Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
469
de los Santos nor did the petitioners ever enter into possession
thereof. As earlier stated, the issuance of TCT No. T1346 did not
operate to vest upon the latter ownership over the private
respondents property. That act has never been recognized as a
mode of acquiring ownership. As a matter of fact, even the
original
_______________
*
470
470
471
472
473
Rollo, 2324.
474
Docketed as Civil Case No. 2828, the case was raffled off to
Branch 46 thereof. In their complaint, the private
respondents prayed, inter alia, that judgment be issued:
Id., 3536.
Rollo, 52.
Id., 48.
475
475
Rollo, 50.
10
Id., 57.
476
476
respondents.
12
In its decision promulgated on 31 August 1990, the
respondent Court upheld the trial court, but amended the
dispositive portion of the appealed decision thus:
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from herein is
AMENDED to the effect that instead of annulling Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T1346 in the name of defendantappellant
Lorenzo Berico, said appellant is ordered to execute a deed of
reconveyance of 2.25 has. out of the land titled in his name in
favor of plaintiffs, which deed of reconveyance shall be annotated
in appellants TCT No. T1346, until such time as the
corresponding partition and subdivision of the land covered by
said title is effected between the parties herein.
The rest of the judgment herein appealed
from is AFFIRMED,
13
with costs against defendantsappellants.
Rollo, 5860.
Annex A of Petition Id., 1831. Per Associate Justice Alicia V.
Id., 31.
14
[1987] Caram vs. Laureta, 103 SCRA 7 [1981] Salvoro vs. Tanega, supra.
15
Rollo, 2627.
477
477
16
Id., 28, citing Bergado vs. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 497 [1989]
Id., 32.
478
478
479
_______________
19
20
Arcenas vs. Del Rosario, 67 Phil. 238, 243 [1939], citations omitted
22
23
Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 586 [1991] Vda. de Jomoc vs. Court of
Appeals, 200 SCRA 74 [1991].
480
480
Solid State MultiProducts Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 630
[1991], citing De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, 156 SCRA 701 [1987]
Cruz vs. Cabana, 129 SCRA 656 [1984].
25
481
37 C.J.S. 210.
27
37 C.J.S. 211212.
28
Id., 213.
29
30
vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 155 SCRA 270 [1987] Solid State Multi
Products Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, supra. Mendoza vs. Navarette, 214
SCRA 337 [1992]).
482
482
SEPARATE OPINION
ROMERO, J.: Concurring
I am in complete agreement with the majority opinion in
holding that Article 1544 of the Civil Code finds application
in the present case and on the basis thereof, pronounced
that private respondents right over the disputed property
prevailed as against petitioner. Clearly, the facts have
woven a clear case of double sales with the provisions of
Article 1544 governing squarely and exclusively.
The majority opinion correctly set aside petitioners
theory that a trust relation, more particularly a
constructive trust, was established between private
respondents and themselves in the absence of the element
of fraud as contemplated under Article 1456.
483
484
Id. at 16.
485
485
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.