PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY.
AMPIL) 3rd week | Bedural Bleza Cimagala Delos Santos Imperial Noel Plazo Sia 2D 2012|
CHIAO LIONG TAN V. COURT OF APPEALS
Replevin is possessory in character and determines
nothing more than the right of possession. However,
when the title to the property is distinctly put in issue
by the defendants plea and by reason of the policy to
settle in one action all the conflicting claims of the
parties to the possession of the property in
controversy, the question of ownership may be
resolved in the same proceeding.
FACTS:
Petitioner claims to be the owner of a motor vehicle, Isuzu
Elf van, relying on the Certificate of Registration in his name.
He claims that he sent his brother to look and purchase a car
which the latter did. However, the brother is claiming
ownership on the van.
The brothers contention is that the purchase money was from
the loan he acquired from a friend-lender. He asked
petitioner to purchase the van and gave him the
downpayment (P5,000). This is the reason why the car is
registered in petitioners name. However, the balance
(P133,000) was paid by respondent himself. The friend-lender
and an Isuzu Motors employee corroborated the claim of the
respondent.
Petitioner files action of replevin. He lost in the lower courts.
He appeals to overturn the order of replevin by proving
ownership
ISSUE:
W/N ownership may be decided in a proceeding for replevin.
RULING:
YES. (still in this case, the petitioner lost because the SC
affirmed the findings of the lower court)
1) A certificate of registration creates a strong
presumption of ownership. But such is rebuttable by
competent proof.
2) In this case, it is undeniable that an IMPLIED TRUST
has been created in the name of petitioner (The court
was able to conclude this because it affirmed the
allegations of respondent).
3) Replevin is possessory in character and determines nothing
more than the right of possession. However, when the title to
the property is distinctly put in issue by the defendants plea
and by reason of the policy to settle in one action all the
conflicting claims of the parties to the possession of the
property in controversy, the question of ownership may be
resolved in the same proceeding. In this case, the ownership
was established through evidence and testimonies presented
by defendant.
4) Also, replevin is sufficiently flexible to authorize a
settlement of all equities between the parties, arising from
or growing out of the main controversy. Hence, the winning
party may in the same court procure relief for the return of
the property.
CALUB V. CA
Replevin cannot be issued to recover a property lawfully
taken by virtue of legal process and considered in the
custody of the law. A replevin case against the State,
without its consent, cannot prosper.
FACTS:
Petitioner from DENR apprehended two vehicles carrying
illegally sourced lumber and thereafter confiscated them.
The owners of the vehicles filed an action for replevin to
recover the vehicles. They won in the trial court on the
ground that petitioner did not act in accordance with the law.
So petitioner appeals on the ground that the replevin in this
case is a suit against the State and is therefore valid.
ISSUE:
1) W/N a replevin may be instituted for recovery of property
under custodia legis.
2) W/N replevin in this case is a suit against the State
RULING:
1) No!
Replevin cannot be issued to recover a property lawfully
taken by virtue of legal process and considered in the custody
of the law.
2) Yes! This suit is not valid because the State may not be
sued without its consent or when the public official acted in
bad faith in the discharge of his duties. It has been
established that the DENR acted within its authority. Hence,
its action is the action of the State.
SARMIENTO V. CA|CRUZ, 250 SCRA 108
FACTS:
Generosa Cruz owned a parcel of land in Bataan. The
adjacent land belongs to the Nuguids but is being used and
occupied by Eufemia Sarmiento for several years now. It was
found out by the Geodetic Engineer that Sarmientos fence is
encroaching Cruzs land for about 71 meters. Cruz requested
Sarmiento to remove the fence, but the latter refused so
Cruz filed a complaint for ejectment in the Municipal Trial
Court.
MTC decided for Cruz. Sarmiento appealed in the RTC,
assailing the jurisdiction of the MTC. RTC decided for
Sarmiento and held that the MTC had no jurisdiction to hear
the case. CA reversed RTC and reinstated the MTC decision.
Issue: W/N the court of origin (MTC) had jurisdiction over the
ejectment case? (Apparently, Cruz failed to state details on
how the encroachment was done.)
Held:
1
PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY. AMPIL) 3rd week
No. To give the court jurisdiction to effect the ejectment of
an occupant or deforciant on the land, it is necessary that the
complaint should embody such statement of facts as brings
the party clearly within the class of cases for which the
statutes provide a remedy, as the proceedings are summary
in nature. The complaint must show enough on its face to
give the court jurisdiction without resort to parol evidence.
The jurisdictional facts must appear on the face of the
complaint. When the complaint fails to aver facts constitutive
of forcible entry or unlawful detainer, as when it does not
state how entry was effected or how and when dispossession
started, as in the case at bar, the remedy should either be an
accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria in the proper
regional trial court.
BONGATO V. MALVAR, 387 SCRA 327
FACTS:
Spouses Severo and Trinidad Malvar filed a complaint in the
MTCC for forcible entry against Teresita Bongato, alleging
that Bongato unlawfully entered a parcel of land belonging to
the spouses and erected thereon a house of light materials.
MTCC decided in favor of Malvar and ordered Bongato to
vacate the land. RTC affirmed the decision. CA also held that
MTCC had jurisdiction. On appeal, Bongato raised the issue of
MTCC jurisdiction; that the complaint was filed beyond the
one-year prescriptive period.
ISSUE: W/N MTCC had jurisdiction since the Complaint was
filed beyond the one-year period from date of alleged entry?
HELD:
No, MTCC had no jurisdiction. It is wise to be reminded that
forcible entry is a quieting process, and that the restrictive
time bar is prescribed to complement the summary nature of
such process. Indeed, the one-year period within which to
bring an action for forcible entry is generally counted from
the date of actual entry to the land. However, when entry is
made through stealth, then the one-year period is counted
from the time the plaintiff learned about it. After the lapse
of the one-year period, the party dispossessed of the parcel
of land may file either accion publiciana; or an accion
reivindicatoria, which is an action to recover ownership as
well as possession.
One the basis of the facts, it is clear that the cause of action
for forcible entry filed by respondents had already prescribed
when they filed the complaint on July 10, 1992 (the house
was built as early as 1987), thus the MTCC had no more
jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
Note: There are also minor issues on judicial notice and
prohibited pleadings.
DE LA CRUZ V. COURT OF APPEALS
A positive act of the govt is needed to reclassify land and
until such reclassification, property remains part of the
forest reserve incapable of alienation and cannot be
acquired by prescription.
FACTS:
| Bedural Bleza Cimagala Delos Santos Imperial Noel Plazo Sia 2D 2012|
In 1973, the subject lot, a 407 sq. m. residential lot was the
subject of an application under the Land Registration Act by
the Ramos bros. Eugenio de la Cruz [petitioner] opposed.
After trial, the application was dismissed on the ground that
the land was not yet reclassified and remains part of the
forest reserve. The Ramos bros. pursued the reclassification
of the land and were subsequently awarded ownership of it.
Cristina Villanueva, the private respondent, subsequently
purchased the same lot from the brothers. Upon learning of
the said sale, petitioner filed a complaint for reconveyance
claiming ownership of the said land having possessed and
occupied it openly, publicly, notoriously and adversely
against the whole world and in the concept of an owner for
more than 30 years. His complaint was dismissed. The CA
affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court thus the case
at bar.
ISSUE/S: W/N petitioner is vested with a better right over the
residential lot to which he possessed and devoted time,
effort and resources
HELD: NO
Petitioner possessed and occupied the land after it was
declared by the Govt as part of the forest zone. Forest lands
or forest reserves are not capable of private appropriation,
and possession thereof, however long, cannot convert them
into private property.
A positive act by the government is needed to declassify land
and to convert it to alienable or disposable land. And until
such declassification, there is no disposable land to speak of.
PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY (PEZA) V.
FERNANDEZ
FACTS:
Lot 4673 was registered in the names of Florentina Rapaya,
Victorino Cuizon among others covered by an OCT. Sometime
thereafter, Jorgea Igot-Soro o et al executed an Extra-
judicial Partition claiming to be the only surviving heirs of the
registered owners, through which they were issued a TCT.
Said lot was among the object of an expropriation proceeding
before the RTC. Said RTC approved the compromise
Agreement b/w the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA)
and Igot-Soroo et al wherein EPZA would pay a certain
amount in exchange for the subject property.
EPZA acquired title to said land by virtue of the RTC decision
and was issued a corresponding TCT.
The Heirs of the Florentina Rapaya and Juan Cuizon filed a
complaint to nullify several documents including the TCT
issued to EPZA for they were excluded from the extrajudicial
settlement of the estate.
2
PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY. AMPIL) 3rd week
EPZA filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription
and was denied thus elevated the case to the CA wherein the
CA ruled that the heirs of Igot-Soroo defrauded the other
heirs by falsely representing that they were the only heirs
enabling them to appropriate the land in favor of EPZA. This
method of acquiring property created a constructive trust in
favor of the defrauded party and grants them the right to
vindicate regardless of the lapse of time. Thus, the case at
bar.
ISSUE/S:
1) W/N private respondents claim over the expropriated land
has prescribed
2) W/N reconveyance lies against expropriated property
HELD:
1) YES. As provided in the Rules of Court, persons unduly
deprived of their lawful participation in a settlement may
assert their claim only w/in the 2-year period after the
settlement and distribution of the estate. However, this
prescriptive period will not apply to those who had not been
notified of the settlement.
The Private respondents are deemed to have been notified of
the extrajudicial settlement since it was registered and
annotated on the certificate of title over the lot.
The only exception to this rule is when the title still remains
in the hands of the heirs who have fraudulently caused the
partition of the said property. In the case at bar, the title has
already passed to an innocent purchaser for value, the govt
through EPZA.
Their remedies of action for reconveyance resulting from
fraud, and action for reconveyance based on an implied
constructive trust has already prescribed as well the former
having prescribed 4 years from the discovery and the latter
prescribing 10 years from the alleged fraudulent registration.
2) NO. Reconveyance is a remedy for those whose property
has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in anothers
name. However, this cannot be availed once the property has
passed to an innocent purchaser for value. Since the property
has already passed to the govt in an expropriation
proceeding, EPZA is entitled to enjoy the security afforded
innocent 3rd persons and their title to the property must be
preserved.
However, the private respondents are not w/o remedy. They
can sue for damages their co-heirs.
IDOLOR v CA (351 SCRA 402)
FACTS:
Teresita Idolor executed in favor of private respondent
Gumersindo De Guzman a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage with
right of extra-judicial foreclosure upon failure to redeem the
| Bedural Bleza Cimagala Delos Santos Imperial Noel Plazo Sia 2D 2012|
mortgage
Upon the failure of the petitioner to settle her mortgage,
respondents went to the Barangay which resulted into a
Kasunduang Pag-aayos which noted that the petitioner shall
pay within 90 days and her failure would warrant the
foreclosure of the property with the right to repurchase
within one year without interest.
Petitioner failed to comply with her undertaking; thus
respondent Gumersindo De Guzman filed an extra judicial
foreclosure of the real estate mortgage. The property was
sold in a public auction to respondent Gumersindo and the
Certificate of Sale was registered.
After more than a year, petitioner filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 220, a complaint for
annulment of Sheriffs Certificate of Sale with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of
preliminary injunction.Trial court subsequently issued the
TRO and the writ.
CA anulled the writ
ISSUES:
W/N Petitioner has proprietary rights to the writ of
preliminary injunction
(not so related to property) W/N the Kasunduan was a form
of novation
HELD:
Injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at protecting
substantive rights and interests. Before an injunction can be
issued, it is essential that the following requisites be
present:
1. there must be a right in esse or the existence of a
right to be protected;
2. the act against which the injunction is to be directed
is a violation of such right.
Petitioner had one year redemption period from the
registration of the sheriffs sale to redeem the property but
she failed to exercise this right. Hence, the right no longer
exists.
There was no novation that was brought by the Kasunduan,
since it is essentially the same agreement as the first, only
that the conditions were changed a little. Novation requires
the extinguishment of the obligation, here the original
obligation was not extinguished.
CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY LANDLESS RESIDENTS ASSOC. V. CA
FACTS:
Land in question is a public land. Bureau of Lands granted
authority to COCLAI to survey the land for purposes of
subdivision into residential lots. NHA, on the other hand, filed
an expropriation proceeding to acquire the same lot. The
President of the Philippines issued a proclamation granting
NHA to develop, administer and dispose said land. So, NHA
demolished the structures built by COCLAI. MTCC granted
forcible entry decision against NHA & RTC affirmed. While
case was pending, the President of the Philippines issued a
Special Patent covering the land in question, thereby granting
3
PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY. AMPIL) 3rd week | Bedural Bleza Cimagala Delos Santos Imperial Noel Plazo Sia 2D 2012|
title to NHA. COCLAI moved for the execution of forcible
entry while NHA wants to quiet the title and an application
for a writ of preliminary injunction.
ISSUE: Who has the better right?
HELD: NHA has a better right.
An injunction may only be restored by a litigant for the
preservation or protection of his rights. CA was justified in
ruling that NHA was entitled to writ of injunction since it has
a title on the lot and the proclamation granted the authority
to dispose the land. On the other hand, petitioners only basis
is lawful entry and possession. Petitioners became squatters
with no legal right over the land they are occupying.
LUCERO V. LOOT
FACTS
Julio Lucero filed was granted a writ of possession of
property (based on a final decree in a land registration
proceeding). Although the other party (all surnamed Loot)
filed a motion to quash the writ, this was granted by CFI
Iloilos Judge Fernan on September 21, 1959.
The Loots opposed the decision on the ground that there
were defects in the reconstitution of the records and that the
motion was not under oath. The court dismissed these as
trivial arguments. Two motions for reconsideration were also
denied. The writ of possession prayed for was issued in favour
of Lucero.
The Loots were stubborn as hell. They then went straight to
the Supreme Court for an appeal for certiorari. The Loots
desperately tried to assert
ISSUE: w/n the order granting the writ of possession was in
accordance with law
RULING: Yes.
The order granting the writ of possession was based on a
decision promulgated on a land registration case in 1938,
which became a final decree on October 29, 1941.
After the final decree, the issuance of the writ of possession
was only a ministerial duty of the court if no writ has been
issued to the registered owner yet. The final decree, in effect,
immediately empowered the court to enforce the
order/judgment/decree. This automatic process is to avoid
further delay and inconvenience to a successful land
registration litigant if he were compelled to commence
another action to secure possession.
Furthermore, there is no period of prescription as to the
issuance of a writ of possession.
The writ may be issued not only against the person who has
been defeated in a registration case, but also against anyone
adversely occupying the land or any portion of the land. Even
fraud shall not be a bar to the issuance of the writ of
possession, which necessarily implied the delivery of
possession of the land.
As to the questions of fact raised by the Loots, the SC can do
nothing. These must be raised at the CA of appeals;
otherwise, the parties contesting the facts are deemed to
have waived the opportunity to question the correctness of
the findings.
VENCILAO V. VANO
FACTS
Three consolidated cases are resolved, given that there
are same parties and parcels of land in question.
1) In the first case, the heirs of the late Juan Reyes filed an
application for registration of the subject parcel of land,
which resulted in an OCT. After the heirs tried to take
possession of the property, a reconveyance of property
was filed against them by Vencila et al., asserting that:
a. They have acquired the land by purchase or
inheritance and in OCEN possession for 30 years
b. The parcels of land that they own were by mistake
part of Juan Reyes estate
2) The second case involved the death of the administratix of
the estate of the owners/heirs of the land. After her
death, a TCT was issued in the name of Pedro Luspo, and
another was issued in the name of several persons. A writ
of possession was issued by the trial court against
petitioners.
3) The third case involved one of the registered owners of
the land who filed a petition for complaint against the
occupants who refused to vacate the land and sign the
Sheriffs return.
The heirs of Juan Reyes moved to dismiss the case of
reconveyance stating that the other parties had no cause of
action and that they were barred by prior judgement already.
The lower court denied the motion to dismiss, then set aside
the same order, and then reversed itself partially (some cases
were dismissed, some were not -- since there were several
petitioners). The parties whose cases were dismissed
appealed to the SC.
These petitioners contend that they were not claimants-
oppositors nor defeated oppositors in the said land
registration case, as their names dont appear in the
amended application for registration. They argue that they
have occupied the parcels of land for more
than 30 years which began long before the application
4
PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY. AMPIL) 3rd week | Bedural Bleza Cimagala Delos Santos Imperial Noel Plazo Sia 2D 2012|
for registration and that even after registration, they
continued to possess the land.
ISSUE/S:
1) w/n res judicata is applicable in an action for
reconveyance
2) w/n the writ of possession may be issued against
them considering that the petitioners were not the
defeated parties in the registration case
RULING
1. No. Res judicata applies to all cases and proceedings,
including land registration and cadastral proceedings. A final
judgment is conclusive even in subsequent cases involving the
same parties and their successors-in-interest as long as the ff.
requisites are present:
a. The former judgment must be final
b. Rendered by a court having jurisdiction on the subj
matter and of the parties (CFI Bohol had jurisdiction)
c. The judgment was based on the merits
d. There is identity of parties, subj matter, and cause
of action between the first and second actions (Land
registration and action for reconveyance)
2. Yes. A writ of possession may be issued not only
against a person who has been defeated in a registration case
but also against anyone unlawfully and adversely occupying
the land or any portion thereof during the land registration
proceedings up to the issuance of the final decree.
Note:
In a registration case, the judgment confirming the title
of the applicant and ordering its registration in his name
necessarily carries with it the right of ownership (right to
possess-may be obtained through writ of possession).
On the issue of contempt, the court ruled that the occupants
were not guilty. Contempt only applies when after the sheriff
dispossess or eject the occupants, they enter/attempt to
enter the property. It was the sheriffs and not the
petitioners fault that there was delivery of possession was
unsuccessful.
Doctrine for next 2 cases (consolidated): The doctrine of Self-
Help, wherein one uses necessary force to repel another
force or threat to the property of the possessor to protect
and preserve it, does not apply in favor of the party (who are
not actual possessors, even if they are the owners) depriving
the actual possessors of the use of the property by means of
force, threat etc.
GERMAN MANAGEMENT & SERVICES, INC. V COURT OF
APPEALS
FACTS:
Spouses Jose are residents of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA
are owners of the land situated in sitio Inarawan, San Isidro,
Antipolo, Rizal (the land being disputed in the case at bar.)
The spouses Jose executed a special power of attorney
authorizing petitioner German Management Services to
develop their property. They have already acquired the
proper permits to do so but they discovered that the land was
occupied by the respondent with 20 other farmers (members
of the Concerned of Farmers Association.) These farmers
have occupied the land for the last twelve to fifteen years
prior to the issuance of the permits and they already have
their crops all over the property. In short, they are in actual
possession of the land.
Petitioners tried to forcibly drive the farmers away and;
demolish and bulldoze their crops and property. The
respondents filed in CFI because they were deprived of their
property without due process of law by trespassing,
demolishing and bulldozing their crops and property situated
in the land. CFI and RTC denied it but CA reversed the
decision. Petitioners tried to appeal the decision in CA but
were denied thus this appeal
ISSUE: W/N private respondents are entitled to file a forcible
entry case against petitioner?
RULING:
YES, they are entitled to file a forcible entry case! Since
private respondents were in actual possession of the property
at the time they were forcibly ejected by petitioner, private
respondents have a right to commence an action for forcible
entry regardless of the legality or illegality of possession
Private respondents, as actual possessors, can commence a
forcible entry case against petitioner because ownership is
not in issue. Forcible entry is merely a quieting process and
never determines the actual title to an estate. Title is not
involved, only actual possession. It is undisputed that private
respondents were in possession of the property and not the
petitioners nor the spouses Jose. Although the petitioners
have a valid claim over ownership this does not in any way
justify their act of forcible entry. It must be stated that
regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property
the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned
out by a strong hand, violence or terror. Thus, a party who
can prove prior possession can recover such possession
even against the owner himself.
Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in
his favor priority in time, he has the security that entitles
him to remain on the property until he is lawfully ejected by
a person having a better right by accion publiciana or accion
reivindicatoria.
The doctrine of self help, which the petitioners were using to
justify their actions, are not applicable in the case because it
can only be exercised at the time of actual or threatened
dispossession which is absent in the case at bar (in fact they
5
PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY. AMPIL) 3rd week | Bedural Bleza Cimagala Delos Santos Imperial Noel Plazo Sia 2D 2012|
are the ones who are threatening to remove the respondents
with the use of force.) Article 536 basically tells us that the
owner or a person who has a better right over the land must
resort to judicial means to recover the property from another
person who possesses the land.
When possession has already been lost, the owner must resort
to judicial process for the recovery of property. As clearly
stated in Article 536- In no case may possession be acquired
through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor
who objects thereto. He who believes that he has an action
or right to deprive another of the holding of a thing must
invoke the aid of the competent court, if holder should refuse
to deliver the thing.
CAISIP v PEOPLE
FACTS:
Spouses Gloria Cabalag and Marcelino Guevarra are people
who cultivated a parcel of land known as Lot 105-A of
Hacienda Palico situated in sitio Bote-bote, barrio Tampisao,
Nasugbu, Batangas. The overseer of the hacienda is petitioner
Felix Casipi and the owner of the same is Roxas y Cia. The
latter acquired a court ruling against the spouses Gloria and
Marcelino for forcible entry which orders them to vacate the
premises within 20 days. The order was carried out June 6,
1959 (so they had until June 26 to vacate it.) On June 17,
Gloria was seen by Felix Caisip harvesting their crops in Lot
105-A. The Latter bade her to stop what she was doing and to
leave the premises. When Gloria refused, Caisip called for Sgt.
Rjales and Cpl. Villadelrey to help him shoo her away. Gloria
stuck to her attitude and still refused to stop and leave so the
two police officers, by means of force, stopped her and
dragged her away (they also tried to threaten her by drawing
their guns :). As a result, the clothes of Gloria got torn. One
of Glorias neighbours caught sight of the event and asked the
officers to release her. Gloria was later turned over to the
police on duty for interrogation.
A case filed against the petitioners, Caisip and the officers,
for Grave Coercion (Petitioners also filed grave coercion and
unjust vexation against Gloria after 8 days maybe just to get
back at her- just in case sir asks.) One of their defenses was
ART. 429 (including the doctrine of self help.) The petitioners
were found guilty by the lower court thus this appeal.
ISSUE:
1) W/N Art. 429 can be used as a defense? [More relevant
issue to property:]
2) W/N the petitioners liable for Grave Coercion? [Main Issue-
this case is really a criminal case]
RULING:
1. NO, Art 429 cannot be used as a defense of the
petitioner to justify their action.
The order to vacate was until June 26 (or 20 days from the
execution of the decision.) On June 17, the spouses
REMAINED in possession of the said lot. At the very least the
owner of the hacienda is just a co-possessor of the land, thus
the spouses still had rights over it.
Although the spouses were ordered to vacate the land, it
doesnt necessarily mean that they dont have rights to the
land (they still have right to necessary expenses they used to
till the land)
What petitioner did was not repel or prevent in actual or
threatened x x x physical invasion or usurpation. They
EXPELLED Gloria from a property which they were still in
possession of. (more detailed enumeration of reason in page
23)
2. YES, they are guilty! Caisip is guilty of grave
coercion as a co-conspirator, apart from being a
principal by induction
By trying to stop her the first time showed that
he intended to stop her
By calling the police and not stopping them
when they were already dragging Gloria and
threatening her by drawing their guns.
Aggravating circumstances: abuse of superior strength and
disregard of sex were appreciated in the case of Caisip and an
additional aggravating: taking advantage of position as a
members of the local police force were appreciated on the
two police officers case
HEIRS OF FABELA V CA
In an action for reconveyance, there is presumption that the
current possessor or holder of the property is the rightful
owner. To overwhelm this presumption, the averse claimant
must prove ownership based on the strength of his claim and
not the weakness of the defense. He accomplishes the same
by presenting convincing evidence of just title as well as the
incontrovertible identity of the property he seeks.
FACTS
In 1985 The Heirs of Fabela filed a case for reconveyance of
property, as well as damages against the heirs of Neri. This
pertains to so-called lot 868 in Misamis Oriental.
Apparently the subject lot belonged to grandfather Fabela
back in 1924. It then became the subject of litigation
between Grandpa Fabela and Grandpa Neri in connection
with a Visayan agreement called Escritura Transaccion
which entrusted said lot of Fabela to Neri as vendee a retro
for 14 years. After 14 years, he was bound to restore said
property back to Fabella. Neri never did and so the battle
began.
6
PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY. AMPIL) 3rd week
Decades later the Heirs of Fabela decided they wanted this
lot returned. They were grossly ignored by the heirs of Neri,
hence the Fabela clan took the case to the RTC.
In 1986, the RTC ruled in favor of the heirs of Fabela on two
grounds:
1. The heirs of Neri failed to answer the complaint and
thus were declared in default
2. The Escrittura Transaccion indicated that Neri Sr was
merely a trustee and should have returned said
property long ago.
The Heirs of Neri didnt take the loss well and appealed to
the CA. The CA examined the records and found that the RTC
erred because in an action to recover, the plaintiff must rely
on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the
defendant. It is well accepted that the possessor of the
property has the presumption of title in his favor;
therefore any person who claims he has a better right to
property must prove he has better title than the defendant
and he must properly prove the identity of the property.
Apparently the RTC based its decision on the Escrittura
Transaction, but the original records of such document were
never found or located! Worse, it was never presented to the
RTC! Plaintiff Heirs of Fabella relied on the Escrittura as the
primary claim to lot 868. For all we know, it could have been
a figment of their imagination.
The lack of evidence compelled the CA to reverse the RTC
decision and restore the contested property to Neri.
The Heirs of Fabella contested the CA reversal and raised the
issue to the SC.
ISSUE: w/n the Heirs of Fabela provided substantial evidence
of ownership over the contested property.
HELD:
No. Despite the default of the Heirs of Neri, the allegations of
the Heirs of Fabella rested on shaky ground. The latter failed
to establish their case on preponderance of evidence.
In an action for recovery of ownership, the person who claims
he has a better right to property must prove not only his
ownership of property, but also the identity of the land by
describing the location,a area, and boundaries thereof. In the
case at hand, petitioners based their claim of ownership on
the 1924 Escritura de Transaccion, the original copy of which
was never presented in the trial court. That was the only
piece of evidence that could establish petitioners ownership
and the identity of the subject lot.
The RTC committed travesty by guessing the appropriate
boundaries of the lot that came under litigation.
| Bedural Bleza Cimagala Delos Santos Imperial Noel Plazo Sia 2D 2012|
Ultimately the SC affirmed the reversal of the CA on the
reason that the Heirs of Fabela failed to substantiate their
claim on the merits of his title.
HEIRS OF VENCILAO V CA
One may not acquire property by prescription when that
property is titled to another under the Torrens System. It
does not even matter whether occupation by the adverse
claimant was open, notorious and continuous. As long as the
TCT is in someone elses name, the property belongs to
person who holds the TCT
FACTS:
On Feb 12, 1990, the heirs of Vencilao filed a complaint to
quiet the title and recover a piece of land against spouses
Gepalgo.
Said heirs asserted that they acquired the land from their
father who was in open, peaceful and notorious enjoyment of
the same. They presented tax declarations to prove said
ownership
On the other hand, the Gepalgo spouses denied the claim
and for proof as registered owners, presented TCT No. 16042
which they acquired on public auction from the PNB.
RTC ruled in favor of Vencilao because the latter had been in
possession, cultivation and enjoyment for more than 30
years- long before a title was ever issued to the Gepalgos.
Upon appeal, the CA reversed and awared the property to
Gepalgos because the latter were buyers in good faith and
holders in due course. Furthermore, they held a Torrens Title.
That was the gold standard of ownership for registered land.
Naturally, the heirs of Vencilao trooped to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
w/n the Gepalgos had better right to the land.
HELD:
No.The RTC erroneously found for the petitioners. True, the
Vencilaos enjoyed the property for more than 30 years.
However, prescription does not run against registered land.
No one may acquire by prescription or adverse possession
land that is titled and registered even if occupation is
adverse, open and notorious. A Certificate of Title is absolute
and unbeatable evidence of ownership in favor of the person
whose name appears upon it. It binds the whole world.
HEIRS OF JUAN OCLARIT v CA
FACTS:
Juan Oclarit purchased an unregistered land in Bohol for P100
from Macalos. This particular land did not have specified
boundaries, as it was only indicated that the borders were a
7
PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY. AMPIL) 3rd week | Bedural Bleza Cimagala Delos Santos Imperial Noel Plazo Sia 2D 2012|

brook, lands of Gales, and another of Baja. He subsequently

purchased 5 more unregistered parcels of land from Gales,
one of which was an irrigated rice and coconut lands, which is
now the subject of the action.
Balasabas apparently entered the land about 15 years later
and replaces the J.O. labels on top of the trees with F.G.
(Felipa Gales, his mother). The heirs of Oclarit then filed an
action for the quieting of the title and damages against
Balasabas, averring that Oclarit exercised dominion and
ownership openly, peacefully, adversely and uninterrupted.
The deceased even planted coconut trees and other crops on
the land, enjoyed their fruits and even paid realty tax on the
land.
RTC initially found for Balasabas after having a Commissioner
survey the lands and discovered the discrepancy between the
boundaries indicated in the Deed of Sales and the one written
on the tax declarations. The CA, however, reversed the
decision, and ruled that Oclarit is the rightful owner of the
land.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the lands claimed by Balasabas are actually
foreign and alien to the lands claimed by Oclarit, making
these lands actually his property?
The trials court found for the Petitioners. However, the CA
reversed the RTCs decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the rights of the heirs of Roberto Cutanda
have already prescribed, thus, giving rightful ownership to
the Petitioners?
HELD:
The action brought by the respondents to the court was one
of accion publiciana to recover the right to possession and to
be declared rightful owners of the land. Since the complaint
actually put in issue the ownership of the land, it should thus
be treated properly as an accion reinvindicatoria.
Nevertheless, both have already prescribed as these rights
are extinguished if not brought within 10 years from
dispossession. Therefore, the petitioners have indeed
acquired possession and ownership of the land in question by
prescription, as the respondents failed to bring this action
only 55 years later.

HELD:
While it is true that tax declarations are not strong proof to
claim ones property as his, it will stand in court should these
tax declarations be coupled with ones exercise of ownership,
such as those proven by Oclarits heirs.

Furthermore, although what defines a piece of land is not the

area mentioned in its descriptions, but the boundaries laid
down, in cases such as this one, where the boundaries are
unclear, the actual size of the land gains importance.

DOMINICA CUTANDA v HEIRS OF ROBERTO CUTANDA

FACTS:
Roberto Cutanda owned 2 parcels of land in Bohol, and upon
his death, his children became owners of said land by
inheritance. They left Bohol and established residence in
Leyte. In 1988, they returned to Bohol hoping to work on the
land that was left to them. However, they discovered that
these lands were already in the possession of their relatives
heirs of their uncles and aunts.

Petitioners averred that the land in question is actually

owned by their late uncle, Anastacio Cutanda, who died
without children, and left the lands to his siblings, one of
which was Roberto Cutanda. Furthermore, they claim rightful
ownership of the land as they have been in open, contiguous,
adverse, and uninterrupted possession of these for about 55
years.