ECE REALTY REALTY and DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT, INC., vs. HAYDYN HAYDYN HERNANDEZ, (G.R. No. 21268, A!"!s# $6, 2$1%, &. R''s)
Facts: Respondent filed a complaint for specifi performance with damages against Emir Realty and petitioner before the HLURB alleging that Emir Realty and petitioner sold to him a 30sqm 30 sqm condominim nit! Respondent paid the reser"ation fee of #3$% and paid #&0'% to complete the downpayment! (n the parties) contract to sell* Emir and petitioner promised that the nit wold be ready for occpancy in &+++ bt failed to deli"er the nit at said date! By this time* respondent had already paid #'$,!-%! .oreo"er* respondent disco"ered that the nit only contained ,-sqm ths* he as%ed for a corresponding redction of the price! (nstead* Emir and petitioner demanded that respondent settle all his amorti/ations in arrears with interest! ometime in ,00$* respondent disco"ered that Emir and petitioner had sold the nit to a third party! party! HLURB dropped Emir as defendant and ordered petitioner to reimbrse respondent! 1# dismissed petitioner)s petitioner)s appeal! 2 affirmed 1# decision! (sse: 415 the rescission of the contract to sell and order of refnd was proper with legal interest from filing of the complaint along with the award of moral and e6emplary damages and attorney)s fees to respondent! 7E! HEL8: A*#. 22$, CC+ 9(f the obligation consists in the payment of a sm of money* and the debtor incrs in delay* the indemnity for damages* there being no stiplation to the contrary* shall shall be the payment of the interest agreed pon* and in the absence of stiplation* the legal interest* which is si6 per cent per annm!9 here is no dobt that E2E incrred in delay in deli"ering the sb;ect condominim nit* for which reason the trial cort was ;stified in awarding interest to respondent from the filing of his complaint! here being no stiplation as to interest* nder rticle ,,0+ the imposable rate is -< by way of damages* following the gidelines laid down in the landmar% case of Eastern of Eastern Shipping Lines v. CA: he CA: he &,< per annm rate nder 2B 2irclar 5o! '&- shall apply only to loans or forbearance of money* goods* or credits* as well as to ;dgments in"ol"ing sch loan or forbearance of money* goods* or credit* while the -< per annm nder rt! ,,0+* 22 applies 9when the transaction in"ol"es the payment of indemnities in the concept of damage arising from the breach or a delay in the performance of obligations in general*9 with the application of both rates rec%oned 9from the time the complaint was filed ntil the =ad;dged> amont is flly paid!9 Bt since ?ly &* ,0&3* the rate of &,< per annm from finality of the ;dgment ntil satisfaction has been broght bac% to -
RY-TLE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. DOMINGO ALIIN( G.R. No. 196117, August 13, 2014, PERLAS -BERNABE, J.:)
/a0#s+ Respondent 8omingo libin A8omingo owned an ndi"ided oneChalf portion of Lot 5o! &-D0 Asb;ect lot sitated at ahao* Lega/pi 2ity* lbay* and registered in his name and that of .ariano Rodrige/a A.ariano nder 1riginal 2ertificate of itle A12 5o! 0C,0-! 1n the strength of a contract to sell which was notari/ed on ?ly &0* &+-, and a 8eed of ale dated gst ,3* &+-, prporting to con"ey 8omingos oneChalf A share of the said lot to 2aridad Rodrige/a A2aridad* as well as a 8eed of bsolte ale dated 8ecember $* &++' whereby .ariano and 2aridad Athe Rodrige/as transferred their respecti"e rights to the sb;ect lot in fa"or of petitioner Grystle Realty 8e"elopment 2orporation AGrystle Realty* the original certificate of title was cancelled! (n lie thereof* three A3 2s were issed all on the same day of 8ecember $* &++'* as follows: 2 5os! '0'-@ and '0'-D in the n ames of the Rodrige/as at oneChalf A share each* and 2 5o! '0'-+ in the name of Grystle Realty co"ering the entire lot!red
2laiming that he had no# sold his share to 2aridad nor recei"ed any consideration for the alleged transfer* and that the signatre on the deed of sale was not his* 8omingo soght to annl the said deed* as well as 2 5os! '0'-@* '0'-D* and '0'-+* in 2i"il 2ase 5o! +033 before the R2 of Lega/pi 2ity* Branch '! He died* howe"er* dring the pendency of the case* and was conseqently sbstitted by his heirs* herein respondents Beatri/ ! or/ar* irginia ! araya* Rosario ! .arco* ?ess ! libin* and ?ay libin* as sbstitted by his children* namely: ?aynes libin* ?ay libin* and ?ess libin* ?r! Arespondents!ralawred 2aridad* on the other hand* insisted that she had paid 8omingo in two A, installments: $00!00 as down payment on ?ly &0* &+-,* and the balance of #'00!00 on gst ,3* &+-, dring which he signed the 8eed of ale! he then too% possession of 8omingos oneChalf A portion of the sb;ect lot and declared the same for ta6ation prposes! For its part* Grystle Realty claimed that it was a prchaser in good faith* and that the action* if at all* shold be directed against 2aridad! (n addition* it arged that the action of respondents had already prescribed considering that the qestioned deed of sale between 2aridad and 8omingo was e6ected on gst ,3* &+-,* whereas the latters complaint was filed only on Febrary &$* &++$! 1n the basis of the said finding* and pon motion of Grystle Realty* the R2 rendered a ?dgment on 1ctober ,* &++- dsssn" the case* which prompted 8omingo to file a3'##on 4o* certiorari before the 2ort* doc%eted as I!R! 5o! &,@++$! he petition was dismissed* howe"er* in a Resoltion dated pril ,D* &++@ for nonCcompliance with certain formal reqirements for its filing! .eanwhile* 8omingos a33'a5* from the aforesaid ;dgment of the R2 proceeded* and was decided in his fa"or by the 2 which set aside and *'and'd #' 0as' #o #' 0o!*# a quo 4o* 4!*#'* 3*o0''dn"s. he 2 rled that* e"en if the qestion of forgery was to be considered as already settled* there are other isses of fact and law that shold still be resol"ed* sch as the absence of consideration in the qestioned sale* the spposed irreglarities which attended the e6ection of the deed of sale* and the legality of the issance of the certificates of title! Hence* the ;dgment of the R2* which cold ha"e only been rendered in the absence of a "eritable isse on a material fact* was improper nder the circmstances! 2 rendered decision affirming R2 on the grond that respondents were able to establish that the 8eed of ale was not "alid and* hence* shold be annlled!
(UE: whether or not the 2 correctly affirmed the nllification of the 8eed of ale dated gst ,3* &+-, and the declaration of Grystle Realty as a prchaser in bad faith! HEL8: s correctly pointed ot by the 2* the athenticity of a signatre is a matter that is not so highly technical as to preclde a ;dge from e6amining the signatre himself and rling pon the qestion of whether the signatre on a docment is forged or not!he opinion of a handwriting e6pert* therefore* does not mandatorily bind the cort* the e6pert)s fnction being to place before the cort data pon which it can form its own opinion!wred (n this case* both the R2 and the 2 condcted independent e6aminations of the specimen signatres* which is athori/ed by law* and nanimosly conclded that the qestioned signatre on the 8eed of ale dated gst ,3* &+-, is different from the standard signatres of 8omingo as appearing on docments sbmitted in e"idence by petitioner 2aridad Rodrige/a! bsent any cogent reason to de"iate from sch finding of forgery* which is the basis for the annlment of the said deed* the same shold be deemed conclsi"e and binding pon the 2ort! records show that Grystle Realty proceeded with the transaction withot frther e6amining the sellers title and ths* cold not claim to ha"e prchased the sb;ect lot in good faith! erily* one is considered a byer in bad faith not only when he prchases real estate with %nowledge of a defect or lac% of title in his seller bt also when he has %nowledge of facts which shold ha"e alerted him to condct frther inqiry or in"estigation* as Grystle Realty in this case! Frther* the irreglarities attending the issance of 2 5os! '0'-@* '0'-D* and '0'-+ as pointed ot by the 2 are eqally indicati"e of lac% of good faith on Grystle Realtys part! (ndeed* what it failed to reali/e is that* as one asserting the stats of a byer in good faith and for "ale* it had the brden of pro"ing sch stats* which goes beyond a mere in"ocation of the ordinary presmption of good faith!
RCC v. MaG7n En#'*3*s's %$2 -CRA /a0#s+ R2B2 filed a complaint for reco"ery of sm of money with writ of preliminary attachment against .agwin and ' others! he writ was partially satisfied! #etitioner did not case the case to be set for preCtrial! For abot months the parties tried to settle throgh loan restricting program bt only one of the defendants signed the agreement! R2 .a%ati dismissed the case withot pre;dice for failre to prosecte for nreasonable length of time! motion for reconsideration is filed informing the cort of the onCgoing amicable settlement! he ;dgment was set aside and the plaintiffs are directed to sbmit the compromise agreement! .otion to set the case for preCtrial was filed by petitioner for the failre of the parties to compromise! he trial cort denied the motion! he 2 appro"ed the decision and said that the order of trial cort setting aside is dependent on two conditions! & bmission of compromise agreement within &$ days* and , Failre to sbmit shall case the imposition of payment of doc%et fees for refilling of the case
he 2 said that the order of the R2 was been set aside becase a party need not pay doc%et fees for refilling if the original case is re"i"ed! (n the instant case* petitioner maintains that the trial cort cannot coerce the parties in 2i"il 2ase 5o! ++C$&D to e6ecte a compromise agreement and penali/e their failre to do so by refsing to go forward with the preCtrial conference! o hold otherwise* so petitioner a"ers* wold "iolate rt! ,0,+ of the Civil Code which pro"ides that J=t>he cort shall endea"or to persade the litigants in a ci"il case to agree pon some fair compromise*K and this 2orts rling in Goldloop Properties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals =,3> where it was held that the trial cort cannot dismiss a complaint for failre of the parties to sbmit a compromise agreement! 1n the other hand* respondent nderson Uy filed his comment after se"eral e6tensions asserting that there are no special and important reasons for nderta%ing this re"iew! He also alleges that petitioners attac% is limited to the Order dated D eptember ,000 as to whether it is conditional as the 2ort of ppeals so fond and the applicability to this case of the rling in Goldloop Properties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals ! Respondent Uy claims that the Order reconsidering the dismissal of 2i"il 2ase 5o! ++C$&D withot pre;dice is on its face contingent pon the sbmission of the compromise agreement which in the first place was the principal reason of petitioner to ;stify the withdrawal of the Order declaring his failre to prosecte the ci"il case! He frther contends that the trial cort did not force the parties in the ci"il case to e6ecte a compromise agreement* the trth being that it dismissed the complaint therein for petitioners dereliction!
H'5d+ he petition of Ri/al 2ommercial Ban%ing 2orporation is meritorios! (t directs or attention to qestions of sbstance decided by the corts a quo plainly in a way not in accord with applicable precedents as well as the accepted and sal corse of ;dicial proceedings it offers special and important reasons that demand the e6ercise of or power of sper"ision and re"iew! Frthermore* petitioners ob;ections to the proceedings below encompass not only the Order of D eptember ,000 bt inclde the cognate Orders of the trial cort of - and &- 5o"ember ,000! his is e"ident from the prayer of the instant petition which see%s to re"erse and set aside the ecision of the appellate cort and to direct the trial cort to proceed with the preCtrial conference in 2i"il 2ase 5o! ++C $&D! E"idently* the sbstanti"e isse in"ol"ed herein is whether the proceedings in the ci"il case shold progress* a qestion which at bottom embroils all the Orders affirmed by the 2ort of ppeals!
1n the tas% at hand* we see no reason why R2CBr! &3$ of .a%ati 2ity shold stop short of hearing the ci"il case on the merits! here is no sbstantial policy worth prsing by reqiring petitioner to pay again the doc%et fees when it has already discharged this obligation simltaneosly with the filing of the complaint for collection of a sm of money! he procedre for dismissed cases when reCfiled is the same as thogh it was initially lodged* i!e!* the filing of answer* reply* answer to conterCclaim* inclding other footCdragging mane"ers* e6cept for the rigmarole of raffling cases which is dispensed with since the reCfiled complaint is atomatically assigned to the branch to which the original case pertained! =,$> complaint that is reCfiled leads to the reCenactment of past proceedings with the concomitant fll attention of the same trial cort e6ercising an immaclate slew of ;risdiction and control o"er the case that was pre"iosly dismissed* =,-> which in the conte6t of the instant case is a waste of ;dicial time* capital and energy! he proper corse of action that shold ha"e been ta%en by the cort a quo* pon manifestation of the parties of their willingness to discss a settlement* was to sspend the proceedings and allow them reasonable time to come to terms Aa (f willingness to discss a possible compromise is e6pressed by one or both parties or Ab (f it appears that one of the parties* before the commencement of the action or proceeding* offered to discss a possible compromise bt the other party refsed the offer* prsant to rt! ,030 of the 2i"il 2ode! (f despite efforts e6erted by the trial cort and the parties the negotiations still fail* only then shold the action contine as if no sspension had ta%en place!=33> 1stensibly* while the rles allow the trial cort to sspend its proceedings consistent with the policy to encorage the se of alternati"e mechanisms of dispte resoltion* in the instant case* the trial cort only ga"e the parties fifteen A&$ days to conclde a deal! his was* to say the least* a passi"e and paltry attempt of the cort a
quo in its tas% of persading litigants to agree pon a reasonable concession! =3'> Hence* if only to inspire confidence in the prsit of a middle grond between petitioner and respondents* we mst not interpret the trial cortsOrders as dismissing the action on its own motion becase the parties* specifically petitioner* were an6ios to litigate their case as e6hibited in their se"eral manifestations and motions! cort may dismiss a case on the grond of non prosequitur bt the real test of the ;dicios e6ercise of sch power is whether nder the circmstances plaintiff is chargeable with want of fitting assidosness in not acting on his complaint with reasonable promptitde! Unless a partys condct is so indifferent* irresponsible* contmacios or slothfl as to pro"ide sbstantial gronds for dismissal* i!e!* eqi"alent to defalt or nonCappearance in the case* the corts shold consider lesser sanctions which wold still amont to achie"ing the desired end! =3D> (n the absence of a pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case or of a wanton failre to obser"e the mandatory reqirement of the rles on the part of the plaintiff* as in the case at bar* corts shold decide to dispense rather than wield their athority to dismiss!=3 here is no sbstantial policy reqiring petitioner to pay again the doc%et fees when it had already discharge the obligation simltaneosly with filing a complaint for sm of money! he procedre in dismissed cases when refilled is the same as it was initially filed! (t is a reCenactment of the past proceedings! he addition of second sentence Jfailre on part of plaintiff to sbmit agreement will case to payment of doc%et fee for refillingK is not a direction to pay bt a statement of e"ent that may reslt in its imposition! ch payment is not obligatory in ci"il cases since doc%et fees are delged only after dismissal becomes e6ector! 1nce dismissal attained finality* the trial cort cannot impose legal fees again becase e6ectory dismissal di"est the trial cort ;risdiction as well as residal powers to order anything relati"e to the case! (t wold ha"e to wait till the case is decided again! (n that case* no need to file doc%et fees for contination of hearing wont set aside order of dismissal and reinstatement of complaint!
G.R. No. 188539 MARIANO LIM, petitioner, vs. SECURITY AN! COR"ORATION, # respon$ent.% M&r'( 1), )*1+%. "er&-t& &'ts "etitioner e/e'0te$ & 'ontin0in s0ret2s(ip in &vor o respon$ent to se'0re 4&n2 &n$ &-- t2pes o 're$it &''oo$&tion t(&t &2 6e r&nte$ 62 t(e 6&n7 (ereinto &n$ (erein&ter4 in &vor o R&0- Arro2o or ")M 'overe$ 62 & 're$it &reeent"N. In t0rn, t(e 'ontin0in s0ret2s(ip st&te$ t(&t 4I &n2 o t(e G0&r&ntee$ O6-i&tions is not p&i$ or perore$ on $0e $&te &t st&te$ &t0rit2 or 62 &''e-er&tion:, t(e S0ret2 s(&--, ;it(o0t nee$ or &n2 noti'e, $e&n$ or &n2 ot(er &'t or $ee$, ie$i&te-2 6e'oe -i&6-e t(ereor &n$ t(e S0ret2 s(&-- p&2 &n$ peror t(e s&e.4 Arro2o $e&0-te$. "etitioner re'eive$ & noti'e inorin (i (is -i&6i-it2 to p&2 Arro2oire$ RTC 60t o$i=e$ t(e r0-in on interest t(&t it 6e 'op0te$ ro )8 A0. 199?. Iss0e@ ON petitioner &2 6e v&-i$-2 (e-$ -i&6-e or t(e prin'ip&- $e6tor
G.R. No. 18953 GILAT SATELLITE NETOR!S, LTF., petitioner, vs. UNITEF COCONUT "LANTERS AN! GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., respon$ent.%Apri- *?, )*1+% C Sereno &'ts One Jirt0&- p-&'e$ ;it( petitioner & p0r'(&se or$er or v&rio0s te-e'o0ni'&tions pro$0'ts &n$ eD0ipent or & tot&- p0r'(&se pri'e o USK)M. O t(e s&i$ p0r'(&se pri'e, One Jirt0&- proise$ to p&2 & portion t(ereo tot&--n K1.)M. To ens0re propt p&2ent, it o6t&ine$ ro respon$ent & s0ret2 6on$ in &vor o petitioner. One Jirt0&- &i-e$ to p&2 K+**7 on t(e $0e $&te. "etitioner ;rote t(e respon$ent & $e&n$ -etter or p&2ent o t(e &o0nt. T(e &o0nt ;&s -et 0np&i$ t(0s proptin petitioner to sen$ & se'on$ $e&n$ -etter or t(e p&2ent o t(e 0-- &o0nt o K1.)M 0&r&ntee$ 0n$er t(e s0ret2 6on$ p-0s interests &n$ e/penses. Respon$ent &i-e$ to sett-e t(e &o0nt. "etitioner =-e$ & 'op-&int ;it( RTC ;(o ren$ere$ 0$ent in &vor o petitioner. CA v&'&te$ t(e RTC r0-in &n$ or$ere$ t(e p&rties to pro'ee$ to &r6itr&tion. Iss0es@ ON petitioner is entit-e$ to -e&- interest $0e to t(e $e-&2 in t(e 0-=--ent 62 respon$ent o its o6-i&tion 0n$er t(e s0ret2s(ip &reeent. YES. R0-in@ BEREORE, t(e "etition or Revie; on Certior&ri is (ere62 GRANTEF. T(e &ss&i-e$ Fe'ision &n$ Reso-0tion o t(e Co0rt o Appe&-s in CAG.R. CJ No. 89)3 &re REJERSEF. T(e Fe'ision o t(e Reion&- Tri&- Co0rt, r&n'( 1+1, M&7&ti Cit2 is REINSTATEF, ;it( MOFIICATION inso&r &s t(e &;&r$ o -e&- interest is 'on'erne$. Respon$ent is (ere62 or$ere$ to p&2 -e&- interest &t t(e r&te o per &nn0 ro 5 0ne )*** 0nti- t(e s&tis&'tion o its o6-i&tion 0n$er t(e S0ret2s(ip Contr&'t &n$ "0r'(&se Areeent. SO ORFEREF.
R&tio Interest, &s & or o in$enit2, &2 6e &;&r$e$ to & 're$itor or t(e $e-&2 in'0rre$ 62 & $e6tor in t(e p&2ent o t(e -&tter
in &''or$&n'e ;it( t(e "0r'(&se Areeent, &n$ t(&t t(e e/tr&0$i'i&- $e&n$ o petitioner ;&s sent on 5 0ne )*** interest 0st st&rt to r0n ro t(e tie petitioner sent its =rst $e&n$ -etter 5 0ne )***:. As to t(e interest r&te to 6e ipose$, N&'&r v. G&--er2 r&es o$i=e$ E&stern S(ippin v. CA in re-&tion to &n7o Sentr&- Monet&r2 o&r$ Cir'0-&r ?99 S. )*13:@ 1: (en t(e o6-i&tion is 6re&'(e$, &n$ it 'onsists in t(e p&2ent o & s0 o one2, i.e., & -o&n or or6e&r&n'e o one2, t(e interest $0e s(o0-$ 6e t(&t ;(i'( &2 (&ve 6een stip0-&te$ in ;ritin. 0rt(erore, t(e interest $0e s(&-itse- e&rn -e&- interest ro t(e tie it is 0$i'i&--2 $e&n$e$. In t(e &6sen'e o stip0-&tion, t(e r&te o interest s(&-- 6e per &nn0 to 6e 'op0te$ ro $e&0-t. ): (en t(e 0$ent o t(e 'o0rt &;&r$in & s0 o one2 6e'oes =n&- &n$ e/e'0tor2, t(e r&te o -e&- interest, ;(et(er t(e '&se &--s 0n$er p&r&r&p( 1 or p&r&r&p( ), &6ove, s(&-- 6e per &nn0 ro s0'( =n&-it2 0ntiits s&tis&'tion, t(is interi perio$ 6ein $eee$ to 6e 62 t(en &n eD0iv&-ent to & or6e&r&n'e o 're$it.
HEIR- O/ -PO-E- &OA9IN MANGARDIA and --ANA MANALO vs. HEIR- O/ -IMPLICIO VALLE- and MARTA VALLE-, (G.R. No. 1::616, A!"!s# 2:, 2$1%, DEL CA-TILLO, J)
Facts: .arta* implicio* .elqiades* Rstico* isitacion and 2atalina* all srnamed alles* were siblings! implicio and .arta were the registered owners of a ',*,&$Csqare meter property in Barrio 2dian* ("isan* 2api/ %nown as Lot D3$ and co"ered by 1riginal 2ertificate of itle A12 5o! R1C'0&@! .arta died in &+'3 and was sr"i"ed by her illegitimate daghter* Encarnacion 1rdas AEncarnacion! 1n the other hand* implicio died on pril ,0* &+$@! He was sr"i"ed by his wife illaricaD 1rdas* who passed away sometime in &+-+* and his children* Felicisimo* delaida* Rosario* ?an* and 8ominica* all srnamed alles! 4ith the e6ception of Felicisimo* all of implicios children died single and childless! Felicisimo was sr"i"ed by his wife* #resentacion+ 2apapas* and his children Iraciano* lpicio* eresita and ntonio Anow deceased! (t appears* howe"er* that on 1ctober ,D* &+-D* a notari/ed 8eed of bsolte ale&0 o"er Lot D3$ was e6ected by implicio and .arta in fa"or of their brothers* .elqiades and Rstico implicios daghter* delaida alles Adelaida and .artas daghter* Encarnacion! he 8eed of bsolte ale ostensibly bore the signatre of .arta and the thmb mar%s of implicio and his wife! 1n e"en date* said deed was registered in the Registry of 8eeds of 2api/* reslting in the cancellation of 12 5o! R1C'0&@ and the issance of ransfer 2ertificate of itle A2 5o!C+'0+!&& he following day* or on 1ctober ,+* &+-D* the alleged byers and new registered owners e6ected a bdi"ision greement*&, sbdi"iding Lot D3$ into for lots! aid bdi"ision greement was also registered on the same day in the Reg istry of 8eeds of 2api/! Heirs of implicio and .arta* the respondents* commenced an action for the 8eclaration of 5llity of 2ertificates of itle and 8eeds of ale* 2ancellation of 2ertificates of itle* Reco"ery of #ossession and 8amages3@ against the heirs of sposes .angardia and the heirs of sposes Leonardo and Rebecca Apetitioners in the R2 of Ro6as 2ity! Respondents alleged that in eptember &++D they disco"ered the "arios docments of sale and titles co"ering Lot D3$ when eresita and her siblings agreed to sbdi"ide the lot among the heirs of implicio and .arta and searched for the title of the property in the Registry of 8eeds of 2api/! hey a"erred that the prported 8eed of bsolte ale dated 1ctober ,D* &+-D is a forgery becase .arta and
implicio were long dead when the said docment was e6ected! 2onseqently* all titles emanating therefrom inclding the titles co"ering the sbdi"ided lots o f Lot D3$ registered in the names of sposes .angardia* Leonardo and Rebecca* and delaida* are all nll and " oid! Respondents* therefore* prayed that petitioners be ordered to remo"e the impro"ements introdced on the dispted lot and "acate the same* and that a new title be issed o"er Lot D3$ in the names of .arta and implicio as owners! he heirs of sposes .angardia a"erred that their predecessorsCinCinterest were innocent prchasers in good faith and for "ale* ha"ing acqired Lots D3$CB and D3$C2 in &+D0 from their registered owners and occpants* #edro and oledad! hey frther a"erred that their parents had been in possession of the lots since they prchased them in &+D0* and had since then constrcted for bildings thereon for their poltry bsiness* withot opposition from anyone* inclding Iraciano who occpies the ad;acent Lot D3$C! hey maintained that the titles in the names of the sposes .angardia are "alid and legal! (n addition* since the docments of sale and orrens titles were dly registered in the Registry of 8eeds* and that actal possession by the different transferees spanning a period of o"er 30 years were %nown to the respondents and their predecessors withot any complaint or opposition* the claim of respondents is barred by prescription* estoppel and laches! he heirs of the sposes .angardia moreo"er asserted that the 2omplaint against them fails to allege a case of action and that the same was not broght by the real partiesCinCinterest! R2 rendering a 8ecision in fa"or of herein respondents! (t declared the 8eed of bsolte ale dated 1ctober ,D* &+-D "oid a! initio becase there was no proof that the "endors* .arta and implicio* were still ali"e in &+-D and had signedMthmb mar%ed the sale docment! 2 rendered its 8ecision affirming in toto the trial corts 8ecision! ?st li%e the R2* the 2 fond that petitioners predecessorsCinCinterest are not byers in good faith and for "ale! he appellate cort frther held that petitioners cannot be considered to ha"e acqired the sb;ect properties throgh prescription since the whole lot is co"ered by a orrens title nder the name of .arta and implicio! (UE: =4HEHER> HE H151RBLE 21UR 1F ##EL 4E5(EH A,0H 8(((15 ERRE8 (5 8E57(5I HE ##EL 1F =#E((15ER> 58 =(5> FF(R.(5I HE (LE8 8E2((15 1F HE 21UR NU1 #E((15ER HERE(5 BE(5I BU7ER (5 I118 F(H! HEL8: #etitioners do not dispte that the original 8eed of bsolte ale is a forgery becase the alleged "endors were already long dead when the qestioned deed was e6ected! 4hile their ownership rights are ltimately based pon this forged deed* petitioners assert that the goo d faith of their predecessorsCinCinterest "alidates their title o"er the lots! (t mst be emphasi/ed that Jthe brden of pro"ing the stats of a prchaser in good faith and for "ale lies pon him who asserts that standing! (n discharging the brden* it is not enogh to in"o%e the ordinary presmption of good faith that e"eryone is presmed to act in good faith! he good faith that is here essential is integral with the "ery stats that mst be pro"ed! 6 6 6 #etitioners ha"e failed to discharge that brden!K #etitioners contention of acqisiti"e prescription cannot pre"ail o"er the rights of respondents! o begin with* the dispted property is a dly registered land nder the orrens system! J(t is wellCsettled that no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acqired by prescription or ad"erse possession! 5either can prescription be allowed against the hereditary sccessors of the registered owner* becase they merely step into the shoes of the decedent and are merely the contination of the personality of their predecessor=C>in=C>interest! 2onseqently* since a certificate of registration co"ers it* the dispted land cannot be acqired by prescription regardless of petitioner)s good faith!K
