[G.R. No. 156295. September 23, 2003] MARCELO R. SORIANO, petitioer, !". S#O$SES RICAR%O &' ROSALINA GALI(, re"po'et".
FACTS Ricardo Galit loaned from Marcelo Soriano which was secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land covered cov ered by Original Certificate of Title o! "#$! After failing to pay% Soriano filed a complaint for sum of money against him with the RTC! The RTC rendered &udgment in favor of Soriano! Accordingly% the trial court issued a writ of e'ecution% by virtue of which% the Sheriff levied on the following real properties of the Galit spouses( )!*A parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title o! T+"#$, -!* STOR./0O1S. COSTR1CT.2 on 3ot o! ))45, 5!* 6O2.GA constructed on 3ot ))45! 7etitioner was the highest and only bidder! 1pon the e'piration of the period of redemption% the Certificate of Sheriffs Sale is issued to the highest and lone bidder% Marcelo Soriano! The Certificate of Sale registered by the petitioner with the Register of 2eeds includes at the dorsal portion thereof% not found in the Certificate of Sale on file with the 2eputy Sheriff S heriff OR8G8A3 C.RT8F8CAT. OF T8T3. O! T+94:;"! 7etitioner 7etitioner moved for the issuance issuance of a writ of possessio possession! n! The RTC RTC granted the motion motion for issuance of writ of possession of the following properties( )! STOR. 0O1S. constructed on 3ot o! ))45, -! 6O2.GA constructed on 3ot o! ))45, 5! Original Certificate of Title o! 94:;"
hether or not the storehouse and bodega constructed on the parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title o! T+94:;" T+94:;" should be regarded as separate and distinct from the lot on which they stand! R138G The argument that the land on which the buildings levied upon in e'ecution is necessarily included is tenuous! Article 9)" of the Civil Code provides( ART ART! 9)"! The following are a re immovable property( ?)*
3and% 3and% buil buildin dings% gs% roads roads and constr construct uction ionss of all
'''
'''
'''
The foregoing provision of the Civil Code enumerates land and buildings separately! This can only mean that a building is% by itself% considered immovable! Thus% it has been held that while it is true true that that a mort mortgag gagee of land land nece necess ssar aril ily y incl includ udes es%% in the the abse absenc ncee of stip stipul ulat atio ion n of the the improvements thereon% buildings% still a building by itself may be mortgaged apart from the land
on which it has been built! Such mortgage would be still a real estate mortgage for the building would still be considered immovable property even if dealt with separately and apart from the land! 8n this case% considering that what was sold by virtue of the writ of e'ecution issued by the trial court was merely the storehouse and bodega constructed on the parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title o! T+94:;"% the same should be regarded as separate and distinct from the conveyance of the lot on which they stand! G.R. No. L)11 L)11139 139
Apri* 23, 195+
SAN(OS E SAN(OS EANGEL ANGELIS( IS(A, A, petitio petitioer er,, !". AL(O AL(O S$RE( S$RE(- INS$R INS$RANCE ANCE CO., INC., re"po'et.
FACTS Santos .vangelista% filed a case for a sum of money! On the same date% he obtained a writ of attachment% which levied upon a house% built by Rivera on a land situated in Manila and leased to him% by filing copy of said writ and the corresponding notice of attachment with the Office of the Register of 2eeds of Manila! 8n due course% &udgment was rendered in favor of .vangelista% who bought the house at public auction held in compliance with the writ of e'ecution issued in said case! >hen .vangelista sought to tahether or not the house is a personal property! property! R138G As e'plicitly held% a true building ?not merely superimposed on the soil* is immovable or real property% property% whether it is erected by the owner of o f the land or by usufructuary or lessee! 8t is true that the parties to a deed of chattel mortgage may agree to consider a house as personal property for purposes of said contract! 0owever% this view is good only insofar as the contracting parties are concerned! 8t is based% partly p artly%% upon the principle of estoppel! either this principle% nor said view% view% is applicable to strangers to said contract! Much less is it in point where there has been no contract whatsoever% with respect to the status of the house involved% as in the case at bar! >e% therefore% declare that the house of mi'ed materials levied upon on e'ecution% although sub&ect of a contract of chattel mortgage between b etween the owner and a third person% is real property
[G.R. No. 129/1. Apri* 2+, 2000] %EELO#MEN( AN O (4E #4ILI##INES, petitioer, !". CO$R( O A##EALS &' CARLOS CAES, re"po'et".
FACTS The land in dispute% consisting of )$!9 hectares% was originally owned by 1lpiano Mumar% whose ownership since )$): was evidenced by Ta' 2eclaration o! 5;94! 8n )$"4% Mumar sold the land to private respondent who was issued Ta' 2eclaration o! R+)9:" that same year! The ta' declaration was later superseded by Ta' 2eclaration os! R+:$$ issued in )$#) and 2+--9: issued in )$:9! 7rivate respondent occupied and cultivated the said land! 8n )$#$% unhether or not the possession by private respondent and his predecessor+in+interest for more than 54 years can overcome the decree of registration issued in favor of Bose Alvare! R138G Registration has never been a mode of acDuiring ownership over immovable property! The Court of 3and Registration was created for the sole purpose of bringing the land titles of the 7hilippine 8slands under one comprehensive and harmonious system% the cardinal features of which are indefeasibility of title and the intervention of the State as a prereDuisite to the creation and transfer of titles and interest% with the resultant increase in the use of land as a business asset by
reason of the greater certainty and security of title! 8t does not create a title nor vest one! 8t simply confirms a title already created and already vested% rendering it forever indefeasible! The fact that a party was able to secure a title in his favor did not operate to vest ownership upon her of the property! 8n the present case% it was established that private respondent% having been in possession of the land since )$"4% was the owner of the property when it was registered by Bose Alvare in )$#$% his possession tac
FACTS 7C8 3easing and Finance% 8nc! filed with the RTC a complaint for a sum of money% with an application for a writ of replevin! Respondent &udge issued a writ of replevin directing its sheriff to seie and deliver the machineries and eDuipment to 7C8 3easing! The sheriff proceeded to petitioners factory% seied one machinery with the word that he would return for the other machineries! 7etitioners filed a motion for special protective order% praying for a directive for the sheriff to defer enforcement of the writ of replevin! This motion was opposed by 7C8 3easing% on the ground that the properties still personal and therefore still sub&ect to seiure and a writ of replevin! 8n their Reply% petitioners asserted that the properties sought to be seied were immovable% the parties agreement to the contrary notwithstanding! They argued that to give effect to the agreement would be pre&udicial to innocen t third parties! The sheriff again sought to enforce the writ of seiure and tahether or not the machineries purchased and imported by S.RGS became real property by virtue of immobiliation! R138G
The Court has held that contracting parties may validly stipulate that a real property be considered as personal! After agreeing to such stipulation% they are conseDuently estopped from claiming otherwise! 1nder the principle of estoppel% a party to a contract is ordinarily precluded from denying the truth of any material fact found therein! 8n the present case% the 3ease Agreement clearly provides that the machines in Duestion are to be considered as personal property! Clearly then% petitioners are estopped from denying the characteriation of the sub&ect machines as personal property! 1nder the circumstances% they are proper sub&ects of the >rit of Seiure! 8t should be stressed% however% that our holding ++ that the machines should be deemed personal property pursuant to the 3ease Agreement is good only insofar as the contracting parties are concerned! 0ence% while the parties are bound by the Agreement% third persons acting in good faith are not affected by its stipulation characteriing the sub&ect machinery as personal! 8n any event% there is no showing that any specific third party would be adversely affected! G.R. No. 116100
ebr&r 9, 1996
S#O$SES CRIS(INO &' RIGI%A C$S(O%IO &' S#O$SES LI(O &' MARIA CRIS(INA SAN(OS, petitioer", !". CO$R( O A##EALS, 4EIRS O #ACIICO C. MAASA &' REGIONAL (RIAL CO$R( O #ASIG, ME(RO MANILA, RANC4 1+1, re"po'et".
FACTS The plaintiff owns a parcel of land with a two+door apartment erected thereon! Said property may be described to be surrounded by other immovables pertaining to defendants herein! As an access to the public street% there are two possible passageways! 6oth involves passing through the immovables of the petitioners! >hen said property was purchased by Mabasa% there were tenants occupying the premises! 0owever% one of said tenants vacated the apartment and when plaintiff Mabasa went to see the premises% he saw that there had been built an adobe fence in the first passageway ma8T0 MO28F8CAT8O insofar as the grant of damages to plaintiffs+appellants! 8SS1. >hether or not the grant of right of way and damages is proper!
R138G 7etitioners did not appeal from the decision of the court a Duo granting private respondents the right of way% hence they are presumed to be satisfied with the ad&udication therein! >ith the finality of the &udgment of the trial court as to petitioners% the issue of propriety of the grant of right of way has already been laid to rest! 0owever% with respect to damages% it has no substantial legal basis! The law recognies in the owner the right to en&oy and dispose of a thing% without other limitations than those established by law! 8t is within the right of petitioners% as owners% to enclose and fence their property! Article 954 of the Civil Code provides that ?e*very owner may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of walls% ditches% live or dead hedges% or by any other means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon! At the time of the construction of the fence% the lot was not sub&ect to any servitudes! There was no easement of way e'isting in favor of private respondents% either by law or by contract! The fact that private respondents had no e'isting right over the said passageway is confirmed by the very decision of the trial court granting a compulsory right of way in their favor after payment of &ust compensation! 0ence% prior to said decision% petitioners had an absolute right over their property and their act of fencing and enclosing the same was an act which they may lawfully perform in the employment and e'ercise of said right! [G.R. No. 125/9. &&r 2+, 199+] S#O$SES CESAR &' RA8$EL S(A. MARIA &' LORCERI%A S(A. MARIA, petitioer", !". CO$R( O A##EALS, &' S#O$SES ARSENIO &' ROSL-NN AAR%O, re"po'et".
FACTS Spouses Fa&ardo are the registered owners of a piece of land! Spouses Fa&ardo filed a complaint against spouses Sta! Maria for the establishment of an easement of right of way alleging that their lot is surrounded by properties belonging to other persons% including those of the defendants, that since plaintiffs have no adeDuate outlet to the provincial road% an easement of a right of way passing through either of the alternative defendants properties which are directly abutting the provincial road would be plaintiffs only convenient% direct and shortest access to and from the provincial road! The lower court rendered the assailed decision granting plaintiffs prayer for an easement of right of way on defendants properties! On appeal% the CA affirmed the trial courts decision! 8SS1. >hether or not a compulsory right of way can be granted to private respondents! R138G The findings of fact of both courts satisfied the following reDuirements for an estate to be entitled to a compulsory servitude of right of way under the Civil Code% to wit( )! the dominant estate is
surrounded by other immovables and has no adeDuate outlet to a public highway, -! there is payment of proper indemnity, 5! the isolation is not due to the acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate, and 9! the right of way claimed is at the point least pre&udicial to the servient estate, and insofar as consistent with this rule% where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest! Anent the first reDuisite% there is no dispute that the plaintiffs+appellees property is surrounded by other immovables owned by different individuals! 7laintiffs+appellees property is li
FACTS Spouses Soriano% as sellers% entered into a Contract to Sell with .vadel Realty and 2evelopment Corporation% as buyer% over a parcel of land denominated as 3ot ""5#+C of the Subdivision 7lan of 3ot ""5# covered by Transfer Certificate of Title o! )-"4#- which was part of a huge tract of land
8SS1. >hether or not the action for reinvindicatoria is proper and the petitoner is a builder in good faith! R138G The case at bar is one for accion reinvindicatoria which is an action to recover ownership over real property! 8n a reinvindicatory action% the basic issue for resolution is that of ownership! 6ased on the evidence% there is no genuine issue of fact as to ownership of the sub&ect property because the admissions made by petitioner are tantamount to an admission that respondent spouses owned the property in Duestion! 7etitioner% however% maintains that the issue of whether or not it was a builder in good faith should not have been peremptorily disposed of by the trial court! 7etitioner decries the fact that it was not given an opportunity to submit evidence to establish good faith as regards the improvements it introduced on respondent spouses property! 7etitioners contention is untenable! As correctly pointed out by the trial court and the CA% petitioner already admitted in its Amended Answer that the lot in dispute is covered by TCT o! T+:#$)## of respondent spouses! >ith this admission% petitioner can no longer claim that it was a builder in good faith! Good faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title! 8n this case% since petitioner% by its own admission% had
FACTS The petitioner is the registered owner of a parcel of land
of ::4 sDuare meters% more or less% but defendant% however% refused the offer! 8n )$:5% the parties entered into a private agreement before a certain Col! Rosales in MalacaEang% wherein plaintiff agreed to demolish the wall at the bac< portion of its land thus giving to defendant possession of a portion of his land previously enclosed by plaintiffs wall, that defendant later filed a complaint before the office of Municipal .ngineer of 7araEaDue% Metro Manila as well as before the Office of the 7rovincial Fiscal of Rial against plaintiff in connection with the encroachment or occupation by plaintiffs buildings and walls of a portion of its land but said complaint did not prosper, that defendant dug or caused to be dug a canal along plaintiffs wall% a portion of which collapsed in Bune% )$;4% and led to the filing by plaintiff of the supplemental complaint in the above+entitled case and a separate criminal complaint for malicious mischief against defendant and his wife which ultimately resulted into the conviction in court of defendants wife for the crime of malicious mischief, that while trial of the case was in progress% plaintiff filed in Court a formal proposal for settlement of the case but said proposal% howe ver% was ignored by defendant! The RTC rendered a decision in favor of petitioner who was the plaintiff therein! On appeal% the CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC 8SS1. >hether or not the petitioner is a builder in bad faith because it is presumed to
The owner of the land on which anything has been built% sown or planted in good faith% shall have the right to appropriate as his own the wore agree with the trial court that various factors in evidence adeDuately show petitioners lac< of awareness thereof! 8n any case% contrary proof has not overthrown the presumption of good faith under Article "-: of the Civil Code% as already stated% tae do not agree! 7etitioner cannot be held in estoppel for entering into the amicable settlement% the pertinent portions of which read( -$ That the parties hereto have agreed that the rear portion of the fence that separates the property of the complainant and respondent shall be demolished up to the bac< of the building housing the machineries which demolision ?sic* shall be underta
From the foregoing% it is clear that petitioner agreed only to the demolition of a portion of the wall separating the ad&oining properties of the parties i!e! up to the bac< of the building housing the machineries! 6ut that portion of the fence which served as the wall housing the electroplating machineries was not to be demolished! Rather% it was to be sub&ect to negotiation by herein parties! The settlement may have recognied the ownership of private respondent but such admission cannot be eDuated with bad faith! 7etitioner was only trying to avoid a litigation% one reason for entering into an amicable settlement! 8n the conte't of the established facts% we hold that petitioner did not lose its rights under Article 99; of the Civil Code on the basis merely of the fact that some years after acDuiring the property in good faith% it learned about and aptly recognied the right of private respondent to a portion of the land occupied by its building! The supervening awareness of the encroachment by petitioner does not militate against its right to claim the status of a builder in good faith! 8n fact% a &udicious reading of said Article 99; will readily show that the landowners e'ercise of his option can only tahat then is the applicable provision in this case which private respondent may invohere the builder% planter or sower has acted in good faith% a conflict of rights arises between the owners% and it becomes necessary to protect the owner of the improvements without causing in&ustice to the owner of the land! 8n view of the impracticality of creating a state of forced co+ ownership% the law has provided a &ust solution by giving the owner of the land the option to acDuire the improvements after payment of the proper indemnity% or to oblige the builder or planter to pay for the land and the sower to pay the proper rent! 8t is the owner of the land who is authoried to e'ercise the option% because his right is older% and because% by the principle of accession% he is entitled to the ownership of the accessory thing! ?5 Manresa -)5, 6ernardo vs! 6ataclan% 5: Off! Ga! )5;-, Co Tao vs! Chan Chico% G!R! o! 9$)#:% April 54% )$9$, Article applied, see Cabral% et al! vs! 8bane IS!C!J "- Off! Ga! -):, Marfori vs! =elasco% IC!A!J "- Off! Ga! -4"4*! The private respondents insistence on the removal of the encroaching structures as the proper remedy% which respondent Court sustained in its assailed 2ecisions% is thus legally flawed! This is not one of the remedies bestowed upon him by law! 8t would be available only if and when he chooses to compel the petitioner to buy the land at a reasonable price but the latter fails to pay such price! 55 This has not tahile that was dubbed as the more wor
Court of Appeals% et al!% 5" it was not the relief granted in that case as the landowners were directed to e'ercise within 54 days from this decision their option to either buy the portion of the petitioners house on their land or sell to said petitioners the portion of their land on which it stands! 5# Moreover% in Grana and Torralba% the area involved was only ;: sDuare meters while this case involves "-4 sDuare meters 5:! 8n line with the case of 2epra vs! 2umlao% 5; this case will have to be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings to fully implement the mandate of Art! 99;! 8t is a rule of procedure for the Supreme Court to strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of future litigation! 5$ 7etitioner% however% must also pay the rent for the property occupied by its building as prescribed by respondent Court from October 9% )$:$% but only up to the date private respondent serves notice of its option upon petitioner and the trial court, that is% if such option is for private respondent to appropriate the encroaching structure! 8n such event% petitioner would have a right of retention which negates the obligation to pay rent! 94 The rent should however continue if the option chosen is compulsory sale% but only up to the actual transfer of ownership! G.R. No. L)36+3 A7"t 1, 19+3 A(AL MOSLEM &' AMA%O MOSLEM, petitioer", !". AN(ONIO M. SORIANO, &' t
FACTS Antonio M! Soriano filed Civil Case o! ":;; against Atal Moslem and Amado Moslem to recover possession of four ?9* hectares of land plus damages! 8n their answer% the defendants specifically denied the material averments of the complaint and contended that they entered and peacefully possessed for more than twenty ?-4* years the area which was 0.R.FOR.% surveyor Bose =idua is hereby appointed Commissioner for the purpose of aforesaid! 6efore entering into the performance of his duties% he shall ta
''' ''' ''' After the commissioner submitted his report% it was found that the defendants were within the land titled in the name of Soriano! 8t appears that Atal Moslem and Amado Moslem interposed no ob&ection to the report! The court% therefore% rendered a decision ordering the petitioners to vacate the disputed land and pay the costs! >hen the &udgment was being e'ecuted% the petitioners refused to vacate the land! Soriano filed a motion to declare them in contempt of court! The petitioners% assisted by a new counsel filed an opposition to the motion! Resolving the motion after ta0.R.FOR.% the defendants are hereby found guilty of contempt and ordered arrested and imprisoned until they obey the order aforementioned! A motion for reconsideration of the order was denied! The petitioners are now raising two issues for resolution% namely l! >hether petitioners can be declared in contempt of court in a case for delivery of possession of real property! -! >hether petitioners can be declared in contempt of court pending payments of the improvements in the land under Articles 99; and "9# of the ew Civil Code! The arguments of the parties on whether or not the contempt order is valid revolve around the Duestion as to what section of Rule 5$ of the Rules of Court applies in this case! The petitioners contend that Section ;?d* of Rule 5$ is appropriate because the &udgment reDuires delivery of real property! According to them% the refusal to vacate the disputed land is not contempt of court because the &udgment is not a special &udgment enforceable under Section $ of Rule 5$! The respondents% however% argue that the order of the court is not to deliver possession of land but to vacate it and to pay costs! They would apply Section $% Rule 5$! The respondents arguments are sophistic A writ of e'ecution under Section ;?d* reDuires the sheriff or other proper officer to whom it is directed( ''' ''' ''' ?d* 8f it be for the delivery of the possession of real or personal property% to deliver the possession of the same% describing it% to the party entitled thereto% and to satisfy any costs% damages% rents% or profits covered by the &udgment out of the personal property of the person against whom it was rendered% and if sufficient personal property cannot be found% then out of the real property! On the other hand% Section $ which the lower court ruled as applicable% provides( >rit of e'ecution of special &udgment! >hen a &udgment reDuires the performance of any other act than the payment of money% or the sale or delivery of real or personal property% a certified copy of the &udgment shall be attached to the writ of e'ecution and shall be served by the officer upon the party against whom the same is rendered% or upon any other person reDuired thereby% or by law% to obey the same% and such party or person may be punished for contempt if he disobeys such &udgment!
8t is plain from the records that the &udgment being enforced is an ordinary one! 8t is not a special &udgment! The case filed by Antonio M! Soriano is an ordinary civil action for the recovery of possession of a parcel of land and damages! The &udgment directing the petitioners to vacate the land is nothing but a &udgment to deliver possession of real property! A special &udgment under Section $% Rule 5$ is one which reDuires the performance of any other act than the payment of money% or the sale or delivery of real or personal property! 0ow is an ordinary &udgment enforcedH Section )5 of Rule 5$ provides( 0ow e'ecution for the delivery or restitution of property enforced The officer must enforce an e'ecution for the delivery or restitution of property by ousting therefrom the person against whom the &udgment is rendered and placing the &udgment creditorr in possession of such property% and by levying as hereinafter provided upon so much of the property of the &udgment debtor as will satisfy the amount of the &udgment and costs included in the writ of e'ecution! >e applied the above rule in Rom vs! Cobadora ?)-; SCRA :";* and declared that the mere refusal or unwillingness on the part of the defeated party to relinDuish the property would not constitute contempt! The proper procedure must be followed in the e'ecution of the &udgment! Chinese Commercial Company v! Martine% et al ?# SCRA ;9;* is clear that( !!! 1nder Section ;?d* of Rule 5$% if the &udgment be for the delivery of the possession of real property% the writ of e'ecution must reDuire the sheriff or other officer to whom it must be to deliver the possession of the property% describing it% to the party entitled thereto! This means his means that the sheyiff must dispossess or e&ect the losing party from the premises and deliver the possession thereof to the winning party! 8f subseDuent to such dispossession or e&ectment the losing party enters or attempts to enter into or upon the real property% for the purpose of e'ecuting acts of ownership or possession or in any manner disturbs the possession of the person ad&udged to be entitled thereto% then and only then may be loser be charged with and punished for contempt under paragraph ?h* of Section 5% Rule #9! A similar ruling was rendered in Fuentes% et al vs! 3eviste% et al ?)): SCRA $";*% where this Court held 1nder Sec! )5% Rule 5$ of the Rules of Court% it is not enough for the sheriff% in the enforcement of a &udgment for delivery or restitution of property% to merely direct the defeated party to effect such delivery or restitution! The refusal of the defeated party to surrender the property to the winning party upon the order of the sheriff does not constitute contempt! The sheriff himself must oust the defeated party from the property and effect the delivery or restitution by placing the winning party in possession of the property ?1!S! vs! Ramayat -- 7hi3 );5* !!! 1nder the second issue in this petition% the petitioners allege that they have entered% occupied% and were in peaceful possession of the land in Duestion which according to them was public land% for more than twenty ?-4* years% and that their legal possession is evidenced by Ta' 2eclaration o! 54#; issued by the Office of the 7rovincial Assessor on October ) )% )$#4! 0aving introduced considerable improvements on the land in Duestion before anybody laid claim to it% the petitioners state that they are builders and planters in good faith and are thus entitled to the retention of the improvements pending payment under Articles 99; and "9# of the Civil Code! >ith this right of retention% the petitioners contend that their refusal to vacate the premises cannot be punished as contempt!
The lower court did not find this e'planation satisfactory! The respondents have not discussed the builder in good faith argument but have limited themselves to insisting that the refusal to vacate and to pay costs is contemptuous defiance of the court orders! The records of this case are rather sorld >ar 88% that under the Civil Code they are entitled to reimbursement of all their improvements and that pending payment of said improvements% they cannot be held in contempt of court! >ithout e'plaining the basis of its ruling on this point% the lower court found it unsatisfactory! 1nder ordinary circumstances% the petitioners contentions on the second issue they raised would not receive serious consideration! 2uring pre+trial% their first counsel agreed that a court commissioner would survey the land and if they are found within the property of the private respondent% they would leave! There are special reasons% however% why the builder in good faith issue should not be ignored or considered closed in spite of the finality of the decision in the recovery of possession case! 8n the first place% the petitioners have the presumption of good faith under Article "-: of the Civil Code in their favor! 8n the drafting of the answer and during pre+trial the petitioners do not seem to have had the benefit of counsel in the real meaning of its availability! The petitioners first counsel limited the issues to ascertaining whether or not the two defendants were inside the titled property of the paintiff! Atal and Amado are members of a cultural minority group! They appear not even to have any surname! Their family name Moslem appears to be more of a descriptive applation than a surname! There is nothing in the records before us to show whether or not Atal and Amado were mere sDuatters who entered land already titled in someone elses name! 8t is not also shown whether the two were already wor0.R.FOR.% the orders of the respondent court finding the petitioners guilty of contempt and ordering their arrest and detention are hereby R.=.RS.2 and S.T AS82.! The temporary restraining order earlier issued is made 7.RMA.T! Costs against the private respondent! SO OR2.R.2! G.R. No. +5/69 M&r=< 1+, 1992 OSE RAMIRE>, E RAMIRE>, OSEINA RAMIRE>, ERLIN%A RAMIRE> &' %IOS%A%O RAMIRE>, petitioer", !". (4E CO$R( O A##EALS, (4E MINIS(ER :NO? SECRE(AR-; O AGRIC$L($RE AN% OO%S, &' ALEN(INA %A. %E MON(ERO, re"po'et".
FACTS
The fact adduced by the respondent court show that on October ))% )$:5% 8rene =da! de Ramire% now substituted by her heirs% herein petitioners% was granted a lease over a fishing area under Fp! A! o! 5)9:) covering $!"494 hectares% situated at Masinloc% Kambales by the Acting 2irector% 6ureau of Fisheries! The pertinent portion of said order ) is Duoted% thus( >0.R.FOR.% premises considered% F3A! o! "94 of =icente Tecson should be as hereby it is declared T.RM8AT.2% it being issued on 2ecember ;% )$"5 and had already e'pired on 2ecember 5)% )$#9, that =alentina =da! de Montero% be ordered to vacate the portion of the area she is occupying and should remove whatever e'isting improvements she has introduced therein% inasmuch as her occupation of a public land is without proper authority of the authorities concerned, Fp! A! o! 5)9:) of Mrs! 8rene =2A! de Ramire% should be as hereby it is% G8=. 21. CO1RS.% to cover the whole area of $!"494 hectares formerly under Ord! Fp! 7ermit o! F+"#9+C ?Cancelled* of the late Catalino Ramire! On February -$% )$:9 private respondent =alentina vda! de Montero filed a protest against the application of 8rene vda! de Ramire% alleging that the failure of the latter to disclose to the authorities concerned the transfer to said =alentina of a 9+hectare portion of the area under the permit% constituted fraud% and that the directors order of October ))% )$:5 would un&ustly enrich the said 8rene vda! de Ramire! The said protest of the private respondent was dismissed by the 2irector of Fisheries on August )-% )$:" and was again dismissed by the Minister of atural Resources on ovember -)% )$:; upon appeal! 8t met the same fate on August ))% )$;) when the same protest was appealed to the Office of the 7resident! On September -:% )$;9% private respondent then filed a complaint before the Court of First 8nstance of Kambales to annul the aforesaid decision of the Office of the 7resident! This was% however dismissed on September -:% )$;9% and upon appeal therefrom% the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in its resolution of August )-% )$;"! >hen the dismissal resolution of the Court of Appeals became final and e'ecutory% herein petitioners% on Buly -)% )$;#% filed with the 6ureau of Fisheries and ADuatic Resources ?6FAR* a motion for the e'ecution of its order of October ))% )$:5! The O8C% 6FAR issued a memorandum order dated August "% )$;# to the Regional 2irector% MAF% San Fernando% 7ampanga% for the immediate implementation of the said October ))% )$:5 order! 8n compliance therewith% the provincial Fisheries Officer% served notices to private respondents% et al! and Candido delos Santos% et al! directing them to vacate the fishpond area they are occupying! 8nstead of complying with the order% private respondent on August )5% )$;#% filed with the respondent Secretary ?then Minister of Agriculture and Foods% MAF for short* an opposition to the motion for e'ecution and acting on the said opposition% the respondent Secretary issued an order dated August -#% )$;#% holding in abeyance action on the motion for e'ecution IiJn order that this office may act on the O77OS8T8O TO T0. MOT8O FOR .L.C1T8O OF B12GM.T ! ! ! On October -% )$;#% petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the August -#% )$;# order! 8nstead of acting on the motion% the respondent Secretary ordered that an investigation an d ocular inspection of the area in dispute be conducted as it stated% to wit( The order dated October ))% )$:5 of the 2irector of Fisheries% sub&ect of implementation% refers to the ad&udication of past facts% namely(
)! That the area in Duestion consists of two ?-* lots% separated by a cree<, 3ot ) ?northern portion* consisting of "!$9)- hectares% and 3ot - ?southern portion* consisting of 5!#"-; hectares! ?Relocation 7lan% records page ")* -! That =alentina Montero was ordered to vacate the portion of the area she was occupying and to remove the residential house in the north eastern portion of 3ot )! ?Order dated October ))% )$:5 and Report dated September -4% )$:5 of Moises 3! Matriano* 5! That =alentina Montero has no fishpond improvements in )$:5% since the improvements e'isting on the area per report of Moises 3! Matriano% were those introduced in )$9:! 9! That the two ?-* deeds of sale dated March )4% )$## and April )$% )$## e'ecuted by spouses Catalino Ramire and 8rene 6ermude Ramire in favor of =alentina Montero were null and void for not having been approved by authorities concerned% pursuant to Fisheries Administrative Order o! #4+- dated February )"% )$#;! ?Resolution% Aug! ))% )$;)% Office of the 7resident*! "! That Fp! A! o! 5)9:) of 8rene =da! de Ramire was given due course covering an area of $!"494 hectares% formerly under OF7 o! F+"#9+C ?Cancelled* of the late Catalino Ramire! 2uring the pendency of the case for a period of twelve ?)-* years from October ))% )$:5 to October -"% )$;"% there were supervening the events% happenings of which necessarily affect the implementation of the order dated October ))% )$:5( )! That 8rene =da! de Ramire and children% Bose 6! Ramire% 2iosdado Ramire% 6ienvenido Ramire% Bosefina R! Cines% .rlinda R! Almandres% e'ecuted a 2eed of uitclaim ?Records% p! :-4+:-)* on February ); )$;- in favor of Col! Florentino Cuaresma ?Ret!* over a portion of the area in despute% bounded on the orth by Buan Arbio% on the .ast by a 7rovincial Road% on the South by 8rene =da! de Ramire ?visible by diest by the China Sea% containing an area of 5!4 hectares! -! That on March ):% )$;-% Florentino Cuaresma filed with 6FAR his Fp! A! o! 5;:5# covering 5!4 hectares! 5! That 8rene =da! de Ramire died on February --% )$;5 as evidenced by a certificate issued by the Office of the 3ocal Civil Registrar% Masinloc% Kambales! 9! That on August )"% )$;9% the 0eirs of Catalino Ramire filed an application covering an area of #!"$94 hectares% stating that the area applied for is the same area covered by OF7 o! F+"#9+C and F7! A! o! 5)9:) of the late Catalino Ramire and 8rene =da de Ramire! "! That there are e'tensive improvements on the area subseDuently introduced by Bose T! Reyes and Montero% worth about 7-44%444!44% as alleged in the protest dated August -"% )$;# of Bose T! Reyes!, 5 7etitioners motion for reconsideration was denied by the respondent Secretary in his order dated 2ecember ):% )$;#! 8n sustaining the view of the respondent Secretary% the Court of Appeals stressed that the said Secretary has not refused to implement the October ))% )$:5 order% rather% he had merely held in abeyance implementation of the said order and directed that an investigation be conducted in view of supervening events% the happening of which necessarily affect the implementation of the order dated October ))% )$:5! 9 The Court of Appeals opined that in as much as the sub&ects area is still part of the public domain petitioners claim was still in the application stage and no fishpond lease agreement having
been as yet issued by the 6FAR an investigation was necessary in order to determine ?)* the effect of the death of 8rene =da! de Ramire on her Fp! A! o! 5)9:), ?-* the effect of the 2eed of uitclaim dated February );% )$;- e'ecuted by 8rene =da! de Ramire and children in favor of Florentino Cuaresma over a portion of 5!4 hectares of area in dispute, and ?5* the claim of Bose T! Reyes and Montero on the subseDuent introduction of improvements on the area in dispute which are not considered in the Order sought to be implemented! " The appellate court further agreed with the respondent Secretary that holding in abeyance the implementation of the October ))% )$:5 order would prevent complication that may arise had said order been immediately e'ecuted without determining the effects and ramifications of the aforesaid supervening events! The only issue raised by the petitioners is whether a &udgment that had long become final and e'ecutory can still be reconsidered and set aside! 8t is the oft+repeated rule that once a &udgment has become final% the issues therein should be laid to rest! # 8t is li
and collateral fraud! The latter was not pursued by private respondent obviously because she clearly has no basis to have the &udgment set aside! The fact is that the Duestioned order dated August -#% )$;#)4 of the Secretary of Agriculture and Foods was premised on the protest filed on August )5% )$;# by Bose T! Reyes ?not by =alentina =da! de Montero herself* against the issuance of the notice to vacate to private respondents and Candido delos Santos% alleging( )) )! That the original case involving the fishpond ! ! ! was between Catalino Ramire and on =icente Tecson ! ! ! -! The investigation failed to disclose that =alentina Montero had previously bought the Ramire fishpond on April )$% )$## ! ! ! Mrs! Montero filed her own application for fishpond permit on Bune )4% )$#; ! ! ! 5! Of the land bought by Mrs! Montero from the Ramirees% a two+hectare portion thereof was sold to me sometime in 2ecember )$:5! 9! That the Ramirees have never been on the fishponds in Duestion since their e'ecution of the deed of sale of )$##% as shown by the e'tensive improvements introduced thereon worth about 7-44%444!44 more or less by Mrs! Montero and myself! "! Mrs! 8rene Ramire filed her application for the same fishponds on Bune -"% )$:5% at a time when she had nothing more to apply ! ! ! and the prior application of Mrs! Montero had been re&ected on the flimsy ground that the transfer was not with the previous approval of the Commissioner! #! That to give currency to this ! ! ! would sanction undue enrichment of the Ramirees at the e'pense of Mrs! Montero and myself% because then the former would &ust pre+empt the vast improvements we have so far introduced on the fishponds in Duestion ! ! ! 8tems )% -% 9 and " have long been resolved since the Order dated August )-% )$:"% )- of the then 2irector of 6FAR was handed down! Said Order reads( The allegations of protestant Montero that her entry over the area was based on the 2eed of Sale e'ecuted by the late Catalino Ramire% for which she filed a proposed application on August )% )$#; covering the area% was however denied by 7rotestee 8rene =da! de Ramire% during the e'+parte investigation! 8t appears that the only documentary evidences submitted by counsel for protestant during the investigation were the following% namely( the alleged 2eed of Sale, a ta' declaration and the receipts of payments to the municipality! ''' ''' ''' The alleged 2eed of Sale cannot be the basis of the protestant to occupy the area for it is not duly approved pursuant to e'isting rules and regulations governing the lease of fishponds, hence the same is without force and effect% as far as this office is concerned! either the ta' declaration or the receipt of payments to the municipality% constitute a valid ground for the occupation of the area in controversy% for the law is e'plicit% that no person shall occupy public land for fishpond purposes unless a permit or lease agreement is duly issued in his favor! This was affirmed in the decision )5 of the then Minister of atural Resources% the dispositive portion of which states(
All told% appellants entry into and occupation of the area is without legal basis! And the fact that she described the area for ta'ation purposes and paid the ta'es thereon does not warrant said entry and occupation because the area is a forest land% the occupancy of which% without permit or authority% is prohibited under section - of the Fisheries Administrative Order ?FAO* o! #4 dated Bune -$% )$#4% the pertinent portion of which reads as follows( 1se of Forest 3ands o person shall occupy or use any portion of the public forest land% including tidal% mangrove and other swamps ! ! ! for fishpond purposes% without first securing thereof a permit or lease in accordance with the provisions of the Order! This was again upheld by the Office of the 7resident! 8t is Duite evident from the records that as far as =alentina =da! de Montero is concerned% she has no right over the fishpond in dispute and her entry/occupation therein was found to be unlawful! )9 0er status has long been determined and it is about time that >e write finis to her claim! either can Bose Reyes claim any right over a portion of the said area! Records show that he is a mere assignee of respondent Montero and not% as alleged by the Solicitor General% a new party who has introduced improvements% and who would be summarily ousted without the opportunity to be heard! )" A purchaser of property cannot close his eyes and claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no defect in the vendors title! )# A person buying can acDuire no more than what she seller can legally transfer% because the latter can only sell what he owns or is authoried to sell! Reyes was very much aware of the defect in Mrs! Monteros title as he admitted that the prior application of Mrs! Montero for fishpond permit had been re&ected as early as )$#;! Considering such% he cannot claim to be a builder in good faith! The general rule is that a builder in bad faith loses what the built without right to indemnity!): Moreover% Fisheries Administrative Order o! #4+- dated )" February )$#; specifically provides( That any transfer or sublease without the previous app roval of Commissioner or by the Secretary% as the case may be% shall be considered null and void and deemed sufficient cause for the cancellation of the permit or lease% and the forfeiture of the improvement% and bond in connection therewith% in favor of the Government! ); As to the death of 8rene =da! de Ramire% this is not such a supervening event as to warrant re+ investigation of her application! She can simply be substituted by her heirs! 8t appears then that the only legitimate supervening event which need to be determined is the effect of the Duitclaim e'ecuted by 8rene =da! de Ramire and her heirs in favor of Col! Florentino Cuaresma! Should it be found that the same is in order% the application of 8rene =da! de Ramire% now substituted by her heirs% under Fp! A! o! 5)9:) covering #!"$94 ?area which was not conveyed to Cuaresma* should finally be given due course! >0.R.FOR.% the &udgment of the Court of Appeals is set aside! Another &udgment is hereby rendered( ?)* ordering =alentina =da! de Montero and/or her assigns to vacate the fishpond area they are occupying, ?-* to remand this case to 6FAR only for the purpose of determining the effect of the Duitclaim e'ecuted by 8rene =da! de Ramire and her heirs in favor of Col! Florentino Cuaresma ?Ret!*( and ?5* to allow the heirs of 8rene =da! de Ramire to substitute her in her lease application! SO OR2.R.2!
