1apuroc vs Mende

1he case lnvolves a complalnL flled by peLlLloners (SepL 1996) rocoplo 1apuroc (AnLonla Lbe and eLc parcel of
land ls governed by coownershlp) for Lhe declaraLlon of nulllLy of Lhe deed of sale enLered lnLo beLween
respondenLs Mende and Lhe peLlLloner's predecessorslnlnLeresL ln uecember 30 1967 as well as Lhe cancellaLlon
of Lhe correspondlng 1C1 lssued eLlLloners alleged LhaL Lhe sald lnsLrumenL was forged slnce Lhey (as vendors) dld
noL slgn Lhe deed of sale and LhaL Lbe had passed away ln 1960 (long before Lhe lnsLrumenL was execuLed) 1hls
dlscovery was made someLlme ln 1992 when peLlLloners declded Lo parLlLlon Lhe sub[ecL properLy
8espondenLs denled Lhe allegaLlons and furLher clalmed LhaL Lhey had been ln open conLlnuous and peaceful
possesslon of Lhe land ln quesLlon slnce 1967 and rellglously pald Lhe realLy Laxes due 1hey also asserLed LhaL
peLlLloner's cause of acLlon had already prescrlbed due Lo laches
1he lower courL ruled agalnsL Lhe peLlLloners explalnlng LhaL desplLe Lhe opporLunlLy glven Lhem Lhey falled Lo
presenL a handwrlLlng experL Lo deLermlne Lhe alleged forged lnsLrumenL and aL Lhe same Llme ruled LhaL laches had
already seL ln slnce lnacLlon by Lhe peLlLloners quesLlonlng Lhe forgery has been for Lhe lapse of 29 years 1he CA
afflrmed Lhe declslon
lSSuL WCn Lhe uLLu of SALL execuLed ln 1967 ls valld
1he SC held Lhe rullngs of boLh courLs (Slnce quesLlons of facL are blndlng Lo Lhe SC only quesLlons of law are
sub[ecL Lo Lhelr revlew)
Slnce Lhe uS ls a publlc lnsLrumenL (and also a noLarlal lnsLrumenL) lL Lherefore en[oys Lhe presumpLlon of regularlLy
ln lLs execuLlon 1o overLhrow such presumpLlon sufflclenL clear and convlnclng evldence ls requlred As a rule
forgery cannoL be presumed 1he peLlLloners flled Lo dlscharge Lhls burden of proof on Lhelr alleged clalm of glarlng
dlfferences and dlsslmllarlLles"
Moreover Lhe resulL of examlnaLlons of quesLloned handwrlLlng even wlLh Lhe beneflL of ald of experLs and
sclenLlflc lnsLrumenLs ls aL besL lnconcluslve 1here are oLher facLors LhaL musL be Laken lnLo conslderaLlon
Cn Lhe oLher hand Lhe respondenLs presenLed sufflclenL proof of Lhelr clalm of ownershlp over Lhe sub[ecL properLy
Lhelr conLlnued possesslon for more Lhan 30 years realLy Laxes and Lhelr reconsLlLuLed LlLle whlch undergone Lhe
proper procedure
Cn Lhe ground of laches SC agreed wlLh Lhe CA slnce peLlLloners flled Lhelr complalnL of declaraLlon of nulllLy only
afLer 29 years had lapsed from Lhe execuLlon of Lhe alleged forged deed of sale WlLh Lhe Mendes' possesslon ln Lhe
concepL of an owner and Lhe land reglsLered ln Lhelr names for more Lhan 30 years Lhelr LlLle had become
lndefeaslble
1hus a 1orrens LlLle cannoL be collaLerally aLLacked 1he quesLlon on Lhe valldlLy of a 1orrens LlLle wheLher
fraudulenLly lssued or noL can be ralsed only ln an acLlon expressly lnsLlLuLed for LhaL purpose 1he acLlon for Lhe
declaraLlon of nulllLy of deed of sale commenced by peLlLloners ls noL Lhe dlrecL proceedlng requlred by law Lo aLLack
a 1orrens cerLlflcaLe of LlLle





odr|guez vs odr|guez
1hls lnvolves a case for e[ecLmenL flled by peLlLloner Cresencla 8odrlguez (llveln parLner of !uanlLo) agalnsL
respondenLs Lvangellne 8uenavenLura and 8elen (all 8odrlguez)
!uanlLo 8odrlguez owned a flvedoor aparLmenL ln MakaLl ClLy and ln 1983 lssued a lasL wlll and LesLamenL glvlng
peLlLloner Cresencla Lhe Lwo aparLmenLs (u L) and Lhe remalnlng Lhree aparLmenLs Lo hls Lhree chlldren
(respondenLs) Powever ln 1984 !uanlLo execuLed a ueed of AbsoluLe Sale over Lhe properLy ln favor of peLlLloner
ln 2001 peLlLloner flled a complalnL for unlawful deLalner agalnsL respondenLs alleglng LhaL she ls Lhe lawful and
reglsLered owner of Lhe properLy and LhaL ln 1984 she allowed respondenLs ouL of klndness and Lolerance Lo
occupy Lhree unlLs (A 8 u) Powever wlLhouL her knowledge and consenL sald unlLs were leased and desplLe
repeaLed demands falled and refused Lo vacaLe Lhe premlses
8espondenLs clalmed ownershlp over Lhe sub[ecL properLy by successlon alleglng LhaL Lhe ueed of AbsoluLe Sale
was slmulaLed and vold A separaLe clvll case quesLlonlng Lhe valldlLy of Lhe sale ls pendlng before Lhe 81C of
MakaLl wlLh respondenLs alleglng LhaL peLlLloner exerLed undue lnfluence over Lhelr faLher Lo agree Lo Lhe sale
lurLher peLlLloner had no cause of acLlon agalnsL Lhem for belng a parLy Lo Lhe 1990 arLlLlon AgreemenL (as co
owners) ln accordance wlLh Lhe provlslon of Lhe lasL wlll and LesLamenL
M1C rendered [udgmenL ln favour of Lhe respondenLs and held LhaL Lhe deed of sale was slmulaLed Cn appeal Lhe
81C reversed Lhe declslon sLaLlng LhaL Lhe peLlLloner's cerLlflcaLe of LlLle ls a concluslve evldence of ownershlp of Lhe
properLy and LhaL unless sald LlLle has been annulled by a courL of compeLenL [urlsdlcLlon such LlLle ls exlsLlng and
valld 1he same holds Lrue wlLh respecL Lo Lhe deed of sale 1he CA reversed Lhe 81C declslon and relnsLaLed Lhe
M1C declslon whlch dlsmlssed Lhe Lhe complalnL for e[ecLmenL
lSSuL Who ls enLlLled Lo physlcal or maLerlal possesslon (de facLo) of Lhe sub[ecL properLy
1he SC held LhaL an acLlon of unlawful deLalner belng a summary proceedlng lnLended Lo provlde an expedlLlous
means of proLecLlng acLual possesslon or rlghL Lo possesslon of properLy Lhe quesLlon of LlLle ls noL lnvolved and
should be ralsed by Lhe affecLed parLy ln an approprlaLe acLlon ln Lhe proper courL (81C) Powever ln an e[ecLmenL
case Lhe quesLlon of ownershlp may be provlslonally ruled upon for Lhe sole purpose of deLermlnlng who ls enLlLled
Lo possesslon de facLo
ln Lhe case aL bar Lhe peLlLloner (as Lhe reglsLered owner) has a beLLer rlghL Lo Lhe possesslon of Lhe properLy
whlch ls one of Lhe aLLrlbuLes of ownershlp 8ased on Lhe documenLary evldence respondenLs falled Lo prove Lhelr
rlghL of possesslon as Lhe lasL wlll and LesLamenL and Lhe parLlLlon agreemenL have no legal effecL slnce Lhls has noL
been probaLed or proved ArL 838 of Lhe Clvll Code mandaLes LhaL no wlll shall pass elLher real or personal
properLy unless lL ls proved and allowed ln accordance wlLh Lhe 8ules of CourL 1he facL LhaL peLlLloner was a parLy
Lo sald agreemenL becomes lmmaLerlal ln Lhe deLermlnaLlon of Lhe lssue of possesslon
Moreover aL Lhe Llme Lhe sale was execuLed !uanlLo 8odrlguez remalned Lhe owner Lhereof slnce ownershlp would
only pass Lo hls helrs aL Lhe Llme of hls deaLh 1hus as owner of Lhe properLy he had Lhe absoluLe rlghL Lo dlspose of
lL durlng hls llfeLlme