they found
that portions of the land have been occupied by spouses Alfonso and Marina Calderon
and Renato Macapagal, respondents. According to petitioners, spouses Calderon used
falsified documents to justify their possession of 20,116 square meters of the land which
they sold to the government. 

Because of these incidents, petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court, Bracnh 73,
Antipolo City a complaint for quieting of title. After petitioners had presented their
evidence, spouses Calderon filed a demurrer to evidence. In an Order dated March 20,
1995, the trial court granted their motion and dismissed the complaint.

Petitioners contend that the allegations of spouses Calderon that they purchased their
property and Macapagal’s claim that he applied for a Free Patent are judicial
admissions which they (petitioners) consider as cloud upon their interest in the disputed
property.

ISSUES:

a. Whether the respondents’ claim of adverse possession is a cloud on their interest

in the land

RULING:

a. No. The alleged falsified documents relied upon by respondents to justify their
possession were merely marked as exhibits but were never formally offered in
evidence by petitioners. We have consistently ruled that documents which may
have been marked as exhibits during the hearing, but which were not formally
offered in evidence, cannot be considered as evidence, nor can they be given
any evidentiary value.
DOCTRINE:

- Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by

reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is
apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable,
or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought
to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.