Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
| 2D 2012|
Siari Valley Inc. brought action to recover 200 heads of cattle
that were driven from its lands to that of Lucasans. Lucasan
however argued that although there was commixtion of
cattle, Siari already retrieved its animals. The CFI of
Zamboanga decided in favor of Siari thus the case at bar.
ISSUE: W/N Lucasan was in bad faith thus should lose his
share in the commixtion
HELD: YES
Although there was no actual evidence that all 823 missing
animals were taken by Lucasan or his men, on 2 occasions
however, his men drove away 30 heads of cattle. It is not
erroneous to believe that the others must have also been
driven away applying by analogy the principle that one who
stole a part of the stolen money must have taken also the
larger sum lost by the offended party.
Art. 382 (now Art. 473) of the CC states that if the
commingling of 2 things is made in bad faith, the one
responsible for it will lose his share thus since Lucasan is in
bad faith, he should lose his share in the commixtion.
[this is no longer in Phil Reports provided but in case Sir asks
about the dispositive portion]
The SC ordered Lucasan to deliver the 321 heads that had
been entrusted to his care to Siari; pay damages for the 400
heads he sold since 1946; ordered to allow Siari to round up
all the buffaloes that may be found on its cattle ranch
3. AGUIRRE V. PHENANG
FACTS
Spouses Aldaba sold to Jesus Aguirre a circular bolted steel
In specification, if both parties are in good faith, the
principal owner may acquire such property, provided that
he pay reimbursements made by the laborer for his
expenses. Without reimbursements, there is an unjust
enrichment in favor of the petitioner.
tank for Php900, which was not physically possessed by
petitioner due to prevention by the municipality where the
tank was located. The spouses sold again the same tank to
Zosimo Gabriel for the same price, who sold it to Leonora and
Company for Php2,500, who made an improvement
(investment and expenses) thereto worth Php11,299 and sold
it Nassco (National Shipyards and Steel Corporation) for
Php14,500. Aguirre filed a case against the spouses and L&C
where it was held that he is the absolute owner. While the
above case was pending, L&C filed a case against Nassco for
its non-payment, with petitioner as intervenor. It was held
that petitioner must reimburse L&C Php11,299 or upon failure
to deliver, Nassco must pay petitioner Php900 and L&C
Php14500.
FACTS:
| 2D 2012|
states, that actions to quiet title to property in the
possession of the plaintiff are imprescriptible.
The judgement is affirmed, cost against appellants.
5. TITONG v CA
For one to file an action to quiet title to a parcel of land,
the requisites in Art 476 of the NCC must be complied with
meaning there should be an instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance setting forth the cloud or doubt over the
title. Otherwise, the action to be filed can either be
ejectment, forcible entry, unlawful detainer, accion
reivindicatoria or accion publiciana.
FACTS:
A 20,592 square meter parcel of land located at Barrio
Titiong, Masbate is the subject property being disputed in this
case. The property is being claimed by 2 contestants,
however legal title over the property can only be given to one
of them.
The case originated from an action for quieting of title filed
by petitioner Mario Titong. The RTC of Masbate decided in
favor of private respondents, Vicente Laurio and Angeles
Laurio as the true and lawful owners of the disputed land.
The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Titong asserts that he is the owner of an unregistered parcel
of land with an area of 3.2800 hectares and declared for
taxation purposes. He claims that on three separate
occasions, private resps, with their hired laborers, forcibly
entered a portion of the land containing an approximate area
of 2 hectares and began plowing the same under pretext of
ownership. On the other hand, private resps denied the claim
and said that the subject land formed part of the 5.5 hectare
agricultural land which they had purchased from their
predecessor-in-interest, Pablo Espinosa.
Titong identified Espinosa as the his adjoining owner asserting
that no controversy had sprouted between them for 20 years
until the latter sold lot 3749 to V. Laurio. The boundary
between the land sold to Espinosa and what remained of
Titongs property was the old Bugsayon river. When Titong
employed Lerit as his tenant, he instructed the latter to
change the course of the old river and direct the flow of
water to the lowland at the southern portion of Titongs
property, thus converting the old river into a Riceland.
Private resps, on the other hand, denied claim of Titongs,
saying that the area and boundaries of disputed land
remained unaltered during the series of conveyances prior to
its coming into his hands. Accdg to him, Titong first declared
land for taxation purposes which showed that the land had an
area of 5.5 hectares and was bounded on the north by the B.
River; on the east by property under ownership by Zaragoza,
and on the west by property owned by De la Cruz. He also
alleges that Titong sold property to Verano. The latter
| 2D 2012|
| 2D 2012|
ownership over the same. They also claim that the action of
Elias has already PRESCRIBED.
8. VDA. DE AVILES v CA
An action to quiet title or to remove cloud may not be
brought for the purpose of settling a boundary dispute
FACTS:
Eduardo Aviles, the predecessor of the petitioners is the
bother of defendant Camilo. They inherited their lands from
their parents and have agreed to subdivide the same amongst
themselves. The area alloted (sic) to Eduardo Aviles is 16,111
square meters more or less, to Anastacio Aviles is 16,214
square meters more or less, while the area alloted to
defendant Camilo Aviles is 14,470 square meters more or less.
Defendants land composed of the riceland portion of his land
is 13,290 square meters, the fishpond portion is 500 square
meters and the residential portion is 680 square meters, or a
total of 14,470 square meters.
The Petitioners claim that they are the owners of the fish
pond which they claim is within their area. Defendant Camilo
Aviles asserted a color of title over the northern portion of
the property with an area of approximately 1,200 square
meters by constructing a bamboo fence (thereon) and moving
the earthen dikes, thereby molesting and disturbing the
peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over said portion.
Petitioners say that the fences were created to unduly
encroach to their property but the defendant said that he
merely reconstructed the same.
| 2D 2012|
RULING:
No, Petitioners filed the wrong action. This is obviously a
boundary dispute and as such the action must fail.
Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property
or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record,
claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid
or effective but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective,
voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said
title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to
quiet the title.
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being
cast upon a title to real property or any interest therein.
Petitioners fail to point out any any instrument, record,
claim, encumbrance or proceeding that could been a cloud
to their title. In fact, both plaintiffs and defendant admitted
the existence of the agreement of partition dated June 8,
1957 and in accordance therewith, a fixed area was allotted
to them and that the only controversy is whether these lands
were properly measured.
A special civil action for quieting of title is not the proper
remedy for settling a boundary dispute, and that petitioners
should have instituted an ejectment suit instead. An action
for forcible entry, whenever warranted by the period
prescribed in Rule 70, or for recovery of possession de facto,
also within the prescribed period, may be availed of by the
petitioners, in which proceeding the boundary dispute may be
fully threshed out.
9. OBLEA V. CA|ESTEBAN, 244 SCRA 101
The pendency of an action to quiet title in the RTC does
not divest the MTC of its jurisdiction to execute a final
judgment in a prior ejectment case.
FACTS:
The lot in issue was originally registered in the names of
Manuel Melencio, Pura Melencio, Wilfredo Wico and
Mariabelle Wico. But was subsequently re-registered in the
name of Ramon Melencio (son of deceased Manuel Melencio),
Pura Melencio and the Wicos via a deed of sale.
On 6 June 1958 subject lot was bought by private respondent
Juan S. Esteban from Mauricio Ramos who claimed to have
acquired the property from Ursula Melencio, the alleged
administratrix of the estate of Manuel and Pura Melencio.
Meanwhile, petitioner Romeo V. Oblea
located on the subject lot from a certain
alleged son of private respondent Juan
eventually bought from Marius the lot on
leased a building
Marius Esteban, an
S. Esteban. Oblea
which the building
| 2D 2012|
half-brother of the petitioners, was entrusted with the
payment of land taxes due on the property. In 1962, Hilario
caused both the cancellation of the tax declaration covering
the property and its transfer to Ballane (his father-in-law).
Ballane mortgaged the property and, for some reason, the tax
declaration thereon was subsequently named to Hilario. The
latter then mortgaged the property to private respondent
Rural Bank of Cardona. The mortgage was foreclosed and said
bank acquired by public bidding the property which was then
sold by it to the spouses Santos. Petitioners learned of the
mortgage only in 1987. Subsequently, the action was filed,
impleading also as parties-defendant the Director of Lands
and the District Land Officer sue to an issuance of a free
patent in favour of spouses Santos. Trial court ruled in favour
of petitioners, declaring null the patent, declaring the heirs
of Silvino absolute owners of the subject land. CA reversed on
the ground that petitioners no longer had title to the
property.
ISSUES
(1) whether petitioners have the appropriate title
essential to an action for quieting of title (relevant
issue) and whether title claimed by respondents is
valid
(2) whether REM between Hilario and RBC is valid
(3) whether issuance of free patent is valid
HELD
(1) Petitioners have valid title by virtue of their
continued and open occupation and possession as
owners of the subject property.
In this case, the cloud on petitioners title
emanate from the apparent validity of the free
patent issued and the tax declarations and other
evidence in favour of respondents ultimately leading
to the transfer of the property to spouses Santos.
WRT title of the spouses Santos, such is deemed
invalid/inoperative insofar as it is rooted in the title
and appropriation of Hilario. Hilario could not have
prejudiced the rights of his co-heirs as co-owners of
the real estate. He must have first repudiated the
ownership clearly and evidently. CA failed to
consider the irregularities in the transactions
involving the property. No instrument/deed of
conveyance was presented to show any transaction
between petitioners and Ballane or even Hilario.
(2) Mortgage was only valid insofar as Hilarios
undivided interest is concerned there being coownership between the heirs. Court also delved into
gross negligence which amounted to bad faith on
part of bank by not exercising due diligence in
verifying the ownership of the land considering such
was unregistered.
Free patent was also not valid, the land in question having
been converted ipso jure to private land by virtue of the
adverse possession in the concept of owners since
| 2D 2012|
Petition for relief (what the CA recommended) was not
available to the bank since it was never a party to the civil
case.
An action for quieting of the title was also not available to
the bank. An action for quieting of title is filed only when
there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest
therein. A cloud on a title is defined as a semblance of title
which appears in some legal form but which is in fact
unfounded. The subject judgment cannot be considered as a
cloud on petitioners title or interest over the real property
covered by TCT, which does not even have a semblance of
being a title.
It would not be proper to consider the subject judgment as a
cloud that would warrant the filing of an action to quiet title
because to do so would require the court hearing the action
to modife or interfere with the judgment of another co-equal
court. Well-entrenched in our jurisdiction is the doctrine that
our court has no power to do so, as that action may lead to
confusion and seriously hinder the administration of justice.
Clearly, an action for quieting of title is not an appropriate
remedy in this case.
Bank cant also intervene to a case that he has no knowledge
of.
When they were about to get their TCT from the Register of
Deeds, petitioner was informed of the existence of the
decision in the aforementioned civil case (complaint for
declaration of nullity of TCT) declaring the Spouses
Acampadoss TCT null and void.
| 2D 2012|
HELD:
Art. 1723 dictates that the engineer/architect and contractor
are liable for damages should the building collapse within 15
years from completion.
RULING: No.
The respondent is in possession of the disputed property. If a
person claiming to be the owner of a wrongfully registered
parcel of land is in actual possession, the right to seek
reconveyance does not prescribe. A petition for the quieting
of title, although essentially an action for reconveyance,
should not be dismissed on the ground of prescription, if it is
alleged that the plaintiff is in possession of the property.
Furthermore, the action was seasonably filed since Dela
Cruzs right to its conveyance and possession was subject to
the 12-month redemption perion provided under section 33 of
rule 39 of the Rules of court. In this case, only a month had
passed.
14. NAKPIL & SONS v CA
To be exempt from liability due to an act of God, the
engineer/architect/contractor must not have been
negligent in the construction of the building.
FACTS:
Private respondents Philippine Bar Association (PBA) a nonprofit organization formed under the corporation law decided
to put up a building in Intramuros, Manila. Hired to plan the
specifications of the building were Juan Nakpil & Sons, while
United Construction was hired to construct it. The proposal
was approved by the Board of Directors and signed by the
President, Ramon Ozaeta. The building was completed in
1966.