You are on page 1of 3


COURT OF APPEALS, DANIEL GOLE CRUZ & DOLORES MENDOZA This is a petition for review by certiorari that seeks the reversal of the CAs decision dated Feb. 27, 1973, which upheld the registration in the names of herein private respondents, notwithstanding that they were not parties in the original registration proceedings. FACTS: May 15, 1964 Petitioner Mendoza filed with the Court of Instance of Bulacan an application for the registration of two parcels of land with a residential house thereon situated in the Poblacion of Sta. Maria Bulacan A notice was issued, duly published, posted and served but nobody appeared nor filed an answer or opposition within the period allowed. July 6, 1965 the registration court entered an order of general default and allowed the applicant to present his evidence ex parte. The evidence showed that petitioner and his wife were the owners of the parcels of land subject of application but the same were sold by them during the pendency of the case to the spouses Cruz and Mendoza, subject to the vendors usufructuary rights. The deed of sale was presented as an exhibit. July 21, 1965 the registration court rendered a decision ordering the registration of the two parcels of land in the names of the vendees, subject to the usufructuary rights of the vendors. A copy was received by petitioner. November 5, 1965 petitioner Mendoza filed a motion for the issuance of the decree. May 16, 1967 a decree was issued confirming the title to the land of the vendees. Consequently, an Original Certificate of Title was issued to the spouses Cruz and Mendoza. April 16, 1968 Petitioner filed an urgent petition for reconsideration praying that the decision dated July 21, 1965 and the decree

issued pursuant thereto be set aside and that the OCT be cancelled on the ground that the vendees/registered owners had failed to pay the purchase price of the lands. The registration court ruled in favor of the petitioner, which led herein private respondents to file a special civil action for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition with the Court of Appeals. February 27, 1973 CA rendered a decision setting aside the order of the land registration court. It also denied Generoso Mendozas petition for reconsideration. ISSUES: This petition for review alleges that the CA erred 1. In holding that the appellee himself caused the registration of the title to the land in question in the name of the appellants. 2. In holding that the registration court could legally order the title issued in the name of the vendees. 3. In holding that the motion for reconsideration was not based on fraud perpetrated on the appellee by the private respondent. HELD: 1. Though it is a question of fact which cannot be properly raised in a petition for review, the CA determined the veracity of petitioners claim because petitioner invokes that CAs finding has no basis in the evidence on record. Contrary to petitioners claim, the records of the case showed that petitioner and his wife testified that they sold the property sought to be registered to the private respondents. Likewise, the deed of sale was also presented and marked as exhibit 1. 2. Sec. 29 of the Land Registration Act expressly authorizes the registration of the land subject matter of a registration proceeding in the name of the buyer or of the person to whom the land has been conveyed by an instrument executed during the interval of time between the filing of

the application for registration and the issuance of the decree of title. The law does not require that the application be amended neither does it require that the buyer be a party to the case. The only requirements of the law are: The instrument be presented to the Court by the interested party together with a motion (doesnt have to be in writing) that the same be considered in relation with the application; That prior notice be given to the parties to the case. It was shown in this case that these requirements have been complied with. 3. Section 38 of the Land Registration Act provides that the only ground upon which a decree of registration may be set aside is fraud in obtaining the same. What is invoked in this case is not fraud but the alleged failure of the vendees-respondents to pay the purchase price of the landholdings. Breach of contract is not a ground for a petition for review. This issue has to be litigated in the ordinary court. SPOUSES GREGORIO DE GUZMAN, JR. & CORAZON QUINTO vs. COURT OF APPEALS & RAYMUNDA RINGOR QUIRIMIT This is a petition for review of the CAs decision dated March 3, 1977 declaring herein private respondent Quirimit owner of the land subject of litigation. FACTS: July 20, 1957 Deogracias Queriza, original owner of a parcel of an unregistered residential land situated at San Fabian, Pangasinan, executed a Deed of Pacto de Retro sale over said land in favor of private respondent Quirimit (his niece) for the sum of P500 and with an express stipulation that the vendor a retro may exercise the right to

repurchase within 5 years from execution and upon failure to take advantage of the right, this contract shall acquire the character of absolute, irrevocable and consummated sale. Quirimit did not register the Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale but took possession of the land by building her house on a portion thereof. She did not consolidate her ownership over the land because her uncle constantly tells her not to worry because he has no heirs to challenge private respondent. Subsequently, Deogracias Queriza mortgaged the same land to the Manaoag Rural Bank. It was allegedly redeemed on his behalf by his nephew Miguel Queriza on November 4, 1963. April 26, 1967 Deogracias Queriza, without having exercised his right to repurchase, executed a Deed of Rimunitary Intervivos Donation in favor of Miguel Queriza, who thereafter declared the land in his name for taxation purposes and registered the said deed on August 8, 1967 in the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan. December 8, 1970 Miguel Queriza sold the land to petitioner spouses de Guzman and Quinto. The deed of sale was registered on December 9, 1970 and the tax declaration placed under their names. January 1971 Petitioners sent private respondent Quirimit a written notice to vacate the land in question and upon refusal by the latter to do so, instituted a civil case for Quieting of Title and Recovery of Possession before the CFI of Pangasinan. The court rendered judgment declaring the petitioner spouses de Guzman as owners of the land and ordering Quirimit to vacate the land and pay petitioners for damages, attorneys fees and cost of the suit. It ruled that the Pacto de Retro sale was only a mortgage and that the Deed of Donation in favor of Miguel Queriza was valid. On appeal by Quirimit, CA reversed the decision of the trial court. It held that private respondent had a preferential right to the land as against petitioners who were in bad faith (applying Art. 1544 of NCC). It also found that the transaction between Deogracias

Queriza and Quirimit was a pacto de retro sale. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, hence, this petition. ISSUE: Who has a better right to the property in dispute? HELD: The SC is equally convinced as the appellate court that: 1. The transaction between Deogracias Queriza and Quirimit was a pacto de retro sale (which had become an absolute sale due to vendor a retros failure to repurchase). Quirimits failure to consolidate her title does not impair such title or ownership for the method prescribed is merely for purpose of registering the consolidated title. 2. The petitioners were purchasers in bad faith. They had actual knowledge of the sale to Quirimit. They live near the property in question and surely they cannot fail to notice whether the house was tenanted or not. They merely relied on the information given by the Notary Public. Their failure to take the ordinary precautions which a prudent man would have taken under the circumstances, especially in buying a piece of land in the actual visible and public possession of another person, other than the vendor, constitutes gross negligence amounting to bad faith. Absolute ownership of the land in question was vested on Quirimit in 1962. When Deogracias Queriza allegedly donated the same to Miguel Queriza in 1967, he was no longer the owner thereof. A donor cannot lawfully convey what is not his property. Thus, it necessarily follows that no title to the property could be conveyed by Miguel to the petitioners. Contrary to petitioners claim, registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership but is merely evidence of such title over a particular property. Besides, their registration was done in bad faith. It is as if no registration was made at all.