Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Felipa Laragan, Independencio Sibbaluca, Aurora Sibbaluca and Zenaida valdez vs CA, Teodoro Leaño,

Tomas Leaño, Francisco Leaño and Consolacion Leaño


G. R. No. L-47644
August 21, 1987

Facts:

1. Petitioners Laragan filed an application with sa CFI Isabela for the registration of their title over a parcel of
land
a. Alleged that they acquired the land by way of absolute sale from Spouses Anastacio and Lucrecia
Sibbaluca
b. Possession for 34 years
c. May 20, 1969 – hearing date.
d. Land Registration Commission issued notice of initial hearing, copies were furnished to parties
concerned
e. Published at Official Gazette, Municipal building of Ilagan Isabela as well as in conspicuous place
2. The Respondents Leaño – appeared and served notice that they were opposing application for registration
a. Asked for 30days to submit opposition
i. Claimed that they were owners covered by a homestead patent secured by their parents
3. Solicitor General also filed a written opporition, to wit:
a. Do not have sufficient titel to the parcel of land sought to be registered
b. Not having acquired by composition title from the Spanish Government or
c. Possessory information title under the Royal Decree of Feb 13, 81894 nor
d. By acquisitive prescription
e. Prayed for the land to be declared a “public land”
4. CFI and CA ruled in favor of Laragan, confirmed to the title to the applicants, to wit:
a. Oppositors failed to prove registrable title over the same

Issue: W/N the applicant for confirmation of imperfect title complied to all the requisites prescribed before he
can acquire a vested right over the land applied for, No

Held:

SC ruled in favor of the Respondents, to wit:

1. That the Predecessor-in-interest Sibbaluca of the Petitioners is of bad faith and has no legal consequence to
their application and registration as such alleged bad faith is imputable to them
a. Sold the lot by Deed if Absolute sale – wherein he no right to do so because there was no intention
from the parents of the Respondents to transder the land to Sibalucca
b. But merely the “intention of the parties was merely to constitute a mortgage on the homestead as a
security for the widow’s indebtedness
2. The parents of the Respondents are the true possessors of the land (cultivated the land, etc etc)
i. Has Valid Homestead patent application

On bad faith:

It would appear, however, that the possession and occupation of the land by the spouses Sibbaluca are tainted with
bad faith so that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits of the provision of Sec 48(b) of the Public Land Law.