Land Titles- Remedies in PD 1529 Cases

7/26/2019 Land Titles- Remedies in PD 1529 Cases

1/47

REMEDIES

REMEDIES UNDER THE PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE (IN CASESOF FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION)

** PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DECREE**

*ON FRAUD*

PALANCA VS. AMERICAN FOOD MANUFACTURING CO.

ZALDIVAR,J.:

On May 14, 1958, petitioner-appellant Gregoria Palanca fled with the

Philippine Patent Oce, Department o !ommerce and "nd#$try, anapplication to regi$ter the trademar%, &'"O( and the repre$entation o a lion)$head,& alleging that $he had *een #$ing the trademar% $ince +an#ary 5, 1958on *echin ood $ea$oning. /he application wa$ oppo$ed *y hereinre$pondent-appelee. /he 0merican ood Man#act#ring !ompany, on thegro#nd that petitioner)$ trademar% wa$ $imilar to it$ re$pondent)$trademar% &'"O( and repre$entation o a lion& pre2io#$ly adopted and #$ed*y it on the $ame type o prod#ct $ince 0#g#$t 3, 1953.

0ter hearing, the Director o Patent$, on +#ne 14, 191, rendered a deci$ion,the pertinent portion o which read$ a$ ollow$

/he record o the ca$e con$i$ting o re$pondent-appellant)$1application, thete$timonie$ on *ehal o the partie$ with accompanying e6hi*it$ and theoppo$er)$7memorand#m ha2e *een gi2en care#l con$ideration. /here i$ nomemorand#m or re$pondent-applicant. &/here can *e no #e$tion *#t thatthe trademar%$ and the good$ o the partie$ are $imilar. 0ccordingly the onlyi$$#e pre$ented i$ that o priority o #$e.

Oppo$er)$ record e$ta*li$he$ that it ha$ at lea$t $ince 195, prior to +an#ary

5, 198, the earlie$t date o #$e a$$erted *y re$pondent-applicant,contin#o#$ly #$ed '"O( and repre$entation thereo, a$ a trademar% or *echinood $ea$oning. /he oppo$er i$ thereore the prior #$er while there$pondent-applicant i$ the later #$er o $#*$tantially the $ame trademar%.

"( :";< O /=; 0>O:; !O(?"D;@0/"O(?, the oppo$ition i$ here*y $#$tainedand application ?erial (o. 371 o Gregoria Palanca i$ reAected.

/he record $how$ the petitioner)$ co#n$el wa$ #rni$hed with copy o thedeci$ion on +#ne 1, 191.3(o appeal wa$ ta%en rom the deci$ion o theDirector o Patent$ within the reglementary period rom +#ne 1, 191.

On Decem*er 14, 191, howe2er, herein petitioner-appellant fled with thePatent Oce a petition to $et a$ide the aorementioned A#dgment o +#ne 14,191, in2o%ing $ection 7 o @#le 38 o the @#le$ o !o#rt, alleging ra#dandBor negligence committed *y her ormer co#n$el, 0tty. >ien2enido Medel,in that the latter ailed to fle a memorand#m *eore the ca$e wa$ $#*mittedor deci$ionC that $he had *een ra#d#lently %ept in total ignorance o theproceeding$ in the ca$eC that her co#n$el had not inormed her o thedeci$ion th#$ pre2enting her rom re$orting to all the legal remedie$ a2aila*le

to herC that $he came to %nown o the deci$ion only a*o#t the latter part oOcto*er, 191, thro#gh her riend, Mr. Domingo 0de2o$oC that $he hade2idence to di$pro2e the claim o oppo$er /he 0merican ood Man#act#ring!ompany that it had *een #$ing the $ame trademar% e2en *eore 1958C andthat $he had e2idence to $how that the *echin that the oppo$er $old prior to1958 were not o the &'ion& *rand *#t o the &'ion-/iger& *rand, anothertrademar% o oppo$er.

"n it$ an$wer to the petition to $et a$ide the A#dgment, the oppo$er, hereinre$pondent-appellee *e 0merican ood Man#act#ring !ompany, denied theallegation$ o the petition and p#t #p $pecial and armati2e deen$e$, to witthat the petition wa$ fled o#t o timeC that the e2idence propo$ed to *epre$ented wa$ not new *#t wa$ already e6i$ting and a2aila*le at the time othe hearing o the ca$eC and that the deci$ion wa$ not rendered thro#ghra#d, accident, mi$ta%e, or e6c#$a*le negligence, a$ i$ contemplated in?ection 7 o @#le 38 o the @#le$ o !o#rt.

/he petition to $et a$ide the A#dgment wa$ $et or hearing, wherein petitioner-appellant and a witne$$, @icardo Monero, te$tifed.


2/47

"n thi$ connection, thi$ !o#rt, in the ca$e o :arela 2$. :illan#e2a, etc., et al.,95 Phil. 748, 758, $aid.

/he r#le i$ that an action to ann#l a A#dgment, #pon the gro#nd o ra#d, willnot lie #nle$$ the ra#d *e e6trin$ic or collateral and the act$ #pon which it i$*a$ed ha2e not *een contro2erted or re$ol2ed in the ca$e where theA#dgment $o#ght to *e ann#lled wa$ rendered, and that al$e te$timony orperA#ry i$ not a gro#nd or a$$ailing $aid A#dgment, #nle$$ the ra#d reer$ toA#ri$diction 'a*ayen 2$. /ali$ay-?ilay Milling !o., 8 Phil. 3C that ra#d ha$*een regarded a$ e6trin$ic or collateral, where it ha$ pre2ented a party romha2ing a trial or rom pre$enting all o hi$ ca$e to the co#rt 33 0m. +#r. pp.73-737. /he rea$on or thi$ r#le ha$ *een aptly $tated in 0lmeda, et al. 2$.!r#H, 4 OE. GaH., 119

)ra#d to *e gro#nd or n#llity o a A#dgment m#$t *e e6trin$ic to thelitigation.


3/47

5. /hat the herein applicant$ committed ra#d in o*taining $aid decree oregi$tration, and $#ch ra#d con$i$t$ o the ollowing the herein applicant$had al$ely repre$ented to thi$ =onora*le !o#rt d#ring the hearing o theirapplication that they were the owner$ o the entire re$idential lot incl#ded intheir plan mar%ed a$ ;6hi*it &0& and now co2ered *y the decree oregi$tration, when at that time they %new #lly well t hey were not the owner$thereo in it$ entiretyC that they were aware o $#ch ra#d#lent repre$entationwhen they made it *eca#$e they were partie$ in !i2il !a$e (o. 998 o thi$!o#rt in2ol2ing preci$ely the 2alidity o their title to the aorementioned lotCthey al$o %new that on appeal the ca$e *ecame G.@. (o. '-8875 o the?#preme !o#rt which, in a deci$ion prom#lgated on 0pril 7, 195, held thatthe title a deed o $ale to that re$idential lot claimed *y the hereinapplicant$ &i$ in2alid with regard to the minor heir$ o the late 0l2aro;$#i2el&, one o them *eing @eynaldo ;$#i2el, yo#r petitioner)$ ward, inwho$e *ehal thi$ petition i$ *eing pre$entedC

. /hat yo#r petitioner ha$ *een inormed, *elie2e$ the inormation, andthereore allege$ that in order to perpetrate the aore$aid ra#d #pon thi$!o#rt and #pon yo#r petitioner)$ ward, @eynaldo ;$#i2el, the hereinapplicant$ had mane#2ered $ometime in e*r#ary o 195 the e6ec#tion intheir a2or o a deed o $ale o the $hare in the ot-repeated re$idential lotpertaining to the minor heir$ o the late 0l2aro ;$#i2el, and that deed o $ale$igned *y Perpet#a P. NaragoHa, widow and mother o the ;$#i2el minor$,*#t who ha$ remarried many year$ *eore $he wa$ made to $ign it and whoha$ ta%en #p re$idence in 0$ingan, Panga$inan, $ince her remarriage, awayrom her minor children aore$aid, partic#larly rom the minor @eynaldo;$#i2el who had to *e ta%en care o alternately *y hi$ #ncle and hi$ a#nt$C

On e*r#ary 77, 19, the !o#rt denied the a*o2e mentioned petition. =encethe pre$ent appeal.

/o A#$tiy the $etting a$ide or re2iew o a decree o regi$tration #nder ?ection38 o 0ct (o. 49, the party $ee%ing relie m#$t allege and pro2e, inter alia,that the regi$tration wa$ proc#red thro#gh ra#d act#al and e6trin$ic. "t ha$*een held in thi$ connection that i the ra#d alleged in the petition to $et

a$ide the decree i$ in2ol2ed in the $ame proceeding$ in which the party$ee%ing relie had ample opport#nity to a$$ert hi$ right, to attac% thedoc#ment pre$ented *y the applicant or regi$tration and to cro$$-e6aminethe witne$$e$ who te$tifed relati2e thereto, then the ra#d relied #pon i$intrin$ic. /he ra#d i$ e6trin$ic i it wa$ employed to depri2e a party o hi$ dayin co#rt, th#$ pre2enting him rom a$$erting hi$ right to the propertyregi$tered in the name o the applicant >agoy*oy 2$. Director o 'and$, O.G. 195.

Fpon con$ideration o the act$ relied #pon *y appellant$ to A#$tiy a re2iew othe decree in #e$tion, we fnd that the $ame do not con$tit#te the e6trin$icra#d re#ire a$ A#$tifcation or the granting o the relie $o#ght *y them.riey, the act$ o the ca$e are a$ ollow$

On e*r#ary 77, 19, re$pondent$ Pa*lo, 0ngelita, +#an, >arceli$a, "$rael,@e*ecca and Pedro, +r., all $#rnamed !a$aAe, fled with the !o#rt o ir$t"n$tance o @iHal, 'and @egi$tration !a$e (o. !-7, '.@.!. @ecord (o. (-31,or the confrmation and regi$tration o their title to a parcel o land $it#atedin >arrio ?an @o#e, M#nicipality o (a2ota$, Pro2ince o @iHal, morepartic#larly de$cri*ed on plan P?F-7143 with an area o 98 $#aremeter$. /hey alleged that they are the owner$ in ee $imple and inpo$$e$$ion o the aorementioned land and that their po$$e$$ion togetherwith their predece$$or$-in-intere$t ha$ *een rom time immemorial and or aperiod o more than thirty 3 year$, p#*lic contin#o#$, ad2er$e to the wholeworld, and in the concept o a*$ol#te owner$ thereo.

/he Director o 'and$, thr# the ?olicitor General, fled an Oppo$ition dated+#ly 18, 19 $tating that neither the applicant$ nor their predece$$or$-in-intere$t po$$e$$ $#cient title to the parcel o e land $o#ght to *e regi$tered,

the $ame not ha2ing *een ac#ired *y them *y compo$ition title rom the?pani$h go2ernment or *y po$$e$$ory inormation title #nder the @oyalDecree o e*r#ary 13, 1894C that neither the applicant$ nor theirpredece$$or$-in-intere$t ha2e *een in open, contin#o#$, e6cl#$i2e andnotorio#$ po$$e$$ion and occ#pation o the land in #e$tion or at lea$t 3year$ immediately preceding the fling o the application and that the $ame i$a portion o the p#*lic domain *elonging to the @ep#*lic o the Philippine$.

(otice o the initial hearing $ched#led on ?eptem*er 8, 19 wa$ #rni$hedthe Director o land$. /he corre$ponding p#*lication wa$ made in the ocialGaHette and the re#ired po$ting o ?heriE)$ notice wa$ d#ly complied with.

0t the $aid $ched#led initial hearing, howe2er, the Director o 'and$ did notappear. "n$tead, co#n$el or the applicant$ pre$ented to the co#rt, the $econd

and third indor$ement$ o the Di$trict 'and Ocer dated 0#g#$t , 19,manie$ting that the >#rea# o 'and$ i$ no longer intere$ted in oppo$ing theapplication or regi$tration, *eca#$e ater d#e in2e$tigation the land wa$o#nd to *e o pri2ate owner$hip a$ certifed to *y the land in2e$tigator Mr.+o$e ?i$on, !BO Di$trict 'and Ocer """-1. /he third indor$ement, dated 0#g#$t, 19 and $igned *y Mr. 0rt#ro Pa$c#al, recommend that in 2iew o thea*o2e fnding$ a$ per in2e$tigation cond#cted *y a repre$entati2e o the>#rea# o 'and$, no oppo$ition *e fled. 0 copy o the $aid 2nd"ndor$ement i$herein*elow reprod#ced a$ ollow$

?F>+;!/

'and. @eg. !a$e (o. !-7'.@.!. @ec. (o. (-31Pa*lo !a$aAe, et al.?an @o#e, (a2ota$,@iHal7nd "ndor$ement

0#g#$t 1, 19

@e$pect#lly ret#rned to the Director o 'and$ thr# the Di$trict 'and Ocer,D'O """-1, >#rea# o 'and$, Manila, $#*mitting here#nder the fnding$ andreport o the #nder$igned on the a*o2e-noted @egi$tration !a$e, to wit

/hat the parcel o land $o#ght to *e regi$tered i$ a re$idential lot located in?an @o#e, (a2ota$, @iHal which wa$ originally owned and po$$e$$ed *y'eonardo !a$aAe, decea$ed and ather o the herein regi$tration applicant$C

/hat the land $#*Aect o thi$ regi$tration wa$ declared or ta6ation p#rpo$e$#nder /a6 Dec.. (o, 88 in the name$ o the applicant$ and the ta6e$ werepaid or and the late$t i$ co2ered *y O.@. (o. D-185945 dated May 31, 19with an a$$e$$ed 2al#e o P99.C

/hat d#ring the oc#lar in2e$tigation o the premi$e$ o the land $#*Aect o thi$regi$tration, it ha$ *een a$certained that a camarin and a re$idential ho#$eare o#nd thereon. /he 3-meter legal ea$ement ha$ *een $et a$ide and#nocc#pied or em*an%ment o the (a2ota$, @i2er

/hat it ha$ *een a$certained #rther that the $#*Aect o thi$ regi$tration ca$e

i$ a*#tting 'ot 17 o P$#-48 o 'eonardo !a$aAe which i$ a titled or pri2atepropertyC

/hat the land ha$ *een o#nd that the $ame i$ not co2ered *y any p#*lic landapplication$ or patent neither it i$ within any p#*lic or #a$i p#*licimpro2ement$C

/hat the #nder$igned ha$ fnally a$certained that the applicant$ are ilipinocitiHen$ and no per$on, corporation, or a$$ociation i$ either directly orindirectly intere$ted in the land $o#ght to *e regi$teredC and

/hat the applicant$ thr# their predece$$or$-in-intere$t and in concept oowner$ ha2e *een in act#al, open, ad2er$e, p#*lic and contin#o#$ occ#pationand po$$e$$ion or more than thirty 3 year$ which i$ *elie2ed to *e notlater than +#ly 4, 197.

"n 2iew o the oregoing, and in a$ m#ch a$ the applicant$ ha2e $ati$actorilymet all the condition$ e$$ential to entitle them to a +#dicial legaliHation o

their imperect claim$ o2er the land applied or #nder the pro2i$ion$ o?ection 48* o !om. 0ct (o. 141, a$ amended *y @.0. (o. 1947, it i$

recommended that no oppo$ition *e interpo$ed on the in$tant @egi$tration!a$e a$ ar a$ o#r Oce i$ concern.

?GD. +O?; ?"?O('and "n2e$tigator

0l$o on ?eptem*er 8, 19, re$pondent !o#rt, or ail#re o the Oppo$itor$ toappear de$pite d#e notice, entered an order o general dea#lt again$t thewhole world, with the e6ception o the pro2incial go2ernment o @iHal and them#nicipal go2ernment o (a2ota$, there*y a#thoriHing the applicant$ topre$ent their e2idence *eore the Dep#ty !ler% o !o#rt, who wa$commi$$ioned to recei2e the $ame.

On ?eptem*er 13, 19, re$pondent co#rt rendered a deci$ion declaring theapplicant$, the tr#e and a*$ol#te owner$ o the land in #e$tion, and ordering

the regi$tration thereo in their name$ *#t re$er2ing or p#*lic ea$ement a3. meter $trip o the land along the (a2ota$ @i2er.

On 0#g#$t 7, 19, the pri2ate oppo$itor$ @o*erto '#$terio, et al., fled aPetition or @e2iew rom the order o general dea#lt and rom the A#dgmentalleging ra#d and e2ident *ad aith. /he petition wa$ denied *y re$pondentco#rt or ail#re on the part o pri2ate oppo$itor$ to pro2e their allegation$ ora#d and e2ident *ad aith allegedly employed *y the applicant$. (o appealwa$ interpo$ed *y the pri2ate oppo$itor$ rom the $aid order.1avvphi1

On hi$ part, the Director o 'and$ fled on Octo*er 11, 19, a Petition orre2iew, p#r$#ant to ?ec. 38 o 0ct (o. 49, alleging ra#d in o*taining thedecree o regi$tration and that the one 1 year period ha$ not elap$ed romthe i$$#ance o the decree the decree$ wa$ i$$#ed on +#ne 5, 19.

/he applicant$ the !a$aAe$ fled an oppo$ition contending among otherthing$, that the $aid petition or re2iew &repre$ent$ the intere$t o ;#$e*ia!r#H, @o*erto '#$terio and ;2angelina 'a#indan#m who were the originaloppo$itor$ repre$ented *y pri2ate co#n$el 0tty. 0rtemio '. 0gcaoiliC& that

$ince the decree o regi$tration wa$ i$$#ed on +#ne 5, 19 and $ince thecorre$ponding certifcate o title ha$ already *een i$$#ed *y the @egi$ter oDeed$, $aid petition or re2iew i$ a mere hara$$ment, and that the land indi$p#te, a$ may *e $een rom the in2e$tigation report and indor$ement o theDi$trict 'and Ocer, i$ the pri2ate property o 'eonardo !a$aAe and that theaorementioned ;#$e*ia !r#H, @o*erto '#$terio and ;2angelina 'a#indan#mwere merely their tenant$.

/he petition or re2iew wa$ $et or hearing on Decem*er 19, 198. On+an#ary 4, 199, re$pondent co#rt i$$#ed it$ Order denying the petition orlac% o e2idence to $#pport the $ame. rom thi$ order, ater it$ motion orrecon$ideration had *een denied, herein petitioner interpo$ed thi$ petition.

/he primordial #e$tion to *e re$ol2ed in the ca$e at *ar i$ whether or notre$pondent co#rt erred in denying petitioner)$ petition or re2iew fledp#r$#ant to ?ec. 38 o 0ct 49, 'and @egi$tration 0ct which pro2ide$

?ection 38. Decree o regi$tration, and remedie$ ater entry o decree.

" the co#rt ater hearing fnd$ that the applicant or ad2er$e claimant ha$ titlea$ $tated in hi$ application or ad2er$e claim and proper or regi$tration, adecree o confrmation and regi$tration $hall *e entered. ;2ery decree oregi$tration $hall *ind the land, and #iet title thereto, $#*Aect only to thee6ception$ $tated in the ollowing $ection. "t $hall *e concl#$i2e #pon andagain$t an per$on$, incl#ding the "n$#lar Go2ernment and an the *ranche$thereo, whether mentioned *y name in the application, notice o citation, orincl#ded in the general de$cription &/o all whom it may concern.& ?#ch decree$hall not *e opened *y rea$on o the a*$ence, inancy, or other di$a*ility oany per$on aEected there*y, nor *y any proceeding in any co#rt or re2er$ingA#dgment$ or decree$C $#*Aect, howe2er, to the right o any per$on depri2edo land or o any e$tate or intere$t therein *y decree o regi$tration o*tained*y ra#d to fle in the competent !o#rt o ir$t "n$tance a petition or re2iewwithin one year ater entry o the decree pro2ided no innocent p#rcha$er or2al#e ha$ ac#ired an intere$t. ...

/he e$$ential element$ or the allowance o the reopening or re2iew o adecree are a that the petitioner ha$ a real and dominical rightC * that heha$ *een depri2ed thereoC c thro#gh ra#dC d that the petition i$ fledwithin one year rom the i$$#ance o the decreeC and e that the property ha$

not a$ yet *een tran$erred to an innocent p#rcha$er.


4/47

=owe2er, or ra#d to A#$tiy the re2iew o a decree, it m#$t *e e6trin$ic orcollateral and the act$ #pon which it i$ *a$ed ha2e not *een contro2erted orre$ol2ed in the ca$e where the A#dgment $o#ght to *e ann#lled wa$ rendered./he ollowing r#ling $pell$ o#t the diEerence *etween e6trin$ic and intrin$icra#d

;6trin$ic or collateral ra#d, a$ di$ting#i$hed rom intrin$ic ra#d, connote$any ra#d#lent $cheme e6ec#ted *y a pre2ailing litigant &o#t$ide the trial o aca$e again$t the deeated party, or hi$ agent$, attorney$ or witne$$e$,where*y $aid deeated party, i$ pre2ented rom pre$enting #lly and airly hi$$ide o the ca$e.& >#t intrin$ic ra#d ta%e$ the orm o &act$ o a party in alitigation d#ring the trial, $#ch a$ the #$e o orged in$tr#ment$ or perA#redte$timony, which did not aEect the pre$ent action o the ca$e, *#t did pre$enta air and A#$t determination o the ca$e.& 'i*#dan 2$. Gil, 45 ?!@0 1

"n other word$, e6trin$ic ra#d i$ one that aEect$ and goe$ into theA#ri$diction o the !o#rt.

"n it$ Petition or @e2iew fled *eore the re$pondent co#rt, petitioner allegedthat the !a$aAe$ committed ra#d in o*taining $aid decree o regi$tration inthe ollowing manner

a >y al$ely alleging and mi$repre$enting that they ha2e *een in peace#l,open, ad2er$e and contin#o#$ po$$e$$ion o the land de$cri*ed in paragraph1 hereo or more than 3 year$, the tr#th *eing that $aid land had *een inthe act#al and e6cl#$i2e po$$e$$ion o ;#$e*ia !r#H, @o*erto '#$terio and;2angelina 'a#indan#m who are not and ha2e ne2er *een in $#chpo$$e$$ion a$ tenant$ or repre$entati2e$ o the regi$tration applicant$C

* >y al$ely repre$enting that the land wa$ ormed *y all#2ia and i$ th#$ anaccretion to their pri2ate property, the tr#th *eing that the entire land ha$alway$ *een part o the p#*lic domain, ormed a$ it wa$ *y the inter2entiono h#man hand$C and

c >y mi$repre$enting that no other per$on, incl#ding the $tate, ha$ anyintere$t what$oe2er in the land in #e$tion. pp. 4-48, @ollo

!learly, the oregoing allegation$, e2en i pro2ed, do not con$tit#te e6trin$icra#d a$ wo#ld warrant a reopening o the decree.

/he per$on$ contemplated #nder ?ection 38 o 0ct 49, to *e entitled to are2iew o a decree o regi$tration, are tho$e who were ra#d#lently depri2edo their opport#nity to *e heard in the original regi$tration ca$e. ?#ch i$ notthe $it#ation o the petitioner here. "t wa$ not denied a day in co#rt *y ra#d,which the law pro2ide$ a$ the $ole gro#nd or reopening o the decree oregi$tration. "n act, it oppo$ed the application *#t ailed to $#*$tantiate it$oppo$ition *eca#$e it did not appear at the hearing o the regi$tration ca$ede$pite proper notice. "n Solomon et al., vs. Bocauto et al ., 1 Phil. 33, 35,cited in !ri$olo 2$. !o#rt o 0ppeal$, 8 ?!@0 435, 441, a petition or re2iewo a decree o regi$tration wa$ properly denied or &*oth petitioner$ hadnotice o the original regi$tration proceeding$C *#t ailed to p#t #p any claimand to $how title in them$el2e$. & ?ignifcantly, petitioner ailed to e6plain

why it ailed to appear at the hearing. Mere allegation o ra#d i$ not eno#gh.?pecifc, intentional act$ to decei2e and depri2e another o hi$ right, or in$ome manner inA#re him m#$t *e alleged and pro2ed. /here m#$t *e act#alor po$iti2e ra#d a$ di$ting#i$hed rom con$tr#cti2e ra#d to entitle o ne to thereopening o a decree o regi$tration. 0nd it m#$t *e e6trin$ic and notintrin$ic ra#d Greg 0l*a 2$. de la !r#H, 1 Phil. 49, 5. /hi$ i$ nece$$ary tomaintain the $ta*ility o A#dicial deci$ion$ and $a2e the precio#$ time o theco#rt$ rom *eing wa$ted *y #nnece$$ary proceeding$. Moreo2er, the actthat the Di$trict 'and Ocer o the >#rea# o 'and cond#cted thecorre$ponding in$pection and in2e$tigation o the land in #e$tion with it$fnding$ and report $#*mitted in co#rt, render$ the pre$ent appeal interpo$ed*y the Director o 'and$ witho#t 2alid *a$i$. "t cannot A#$t $imply deny thereport o it$ own in2e$tigator. >e$ide$, there i$ alway$ that pre$#mption oreg#larity in the perormance o ocial #nction.

#rgo$ $i*ling$. 0 new title, /!/ (o. 1358, wa$ theni$$#ed in their name$.On Decem*er 17, 1985, the >#rgo$ $i*ling$, in t#rn, $old the $ame propertyto their a#nt, 'eonarda >#rgo$. =owe2er, the $ale in a2or o 'eonarda wa$not regi$tered. /h#$, no title wa$ i$$#ed in her name. /he $#*Aect propertyremained in the name o the >#rgo$ $i*ling$ who al$o contin#ed paying thereal e$tate ta6e$ thereon.

On e*r#ary , 1989, the @/! o Pa$ay !ity, >ranch 18, JKrendered it$deci$ion in !i2il !a$e (o. M-9 declaring that the Deed o ?ale in a2or oDelo$ @eye$ wa$ al$ifed a$ the $ignat#re$ o the $po#$e$ @#oe had *eenorged. /he trial co#rt r#led that Delo$ @eye$ did not ac#ire owner$hip o2erthe $#*Aect property. ?aid deci$ion had *ecome fnal and e6ec#tory.?#ch wa$ the $tate o thing$ when, on e*r#ary 8, 199, in the @/! oM#ntinl#pa, the @#oe$ fled their complaint or *eclaration o+ &ullit o+ontract and ancellation o+ Trans+er erti-cate o+ Titles again$t re$pondent$'eonarda and the >#rgo$ $i*ling$, and Delo$ @eye$. "n their complaint,doc%eted a$ ivil ase &o. (")3(, the @#oe$ *a$ically alleged that

ina$m#ch a$ the Deed o ?ale in a2or o Delo$ @eye$ wa$ al$ifed, no 2alidtitle wa$ e2er con2eyed to the >#rgo$ $i*ling$.JK/he >#rgo$ $i*ling$e6ec#ted a $im#lated deed o $ale in a2or o 'eonarda %nowing #lly well thattheir title wa$ a n#llity.

"n their common R0n$wer,S re$pondent$ maintained that they *o#ghtthe property in good aith ater they were $hown a gen#ine copy o the title othe di$p#ted property *y Delo$ @eye$. /hey al$o in$i$ted that they wereinnocent p#rcha$er$ in good aith and or 2al#e.J8K

On e*r#ary 1, 1995, the t rial co#rt rendered a deci$ion declaring that'eonarda and the >#rgo$ $i*ling$ were not innocent p#rcha$er$ or 2al#e anddid not ha2e a *etter right to the property in #e$tion than the t r#e and legalowner$, the @#oe$. /he trial co#rt al$o held that the $#*$e#entcon2eyance o the di$p#ted property to 'eonarda *y the >#rgo$ $i*ling$ wa$$im#lated to ma%e it appear that 'eonarda wa$ a *#yer in good aith. /hetrial co#rt then directed the @egi$ter o Deed$ o Ma%ati, @iHal to rein$tate thetitle o the $po#$e$ @#oe, and to cancel all other title$ $#*$e#ent to the$aid title partic#larly /!/ (o. ?-4933 i$$#ed to Delo$ @eye$ and /!/ (o.1358 i$$#ed to the >#rgo$ $i*ling$.J9K

@e$pondent$ interpo$ed an appeal to the !0, whereat the appellate

reco#r$e wa$ doc%eted a$ !"#.$. %. &o. '(()(.

0$ $tated at the thre$hold hereo, the !0, in it$ deci$ion dated +an#ary 1,7, re2er$ed and $et a$ide that o the trial co#rt, declaring in the proce$$that re$pondent$ were p#rcha$er$ in good aith and or 2al#e. "n $o r#ling, t he!0 e6plainedMea$#red *y thi$ yard$tic%, deendant$-appellant$ Jherein re$pondent$K arep#rcha$er$ in good aith and or 2al#e. 0mado >#rgo$ *o#ght the $#*Aectproperty or hi$ children 0nita, 0ngelina, 0ngelito and 0my ree rom anylien or enc#m*rance or any notice o ad2er$e claim annotated thereto. =ewa$ pre$ented with a clean title already in the name o the $eller. " a per$onp#rcha$e$ a piece o land on the a$$#rance that the $ellerQ$ title thereto i$2alid, he $ho#ld not r#n the ri$% o *eing told later that hi$ ac#i$ition wa$ineEect#al ater all. " we were to 2oid a $ale o property co2ered *y a cleanand #nenc#m*ered torren$ title, p#*lic confdence in the /orren$ ?y$temwo#ld *e eroded and tran$action$ wo#ld ha2e to *e attended *y complicatedand inconcl#$i2e in2e$tigation$ and #ncertain proo o owner$hip. /hecon$e#ence$ wo#ld *e that land conict$ co#ld prolierate and *ecome morea*ra$i2e, i not 2iolent. '; !OF@/ O 0PP;0'? D;!"D;D /="? !0?; "( 0 '; ?FP@;M;!OF@/.>. /=;@; 0@; ?P;!"0' 0(D "MPO@/0(/ @;0?O(? /=0/ @;IF"@; 0@;:";< O /=; !0 D;!"?"O(.!. /=; =O(O@0>'; !0 0!/;D "'"/.D. /=; !0 +FDGM;(/ /=0/ @;:;@?;D /=; @/! D;!"?"O( "? (O/?FPPO@/;D > /=; ;:"D;(!; O( @;!O@D 0(D "? !O(/@0@ /O

;?/0>'"?=;D P@;!;D;(/? '0"D DO /=; =O(O@0>'; ?FP@;M;!OF@/.;. /=; !0 ;@@;D "( '0< "( P@0!/"!0'' =O'D"(G /=0/ 0 D;0D M0(0(G;' @F'O; 0(G;' (;:;@ ?"G(;D :0'"D' D"?PO?;D O ="? P@OP;@/0 =OF?; 0(D 'O/ !O:;@;D > 0 /!/ /=@OFG= 0 0'?"";D D;;D O?0'; 0/;@ ="? D;0/= OF@ 4 ;0@? >;O@; /=; ;;!F/"O( O /=;D;;D.. /=; !0 ;@@;D "( '0< "( =O'D"(G 0("/0, 0(G;'"(0, 0M 0(D0(G;'"/O >F@GO? 0(D /=;"@ ?F!!;?O@-"(-"(/;@;?/ /=;"@ 0F(/';O(0@D0>F@GO? 0@; >F;@? "( GOOD 0"/=.G. /=; !0 "G(O@;D /=; P'0"( P@O:"?"O(? O /=; !":"' !OD; /=0/ R"(0'' !O(/@0!/F0', P@OP;@/ O@ O/=;@ @;'0/"O(?, #rgo$ $i*ling$ and the $#*$e#ent $ale *ythe $i*ling$ to 'eonarda were 2alid and *indingC and 7 whether re$pondent$

were innocent p#rcha$er$ in good aith and or 2al#e de$pite the orged deedo $ale o their tran$eror Delo$ @eye$./he i$$#e$ nece$$itate an in#iry into the act$. #rgo$ $i*ling$ and 'eonarda. /he @#oe$ al$o contend that$ince the >#rgo$ $i*ling$ and 'eonarda ac#ired the $#*Aect property withnotice that another per$on ha$ a right to or intere$t in $#ch property, theycannot *e con$idered innocent p#rcha$er$ in good aith and or 2al#e.or their part, the >#rgo$ $i*ling$ and 'eonarda in$i$t that their title i$ 2alidand *inding. /hey maintain that #nder the /orren$ ?y$tem, a per$on dealingwith regi$tered land may $aely rely on the correctne$$ on the certifcate otitle witho#t the need o #rther in#iry. or thi$ rea$on, the !o#rt cannotdi$regard the right o an innocent third per$on who relie$ on the correctne$$o the certifcate o title e2en i the $ale i$ 2oid.


5/47

/he i$$#e concerning the 2alidity o the deed o $ale *etween the @#oe$and Delo$ @eye$ had already *een re$ol2ed with fnality in !i2il !a$e (o. M-9 *y the @/! o Pa$ay !ity which declared that the $ignat#re$ o thealleged 2endor$, 0ngel and 0doracion @#oe, had *een orged.J17K "t i$#ndi$p#ted that the orged deed o $ale wa$ n#ll and 2oid and con2eyed notitle. "t i$ a well-$ettled principle that no one can gi2e what one doe$ notha2e, nemo dat 4uod non ha5et. One can $ell only what one own$ or i$a#thoriHed to $ell, and the *#yer can ac#ire no more right than what the$eller can tran$er legally.J13KD#e to the orged deed o $ale, Delo$ @eye$ac#ired no right o2er the $#*Aect property which $he co#ld con2ey tothe >#rgo$ $i*ling$. 0ll the tran$action$ $#*$e#ent to the al$ifed $ale*etween the $po#$e$ @#oe and Delo$ @eye$ are li%ewi$e 2oid, incl#ding the$ale made *y the >#rgo$ $i*ling$ to their a#nt, 'eonarda.#rgo$ $i*ling$ and 'eonarda >#rgo$were p#rcha$er$ in good aith. "t ha$ *een con$i$tently r#led that a orgeddeed can legally *e the root o a 2alid title when an innocent p#rcha$er or2al#e inter2ene$.J14K

0n innocent p#rcha$er or 2al#e i$ one who *#y$ the property o

another witho#t notice that $ome other per$on ha$ a right to or intere$t in it,and who pay$ a #ll and air price at the time o the p#rcha$e or *eorerecei2ing any notice o another per$onQ$ claim.J15K/he *#rden o pro2ing the$tat#$ o a p#rcha$er in good aith and or 2al#e lie$ #pon one who a$$ert$that $tat#$. /hi$ onus pro5andicannot *e di$charged *y mere in2ocation othe ordinary pre$#mption o good aith. J1K

0$ a general r#le, e2ery per$on dealing with regi$tered land, a$ in thi$

ca$e, may $aely rely on the correctne$$ o the certifcate o title i$$#edthereor and will in no way o*lige him to go *eyond the certifcate todetermine the condition o the property. =owe2er, thi$ r#le admit$ o an#nchallenged e6ception

T a per$on dealing with regi$tered land ha$ a right to rely on the/orren$ certifcate o title and to di$pen$e with the need o in#iring#rther e6cept when the part has actual knowlede o+ +acts andcircumstances that would impel a reasona5l cautious man to make such

in4uir or when the purchaser has knowlede o+ a de+ect or the lack o+ title inhis vendor or o+ su7cient +acts to induce a reasona5l prudent man toin4uire into the status o+ the title o+ the propert in litiation. /he pre$enceo anything which e6cite$ or aro#$e$ $#$picion $ho#ld then prompt the2endee to loo% *eyond the certifcate and in2e$tigate the title o the 2endorappearing on the ace o $aid certifcate. One who all$ within the e6ceptioncan neither *e denominated an innocent p#rcha$er or 2al#e nor a p#rcha$erin good aith and, hence, doe$ not merit the protection o the law.J1K

/he circ#m$tance$ $#rro#nding thi$ ca$e point to the a*$ol#te lac% ogood aith on the part o re$pondent$. /he e2idence $how$ that the @#oe$ca#$ed a notice o ad2er$e claim to *e annotated on the title o Delo$ @eye$a$ early a$ (o2em*er 5, 199. J18K/he annotation o an ad2er$e claim i$ amea$#re de$igned to protect the intere$t o a per$on o2er a piece o realproperty, and $er2e$ a$ a notice and warning to third partie$ dealing with $aidproperty that $omeone i$ claiming an intere$t on the $ame or may ha2e a*etter right than the regi$tered owner thereo. De$pite the notice o ad2er$eclaim, the >#rgo$ $i*ling$ $till p#rcha$ed the property in #e$tion. /oo, at the time the >#rgo$ $i*ling$ *o#ght the $#*Aect property onDecem*er 4, 1984, !i2il !a$e (o. M-9,J19Kan action or damage$, and!riminal !a$e (o. 1914-P,J7Kor e$taa, fled *y the @#oe$ again$t Delo$@eye$, were *oth pending *eore the @/! o Pa$ay !ity. /hi$ circ#m$tance

$ho#ld ha2e alerted the >#rgo$ $i*ling$ a$ to the 2alidity o Delo$ @eye$Q titleand her a#thority and legal right to $ell the property.

;#ally $ignifcant i$ the act that Delo$ @eye$ wa$ not in po$$e$$ion o the$#*Aect property when $he $old the $ame to the >#rgo$ $i*ling$. "t wa$0mado >#rgo$ who *o#ght the property or hi$ children, the >#rgo$$i*ling$. 0mado wa$ not per$onally ac#ainted with Delo$ @eye$ prior to the$ale *eca#$e he *o#ght the property thro#gh a real e$tate *ro%er, a certain+o$e 0nia$, and not rom Delo$ @eye$ her$el. /here wa$ no $howing that0mado or any o the >#rgo$ $i*ling$ e6erted any eEort to per$onally 2eriywith the @egi$ter o Deed$ i Delo$ @eye$Q certifcate o title wa$ clean anda#thentic. /hey merely relied on the title a$ $hown to them *y the real e$tate*ro%er. 0n ordinarily pr#dent man wo#ld ha2e in#ired into the a#thenticityo the certifcate o title, the propertyQ$ location and it$ owner$. 0ltho#gh it i$a recogniHed principle that a per$on dealing with regi$tered land need not go*eyond it$ certifcate o title, it i$ al$o a frmly e$ta*li$hed r#le that wherecirc#m$tance$ e6i$t which wo#ld p#t a p#rcha$er on g#ard and prompt him toin2e$tigate #rther, $#ch a$ the pre$ence o occ#pant$Btenant$ on theproperty oEered or $ale, it i$ e6pected that the p#rcha$er wo#ld in#ire fr$tinto the nat#re o po$$e$$ion o the occ#pant$, i.e., whether or not theocc#pant$ po$$e$$ the land in the concept o an owner. ?ettled i$ the r#lethat a *#yer o real property that i$ in the po$$e$$ion o a per$on other than

the $eller m#$t *e wary and $ho#ld in2e$tigate the right$ o tho$e inpo$$e$$ion. Otherwi$e, witho#t $#ch in#iry, the *#yer can hardly *eregarded a$ a *#yer in good aith.J71K

"n the $ame 2ein, 'eonarda cannot *e categoriHed a$ a p#rcha$er in

good aith. ?ince it wa$ the @#oe$ who contin#ed to ha2e act#al po$$e$$iono the property, 'eonarda $ho#ld ha2e in2e$tigated the nat#re o theirpo$$e$$ion.


6/47

occa$ion $he had recei2ed rom the F.?. :eteran$ 0dmini$tration a letterconcerning $ome compen$ation $he wa$ to recei2e, $he $igned that paper.0ter the paper wa$ $igned *y the plaintiE, +ohn


7/47

#rthermore, when the @egi$ter o Deed$ i$$#ed a certifcate o title in thename o +ohn


8/47

I o# $aid that Mr. @#perto +a2ier went to yo#r oce with Mr. Lalagayan, $othe fr$t time yo# 2i$ited the property yo# did not $ee Mr. @amon Pacle*thereU0 (o, maQam. #t defnitelyT0 B&' I 7+52" /2 7'7/ I 5254" /2 7'7/.I >#t that wa$ defnitely ater Mr. @#perto oEered to yo# or $ale the$#*Aect propertyU6 6 60tty. 0*alo$ O%ay, Mr. a$ed on the oregoing, thereore, petitioner $po#$e$ cannot *e con$idereda$ innocent p#rcha$er$ in good aith.


9/47

/he a$$ailed @e$ol#tion denied petitioner$Q Motion or @econ$ideration.T2 F5//he act$ were $#mmariHed *y the !0 a$ ollow$RJ@e$pondentK G#illermo @eed wa$ an o2er$ea$ contract wor%er rom 198 to198 and came home only or $hort 2acation$. =e p#rcha$ed rom theGo2ernment ?er2ice "n$#rance ?y$tem JG?"?K on in$tallment *a$i$ a 1$#are meter property located at M@@ @oad, Mangahan, Pa$ig. >eca#$e hewa$ wor%ing a*road, it wa$ hi$ wie, 'olita @eed, who paid the con$iderationto the G?"?. On +#ly 9, 198, /!/ (o. 58195 co2ering $aid property wa$i$$#ed *y the @egi$try o Deed$ or the Pro2ince o @iHal, Metro Manila WDi$trict "" in the name o 'olita @eed, married to G#illermo @eed. G#illermo@eed had allowed hi$ *rother, Dominador, and the latterQ$ wie, '#H, to $tay in

the ho#$e con$tr#cted on hi$ property.R"n Decem*er, 1991, Dominador and '#H @eed were $#mmoned to the*arangay in connection with the complaint or eAectment fled again$t them*y ;d#ardo I#ite2e$, who claimed to *e the owner o the lot where theirho#$e $tand$. Dominador and '#H inormed G#illermo o the complaint fledagain$t them. G#illermo accompanied Dominador and '#H to the *arangay,where they met ;d#ardo I#ite2e$ and 0l*erta Domingo, who *oth claimedowner$hip o the $#*Aect property. G#illermo denied ha2ing $old hi$ property.R"n 2iew o the claim$ o ;d#ardo I#ite2e$ and 0l*erta Domingo that they*o#ght the $#*Aect property, G#illermo @eed made a 2erifcation with the@egi$ter o Deed$ o Pa$ig. G#illermo di$co2ered that hi$ title o2er the$#*Aect property had *een cancelled and he wa$ a*le to $ec#re copie$ o theollowing doc#ment$, to witR1. ?pecial Power o 0ttorney, dated +#ly 8, 198, allegedly e6ec#ted *y hima#thoriHing hi$ wie, 'olita @eed, to $ell the $#*Aect property or a portionthereoCR7. Deed o ?ale o a Portion o @e$idential 'and, dated +#ly 14, 198,e6ec#ted *y 'olita @eed in a2or o Danilo Domingo, married to 0l*erta I.Domingo co2ering 41.5 $#are meter portion o $#*Aect propertyCR3. 0*$ol#te Deed o ?ale o a Portion o @e$idential 'and, dated +#ly 77,198, e6ec#ted *y 'olita @eed, a$ 2endor and attorney-in-act o G#illermo@eed, in a2or o (ati2idad @. :illanera, married to 0rdaniel :illanera,co2ering 41.5 $#are meter portion o $#*Aect propertyCR4. Deed o ?ale o a Portion o a @e$idential 'and, dated +an#ary 1, 1989,e6ec#ted *y 'olita @eed, or her$el and a$ attorney-in-act, in a2or o;d#ardo I#ite2e$ co2ering 8 $#are meter portion o $#*Aect propertyCR5. /!/ (o. 8455 in the name o ;d#ardo I#ite2e$CR. /!/ (o. 845 in the name o $po#$e$ 0rdaniel and (ati2idad :illaneraCandR. /!/ (o. 845 in the name o $po#$e$ Danilo and 0l*erta Domingo.ROn March 8, 1994, G#illermo @eed fled a complaint or recon2eyance oproperty again$t 'olita @eed, $po#$e$ 0rdaniel and (ati2idad :illanera,$po#$e$ Danilo and 0l*erta Domingo, ;d#ardo I#ite2e$ and the @egi$ter o

Deed$ o Pa$ig, Metro Manila alleging that hi$ wie, 'olita @eed, rom whomhe had *een e$tranged, con$piring with the other Jpetitioner$K, e6cept the@egi$ter o Deed$ o Pa$ig, ca#$ed the preparation o a $pecial power oattorney, dated +#ly 8, 198, wherein it wa$ made to appear that hea#thoriHed hi$ wie to $ell the $#*Aect propertyC that he did not $ign the$pecial power o attorney nor appear *eore the notary p#*lic *eca#$e hewa$ wor%ing a*roadC that the $pecial power o attorney wa$ not $#*mitted tothe @egional /rial !o#rt J@/!K in Pa$ig !ity *y (otary P#*lic Macario !. !r#H,a$ $tated in the letter dated 0pril 1, 1993 o !ler% o !o#rt Grace ?. >el2i$Cand that $po#$e$ :illanera and Domingo and ;d#ardo I#ite2e$ arep#rcha$er$ in *ad aith *eca#$e they %new, at the time they tran$acted with'olita @eed, that he wa$ wor%ing a*road and e$tranged rom the latter.R0n J0Kn$wer to the complaint wa$ fled *y JPetitioner$K ;d#ardo I#ite2e$ and$po#$e$ Danilo and 0l*erta Domingo alleging that the $ale o the $#*Aectproperty to them *y 'olita @eed wa$ 2alid ina$m#ch a$ G#illermo @eed ga2ehi$ written con$ent thereto, a$ $hown in a letter dated +#ly 7, 198C that in aproceeding *eore the J*Karangay JcKhairman, G#illermo @eed admitted thathe per$onally $igned the $pecial power o attorneyC that they ha2e the rightto rely on the pre$#mption o reg#larity o the notariHed $pecial power oattorneyC and that they are *#yer$ in good aith and or 2al#e.

RPer ?heriEQ$ @et#rn, 'olita @eed wa$ not $er2ed with $#mmon$ a$ $he i$ nolonger re$iding at the gi2en addre$$ while $po#$e$ 0rdaniel and (ati2idad:illanera were $er2ed with $#mmon$ thro#gh Mr$. 0l*erta Domingo.

R0ter trial on the merit$, the co#rt a 4uorendered A#dgment, the di$po$iti2eportion o which read$X


10/47

relied #pon *y the partie$ wa$ indeed a#thentic. Petitioner$ maintained*eore the co#rt$ *elow that it had not *een pro2en to *e a orgery, $o it wa$pre$#ma*ly a#thentic. /he !0, howe2er, held otherwi$e. #t 0tty. !r#H $ho#ld ha2e %nown *etter. O*2io#$ly,$ince an ?P0 wa$ *eing notariHed, there $ho#ld ha2e *een two partie$ to thatdoc#ment -- the principal and the agent who wa$ *eing con$tit#ted a$attorney-in-act.

0 doc#ment $ho#ld not *e notariHed #nle$$ the per$on$ who are e6ec#ting itare the 2ery $ame one$ who are per$onally appearing *eore the notaryp#*lic. /he aant$ $ho#ld *e pre$ent to atte$t to the tr#th o the content$ othe doc#mentJ15Kand to ena*le the notary to 2eriy the gen#inene$$ o their$ignat#re.J1K (otarie$ p#*lic are enAoined rom notariHing a fctitio#$ or$p#rio#$ doc#ment. "n act, it i$ their d#ty to demand that the doc#mentpre$ented to them or notariHation *e $igned in their pre$ence.J1K /heir#nction i$, among other$, to g#ard again$t illegal deed$.

(otariHation i$ not an empty, meaningle$$ and ro#tinary act. J18K "t con2ert$ apri2ate doc#ment into a p#*lic in$tr#ment, ma%ing it admi$$i*le in e2idencewitho#t the nece$$ity o preliminary proo o it$ a#thenticity and d#ee6ec#tion.J19K

"n not gi2ing credence to the ?P0, the !o#rt agree$ with the !0, which heldth#$RJ/Khe $ame J$pecial power o attorneyK wa$ not reported *y 0tty. Macario!r#H a$ ha2ing *een notariHed *y him. /h#$, in a letter dated 0pril 1,1993addre$$ed to '#H @eed, Grace ?. >el2i$, !ler% o !o#rt, @egional /rial!o#rt, Pa$ig $tated that it wa$ not the $pecial power o attorney dated +#ly 8,198 and recorded a$ Doc. 37, Page (o. , >oo% (o. :, ?erie$ o 198 inthe notarial report o 0tty. Macario !r#H which wa$ $#*mitted *y the latter tothe co#rt. 6 6 6.SJ7K

G#illermo @eed ha$ con$i$tently denied ha2ing $igned the doc#ment.Moreo2er, together with hi$ witne$$,J71Khe ha$ denied other doc#ment$allegedly $howing that he admitted ha2ing $igned it. /h#$, we do not fndany cogent rea$on to di$t#r* the !0Q$ fnding$, a$ ollow$R/he alleged admi$$ion o G#illermo @eed *eore the >arangay !hairman thathe $igned the $pecial power o attorney, a$ $hown in the min#te$ o themeeting prepared *y >arangay ?ecretary, doe$ not appear to *e credi*le.G#illermo @eed ha$ con$i$tently denied ha2ing $igned the $pecial power oattorney. "n act, he wa$ not conronted d#ring hi$ cro$$-e6amination, o $aid

min#te$ o the meeting in the *arangay, where he met ;d#ardo I#ite2e$ and0l*erta Domingo or the fr$t time, de$pite hi$ in$i$tence that the $#*Aectproperty $till *elong$ to him. Moreo2er, on re*#ttal, Dominador @eed, who$e$ignat#re appear$ in the min#te$ o the meeting, te$tifed that he a6ed hi$$ignat#re on a $mall piece o paper to $how that he attended the meetingand there were no entrie$ therein regarding the alleged admi$$ion oG#illermo @eed that he $igned the $pecial power o attorneyC and thatG#illermo @eed $tated in $aid meeting that hi$ property i$ not or $ale. 6 66.SJ77K

Petitioner$ in$i$t that an e6pert witne$$, $#ch a$ one rom the (ational>#rea# o "n2e$tigation (>", $ho#ld ha2e *een pre$ented to $how thatre$pondentQ$ $ignat#re wa$ orged. >#t e2en witho#t e6pert te$timony, the#e$tiona*le circ#m$tance$ $#rro#nding the e6ec#tion o the ?P0 alreadyca$t$ $erio#$ do#*t on it$ gen#inene$$. 0$ $hown earlier, there i$ a plethorao act#al detail$ that point to it$ al$ity.

0dditionally, the !0 noted the date R+#ly 8, 198,S on the ?P0 a#thoriHing'olita to $ell the property co2ered *y /!/ (o. 58195, i$$#ed *y the @egi$try oDeed$ o @iHal, Di$trict "", Metro Manila. 0$ o that date, howe2er, /!/ (o.58195 wa$ not yet in e6i$tence, *eca#$e it wa$ i$$#ed only on the ollowingday, +#ly 9, 198.J73K

0ll the oregoing circ#m$tance$ $#cce$$#lly challenge the integrity,gen#inene$$, and 2eracity o the #e$tioned doc#ment. Petitioner$,

thereore, cannot ta%e re#ge in the pre$#mption o reg#larity o p#*licdoc#ment$, a pre$#mption that ha$ *een clearly re*#tted in thi$ ca$e.S5'!" M0! I+:Jus$i+#a$ion (or $&e Sa)eo( $&e Con,u-a) Proper$''olita @eed arg#e$ that, e2en on the a$$#mption that the ?P0 wa$ indeed aorgery, $he wa$ $till A#$tifed in eEecting a $ale witho#t her h#$*andQ$con$ent. . >#$tamante, et al., 2. =on. @icardo P. /en$#an, et al.,&which $et a$ide the order$ o the then !o#rt o ir$t "n$tance o @iHal atI#eHon !ity, in !i2il !a$e (o. I-11895, a$ well a$ the re$ol#tion dated 0pril1, 1985 denying the petitioner)$ motion or recon$ideration.

On the other hand, G.@. (o. '-483, i$ a petition or certiorari a$$ailing theorder o re$pondent +#dge Flpiano ?armiento, dated 0pril 7, 19, directing

the i$$#ance o a writ o po$$e$$ion again$t the petitioner$ co2ering the $ameproperty in2ol2ed in G.@. (o. 73.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/157701.htm#_ftn35


11/47

/he act$ are not di$p#ted.

On e*r#ary 7, 198, !i2il !a$e (o. I-11895 entitled @icardo !a$t#lo and+#an :. ;*reo 2. !arlo$ @o*e$ and wie 0dalia ranci$co and People)$ =ome$iteand =o#$ing !orporation& wa$ fled $ee%ing the cancellation o /ran$er!ertifcate o /itle (o. 8383 in the name o the $po#$e$ !arlo$ @o*e$ and0daha ranci$co, co2ering 'ot (o. 8, >loc% 11 o the Malaya ?#*di2i$ion,People)$ =ome$ite and =o#$ing !orporation P==!. /he original complaintwa$ $#per$eded *y an amended complaint fled on e*r#ary 74, 199.

"t appear$ that $ometime in 191, the P==! awarded the property in #e$tionto one !ri$to*al ?antiago, +r., in who$e a2or a fnal deed o $ale wa$ e6ec#tedand /ran$er !ertifcate o /itle /!/ (o. 8383 wa$ i$$#ed.

?#*$e#ently, the @o*e$ $po#$e$ mortgaged the realty to the Man#act#rer)$>an% and /r#$t !ompany. /he mortgage lien wa$ d#ly annotated on /!/8438 on e*r#ary 9, 195.

/hereater, on e*r#ary 7, 198, !i2il !a$e (o. I- 1 1895 wa$ fled.

!laiming legal intere$t in the property, the >#$tamante $po#$e$ were allowedto inter2ene in the ca$e.

On March 75, 198, a notice o lis pendenswa$ annotated on /!/ 8438 atthe in$tance o the >#$tamante $po#$e$.

or ail#re o the @o*e$) $po#$e$ to pay the mortgage o*ligation, theMan#act#rer)$ >an% and /r#$t !ompany oreclo$ed the lot and ca#$ed the$ame to *e $old at p#*lic a#ction on Decem*er 14, 194.

/he property wa$ p#rcha$ed *y 0#rora ranci$co in who$e a2or a certifcateo $ale wa$ i$$#ed. /he le2y on e6ec#tion wa$ annotated on /!/ 8438 onMarch 1, 194.

(o redemption o $aid property wa$ eEected. /h#$, on March 5, 19, /!/8438 in the name o the @o*e$ $po#$e$wa$ cancelled and in he# thereo,/!/ 71197 wa$ i$$#ed to 0#rora ranci$co on the $ame date. /he noticeo lis pendenson the title o the @o*e$ $po#$e$, howe2er, wa$ not carriedo2er to /!/ 71197.

On 0pril 7, 19, *eore the $ale o the land to ?t. Dominic, 0#rora ranci$coapplied or a writ o po$$e$$ion in '@! !a$e (o. 851 *eore >ranch " othe then !o#rt o ir$t "n$tance o @iHal in I#eHon !ity.

On 0pril 7, 19, $aid co#rt i$$#ed the writ o po$$e$$ion.

/he lower co#rt >ranch ", !o#rt o ir$t "n$tance o @iHal ha2ing $tood frmin the grant o the writ o po$$e$$ion and ha2ing denied the motion to #a$hthe $ame, the >#$tamante $po#$e$ fled with thi$ !o#rt a petition or

certiorari, doc%eted a$ G.@. (o. '-483 entitled &la2iano >#$tamante, et al.,2. =on. ?armiento, etc., et al.&, now *eore #$ or re$ol#tion.

On ?eptem*er 15, 19, 0#rora ranci$co $old the property to petitioner, ?t.Dominic !orporation. !on$e#ently, /!/ 77733 wa$ i$$#ed to petitionercorporation. 0$ earlier $tated, no notice o any lien or enc#m*rance appear$on the title.

Meanwhile, !i2il !a$e (o. I-11895 proceeded to A#dgment. /he di$po$iti2eportion o the deci$ion read$

#$tamante $po#$e$ mo2ed or a recon$ideration, arg#ing that the ordero the co#rt dated +#ne 79, 1987 in eEect amended a fnal and e6ec#toryA#dgment in 2iolation o law. "n an order dated (o2em*er 7, 1987, +#dge/en$#an denied the motion. #$tamante $po#$e$ fled apetition or certiorari and mandam#$ doc%eted a$ 0!-G.@. ?P (o. 513,*eore the "ntermediate 0ppellate !o#rt. =erein petitioner, ?t. Dominic!orporation and 0#rora ranci$co who were not partie$ to !i2il !a$e (o. I-11895, were made re$pondent$ in the petition #e$tioning the order$ o+#dge /en$#an e6empting the petitioner corporation rom the enorcement o

the trial co#rt)$ A#dgment and denying recon$ideration thereo.

On +an#ary 31, 1985, the "ntermediate 0ppellate !o#rt rendered A#dgment./he di$po$iti2e portion o the deci$ion read$


12/47

rea$ona*ly ca#tio#$ man to ma%e $#ch #rther in#iry Pa$c#a 2. !ap#yoc, ?!@0 8. /h#$, where innocent third per$on$ relying on the correctne$$ othe certifcate o title th#$ i$$#ed, ac#ire right$ o2er the property, the co#rtcannot di$regard $#ch right$ Director o 'and 2. 0*ache, et al., 3 Phil. ./he lien o the petitioner, an innocent mortgagee or 2al#e m#$t *e re$pectedand protected >lanco 2. ;$#ierdo, 11 Phil., 494.

/he title to the property gi2en a$ $ec#rity to the Man#act#rer)$ >an% and/r#$t !o., *y the $po#$e$ @o*e$ wa$ 2alid, reg#lar, and ree rom any lien orenc#m*rance. /he mortgage wa$ e6ec#ted prior to the in$tit#tion o !i2il!a$e (o. I-11895, th#$ e$ta*li$hing it a$ a lien $#perior to whate2er claim$the plaintiE$ therein may ha2e a$ a re$#lt o the $#*$e#ent litigation. 0nin#iry *eyond the ace o the mortgagor)$ title wo#ld certainly ha2e yieldedno aw at that time. /hi$ *eing $o, the ad2er$e claim in !i2il !a$e (o. I-11895 co#ld not aEect the right$ o the mortgagee. /he act that the

oreclo$#re o the mortgage and the $#*$e#ent a#ction $ale were eEectedater the annotation o the ad2er$e claim i$ o no moment. /he oreclo$#re$ale retroact$ to the date o regi$tration o the mortgage >an% o thePhilippine "$land$ 2. (o*leAa$, 15 Phil., 418.

0 per$on who ta%e$ a mortgage in good aith and or a 2al#a*lecon$ideration, the record $howing a clear title in the mortgagor, will *eprotected again$t any e#ita*le title$ to the premi$e$ or e#ita*le claim$ onthe title, in a2or o third per$on$, o which he had no notice, act#al orcon$tr#cti2e. /he protection e6tend$ to a p#rcha$er at a ?heriE)$ $ale #nderproceeding$ on the mortgage altho#gh $#ch p#rcha$er had notice o thealleged e#ity 59 !+?, ?ec. 733, pp. 33-34.

0ny $#*$e#ent lien or enc#m*rance annotated at the *ac% o the certifcateo title cannot in any way preA#dice the mortgage pre2io#$ly regi$tered andthe lot$ $#*Aect thereto pa$$ to the p#rcha$er at p#*lic a#ction ree rom anylien or enc#m*rance GonHalo P#yat Y ?on$, "nc., 2. Philippine (ational >an%,4 ?!@0 175. Otherwi$e, the 2al#e o the mortgage co#ld *e ea$ilyde$troyed *y a $#*$e#ent record o an ad2er$e claim, or no one wo#ldp#rcha$e at a oreclo$#re $ale i o#nd *y the po$terior claim >an% o the

Philippine "$land 2. (o*leAa$, supra. 0#rora ranci$co)$ title, a$ a p#rcha$er atthe a#ction $ale o the property in #e$tion, cannot *e *o#nd *y the ad2er$eclaim$ o the plaintiE$ in !i2il !a$e (o. I-11895. /hi$ i$ e2en more tr#e withpetitioner ?t. Dominic !orporation which had ac#ired title rom 0#roraranci$co witho#t any notice or aw.

Fpon proper oreclo$#re o a fr$t mortgage, all lien$ $#*ordinate to themortgage are li%ewi$e oreclo$ed. /he oreclo$#re a$ well a$ the $ale o theproperty were annotated on the title to the property, then $till in the name o0dalia ranci$co and !arlo$ @o*e$. ?#ch annotation $er2e$ a$ con$tr#cti2enotice to the partie$ ha2ing any claim or ntere$t in the property to e6erci$etheir right o redemption or to participate in the oreclo$#re $ale. !ertainly,there wa$ an opport#nity or the claimant$ in !i2il !a$e (o. I-1 1895 toac#ire the property at i$$#e. ?t. Dominic)$ right$ can no longer *e di$t#r*ed.

"t $ho#ld al$o *e noted that the inter2enor$ in !i2il !a$e I-11895 po$$e$$ noenorcea*le lien o2er the property in #e$tion. /hey are merely pro$pecti2eawardee$ o the realty. /he right they a$$ert i$ p#rely $pec#lati2e. (o 2e$tedright$ e6i$t in their a2or. /he award o the di$p#ted lot to !ri$to*al ?antiago,+r. may ha2e *een declared improper. 0$ to who $ho#ld get the lot, according

to law, $till lie$ in the di$cretion o the P==!. (o a$$#rance i$ gi2en that thelot wo#ld *e awarded to the claimant$-inter2enor$. /he deci$ion in !i2il !a$eI-11895 may *e deemed correct in$oar a$ it called or a proce$$ing o the>#$tamante claim *#t erroneo#$ when it a$$#med that ater proce$$ing, theaward wo#ld *e in the $po#$e$) a2or.

=owe2er, the P==! i$ now e$topped *y circ#m$tance$ rom ma%ing any#rther award. 0$ earlier $tated, the lower co#rt cannot order t he e6ec#tion othe deci$ion a$ again$t the petitioner and, there*y, cancel ?t. Dominic)$ titlein a2or o a #t#re #n%nown per$on. "t cannot di$regard the right$ already2e$ted in petitioner ?t. Dominic. /o do $o wo#ld impair confdence incertifcate$ o title$ and orderly proce$$e$ o law. 0mong the g#arantee$ othe /orren$ $y$tem i$ that it render$ title indeea$i*le. ?ection 31, Pre$identialDecree 1579, /he 'and @egi$tration 0ct, pro2ide$ &/he decree o regi$tration$hall *ind the land and #iet title thereto, $#*Aect only to the e6ception$ orlien$ a$ may *e pro2ided *y law. "t $hall *e concl#$i2e #pon and again$t allper$on$, incl#ding the (ational Go2ernment and all *ranche$ thereo whethermentioned *y name in the application or notice, the $ame *eing incl#ded inthe general de$cription &to all o whom it may concern&. & /hi$ pro2i$ion i$applica*le #nder the act$ o thi$ ca$e.

"n it$ petition in G.@. (o. 73, petitioner ?t. Dominic &pray$ mo$t earne$tlyor $#ch and any other relie a$ thi$ =onora*le !o#rt, in it$ ar greater

wi$dom, may deem A#$t, e#ita*le and proper in the premi$e$, $#ch a$ thedi$mi$$al o the petition in G.@. (o. '-483.&

Petitioner$ >#$tamante in G.@. (o. '-483, a$$ail the grant e6 parte *y thetrial co#rt o the writ o po$$e$$ion o2er the property, li%ewi$e the $#*Aect oG.@. (o. 73, in a2or o 0#rora ranci$co. "t i$ alleged that a co#rt ha$ noA#ri$diction, power, and a#thority to eAect a third per$on who i$ not a party tothe oreclo$#re proceeding$ or mortgage *y a mere writ o po$$e$$ion$#mmarily i$$#ed in a oreclo$#re $#it.

@e$pondent ?t. Dominic !orporation mo2ed and wa$ allowed to inter2ene a$$#cce$$or-in-intere$t *y p#rcha$e to all the right$, title, and intere$t ore$pondent ranci$co o2er the lot in #e$tion.

?ection o 0ct (o. 3135, a$ amended *y 0ct 4118, the law that reg#late$the method$ o aEecting e6traA#dicial oreclo$#re o mortgage ma%e$applica*le ?ection$ 44 to 4 o the !ode o !i2il Proced#re, now $ection$79 to 31 and 35 o @#le 39 o the @e2i$ed @#le$ which pro2ide &" noredemption *e made within twel2e 17 month$ ater the $ale, the p#rcha$er,or hi$ a$$ignee, i$ entitled to a con2eyance and po$$e$$ion o the property ...,& and &/he po$$e$$ion o the property $hall *e gi2en to the p#rcha$er or la$tredemptioner *y the ocer #nle$$ a third per$on i$ act#ally holding theproperty ad2er$ely to the A#dgment de*tor.& Petitioner$ capitaliHe on thi$ la$tpro2i$o o the law.

On thi$ point, the trial co#rt held, and #t, *y their e6pre$$ admi$$ionin their motion, mo2ant$ are merely )occ#pant$-applicant$) or the p#rcha$eo the land rom the de#nct P==!. Fnder $#ch claim which i$, at *e$tinchoate, we cannot re#$e to grant the writ o po$$e$$ion prayed orC to do

$o, wo#ld *e to *eclo#d the integrity o the torren$ title, and it wo#ld *e inderogation o it$ indeea$i*ility.

666 666 666

"n the in$tant ca$e, the property in2ol2ed i$ co2ered *y a certifcate o title. "tha$ pa$$ed thro#gh diEerent owner$ #ntil it wa$ *o#ght *y petitioner, 0#roraranci$co, at a p#*lic a#ction $ale *y rea$on o the oreclo$#re o themortgage in the property and $#*$e#ently $old *y $aid 0#rora ranci$co tointer2enor ?t. Dominic. 0nd mo2ant$ here, wo#ld li%e #$ to #a$h the writ opo$$e$$ion we i$$#ed, on the gro#nd that the $ame wa$ i$$#ed #pon an e6parte petition i$ permitted and allowed *y 2irt#e o 0ct 3135, and on theallegation that mo2ant$ &ha2e *een in po$$e$$ion o the $#*Aect property$ince 197 a$ occ#pant$-applicant$ or the p#rcha$e thereo rom thedeendant P==! ... & p. 3, Motion to I#a$h which, a$ we $aid a*o2e i$ amatter o e6pectancy inchoate and $ho#ld not *e allowed to pre2ail o2er theclean title o the petitioner andBor inter2enor herein. pp. 3-4, @ollo-G.@.(o. 483.

"ndeed, the r#le$ contemplate a $it#ation where a third party hold$ theproperty *y ad2er$e title or right $#ch a$ a coowner, tenant or #$#r#ct#ary."n $#ch ca$e$, a grant o a writ o po$$e$$ion, wo#ld *e denial o $#ch thirdper$on)$ right$ witho#t gi2ing them their day in co#rt. ;$pecially, where#e$tion o title i$ in2ol2ed, the matter wo#ld well *e thre$hed o#t in a$eparate action and not in a motion or a writ o po$$e$$ion. >#t $#ch i$ notthe $tate o aEair$ in the ca$e at *ar.

/he right o the re$pondent to the po$$e$$ion o the property i$ clearly#na$$aila*le. "t i$ o#nded on the right o owner$hip. 0$ the p#rcha$er o thepropertie$ in the oreclo$#re $ale, and to which the re$pecti2e title$ theretoha2e already *een i$$#ed, the petitioner)$ right$ o2er the property ha$*ecome a*$ol#te, 2e$ting #pon it the right o po$$e$$ion o the propertywhich the co#rt m#$t aid in aEecting it$ deli2ery. 0ter $#ch deli2ery, thep#rcha$er *ecome$ the a*$ol#te owner o the property. 0$ we $aid in Tan Soo=uat u. >nwico3 Phil., 4, the deed o con2eyance entitled thep#rcha$er to ha2e and to hold the p#rcha$ed property. /hi$ mean$, that thep#rcha$er i$ entitled to go immediately #pon the real property, and that it i$the $heriE)$ ine$capa*le d#ty to place him in $#ch po$$e$$ion. Philippine(ational >an% 2. 0dil, 118 ?!@0 11. #$tamante $po#$e$, a writ o e6ec#tion or a writ o

po$$e$$ion, may i$$#e in a2or o 0#rora ranci$co andBor ?t. Dominic!orporation.

>e it noted that a$ the trial co#rt had $aid &the writ o po$$e$$ion i$$#ed *y #$ha$ *een complied with and $ati$fed,& meaning to $ay that the mo2ant$2acated the property. >#t in the hearing held in thi$ ca$e, it ha$ *eenadmitted *y the partie$ that the mo2ant$ ret#med to t he land in #e$tion andcon$tr#cted again thereon their re$pecti2e #$e$. /hi$ *eing $o, the mo2ant$m#$t 2acate and remo2e rom the di$p#ted premi$e$ whate2er they ha2e*#ilt or con$tr#cted thereon. /he writ o po$$e$$ion i$$#ed and enorced mayno longer *e #a$hed.

anHon >#$tamante to p#rcha$e the property in#e$tion and to e6ec#te the re#i$ite doc#ment$ or the award o $aid lot toher ha2ing *een rendered ineEecti2e *y circ#m$tance$ $#per2ening in !i2il!a$e (o. I-11895, the writ o e6ec#tion i$$#ed *y the co#rt a #o thereore i$here*y declared witho#t orce and eEect.

G.@. (o. '-483 i$ D"?M"??;D or lac% o merit. ?O O@D;@;D.

** ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE**

HEIRS OF MAJIMO LABANON VS. HEIRS OF CONSTANCIO LABANON

VELASCO, R.,J.:

T2 C/hi$ Petition or @e2iew on !ertiorari #nder @#le 45 $ee%$ the recall andn#llifcation o the May 8, 73 Deci$ionJ1Ko the !o#rt o 0ppeal$ !0 in !0-G.@. !: (o. 51 entitled =eirs o+ onstancio :a5anon represented 5

!l5erto /akilan v. =eirs o+ /a6imo :a5anon represented 5 !licia :a5anonaedo and the 9rovincial !ssessor o+ ota5ato,which re2er$ed the 0#g#$t18, 1999 Deci$ionJ7Ko the Lidapawan !ity, !ota*ato @egional /rial !o#rt@/!, >ranch 1, in !i2il !a$e (o. 85. 'i%ewi$e a$$ailed i$ the Octo*er 13,73 @e$ol#tionJ3Kwhich di$regarded petitioner$Q Motion or @econ$ideration.T2 F5/

/he !0 c#lled the act$ thi$ way

D#ring the lietime o !on$tancio 'a*anon, prior to the o#t*rea% o oo% (o. :C ?erie$ o 1955 o the (otarial @egi$ter o0tty. lorentino Lintanar. /he doc#ment wa$ e6ec#ted to $aeg#ard theowner$hip and intere$t o hi$ *rother !on$tancio 'a*anon. Pertinent portiono which i$ reprod#ced a$ ollow$

R/hat ", M0"MO '0>0(O(, o legal age, married to 0na$tacia ?agarino,and a re$ident o Lidapawan, !ota*ato, or and in con$ideration o the

e6pen$e$ inc#rred *y my elder *rother !O(?/0(!"O '0>0(O( al$o o legalage, ilipino, widower and a re$ident o Lidapawan, !ota*ato, or the clearing,c#lti2ation and impro2ement$ on the ea$tern portion 666 'ot (o. 1, >l%. 77,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/160711.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/160711.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/160711.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/160711.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/160711.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/160711.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/160711.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/160711.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/160711.htm#_ftn3


13/47

Pl$-59 666 which e6pen$e$ ha2e *een inc#rred *y my $aid *rother 666 *eorethe o#t*rea% o the la$t world war 666 " do here*y a$$ign tran$er and con2eymy right$ to, intere$t$ in and owner$hip on the $aid ea$tern portion o $aid'ot (o. 1, >loc% 77, Pl$-59 O(; =F(D@;D 1 M 0'O(G /=; (0/"O(0'="G=0/O @O0D *y /0(O(


14/47

!orrelati2ely, we r#led in Cstate o+ Cdward /iller #rimm v. Cstate o+ harles9arsons and 9atrick . 9arsons, that

0n e6pre$$ tr#$t i$ created *y the direct and po$iti2e act$ o the partie$,*y $ome writing or deed or *y word$ e2idencing an intention to create a tr#$tCthe #$e o the word trust i$ not re#ired or e$$ential to it$ con$tit#tion, it*eing $#cient that a tr#$t i$ clearly intended.J13K

"n the in$tant ca$e, $#ch intention to in$tit#te an e6pre$$ tr#$t *etweenMa6imo 'a*anon a$ tr#$tee and !on$tancio 'a*anon a$ tr#$tor wa$ containedin not A#$t one *#t two written doc#ment$, the 0$$ignment o @ight$ andOwner$hip a$ well a$ Ma6imo 'a*anonQ$ 0pril 75, 197 ?worn ?tatement. "n*oth doc#ment$, Ma6imo 'a*anon recogniHed !on$tancio 'a*anonQ$

owner$hip and po$$e$$ion o2er the ea$tern portion o the property co2ered*y O!/ (o. P-1437, e2en a$ he recogniHed him$el a$ the applicant or the=ome$tead Patent o2er the land. /h#$, Ma6imo 'a*anon maintained the titleo2er the property while ac%nowledging the tr#e owner$hip o !on$tancio'a*anon o2er the ea$tern portion o the land. /he e6i$tence o an e6pre$$tr#$t cannot *e do#*ted nor di$p#ted.On the i$$#e o pre$cription, we had the opport#nity to r#le in Bueno v.$ees that +!7+"0/" 10//! 7 /+/ 07507/03

.'. @eye$ in D./. Tuason and o., nc.vs. /adanal, 4 ?!@0 84, 88, a$ ollow$Fnder ?ection 4 o the old !ode o !i2il Proced#re, all action$ or reco2ery oreal property pre$cri*ed in 1 year$, e6cepting only action$ *a$ed oncontin#ing or $#*$i$ting tr#$t$ that were con$idered *y $ection 38 a$impre$cripti*le. 0$ held in the ca$e o *ia; v. #orricho, '-11779, March 79,1958, howe2er, the contin#ing or $#*$i$ting tr#$t$ contemplated in $ection 38o the !ode o !i2il Proced#re reerred only to e6pre$$ #nrep#diated tr#$t$,and did not incl#de con$tr#cti2e tr#$t$ that are impo$ed *y law where nofd#ciary relation e6i$t$ and the tr#$tee doe$ not recogniHe the tr#$t at all.J14K

/hi$ principle wa$ amplifed in Csca v. ourt o+ !ppealsthi$ way R;6pre$$tr#$t$ pre$cri*e 1 year$ rom the rep#diation o the tr#$t Man#el DiaH, et al.2$. !armen Gorricho et al., 54 .G. p. 8479, ?ec. 4, !ode o !i2ilProced#re.SJ15K

"n the more recent ca$e o Secua v. *e Selma, we again r#led that thepre$cripti2e period or the enorcement o an e6pre$$ tr#$t o ten 1 year$$tart$ #pon the rep#diation o the tr#$t *y the tr#$tee.J1K

"n the ca$e at *ar, Ma6imo 'a*anon ne2er rep#diated the e6pre$$ tr#$tin$tit#ted *etween him and !on$tancio 'a*anon. 0nd ater Ma6imo 'a*anonQ$death, the tr#$t co#ld no longer *e reno#ncedC th#$, re$pondent$Q right toenorce the tr#$t agreement can no longer *e re$tricted nor preA#diced *ypre$cription."t m#$t *e noted that the 0$$ignment o @ight$ and Owner$hip and Ma6imo

'a*anonQ$ ?worn ?tatement were e6ec#ted ater the =ome$tead Patent wa$applied or and e2ent#ally granted with the i$$#ance o =ome$tead Patent(o. 517 on +#ne , 1947. ;2idently, it wa$ the intent o Ma6imo 'a*anon tohold the title o2er the land in hi$ name while recogniHing !on$tancio'a*anonQ$ e#ita*le owner$hip and act#al po$$e$$ion o the ea$tern portiono the land co2ered *y O!/ (o. P-1437."n addition, petitioner$ can no longer #e$tion the 2alidity o the po$iti2edeclaration o Ma6imo 'a*anon in the 0$$ignment o @ight$ and Owner$hip ina2or o the late !on$tancio 'a*anon, a$ the agreement wa$ not imp#gnedd#ring the ormerQ$ lietime and the recognition o hi$ *rotherQ$ right$ o2erthe ea$tern portion o the lot wa$ #rther armed and confrmed in the$#*$e#ent 0pril 75, 197 ?worn ?tatement.

?ection 31, @#le 13 o the @#le$ o !o#rt i$ the repo$itory o the$ettled precept that RJwKhere one deri2e$ title to property rom another, theact, declaration, or omi$$ion o the latter, while holding the title, in relation tothe property, i$ e2idence again$t the ormer.S /h#$, petitioner$ ha2eaccepted the declaration made *y their predece$$or-in-intere$t, Ma6imo'a*anon, that the ea$tern portion o the land co2ered *y O!/ (o. P-1437 i$owned and po$$e$$ed *y and right#lly *elong$ to !on$tancio 'a*anon andthe latterQ$ heir$. Petitioner$ cannot now eign ignorance o $#ch

ac%nowledgment *y their ather, Ma6imo.

'a$tly, the heir$ o Ma6imo 'a*anon are *o#nd to the $tip#lation$ em*odiedin the 0$$ignment o @ight$ and Owner$hip p#r$#ant to 0rticle 131 o the!i2il !ode that contract$ ta%e eEect *etween the partie$, a$$ign$, and heir$.Petitioner$ a$ heir$ o Ma6imo cannot di$arrow the commitment made *ytheir ather with re$pect to the $#*Aect property $ince they were merely$#*rogated to the right$ and o*ligation$ o their predece$$or-in-intere$t. /hey $imply $tepped into the $hoe$ o their predece$$or and m#$tthereore recogniHe the right$ o the heir$ o !on$tancio o2er the ea$ternportion o the lot. 0$ the old adage goe$, the $pring cannot ri$e higher thanit$ $o#rce.WHEREFORE, the petition i$ DENIED./he May 8, 73 !0 Deci$ion andOcto*er 13, 73 @e$ol#tion in !0-G.@. !: (o. 51 are AFFIRMEDwiththe modifcation$ that the Lidapawan !ity, !ota*ato @/!, >ranch 1 i$directed to ha2e O!/ (o. P-1437 $egregated and $#*di2ided *y the 'and

Management >#rea# into two 7 lot$ *a$ed on the term$ o the e*r#ary 11,1955 0$$ignment o @ight$ and Owner$hip e6ec#ted *y Ma6imo 'a*anon and!on$tancio 'a*anonC and ater appro2al o the $#*di2i$ion plan, to order the@egi$ter o Deed$ o Lidapawan !ity, !ota*ato to cancel O!/ (o. P-1437and i$$#e one title each to petitioner$ and re$pondent$ *a$ed on the $aid$#*di2i$ion plan.!o$t$ again$t petitioner$. SO ORDERED.

AGULLA VS. CFI OF BATANGAS

CRUZ,J.:+#liana MatienHo had two h#$*and$ in $#cce$$ion, namely, ;$cola$tico0la*a$tro and, ater hi$ death, Daniel 0g#ila. /he petitioner i$ claiming thedi$p#ted property a$ the only $#r2i2ing child o the $econd marriage. /hepri2ate re$pondent$ are re$i$ting thi$ claim a$ the children o Maria 0la*a$tro,the $ole oE$pring o the fr$t marriage. #

"n an earlier action *etween them, doc%eted a$ !i2il !a$e (o. 1557 in the!o#rt o ir$t "n$tance o >atanga$, the pri2ate re$pondent$ had $#ed orpartition and damage$ again$t the herein petitioner and hi$ wie, alleging that$ome propertie$ held *y them pertained to the fr$t marriage a$ +#liana andher $econd h#$*and had not ac#ired anything d#ring their marriage.+#dgment wa$ rendered on +an#ary , 194, in a2or o the plaintiE$ ater thedeendant$ were precl#ded rom pre$enting their own e2idence owing towhat they later called &the gro$$ ineptit#de o their co#n$el,& who had ailedto appear at two $ched#led hearing$. %0 motion or recon$ideration and a$econd motion or recon$ideration andBor to pre$ent their e2idence were *othdenied *y the trial co#rt. On ?eptem*er 5, 194, the deendant$ were gi2enan e6ten$ion o twenty day$ to fle their record on appeal and on ?eptem*er74, 194, another e6ten$ion o fteen day$ wa$ granted. On (o2em*er 71,194, the trial co#rt denied the deendant$) record on appeal and appeal*ond on the gro#nd that the deci$ion had already *ecome fnal ande6ec#tory. On motion o the plaintiE$, the trial co#rt then i$$#ed a writ oe6ec#tion on Decem*er 7, 194, amended the ollowing day, p#r$#ant towhich the propertie$ held *y the deendant$ were le2ied #pon and $old atp#*lic a#ction to the plaintiE$ a$ the highe$t *idder$.

/he act$ o the trial co#rt were #e$tioned *y the deendant$ in a petitionor certiorariand mandamuswith preliminary inA#nction, which wa$ denied *ythe !o#rt o 0ppeal$. ?o wa$ their motion or recon$ideration. /he deendant$

then came to thi$ !o#rt in a petition or re2iew *y certiorariwhich wa$ al$odenied. 0n &amended& petition wa$ con$idered a motion or recon$iderationand wa$ li%ewi$e denied. On 0#g#$t 1, 19, another motion orrecon$ideration wa$ al$o denied with fnality, with the warning that no #rthermotion$ wo#ld *e entertained .K

(othing da#nted the deendant$ tried again, thi$ time *y fling on +#ne 8,19, a complaint or recon2eyance o the propertie$ ac#ired *y thedeendant$ in the earlier action or partition. /hi$ new complaint wa$doc%eted a$ !i2il !a$e (o. 178 in the !o#rt o ir$t "n$tance o >atanga$. "ntheir an$wer, the deendant$ alleged res Eudicataa$ one o their armati2edeen$e$, arg#ing that the complaint wa$ *arred *y the prior A#dgment in!i2il !a$e (o. 1557. 0ter preliminary hearing o thi$ deen$e, the trial co#rtcon$idered the o*Aection well-ta%en and di$mi$$ed the ca$e. /he petitionerthen came to thi$ co#rt to challenge the order./he petitioner doe$ not $erio#$ly di$p#te that re#i$ite$ o res Eudicata arepre$ent, to wit 1 the pre$ence o a fnal ormer A#dgmentC 7 the co#rtrendering the $ame m#$t ha2e A#ri$diction o2er the $#*Aect matter and thepartie$C 3 the ormer A#dgment m#$t *e on the merit$C and 4 there m#$t*e, *etween the two ca$e$, "dentity o partie$, "dentity o $#*Aect matter and"dentity o ca#$e$ o action. =e $ay$ in act that &he doe$ not $ee% to doaway with the r#le o res Eudicata *#t merely propo$e$ to #ndo a gra2e and

$erio#$ wrong perpet#ated in the name o A#$tice.&$


15/47

ood, etc. 74 ?!@0 819, 878, thi$ principle wa$ reiterated. /e$oro 2. !o#rto 0ppeal$, 54 ?!@0 79, 34.

0t that, it i$ not e2en e6actly tr#e, a$ the petitioner claim$, that hi$ e2idencewa$ not con$idered *y the trial co#rt in !i2il !a$e (o. 1557. /he record $how$that when the deendant$ fled their $econd motion or recon$ideration andBorto allow them to pre$ent their e2idence, which wa$ attached, it wa$ e6amined*y the co#rt &in airne$$ to the deendant$& *#t o#nd to *e &$o 2ag#e and notappearing to *e ind#*ita*le a$ to warrant reopening o the ca$e.& >/hi$concl#$ion wa$ reached *y the late +#dge +aime @. 0gloro ater he had made acare#l and lengthy analy$i$ o $#ch e2idence, dwelling on each o thedi$p#ted propertie$, their antecedent, de$cription, and the *a$i$ o thedeendant$) claim$ thereor. 0 mere reading o $#ch di$c#$$ion, whichco2ered two $ingle $paced typewritten page$, will $how that, altho#gh theA#dge co#ld ha2e $imply denied the $econd motion or recon$ideration, henonethele$$ too% the time and e6erted pain$ta%ing eEort$ to $t#dy the

proEered e2idence. /he metic#lo#$ con$ideration o $#ch e2idencecommend$ the trial A#dge)$ thoro#ghne$$ and $en$e o A#$tice and clearly*elie$ the petitioner)$ complaint that he had *een denied d#e proce$$.

Perhap$ it i$ or thi$ rea$on that the petitioner doe$ not $trongly attac% thedeci$ion, preerring to train hi$ $ight$ on hi$ own ormer co#n$el. 0$ he $ay$in hi$ petition, he &doe$ not $ee% the n#llity o the A#dgment rendered in !i2il!a$e (o. 1557 which ha$ already *ecome fnal d#e to legaltechnicality.& #;#ena2ent#ra Ma*a$a mortgaged the$e lot$ to $ec#re a loan rom theDe2elopment >an% o the Philippine$ D>P. >eca#$e o hi$ ail#re to pay hi$inde*tedne$$, D>P oreclo$ed on the lot$ and $old them at p#*lic a#ctionwhere it emerged a$ the highe$t *idder. D>P then o*tained title$ to the lot$'ot 79 #nder /!/ (o. /-774 and con$olidated 'ot$ 77 and 97 #nder /!/

(o. /-7448.

#ena2ent#ra Ma*a$a died, re$pondentQ$ $i*ling$ a#thoriHed her t onegotiate with D>P or the rep#rcha$e o the lot$. D>P allowed re$pondent toreac#ire the oreclo$ed propertie$ thro#gh a deed o conditional $aleor P75,85.J3K

?#*$e#ently, re$pondent entered into an agreement with petitionerQ$ather, ?a*a$ Ga$ataya, or the latter to a$$#me payment o her o*ligation toD>P. /hey #rther agreed that ?a*a$ Ga$ataya wo#ld ta%e po$$e$$ion o thelot$ or 7 year$ and de2elop them into a f$hpond. 0$ con$ideration thereo,re$pondent recei2edP1, ca$h, in addition to the P75,that ?a*a$ Ga$ataya had to pay D>P on her *ehal.Fpon repre$entation *y ?a*a$ Ga$ataya that re$pondentQ$ o*ligation to D>Phad already *een $ettled, they entered into another agreement denominateda$ RDeed o ?ale o i$hpond 'and$ with @ight to @ep#rcha$e.S;ight year$ ater the e6ec#tion o the a*o2e deed o $ale with right to

rep#rcha$e, re$pondent di$co2ered that ?a*a$ Ga$ataya had $topped payingD>P. 0$ a re$#lt, D>P re2o%ed her right to rep#rcha$e the $#*Aect lot$.

D>P later on held a p#*lic a#ction o the propertie$ where petitionerparticipated and *id the highe$t price o P7,7. ;2ent#ally, he ac#iredtitle$ to the lot$ or which he wa$ i$$#ed /!/ (o. /-117 in lie# o /!/ (o. /-744 'ot 79 and /!/ (o. /-1171 or /!/ (o. /-7448 'ot$ 77 and 97.@e$pondent then fled a complaint in the @/! or recon2eyance o title$ oland$ with damage$J4Kagain$t petitioner and ?a*a$ Ga$ataya Ga$ataya$.?he claimed that the latter deli*erately reneged on hi$ commitment to payD>P to 1 re2o%e her right to rep#rcha$e the lot$ #nder the deed oconditional $ale and 7 $#*Aect the propertie$ to another p#*lic a#ctionwhere petitioner co#ld *id.Petitioner and hi$ ather denied the allegation$ $aying that the deed oconditional $ale a$$#med *y the latter rom re$pondent wa$ renderedineEecti2e *y D>PQ$re#$al to accept payment$ thereon.

/he trial co#rt r#led in a2or o re$pondent fnding that the Ga$ataya$ ailedto contro2ert her claim that they dera#ded her A#$t $o petitioner co#ldac#ire the lot$ at p#*lic a#ction.J5K0ccording to the trial co#rt,the Ga$ataya$ ailed to pro2e that D>P indeed reAected payment$rom ?a*a$ Ga$ataya. /he trial co#rt r#ledP a$ agreed, in order or them to ac#ire $aid propertie$ in ara#d#lent and treachero#$ manner, wa$ not #lly contro2erted *y JthemK.J/he Ga$ataya$K ailed to prod#ce e2idence to $#pport their deen$e$.666 666 666Moreo2er, Jthe Ga$ataya$K are in po$$e$$ion o $aid landJ$K *y 2irt#e o aDeed o ?ale with a @ight to @ep#rcha$e and not *eca#$e the D>P granted itto themTJ/Ko acilitate their ac#i$ition o the land in #e$tion, JtheyKdeli*erately dea#lted in the payment o the a$$#med o*ligation to thedamage and preA#dice o Jre$pondentK. !on$e#ently, the land$ in #e$tion

were $#*Aected to p#*lic *idding wherein JpetitionerK participated ande2ent#ally wonTJthe Ga$ataya$K committed a *reach o tr#$t amo#nting tora#d which wo#ld warrant an action orrecon2eyance.JK

Petitioner alone came to #$ 2ia thi$ appeal *y certiorari $ee%ing the re2er$alo the !0 deci$ion.>eore #$, petitioner conte$t$ the !0 deci$ion arming the trial co#rtQ$ orderto recon2ey hi$ title$ on the di$p#ted lot$ to re$pondent who, according tohim, i$ not the owner thereo.


16/47

0ppeal rom the deci$ion, dated +an#ary 18, 195, o the !o#rt o ir$t"n$tance o @iHal, the =on. +#dge ;#logio Mencia$, pre$iding in !i2il !a$e$(o$. 371, 377, and 373. 1

On May 19, 1955 three $et$ o plaintiE$ fled three $eparate complaint$containing $#*$tantially the $ame allegation$. 7

"n !i2il !a$e (o. 371, the plaintiE$ alleged that they were the owner$ andpo$$e$$or$ o the three parcel$ o agric#lt#ral land$, de$cri*ed in paragraph :o the complaint, located in the *arrio o 'a 'oma now *arrio o ?an +o$e inthe m#nicipality now city o !aloocan, pro2ince o @iHal, ha2ing anaggregate area o appro6imately 78,978 $#are meter$C that they inherited$aid parcel$ o land rom their ance$tor ?i6to >enin, who in t#rn inherited the$ame rom hi$ ather, ;#genio >eninC that they and their predece$$or$ inintere$t had po$$e$$ed the$e three parcel$ o land openly, ad2er$ely, and

peace#lly, c#lti2ated the $ame and e6cl#$i2ely enAoyed the r#it$ har2e$tedthereromC that ;#genio >enin, plaintiE)$ grandather, had $aid parcel$ o land$#r2eyed on March 4 and , 1894, that d#ring the cada$tral $#r2ey *y the>#rea# o 'and$ o the land$ in >arrio ?an +o$e in 1933 ?i6to >enin and hereinplaintiE$ claim the owner$hip o2er $aid parcel$ o landC that they declared$aid land$ or ta6ation p#rpo$e$ in 194 #nder /a6 Declaration (o. 7479C thatater the o#t*rea% o the la$t arrio o 'a 'omanow ?an +o$e, m#nicipality o !aloocan, pro2ince o @iHal, ha2ing an area oappro6imately 7,481 $#are meter$C that thi$ parcel o land wa$ inherited *yplaintiE$ rom their ance$tor !andido Pili who in t#rn inherited the $ame romhi$ parent$C that !andido Pili and hi$ predece$$or$ in intere$t owned,po$$e$$ed, occ#pied and c#lti2ated the $aid parcel o land rom timeimmemorialC that #pon the death o !andido Pili hi$ children '#i$a Pili, Pa$c#alPili, Diego Pili and Man#el Pili $#cceeded to the owner$hip and po$$e$$ion andc#lti2ation o $aid landC that plaintiE$ and their predece$$or$ in intere$t, a$

owner$ and po$$e$$or$ o $aid land, had openly, ad2er$ely and contin#o#$lyc#lti2ated the land, planting thereon palay and other agric#lt#ral prod#ct$and enAoying e6cl#$i2ely the prod#ct$ har2e$ted thereromC that d#ring hi$lietime, !andido Pili ordered the $#r2ey o $aid land $ometime on March 11,1894, and when the cada$tral $#r2ey o $aid land wa$ cond#cted *y the>#rea# o 'and$ in 1933 !andido Pili and plaintiE$ fled and regi$tered theirclaim o owner$hip o2er the $aid parcel o landC that plaintiE$ had the landdeclared or ta6ation p#rpo$e$ #nder /a6 Declaration (o. 759, I#eHon !ity,Philippine$C that ater the o#t*rea% o the la$t Declaring that Original !ertifcate o /itle (o. 35 o#nd on page 13 :ol.0- o the @egi$tration >oo% o @iHal i$ n#ll and 2oid rom the 2ery *eginningand o no eEect what$oe2erC

! Declaring that all /ran$er !ertifcate$ o /itle emanating or allegedlyderi2ed rom Original !ertifcate o /itle (o. 35 o the Pro2ince o @iHal areli%ewi$e n#ll and 2oidC

D Declaring that the plaintiE in !i2il !a$e$ (o$. 371, 377 and 373 arethe owner$ and entitled to the po$$e$$ion o the parcel$ o land claimed andde$cri*ed in paragraph : o their re$pecti2e complaint$C

; Ordering the deendant$ and all per$on$ claiming #nder them to 2acateand re$tore to the plaintiE$ the po$$e$ion o the parcel$ o land de$cri*ed in


17/47

paragraph : o the complaint in !i2il !a$e (o. 371 and indicated a$ Parcel 0,Parcel > and Parcel !, in ?oniacio @oad i$ the only *o#ndary on the


18/47

not identical with the area and de$cription o Parcel 1 applied or andp#*li$hed in the Ocial GaHette. /he trial co#rt $tre$$ed on the point thatp#*lication i$ one o the e$$ential *a$e$ o the A#ri$diction o the co#rt to hearand decide an application or regi$tration and to order the i$$#ance o adecree o regi$tration, a$ pro2ided in 0ct 49 'and @egi$tration 0ct.

an% o the Philippine "$land$ a$ recei2er o the /#a$on ;ntail or thep#rpo$e, among other$, o reco2ering rom Pa$c#al 0c#Va and other$ certainland$ incl#ded in the ?anta Me$a and Diliman hacienda located in the *arrio$o >ago*antay and Diliman, in the m#nicipalitie$ o !aloocan and ?an +#andel Monte Pro2ince o @iHal. Fpon hearing, the !o#rt o ir$t "n$tance o @iHaldeclared that none o the deendant$ owned any part o the land incontro2er$y. On appeal, thi$ !o#rt o*$er2ed that the character in which theplaintiE $#ed wa$ not open to #e$tion, and the material act$ were a$ollow$ /he heir$ o the /#a$on e$tate, reerred to a$ the /#a$on ;ntail, helda /orren$ title to a tract o land with an area o a*o#t 1, hectare$ locatedin the pro2ince o @iHal. /hi$ property wa$ then co2ered *y /ran$er!ertifcate o /itle (o. 397 i$$#ed in lie# o older certifcate$ dating rom +#ly8, 1914. /hi$ /ran$er !ertifcate o /itle (o. 397 emanated rom Or!ertifcate o /itle (o. 35. 1 /he appellant$ preci$ely $o#ght to n#lliy thetitle o the heir$ o the /#a$on e$tate, which emanated rom Original!ertifcate o /itle (o. 35, #pon the gro#nd, a$ now #rged *y the appellee$in the three ca$e$ at *ar, that d#ring the regi$tration proceeding$ the originalplan o the land$ %nown a$ the ?ta. Me$a and Diliman wa$ amended, and nop#*lication wa$ made o the amended plan. @egarding the #e$tion o thenon-p#*lication o the amended plan, thi$ !o#rt $aid

0mong the arg#ment$ made *y the appellant$ o the >ago*antay gro#p, it i$

alleged that the /orren$ title relied *y the plaintiE i$ 2oid, and in $#pport othi$ contention it $tated that, d#ring the co#r$e o the regi$trationproceeding$, an order wa$ made *y the co#rt or the amendment o theapplicant$ and that thi$ order wa$ not ollowed *y new p#*lication,whereore, it i$ $#ppo$ed the co#rt wa$ witho#t A#ri$diction to decree the titleto the applicant$. "n thi$ connection reliance i$ placed #pon the doctrine$tated in the Philippine Man#act#ring !o. 2$. "mperial 49 Phil. 177. >#t the*rie or the appellant$ ail$ to call attention to the act that the r#le $tated inthe ca$e cited ha$ reerence to an amendment o the plan *y whichadditional land, diEerent rom that incl#ded in the original $#r2ey i$ intendedto *e *ro#ght within the proce$$ o regi$tration. "n the ca$e *eore #$, theorder reerred to wa$ or the e6cl#$ion o certain portion$ o the land co2ered*y the original $#r2ey, and the doctrine o the ca$e cited cannot apply. 0partrom thi$ it doe$ not appear that the portion intended to *e e6cl#dedcomprehended any part o the land which had *een #$#rped. 18

/he appellee$, howe2er, a$$ert$ that the ca$e o the >an% o the Philippine"$land$ 2$. 0c#Va, $#pra, i$ not applica*le to the three ca$e$ now *eore thi$!o#rt *eca#$e what wa$ in2ol2ed in $aid ca$e wa$ Parcel 7 o Original!ertifcate o /itle (o. 35, and not Parcel 1 which i$ the land in2ol2ed inthe$e ca$e$. /hi$ a$$ertion o the appellee$ i$ not correct. /he deci$ion in thatca$e $tate$ that the action wa$ in$tit#ted *y the >an% o the Philippine"$land$, a$ recei2er o the /#a$on ;ntail, or the p#rpo$e, among other$, oreco2ering rom Pa$c#al 0c#Va and other$ &certain land$ contained in the ?ta.Me$a and Diliman =acienda located in the *arrio$ o >ago*antay and Dilimanin the m#nicipalitie$ o !aloocan and ?an +#an del Monte.& 19 >#t whatmatter$ i$ the doctrine that wa$ laid down *y thi$ !o#rt in that ca$e that i$that when the original $#r2ey plan i$ amended, ater the p#*lication o theapplication in order to incl#de land not pre2io#$ly incl#ded in the original$#r2ey, a new p#*lication o the amended plan i$ nece$$ary in order to conerA#ri$diction #pon the regi$tration co#rt to order the regi$tration o the landthat i$ added to what wa$ incl#ded in the original $#r2ey plan. /he r#ling othi$ !o#rt in the >an% o the Philippine "$land$ ca$e ha$ a deci$i2e applicationin the three ca$e$ now *eore thi$ !o#rt.

/he trial co#rt laid $tre$$ on the point that p#*lication o the amended plan oParcel 1 $ho#ld ha2e *een made *eca#$e it appear$ in the Decree o@egi$tration (o. 1431, and a$ reprod#ced in Original !ertifcate o /itle (o.35, that the area o $aid parcel i$ &*igger& than the area $tated in theapplication a$ p#*li$hed in the Ocial GaHetteC and, al$o, that the *o#ndarie$o Parcel 1 $tated in the decree are not identical with the *o#ndarie$ $tated inthe application a$ p#*li$hed in the Ocial GaHette.


19/47

i$ $hown that a certifcate o title had *een i$$#ed co2ering land$ where theregi$tration co#rt had no A#ri$diction, the certifcate o title i$ n#ll and 2oidin$oar a$ it concern$ the land or land$ o2er which the regi$tration co#rt hadnot ac#ired A#ri$diction. 73

0nd $o in the three ca$e$ now *eore thi$ !o#rt, e2en granting that theregi$tration co#rt had no A#ri$diction o2er the increa$ed area o 7.1 $#aremeter$ a$ alleged *y appellee$, the mo$t that the lower co#rt co#ld ha2edone wa$ to n#lliy the decree and the certifcate o title in$oar a$ that areao 7.1 $#are meter$ i$ concerned, i that area can *e identifed. >#t,certainly, the lower co#rt co#ld not declare, and $ho#ld not ha2e declared,n#ll and 2oid the whole proceeding$ in '@! (o. 81C and, certainly, thelower co#rt erred in declaring n#ll and 2oid a* initio Original !ertifcate o/itle 35 which co2er$ not only the $#ppo$ed e6ce$$ area o 7.1 $#aremeter$ *#t al$o the remaining area o 8,98,1 $#are meter$ o Parcel 1and the entire area o 15,91,74 $#are meter$ o Parcel 7. /he trial co#rt,

in it$ deci$ion, declared Original !ertifcate o /itle (o. 35 &n#ll and 2oidrom the 2ery *eginning and o no eEect what$oe2er&, witho#t any#alifcation. /hi$ declaration *y the lower co#rt, i $anctioned *y thi$ !o#rtand gi2en eEect, wo#ld n#lliy the title that co2er$ two *ig parcel$ o landParcel$ 1 and 7 that ha2e a total area o 74,59,89.1 $#are meter$, oralmo$t 7,4 hectare$. 0nd not only that. /he trial co#rt declared n#ll and2oid all tran$er certifcate$ o title that are deri2ed, or that emanated, romOriginal !ertifcate o /itle (o. 35, regardle$$ o whether tho$e tran$ercertifcate$ o title are the re$#lt$ o tran$action$ done in good aith and or2al#e *y the holder o tho$e tr an$er certifcate$ o title.

"t m#$t *e noted that the appellee$ in the pre$ent ca$e$ claim $i6 parcel$ thatha2e an area o $ome 495,453. $#are meter$ a*o#t

Documents

Land Titles- Remedies in PD 1529 Cases