Property Cases 01-17-15

8/9/2019 Property Cases 01-17-15

1/106

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 179754 November 21, 2012

JOAQUIN G. CUNG, JR., PA! RO"ERA!#SO$ER, %&' MANSUETO MACE(A,Petitioners,

vs.

JAC) (ANIE$ MON(RAGON, *'e+e%e'-, b///e' b /er &%me3 TEOTIMA M.

OURON, EMMA M. MI$$AN, EUGENIA M. RAMA %&' ROSARIO M. CAA$$ES6 C$ARIN(A

REGIS#SCMIT! %&' MARIA $INA MA$MISA,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

(E$ CASTI$$O, J.:

In a!in" the indictent that a court#s decision fails in the fundaental andate that no decision

shall be rendered $ithout e%pressin" therein clearl& and distinctl& the facts and the la$ on $hich it is

based, the deurrin" part& should not ista!e brevit& for levit&.

'his Petition for Revie$ on Certiorari(assails () the Noveber *+, *- Decision*of the Court of

ppeals /C) in C01.R. CV No. 23-(4, $hich affired the Ma& (3, *+ Decision+of the Re"ional

'rial Court /R'C), 5r. *6, Maasin Cit&, Southern 7e&te in Civil Case No. R0+*68, $hich in turn

disissed the herein petitioners# Coplaint for 9uietin" of title, and *) the Septeber *, *2 C

Resolution6den&in" reconsideration thereof.

:actual ntecedents

Petitioners ;oa9uin 1. Chun", ;r., Pa< Ro&eras0Soler, and Mansueto Maceda are descendants of

Rafael Mondra"on /Rafael) b& his first $ife, Eleuteria Calunia /Eleuteria), $hile respondent ;ac!

Daniel Mondra"on4/;ac! Daniel) is Rafael#s descendant b& his second $ife, ndrea 5aldos /ndrea).

Ori"inal Certificate of 'itle /OC') No. **662-is re"istered in the nae of =>eirs of ndrea 5aldos

represented b& 'eofila 1. Maceda= and covers (-,(22 s9uare eters of land in Macrohon, Southern

7e&te /the land).

Petitioners clai that fro (3*( up to *, Rafael appeared as o$ner of the land in its ta%declaration, and that a free patent $as issued in (382 in the nae of ndrea#s heirs upon application

of 'eofila 1. Maceda /'eofila), $ho is petitioners# sister.

On the other hand, respondents clai that ndrea is the e%clusive o$ner of the land, havin"

inherited the sae fro her father 5las 5aldos. 'he& add that durin" ndrea#s lifetie, she $as in

la$ful, peaceful and continuous possession thereof in the concept of o$ner? that in (346, ndrea

conve&ed a portion thereof to one Crispina 1loria de Cano via a docuent $ritten in the vernacular
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_179754_2012.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_179754_2012.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_179754_2012.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_179754_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_179754_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_179754_2012.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_179754_2012.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_179754_2012.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_179754_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_179754_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_179754_2012.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_179754_2012.html#fnt1


2/106

$herein she cate"oricall& stated that she inherited the land fro her father and she $as the true and

e%clusive o$ner of the land? that after ndrea died in (344, her son :ortunato Mondra"on too! over,

pa&in" ta%es thereon reli"iousl&? and $hen :ortunato died, his son ;ac! Daniel /herein respondent)

cae into possession and en@o&ent thereof.

On u"ust (8, *, ;ac! Daniel sold a (,40s9uare eter portion of the land to his co0respondentClarinda Re"is0Schit< /Re"is0Schit


3/106

Daniel possessed the capacit& to dispose a portion of the land. Since the& did not ob@ect to the trial

court#s pre0trial order, petitioners are bound to abide b& the sae. It concluded that the other issues

$hich $ere not related to ;ac! Daniel#s capacit& to dispose deserved no consideration, citin" the

pronounceent in Philippine Ports uthorit& v. Cit& of Iloilo(*that =the deterination of issues at a

pre0trial conference bars the consideration of other 9uestions on appeal.=

'he C further ruled that contrar& to petitioners# subission, Civil Case No. R0+*68 $as decided on

the erits, as the trial court s9uarel& addressed the issues and the evidence? that it havin" been

discovered throu"h petitioners# o$n adission in court that ;ac! Daniel $as a co0heir, and thus co0

o$ner, of the land, all 9uestions relative to his capacit& to conve& a portion thereof have therefore

been resolved in the affirative.

On the other hand, the C noted that $hile ;ac! Daniel is adittedl& a direct descendant of Rafael

b& his second $ife ndrea, petitioners do not appear to be her heirs and instead are descendants of

Rafael b& his first $ife Eleuteria A $hich thus puts their claied title to the land in doubt? and that

althou"h OC' No. **662 cites 'eofila, petitioners# sister, it includes her in the title erel& as the

purported =representative= of ndrea#s heirs and does not indicate her as an o$ner of the land.:inall&, the C observed that it $as ;ac! Daniel, and not the petitioners, $ho occupied the land.

Nevertheless, it affired the trial court#s Decision.

Issues

'he instant petition no$ raises the follo$in" issues for resolutionB

(. NON0COMP7INCE I'> R7E VIII, SEC. (6, CONS'I''ION ND R7E +- 'O

DEC7RE '>E DECISION N77 ND VOID.

*. MISPPRE>ENSION O: SICF 'O '>E 'RE RDEE O: OC' NO. **662'N'MON' 'O 7CG O: ;RISDIC'ION OVER '>E CSE.

+. :I7RE 'O CHIRE ;RISDIC'ION OVER '>E PERSON O: RESPONDEN'

C7RIND RE1IS SC>MI'.

6. :I7RE 'O DEC7RE '>E ORDER DENJIN1 '>E MO'ION :OR ;D1MEN' ON

'>E P7EDIN1S ND DECISION S N77 ND VOID :OR :I7IN1 'O ES'57IS> '>E

CONDI'IONS SINE H NON 'O SPPOR' '>E ORDER ND DECISION O: '>E 'RI7

COR' 'O DISMISS '>E CSE.

4. >E'>ER K K K ''J. P'ERNO . 1ON7E S D7J '>ORIED NO'RJP57IC? PRPOR'ED COPJ O: PPOIN'MEN' 5ERS NO COR' SE7, S COR'

EVIDENCE.(+

Petitioners# r"uents

In their Petition, the petitioners, spea!in" throu"h their counsel and co0petitioner Chun", persistentl&

ar"ue, as the& did in the C, that the trial court#s Decision violated the constitutional re9uireent that
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_179754_2012.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_179754_2012.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_179754_2012.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_179754_2012.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_179754_2012.html#fnt13


4/106

no decision shall be rendered $ithout e%pressin" therein clearl& and distinctl& the facts and the la$

on $hich it is based. 'he& clai that it is not true that ndrea is the o$ner of the land? that ;ac!

Daniel#s sale to Re"is0Schit< is null and void because she is dis9ualified fro o$nin" land in the

Philippines? that he had no ri"ht to sell the said portion, and the sale deprived the of their

supposed le"itie? that their adission ade in open court to the effect that ;ac! Daniel is an heir of

ndrea cannot supplant a declaration of heirship that a& be issued b& a proper testate or intestatecourt? that the clai that ndrea is the true and la$ful o$ner of the land is false? that $hen their

otion for @ud"ent on the pleadin"s $as denied, their @udicial adission that ;ac! Daniel $as

ndrea#s "randson and heir $as e%pun"ed? and that ;ac! Daniel#s deed of sale $ith Re"is0Schiteirs and

ad@udicated o$nership over 7ots (8 and (3 in favor of Dianita. 'he& too! possession of 7ots (8 and

(3 and leased the out to third parties.

Soetie later, the Manan9uil heirs discovered that in (332, Eulo"io and t$o others, Eulo"io5alta


8/106

(. Orderin" that a peranent in@unction be issued en@oinin" defendant Roberto Moico to

refrain fro threatenin" the tenants and destro&in" the iproveents standin" on the

sub@ect properties and fro filin" the e@ectent suits a"ainst the tenants?

*. Orderin" the E%tra@udicial Settleent of Estate $ith aiver of Ri"hts and Sale and the

Deed of bsolute Sale dated ;anuar& 3, (332 cancelled for havin" no force and effect?

+. Declarin" plaintiffs to be ri"htfull& entitled to the sub@ect properties and the E%tra@udicial

Settleent of >eirs of the plaintiffs to be valid and enforceable?

6. Orderin" defendants to pa& @ointl& and severall& the plaintiffs the follo$in", to $itB

a. P4,. as oral daa"es?

b. P4,. as e%eplar& daa"es?

c. P4,. for and as attornes fees? and

d. Costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.6

Rulin" of the Court of ppeals

Moico appealed to the C, $hich reversed the trial court. It held that the petitioners have failed to

sho$ that Iluinardo and Prescilla have A

% % % perfected their "ranta$ard fro the N> so as to secure a fir, perfect and confired titleover the sub@ect lots. It ust be stressed that the Conditional Contract to Sell that covers 7ot No. (8

stipulates several ters and conditions before a "rantee of the N> a& le"all& ac9uire perfect title

over the land, and there should be no ista!e that the sae stipulations hold true $ith respect to 7ot

No. (3. Inter alia, the ore vital contractual conditions, areB /a) pa&ent in installent of the price for

a specified period, /b) personal use of and benefit to the land b& the "rantee, and /c) e%plicit

prohibition fro sellin", assi"nin", encuberin", ort"a"in", leasin", or sub0leasin" the propert&

a$arded % % %.4

'he C noted that 7ots (8 and (3 ust still belon" to the N>, in the absence of proof that

Iluinardo and Prescilla have copleted installent pa&ents thereon, or $ere a$arded titles to the

lots. nd if the couple disposed of these lots even before title could be issued in their nae, thenthe& a& have been "uilt& of violatin" conditions of the "overnent "rant, thus dis9ualif&in" the

fro the N> pro"ra. Conse9uentl&, there is no ri"ht in respect to these properties that the

Manan9uils a& succeed to. If this is the case, then no suit for 9uietin" of title could prosper, for lac!

of le"al or e9uitable title to or interest in 7ots (8 and (3.

Issues
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_180076_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_180076_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_180076_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_180076_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_180076_2012.html#fnt5


9/106

'he present recourse thus raises the follo$in" issues for the Court#s resolutionB

I

'>E COR' O: PPE7S 1RVE7J ERRED IN PSSIN1 PON N ISSE NO' 5EIN1

SSI1NED S ERROR IN '>E PPE77N'S# 5RIE: O: PRIV'E RESPONDEN'S NDNO' 'OC>ED PON DRIN1 '>E 'RI7 IN '>E COR' HO PR'IC7R7J '>E

77E1ED VIO7'ION O: '>E SPOSES I7MINRDO ND PRESCI77 MNNHI7

O: '>E CONDI'ION7 CON'RC' 'O SE77 PRPOR'ED7J COVERIN1 '>E

PROPER'IES IN HES'ION, 'O SI' I'S R'ION7I'ION IN I'S HES'IONED

DECISION ;S'I:JIN1 '>E REVERS7 O: '>E DECISION O: '>E COR' HO.

II

'>E COR' O: PPE7S 7SO COMMI''ED 1RIEVOS ERROR IN CONS'RIN1

'>E PROVISIONS O: R'IC7ES 62- ND 622 O: '>E CIVI7 CODE 1INS'

PE'I'IONERS NO'I'>S'NDIN1 '>E POSI'IVE CIRCMS'NCES O5'ININ1 IN'>IS CSE POIN'IN1 'O '>E PROPRIE'J O: '>E CSE O: C'ION :OR HIE'IN1

O: 'I'7E.-

Petitioners# r"uents

Petitioners ar"ue that the C cannot touch upon atters not raised as issues in the trial court,

stressin" that the N> did not even intervene durin" the proceedin"s belo$ to ventilate issues

relatin" to the ri"hts of the parties to 7ots (8 and (3 under the 'ondo Da"at0Da"atan :oreshore

Developent Pro@ect. Petitioners clai that since the issue of violation of the ters of the "rant a&

be resolved in a separate foru bet$een the Manan9uils and the N>, it $as iproper for the C to

have pre0epted the issue.

On 9uietin" of title, petitioners advance the vie$ that since the& are the le"al heirs of Iluinardo

Manan9uil, then the& possess the re9uisite le"al or e9uitable title or interest in 7ots (8 and (3, $hich

thus perits the to pursue Civil Case No. *26(0MN? $hatever ri"hts Iluinardo had over the lots

$ere transitted to the fro the oent of his death, per rticle 222 of the Civil Code. nd aon"

these ri"hts are the ri"hts to continue $ith the aorti


10/106

relative to 7ots (8 and (3 due and o$in" to the N>, for $hich reason the N> released and

cleared the lots and thus paved the $a& for their proper transfer to hi.

Our Rulin"

'he petition lac!s erit.

n action for 9uietin" of title is essentiall& a coon la$ reed& "rounded on e9uit&.1wphi1'he

copetent court is tas!ed to deterine the respective ri"hts of the coplainant and other claiants,

not onl& to place thin"s in their proper place, to a!e the one $ho has no ri"hts to said iovable

respect and not disturb the other, but also for the benefit of both, so that he $ho has the ri"ht $ould

see ever& cloud of doubt over the propert& dissipated, and he could after$ards $ithout fear

introduce the iproveents he a& desire, to use, and even to abuse the propert& as he dees

best. 5ut =for an action to 9uiet title to prosper, t$o indispensable re9uisites ust concur, nael&B /()

the plaintiff or coplainant has a le"al or an e9uitable title to or interest in the real propert& sub@ect of

the action? and /*) the deed, clai, encubrance, or proceedin" claied to be castin" cloud on his

title ust be sho$n to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its pria facie appearance of validit&or le"al efficac&.=2

Contrar& to petitioners# stand, the issue relatin" to the "rant of ri"hts, title or a$ard b& the N>

deterines $hether the case for 9uietin" of title a& be aintained. If the petitioners are le"itiate

successors to or beneficiaries of Iluinardo upon his death A under the certificate of title, a$ard, or

"rant, or under the special la$ or specific ters of the N> pro"rapro@ect A then the& possess the

re9uisite interest to aintain suit? if not, then Civil Case No. *26(0MN ust necessaril& be

disissed.

:ro the evidence adduced belo$, it appears that the petitioners have failed to sho$ their

9ualifications or ri"ht to succeed Iluinardo in his ri"hts under the N> pro"rapro@ect. 'he& failedto present an& title, a$ard, "rant, docuent or certification fro the N> or proper "overnent

a"enc& $hich $ould sho$ that Iluinardo and Prescilla have becoe the re"istered

o$nersbeneficiaries a$ardees of 7ots (8 and (3, or that petitioners are 9ualified successors or

beneficiaries under the Da"at0Da"atan pro"rapro@ect, ta!in" over Iluinardo#s ri"hts after his

death. 'he& did not call to the $itness stand copetent $itnesses fro the N> $ho can attest to

their ri"hts as successors to or beneficiaries of 7ots (8 and (3. 'he& failed to present proof, at the

ver& least, of the specific la$, provisions, or ters that "overn the 'ondo Da"at0Da"atan :oreshore

Developent Pro@ect $hich $ould indicate a odicu of interest on their part. :or this reason, their

ri"hts or interest in the propert& could not be established.

It $as erroneous, ho$ever, for the C to assue that Iluinardo and Prescilla a& have violated theconditions of the N> "rant under the 'ondo Da"at0Da"atan :oreshore Developent Pro@ect b&

transferrin" their ri"hts prior to the issuance of a title or certificate a$ardin" 7ots (8 and (3 to the.

In the absence of proof, a rulin" to this effect is speculative. Instead, in resolvin" the case, the trial

court A and the C on appeal A should have re9uired proof that petitioners had, eitherB () a

certificate of title, a$ard, or "rant fro the proper a"enc& /N> or other$ise) in the nae of their

predecessor Iluinardo, or, in the absence thereof, *) a ri"ht to succeed to Iluinardo#s ri"hts to

7ots (8 and (3, not onl& as his heirs, but also as 9ualified le"itiate successorsbeneficiaries under
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_180076_2012.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_180076_2012.html#fnt7


11/106

the 'ondo Da"at0Da"atan :oreshore Developent Pro@ect ters and conditions as ta!en over b&

the N>.8Petitioners should have sho$n, to the satisfaction of the courts that under the N>

pro"ra pro@ect "overnin" the "rant of 7ots (8 and (3, the& are entitled and 9ualified to succeed or

substitute for Iluinardo in his ri"hts upon his death. s earlier stated, this ta!es the for of

evidence apart fro proof of heirship, of course A of the specific la$, re"ulation or ters coverin" the

pro"rapro@ect $hich allo$s for a substitution or succession of ri"hts in case of death? thecertificate of title, a$ard or "rant itself? or the testion& of copetent $itnesses fro the N>.

Proof of heirship alone does not suffice? the Manan9uils ust prove to the satisfaction of the courts

that the& have a ri"ht to succeed Iluinardo under the la$ or ters of the N> pro@ect, and are not

dis9ualified b& non0pa&ent, prohibition, lac! of 9ualifications, or other$ise.

>ERE:ORE, preises considered, the Petition is DENIED for lac! of erit. 'he March (+, *2

Decision of the Court of ppeals in C01.R. CV No. 8(**3 is ::IRMED.

SO ORDERED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_180076_2012.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_180076_2012.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_180076_2012.html#fnt8


12/106

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 199146, March 19, 2014

HEIRS OF PACIFICO POCDO, NAMELY, RIA POCDO GASIC, GOLIC POCDO, MARCELA POCDO

ALFELOR, !ENNEH POCDO, NI"ON CADOS, #AC$%ELINE CADOS LEE, EFLYN CADOS, AND GIRLIECADOS DAPLIN, HEREIN REPRESENED &Y HEIR AORNEY'IN'FAC #OHN

POCDO,Petitioners, v. ARSENIA AVILA AND EMELINDA CH%A, Respondents.

R E S O L % I O N

CARPIO, J.(

h) Ca*)

This petition for review1assails the 12 October 2011 Decision2of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. C !o."10#". The Court of Appeals affir$e% the 1& 'anuar( 200) Resolution of the Re*ional Trial Court of +a*uio

Cit(, +ranch 1, in Civil Case !o. &-10R, %is$issin* the co$plaint for lac of /uris%iction.

The acts

n 'une 2000, acifico oc%o, who was later substitute% b( his heirs upon his %eath, file% a co$plaint to3uiet title over a 1,-2)s3uare $eter propert( 4%ispute% propert(5 locate% in Ca$p -, +a*uio Cit(, an%covere% b( Ta6 Declaration "000)10&1. acifico clai$e% that the %ispute% propert( is part of 7ot ,

T8#", which ori*inall( belon*e% to acifico9s father, oc%o ool. The %ispute% propert( is alle*e%l( %ifferentfro$ the onehectare portion allote% to olon oc%o, the pre%ecessorininterest of the %efen%ants ArseniaAvila an% :$elin%a Chua, in a partition $a%e b( the heirs of oc%o ool. acifico alle*e% that the %efen%antsunlawfull( clai$e% the %ispute% propert(, which belon*e% to acifico.

The facts of the case were su$$ari;e% b( the Court of Appeals as follows< chanRoblesvirtual7awlibrar(

As it appears, in 1)"&, oc%o ool, who %ie% in 1"&2, be*an his occupation an% clai$ on three lots that wereeventuall( surve(e% in his na$e as 7ot , T8 #"8=O#, 7ot &&, T8 #"8=O#&20 an% 7ot &> T8

#"8=O#&2" with an area of 1&&,2# ?s3.$.@, &,112 ?s3.$.@, an% ",&2- s3uare $eters, respectivel(,an% situate% at Resi%ence 8ection &, +a*uio Cit(. These lots were the sub/ect of a petition to reopen /u%icial

procee%in*s file% b( the eirs of oc%o ool with the C of +a*uio Cit( in Civil Reservation Case !o. 1, 7RCCase 211. The re*istration of the lots in the na$es of the petitioners were ?sic@ *rante% in October 1"&,

but since the %ecision was not i$ple$ente% within the 10 (ears ?sic@ prescribe% perio%, the eirs file% theirancestral lan% clai$s with the D:!R. n Au*ust 1""1, Certificates of Ancestral 7an%s Clai$s 4CA785 wereissue% b( the D:!R for 7ots && an% &>, but 7ot was not approve% %ue to Be$oran%u$ Or%er ")1>issue% b( the D:!R 8ecretar( in 8epte$ber 1"").

n the $eanti$e, on 8epte$ber 1&, 1"0, olon oc%o, an heir of oc%o ool, ce%e% his ri*hts over thethree lots to acifico oc%o in e6chan*e for a one hectare lot to be taen fro$ 7ot . owever, acificoentere% into a contract with lorencio a6 an% +raulio aranon on !ove$ber 21, 1") revoin* the

a*ree$ent with olon. n the contract, the &,)-> s3uare $eters where olon9s house was locate% beca$epart of the 1hectare *iven to a6 an% aranon in e6chan*e for their services in the titlin* of acifico9s lan%s.

olon file% a co$plaint in Au*ust 1")0 ?with@ the Office of the +aran*a( Captain at Ca$p -, +a*uio Cit(,which was settle% b( an a$icable settle$ent %ate% 8epte$ber #, 1")0 between acifico an% olon. The(a*ree% that olon woul% a*ain retain the &,)-> s3uare $eters an% acifico woul% *ive the >,12> s3uare$eter area, the re$ainin* portion of the 1hectare share of olon, to be taen fro$ 7ot after ase*re*ation.

On April 1), 1")1, olon entere% into a Catula*an with Arsenia Avila authori;in* the latter to un%ertae the

se*re*ation of his onehectare lan% fro$ 7ot in accor% with the a$icable settle$ent of 8epte$ber #,1")0. n e6chan*e, olon woul% awar% to her 2,000 s3uare $eters fro$ the 1hectare lot. After spen%in*

ti$e, $one( an% effort in the e6ecution of the surve(, Avila *ave the surve( results to olon pro$ptin*olon to e6ecute a =aiver of Ri*hts %ate% 'anuar( 21, 1")-. Accor%in*l(, the sub%ivi%e% lots were %eclare%


13/106

for ta6 purposes an% the correspon%in* ta6 %eclaration issue% to olon an% Arsenia, with ),010 s3uare$eters *oin* to olon an% 1,""# s3uare $eters to Avila.

On Barch 10, 2000, fin%in* the a$icable settle$ent, the Catula*an an% =aiver of Ri*hts in or%er, the

C:!RO of +a*uio Cit( issue% in favor of Avila a Certificate of :6clusion of ""# s3uare $eters fro$ theAncestral 7an% Clai$ of the eirs of oc%o ool over 7ot .

On April 2-, 2000, however, the eirs of olon oc%o an% his wife onon file% an affi%avit of cancellation withOCC:!RO Teo%oro 8uain* an% on that basis, 8uain* cancelle% the Certificate of :6clusion. On Ba( ),2000, Avila co$plaine% to the Re*ional :6ecutive Director or R:D the unlawful cancellation of her Certificateof :6clusion, an% on 'une 1, 2000, the R:D issue% a $e$oran%u$ settin* asi%e the revocation an%restorin* the Certificate of :6clusion. On Au*ust 1#, 2001, Avila file% an a%$inistrative co$plaint a*ainst

8uain*, an% on 'ul( 1, 2002, the R:D %is$isse% the letterco$plaint of Avila an% referre% thea%$inistrative co$plaint to the D:!R Central Office.

Actin* on the $otion for reconsi%eration b( Avila ?a*ainst oppositors acifico oc%o, et al.@, the R:D in an

Or%er on October 2), 2002 set asi%e the 'ul( 1, 2002 or%er. The Affi%avit of Cancellation %ate% April 2-,2002 file% b( the heirs of olon oc%o was %is$isse% for lac of /uris%iction an% the vali%it( of the A$icable8ettle$ent, Catula*an an% Dee% of =aiver of Ri*hts were reco*ni;e%. The letter %ate% April 2), 2000 an%certification issue% on Ba( #1, 2000 b( 8uain* were or%ere% cancelle%. Accor%in*l(, the R:D hel% that the

T8A applications of Arsenia Avila an% others un%er T8A Application 1>#1#, 1>#1&, 1>&0" an% 1>&10 shoul%be *iven %ue course sub/ect to co$pliance with e6istin* laws an% re*ulations.

The D:!R 8ecretar( affir$e% his Or%er in ?his@ Decision of Ba( 1&, 200& in D:!R Case >>"", with the

$o%ification that the T8As fo?r@ the appellee Avila coul% now be $a%e the basis of %isposition throu*h publicbi%%in* an% the appellant $a( participate in the bi%%in* if 3ualifie%.

acifico oc%o, as the appellant, went on appeal to the Office of the resi%ent which resulte% in anaffir$ance of D:!R 8ecretar(9s %ecision on April 1", 200> in O Case 0.

As $entione%, havin* e6hauste% a%$inistrative re$e%ies, the eirs of acifico oc%o challen*e% the Oresolution before the Court of Appeals, but this petition was %is$isse% for havin* been file% late. The8upre$e Court %is$isse% the eirs9 appeal fro$ this %ecision.

The instant case, Civil Case &-10R, before the Re*ional Trial Court of +a*uio Cit(, +ranch 1 was file% b(acifico oc%o a*ainst Arsenia Avila an% :$elin%a Chua in 'une 2000, /ust after the R:D set asi%e 8uain*9srevocation on April 2), 2000 an% or%ere% the restoration of Avila9s Certificate of :6clusion. 8ince then, the

/u%icial procee%in*s have run parallel to the a%$inistrative case.#

n a Resolution&%ate% 1& 'anuar( 200), the Re*ional Trial Court %is$isse% the case for lac of /uris%iction.The trial court hel% that the D:!R ha% alrea%( %eclare% the %ispute% propert( as public lan%, which the8tate, throu*h the D:!R, has the sole power to %ispose. Thus, the clai$ of petitioners to 3uiet title is not

proper since the( %o not have title over the %ispute% propert(. The trial court a*ree% with the D:!R8ecretar(9s rulin* that petitioner $a( participate in the public bi%%in* of the %ispute% propert( if 3ualifie%

un%er applicable rules.

etitioners appeale% to the Court of Appeals, assertin* that the case is not li$ite% to 3uietin* of title sincethere are other issues not affecte% b( the D:!R rulin*, particularl( the vali%it( of the =aiver of Ri*hts an%

the Catula*an. etitioners $aintaine% that the D:!R9s rulin* that the %ispute% propert( is public lan% %i% notpreclu%e the court fro$ tain* co*ni;ance of the issues on who is entitle% possession to the %ispute%propert( an% whether the 3uestione% %ocu$ents are vali% an% enforceable a*ainst acifico an% his heirs.

h) R+-/ o h) Co+r o A)a*

The Court of Appeals rule% that petitioners, in raisin* the issue of 3uietin* of title, faile% to alle*e an( le*al

or e3uitable title to 3uiet. En%er Article &-- of the Civil Co%e, in an action to 3uiet title, the plaintiff $usthave le*al or e3uitable title to, or interest in the real propert( which is the sub/ect $atter of the action.nstea% of an action to 3uiet title or accion reivindicatoria,the Court of Appeals state% that petitionersshoul% have file% an accion publicianabase% $erel( on the recover( ofpossession de jure.

On the vali%it( of the Catula*an an% the =aiver of Ri*hts, the Court of Appeals hel% that petitioners have nori*ht to 3uestion these since the( were not parties to sai% %ocu$ents ha% not participate% in an( $anner in


14/106

their e6ecution. The Court of Appeals rule% that onl( the contractin* parties are boun% b( the stipulations ofthe sai% %ocu$ents. Those not parties to the sai% %ocu$ents, an% for whose benefit the( were not e6pressl(

$a%e, cannot $aintain an action base% on the sai% %ocu$ents.

Thus, the Court of Appeals affir$e% the trial court9s resolution, sub/ect to the ri*ht of petitioners to file theappropriate action.

h) I**+)*

etitioners raise the followin* issues< chanRoblesvirtual7awlibrar(

T: COERT O A:A78 :RR:D ! RE7!G TAT T: :TTO!:R8 8OE7D 'E8T 7: T: !:C:88ARACTO! OR R:CO:R O O88:88O! +:CAE8: 8AD COERT A8 A7:D TO TA: !TOCO!8D:RATO! TAT R:CO:R O O88:88O! 8 R:C8:7 O!: O T: CAE8:8 O ACTO! ! T:

R:8:!T CA8:.

T: COERT O A:A78 :RR:D ! RE7!G TAT T: RTC AD !O 'ER8DCTO! 8!C: T 8 T:COERT8, !OT T: D:!R, TAT A8 'ER8DCTO! O:R ACTO!8 !O7!G O88:88O! O 7A!D8,

::! A88EB!G =TOET ADBTT!G, TAT T: 7A!D 8 A E+7C 7A!D.

T: COERT O A:A78 :RR:D ! EO7D!G T: D8B88A7 O T: CA8: +:CAE8: T:R: AR: OT:RCAE8:8 O ACTO! O:R =C T: RTC A8 'ER8DCTO!, i.e. R:CO:R O O88:88O!,

D:C7ARATO! O !E77T O DOCEB:!T8.

T: COERT O A:A78 :RR:D ! !D!G TAT T: :TTO!:R8 A: !O TT7: TO T: RO:RTTAT =OE7D 8EORT A! ACTO! OR FE:T!G O TT7: =:! TRA7 AD !OT :T COBB:!C:D.

!O!:T:7:88, T: R:CORD 8 R:7:T: O ROO TAT T: :TTO!:R8 A: RGT8TT7: O:RT: 8E+':CT RO:RT.>

The Rulin* of the Court

=e fin% the petition without $erit.

n the a%$inistrative case involvin* the %ispute% propert(, which for$s part of 7ot , the D:!R rule% that

7ot is public lan% locate% within the +a*uio Townsite Reservation. n his Decision %ate% 1& Ba( 200& inD:!R Case !o. >>"", the D:!R 8ecretar( state%< chanRoblesvirtual7awlibrar(

7ot is public lan% an% part of the +a*uio Townsite Reservation. This has alrea%( been settle% b( the%ecision of the Court of irst nstance of +en*uet an% Bountain rovince %ate% 1# !ove$ber 1"22 in Civil

Reservation Case !o. 1. The fact that the heirs of oc%o ool were able to reopen Civil Reservation Case !o.1, 7RC Case !o. 211 an% secure a %ecision in their favor for re*istration of 7ot is of no $o$ent. As hel%in Republic v. Pio R. Marcos4>2 8CRA 2#)5, the Court of irst nstance of +a*uio an% +en*uet ha% no/uris%iction to or%er the re*istration of lan%s alrea%( %eclare% public in Civil Reservation Case !o. 1. 7ot

bein* part of the +a*uio Townsite Reservation, %isposition thereof is un%er Townsite 8ales Application4HT8AI5. recisel( on this bone ?sic@ that 7ot was not awar%e% a Certificate of 7an% Ancestral Clai$ ?sic@un%er D:!R Circular !o. 0#, series of 1""0, because it is within the +a*uio Townsite Reservation.

The D:!R Decision was affir$e% b( the Office of the resi%ent which hel% that lan%s within the +a*uioTownsite Reservation belon* to the public %o$ain an% are no lon*er re*istrable un%er the 7an% Re*istrationAct.-The Office of the resi%ent or%ere% the %isposition of the %ispute% propert( in accor%ance with theapplicable rules of proce%ure for the %isposition of alienable public lan%s within the +a*uio Townsite

Reservation, particularl( Chapter J of Co$$onwealth Act !o. 1&1 on Townsite Reservations an% otherapplicable rules.

avin* establishe% that the %ispute% propert( is public lan%, the trial court was therefore correct in

%is$issin* the co$plaint to 3uiet title for lac of /uris%iction. The trial court ha% no /uris%iction to %eter$inewho a$on* the parties have better ri*ht over the %ispute% propert( which is a%$itte%l( still part of the

public %o$ain. As hel% in Dajunos v. Tandayag


15/106

as relie% upon b( /urispru%ence, lo%*es Hthe power of e6ecutive control, a%$inistration, %isposition an%alienation of public lan%s with the Director of 7an%s sub/ect, of course, to the control of the 8ecretar( of

A*riculture an% !atural Resources.I

n su$, the %ecision ren%ere% in civil case 121) on October 2), 1") is a patent nullit(. The court below %i%not have power to %eter$ine who 4the ir$alos or the Tarucs5 were entitle% to an awar% of free patent titleover that piece of propert( that (et belon*e% to the public %o$ain. !either %i% it have power to a%/u%*e the

Tarucs as entitle% to the Htrue e3uitable ownershipI thereof, the latter9s effect bein* the sa$e< the e6clusionof the ir$alos in favor of the Tarucs."

n an action for 3uietin* of title, the co$plainant is seein* for Han a%/u%ication that a clai$ of title orinterest in propert( a%verse to the clai$ant is invali%, to free hi$ fro$ the %an*er of hostile clai$, an% to

re$ove a clou% upon or 3uiet title to lan% where stale or unenforceable clai$s or %e$an%s e6ist.I10En%erArticles &-11an% &--12of the Civil Co%e, the two in%ispensable re3uisites in an action to 3uiet title are< 415that the plaintiff has a le*al or e3uitable title to or interest in the real propert( sub/ect of the actionK an% 425that there is a clou% on his title b( reason of an( instru$ent, recor%, %ee%, clai$, encu$brance or

procee%in*, which $ust be shown to be in fact invali% or inoperative %espite itsprima facieappearance ofvali%it(.1#

n this case, petitioners, clai$in* to be owners of the %ispute% propert(, alle*e that respon%ents are

unlawfull( clai$in* the %ispute% propert( b( usin* voi% %ocu$ents, na$el( the HCatula*anI an% the Dee% of=aiver of Ri*hts. owever, the recor%s reveal that petitioners %o not have le*al or e3uitable title over the

%ispute% propert(, which for$s part of 7ot , a public lan% within the +a*uio Townsite Reservation. t isclear fro$ the facts of the case that petitioners9 pre%ecessorsininterest, the heirs of oc%o ool, were not

even *rante% a Certificate of Ancestral 7an% Clai$ over 7ot , which re$ains public lan%. Thus, the trialcourt ha% no other recourse but to %is$iss the case.

There is no $ore nee% to %iscuss the other issues raise% since these are intrinsicall( line% to petitioners9action to 3uiet title.

3HEREFORE, we DENYthe petition. =e AFFIRMthe 12 October 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals inCAG.R. C !o. "10#".

SO ORDERED.


16/106

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN 5NC

G.R. No. $#4858 November 1, 1912

RICAR(O PAR(E$$ " CRU! %&'ICENTA ORTI! " ;E$IN (E PAR(E$$,plaintiffs0appellees,vs.GASPAR (E ARTO$OME " ESCRIANO %&'MATI$(E ORTI! " ;E$IN (E ARTO$OME,defendants0appellants.

Gaspar de Bartolome, in his own behalf.B. Gimenez Zoboli, for appellees.

TORRES, J.:

'his is an appeal b& bill of e%ceptions, fro the @ud"ent of October 4, (32, $hereb& the>onorable Dionisio Chanco, @ud"e, absolved the defendants fro the coplaint, and the plaintifffro a counterclai, $ithout special findin" as to costs.

Counsel for the spouses Ricardo & Cru< and Vicente Orti< & :elin de Pardell, the first of $ho,absent in Spain b& reason of his eplo&ent, conferred upon the second sufficient and aplepo$ers to appear before the courts of @ustice, on ;une 8, (34, in his $ritten coplaint, alle"ed thatthe plaintiff, Vicente Orti


17/106

-. 'hree parcels of land in the pueblo of Candon? valued at (4.

'otal 2,83-.

'hat, on or about the first onths of the &ear (888, the defendants, $ithout @udicial authori


18/106

conse9uentl&, a balance of P*,438.(2, $hich divided bet$een the sisters, the plaintiff and thedefendant, $ould a!e the latters share P(,*33.8? that, as sho$n b& the papers !ept b& theplaintiffs, in the &ear (83( the defendant 5artoloe presented to the plaintiffs a stateent insettleents of accounts, and delivered to the person dul& authori


19/106

fter this partition had been ade counsel for the defendants, b& a $ritin" of March 8, (3-, setforthB 'hat, havin" petitioned for the appraiseent of the properties in 9uestion for the purpose oftheir partition, it $as not to be understood that he desired fro the e%ception dul& entered to therulin" ade in the atter of the aendent to the coplaint? that the properties retained b& thedefendants $ere valued at P3,+(, and those retained b& the plaintiffs, at P*,884, one0half of $hichaounts each part& had to deliver to the other, as the& $erepro indivisoproperties? that, therefore,

the defendants had to pa& the plaintiffs the su of P+,*(*.4, after deductin" the aount $hich theplaintiffs $ere obli"ed to deliver to the defendants, as one0half of the price of the properties retainedb& the forer? that, not$ithstandin" that the aount of the counterclai for the e%penses incurred inthe reconstruction of the pro indiviso propert& should be deducted fro the su $hich thedefendants had to pa& the plaintiffs, the forer, for the purpose of brin"in" the atter of the partitionto a close, $ould deliver to the latter, iediatel& upon the si"nin" of the instruent of purchaseand sale, the su of P+,*(*.4, $hich $as one0half of the value of the properties alloted to thedefendants? such deliver&, ho$ever, $as not to be understood as a renounceent of the saidcounterclai, but onl& as a eans for the final terination of thepro indiviso status of the propert&.

'he case havin" been heard, the court on October 4, (32, rendered @ud"ent holdin" that therevenues and the e%penses $ere copensated b& the residence en@o&ed b& the defendant part&,that no losses or daa"es $ere either caused or suffered, nor li!e$ise an& other e%pense besidesthose aforeentioned, and absolved the defendants fro the coplaint and the plaintiffs fro thecounterclai, $ith no special findin" as to costs. n e%ception $as ta!en to this @ud"ent b& counselfor the defendants $ho oved for a ne$ trial on the "rounds that the evidence presented did not$arrant the @ud"ent rendered and that the latter $as contrar& to la$. 'his otion $as denied,e%ception $hereto $as ta!en b& said counsel, $ho filed the proper bill of e%ceptions, and the sae$as approved and for$arded to the cler! of this court, $ith a transcript of the evidence.

5oth of the liti"atin" sisters assented to a partition b& halves of the propert& left in her $ill b& theirother at her death? in fact, durin" the course of this suit, proceedin"s $ere had, in accordance $iththe a"reeent ade, for the division bet$een the of the said hereditar& propert& of coono$nership, $hich division $as reco"ni


20/106

plaintiffs, concernin" the indenit& for losses and daa"es, $herein are coprised the rents $hichshould have been obtained fro the upper stor& of the said house durin" the tie it $as occupied b&the defendants, Matilde Orti< and her husband, 1aspar de 5artoloe.

Not$ithstandin" the ac9uiescence on the part of the plaintiffs, assentin" to the said findin" $hereb&the defendants $ere absolved fro the coplaint, &et, as such absolution is based on the

copensation established in the @ud"ent of the trial court, bet$een the aounts $hich each part&is entitled to clai fro the other, it is iperative to deterine $hether the defendant Matilde Orti


21/106

the @ustice of the peace, a position $hich he held in the capital of that province, strict @ustice, re9uiresthat he pa& his sister0in0la$, the plaintiff, one half of the onthl& rent $hich the said 9uarters couldhave produced, had the& been leased to another person. 'he aount of such onthl& rental is fi%edat P(- in accordance $ith the evidence sho$n in the record. 'his conclusion as to 5artoloesliabilit& results fro the fact that, even as the husband of the defendant coo$ner of the propert&, hehad no ri"ht to occup& and use "ratuitousl& the said part of the lo$er floor of the house in 9uestion,

$here he lived $ith his $ife, to the detrient of the plaintiff Vicenta $ho did not receive one0half ofthe rent $hich those 9uarters could and should have produced, had the& been occupied b& astran"er, in the sae anner that rent $as obtained fro the roos on the lo$er floor that $ereused as stores. 'herefore, the defendant 5artoloe ust pa& to the plaintiff Vicenta P+86, that is,one0half of P2-8, the total aount of the rents $hich should have been obtained durin" four &earsfro the 9uarters occupied as an office b& the @ustice of the peace of Vi"an.

ith respect to the second 9uestion subitted for decision to this court, relative to the pa&ent ofthe su deanded as a counterclai, it $as aditted and proved in the present case that, as aresult of a serious earth9ua!e on u"ust (4, (832, the said house on Calle Escolta $as left in ruinsand uninhabitable, and that, for its reconstruction or repair, the defendants had to e%pend the su ofP-,*4*.+*. 'his e%penditure, not$ithstandin" that it $as ipu"ned, durin" the trial, b& the plaintiffs,$as dul& proved b& the evidence presented b& the defendants. Evidence, unsuccessfull& rebutted,$as also introduced $hich proved that the rents produced b& all the rural and urban properties ofcoon o$nership aounted, up to u"ust (, (34, to the su of P+,-46.(4 $hich, bein" appliedto$ard the cost of the repair $or! on the said house, leaves a balance of P*,438.(2, the aountactuall& advanced b& the defendants, for the rents collected b& the $ere not sufficient for theterination of all the $or! underta!en on the said buildin", necessar& for its coplete repair and toreplace it in a habitable condition. It is therefore la$ful and @ust that the plaintiff Vicenta Orti


22/106

ana"er, he adinistered the saidpro indiviso propert&, one0half of $hich belon"ed to his $ife $hoheld it in @oint tenanc&, $ith his sister0in0la$, and the la$ does not allo$ hi an& copensation assuch voluntar& adinistrator. >e is erel& entitled to a reiburseent for such actual and necessar&e%penditures as he a& have ade on the undivided properties and an indenit& for the daa"eshe a& have suffered $hile actin" in that capacit&, since at all events it $as his dut& to care for andpreserve the said propert&, half of $hich belon"ed to his $ife? and in e%chan"e for the trouble

occasioned hi b& the adinistration of his sister0in0la$s half of the said propert&, he $ith his $iferesided in the upper stor& of the house aforeentioned, $ithout pa&ent of one0half of the rents said9uarters i"ht have produced had the& been leased to another person.

ith respect to the division of certain @e$elr&, petitioned for b& the defendants and appellants onl& intheir brief in this appeal, the record of the proceedin"s in the lo$er court does not sho$ that thealle"ation ade b& the plaintiff Vicenta is not true, to the effect that the deceased other of theliti"ant sisters disposed of this @e$elr& durin" her lifetie, because, had she not done so, the $illade b& the said deceased $ould have been e%hibited in $hich the said @e$elr& $ould have beenentioned, at least it $ould have been proved that the articles in 9uestion cae into the possessionof the plaintiff Vicenta $ithout the e%pressed desire and the consent of the deceased other of thesaid sisters, for the "ift of this @e$elr& $as previousl& assailed in the courts, $ithout success?therefore, and in vie$ of its inconsiderable value, there is no reason for holdin" that the said "ift $asnot ade.

s re"ards the collection of the su of P3(.4, $hich is the difference bet$een the assessed valueof the undivided real properties and the price of the sae as deterined b& the @udicial e%pertappraiser, it is sho$n b& the record that the rulin" of the trial @ud"e adittin" the aendent to theori"inal coplaint, is in accord $ith the la$ and principles of @ustice, for the reason that an& of thecoo$ners of apro indiviso propert&, sub@ect to division or sale, is entitled to petition for its valuationb& copetent e%pert appraisers. Such valuation is not pre@udicial to an& of the @oint o$ners, but isbeneficial to their interests, considerin" that, as a "eneral rule, the assessed value of a buildin" or aparcel of realt& is less than the actual real value of the propert&, and this bein" appraiser todeterine, in con@unction $ith the one selected b& the plaintiffs, the value of the properties of @ointo$nership. 'hese t$o e%perts too! part in the latter proceedin"s of the suit until finall&, and durin"

the course of the latter, the liti"atin" parties a"reed to an aicable division of theproindiviso hereditar& propert&, in accordance $ith the price fi%ed b& the @udicial e%pert appraiserappointed as a third part&, in vie$ of the disa"reeent bet$een and nonconforit& of the appraiserschosen b& the liti"ants. 'herefore it is iproper no$ to clai a ri"ht to the collection of the said su,the difference bet$een the assessed value and that fi%ed b& the @udicial e%pert appraiser, for thereason that the increase in price, as deterined b& this latter appraisal, redounded to the benefit ofboth parties.

In consideration of the fore"oin", $hereb& the errors assi"ned to the lo$er court have been dul&refuted, it is our opinion that, $ith a partial reversal of the @ud"ent appealed fro, in so far as itabsolves the plaintiffs fro the counterclai presented b& the defendants, $e should and hereb& dosentence the plaintiffs to the pa&ent of the su of P3(4.8, the balance of the su claied b& thedefendants as a balance of the one0half of the aount $hich the defendants advanced for thereconstruction or repair of the Calle Escolta house, after deductin" fro the total of such suclaied b& the latter the aount of P+86 $hich 1aspar de 5artoloe, the husband of the defendantMatilde, should have paid as one0half of the rents due for his occupation of the 9uarters on the lo$erfloor of the said house as an office for the @ustice of the peace court of Vi"an? and $e further findB /()'hat the defendants are not obli"ed to pa& one0half of the rents $hich could have been obtainedfro the upper stor& of the said house? /*) that the plaintiffs can not be copelled to pa& the le"alinterest fro Deceber 2, (36, on the su e%panded in the reconstruction of the aforeentionedhouse, but onl& the interest fi%ed b& la$, at the rate of - per cent per annu, fro the date of the

@ud"ent to be rendered in accordance $ith this decision? /+) that the husband of the defendant


23/106

Matilde Orti< is not entitled to an& reuneration for the adinistration of thepro indiviso propert&belon"in" to both parties? /6) that, neither is he entitled to collect fro the plaintiffs the su ofP3(.4, the difference bet$een the assessed valuation and the price set b& the e%pert appraisalsolicited b& the plaintiffs in their aendent to the coplaint? and, /4) that no participation shall beade of @e$elr& aforeentioned no$ in the possession of the plaintiff Vicenta Orti


24/106


SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 10952 J%&%r 28, 1995

NI$O A. MERCA(O, petitioner,

vs.

TE COURT O; APPEA$S AN( AUREA A. MERCA(O, respondents.

PUNO, J.:

'his is a petition for certiorarito revie$ the Decision of the respondent Court of ppeals dated

u"ust +, (33( declarin" private respondent a co0o$ner of the lot covered b& 'C' No. (*+4- of

the Re"ister of Deeds of Hue


25/106

In (32*, her brother $ent to the nited States and visited her in her house at ;erse&

Cit&. On this occasion, she as!ed her brother about the purchase of the propert&. >er

brother responded tellin" her not to $orr& for he $ould "ive her a paper $ith respect

to that propert&. In (328, her brother Nilo sent throu"h their other an affidavit /E%h.

) $herein Nilo aditted the e%istence of co0o$nership over the propert&.

'hrou"h letters, she counicated $ith her brother Nilo re"ardin" the sub@ect

propert&. In one of those letters /E%h. 5), she told her brother to pa& her for the lot. In

t$o other letters /E%h. C D), the sae propert& $as the sub@ect atter. She did not

receive an& repl& so she started callin" hi throu"h the telephone, insistin" on the

partition of the propert& because she coitted the land as pa&ent to the

contractor, Mr. Escora, $ho constructed her school buildin" in Davao Cit&.

Nilo . Medina /sic), defendant herein, is 42 &ears old, a "raduate of la$ P class

(342 and a businessan b& occupation. >e testified that the plaintiff is his sister.

In (3-2, he decided to bu& a house and lot $orth P34,. located at (8( Estebanbada Street, Huee

applied for a housin" loan $ith the Social Securit& S&ste /S&ste for short) and

upon its approval b& the S&ste, a Deed of bsolute Sale $as e%ecuted bet$een

hi and the spouse Var"as /E%hs. (, *, +, 6 -).

>e paid the aortio$ever, due to financial reverses,

the propert& $as foreclosed b& the S&ste /E%h. 3). :ortunatel&, he $as able toredee the propert& fro the S&ste in (38 out of the insurance proceeds of his

burned propert& in Davao. certificate of redeption /E%h. () $as issued to hi

and he caused the cancellation of the ort"a"e $ith the S&ste.

s proof of his o$nership, he has the ta% declaration /E%h. 8), 'ransfer Certificate of

'itle No. (*+4- in his nae /E%h. 2) and real propert& ta% bill receipts evidencin"

pa&ent of real estate ta%es on the propert& /E%hs. (+, (+0a).

'he petition for certiorari $as initiall& denied b& this Court2in its Resolution on Ma& (2, (33+ for non0

copliance $ith our Revised Circular

(088, for raisin" factual issues and for lac! of reversible error coitted b& the respondent Court ofppeals.e ar"ued, aon" others, that even assuin" the correctness of the factual

findin"s of the respondent Court of ppeals, still, there could not be an& co0o$nership of the sub@ect


26/106

propert&. 'he Court re9uired private respondent to coent and, in its Resolution of u"ust **,

(336, "ranted the Motion =in the interest of @ustice and considerin" the crucial iportance of the

issue of e%tin"uishent of co0o$nership= and "ave due course to the petition. 4E%tensive

eoranda $ere then filed b& the petition.

e find no erit in the petition.

e sustain the findin" of the respondent court that the sub@ect propert& is co0o$ned b& petitioner

and private respondent. 'his findin" is based on the adission ade b& petitioner hiself in his

ffidavit /E%h. ==) dated March *, (32+, $hich statesB

A $ $ % & A ' % #

'hat I, NI7O . MERCDO, of le"al a"e, arried, :ilipino and a resident of Davao

Cit&, Philippines, after havin" been dul& s$orn to in accordance $ith la$, depose and

sa& the follo$in"B

'hat I a the co(ownerof a residential land, includin" all the

iproveents e%istin" thereon, located at 8( E. bada, 7o&ola

>ei"hts, Hue


27/106

rt. 63+. Each co0o$ner shall have the full o$nership of his part and of the fruits and

benefits pertainin" thereto, and he a& therefore alienate, assi"n or ort"a"e it and

even substitute another person in its en@o&ent, e%cept $hen personal ri"hts are

involved. But the effect of the alienation or mort*a*e, with respect to the co(owners,

shall be limited to the portion which ma) be allotted to him in the division upon the

termination of the co(ownership. /ephasis ours)

Pursuant to this la$, a co0o$ner has the ri"ht to alienate hispro(indivisoshare in the co0o$ned

propert& even $ithout the consent of the other co0o$ners. Nevertheless, as a ere part o$ner, he

cannot alienate the shares of the other co0o$ners. 'he prohibition is preised on the eleentar&

rule that =no one can "ive $hat he does not have= /Neo dat "uod non habet). 'hus, $e held

in Bailon(asilao vs.ourt of Appeals,5vizB

. . . since a co0o$ner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire

propert& b& one0co0o$ner $ithout the consent of the other co0o$ners is notnull and

void. >o$ever, onl& the ri"hts of the co0o$ner0seller are transferred, thereb& a!in"

the bu&er a co0o$ner of the propert&.

'he proper action in cases li!e this is not for the nullification of the sale or for the

recover& of possession of the thin" o$ned in coon fro the third person $ho

substituted the co0o$ner or co0o$ners $ho alienated their shares, but the DIVISION

of the coon propert& of the co0o$ners $ho possessed and adinistered it.

In the case at bench, it is established that petitioner, for his o$n benefit, borro$ed one& fro the

SSS and ort"a"ed the sub@ect propert& to the SSS on ;une 4, (3-2 $ithout the !no$led"e and

consent of his co0o$ner, herein private respondent. Necessaril&, private respondent could not have

helped in the pa&ent of the SSS loan nor could she have redeeed the sub@ect propert& fro the

SSS. nder these circustances, it $ill not accord $ith the letter and intent of rticle 63+ of the CivilCode to rule private respondent lost her part o$nership of the sub@ect propert& finds no $arrant both

in la$ and in e9uit&. It $ill be the hei"ht of absurdit& to re$ard petitioner for his ille"al act of

appropriatin" the share of private respondent in the sub@ect propert&.

Prescindin" fro these preises, petitioners reliance in the case of #an vs. ourt of Appeals8is

isplaced.

In #an, the disputed propert& $as ort"a"ed b& spouses 'an 'ion" 'ic! and 'an On" >un to China

5an!. 'an 'ion" 'ic! died. >e $as survived b& his $ido$ and si% children, includin" D. nnie 'an.

Mean$hile, China 5an! foreclosed the ort"a"e. It $as the hi"hest bidder at the public auction.

'hereafter, the heirs of 'an 'ion" 'ic! sou"ht to nullif& the real estate ort"a"e and the foreclosuresale before the defunct C:I of Manila. 'he $ido$, 'an On" >un, died.

'he one0&ear redeption period lapsed on ;ul& -, (32+, but the heirs of the spouses 'an failed to

redee the propert&. China 5an! then consolidated its o$nership over the disputed propert& and a

ne$ title $as issued in its nae. In the eantie, a coproise a"reeent $as for"ed bet$een

China 5an! and the 'an heirs. 'he 5an! allo$ed the heirs to repurchase the propert& on or before

u"ust +(, (326, other$ise, it $ould dispose of the propert& to another part&. ithin the a"reed


28/106

period, or on u"ust +, (326, onl& petitioner D. nnie 'an repurchased the entire propert& usin" her

o$n funds. 'he ban!, ho$ever, insisted that the repurchase be ade for or in behalf of the other

heirs as $ell. 7eft $ithout an& choice, D. nnie 'an filed an action in court, assertin" her e%clusive

o$nership over the propert& on the "round that the co0o$nership bet$een her and her brothers and

sisters had alread& been e%tin"uished. e sustained her contention and ruledB

'he first 9uestion $hich arises is the correctness of the assuption that there $as a

co0o$nership aon" the children of 'an 'ion" 'ic! and 'an On" >un $hen the

petitioner purchased and propert&.

Since the lot and its iproveents $ere ort"a"ed b& the deceased parents, there

can be no 9uestion that a co0o$nership e%isted aount the heirs durin" the period

"iven b& la$ to redee the foreclosed propert&. Redeption b& one durin" this

period $ould have inured to the benefit of all . . . .

'he records sho$, ho$ever, that $hen petitioner purchased the disputed propert& on

u"ust +, (326, an& co0o$nership aon" the brothers and sisters no lon"ere%isted. 'he period to redee had e%pired ore than one &ear earlier, on ;ul& -,

(32+. 'he respondent China 5an! consolidated its o$nership and a ne$ title $as

issued in the ban!s nae. hen the heirs allo$ed the one &ear period to e%pire

$ithout redeein" their parents forer propert& and peritted the consolidation of

o$nership and the issuance of a ne$ title, the co0o$nership $as e%tin"uished. 'he

challen"ed rulin" of the respondent court is, therefore, based on erroneous

preises.

nder Section -+05 of Presidential Decree No. (4*3, the Propert& Re"istration

Decree, in case of non0redeption, the purchaser at the foreclosure sale, eanin"

the respondent 5an! in case of non0redeption, the purchaser at the foreclosuresale, eanin" the respondent 5an! in this case, is entitled to a ne$ certificate of title

in his nae after filin" the necessar& papers $ith the Re"ister of Deeds. /Spouses

'eofisto and Eulalia Verceles v. Court of :irst Instance of Ri


29/106

IN VIE >EREO:, the Decision of the respondent Court of ppeals dated u"ust +, (33( and its

Resolution dated ;anuar& *3, (33+, are affired. Costs a"ainst petitioner.

SO ORDERED.


30/106


SUPREME COURT

Manila

'>IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 717 A:r3 15, 19

(E$IA AI$ON#CASI$AO, $U! PAU$INO#ANG, EMMA PAU$INO#"ANE!, NI$(A PAU$INO#

TO$ENTINO, %&' SAINA AI$ON, petitioners,

vs.

TE ONORA$E COURT O; APPEA$S %&' CE$ESTINO A;A$E, respondents.

'eronico +. ubio for petitioners.

"ario G. $ortes for private(respondent.

CORTES, J.:

'he fate of petitioners clai over a parcel of land rests ultiatel& on a deterination of $hether or

not said petitioners are char"eable $ith such laches as a& effectivel& bar their present action.

'he petitioners herein filed a case for recover& of propert& and daa"es $ith notice oflis

pendenson March (+, (38( a"ainst the defendant and herein private respondent, Celestino fable.

'he parcel of land involved in this case, $ith an area of 68,863 s9uare eters, is covered b& Ori"inal

Certificate of 'itle No. (22( issued on ;une (*, (3+(, in the naes of Rosalia, 1audencio, Sabina5ernabe, Nenita and Delia, all surnaed 5ailon, as co0o$ners, each $ith a (- share. 1audencio

and Nenita are no$ dead, the latter bein" represented in this case b& her children. 7u


31/106

In his ans$er to the coplaint filed b& the herein petitioners, fable claied that he had ac9uired the

land in 9uestion throu"h prescription and contended that the petitioners $ere "uilt& of laches.>e

later filed a third0part& coplaint a"ainst Rosalia 5ailon for daa"es alle"edl& suffered as a result of

the sale to hi of the land.

fter trial, the lo$er court rendered a decisionB

(. :indin" and declarin" Celestino fable, a co0o$ner of the land described in

para"raph III of the coplaint havin" validl& bou"ht the t$o0si%th /*-) respective

undivided shares of Rosalia 5ailon and 1audencio 5ailon?

*. :indin" and declarin" the follo$in" as pro0indiviso co0o$ners, havin" (- share

each, of the propert& described in para"raph III of the coplaint, to $itB

a. Sabina 5ailon

b. 5ernabe 5ailon

c. >eirs of Nenita 5ailon0Paulino

d. Delia 5ailon0Casilao?

+. Orderin" the se"re"ation of the undivided interests in the propert& in order to

terinate co0o$nership to be conducted b& an& 1eodetic En"ineer selected b& the

parties to delineate the specific part of each of the co0o$ners.

6. Orderin" the defendant to restore the possession of the plaintiffs respective shares

as $ell as all attributes of absolute doinion?

4. Orderin" the defendant to pa& the follo$in"B

a. P4,. as daa"es?

b. P*,. as attorne&s fees and?

c. to pa& the costs.

Decision of the 'rial Court, Rollo, p. +20+8F.

On appeal, the respondent Court of ppeals affired the decision of the lo$er court insofar as it held

that prescription does not he a"ainst plaintiffs0appellees because the& are co0o$ners of the ori"inal

vendors. >o$ever, the appellate court declared that, althou"h re"istered propert& cannot be lost b&

prescription, nevertheless, an action to recover it a& be barred b& laches, citin" the rulin" in "e-ia

de Lucaz v. Gamponia( Phil. *22 /(34-)F. ccordin"l&, it held the petitioners "uilt& of laches and

disissed their coplaint. >ence, this petition for revie$ on certiorari of the decision of the Court of

ppeals.


32/106

'he principal issue to be resolved in this case concerns the applicabilit& of the e9uitable doctrine of

laches. Initiall& thou"h, a deterination of the effect of a sale b& one or ore co0o$ners of the entire

propert& held in coon $ithout the consent of all the co0o$ners and of the appropriate reed& of

the a""rieved co0o$ners is re9uired.

'he ri"hts of a co0o$ner of a certain propert& are clearl& specified in rticle 63+ of the CivilCode.'husB

rt. 63+. Each co0o$ner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the acts and

benefits pertainin" thereto, and he a& therefore alienate assi*n or mort*a*e it and

even substitute another person in its en@o&ent, e%cept $hen personal ri"hts are

involved. But the effect of the alienation or mort*a*e, with respect to the co(owners,

shall be limited to the portion which ma) be allotted to him in the division upon the

termination of the co(ownership. Ephasis supplied.F

s earl& as (3*+, this Court has ruled that even if a co0o$ner sells the $hole propert& as his, the

sale $ill affect onl& his o$n share but not those of the other co0o$ners $ho did not consent to thesale Punsalan v. 5oon 7iat 66 Phil. +* /(3*+)F. 'his is because under the aforeentioned codal

provision, the sale or other disposition affects onl& his undivided share and the transferee "ets onl&

$hat $ould correspond to his "rantor in the partition of the thin" o$ned in coon.Raire< v.

5autista, (6 Phil. 4*8 /(33)F. Conse9uentl&, b& virtue of the sales ade b& Rosalia and 1audencio

5ailon $hich are valid $ith respect to their proportionate shares, and the subse9uent transfers $hich

culinated in the sale to private respondent Celestino fable, the said fable thereb& becae a co0

o$ner of the disputed parcel of land as correctl& held b& the lo$er court since the sales produced

the effect of substitutin" the bu&ers in the en@o&ent thereof Mainit v. 5ando&, (6 Phil. 2+ /(3()F.

:ro the fore"oin", it a& be deduced that since a co0o$ner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a

sale of the entire propert& b& one co0o$ner $ithout the consent of the other co0o$ners is not nulland void. >o$ever, onl& the ri"hts of the co0o$ner0seller are transferred, thereb& a!in" the bu&er a

co0o$ner of the propert&.

#he proper action in cases lie this is not for the nullification of the sale or for the recover) of

possession of the thin* owned in common from the third person who substituted the co(owner or co(

owners who alienated their shares, but the &%'%/%0 of the common propert) as if it continued to

remain in the possession of the co(owners who possessed and administered itMainit v.

5ando&, supra.F

'hus, it is no$ settled that the appropriate recourse of co0o$ners in cases $here their consent $ere

not secured in a sale of the entire propert& as $ell as in a sale erel& of the undivided shares ofsoe of the co0o$ners is an action. for PR'I'ION under Rule -3 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Neither recover& of possession nor restitution can be "ranted since the defendant bu&ers are

le"itiate proprietors and possessors in @oint o$nership of the coon propert& claied Raire< v.

5autista, supraF.

s to the action for petition, neither prescription nor laches can be invo!ed.


33/106

In the li"ht of the attendant circustances, defendant0appellees defense of prescription is a vain

proposition. Pursuant to rticle 636 of the Civil Code, /n)o co0o$ner shall be obli"ed to reain in the

co0o$nership. Such co0o$ner ma) demand at an)time the partition of the thin* owned in common,

insofar as his share is concerned. Ephasis supplied.F In Budion* v. Bondoc 1.R. No. 70*22*,

Septeber 3, (322, 23 SCR *6(, this Court has interpreted said provision of la$ to ean that the

action for partition is iprescriptible or cannot be barred b& prescription. :or rticle 636 of the CivilCode e%plicitl& declaresB =No prescription shall lie in favor of a co0o$ner or co0 heir so lon" as he

e%pressl& or ipliedl& reco"ni


34/106

coplainants ri"hts, the coplainant havin" had !no$led"e or notice of the defendants conduct

and havin" been afforded an opportunit& to institute suit? /+) lac! of !no$led"e or notice on the part

of the defendant that the coplainant $ould assert the ri"ht on $hich he bases his suit? and, /6)

in@ur& or pre@udice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the coplainant, or the suit is

not held to be barred 1o China 1un, et al. v. Co Cho et al., 3- Phil. -** /(344)F.

hile the first and last eleents are present in this case, the second and third eleents are issin".

'he second eleent spea!s of dela& in assertin" the coplainants ri"hts. >o$ever, the ere fact of

dela& is insufficient to constitute, laches. It is re9uired that /() coplainant ust have

had nowled*e of the conduct of defendant or of one under whom he claims and /*) he ust have

been afforded an opportunit) to institute suit. 'his court has pointed out that laches is not concerned

$ith the ere lapse of tie. 'husB

7aches has been defined as the failure or ne"lect, for an unreasonable len"th of tie

to do that $hich b& e%ercisin" due dili"ence could or should have been done earlier?

it is ne"li"ence or oission to assert a ri"ht $ithin a reasonable tie $arrantin" apresuption that the part& entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to

assert it. #i-am, et al., v. /ibon*hano), 1.R. No. 70*(64, pril *4, (3-8, *+ SCR

*3,+4? 'endo v. aacoa, 1.R. No. 70-+68, u"ust 2, (384, (+8 SCR 28, 3F.

'he doctrine of =laches= or of =stale deands= is based upon "rounds of public polic&

$hich re9uires for the peace of societ&, the discoura"eent of stale clais and

unli!e the statute of liitations, isnot a mere 6uestion of time but is principall) a

6uestion of ine6uit) or unfairness of perittin" a ri"ht or clai to be enforced or

asserted,= 'i@a v. Sibon"hano&, supra, p. +4F. Ephasis supplied.F

It ust be noted that $hile there $as dela& in assertin" petitioners ri"hts, such dela& $as notattended $ith an& !no$led"e of the sale nor $ith an& opportunit& to brin" suit. In the first place,

petitioners had no notice of the sale ade b& their eldest sister. It is undisputed that the petitioner

co0o$ners had entrusted the care and ana"eent of the parcel of land to Rosalia 5ailon $ho $as

the oldest aon" the 'SN, ;ul& *2, (38+, p. (6F. In fact, Nicanor 7ee, a son of Rosalia, $ho $as

presented as a $itness b& the plaintiffs0petitioners, testified on cross0e%aination that his other

$as onl& the adinistrator of the land as she is the eldest and her brothers and sisters $ere a$a&

'SN, October 4, (38+, p. (4F. Indeed, $hen Delia 5ailon0Casilao left Sorso"on in (36* after she "ot

arried, it $as onl& in (38+ that she returned. Sabina on the other hand, is said to be livin" in

aboan"a $hile 5ernabe $ho left for China in (3+( has not been heard fro since then.

Conse9uentl&, $hen Rosalia, fro $ho the private respondent derived his title, ade the disputed

sales coverin" the entire propert&, the herein petitioners $ere una$are thereof.

In the second place, the& $ere not afforded an opportunit& to brin" suit inasuch as until (38(, the&

$ere !ept in the dar! about the transactions entered into b& their sister. It $as onl& $hen Delia

5ailon0Casilao returned to Sorso"on in (38( that she found out about the sales and iediatel&,

she and her co0petitioners filed the present action for recover& of propert&. 'he appellate court thus

erred in holdin" that the petitioners did nothin" to sho$ interest in the land.= :or the adinistration

of the parcel of land $as entrusted to the oldest co0o$ner $ho $as then in possession thereof


35/106

precisel& because the other co0o$ners cannot attend to such a tas! as the& reside outside of

Sorso"on $here the land is situated. >er co0o$ners also allo$ed her to appropriate the entire

produce for herself because it $as not even enou"h for her dail& consuption 'SN, October 4,

(38+, pp. (20(8F. nd since petitioner $as the one receivin" the produce, it is but natural that she

$as the one to ta!e char"e of pa&in" the real estate ta%es. No$, if !no$led"e of the sale b& Rosalia

$as conve&ed to the petitioners onl& later, the& cannot be faulted for the acts of their co0o$ner $hofailed to live up to the trust and confidence e%pected of her. In vie$ of the lac! of !no$led"e b& the

petitioners of the conduct of Rosalia in sellin" the land $ithout their consent in (324 and the

absence of an& opportunit& to institute the proper action until (38(, laches a& not be asserted

a"ainst the petitioners.

'he third eleent of laches is li!e$ise absent. 'here $as no lac! of !no$led"e or notice on the part

of the defendant that the coplainants $ould assert the ri"ht on $hich the& base the suit. On the

contrar&, private respondent is "uilt& of bad faith in purchasin" the propert& as he !ne$ that the

propert& $as co0o$ned b& si% persons and &et, there $ere onl& t$o si"natories to the deeds of sale

and no special authori


36/106

B Jes, sir.

HB nd that $as denied b& the Court of :irst Instance of Sorso"on

because there $as ordinar& one si"nator& to the deed of sale instead

of si%, $as it not

B Not one but t$o si"natories.

Decision of the Re"ional 'rial Court of Sorso"on, Rollo, p. +4F

Such actual !no$led"e of the e%istence of other co0o$ners in $hose naes the lot sub@ect of the

sale $as re"istered should have propted a searchin" in9uir& b& fable considerin" the $ell0 !no$n

rule in this @urisdiction thatB

... a person dealin" $ith a re"istered land has a ri"ht to rel& upon the face of the

'orrens certificate of title and to dispense $ith the need of in9uirin" further, e%cept

$hen the part& concerned has actual !no$led"e of facts and circustances that$ould ipel a reasonabl& cautions an to a!e such in9uir&. 1onence an& pre@udice or in@ur& that a& be occasioned to hi b& such

sale ust be borne b& hi.

Indeed, a$are of the fla$s ipairin" his title, fable $ent to the herein petitioner Delia 5ailon0Casilao, as!in" the latter to si"n a docuent obviousl& to cure the fla$ 'SN, ;ul& *2, (38+, p.-F.

7ater, he even filed a petition in the Court of :irst Instance to re"ister the title in his nae $hich $as

denied as aforesaid.

It a& be "leaned fro the fore"oin" e%aination of the facts that Celestino fable is not a bu&er in

"ood faith. 7aches bein" an e9uitable defense, he $ho invo!es it ust coe to the court $ith clean

hands.

>ERE:ORE, the petition for certiorari is hereb& 1RN'ED, the challen"ed decision of the Court

of ppeals is SE' SIDE, and the decision of the trial court is REINS''ED.

SO ORDERED.


37/106

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 19420, March 26, 2014

RA%L V. ARAM&%LO AND ERESIA A. DELA CR%5, Petitioners, v. GENARO NOLASCO AND #EREMY

SPENCER NOLASCO, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PERE5, J.(

This is a etition for Review of the - October 200) Decision1an% #0 'ul( 200" Resolution2of the Court ofAppeals in CAG.R. C !o. -&&", which reverse% an% set asi%e the Decision#of the Re*ional Trial Court

4RTC5 of Banila, +ranch >1, %ate% 1" 8epte$ber 2002.

etitioners Raul . Ara$bulo an% Teresita A. Dela Cru;, alon* with their $other Rosita Vda.De Ara$bulo,an% siblin*s ri$o . Ara$bulo, Ba. 7oren;a A. 7ope;, Ana Baria . Ara$bulo, Ba6i$iano . Ara$bulo, 'ulio

. Ara$bulo an% rai%a Ara$bulo !olasco 4rai%a5 are coowners of two 425 parcels of lan% locate% in Ton%o,Banila, with an a**re*ate si;e of 2## s3uare $eters. =hen rai%a passe% awa(, she was succee%e% b( her

husban%, respon%ent Genaro !olasco an% their chil%ren, ris Abe*ail !olasco, n*ri% Aileen Ara$bulo an%respon%ent 'ere$( 8pencer !olasco.

On ) 'anuar( 1""", petitioners file% a petition for relief un%er Article &"1 of the Civil Co%e with the RTC ofBanila, alle*in* that all of the coowners, e6cept for respon%ents, have authori;e% petitioners to sell theirrespective shares to the sub/ect propertiesK that onl( respon%ents are withhol%in* their consent to the sale

of their sharesK that in case the sale pushes throu*h, their $other an% siblin*s will *et their respective 1"share of the procee%s of the sale, while respon%ents will *et L share each of the 1" share of rai%aK that

the sale of sub/ect properties constitutes alterationK an% that un%er Article &"1 of the Civil Co%e, if one or$ore coowners shall withhol% their consent to the alterations in the thin* owne% in co$$on, the courts

$a( affor% a%e3uate relief.&

n their Answer, respon%ents sou*ht the %is$issal of the petition for bein* pre$ature. Respon%ents averre%that the( were not aware of the intention of petitioners to sell the properties the( coowne% because the(were not calle% to participate in an( ne*otiations re*ar%in* the %isposition of the propert(.>

After the pretrial, two 425 issues were sub$itte% for consi%eration< chanRoblesvirtual7awlibrar(

1. =hether or not respon%ents are withhol%in* their consent in the sale of the sub/ect propertiesK an%

2. n the affir$ative, whether or not withhol%in* of consent of sale b( the respon%ents is pre/u%icial tothe petitioners.

On 1" 8epte$ber 2002, the trial court rule% in favor of petitioners an% or%ere% respon%ents to *ive their

consent to the sale. The %ispositive portion of the %ecision rea%s< chanRoblesvirtual7awlibrar(

=:R:OR:, in view of the fore*oin*, /u%*$ent is hereb( ren%ere% in favor of the petitioners an% a*ainst

the respon%entsERE:ORE, the challen"ed Orders disissin" the petitioners coplaint for e@ectent and

den&in" reconsideration of the disissal decree 10are REVERSED ND SE' SIDE, and the case isREMNDED to the Re"ional 'rial Court for resolution, $ith all deliberate dispatch, of the respondentsappeal fro the @ud"ent of the inferior court. 'his Resolution is iediatel& e%ecutor&.


44/106


Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 754 Se:/ember 24, 197

JU$ITA GO ONG, ;OR ERSE$; AN( AS JU(ICIA$ GUAR(IAN O; STEEN GOONG, petitioners,vs.TE ON. COURT O; APPEA$S, A$$IE( AN)ING CORPORATION %&' /e CIT" SERI;;O; QUE!ON CIT", respondents.

PARAS, J.:

'his is a petition for revie$ on certiorari of the March *(, (38- Decision =of the Court of ppeals in C01.R. CVNo. *-+4, =;ulita On" etc. vs. llied 5an!in" Corp. et al.= affirin", $ith odification, the ;anuar& 4, (386 Decision of the Re"ional 'rialCourt of Hueon"died on ;anuar& (8, (324 and ;ulita 1o On" $as appointed adinistratri% of herhusbands estate in Civil Case No. (283. 'he letters of adinistration $asre"istered on 'C' No. (8824 on October *+, (323. 'hereafter, ;ulita 1o On" sold7ot No. (* to 7i Che 5oon, and 'C' No. (8824 $as partiall& cancelled and 'C'No. *-*84* $as issued in favor of 7i Che 5oon coverin" 7ot No. (* /E%h. D06). On;une 8, (38( ;ulita 1o On" throu"h her attorne&0in0fact ;ovita G. Jeo /E%h. ()ort"a"ed 7ot No. ( to the llied 5an!in" Corporation to secure a loan ofP3,. obtained b& ;G E%ports, Inc. 'he ort"a"e $as re"istered on 'C' No.(8824 on the sae date $ith the follo$in" notationB =... ort"a"ees consentnecessar& in case of subse9uent alienation or encubrance of the propert& otherconditions set forth in Doc. No. +6, Pa"e No. -3, 5oo! No. KIK, of the Not. Public of:eli%berto bad=. On the loan there $as due the su of P8*8,. and llied5an!in" Corporation tried to collect it fro ;ulita 1o On", /E%h. E). >ence, thecoplaint alle"in" nullit& of the contract for lac! of @udicial approval $hich the ban!

had alle"edl& proised to secure fro the court. In response thereto, the ban!averred that it $as plaintiff ;ulita 1o On" $ho proised to secure the courtsapproval, addin" that ;ulita 1o On" infored the defendant that she $as processedthe su of P+,. b& the ;G E%ports, Inc. $hich $ill also ta!e char"e of theinterest of the loan.

Concludin", the trial court ruledB


45/106

bsent /of) an& evidence that the propert& in 9uestion is the capital ofthe deceased husband brou"ht into the arria"e, said propert&should be presued as ac9uired durin" the arria"e and, therefore,con@u"al propert&,

fter the dissolution of the arria"e $ith the death of plaintiffs

husband, the plaintiff ac9uired, b& la$, her con@u"al share, to"ether$ith the hereditar& ri"hts thereon. /Mar"ate vs. Rabacal, 70(6+*,

pril +, (3-+). Conse9uentl&, the ort"a"e constituted on saidpropert&, upon e%press authorit& of plaintiff, not$ithstandin" the lac!of @udicial approval, is valid, $ith respect to her con@u"al sharethereon, to"ether $ith her hereditar& ri"hts.

On appeal b& petitioner, respondent Court of ppeals affired, $ith odification, the appealeddecision /Record, pp. (30**). 'he dispositive portion of the appellate courts decision readsB

>ERE:ORE, $ith the odification that the e%tra@udicial foreclosure proceedin"sinstituted b& defendant a"ainst plaintiff shall be held in abe&ance to a$ait the final

result of Civil Case No. (283 of the Court of :irst Instance of Manila, -th ;udicialDistrict 5ranch KKKII, entitled =IN '>E M''ER O: '>E IN'ES''E ES''E O:'>E 7'E 7:REDO ON1 5IOB ;7I' 1O ON1, DMINIS'R'RIK=. Inpursuance $ith $hich the restrainin" order of the lo$er court in this case restrainin"the sale of the properties levied upon is hereb& ordered to continue in full force andeffect coterinous $ith the final result of Civil Case No. (283, the decisionappealed fro is hereb& affired. Costs a"ainst plaintiff0appellant.

SO ORDERED.

On pril 8, (38-, petitioner oved for the reconsideration of the said decision /%bid., pp. *60*3), butin a Resolution dated Septeber ((, (38-, respondent court denied the otion for lac! of erit/%bid., p. *+). >ence, the instant petition / %bid.,pp. -0(2).

'he Second Division of this Court, in a Resolution dated Noveber (3, (38- /Rollo, p. +), $ithout"ivin" due course to the petition, resolved to re9uire private respondent to coent thereon and itdid on :ebruar& (3, (382 /%bid., pp. +206*). 'hereafter, in a Resolution dated pril -, (382, thepetition $as "iven due course and the parties $ere re9uired to file their respective eoranda/%bid., p. 6+).

Petitioner filed her Meorandu on Ma& (+, (382 /%bid., pp. 6404-), $hile private respondent filedits Meorandu on Ma& *, (382 /%bid., pp. -*0-8).

'he sole issue in this case is Q

>E'>ER OR NO' '>E MOR'11E CONS'I''ED OVER '>E PRCE7 O: 7ND NDERPE'I'IONERS DMINIS'R'ION IS N77 ND VOID :OR N' O: ;DICI7 PPROV7.

'he instant petition is devoid of erit.

'he $ell0settled rule that the findin"s of fact of the trial court are entitled to "reat respect, carrieseven ore $ei"ht $hen affired b& the Court of ppeals as in the case at bar.


46/106

In brief, the lo$er court foundB /() that the propert& under the adinistration of petitioner Q the $ifeof the deceased, is a counit& propert& and not the separate propert& of the latter? /*) that theort"a"e $as constituted in the $ifes personal capacit& and not in her capacit& as adinistratri%?and /+) that the ort"a"e affects the $ifes share in the counit& propert& and her inheritance inthe estate of her husband.

Petitioner, assertin" that the ort"a"e is void for $ant of @udicial approval, 9uoted Section 2 of Rule83 of the Rules of Court and cited several cases $herein this Court ruled that the re"ulationsprovided in the said section are andator&.

hile petitioners assertion a& have erit insofar as the rest of the estate of her husband isconcerned the sae is not true as re"ards her con@u"al share and her hereditar& ri"hts in the estate.'he records sho$ that petitioner $illin"l& and voluntaril& ort"a"ed the propert& in 9uestionbecause she $as processed b& ;G E%ports, Inc. the su of P+,. fro the proceeds of theloan? and that at the tie she e%ecuted the real estate ort"a"e, there $as no court orderauthori


47/106

9uestion $as ad@udicated to Susana Mel"ar. In (3*(, she conve&ed, in pa&ent ofprofessional fees, one0half of the land in favor of the defendant0appellee NicolasRafols, $ho entered upon the portion thus conve&ed and has been in possessionthereof up to the present. On ;ul& *+, (3*(, Pedro Cui brou"ht an action to recoversaid half of the land fro Nicolas Rafols and the other half fro the other defendants,and $hile that case $as pendin", or about u"ust 6, (3*4, Pedro Cui donated the

$hole land in 9uestion to 1enerosa 'eves, the herein plaintiff0appellant, after trial,the lo$er court rendered a decision absolvin" Nicolas Rafols as to the one0half of theland conve&ed to hi b& Susana Mel"ar, and declarin" the plaintiff o$ner of theother half b& e%press ac!no$led"ent of the other defendants. 'he plaintiffappealed fro that part of the @ud"ent $hich is favorable to Nicolas Rafols.

'he lo$er court absolved Nicolas Rafols upon the theor& that Susana Mel"ar couldnot have sold an&thin" to Pedro Cui because the land $as then in custodia le*is, thatis, under @udicial adinistration. 'his is error. 'hat the land could not ordinar& belevied upon $hile in custodia le*is,does not ean that one of the heirs a& not sellthe ri"ht, interest or participation $hich he has or i"ht have in the lands underadinistration. 'he ordinar& e%ecution of propert& in custodia le"is is prohibited inorder to avoid interference $ith the possession b& the court. 5ut the sale ade b& anheir of his share in an inheritance, sub@ect to the result of the pendin" adinistration,in no $ise stands in the $a& of such adinistration.

'he reference to @udicial approval in Sec. 2, Rule 83 of the Rules of Court cannot adversel& affectthe substantiveri"hts of private respondent to dispose of her Ideal not inchoate, for the con@u"alpartnership ended $ith her husbands death, and her hereditar& ri"hts accrued fro the oent ofthe death of the decedent /rt. 222, Civil Code) share in the co0heirship andor co0o$nership foredbet$een her and the other heirsco0o$ners /See rt. 63+, Civil Code, supra.). Sec. 2, rt. 83 of theCivil Code applies in a case $here @udicial approval has to be sou"ht in connection $ith, forinstance, the sale or ort"a"e of propert& under adinistration for the pa&ent, sa& of a con@u"aldebt, and even here, the con@u"al and hereditar& shares of the $ife are e%cluded fro the re9uisite

@udicial approval for the reason alread& adverted to hereinabove, provided of course no pre@udice is

caused others, includin" the "overnent.

Moreover, petitioner is alread& estopped fro 9uestionin" the ort"a"e. n estoppel a& arise frothe a!in" of a proise even thou"h $ithout consideration, if it $as intended that the proiseshould be relied upon and in fact it $as relied upon, and if a refusal to enforce it $ould be virtuall& tosanction the perpetration of fraud or $ould result in other in@ustice /1on


48/106


Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 102


49/106

the properties covered b& 'ransfer Certificate of 'itle Nos. (444-3, (*(64, 3(64, and (823, all of$hich are re"istered in Hueerodotus cebedo /referred to as petitioner0adinistrator hereafter)B

(. to sell the properties entioned in the otion?

*. $ith the balance of P- illion, to pa& all the clais a"ainst the Estate? and

+. to distribute the residue aon" the >eirs in final settleent of the Estate.

'o the aforesaid Motion, herein petitioner0adinistrator interposed an =Opposition to pproval ofSale=, to $itB

(. 'hat he has learned that soe of the heirs herein have sold soe real estate

propert& of the Estate located at 5alinta$a!, Hueonorable Court to authorio$ever, b& said date, petitioners have notfound an& bu&er offerin" better ters. 'hus, the& as!ed the Court, on :ebruar& 8, (33, for an ine%tendible period of thirt& da&s to loo! for a bu&er.

Petitioner0adinistrator then filed a criinal coplaint for falsification of a public docuent a"ainstJu >$a Pin" and notar& public Eu"enio Obon on :ebruar& *-, (33. >e initiated this coplaintupon learnin" that it $as Ju >$a Pin" $ho caused the notarie also learned that afterhe confronted the notar& public of the 9uestioned docuent, the latter revo!ed his notarial act on thesae.


50/106

On pril *, (33, petitioner0adinistrator filed the civil action to secure the declaration b& the Courtof the nullit& of the Deed of Conditional Sale and the Deed of bsolute Sale.

'he period "ranted herein petitioners havin" lapsed $ithout havin" found a bu&er, petitionerDeosthenes cebedo sou"ht to nullif& the Orders "rantin" the several periods $ithin $hich toloo! for a better bu&er. Respondents filed a coent thereon.

>avin" iserabl& failed to find a better bu&er, after seven lon" onths, petitioner0adinistrator filedanother =Opposition to pproval of Sale=, dated Ma& (, (33, aintainin" that the sale should $aitfor the countr& to recover fro the effects of the coup detat attepts, other$ise, the propertiesshould be divided aon" the heirs.

On ;une *(, (33, petitioners filed a =Motion for 7eave of Court to Mort"a"e and 7ease soe of theProperties of the Estate=. 'o this Motion, respondents filed an Opposition on the follo$in" "rounds Bthat the otion is not proper because of the pendin" otion to approve the sale of the saeproperties? that said conditional sale $as initiated b& petitioner0adinistrator $ho had earlier si"neda receipt for P4,. as earnest one&? that the approval of the sale $ould ean Ju >$aPin"s assuption of

Documents

Property Cases 01-17-15