8/10/2019 2 ltd cases

1/8

OFFICE OF THE CITY MAYOR OF PARAAQUE CITY VS. MARIO D.EBIO AND HISCHILDREN/HEIRS

G.R. No. 178411 June 23, 2010

FACTS:Respondents claim that they are the absolute owners of a parcel of located

Paraaque City and covered by Tax Declaration in the name of respondent Mario D.

Ebio. Said land was an accretion of Cut-cut creek. Respondents assert that the original

occupant and possessor of the said parcel of land was their great grandfather, Jose

Vitalez. Sometime in 1930, Jose gave the land to his son, Pedro Vitalez. From then on,

Pedro continuously and exclusively occupied and possessed the said lot. In 1966, after

executing an affidavit declaring possession and occupancy. Pedro was able to obtain a

tax declaration over the said property in his name. Since then, respondents have been

religiously paying real property taxes for the said property.

Meanwhile, in 1961, respondent Mario Ebio married Pedros daughter, Zenaida.Upon Pedros advice, the couple established their home on the said lot. In April 1964

and in October 1971, Mario Ebio secured building permits from the Paraaque

municipal office for the construction of their house within the said

compound.[7]

On April 21, 1987, Pedro executed a notarized Transfer of Rights[8]

ceding

his claim over the entire parcel of land in favor of Mario Ebio. Subsequently, the tax

declarations under Pedros name were cancelled and new ones were issued in Mario

Ebios name.[9]

On March 30, 1999, the Office of the Sangguniang Barangay of Vitalez passed

Resolution No. 08, series of 1990 seeking assistance from theCity Government of

Paraaque for the construction of an access road alongCut-cut Creek located in the saidbarangay. The proposed road will run from Urma Drive to the main road of Vitalez

Compound traversing the lot occupied by the respondents. Respondents immediately

opposed and the project was suspended.

In January 2003, however, respondents were surprised when several officials

from the barangay and the city planning office proceeded to cut eight (8) coconut trees

planted on the said lot. On March 28, 2005, the City Administrator sent a letter to the

respondents ordering them to vacate the area within the next thirty (30) days, or be

physically evicted from the said property. Respondents sent a reply, asserting their claim

over the subject property and expressing intent for a further dialogue. The request

remained unheeded.

Threatened of being evicted, respondents went to the RTC of Paraaque

City on April 21, 2005 and applied for a writ of preliminary injunction against petitioners.

ISSUE:Whether or not the State may build on the land in question.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/178411.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/178411.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/178411.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/178411.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/178411.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/178411.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/178411.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/178411.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/178411.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/178411.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/178411.htm#_ftn8

8/10/2019 2 ltd cases

2/8

HELD:No. It is an uncontested fact that the subject land was formed from the alluvial

deposits that have gradually settled along the banks of Cut-cut creek. This being the

case, the law that governs ownership over the accreted portion is Article 84 of the

Spanish Law of Waters of 1866, which remains in effect, in relation to Article 457 of the

Civil Code.

ART. 84. Accretions deposited gradually upon lands contiguous to creeks,

streams, rivers, and lakes, by accessions or sediments from the waters

thereof, belong to the owners of such lands.

Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the

accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of

the waters.

It is therefore explicit from the foregoing provisions that alluvial deposits along

the banks of a creek do not form part of the public domain as the alluvial property

automatically belongs to the owner of the estate to which it may have been added. Theonly restriction provided for by law is that the owner of the adjoining property must

register the same under the Torrens system; otherwise, the alluvial property may be

subject to acquisition through prescription by third persons.

In contrast, properties of public dominion cannot be acquired by prescription.

No matter how long the possession of the properties has been, there can be no

prescription against the State regarding property of public domain. Even a city or

municipality cannot acquire them by prescription as against the State.

Hence, while it is true that a creek is a property of public dominion, the land

which is formed by the gradual and imperceptible accumulation of sediments along its

banks does not form part of the public domain by clear provision of law.

8/10/2019 2 ltd cases

3/8

MARIO C. RONQUILLO VS. COURT OF APPEALSG.R. No. L-43346 March 20, 1991

FACTS:Del Rosario owns a registered land adjacent to Estero Calubcub which is already

dried up due to the dumping of garbage by the surrounding neighborhood and not by

any natural causes. Defendant now occupies said dried up land until Del Rosario,

claiming ownership over the same, required him to vacate on the basis of Article 370 of

the Civil Code which provides that riparian owner owns the dried up river bed

abandoned by natural changes.

ISSUE:

Whether the dried-up portion of Estero Calubcub being claimed by herein

petitioner was caused by a natural change in the course of the waters and Article 370

applies.

HELD:Under Art. 370 of the Civil Code, The beds of rivers, which are abandoned

because of a natural change in the course of the waters, belong to the owners of the

riparian lands throughout the respective length of each. If the abandoned bed divided

tenements belonging to different owners the new dividing line shall be equidistant from

one and the other.

The law is clear and unambiguous. It leaves no room for interpretation. Article

370 applies only if there is a natural change in the course of the waters. The rules on

alluvion do not apply to man-made or artificial accretions nor to accretions to lands that

adjoin canals or esteros or artificial drainage systems.24

Considering our earlier finding

that the dried-up portion of Estero Calubcub was actually caused by the activeintervention of man, it follows that Article 370 does not apply to the case at bar and,

hence, the Del Rosarios cannot be entitled thereto supposedly as riparian owners.

The dried-up portion of Estero Calubcub should thus be considered as forming

part of the land of the public domain which cannot be subject to acquisition by private

ownership.

Lastly, the fact that petitioner and herein private respondents filed their sales

applications with the Bureau of Lands covering the subject dried-up portion of Estero

Calubcub cannot but be deemed as outright admissions by them that the same is public

land. They are now estopped from claiming otherwise.

8/10/2019 2 ltd cases

4/8

HEIRS OF MANUEL A. ROXAS and TRINIDAD DE LEON VDA. DEROXAS VS. COURT OFAPPEALS and MAGUESUN MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

G.R. No. 118436. March 21, 1997

FACTS:Maguesun Corporation filed an Application for Registration of two parcels of

unregistered land located in Tagaytay. In support of its application for registration they

presented a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 10, 1990, executed by Zenaida Melliza as

vendor who bought the property from Trinidad de Leon vda. de Roxas two and a half

months earlier, as evidenced by a Deed of Sale dated March 26, 1990 and an Affidavit

of Self-Adjudication dated March 24, 1990. Notices of the initial hearing were sent by

the Land Registration Authority to Hilario Luna, Jose Gil and Leon Luna while Trinidad de

Leon vda. de Roxas was not notified because she was not named as an adjoining owner,

occupant or adverse claimant. Publication was made in the Official Gazette and the

Record Newsweekly. After an Order of general default was issued, the trial courtproceeded to hear the land registration case. On October 4, 1990, LRA reported that the

subject parcels of land had previously been applied for registration at the CFI of Cavite

by Manuel A. Roxas and Trinidad de Leon but no decision has been made. February 13,

1991 the RTC granted Maguesun Corporation's application for registration.

Consequently RTC issued the Order for Issuance of the Decree on March 14, 1991,

after it ordered the application of Manuel A. Roxas and Trinidad de Leon dismissed. It

was only when the caretaker of the property was being asked to vacate the land

that petitioner Trinidad de Leon Vda. De Roxas learned of its sale and the registration of

the lots in Maguesun Corporation's name. Hence, she filed a petition for review before

the RTC to set aside the decree of registration on the ground that MaguesunCorporation committed actual fraud, alleging that her signature was forged in both

the Deed of Sale and the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication; that Maguesun Corporation

intentionally omitted her name as an adverse claimant, occupant or adjoining owner in

the application for registration submitted to the LRA, such that the latter could not send

her a Notice of Initial Hearing RTC that Maguesun Corporation did not commit actual

fraud and dismissed the petition for review of decree of registration April 15, 1992. CA

affirmed the findings of RTC, ruling that Roxas failed to and demonstrate that there

was actual or extrinsic fraud, not merely constructive or intrinsic fraud, a prerequisite

for purposes of annuling a judgment or reviewing a decree of registration. Hence this

petitionISSUE:

Whether or not private respondent Maguesun Corporation committed actual

fraud in obtaining a decree of registration over two unregistered parcels of land in

Tagaytay City, actual fraud being the only ground to reopen or review a decree of

registration.

8/10/2019 2 ltd cases

5/8

HELD:The Court here finds that respondent Maguesun Corporation committed actual

fraud in obtaining the decree of registration sought to be reviewed by Roxas.

Fraud is of two kinds: actual or constructive. Actual or positive fraud proceeds

from an intentional deception practiced by means of the misrepresentation orconcealment of a material fact. Constructive fraud is construed as a fraud because of its

detrimental effect upon public interests and public or private confidence, even though

the act is not done or committed with an actual design to commit positive fraud or

injury upon other persons. Fraud may also be either extrinsic or intrinsic. Fraud is

regarded as intrinsic where the fraudulent acts pertain to an issue involved in the

original action, or where the acts constituting the fraud were or could have been

litigated therein, and is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having

a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters

pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured, so that

there is not a fair submission of the controversy. Extrinsic fraud is also actual fraud, but

collateral to the transaction sued upon.

The distinctions are significant because only actual fraud or extrinsic fraud has

been accepted as grounds for a judgment to be annulled or, as in this case, a decree of

registration reopened and reviewed. The "fraud" contemplated by the law in this case

(Section 32, P.D. No 1529) is actual and extrinsic, which includes an intentional omission

of fact required by law.

Intentional Omission of Name

In the corporation's application for registration filed with the RTC only the

following names appeared: Hilario Luna, Jose Gil,Leon Luna, Provincial Road. The court

found that the some words are typed in with a different typewriter, with the first five

letters of the word "provincial" typed over correction fluid. However, Maguesun

Corporation, annexed a differently-worded application for the petition to review the

application of theRoxas where in instead of PROVINCIAL ROAD, the name ROXAS

appeared. The discrepancy which is unexplained appears intentional.

It is reasonable to assume that the reason is to mislead the court into thinking

that "Roxas" was placed in the original application as an adjoining owner,encumbrancer, occupant or claimant, the same application which formed the basis for

the LRA in sending out notices of initial hearing. Section 15 of Presidential Decree No.

1529 also requires the applicant for registration to state the full names and addresses of

all occupants of the land and those of adjoining owners, if known and if not known, the

extent of the search made to find them. Maguesun Corporation failed to comply with

this requirement.

8/10/2019 2 ltd cases

6/8

Possession in OCENO

The truth is that the Roxas family had been in possession of the property

uninterruptedly through their caretaker, Jose Ramirez. Maguesun Corporation also that

the subject land was unoccupied when in truth and in fact, the Roxas family caretaker

resided in the subject property. Maguesun Corporation is likewise charged with theknowledge of such possession and occupancy, for its President, who signed the Deed of

Sale over the property, knew fully well that her grandaunt Trinidad de Leon vda. de

Roxas owned the property. It is reasonable to expect her as a buyer to have inspected

the property prior to the sale such that the ascertainment of the current possessors or

occupants could have been made facilely. Maguesun Corporation intentional

concealment and representation of Roxas interest in the subject lots as possessor,

occupant and claimant constitutes actual fraud justifying the reopening and review of

the decree of registration.

Concealment of the Existence of Trinidad Roxas

Mention of the late President's name as well as that of Trinidad was made

principally in the Formal Offer of Exhibits for Maguesun Corporations tax declarations

and as predecessor-in-interest. However, this is not sufficient compliance with what the

law requires to be stated in the application for registration. Disclosure of petitioner's

adverse interest, occupation and possession should be made at the appropriate time,

i.e., at the time of the application for registration, otherwise, the persons concerned will

not be sent notices of the initial hearing and will, therefore, miss the opportunity

to present their opposition or claims.

Publication of Notice of Initial Hearing

While publication of the notice in the Official Gazette is sufficient to

confer jurisdiction upon the court, publication in a newspaper of general circulation

remains an indispensable procedural requirement. Couched in mandatory terms, it is a

component of procedural due process and aimed at giving "as wide publicity as

possible" so that all persons having an adverse interest in the land subject of the

registration proceedings may be notified thereof. Although jurisdiction of the court is

not affected, the fact that publication was not made in a newspaper of general

circulation is material and relevant in assessing the applicant's right or title to the land.

Forgery and Discrepancies

A close scrutiny of the evidence on record leads the Court to the irresistible

conclusion that forgery was indeed attendant in the case at bar. Although there is

no proof of respondent Maguesun Corporation's direct participation in the execution

and preparation of the forged instruments, there are sufficient indicia which proves that

8/10/2019 2 ltd cases

7/8

Maguesun Corporation is not the "innocent purchaser for value" who merits the

protection of the law.

The questioned signatures taken from the Deed of Sale and Affidavit of Self-

Adjudication are starkly different from the sample signatures in several documents

executed by Trinidad. The questioned signatures are smooth and rounded and havenone of the jagged and shaky character of petitioner's signatures characteristic of

the penmanship of elderly persons.

The fact that petitioner was not the sole heir was known to the general public, as

well as the demise of the late President on April 15, 1946 while delivering a speech at

Clark Field, Pampanga. The aforementioned irregularities are too glaring to have been

ignored. If Trinidad did in fact execute said Affidavit, there is no reason why she should

state facts other than the unadulterated truth concerning herself and her family.

8/10/2019 2 ltd cases

8/8

Submitted by: HERNANDEZ, Annabel F.

Submitted to: Atty. Palabrica