Cases decided by J.

Del Castillo Civil Law 1 - Property

Property

Joven Yuki, Jr. v. Wellington Co

G.R. No. 178527
Nov. 27, 2009
The lessee-petitioners attempt to hold on to the property subject of the instant unlawful detainer case,
by resorting to fraudulent machinations such as refusing to receive the notices to vacate, must not be
countenanced. His stubborn refusal to receive notices to vacate should not prejudice the right of the
lessor-respondent, to use and enjoy the fruits of his property.

Wee v. Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 177384
December 8, 2009
In land registration cases, the applicant has the burden to show that he or she is the real and absolute
owner in fee simple of the land sought to be registered. The mere existence of an unspecified number of
coffee plants, sans any evidence as to who planted them, when they were planted, whether cultivation or
harvesting was made or what other acts of occupation and ownership were undertaken, is not sufficient to
demonstrate petitioners right to the registration of title in her favor.

Olegario v. Mari
G.R. No. 147951
December 14, 2009
Possession, to constitute the foundation of acquisitive prescription, must be possession under a claim of title or
must be adverse. Acts of a possessory character performed by one who holds the property by mere tolerance
of the owner are clearly not in the concept of an owner and such possessory acts, no matter how long
continued, do not start the running of the period of prescription.

BIENVENIDO T. BUADA, et al. vs. CEMENT CENTER, INC.

GR NO. 180374
JANUARY 22, 2010
Voluntary surrender, as a mode of extinguishment of tenancy relations, does not require any court
authorization considering that it involves the tenant's own volition. To protect the tenant's right to
security of tenure, voluntary surrender, as contemplated by law, must be convincingly and sufficiently
proved by competent evidence. The tenant's intention to surrender the landholding cannot be
presumed, much less determined by mere implication. Otherwise, the right of a tenant farmer to
security of tenure becomes an illusory one.Moreover, RA 3844 provides that the voluntary surrender of
the landholding by an agricultural lessee should be due to circumstances more advantageous to him
and his family.

Adriano v. Tanco
G.R. No. 168164
July 5, 2010
The existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed and allegations that one is a tenant do
not automatically give rise to security of tenure. For tenancy relationship to exist, the following
essential requisites must be present: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject
matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent between the parties; (4) the purpose is agricultural
production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and, (6) there is sharing of the harvests
between the parties.

Seniors Batch 2017 - 2018 Page 1 of 14

Cases decided by J. Del Castillo Civil Law 1 - Property
Vda. de Aguilar v. Spouses Alfaro
G.R. No. 164402
July 5, 2010
The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership.
However, where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon the issue to
determine who between the parties has the right to possess the property. This adjudication, however,
is not a final and binding determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for the purpose of resolving
the issue of possession, where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of possession.
The adjudication of the issue of ownership, being provisional, is not a bar to an action between the
same parties involving title to the property. The adjudication, in short, is not conclusive on the issue of
ownership.

Spouses Valenzuela v. Spouses Mano, Jr.

G.R. No. 172611
July 9, 2010

Settled is the rule that a person, whose certificate of title included by mistake or oversight the land
owned by another, does not become the owner of such land by virtue of the certificate alone. The
Torrens System is intended to guarantee the integrity and conclusiveness of the certificate of
registration but is not intended to perpetrate fraud against the real owner of the land. The certificate of
title cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner.

DELFIN LAMSIS MAYNARID vs. MARGARITA SEMON DONG-E

G.R. No. 173021
October 20, 2010
Assuming that the subject land may be acquired by prescription, we cannot accept petitioners claim of
acquisition by prescription. Petitioners admitted that they had occupied the property by tolerance of the owner
thereof. Having made this admission, they cannot claim that they have acquired the property by prescription
unless they can prove acts of repudiation. It is settled that possession, in order to ripen into ownership, must be
in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted. Possession not in the concept of owner, such as
the one claimed by petitioners, cannot ripen into ownership by acquisitive prescription, unless the juridical
relation is first expressly repudiated and such repudiation has been communicated to the other party. Acts of
possessory character executed due to license or by mere tolerance of the owner are inadequate for purposes of
acquisitive prescription. Possession by tolerance is not adverse and such possessory acts, no matter how long
performed, do not start the running of the period of prescription

Philippine National Bank v. Jumanoy

G.R. No. 169901
August 3, 2011
There is no prescription when in an action for reconveyance, the claimant is in actual possession of
the property because this in effect is an action for quieting of title. The reason for this is that one who
is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his
possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right, the reason for
the rule being, that his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court
of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on
his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession.

Samuel Julian vs. Development Bank of the Philippine

G.R. No. 174193
December 7, 2011
The owner of a mortgaged property lost ownership rights to such property in question when she
defaulted in her payment to respondent and none of her successors-in-interest redeemed the property
within the prescribed period.

Seniors Batch 2017 - 2018 Page 2 of 14

Cases decided by J. Del Castillo Civil Law 1 - Property
Spouses Edralin v. Philippine Veterans Bank
G.R. No. 168523
March 9, 2011
The right to possess a property follows the right of ownership; consequently, it would be illogical to
hold that a person having ownership of a parcel of land is barred from seeking possession thereof.

Rom v. Roxas & Co., Inc.

G.R. No. 169331
Sept. 5, 2011
Lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law including lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of
CARL by government agencies other than the DAR (ex: reclassification of the land as residential by
virtue of a municipal zoning ordinance)

Heirs of Isip, Sr. v. Quintos


G.R. No. 172008

August 1, 2012



It is clear from the facts that when the rights over the subject lot was relinquished in favor of De
Guzman, Rogelio Sr. was employed in order to help the respondents run the water distribution system.
Hence, it was actually through the respondents that the petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest was able to
enter the disputed lot. And although Rogelio Sr. was able to occupy the lot, he was in fact possessing
the same in the name of the respondents. Verily, whatever right to possess petitioners have in this
case cannot be superior to that of the respondents since it was from the latter that their predecessor-
in-interest derived his claim of possession.



In Reyes v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that actual possession of land consists in the
manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as those a party would naturally exercise
over his own property. It is not necessary that the owner of a parcel of land should himself occupy the
property as someone in his name may perform the act. In other words, the owner of real estate has
possession, either when he himself is physically in occupation of the property, or when another person
who recognizes his rights as owner is in such occupancy. This declaration is in conformity with Art. 524
of the Civil Code providing that possession may be exercised in one’s own name or in the name of
another.

Sps. Bernadette and Rodulfo Vilbar v. Angelito L. Opinion

G.R. No. 176043
January 15, 2014
A Contract to Sell is legally insufficient to serve as basis for the transfer of title over the property. At
most, it only affords an inchoate right over the property. A certificate of title serves as evidence of an
indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears
therein. Having no certificate of title issued in the names of claimants, they have no indefeasible and
incontrovertible title over the lot to support their claim. It is an established rule that registration is the
operative act which gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land; and any buyer or
mortgagee of realty covered by a Torrens certificate of title is charged with notice only of such burdens
and claims as are annotated on the title. Failing to annotate the deed for the eventual transfer of title
over such lots, a party cannot claim a greater right over another who acquired the property with clean
title in good faith and registered the same in his name by going through the legally required procedure.

One Network Rural Bank, Inc. v. Baric 


G.R. No. 193684 

March 5, 2014
A third party who did not commit a violation or invasion of the plaintiff or aggrieved party's rights
(property rights as in the case) may not be held liable for nominal damages. Nominal damages are
recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that
has produced no actual present loss of any kind or where there has been a breach of contract and no
Seniors Batch 2017 - 2018 Page 3 of 14
Cases decided by J. Del Castillo Civil Law 1 - Property
substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have been or can be shown. Nominal damages are
not for indemnification of loss suffered but for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or
invaded.

Sps Dela Cruz v. Sps Capco 


G.R. No. 176055 

March 17, 2014
When the property is registered under the Torrens system, the registered owner's title to the property
is presumed legal and cannot be collaterally attacked, especially in a mere action for unlawful
detainer. It has even been held that it does not even matter if the party's title to the property is
questionable.

Charles Bumagat, et al. v. Regalado Arribay


G.R. No. 194818

June 9, 2014
For the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction over the case, there must exist a tenancy relation between the
parties. "[I]n order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it is essential to establish all its
indispensable elements, to wit: 1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) that there is consent
between the parties to the relationship; 4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about
agricultural production; 5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural
lessee; and 6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee."

Article 749 of the Civil Code provides inter alia that "in order that the donation of an immovable may be
valid, it must be made in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of
the charges which the donee must satisfy." Corollarily, Article 709 of the same Code explicitly states
that "the titles of ownership, or other rights over immovable property, which are not duly inscribed or
annotated in the Registry of property shall not prejudice third persons." From the foregoing provisions,
it may be inferred that as between the parties to a donation of an immovable property, all that is
required is for said donation to be contained in a public document. Registration is not necessary for it
to be considered valid and effective. However, in order to bind third persons, the donation must be
registered in the Registry of Property (now Registry of Land Titles and Deeds). Although the non-
registration of a deed of donation shall not affect its validity, the necessity of registration comes into
play when the rights of third persons are affected.

Spouses Eduardo & Ludia Silos v. Philippine National Bank 


G.R. No. 181045 

July 2, 2014
The mortgaged real properties need not answer for the outstanding secured amount If proper
accounting, turns out that the payments made exceeds what they actually owe by way of principal,
interest, and attorney’s fees, then, there should be a refund of excess payment instead. In this case
the extra judicial foreclosure and sale of the properties shall be declared null and void for obvious lack
of basis, the case being one of solution indebiti.
In order that obligations arising from contract may have the force of law between the parties, there
must be mutuality between the parties based on their essential equality. A contract containing a
condition that makes the fulfillment dependent exclusively upon the uncontrolled will of the contracting
parties is void.

Spouses Mauricio Tabino and Leonila Tabino v. Lazaro Tabin 


G.R. No. 196219 

July 30, 2014
Notwithstanding the issue of physical possession of a public land having been ruled upon by a court in
a civil case for ejectment, it is well to note that the Bureau of Lands may determine the respective
rights of rival claimants to such property, but it does not have the wherewithal to police public lands.
Neither does it have the means to prevent disorders or breaches of the peace among the occupants.
Its power is clearly limited to disposition and alienation and any power to decide disputes over
Seniors Batch 2017 - 2018 Page 4 of 14
Cases decided by J. Del Castillo Civil Law 1 - Property
possession is but in aid of making the proper awards.

Heirs of Sps. Manguardia, et al v. Heirs of Sps. Valles et al 


GR No. 177616 

August 27, 2014
It is well-settled that no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be
acquired by prescription or adverse possession.


Heirs of Telesforo Julao, et al. v. Spouses Alejandro and Morenita Jesus


G.R. No. 176020

September 29, 2014
Article 434 of the Civil Code states that, "In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and
the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim."
The plaintiff, therefore, is duty-bound to clearly identify the land sought to be recovered, in accordance
with the title on which he anchors his right of ownership. It bears stressing that the failure of the
plaintiff to establish the identity of the property claimed is fatal to his case.

Residents of Lower Atab & Teachers’ Village v. Sta. Monica Industrial & Development Corp.,

G.R. No. 198878

October 15, 2014
For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must be present, namely: "(1) the
plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the
action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title
must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal
efficacy. By stating that they were in the process of applying to purchase the subject property from the
government, they admitted that they had no such equitable title, at the very least, which should allow
them to prosecute a case for quieting of title.

Communities Cagayan, Inc. v. Spouses Nanol


G.R. No. 176791

November 14, 2012

PROPERTY

As a general rule, Article 448 on builders in good faith does not apply where there is a contractual
relation between the parties; however in this case, since the parties failed to attach a copy of the
Contract to Sell, the Court is constrained to apply Article 448.

Although as a rule, Article 448 applies only when the builder believes that he is the owner of the land
or that by some title, he has the right to build thereon, or that, at least, he has a claim of title thereto,
there were already instances when the Court applied Article 448 even if the builders do not have a
claim of title over the property.

Chung, Jr. v. Mondragon


G.R. No. 179754

November 21, 2012

The issues in a case for quieting of title are fairly simple; the plaintiff need to prove only two things,
namely: “(1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real
property subject of the action; and (2) that the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be
casting a cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie
appearance of validity or legal efficacy. Stated differently, the plaintiff must show that he has a legal or
at least an equitable title over the real property in dispute, and that some deed or proceeding beclouds
its validity or efficacy.”

Mananquil v. Moico

G.R. No. 180076

November 21, 2012

An action for quieting of title is essentially a common law remedy grounded on equity; For an action to
quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant
Seniors Batch 2017 - 2018 Page 5 of 14
Cases decided by J. Del Castillo Civil Law 1 - Property
has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the
deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be
in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.—An action
for quieting of title is essentially a common law remedy grounded on equity. The competent court is
tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant and other claimants, not only to place
things in their proper place, to make the one who has no rights to said immovable respect and not
disturb the other, but also for the benefit of both, so that he who has the right would see every cloud of
doubt over the property dissipated, and he could afterwards without fear introduce the improvements
he may desire, to use, and even to abuse the property as he deems best. But “for an action to quiet
title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a
legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed,
claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact
invalid or inoperative despite its prima facieappearance of validity or legal efficacy.”

Coderias v. Estate of Chioco


G.R. No. 180476

June 26, 2013

The Court cannot sanction the use of force to evict beneficiaries of land reform. Eviction using force is
reversion to the feudal system, where the landed elite have free rein over their poor vassals. In effect,
might is right.

De Guzman v. Filinvest Development Corp. 


G.R. No. 191710 

January 14, 2015
In easement of right of way, there is no alienation of the land occupied. Payment of the value of the
land for permanent use of the easement does not mean an alienation of the land occupied. In fact
under the law and unlike in purchase of a property, should the right of way no longer be necessary
because the owner of the dominant estate has joined it to another abutting on a public highway, and
the servient estate demands that the easement be extinguished, the value of the property received by
the servient estate by way of indemnity shall be returned in full to the dominant estate. This only
reinforces the concept that the payment of indemnity is merely for the use of the right of way and not
for its alienation.

Spouses Gatuslao v. Yanson 


G.R. No. 191540 

January 21, 2015
It is thus settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property
purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of the sale. As such,
he is entitled to the possession of the said property and can demand it at any time following the
consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new transfer certificate of title.
The buyer can in fact demand possession of the land even during the redemption period except that
he has to post a bond in accordance with Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended. No such bond is
required after the redemption period if the property is not redeemed.

Upon the expiration of the period to redeem and no redemption was made, the purchaser, as
confirmed owner, has the absolute right to possess the land and the issuance of the writ of possession
becomes a ministerial duty of the court upon proper application and proof of title.
Nevertheless, where the extra-judicially foreclosed real property is in the possession of a third party
who is holding the same adversely to the judgment debtor or mortgagor, the RTC’s duty to issue a writ
of possession in favor of the purchaser of said real property ceases to be ministerial and, as such,
may no longer proceed ex parte. In such a case, the trial court must order a hearing to determine the
nature of the adverse possession. For this exception to apply, however, it is not enough that the
property is in the possession of a third party, the property must also be held by the third party
adversely to the judgment debtor or mortgagor, such as a co-owner, agricultural tenant or
usufructuary.

Seniors Batch 2017 - 2018 Page 6 of 14

Cases decided by J. Del Castillo Civil Law 1 - Property
Ofilada v. Spouses Andal 

G.R. No. 192270 

January 26, 2015
For tenancy to be proven, all indispensable elements must be established, the absence of one or
more requisites will not make the alleged tenant a de facto one. These are: 1)the parties are the
landowner and the tenant; 2) the subject is agricultural land; 3) there is consent by the landowner; 4)
the purpose is agricultural production; 5) there is personal cultivation; and 6) there is sharing of the
harvests.

Republic v. Sps Benigno


G.R. No. 205492

March 11, 2015
The well-entrenched rule is that all lands not appearing to be clearly of private dominion presumably
belong to the State. The onus to overturn, by incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that the land
subject of an application for registration is alienable and disposable rests with the applicant." "Public
lands remain part of the inalienable land of the public domain unless the State is shown to have
reclassified or alienated them to private persons." "Unless public land is shown to have been
reclassified or alienated to a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public
domain. Indeed, occupation thereof in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into
ownership and be registered as a title."

Adolfo v. Adolfo
G.R. No. 201427

March 18, 2015
Under the Civil Code, all property brought by the wife to the marriage as well as all property she
acquires during the marriage in accordance with Article 148 of the same Code constitutes paraphernal
property. Thus, the wife is the sole owner of the subject paraphernal property.

Republic v. Daclan et al
G.R. No. 197115
March 23, 2015
The deeds of donation in the case at bar did not specifically prohibit the subsequent transfer of the
donated lands by the done. Contrary to the respondent’s contention that the deeds of donation they
executed are "personal and exclusively limited to the parties, the donor and the donee; and that they
do not extend to or inure to the benefit of their successors and assigns; and that the rights and
obligations of the parties to the donations are not transmissible by their nature or stipulation, the New
Civil Code expressly provides that contracts take effect between the parties, their assigns and heirs,
except in cases where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by
their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. Thus, as a general rule, rights and obligations
derived from contract are transmissible.

Republic of the Philippines v. Angeline L. Dayaoen, Agustina Tauel, & Lawana’t Batcagan
G.R. No. 200773
July 8, 2015
Mere notations appearing in survey plans are inadequate proof of the covered properties' alienable
and disposable character. These notations, at the very least, only establish that the land subject of the
application for registration falls within the approved alienable and disposable area per verification
through survey by the proper government office. The applicant, however, must also present a copy of
the original classification of the land into alienable and disposable land, as declared by the DENR
Secretary or as proclaimed by the President.

Jose Yulo Agricultural Corporation v. spouses Perla Cabaylo Davis and Scott Davis
G.R. No. 197709
August 3, 2015
In this jurisdiction, the general rule is that in the case of two certificates of title, purporting to include
the same land, the earlier in date prevails. Successive registrations, where more than one certificate is
Seniors Batch 2017 - 2018 Page 7 of 14
Cases decided by J. Del Castillo Civil Law 1 - Property
issued in respect of a particular estate or interest in land, the person claiming under the prior
certificate is entitled to the estate or interest; and that person is deemed to hold under the prior
certificate who is the holder of, or whose claim is derived directly or indirectly from the person who was
the holder of the earliest certificate issued in respect thereof.


Consolacion D. Romero and Rosario S.D. Domingo v. Engracia D. Singson

G.R. No. 200969
August 3, 2015
Insofar as a person who fraudulently obtained a property is concerned, the registration of the property
in said person's name would not be sufficient to vest in him or her the title to the property. A certificate
of title merely confirms or records title already existing and vested. The indefeasibility of the Torrens
title should not be used as a means to perpetrate fraud against the rightful owner of real property.
Good faith must concur with registration because, otherwise, registration would be an exercise in
futility. A Torrens title does not furnish a shield for fraud, notwithstanding the long-standing rule that
registration is a constructive notice of title binding upon the whole world. The legal principle is that if
the registration of the land is fraudulent, the person in whose name the land is registered holds it as a
mere trustee.

Liwayway Andres, Ronnie Andres and Pablo Francisco v. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development,
Incorporated
G.R. No. 201405
August 24, 2015
Article 649 of the Civil Code provides that an easement of right of way may be demanded only by the
owner of an immovable property, or a person who may use or cultivate the property on account of a
real right. Petitioners attempted to establish their ownership through the two modes of acquisitive
prescription. Their main argument was that they obtained ownership over the property through
ordinary acquisitive prescription. However, petitioners failed to sufficiently establish that their
possession was in good faith and with just title, falling short of the requirements set by Article 11172 of
the Civil Code.

Pen Development Corp. v. Martinez Leyba, Inc.

G.R. No. 211845
August 9, 2017
1. Possessor/Builder in Bad Faith
While petitioners may have been innocent purchasers for value with respect to their land, this
does not prove that they are equally innocent of the claim of encroachment upon respondent's
lands. The evidence suggests otherwise: despite being apprised of the encroachment, petitioners
turned a blind eye and deaf ear and continued to construct on the disputed area. They did not bother
to conduct their own survey to put the issue to rest, and to avoid the possibility of being adjudged as
builders in bad faith upon land that did not belong to them.

Petitioners are not entitled to reimbursement for necessary expenses. Indeed, under Article 452 of the
Civil Code, the builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the necessary
expenses of preservation of the land. However, in this case, respondent's lands were not preserved:
petitioners' construction and use thereof in fact caused damage, which must be undone or simply
endured by respondent by force of law and circumstance. Respondent did not in any way benefit from
petitioners' occupation of its lands.

2. Laches
On the question of laches, the CA correctly held that as owners of the subject property, respondent
has the imprescriptible right to recover possession thereof from any person illegally occupying its
lands. Even if petitioners have been occupying these lands for a significant period of time, respondent
as the registered and lawful owner has the right to demand the return thereof at any time.

Seniors Batch 2017 - 2018 Page 8 of 14

Cases decided by J. Del Castillo Civil Law 1 - Property
Naga Centrum, Inc. v. Spouses Orzales
G.R. No. 203576
September 14, 2016
To be entitled to an easement of right of way, the following requisites should be met:
1. An immovable is surrounded by other immovables belonging to other person and is without
adequate outlet to a public highway;
2. Payment of proper indemnity by the surrounded immovable;
3. The isolation of the immovable is not due to its owner's acts;
4. The proposed easement of right of way is established at the point least prejudicial to the servient
estate, and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance of the dominant estate to a public
highway may be the shortest.

Macalino, Jr. v. Pis-An

G.R. No. 204056
June 1, 2016
A title claimed over a lot based on a subdivision plan suffering from infirmities and secured merely to
give the impression that a land subject of sale includes a particular property to complete such
transaction cannot be said to be the legal title indispensable to an action for quieting of title.

Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty
with respect to title to real property. In order that an action for quieting of title may prosper, it is
essential that the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the property which is the
subject-matter of the action. Legal title denotes registered ownership, while equitable title means
beneficial ownership. In the absence of such legal or equitable title, or interest, there is no cloud to be
prevented or removed.

Guntalilib v. Dela Cruz

G.R. No. 200042
July 7, 2016
The underlying objectives and reliefs sought in both the quieting of title and the annulment of title
cases are essentially the same – adjudication of the ownership of the disputed lot and nullification of
one of the two certificates of title.

Seniors Batch 2017 - 2018 Page 9 of 14

Cases decided by J. Del Castillo Civil Law 1 - Wills and Succession

Wills and Succession

Hebron v. Loyola
G.R. No. 168960
July 5, 2010
The minor children by representation has the right over such inheritance from their grandparents if
their mother/father concerned is already deceased even if the other parent is still alive.

Alfonso v. Spouses Andres

G.R. No. 166236
July 29, 2010
The title of the property owned by a person who dies intestate passes at once to his heirs. Such
transmission is subject to the claims of administration and the property may be taken from the heirs for
the purpose of paying debts and expenses, but this does not prevent an immediate passage of the
title, upon the death of the intestate, from himself to his heirs.

Baltazar v. Laxa

G.R. No. 174489

April 11, 2012



It is incumbent upon those who oppose the probate of a will to clearly establish that the decedent was
not of sound and disposing mind at the time of the execution of said will. Otherwise, the state is duty-
bound to give full effect to the wishes of the testator to distribute his estate in the manner provided in
his will so long as it is legally tenable.



Irrespective of the posture of any of the parties as regards the authenticity and due execution of the
will in question, it is the mandate of the law that it is the evidence before the court and/or evidence that
ought to be before it that is controlling. The very existence of the will is in itself prima facie proof that
the supposed testatrix has willed that her estate be distributed in the manner therein provided, and it is
incumbent upon the state that, if legally tenable, such desire be given full effect independent of the
attitude of the parties affected thereby. This, coupled with Lorenzos established relationship with
Paciencia, the evidence and the testimonies of disinterested witnesses, as opposed to the total lack of
evidence presented by petitioners apart from their self-serving testimonies, constrained the Court to tilt
the balance in favor of the authenticity of the Will and its allowance for probate.

Gina Endaya v. Ernesto Villaos

G.R. No. 202426
January 27, 2016
Under Article 777 of the Civil Code, the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of
the death of the decedent.

In this case, Respondent had an unregistered deed of sale over the subject land. Since it was
unregistered, the title remained in the owner (decedent). When the decedent died, the title passed to
petitioner, who is the illegitimate child of the decedent. Therefore, Petitioner and her co-heirs have a
more favorable right on the question of possession of the subject land over Respondent.


Seniors Batch 2017 - 2018 Page 10 of 14

Cases decided by J. Del Castillo Civil Law 1 - Persons and
Family Relations

Persons and Family Relations

Titan Construction Corporation vs. David

G.R. No. 169548
March 15, 2010
Manuel was not required to prove that the property was acquired with funds of the partnership. Rather,
the presumption applies even when the manner in which the property was acquired does not appear.
Here, we find that Titan failed to overturn the presumption that the property, purchased during the
spouses’ marriage, was part of the conjugal partnership.

Since the property was undoubtedly part of the conjugal partnership, the sale to Titan required the
consent of both spouses. Article 165 of the Civil Code expressly provides that the husband is the
administrator of the conjugal partnership. Likewise, Article 172 of the Civil Code ordains that the wife
cannot bind the conjugal partnership without the husband’s consent, except in cases provided by law.
Similarly, Article 124 of the Family Code requires that any disposition or encumbrance of conjugal
property must have the written consent of the other spouse, otherwise, such disposition is void.

Juliano-Llave v. Republic
G.R. No. 169766
March 30, 2011
Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may >le a petition for annulment of voidable marriages or
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or
intestate heirs of the spouses or by the State. Compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights
prior to the death of their predecessor, and hence can only question the validity of the marriage of the
spouses upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased
spouse >led in the regular courts. On the other hand, the concern of the State is to preserve marriage
and not to seek its dissolution

In a void marriage, in which no marriage has taken place and cannot be the source of rights, any
interested party may attack the marriage directly or collaterally without prescription, which may be >led
even beyond the lifetime of the parties to the marriage.

Kalaw v. Fernandez
G.R. No. 166357
Sept. 19, 2011
Petitioner failed to prove that his wife (respondent) suffers from psychological incapacity. While there
is no dispute that respondent played mahjong, its alleged debilitating frequency and adverse effect on
the children were not proven. Also, even assuming arguendo that petitioner was able to prove that
respondent had an extramarital affair with another man, sexual infidelity per se is a ground for legal
separation, but it does not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity.

Lim v. Kou Co Ping


G.R. No. 175256, 179160

August 23, 2012



A single act or omission that causes damage to an offended party may give rise to two separate civil
liabilities on the part of the offender. ―(1) civil liability ex delicto, that is, civil liability arising from the
criminal offense under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and (2) independent civil liability, that is,
civil liability that may be pursued independently of the criminal proceedings. The independent civil
liability may be based on “an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony,”
Seniors Batch 2017 - 2018 Page 11 of 14
Cases decided by J. Del Castillo Civil Law 1 - Persons and
Family Relations
as provided in Article 31 of the Civil Code (such as for breach of contract or for tort). It may also be
based on an act or omission that may constitute felony but, nevertheless, treated independently from
the criminal action by specific provision of Article 33 of the Civil Code (“in cases of defamation, fraud
and physical injuries”).

Perla v. Baring

G.R. No. 172471

November 12, 2012



Mirasol's Complaint for support is based on Randy’s alleged illegitimate filiation to Antonio. Hence, for
Randy to be entitled for support, his filiation must be established with sufficient certainty. A review of
the Decision of the RTC would show that it is bereft of any discussion regarding Randy’s filiation.
Although the appellate court, for its part, cited the applicable provision on illegitimate filiation, it merely
declared the certified true copies of Randy’s birth certificate and baptismal certificate both identifying
Antonio as the father as good proofs of his filiation with Randy and nothing more. This is despite the
fact that the said documents do not bear Antonio’s signature. Time and again, this Court has ruled that
a high standard of proof is required to establish paternity and filiation. An order for support may create
an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the family or the lives of the parties so that it must
be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence.

Garcia v.

Vda. de Caparas

G.R. No. 180843

April 17, 2013



In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, the leasehold shall bind his legal
heirs. Amanda may not claim ignorance of the above provision, as ignorance of the law excuses no
one from compliance therewith.

Ining v. Vega

G.R. No. 174727

August 12, 2013



Under the Family Code, family relations, which is the primary basis for succession, exclude relations
by affinity.―What escaped the trial and appellate courts’ notice, however, is that while it may be
argued that Lucimo Sr. performed acts that may be characterized as a repudiation of the co-
ownership, the fact is, he is not a co-owner of the property. Indeed, he is not an heir of Gregoria; he is
merely Antipolo’s son-in-law, being married to Antipolo’s daughter Teodora. Under the Family Code,
family relations, which is the primary basis for succession, exclude relations by affinity. Art. 150. Family
relations include those: (1) Between husband and wife; (2) Between parents and children; (3) Among
other ascendants and descendants; and (4) Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half
blood. In point of law, therefore, Lucimo Sr. is not a co-owner of the property; Teodora is.
Consequently, he cannot validly effect a repudiation of the co-ownership, which he was never part of.
For this reason, prescription did not run adversely against Leonardo, and his right to seek a partition of
the property has not been lost.

Aguilar v. Siasat 

G.R. No. 200169 

January 28, 2015
Filiation may be proved by an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned, and such due recognition in any
authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the child, and no further court
action is required. And, relative to said form of acknowledgment.

Banguis-Tambuyat v. Balcom-Tambuyat
Seniors Batch 2017 - 2018 Page 12 of 14
Cases decided by J. Del Castillo Civil Law 1 - Persons and
Family Relations
G.R. No. 202805
March 23, 2015
Under Section 108 of PD 1529, the proceeding for the erasure, alteration, or amendment of a
certificate of title may be resorted to in seven instances: (1) when registered interests of any
description, whether vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased; (2)
when new interests have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the certificate; (3) when
any error, omission or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon or on
any duplicate certificate; (4) when the name of any person on the certificate has been changed; (5)
when the registered owner has been married, or, registered as married, the marriage has been
terminated and no right or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; (6) when a corporation,
which owned registered land and has been dissolved, has not conveyed the same within three years
after its dissolution; and (7) when there is reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of title.
Proceedings under Section 108 are "summary in nature, contemplating corrections or insertions of
mistakes which are only clerical but certainly not controversial issues.

FAJ Construction and Dev’t Corporation v. Saulog

G.R. No. 200759
March 25, 2015
Damnum absque injuria – Since respondent suffered damages as a result of petitioner's defective and
delayed work and unjustified abandonment of the project, the principle of damnum absque injuria
cannot apply. The principle cannot apply when there is an abuse of a person's right. In the absence of
an authenticated copy of the Decree, other documentary evidence such as the technical description,
sepia film, tax declarations and a vague Certification by the LRA without stating the nature of the
decree are not sufficient pieces of evidence to grant a Petition for Reconstitution under Section 2 (f) of
RA 26. These pieces of documentary evidence are not similar to those mentioned in subparagraphs
(a) to (e) of Section 2 of RA 26, which all pertain to documents issued or are on file with the Registry of
Deeds.

Palma v. Omelio
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2223
August 30, 2017
AO 125-2007 provided for the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the
Judiciary and laid down the rules "to enable the solemnizing authorities of the Judiciary to secure and
safeguard the sanctity of marriage as a social institution.”

Respondent used her authority as a judge to make a mockery of marriage. As a judicial officer, she is
expected to know the law on solemnization of marriages. 'A judge is not only bound by oath to apply
the law; he [or she] must also be conscientious and thorough in doing so. Certainly, judges, by the
very delicate nature of their office, should be more circumspect in the performance of their duties.' A
judge should know, or ought to know, his or her role as a solemnizing officer.

Republic v. Sareñogon Jr.

G.R. No. 199194
February 10, 2016

The "well-founded belief" requisite under Article 41 of the Family Code is complied with only upon a
showing that sincere honest-to-goodness efforts had indeed been made to ascertain whether the
absent spouse is still alive or is already dead.

Matudan v. Republic
G.R. No. 203284
November 14, 2016
1. Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (a) gravity,
(b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity "must be grave or serious such that
the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be
rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may
Seniors Batch 2017 - 2018 Page 13 of 14
Cases decided by J. Del Castillo Civil Law 1 - Persons and
Family Relations
emerge only after marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would
be beyond the means of the party involved."

2. The burden of proving psychological incapacity is on the petitioner.

3. The existence or absence of the psychological incapacity is based strictly on the facts of each
case and not on a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations. The incapacity should be
established by the totality of evidence presented during trial, making it incumbent upon the
petitioner to sufficiently prove the existence of the psychological incapacity.

4. 'Psychological incapacity,' as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code,
should refer to no less than a mental – not merely physical – incapacity that causes a party to be
truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and
discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code,
among others, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity
and render help and support.

Seniors Batch 2017 - 2018 Page 14 of 14