Parulan v.

Garcia Case Digest
G.R. No. 184148
June 9, 2014

Facts:
Pedro Calalang was married to Encarnacion Silverio. Encarnacion, however, died in 1942.
Pedro and Encarnacion had children, who are the respondents in this case.
Pedro contracted another marriage with Elvira Berba.
During his marriage to Encarnacion, they obtained a parcel of land allegedly from a sale from
Encarnacion’s parents. This was not registered under the spouses’ names.
There was, however, no documents presented to prove the sale. There were only testimonies
presented for this.
30 years after the death of Encarnacion and after the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of
gains
It was only then that Pedro was able to obtain a patent over the land.
On February 17, 1984, Pedro sold the property to Nora Calalang-Parulan, his daughter from the
second marriage.
Pedro’s children from the first marriage allege that the application for the free patent of the land
was attended with fraud because he claimed sole ownership over it despite having 3 children
with Encarnacion.
The children from the first marriage also said that the sale was absolutely simulated because at
that time, Nora had no means to pay for the land.
However, it was found out later that Nora was gainfully employed in Spain at the time of the
sale.
The children from the second marriage, on the other hand, contend that the land belongs to both
their parents because it was issued in the name of “Pedro Calalang, married to Elvira Berba.”
Issue:
Was Pedro Calalang the exclusive owner of the property prior to its transfer to Nora, his
daughter?
Ruling:
Yes.
The SC reviewed the finding of facts in this case because as an exception, it can do this because
the RTC and CA have conflicting findings.
There was no proof that the property indeed belonged to the respondents’ maternal grandparents.
Only testimonial evidence was presented here.
The patent was also issued more than 30 years after the death of Encarnacion and after the
dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains of the first marriage.
These facts lead to the fact that the property was not owned by both Encarnacion and Pedro.
As to the statement “Pedro Calalang, married to Elvira Berba,” this merely describes that civil
status and identifies the spouse of the registered owner. This does not mean that the property is
conjugal.
Section 45 of Presidential Decree No. 1529
SEC. 45. Statement of personal circumstances in the certificate. – Every certificate of title shall
set forth the full names of all persons whose interests make up the full ownership in the whole
land, including their civil status, and the names of their respective spouses, if married, as well as
their citizenship, residence and postal address. If the property covered belongs to the conjugal
partnership, it shall be issued in the names of both spouses.
In his application for the free patent, Pedro averred that he was the first occupant of the land and
had cultivated it since 1935. He applied for the patent before his marriage to Elvira but was only
granted it during the subsistence of the marriage.
This means that the property becomes the exclusive property of Pedro Calalang.
And because he is the exclusive owner thereof, he has the right to convey the property to Nora.
As to fraud
Fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. There was no sufficient evidence in this
case that would lead to the conclusion that fraud was present.