Property - Ownership (cases)
Short Description
Property - Ownership...
Description
FRATERNIT FRATERNITAS AS SCINTILLA LEGIS D.B.T. MAR-BAY CONSTRUCTIONV. RICAReDO PANES, ET AL GR No. 167232, J!" 31, 2##$ Nachura, J. F%&'() A parcel of land containing an area of 240,146 square meters situated in Novaliches, Quezon Cit !as included in "C" No# 200$1%, entered on &ul 1%, 1%'4 and issued in favor of (C )egalado* Co# +t !as later on conveed (C )egalado to -lainti. /(" through dacion en pago for services rendered# +n &une 1%%2, defendants )icaredo )icaredo -anes, et al led a complaint for Quieting of "itle !ith Cancellation of "C" No# 200$1% arguing that the are the la!ful o!ner and claimant of the su3ect propert and have declared the propert for taation under their name since 1%5$# "he also alleged that their possession preceded the econd 7orld 7ar# )espondent espondents s asicall asicall alleged alleged that )egala )egalado do and /(", through through deliera delierate te scheme and collusion !ith others, included the said propert in their sudivision plan and then o.ered the same for sale to the pulic# /(" argues that it is the legitimate o!ner of the su3ect propert pursuant to a dacion en pago eecuted (C )egalado# "he )"C ruled in favor of )espondents )espondents )ecaredo )ecaredo and held that since he occup occupied ied the su3ect su3ect prope propert rt since since 1%86 1%86 in the concept concept of an o!ner o!ner,, he had equital equitale e o!nersh o!nership ip of the same# "he )"C also ruled that the su3ect su3ect propert propert should not have een included in "C" No# 200$1% registered in the name of (C )egalado and ceded to /("# 9pon :otion for )econsideration, the )"C reversed its ruling and held that prescription does not run against registered land; hence, a title once registered cannot e defeated even adverse, open or notorious possession# Also, the )"C ruled that the action !as alread arred prescription1? 7hether the sale and various agreements are valid >2? 7ho o!ns the L share of Celestino !hen some of the children have sold their rights thereto to Calma as !ell#
R!*+J >1? Kes, the conveances the deeds of asolute sale and the receipts of pament in favor of Calma involving the shares of the antos silings in their o!n right cannot e void# Art# 4%8 provides that each coEo!ner shall have the full o!nership of his part and of the fruits and enets pertaining thereto, and he ma therefore alienate, assign and mortgage it, and even sustitute another person in its en3oment, ecept !hen personal rights are involved# "hus, the coEo!ners, eing o!ners of their respective aliquots or undivided share in the su3ect propert can validl and legall dispose of their share even !ithout the consent of all the other coEheirs# Bo!ever, since Celestino had alread sold his share to Arsenio, the coEheirs should return !hatever amount the received from petitioner Calma corresponding to the L share of Celestino !hich the !ere supposed to have inherited and sold to petitioner# >2? +t is Arsenio# Calma acno!ledge the rentals due to Arsenio for ArsenioHs share in the shpond although the receipt stated that the eact numer of hectares is still to e determined# ( acno!ledging his oligation to pa rentals, he also impliedl admitted the o!nership of Arsenio over the L share of Celestino#
C%*!oBo00oeo . A+'o+*e''%De(&%!!%0 GR No. 1$31#, Fe40%0" 28, 2##$ Puno CJ. -oreign Ownership of !ands F%&'() 7ilhelm &amrich, an Austrian, arrived in the -hilippines in 1%58 after he !as assigned his emploer, to !or at a pro3ect in :indoro# +n 1%54, he transferred to Ceu and met respondent Antonietta=pallaE/escallar, a separated mother of t!o os !ho !as !oring as a !aitress# &amrich efriended respondent and ased her to tutor him in nglish !hich the latter accepted to help her defra her epenses# "he tutorials !ere held in AntoniettaHs residence at a squattersH area in Morordo Avenue# "he t!o fell in love and decided to live together# "he ought a house and lots at AgroE:acro udivision, Caancalan, :andaue Cit# &amrich also formall adopted respondentHs t!o sons# A /eed of Asolute ale issued in their favor# Bo!ever registration !as refused on the ground that &amrich !as an alien and could not acquire alienale lands of the pulic domain# Consequentl, &amrichHs name !as erased from the document# Bo!ever, the idll lasted onl until April 1%%1# ( then, respondent found a ne! ofriend !hile &amrich egan to live !ith another !oman# +n 1%5%, &amrich purchased an engine and some accessories for his oat from Camilo(orromeo >petitioner?, for !hich he ecame indeted to the latter for aout -1$0,000#00# "o pa for his det, he sold his rights and interests in the AgroE:acro properties to petitioner for -2$0,000, as evidenced a /eed of Asolute ale< Assignment# =n &ul 26, 1%%1, !hen petitioner sought to register the deed of assignment, he NOTE) E&!(*e /o0 F0%'e0+*'%( S&*+'*!!% Le*(, o +o' !e' o'e0( (e, 0e0o&e o0 4o00o5 '*( %'e0*%!.
FRATERNITAS SCINTILLA LEGIS discovered that titles to the three lots have een transferred in the name of respondent, and that the su3ect propert has alread een mortgaged# =n August 2, 1%%1, petitioner led a complaint against respondent for recover of real propert efore the )"C of :andaue Cit# -etitioner alleged that respondent as uers do not reect the true agreement of the parties since respondent did not pa a single centavo of the purchase price and !as not in fact a uer# +n her Ans!er, respondent claimed that she solel and eclusivel used her o!n personal funds to defra and pa for the purchase price of the su3ect lots in question, /uring the trial respondent presented evidence sho!ing her alleged nancial capacit to u the disputed propert !ith mone from a supposed copra usiness# -etitioner, in turn, presented &amrich as his !itness and documentar evidence sho!ing the sustantial salaries !hich&amrich received !hile still emploed the Austrian compan, immeringEMraz -aner A#M# "he )"C decided in favor of (orromeo and declared him o!ner of the disputed propert virtue of the assignment eecuted &amrich# ince &amrich is o!ner of the propert for respondent has no nancial capacit to participate in the purchase, he has all the right to transfer the o!nership of the said propert to another# =n appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the )"C saing that &amrich never had title to the propert since it !as never issued in his name and thus, validit of the title of the susequent Iilipino purchasers are asent in the case at ar#
I((e) 7hether&amrich has interest and o!nership to the propert in dispute !hich, if there is, !ould constitute a valid transfer of o!nership to the petitioner# R!*+) Kes, &amrich has interest and o!nership to the propert in dispute and there is a valid transfer of o!nership to the petitioner# "he evidence clearl sho!s, as pointed out the trial court, !ho et!een respondent and &amrich possesses the nancial capacit to acquire the properties in dispute# At the time of the acquisition of the properties in 1%5$ to 1%56, &amrich !as gainfull emploed at immeringEMraz -anerA#M#, an Austrian compan# =n the other hand, respondent !as emploed as a !aitress from 1%54 to 1%5$ !ith a monthl salar of not more than -1,000#00# Ber allegations of income from a copra usiness !ere unsustantiated# "he supposed copra usiness !as actuall the usiness of her mother and their famil, !ith ten silings# he has no license to sell copra, and had not led an income ta return# "he /7/ Bome tud )eport !hich!as conducted !hen &amrich see to adopt the respondentHs children disclosed that the latter had nancial prolem efore she meet &amrich# "hus, &amrich has allthe authorit to transfer all his rights, interests and participation over the su3ect properties to petitioner virtue of the /eed of Assignment he eecuted on &ul 11, 1%%1# Iurther, the rule that coEo!nership applies to a man and a !oman living eclusivel !ith each other as husand and !ife !ithout the enet of marriage,
NOTE) E&!(*e /o0 F0%'e0+*'%( S&*+'*!!% Le*(, o +o' !e' o'e0( (e, 0e0o&e o0 4o00o5 '*( %'e0*%!.
FRATERNITAS SCINTILLA LEGIS ut are other!ise capacitated to marr each other, does not appl# +n the instant case, respondent !as still legall married to another !hen she and &amrich lived together# -resumptions of coEo!nership and equal contriution do not appl# "he fact that itHs onl the respondentHs name that appears on the registration is not a conclusive evidence of o!nership# +t is settled that registration is not a mode of acquiring o!nership# +t is onl a means of conrming the fact of its eistence !ith notice to the !orld at large# Certicates of title are not a source of right# "he mere possession of a title does not mae one the true o!ner of the propert# Ownership of land by aliens )espondent argued that aliens are prohiited from acquiring private land# (ut 3urisprudence provides that if land is invalidl transferred to an alien !ho susequentl ecomes a Iilipino citizen or transfers it to a Iilipino, the a! in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid# +n the instant case, the transfer of land from AgroE:acro /evelopment Corporation to &amrich, !ho is an Austrian, !ould have een declared invalid if challenged, had not &amrich conveed the properties to petitioner !ho is a Iilipino citizen#
9e*0( o/ Be0+%0o U!e . S(. D&%' GR No. $2:8, J%+%0" 27, 2##$ Austria-Martinez, J. F%&'() "his involves a parcel of agricultural land !ith an area of 4,%%2 square meters located in Fa "rinidad, (enguet descried as Fot No# 4 in a surve plan for Agustin 9lep on April 4, 1%64 and approved on &une 8, 1%64# -rior to the approval of the urve -lan, Agustin 9lep and petitioner Cristoal /ucat eecuted an agreement !here /ucat !ould cause and conduct all the necessar procedures for the registration and acquisition of title over several parcels of land occupied 9lep in the concept of an o!ner !hich includes the land in dispute# (efore /ucat !as ale to accomplish his tas, he died and his son Cecilio9lep too over to administer the properties# /ucat continued !oring to acquire titles for the lands of 9lep# "he su3ect propert !hich !as rst denominated as Fot No# 4, !as later referred to as Fot No# 22 in an amended surve plan prepared for /ucat and lie!ise approved the (ureau of Fands on =ctoer 1%52# /ucat then applied for a free patent over the land !hich !as granted in Novemer 14, 1%54 in the names of the spouses# =n Novemer 1%%4, the heirs of (ernardo 9lep led the complaint for reconveance !ith damages against the spouses alleging that the 4,%%2 square meter parcel of land is o!ned their grandfather Agustin 9lep and /ucat fraudulentl maneuvered and caused the improper amendment in the original surve plan to alter the description of the land from Fot# No# 4 to Fot No# 22 and ultimatel succeeded in having the said propert registered in his name and of his !ife# NOTE) E&!(*e /o0 F0%'e0+*'%( S&*+'*!!% Le*(, o +o' !e' o'e0( (e, 0e0o&e o0 4o00o5 '*( %'e0*%!.
FRATERNITAS SCINTILLA LEGIS (oth the :"C and the )"C ruled in favor of the spouses /ucat# Bo!ever upon :) !ith the )"C, the same set aside its earlier 3udgment and ordered the pouses to reconve the disputed propert to the 9leps# Bo!ever, the CA overturned this ruling and reinstated the earlier ruling of the :"C of Fa "rinidad#
I((e) 7the lot that !as et to e approved /N)?# Bo!ever, -acico entered into an agreement !ith third persons revoing his agreement !ith -olon# -olon led a complaint !ith the (aranga Captain and the same !as amical settled !herein the agreed that -acico !ould give $,12$ square meters and the remaining portion of the 1Ehectare share of -olon to e taen from Fot 48 after segregation# -olon later entered into an agreement !ith defendant Arsenia Avila authorizing the latter to undertae the segregation of his oneEhectare land in Fot 48 and in echange, he !ould a!ard her !ith 2,000 square meters from the 1Ehectare lot# After spending time, mone and e.ort in the eecution of the surve, Avila gave the surve results to -olom !ho then eecuted a 7aiver of )ights# usquentl, the 1,%%8 square meters given to Avila !as declared for ta purposes under her name# +n 2000, nding the amicale settlement and 7aiver of )ights in order, the CN)= issued in favor of Avila a Certicate of clusion of the 1,%%8 square meters from the ancestral land claim of the heirs of -ocdo -ool over Fot 48# "his !as questioned later on the heirs of -olon-ocdo ut the same !as dismissed and /N) then ordered that the "As >"o!nsite ales Application? of defendant Avila e given due course, meaning that the same could no! e the asis of disposition through pulic idding and the appellant ma participate in the idding if qualied# +t !as then that -acico appealed ut the same !as denied# 7ith no other remed left, -acico led this action !ith the )"C# "he )"C dismissed the case for lac of 3urisdiction holding that the /N) has alread declared the disputed propert as pulic land, !hich the tate through the
NOTE) E&!(*e /o0 F0%'e0+*'%( S&*+'*!!% Le*(, o +o' !e' o'e0( (e, 0e0o&e o0 4o00o5 '*( %'e0*%!.
FRATERNITAS SCINTILLA LEGIS /N), has the sole po!er to dispose# "hus, the claim of petitioners to quiet title is not proper since the do not have title over the disputed propert# )aised on CA, the same ruled that petitioners, in raising the issue of quieting of title failed to allege an legal or equitale title to quiet# 9nder Art# 44', in an action to quiet title, the plainti. must have legal or equitale title to or interest in the real propert#
I((e) >1? 7hether the )"C correctl ruled that it had nor 3urisdiction over the action >2? 7hether the petitioners had title to the propert that !ould support an action for quieting of title#
R!*+) >1? Fot 48 is a pulic land and thus no longer registrale under the Fand )egistration Act# +t is no! governed !ith the applicale rules and procedure for the disposition of alienale pulic lands !ithin the (aguio "o!nsite )eservation# Baving estalished that the disputed propert is pulic land, the trial court !as therefore correct in dismissing the complaint to quiet the title for lac of 3urisdiction# "he trial court had no 3urisdiction to determine !ho among the parties have etter right over the disputed propert !hich is still admittedl part of the pulic domain# >2? No, petitioners had no title# +n an action for quieting of title, the complainant is seeing for an ad3udication that a claim of title or interest in propert adverse to the claimant is invalid, to free him fro the danger of hostile claim, and to remove a cloud upon or quiet the title to land !here stale or unenforceale claims or demands eist# 9nder Art# 4'6 and 4'', the t!o indispensale requisities in an action to quiet title areJ >1? plainti. has legal or equitale title to or interest in the real propert su3ect of the action; and >2? there is a cloud on his title reason of an instrument, record, deed, claim, encumrance or proceeding !hich must e sho!n to e in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validit# +n this case, the heirs of -ocdo claim that the respondents Avila are unla!full claiming the disputed propert using the /eed of 7aiver of )ights# Bo!ever, records reveal that petitioners do not have legal or equitale title over the disputed propert !hich forms part of Fot 48 for it is a pulic land !ithin the (aguio "o!nsite )eservation and even their predecessor in interest, the heirs of -ocdo -ool, !ere not granted a Certicate of Ancestral Fand Claim over Fot 48# Te 9e*0( o/ V*&'o0*+oS%0*!* . Pe0o L%0o(% GR No. 1$317, J%+%0" 1, 2#18 Perlas-Bernabe, J. - $uilder in good faith
F%&'() NOTE) E&!(*e /o0 F0%'e0+*'%( S&*+'*!!% Le*(, o +o' !e' o'e0( (e, 0e0o&e o0 4o00o5 '*( %'e0*%!.
FRATERNITAS SCINTILLA LEGIS =n Ieruar 1', 2000, respondent, represented his attorneEinEfact Fourdes Faios:o3ica via a -A, led a complaint against ps# arili and the )egister of /eeds of Caloocan Cit efore the )"C, alleging that he is the o!ner of a certain parcel of land situated in Caloocan Cit and has een religiousl paing the real estate taes therefor since its acquisition on Novemer 2%, 1%'4# )espondent claimed that he is a resident of California, 9A, and that during his vacation in the -hilippines, he discovered that a ne! certicate of title to the su3ect propert !as issued the )/ in the name of Dictorino virtue of a falsied /eed of Asolute ale dated Ie 16, 1%'5 purportedl eecuted him and his !ife# +n their ans!er, ps#arili maintained that the are innocent purchasers for value, having purchased the su3ect propert from )amon (# )odriguez, !ho possessed and presented a pecial -o!er of Attorne to sellC"C? numer !as not indicated thereon# /espite this irregularit, ho!ever, ps#arili failed to sho! that the conducted an investigation eond the su3ect -A and into the circumstances of its eecution as required prevailing 3urisprudence# Bence, ps#arili cannot e considered as innocent purchasers for value# At this 3uncture, it is !ell to note that it !as, in fact, the Ieruar 16, 1%'5 deed of sale !hich P as the CA found P !as actuall the source of the issuance of "C" No# 262215# Nonetheless, this document !as admitted to e also a forger# ince ps#ariliHs claim over the su3ect propert is ased on forged documents, no valid title had een transferred to petitioners# Deril, !hen the instrument presented is forged, even if accompanied the o!nerHs duplicate certicate of title, the registered o!ner does not there lose his title, and neither does the assignee in the forged deed acquire an right or title to the propert# "he Court, ho!ever, nds a need to remand the case to the court a quo in order to determine the rights and oligations of the parties !ith respect to the house ps# arili had uilt on the su3ect propert in ad faith in accordance !ith Article 44% in relation to Articles 4$0, 4$1, 4$2, and the rst paragraph of Article $46 of the Civil Code# $uilder in good faith "o e deemed a uilder in good faith, it is essential that a person asserts title to the land on !hich he uilds, i#e# that he e a possessor in the concept of o!ner, and that he e una!are that there eists in his title or mode of acquisition an a! !hich invalidates it# Mood faith is an intangile and astract qualit !ith no technical meaning or statordention, and it encompasses, among other things, an honest elief, the asence of malice and the asence of design to defraud or to see an unconscionale advantage# +t implies honest of intention and freedom from no!ledge of circumstances !hich out to put the holder upon inquir# As for the pouses, the ne! P or at least should have no!n, from the ver eginning that the !ere dealing !ith a person !ho possil had no authorit to sell the su3ect propert considering the palpale irregularit in the su3ectHs -A acno!ledgement# Ket, reling solel on the said document and !ithout further investigation on )amosH capacit to sell, the spouses still chose to proceed !ith its purchase and even uilt a house thereon# (ased on the foregoing, it cannot e seriousl douted that the spouses !ere actuall a!are of a a! or defect in their title or mode of acquisition and have consequentl uilt the house in ad faith#
M%%!e+% T. V*!!% .F*!*e+o G%0&*%, (4('*''e 4" e*0( GR No. 1$#1#6, J%+%0" 1, 2#18 Perez, J. F%&'()
NOTE) E&!(*e /o0 F0%'e0+*'%( S&*+'*!!% Le*(, o +o' !e' o'e0( (e, 0e0o&e o0 4o00o5 '*( %'e0*%!.
FRATERNITAS SCINTILLA LEGIS -etitioner :agdalena "# Dillasi engaged the services of respondent IilEMarcia Construction, +nc# >IMC+? to construct a sevenEstore condominium located along Aurora (oulevard, Cuao, Quezon Cit# Ior failure of Dillasi to full pa the contract price, IMC+ led a suit for collection of sum of mone efore the )"C praing for the pament 2#5:# =n the other hand, Dillasi averred that she delivered the total amount of '#4: to IMC+ ut the latter onl accomplished 25 of the pro3ect# "he )"C ruled in favor of IMC+ !hich !as revered later on appeal the CA# "he CA ordered IMC+ to return the ecess amount of 1#2:# After the resolution ecame nal and eecutor, Dillasi then moved for eecution of the 3udgment a!ard# "o satisf the 3udgment, the sheri. levied on a uilding found along Ralaaan Avenue, Quezon Cit# "he uilding !as declared for ta purposes in the name of IMC+ ut the land on !hich it !as erected !as in the names of the spouses Iilimeno Marcia and rmelindaBaliliEMarcia >pouses Marcia?# "o forestall eecution, the spouses led a third part claim and alleged that the uilding covered the lev !as mistaenl assessed the Cit Assessor in the name of IMC+# "he argue that since the are the o!ners of the land, the !ould also e deemed under the la! as the o!ners of the uilding standing thereon#"he )"C then held the eecution in aeance until further orders# Dillasi !ent on appeal ut the same !as dismissed the CA#
I((e() >1? +s the 3udgment enforceale against the spouses@ >2? 7ere the spouses ale to prove o!nership of the uilding@
R!*+) >1? No, mone 3udgments are enforceale onl against the propert incontrovertil elonging to the 3udgment detor, and if the propert elonging to an third person is mistaenl levied upon to ans!er for another manHs indetedness, such person has all the right to challenge the lev through an of the remedies provided under the )oC# +ndeed, an eecution can onl e issued against a part and not against one !ho did not have his da in court# Ior as the saing goes, one manHs goods shall not e sold for another manHs dets# +n order for a third part claim or terceria to prosper, the claimant must rst estalish his right on the propert#
>2? "he pouses Marcia ho!ever !ere not ale to convincingl prove that the o!ned the uilding# "he right of a third part claimant to le a terceria is founded on his title or right of possession# (efore the court can eercise its supervisor po!er to direct the release of the propert mistaenl levied and the restoration thereof to its rightful o!ner, the claimant must rst unmistaal estalish his o!nership or right of possession thereon#
NOTE) E&!(*e /o0 F0%'e0+*'%( S&*+'*!!% Le*(, o +o' !e' o'e0( (e, 0e0o&e o0 4o00o5 '*( %'e0*%!.
FRATERNITAS SCINTILLA LEGIS Aside from their postulation that as title holders of the land, the la! presumes them to e the o!ners of the improvements uilt thereon, the spouses !ere unale to adduce evidence to prove their o!nership of the propert# +n contrast, Dillasi !as ale to satisfactoril estalish the o!nership of IMC+ thru the pieces of evidence she appended, particularl that the uilding !as declared for ta purposes to IMC+ and not to the pouses# 7hile ta receipts and ta declarations are not incontrovertile evidence of o!nership, the constitute credile proof of claim of title over the propert# Although ta declarations or realt ta pament of propert are not conclusive evidence of o!nership, nevertheless, the are good indicia of possession in the concept of an o!ner for no one in his right mind !ould e paing taes for a propert that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession# Iurthermore, IMC+ is in actual possession of the uilding, !hich coupled !ith the ta declaration, strongl supports o!nership# Accessory follows the principal% e&ception 7hile it is a hornoo doctrine that the accessor follo!s the principal, that is, the o!nership of the propert gives the right accession to everthing !hich is produced there, or !hich is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturall or articiall, such rule is not !ithout eception# +n cases !here there is a clear and convincing evidence to prove that the principal and the accessor are not o!ned one and the same person or entit, the presumption shall not e applied and the actual o!nership shall e upheld# "o set the record straight, !hile petitioner ma have proven his o!nership of the land, as there can e no other piece of evidence more !orth of credence than a "orrens title, he failed to present an evidence to sustantiate his claim of o!nership or right to the possession of the uilding# "he rule on accession is not an ironEclad dictum# 7hen there are factual and evidentiar evidence to prove that the uilding and the lot on !hich it stands are o!ned di.erent persons, the shall e treated separatel# As such, the uilding or the lot can e made liale to ans!er for the oligation of its respective o!ner#
NOTE) E&!(*e /o0 F0%'e0+*'%( S&*+'*!!% Le*(, o +o' !e' o'e0( (e, 0e0o&e o0 4o00o5 '*( %'e0*%!.
View more...
Comments
