Borromeo vs.

Descallar

Facts: Wilhelm Jambrich, an Austrian, met Antonietta Descallar

(respondent), a Filipina, while the former was working in the
Philippines sometime in 1983. The two became sweetheart, and
later cohabited as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage. During their cohabitation, the two acquired some real
properties in the Philippines composed of several houses and lots
which they bought from Agro-Macro Development Corporation. The
deed of sale of said real properties were placed in the name of both
Jambrich and Descallar as buyers, but were registered under the
Torrens system in the name of Descallar alone as Jambrich is
disqualified to own real properties in the country. It is sufficiently
established though that the funds used to buy said properties came
solely from Jambrich, as Descallar has no sufficient source of
income. After their relationship has turned sour and the two went
their separate ways, Jambrich sold his rights and interests in the
Agro-Macro properties to Camilo Borromeo (the petitioner), a
Filipino, evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale/Assignment. When
Borromeo, the buyer, tried to register the properties in his name,
he discovered that it is registered in the name of Descallar, and
that it has already been mortgaged.Borromeo filed a complaint for
recovery of real property against Descallar.

Issues: (1) Whether or not Jambrich has no title to the properties

in question and may not transfer and assign any rights and interest
in favor of the petitioner?

(2) Whether or not the sale made by Jambrich to Borromeo valid

considering that the former as alien is disqualified to own real
properties in the Philippines?

Ruling: (1) The evidence clearly shows that as between

respondent and Jambrich, it was Jambrich who possesses the
financial capacity to acquire the properties in dispute. At the time
of the acquisition of the properties, Jamrich was the source of funds
used to purchase the three parcels of land, and to construct the
house. Jambrich was the owner of the properties in question, but
his name was deleted in the Deed of Absolute Sale because of legal
constraints. Nevertheless, his signature remained in the deed of
sale where he signed as a buyer. Thus, Jambrich has all authority
to transfer all his rights, interest and participation over the subject
properties to petitioner by virtue of Deed of Assignment.
Furthermore, the fact that the disputed properties were acquired
during the couple’s cohabitation does not help the respondent. The
rule of co-ownership applies to a man and a woman living
exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit
of marriage, but otherwise capacitated to marry each other does
not apply. At the case at bar, respondent was still legally married
to another when she and Jambrich lived together. In such an
adulterous relationship and no co-ownership exists between the
parties. It is necessary for each of the partners to prove his or her
actual contribution to the acquisition of property in order to able to
lay claim to any portion of it.

(2) The sale to Borromeo was valid. Given that aliens are
disqualified to own real properties in the country, “therefore, in the
instant case, the transfer of land from Agro-Macro Development
Corporation to Jambrich, who is an Austrian, would have been
declared invalid if challenged, had not Jambrich conveyed the
properties to petitioner who is a Filipino citizen. However, since
Jambrich sold his interest to the property to a Fiipino, the defect
has been cured since the property is owned by a Filipino.

Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority

Facts: President Marcos through a presidential decree created

PEA, which was tasked with the development, improvement, and
acquisition, lease, and sale of all kinds of lands. The then president
also transferred to PEA the foreshore and offshore lands of Manila
Bay under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation
Project. Thereafter, PEA was granted patent to the reclaimed areas
of land and then, years later, PEA entered into a JVA with AMARI
for the development of the Freedom Islands. These two entered
into a joint venture in the absence of any public bidding. Later, a
privilege speech was given by Senator President Maceda
denouncing the JVA as the grandmother of all scams. An
investigation was conducted and it was concluded that the lands
that PEA was conveying to AMARI were lands of the public domain;
the certificates of title over the Freedom Islands were void; and
the JVA itself was illegal. This prompted Ramos to form an
investigatory committee on the legality of the JVA. Petitioner now
comes and contends that the government stands to lose billions by
the conveyance or sale of the reclaimed areas to AMARI. He also
asked for the full disclosure of the renegotiations happening
between the parties.

Issue: Whether or not stipulations in the amended JVA for the

transfer to AMARI of the lands, reclaimed or to be reclaimed,
violate the Constitution.

Ruling: The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and

submerged areas is rooted in the Regalian doctrine, which holds
that the State owns all lands and waters of the public domain. The
1987 Constitution recognizes the Regalian doctrine. It declares that
all natural resources are owned by the State and except for
alienable agricultural lands of the public domain, natural resources
cannot be alienated. The Amended JVA covers a reclamation area
of 750 hectares. Only 157.84 hectares of the 750 hectare
reclamation project have been reclaimed, and the rest of the area
are still submerged areas forming part of Manila Bay. Further, it is
provided that AMARI will reimburse the actual costs in reclaiming
the areas of land and it will shoulder the other reclamation costs to
be incurred. The foreshore and submerged areas of Manila Bay are
part of the lands of the public domain, waters and other natural
resources and consequently owned by the State. As such,
foreshore and submerged areas shall not be alienable unless they
are classified as agricultural lands of the public domain. The mere
reclamation of these areas by the PEA doesn’t convert these
inalienable natural resources of the State into alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain. There must be a law or
presidential proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed
lands as alienable and disposable if the law has reserved them for
some public or quasi-public use.
Traders Royal Bank vs. Court of Appeals

Facts: A parcel of land owned by the spouses Capay was mortgage

to and subsequently extrajudicially foreclosed by Traders Royal
Bank (TRB). To prevent property sale in public auction, the Capays
filed a petition for preliminary injunction alleging the mortgage was
void because they did not receive the proceeds of the loan. A notice
of lis pendens (suit pending) was filed before the Register of Deeds
with the notice recorded in the Day Book. Meanwhile, a foreclosure
sale proceeded with the TRB as the sole and winning bidder. The
Capays title was cancelled and a new one was entered in TRB’s
name without the notice of lis pendens carried over the title. The
Capays filed recovery of the property and damages. Court rendered
a decision declaring the mortgage was void for want of
consideration and thus cancelled TRB’s title and issued a new cert.
of title for the Capays.

Pending its appeal before the court, TRB sold the land to Santiago
who subsequently subdivided and sold to buyers who were issued
title to the land. Court ruled that the subsequent buyers cannot be
considered purchasers for value and in good faith since they
purchase the land after it became a subject in a pending suit before
the court. Although the lis pendens notice was not carried over the
titles, its recording in the Day Book constitutes registering of the
land and notice to all persons with adverse claim over the property.
TRB was held to be in bad faith upon selling the property while
knowing it is pending for litigation. The Capays were issued the
cert. of title of the land in dispute while TRB is to pay damages to
Capays.

Issues: (1) Who has the better right over the land in dispute?

(2) Whether or not Traders Royal Bank is liable for damages?

Ruling: The court ruled that a Torrens title is presumed to be valid

which purpose is to avoid conflicts of title to real properties. When
the subsequent buyers bought the property there was no lis
pendens annotated on the title. Every person dealing with a
registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the title and
is not obliged to interpret what is beyond the face of the registered
title. Hence the court ruled that the subsequent buyers obtained
the property from a clean title in good faith and for value. On one
hand, the Capays are guilty of latches. After they filed the notice
for lis pendens, the same was not annotated in the TRB title. They
did not take any action for 15 years to find out the status of the
title upon knowing the foreclosure of the property. In consideration
to the declaration of the mortgage as null and void for want of
consideration, the foreclosure proceeding has no legal effect.
However, in as much as the Capays remain to be the real owner of
the property it has already been passed to purchasers in good faith
and for value. Therefore, the property cannot be taken away to
their prejudice. Thus, TRB is duty bound to pay the Capays the fair
market value of the property at the time they sold it to Santiago.