Borromeo v. Descallar Facts:
Wilhelm Jambrich, an Austrian, met Antonietta Descallar (respondent), a Filipina, while the former was working in the Philippines sometime in 1!"# $he two became sweetheart, and later cohabited as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage# During their cohabitation, the two ac%uired some real properties in the Philippines composed of se&eral houses and lots which the' bought bou ght from Agroacro De&elopment *orporation# $he deed of sale of said real properties were placed p laced in the name of both b oth Jambrich and Descallar as bu'ers, but were registered under the $orrens s'stem in the name of Descallar Descallar alone as Jambrich is dis%ualified to own real properties in the countr'# +t is sufficientl' established though that the funds used to bu' said properties came solel' from Jambrich, as Descallar has no sufficient source of income# After their relationship has turned sour and the two went their separate wa's, Jambrich sold his rights and interests in the Agroacro properties to *amilo orromeo (the petitioner), a Filipino, e&idenced b' a Deed of Absolute -ale.Assignment# When orromeo, the bu'er, tried to register the properties in his name, he disco&ered that it is registered in the name of Descallar, and that it has alread' been mortgaged# orromeo filed a complaint for reco&er' of real p ropert' against Descallar# Issues:
1# /a&ing established that the true bu'er of the disputed properties was the Austrian Wilhelm Jambrich, what is the effect of registration of the properties in the n ame of respondent Descallar0 # Whether the sale or assignment made b' b ' Jambrich to orromeo &alid considering that the former as alien is dis%ualified to own real properties in the Philippines0 Held:
1# $he registration of the properties in %uestion in the name of Descallar does not make her the owner of the said properties# 2+t is settled that registration is not a mode of ac%uiring ownership# +t is onl' a means of confirming the fact of its e3istence with notice to the world at large# *ertificates of title are not a source of right# $he mere possession of a title does not make one the true owner of the propert'# $hus, the mere fact that respondent has the titles of the disputed properties in her name does not necessaril', conclusi&el' and absolutel' make her the owner#4 (orromeo &s# Descallar, ibid.) ibid.) # 5i&en that aliens are dis%ualified to own real properties in the countr', 26t7herefore, in the instant case, the transfer of land from Agroacro De&elopment *orporation to Jambrich, who is an Austrian, would ha&e been declared in&alid if challenged, had not Jambrich con&e'ed the properties to petitioner who is a Filipino citi8en# citi8en# +n 9nited *hurch oard for World inistries &# -ebastian (5#:# ;o# <"=>?, arch "@, 1!!, 1 -*:A ==>), the *ourt reiterated the
consistent ruling in a number of cases that if land is in&alidl' transferred to an alien who subse%uentl' becomes a Filipino citi8en or transfers it to a Filipino, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered &alid#4
Benin v. Tuason Facts: The plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners and possessors of the three parcels of agricultural lands, described in paragraph V of the complaint, located in the barrio of La Loma (now barrio of San Jose) in the municipality (now city) of Caloocan, province of i!al, that they inherited said parcels of l and from their ancestor Si"to #enin, who in turn inherited the same from his father, $ugenio #enin% that they and their predecessors in interest had possessed these three parcels of land openly, adversely, and peacefully, cultivated the same and e"clusively en&oyed the fruits harvested therefrom% that $ugenio #enin, plaintiff's grandfather, had said parcels of land surveyed on arch and *, +-, that during the cadastral survey by the #ureau of Lands of the lands in #arrio San Jose in +-.. Si"to #enin and herein plaintiffs claim the ownership over said parcels of land% that they declared said lands for ta"ation purposes in +-/ under Ta" 0eclaration 1o2 33-% that after the outbrea4 of the last 5orld 5 ar, or sometime in +-3 and subse6uently thereafter, evacuees from anila and other places, after having secured the permission of the plaintiffs, constructed their houses thereon and paid monthly rentals to pl aintiffs2 7nly defendant J22 Tuason 8 Co2, 9nc2 was actually served with summons2 The other defendants were ordered summoned by publication in accordance with Sections +* and +: of the ules of Court2 7nly defendant J22 Tuason 8 Co2, 9nc2 appeared2 The other defendants were all declared in default2
HELD: 9t will be noted that in Civil Case 1o2 .*3+ the plaintiffs base their claim of ownership of the three parcels of land described in the complaint o n their being heirs or successors in interest of Sixto Benin who died in 19362 19362 9n Civil Case 1o2 .*33 the plaintiffs base their claim of ownership o ver the two parcels of land described in their complaint on their being the heirs and successors in interest of Bonoso Alcantara who died in 19342 19342 9n Civil Case 1o2 .*3. the plaintiffs base their claim of ownership of the one parcel of land described in their complaint on their being the heirs and successors in interest of Candido Candido Pili who died in 19312 19312 9t will be noted that in Civil Case 1o2 .*3+ the plaintiffs base their claim of ownership of the three parcels of land described in the complaint on their being heirs or successors in interest of Sixto Benin who died in 19362 19362 9n Civil Case 1o2 .*33 the plaintiffs base their claim of ownership over the two parcels of land described in their complaint on their being the heirs and successors in interest of Bonoso Alcantara who died in 19342 19342 9n Civil Case 1o2 .*3. the plaintiffs base their claim of ownership of the one parcel of land described in their complaint on their being the heirs and successors in interest of Candido Pili who died in 19312 1931 2 Therefore, that the decision of this Court, which affirmed the order of the Co urt of ;irst 9nstance of i!al dismissing the complaint of Jose
?+@*2
The court sited the Santiago case which states that, (T)he mere fact that appellants herein were not personally notified of the registration registration proceedings that resulted in a decree of registration of title in favor of the Tuasons in 1914 does not constitute in itself a case of fraud that would invalidate the decree. The registration proceedings, as proceedings in rem, operate as against the whole world and the decree issued therein is conclusive adjudication of the ownership of the lands registered, not only against those parties who appeared in such proceedings but also against parties who were summoned by publication but did not appear. The registration by the appellees predecessors!in!interest freed the lands from claims and liens of whatever character that e"isted against the lands prior to the issuance of the certificates of title, e"cept those noted in the certificate and legal encumbrances saved by law (#umol vs. $ivera and %i&on, '4 hil. 1, 1* and cases cited therein). +n addition, there being no allegation that the registered owners procured the non! appearance of appellants at the registration proceedings, and very much more than one year having elapsed from the issuance of the decree of registration in 1914, neither revocation of such decree nor a decree of reconveyance are obtainable any more.
The joint decision of the Court of First Instance, appealed from, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE
Cayanan v. delos Santos 21 scra 1348
FaCTS: 7n ay ./, +-@, the title of appellee 0e los Santos to Lot 1o2 @* of the =orac Cadastre was confirmed by the Aon2
This petition was denied in the order of ;ebruary -, +-@-, which is on appeal2 9t was the view of the lower court BSuch being the case, as admitted by the petitioners, even DifE the petition has been filed within one (+) year after entry of final decree, the same cannot be favorably acted upon for the reason that the 6uestioned lot has already been transferred to ;eli" L2 DCamayaE in accordance with section . of the Land egistration
whether or not the cadastral court acting as such could li4ewise li4ewise in6uire into an allegation that the lot sub&ect of the decree was transferred in a simulated sale intended to avoid such a review2
HELD: 9t can and accordingly reverse the appealed order2
The mere mention by the law that the relief afforded by Section . of
In Capio v. Capio, the ruling being to the effect Bthat the adCudication of land in a registration or cadastral case does not become final and incontro&ertible until the e3piration of one 'ear after the entr' of the final decree that as long as the final decree is not n ot issued and the period of one on e 'ear within which it ma' be re&iewed has not elapsed, the decision remains under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering the decree, which court after hearing, ma' set aside the decision or decree and adCudicate the land to another part'#B $he order was -E$ A-+DE and the case remanded to the *ourt of First +nstance for a hearing on the merits of the petition of appellants for the reopening of the decree of registration in fa&or of appellee
Bautista-Borja vs Bautista Facts: $he spouses Pablo autista (Pablo) and -egundina $adiaman autista (spouses autista) died intestate in Jul' 1!@ and April 1@, respecti&el'# Pablo was the registered registered owner of se&eral agricultural lands situated in
:amon, +sabela totaling around around "@ hectares and in ), and ;ati&idad (petitioner)# (petitioner)# Francisco was sur&i&ed b' si3 children, namel' namel' respondents *larita, *larita, Florentino, Diosdado, Francisco Francisco ++, and Francisco +++, and the now deceased Arsenio, all surnamed autista# -implicio was sur&i&ed b' fi&e children, namel' namel' respondents Danilo,
Whether or ;ot the deed of -ale is &alid# HELD:
$he appellate court went on to hold that petitioner was guilt' of laches, and assuming that the transfer of the properties in fa&or of respondents respondents was procured through fraud, fraud, still, her action should ha&e been filed filed within four 'ears from the disco&er' of the fraud# /ence, this petition, petitioner insisting that since her cause of action is for annulment or declaration of ine3istent contracts, the pro&isions on &oid contracts, specificall' Arts# 1"@ and 1"1 of the *i&il *ode, appl', hence, her cause of action had not prescribed, for under Article 1=1@ of the *i&il *ode, 2the action or defense for the declaration of the ine3istence of a contract does not prescribe#4 Further, petitioner contends that e&en if there be implied trust, her cause of action has not prescribed because it is anchored on the annulment of a &oid or ine3istent contract# *orollaril', *orollaril', she argues that if at all, a 2resulting trust4 and not a 2constructi&e trust4 was established in the case at bar, considering that she onl' ga&e her consent to respondents upon their representation that the' were going to take possession and culti&ate the properties with the understanding understanding that the' would later later partition them them among the legal heirs# heirs# -he thus contends that that the rule on imprescriptibilit' of actions to reco&er propert' held in trust appl' to resulting trusts, as in this case, so long as the trustee has not repudiated the trust# Petitioner furthermore alleges that the continued assurances of respondents that partition proceedings were Cust dragging on, despite their their ha&ing alread' transferred transferred the titles in their names, is a clear clear indication that the' ha&e not repudiated the resulting trust, the re%uisites for which, as enunciated in Huang v. Court of Appeals, not Appeals, not ha&ing been met# And she maintains that while the registration registration of land under the $orrens s'stem s'stem operates as a constructi&e notice to the whole world, it cannot be construed as being e%ui&alent to a notice of repudiation, for the same cannot be used as a shield shield for fraud# fraud# From the allegations in petitionerGs complaint, it is clear that her action is one for declaration of the nullit' of the Deeds of -ale which she claims to be either falsified H falsified H because at the time time of the e3ecution e3ecution thereof, Pablo Pablo was alread' gra&el' ill and bedridden, hence he could not ha&e gone and appeared before the ;otar' Public, much less understood the significance and legal deeds H and.or because there was no consideration therefor# *learl', following Article 1=1@ of the *i&il *ode, petitionerGs action is imprescriptible# ut e&en if petition petitionerGs erGs complaint complaint were to be taken taken as one for recon&e'ance, recon&e'ance, gi&en that it is based on an alleged &oid contract, it is Cust the same as imprescriptible#
The petition was GRANTED. The 0ecision 0ecision of the Court of
HEIRS OF ARIO ALABANAN vs. RE!"BLI# OF THE !HILI!!INES A$9S 7; <97
FA#TS: 7n 3/ ;ebruary +--, ario alabanan filed an application for land registration before the TC of Cavite?Tagaytay, covering a parcel of land situated in S ilang Cavite, consisting of :+,.3 s6uare meters2 alabanan claimed that he had purchased the property from $duardo Vela!co, and that he and his predecessors?in?interest had been in open, notorious, and continuous adverse and peaceful possession of the land for more than thirty (./) years2 Vela!co testified that the property was originally belonged to a twenty?two hectare property owned by his great?grandfather, Lino Vela!co2 Lino had four sonsH #enedicto, Gregorio, $duardo and $stebanHthe fourth being
ISS"ES: +2 9n order that an alienable and disposable land of the public domain may be registered under Section +(+) of =residential 0ecree 1o2 +@3-, otherwise 4nown as the =roperty egistration 0ecree, should the land be classified as alienable and disposable as of June +3, +-@ or is it sufficient that such classification occur at any time prior to the filing of the applicant for registration provided that it is established that the applicant has been in open, continuous, e"clusive and notorious possession of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June +3, + -@ or earlier
32 ;or purposes of Section +(3) of the =roperty egistration 0ecree may a parcel of land classified as alienable and disposable be deemed d eemed private land and therefore susceptible to ac6uisition by prescription in accordance with the Civil Code .2 ay a parcel of land established e stablished as agricultural in character either because of its u se or because its slope is below that of forest lands be registrable under Section +(3) of the =roperty egistration 0ecree in relation to the provisions of the Civil Code on ac6uisitive prescription 2
HELD: The =ertition is denied2 (+) 9n connection with Section +(+) of the =roperty egistration 0ecree, Section (b) of the =ublic Land
ownership over the sub&ect property under Section (b) of the =ublic Land
Manotok v. Barque FA!S: =etitioners, (respondents herein) as the surviving heirs of the late Aomer #ar6ue, filed a petition with the L< for administrative reconstitution of the original copy of TCT 1o2 3+/+:: issued in the name of Aomer L2 #ar6ue, which was destroyed in the fire that gutted the >ue!on City Aall, including the 7ffice of the egister of 0eeds of >ue!on City, sometime in +-2 9n support of the petition, petitioners submitted the ownerIs duplicate copy of TCT 1o2 3+/+::, real estate ta" receipts, ta" decla?rations and the =lan ;LS .+* 0 covering the property2
Fpon being notified of the petition for administrative recon?stitution, private respondents (petitioners herein) filed their opposition thereto claiming that the lot covered by the title under reconstitution forms part of the land covered by their reconsti?tuted title TCT 1o2 T?33+, and alleging that TCT 1o2 3+/+:: in the name of petitionersI predeces?sors?in?interest is spurious2
ISS"E: 5hether or not irregularly issued titles can be cancelled by the L<2
Hel$: espondents levied on a portion of the
9n the case at bar, =17C?$0C is the beneficial user, however, since respondents cannot avail of the administrative remedy through levy, they can only enforce the collection of real property ta" through civil action2 =17C?$0C also claims that the real p roperty ta" assessment is not yet final and e"ecutory2 9t avers that prior resort to administrative remedies before see4ing &udicial remedies is not necessary considering that the issue raised is purely a 6uestion of law2 Conse6uently, it need not appeal the assessment to the Local #oard of
HEROSILLA V. REO%"ILLO FA#TS: =etitioners Aeirs of Salvador Aermosilla, assail the Court of
Salvador later filed an application to purchase Lot +3 which was awarded to him by the defunct Land
HELD:
An action for recon&e'ance based on an implied trust prescribes in ten 'ears# $he ten'ear prescripti&e period a""lies onl# i$ t%ere is an actual need to reconve# t%e "ro"ert# as &%en t%e "lainti$$ is not in "ossession plaintiff, as the real owner of the propert' also remains in possession of the o$ t%e "ro"ert#. /owe&er, if the plaintiff, propert', the prescripti&e prescripti&e period period to reco&er the the title and possession possession of the propert' propert' does not run run against him# +n such such a case, an action for recon&e'ance, if nonetheless filed, would be in the nature of a suit for %uieting of title, an action that is imprescriptible# imprescriptible#11 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) +t is undisputed that petitionersG houses occup' the %uestioned propert' and that respondents ha&e not been in possession thereof #1 -ince there was no actual need to recon&e' the propert' as petitioners remained in possession thereof, thereof, the action took took the nature of a suit for %uieting %uieting of title, title, it ha&ing been been filed to enforce enforce an alleged implied trust after Jaime refused to segregate title o&er
#&in' v. Enrile FA#TS: 7n September @, +-@, petitioners purchased from a certain aymunda La ;uente a .:/?s6uare meter lot2 La ;uente delivered to petitioners a dul y notari!ed 0eed of
;or reasons 4nown only to petitioners, the conveyance was not registered in the egister of 0eeds as prescribed by Section @+ of =0 +@3-2 9nstead, on 1ovember 3/, +-*, petitioners e"ecuted an
7n January , +--/, petitioners filed a Petition to &e!ove Cloud on or (uiet )itle to &eal Pro$ert asserting ownership of the disputed property2 7n ay ++, +--., the TC rendered &udgment in favored of petitioners /E
Good faith, or the want of it, is capable of being ascertained only from the acts of one claiming its presence, for it is a condition of the mind which can only be &udged by actual or fancied to4en or signs2 9t is beyond dispute that the property in 6uestion had already been sold by La ;uente to petitioners on September @, +-@2 =etitioners immediately too4 possession thereof2 5hen the 1otice of Levy on
