Barops Civil

8/18/2019 Barops Civil

1/483

Topic: Jurisdiction of RTC over land registration casesPonente: Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe

Nicomedes o!ada v. Eulalia Brace"ell# et al.$.R. No. %&'%((

)* +pril *)%,

acts: On December 10, 1976, Nicomedes Lozada fled an application orregistration and confrmation o title over a parcel o land wic was grantedon !ebr"ar# $%, 19&9 b# te '() o *a+ati )it#, ranc 1%-, acting as a landregistration co"rt. )onse/"entl#, on "l# 10, 1997, te Land 'egistration"torit# iss"ed Decree No. N2$170%6 in te name o Lozada, wo laterobtained an original certifcate o title.

3"bse/"ent tereto, ames racewell, r. fled on !ebr"ar# 6, 199& apetition or review o a decree o registration "nder 3ection %$ o 4D 15$9

4ropert# 'egistration Decree beore te '() o Las 4i8as )it# claiming tata portion o is propert# was ra"d"lentl# incl"ded in Decree No. N2$170%6.e allegedl# fled on 3eptember 19, 196% an application or registration andconfrmation o te s"b:ect lot sit"ated in Las 4i8as )it#, wic was grantedb# te '() o *a+ati )it# on *a# %, 19&9.

Lozada opposed te same arg"ing tat te Las 4i8as )it#2'() ad no :"risdiction over a petition or review o a decree o registration "nder3ection %$ o 4D 15$9, wic so"ld be fled in te same branc o te co"rttat rendered te decision and ordered te iss"ance o te decree. e addedtat is s"rve# plan was approved in 1951 wile racewell;s plan was

s"rve#ed in 1960.

ssue< =eter or not te Las 4i8as )it#2'() as :"risdiction over tepetition or review o Decree No. N2$170%6, wic was iss"ed as a res"lt o te :"dgment rendered b# te '() o *a+ati )it#, ranc 1%-.

/C: >es.

?nder bot +ct No. ,'0 1and Registration +ct# as amended @wic was te law in orce at te time o te commencement b# bot partieso teir respective registration proceedings @ and P2 %(*' 1Propert3

Registration 2ecree4, wic "pdated and codifed land registration laws, :"risdiction over all applications or registration o title was conerred "ponte )o"rts o !irst Anstance now '() o te respective provinces or cities inwic te land so"gt to be registered is sit"ated.

An tis case, owever, te applications o Lozada and racewell werecognizable b# te '() o *a+ati )it# since d"ring tose times, tere were no'() brances #et in Las 4i8as )it#.


2/483

3"bse/"entl#, p"rs"ant to 4 1$9 (e "diciar# 'eorganization ct o 19&0 wic too+ eBect on "g"st 1-, 19&1, te '() o Las 4i8as )it# wasestablised in 199-. ence, racewell fled is petition or review beore teLas 4i8as )it#2'() in 199&, considering tat te s"b:ect lot is sit"ated in Las

4i8as )it#.

N5TE: =it te passage o 4D 15$9, te distinction between tegeneral :"risdiction vested in te '() and te limited :"risdiction conerred"pon it as a cadastral co"rt was eliminated. '()s now ave te power toear and determine all /"estions, even contentio"s and s"bstantial ones,arising rom applications or original registration o titles to lands andpetitions fled ater s"c registration.


3/483

Topics: Revocation of a donation "it6 a resolutor3 condition7Recover3 of propert3

Ponente: Bienvenido . Re3es

P6ilippine 8oman9s C6ristian Temperance nion# nc. v. Teodoro R. ;angco *nd and !o"ndation fled beore te '(), acting as a Land 'egistration)o"rt, a 4etition or te Ass"ance o New (itle over te s"b:ect propert#. Atclaimed tat te eEpiration o 4=)(?A;s corporate term in 1979 eBectivel#rescinded te donation p"rs"ant to te Gresol"tor# condition.H eingcomprised o te eirs o te donor, ('> !o"ndation claimed tat it is entitledto petition or te iss"ance o a new title in teir name, doc+eted as L'))ase No. I21&1$60-, p"rs"ant to 3ection 10& o 4.D. No. 15$9.

4=)(?A opposed te same arg"ing, among oters, tat< ('>!o"ndation as no legal personalit# to bring te action beca"se te donationas never been revo+ed and an# rigt to demand or its revocation alread#

prescribedJ alto"g 4=)(?A;s corporate term was not eEtended "pon itseEpiration in 1979, it noneteless registered anew and contin"ed teoperations, aBairs and social wor+ o te corporationJ and it also contin"ed topossess te propert# and eEercised rigts o ownersip over it.

ssue: =eter or not te s"b:ect propert# so"ld revert to ('> !o"ndation.

/C: No.


4/483

T6e petition >led b3 TR; oundation "as a disguised complaintfor revocation of donation: ('> !o"ndation is act"all# see+ing to recoverte possession and ownersip o te s"b:ect propert# rom 4=)(?A and notmerel# te cancellation o 4=)(?A;s title over te s"b:ect propert#. No

:"dgment proclaiming ('> !o"ndation as te absol"te owner o te propert#can be arrived at wito"t declaring te deed o donation revo+ed.

+n action "6ic6 see?s t6e recover3 of propert3 is outside t6eambit of /ection %)@ of P.2. No. %(*' because of t6e follo"ingreasons:

1%4 =eter te donation merits revocation and conse/"entl# eBectreversion o te donated propert# to te donor andKor is eirs cannot besettled b# fling a mere petition or cancellation o title "nder 3ection 10& o 4.D. No. 15$9J

1*4 ('> !o"ndation;s eEposed action or revocation o te donationnecessaril# incl"des a claim or te recover# o te s"b:ect propert#. (epetition o ('> !o"ndation ad te eBect o reopening te decree o registration in te earlier L') )ase No. $0970 wic granted 4=)(?A;sapplication or te iss"ance o a new owner;s d"plicate cop# o title. s s"c,it breaced te caveat in 3ection 10& o 4.D. No. 15$9 tat Gtis section sallnot be constr"ed to give te co"rt a"torit# to reopen te :"dgment ordecree o registrationJH

1 !o"ndation in L') )ase No. I21&1$60- was clearl# nota mere contin"ation o L') )ase No. $0970J and

1,4 (e petition fled b# ('> !o"ndation is not witin te ambit o 3ection 10& beca"se te relie tere"nder can onl# be granted i tere is"nanimit# among te parties, or tat tere is no adverse claim or serio"sob:ection on te part o an# part# in interest. On te contrar#, 4=)(?Amaintained tat it Gremains and contin"es to be te tr"e and sole owner in

ee simple o te propert#H and tat ('> !o"ndation Gas no rigtH teretoJ

1,4 (e en"merated instances or amendment or alteration o acertifcate o title "nder 3ection 10& are non2controversial in nat"re. (e# arelimited to iss"es so patentl# ins"bstantial as not to be gen"ine iss"es. (eproceedings tere"nder are s"mmar# in nat"re, contemplating insertions o mista+es wic are onl# clerical, b"t certainl# not controversial iss"es.)ertainl#, revocation o donation entails litigio"s and controversial matters


5/483

especiall# in tis case were te condition s"pposedl# violated b# 4=)(?A isnot eEpressl# stated in te deed o donation.

Court intervention is imperative in automatic reversion: s r"ledin da. de Delgado v. ) F.'. No. 1$57$&, "g"st $&, $001, Galto"g

a"tomatic reversion immediatel# appens "pon a violation o te conditionand tereore no :"dicial action is necessar# or s"c p"rpose, still :"dicialintervention m"st be so"gt b# te aggrieved part# i onl# or te p"rpose o determining te propriet# o te rescission made.H An addition, were tedonee denies te rescission o te donation or callenges te propriet#tereo, onl# te fnal award o te co"rt can concl"sivel# settle weter teresol"tion is proper or not. ere, 4=)(?A "nmista+abl# re"ted te allegationtat te eEpiration o its corporate term in 1979 rescinded te donation.

Topic: 2amagesPonente: 2iosdado M. Peralta

2r. iloteo +. +lano v. Aenaida Magud-ogmao$.R. No. %&((,))& +pril *)%,

acts: On *arc 1, 19&&, rnelito Logmao was bro"gt to te ast ven"e*edical )enter *) in I"ezon )it#. (e patient;s data seet identifed tepatient as ngelito L"gmoso o oni ven"e, *andal"#ong. 3"bse/"entl#, ewas transerred to te National Midne# Anstit"te NMA were is name was

recorded as ngelito L"gmoso. Borts were also made to locate is amil# b#enlisting police and media assistance.

On *arc %, 19&&, rnelito was prono"nced brain dead. 3ince isorgans were viable or donation, Dr. !iloteo lano, Eec"tive Director o NMA,a"torized te removal o specifc organs rom te bod# o rnelito ortransplantation p"rposes, considering tat te searc or is relatives was"ns"ccess"l. Noneteless, permission was also obtained rom te *edico2Legal Oce o te National "rea" o Anvestigation NA, on te ass"mptiontat te deat o rnelito was a medico legal case.

(ereater, a medical team removed some organs rom te bod# o ngelito and were later transplanted to oter patients. rnelito;s bod# wasten transerred to La !"neraria Oro. At was tere were rnelito;s relativesdiscovered is bod# in a ceap cas+et ater learning o te incident rom tenews.

)onse/"entl#, enaida *ag"d2Logmao, te moter o rnelito, fled acomplaint or damages against te attending p#sicians involved in te


6/483

incident incl"ding Dr. lano, and several oter persons. 3e alleged tat tedeendants conspired to remove te organs o rnelito wile te latter wasstill alive and tat te# concealed is tr"e identit#.

(e trial co"rt rendered a :"dgment fnding onl# Dr. lano liable or

damages and dismissing te complaint against te oters.

ssue: =eter or not enaida;s s"Berings were bro"gt abo"t b# Dr.lanoCs alleged negligence in granting a"torization or te removal orretrieval o te internal organs o te ormer;s son wo ad been declaredbrain dead.

/C: No.

Dr. lano was not negligent beca"se, in a *emorand"m, e instr"ctedis s"bordinates to Gma+e certainH tat Gall reasonable eBortsH are eEerted

to locate te patientCs neEt o +in, even en"merating wa#s in wic to ens"retat notices o te deat o te patient wo"ld reac said relatives. At was alsostated tat permission or a"torization to retrieve and remove te internalorgans o te deceased was being given onl# i te provisions o teapplicable law ad been complied wit. 3"c instr"ctions reveal tat Dr.lano acted pr"dentl# b# directing is s"bordinates to eEa"st all reasonablemeans o locating te relatives o te deceased.

!"rtermore, te doctors and personnel o NMA disseminated notices o te deat o rnelito to te media and so"gt te assistance o teappropriate police a"torities even beore Dr. lano iss"ed is *emorand"m.

4rior to te removal o te deceasedCs internal organs, te doctors concernedso"gt te opinion and approval o te *edico2Legal Ocer o te NA.

("s, te oregoing sow tat Dr. lano emplo#ed reasonable means todisseminate notifcations intended to reac te relatives o te deceased.

A enaida ailed to immediatel# receive notice o er sonCs deatbeca"se te notices did not properl# state te name or identit# o tedeceased, a"lt cannot be attrib"ted to Dr. lano. At was te *), wo adte opport"nit# to ascertain te name o te deceased, wo recorded tewrong inormation regarding te deceasedCs identit# to NMA. (e NMA co"ld

not ave obtained te inormation rom te patient imsel beca"se e wasalread# "nconscio"s b# te time e was bro"gt to te NMA.

inding 2r. +lano liable for damages is improper. It should beemphasized that the internal organs of the deceased were removed only after he had been declared brain dead; thus, the emotional pain suered by Zenaida due to the death of her son cannot in any way be attributed to Dr. Alano. either can Zenaida!s emotional


7/483

suering at the sight of the pitiful state in which she found her son"s lifeless body be attributed to Dr. Alano"s conduct.

Topics: Contract of /uret3s6ip7 +rbitration7 egal interest

Ponente: Maria ourdes /ereno

$ilat /atellite Net"or?s# td. vs. nited Coconut Planters Ban? $eneral nsurance Co.# nc.

$. R. No. %@'(0<

)& +pril *)%,

acts:

FAL( received a p"rcase order rom One irt"al or vario"s

telecomm"nications e/"ipment, accessories, spares, services and sotware?3P$,1$&,$50.00. One irt"al, to be able to pa# to FAL( te promisedamo"nt o ?3P1.$ *illion, it obtained deendant ?)4 Feneral Ans"rance )O.,Anc.;s s"ret# bond.

FAL( sipped te s"b:ect o te p"rcase order to One irt"al and tesame are received b# te latter. ?nder an endorsement, te s"ret# iss"ed anamendment to te s"ret# bond correcting te eEpir# date rom *a# %0, $001to "l# %0, $001.


8/483

One irt"al ailed to pa# te amo"nt o ?3P-00,000.00 on te d"e dateo *a# %0, $000. FAL( ten wrote a demand letter to ?)4 on "ne 5, $000or te pa#ment o te said amo"nt. Neiter One irt"al nor ?)4 paid. !orte s"cceeding pa#ment, One irt"al also ailed to pa# wic promptedFAL( to send anoter demand letter or te pa#ment o ?3P1.$ *illion

g"aranteed "nder te s"ret# bond pl"s interests and eEpenses. ?)4 ailedto settle te amo"nt or an# part o it.

FAL( ten fled a complaint against ?)4 to recover te amo"ntss"pposedl# covered b# te s"ret# bond, pl"s interests and eEpenses.

'() r"led in avor o FAL( b"t denied its claim o interest stating tatwile a s"ret# can be eld liable or interest even i it becomes more onero"stan te principal obligation, te s"ret# sall onl# accr"e wen te dela# orre"sal to pa# te principal obligation is wito"t an# :"stifable ca"se. ere,respondent ailed to pa# its s"ret# obligation beca"se o te advice o itsprincipal One irt"al not to pa#.

On appeal wit te )o"rt o ppeals, it dismissed te appeal or lac+ o :"risdiction. At ordered FAL( and One irt"al to proceed to arbitration, teo"tcome o wic sall necessar# bind te parties, incl"ding te s"ret#,deendant2appellant ?nited )ocon"t 4lanters an+ Feneral Ans"rance )o.,Anc. !"rter, it r"led tat in Qenorcing a s"ret# contract, teRcomplementar#2contracts2constr"ed2togeter; doctrine fnds application.Qccording to tis doctrine, te accessor# contract m"st be constr"ed witte principal agreement. ) considered te 4"rcase greement enteredinto between petitioner and One irt"al as te principal contract, wosestip"lations are also binding on te parties to te s"ret#sip. earing in mind

te arbitration cla"se contained in te 4"rcase greement, te trial co"rt;sDecision was vacatedJ petitioner and One irt"al were ordered to proceed toarbitration. ence, tis petition.

ssues: 1. =eter or not it is proper to order FAL( and One irt"al toarbitrateJ

$. =eter or not FAL( is entitled to legal interest d"e to te dela# inte "lfllment b# ?)4 o its obligation "nder te 3"ret#sip greement.

/C: 1. No.

(e )o"rt r"led tat in suret3s6ip, a s"ret#;s liabilit# is :oint andsolidar# wit tat o te principal debtor. (is "nderta+ing ma+es a s"ret#agreement an ancillar# contract, as it pres"pposes te eEistence o aprincipal contract. Neverteless, alt6oug6 t6e contract of a suret3 is inessence secondar3 onl3 to a valid principal obligation# its liabilit3 tot6e creditor or promise of t6e principal is said to be direct#primar3 and absolute7 in ot6er "ords# a suret3 is directl3 andeuall3 bound "it6 t6e principal. e becomes liable or te debt and


9/483

d"t# o te principal obligor, even wito"t possessing a direct or personalinterest in te obligations constit"ted b# te latter. ("s , a surety is not entitled to a separate notice of default or to the benet of excussion. It may in fact be sued separately or together with the principal debtor .

An tis case, FAL( ad delivered all te goods to One irt"al andinstalled tem. Despite tese compliances, One irt"al still ailed to pa# itsobligation, triggering respondent;s liabilit# to petitioner as te ormer;ss"ret#. An oter words, te ail"re o One irt"al, as te principal debtor, to"lfll its monetar# obligation to petitioner gave te latter an immediate rigtto p"rs"e respondent as te s"ret#.

n arbitration agreement# being contract"al in nat"re, is bindingonl# on te parties tereto, as well as teir assigns and eirs. 3ection $- o 'ep"blic ct No. 9$&5 is clear in stating tat a referral to arbitration ma3onl3 ta?e place if at least one part3 so reuests not later t6an t6epre-trial conference# or upon t6e reuest of bot6 parties t6ereafter.

'espondent as not presented evidence to sow tat eiter petitioner or Oneirt"al s"bmitted its contesting claim or arbitration. Lastl#, s"reties do notins"re te solvenc# o te debtor, b"t rater te debt itsel. (e# arecontracted precisel# to mitigate ris+s o non2perormance on te part o teobligor. (is responsibilit# necessaril# places a s"ret# on te same level astat o te principal debtor. (e eBect is tat te creditor is given t6erig6t to directl3 proceed against eit6er principal debtor or suret3. (is is te reason why excussion cannot be invoked. To reuire t6ecreditor to proceed to arbitration "ould render t6e ver3 essence of suret3s6ip nugator3 and diminis6 its value in commerce.

$. No. nterest, as a orm o indemnit#, ma# be a"arded to a creditoror te dela# inc"rred b# a debtor in te pa#ment o te latter;s obligation,provided tat t6e dela3 is ineDcusable.

rticle $$09 provides tat QSiT an obligation consists in te pa#ment o a s"m o mone#, and te debtor inc"rs a dela#, te indemnit# or damages,tere being no stip"lation to te contrar#, sall be te pa#ment o teinterest agreed "pon, and in te absence o stip"lation, te legal interest.Q

An tis case, in order or te debtor in tis case, te s"ret# to be indea"lt, it is necessar# tat te ollowing re/"isites be present< 1 tat te

obligation be demandable and alread# li/"idatedJ $ tat te debtor dela#sperormanceJ and % tat te creditor re/"ires te perormance :"diciall# oreEtra:"diciall#. ("s, a s"ret# can be eld liable or interest i it ails to pa#despite demand. T6e dela3# 6o"ever# must be ineDcusable. An tis casetere was no proo tat ?)4;s dela# was not :"stifed b# an# circ"mstances.

nterest s6all accrue from t6e time udicial or eDtraudicialdemand is made on t6e suret3.


10/483

s to te rate o interest, N+C+R v. $+ER; R+ME/ 1+ugust %


11/483

acts:

On "l# $1, 1977, 3po"ses ose 'o/"e and eatriz dela )r"z 'o/"e,and Felia R. Rivero 'ivero, *agdalena g"ilar, ngela Fonzales, erminia'. ernardo, ntonio 'ivero, raceli '. icta, Leonor '. (opacio, and "g"sto'ivero2 original owners o "nregistered LO( 1&0&92 eEec"ted a Deed o )onditional 3ale o 'eal 4ropert# over a 1,$%12s/. m. portion o Lot 1&0&9s"b:ect portion or a consideration o 4%0,775.00. At was agreed tat 3ps.'o/"e sall ma+e an initial pa#ment o 415,%&7.50 "pon signing, wile teremaining balance o te p"rcase price sall be pa#able "pon teregistration o Lot 1&0&9, as well as te segregation and te concomitantiss"ance o a separate title over te s"b:ect portion in teir names.

On "g"st 1$, 1991, !r"ct"oso 3ab"g, r., ormer (reas"rer o teNational )o"ncil o )"rces in te 4ilippines N))4, applied or a reepatent over te entire Lot 1&0&9 and was event"all# iss"ed Original)ertifcate o (itle O)( No. *25955& in is name on October $1, 1991. On

"ne $-, 199%, 3ab"g, r. and 'ivero, in er personal capacit# and inrepresentation o 'ivero, et al., eEec"ted a oint davit ac+nowledging tatte s"b:ect portion belongs to 3ps. 'o/"e and eEpressed teir willingness tosegregate te same rom te entire area o Lot 1&0&9.

3ab"g, r., later sold Lot 1&0&9 to *a. 4amela g"ado, te latterca"sed te cancellation o O)( No. *25955 and te iss"ance o (ranser)ertifcate o (itle ()( No. *29669$ in er name. g"ado, ten mortgagedte land to Land an+ o te 4ilippines. (e mortgage was oreclosedJ telot was sold in a p"blic a"ction to Land an+J g"ado ailed to redeem tes"b:ect propert#, t"s te ownersip o te lot was consolidated in Land

an+;s name.

3ps. 'o/"e ten fled a complaint or reconve#ance, ann"lment o sale,deed o real estate mortgage, oreclos"re, and certifcate o sale, anddamages beore te '(). N))4 fled a separate complaint also ordeclaration o n"llit# o doc"ments and certifcates o title and damages,doc+eted as )ivil )ase No. 05200%. At claimed to be te real owner o Lot1&0&9 wic it s"pposedl# ac/"ired rom 3ab"g, r. tro"g an oral contracto sale. '() dismissed bot complaints.

ssue: =eter or not te s"b:ect portion be reconve#ed to 3ps. 'o/"e.

/C: No.

n action or reconve#ance is or te p"rpose o transerring a propert#wic was wrong"ll# or erroneo"sl# registered in anoter person;s name toits rigt"l owner or to one wit a better rigt. ("s, it is inc"mbent "pon teaggrieved part# to sow tat e as a legal claim on te propert# s"perior totat o te registered owner and tat te propert# as not #et passed to teands o an innocent p"rcaser or val"e.


12/483

(e deed o conditional sale eEec"ted between te spo"ses and te'iveros are in te nat"re o a contract to sell and not one o sale. An tisrelation, it as been consistentl# r"led tat were te seller promises toeDecute a deed of absolute sale upon t6e completion b3 t6e bu3er of t6e pa3ment of t6e purc6ase price, te contract is onl# a contract to sell

even i teir agreement is denominated as a Deed o )onditional 3ale, as intis case. (is treatment stems rom te legal caracterization o a contractto sell, tat is, a bilateral contract wereb# te prospective seller, wileeEpressl# reserving te ownersip o te s"b:ect propert# despite deliver#tereo to te prospective b"#er, binds imsel to sell te s"b:ect propert#eEcl"sivel# to te prospective b"#er "pon "lfllment o te condition agreed"pon, s"c as, te "ll pa#ment o te p"rcase price. lsewise stated, in acontract to sell# o"ners6ip is retained b3 t6e vendor and is not topass to t6e vendee until full pa3ment of t6e purc6ase price.

An tis case 3ps. 'o/"e ave not paid te fnal installment o te

p"rcase price. (e condition wic wo"ld ave triggered te parties;obligation to enter into and tereb# perect a contract o sale in order toeBectivel# transer te ownersip o te s"b:ect portion rom te sellers i.e.,'ivero et al. to te b"#ers 3ps. 'o/"e cannot be deemed to ave been"lflled. )onse/"entl#, te latter cannot validl# claim ownersip over tes"b:ect portion even i te# ad made an initial pa#ment and even too+possession o te same.

It is It is essential to distinguish between a contract to sell and a conditional contract of sale specially in cases where the subject property is sold by the owner not to the party the seller contracted with, but to a third person, as in the case at bench. In a contract to sell , there beingno previous sale of the property, a third person buying such property despite the ful#llment of the suspensive condition such as the full payment of the purchase price, for instance, cannot be deemed abuyer in bad faith and the $%&'$()*I+( -(% )A&* '((/ *0(%(1I(2 &2 %()&+(A)( &2 *0( $%&$(%*. There is no double salein such case. Title to the property will transfer to the buyer after registrationbecause there is no defect in the owner-sellers title per se, but the latter, of course, may be sued for damages by the intending buyer.

!n the matter of double sales, "ps. #o$ues reliance on %rticle &'((of the )ivil )ode has been misplaced since the contract they base their

claim of ownership on is, as earlier stated, a contract to sell, and not one of sale. The following circumstances must concur to determine theapplicability of %rticle &'((, none of which are obtaining in this case, vi*.+

a The two or more sales transactions in issue must pertain to exactly thesame subject matter, and must be valid sales transactions


13/483

b The two or more buyers at odds over the rightful ownership of thesubject matter must each represent con/icting interests and

c The two or more buyers at odds over the rightful ownership of thesubject matter must each have bought from the same seller.


14/483

Topics: Trust7 Nulli>cation of Titles and 2eeds of EDtraudicial/ettlement and /alePonente: Bienvenido . Re3es

Jose Juan Tong# et al vs. $o Tiat Gun# et al.$.R. No. %'0)*<*% +pril *)%,

acts: erein petitioners are cildren o 3po"ses "an (ong and 3# ?n,wile respondents are eirs o L"is "an (ong, 3r., wo was one o te tencildren o te ormer.

"an (ong, in 1957, decided to p"rcase a lot or te amil#;s l"mberb"siness. owever, "an (ong was dis/"alifed to ac/"ire one d"e to is)inese citizensip, t"s e decided tat to register said lot in te name o is eldest son, L"is 3r. (e ac/"ired lot Lot 99& was ten registered in te

name o L"is, 3r., and ()( No. 10%-6 was iss"ed in is name. "an (ong L"mber, Anc. was incorporated, b"t 3# ?n and "an (ong diedintestate.

ter te deat o L"is, 3r., erein respondents claimed ownersip overLot 99& b# s"ccession, t"s te# eEec"ted a Deed o Etra2"dicial3ettlement o state o L"is, 3r., ad:"dicating "nto temselves Lot 99& andclaiming tat te said lot is te con:"gal propert# o L"is, 3r., and is wie. (e# s"bdivided Lot 99&, and new titles were iss"ed< 1 ()( No. 9706& overLot 99&2 in te name o Fo (iat M"n and er cildrenJ and $ ()( No. (296$16 over Lot 99&2 in te name o L"is, r.

L"is r. sold Lot 99&2 to !ine 'oc+ Development )orporation !'D),

wic in t"rn sold te same to isa#as Foodwill )redit )orporation F)). Atwas onl# ater te petitioners received a letter rom F)), on "g"st %1,1995, tat te# discovered abo"t te breac o te tr"st agreementcommitted b# te respondents. 4etitioners ten fled an action or nn"lmento 3ales, (itles, 'econve#ance and Damages o Lot 99&2 doc+eted as )ivil)ase No. $$7%0 against L"is, r., !'D) and F)). Lot 99&2 was reconve#edto petitioners.

s to Lot 99&2, Fo (iat M"n eEec"ted a Deed o 3ale o ?ndividedAnterest o te same in avor o er cildren, t"s a new title was iss"ed.4etitioners again fled te instant case or N"llifcation o (itles, and Deeds o Etra2:"dicial 3ettlement and 3ale and Damages.

(e co"rt in avor o petitioners, r"ling tat tere was an implied tr"stres"lting between "an (ong, L"is 3r., te petitioners and te respondentsover Lot 99&J tat tat an# rigt tat te respondents ma# ave over Lot99&2 wo"ld ave been merel# derived rom tat o teir predecessor2in2interest, L"is 3r. 3ince te respondents were not te owners o Lot 99&2,te# co"ld not appropriate te propert# "nto temselves, m"c less conve#te same "nto tird persons. On appeal, te ) reversed and set aside te


15/483

trial co"rt;s decision, since tere was an eEpress tr"st was created beca"setere was a direct and positive act rom "an (ong to create a tr"st.

ssue: =eter or not tere was an implied res"lting tr"st over Lot 99&wen "an (ong p"rcased te propert# and registered it in te name o L"is,

3r.

/C: ;es.

(e principle o a resulting trust is based on te e/"itable doctrinetat val"able consideration and not legal title determines te e/"itable titleor interest and are pres"med alwa#s to ave been contemplated b# teparties. (e# arise rom te nat"re or circ"mstances o te considerationinvolved in a transaction wereb# one person tereb# becomes invested witlegal title b"t is obligated in e/"it# to old is legal title or te beneft o anoter. On te oter and, a constructive trust, "nli+e an eEpress tr"st,

does not emanate rom, or generate a fd"ciar# relation. )onstr"ctive tr"stsare created b# te constr"ction o e/"it# in order to satis# te demands o :"stice and prevent "n:"st enricment. (e# arise contrar# to intentionagainst one wo, b# ra"d, d"ress or ab"se o confdence, obtains or oldste legal rigt to propert# wic e o"gt not, in e/"it# and goodconscience, to old.

(e )o"rt is in conormit# wit te fnding o te trial co"rt tat animplied res"lting tr"st was created as provided "nder te frst sentence o +rticle %,,@ wic is sometimes reerred to as a p"rcase mone# res"ltingtr"st, te elements o wic are< a an act"al pa#ment o mone#, propert#

or services, or an e/"ivalent, constit"ting val"able considerationJ and bs"c consideration m"st be "rnised b# te alleged benefciar# o ares"lting tr"st..

An tis case, te petitioners ave sown tat te two elements arepresent in te instant case. L"is, 3r. was merel# a tr"stee o "an (ong andte petitioners in relation to te s"b:ect propert#, and it was "an (ong woprovided te mone# or te p"rcase o Lot 99& b"t te correspondingtranser certifcate o title was placed in te name o L"is, 3r.

(e principle tat a tr"stee wo p"ts a certifcate o registration in is

name cannot rep"diate te tr"st b# rel#ing on te registration is one o tewell2+nown limitations "pon a title. tr"st, wic derives its strengt romte confdence one reposes on anoter especiall# between amilies, does notlose tat caracter simpl# beca"se o wat appears in a legal doc"ment.


16/483

Topic: 2ut3 and rig6t to ma?e funeral arrangements for t6edeceased

Ponente: Jose Catral Mendo!a

Falino v. +driano et al.

$.R. No. %@*@',

** +pril *)%,

acts: driano driano was married to 'osario driano. (e spo"sesad tree cildren. (e#, owever separated2in2actJ and driano laterco"rted alino, "ntil te# decided to live as "sband and wie. drianocontin"ed to provide fnancial s"pport to 'osario and teir cildren.

An 199$, driano died. t tat time 'osario was in te ?3 wit ercildren. alino too+ it "pon ersel to so"lder te "neral and b"rial sinceno one o is amil# was present. (e remains were interred at tema"sole"m o te amil# o alino at te *anila *emorial 4ar+. 'espondentswere not able to attend te interment. ?pon +nowledge o driano;s deat,'osario called alino to re/"est te dela# o interment, wic re/"est wasnot eeded. ("s, respondents commenced s"it against alino pra#ing tatte# be indemnifed or act"al, moral and eEemplar# damages and attorne#;sees. On er part, alino co"ntered b# stating tat 'osario and tt#. drianoad been separated or more tan twent# $0 #ears beore e co"rted erJtat tro"go"t te time te# were togeter, e ad introd"ced er to isriends and associates as is wieJ tat se too+ care o driano and paid orall is medical eEpenses wen e got serio"sl# illJ and tat it was driano;s


17/483

last wis tat is remains be interred in te alino amil# ma"sole"m at te*anila *emorial 4ar+.

'() dismissed te complaint or lac+ o merit. At r"led tat it was alinowo perormed all te d"ties and responsibilities o a wie, te '() wrotetat it co"ld be reasonabl# pres"med tat e wised to be b"ried in tealino amil# ma"sole"m.

On appeal, te co"rt reversed and set aside te '() decision. )eEplained tat 'osario, being te legal wie, was entitled to te c"stod# o te remains o er deceased "sband. )iting rticle %05 o te New )ivil)ode in relation to rticle 199 o te !amil# )ode, it was te considered viewo te appellate co"rt tat te law gave te s"rviving spo"se not onl# ted"t# b"t also te rigt to ma+e arrangements or te "neral o er "sband.!or te ), 'osario was still entitled to s"c rigt on te gro"nd o ers"bsisting marriage wit tt#. driano at te time o te latter;s deat,notwitstanding teir %02#ear separation in act.

ssue: =eter or not alino is entitled to te remains o driano.

/C: No.

rticle %05 o te )ivil )ode, now rticle 1996 o te !amil# )ode,specifes te persons wo ave te rigt and d"t# to ma+e "neralarrangements or te deceased. ("s<

rt. %05. (e d"t# and te rigt to ma+e arrangements or te "neralo a relative sall be in accordance wit te order establised or s"pport,"nder rticle $9-. An case o descendants o te same degree, or o broters

and sisters, te oldest sall be preerred. An case o ascendants, te paternalsall ave a better rigt.

rticle 199, on te oter and provides tat< Gwenever two or morepersons are obliged to give s"pport, te liabilit# sall devolve "pon teollowing persons in te order erein provided< 1 (e spo"seJ $ (edescendants in te nearest degreeJ % (e ascendants in te nearestdegreeJ and - (e broters and sisters.H

!"rter, rticle %0& o te )ivil )ode provides tat Gno "man remainssall be retained, interred, disposed o or eE"med wito"t te consent o

te persons mentioned in rticles $9- and %05.H nd 3ection 110% o te'evised dministrative )ode provides tat te immediate d"t# o b"r#ing tebod# o a deceased person, regardless o te "ltimate liabilit# or teeEpense tereo, sall devolve "pon te persons erein below specifed< a A te deceased was a married man or woman, te d"t# o te b"rial salldevolve "pon te s"rviving spo"se i e or se possesses s"cient means topa# te necessar# eEpensesJ E E E.


18/483

("s, law simpl# confnes te rigt and d"t# to ma+e "neralarrangements to te members o te amil# to te eEcl"sion o one;scommon law partner. An tis case, it is clear tat te law gives te rigt andd"t# to ma+e "neral arrangements to 'osario, se being te s"rviving legalwie o tt#. driano. (e act tat se was living separatel# rom er

"sband and was in te ?nited 3tates wen e died as no controllingsignifcance. (e alleged waiver or ren"nciation , eEpressl# or impliedl#, o 'osario o er rigt and d"t# to ma+e arrangements or te "neral o erdeceased "sband is baseless. (e rigt and d"t# to ma+e "neralarrangements, li+e an# oter rigt, will not be considered as aving beenwaived or reno"nced, eEcept "pon clear and satisactor# proo o cond"ctindicative o a ree and vol"ntar# intent to tat end. =ile tere wasdisaBection between tt#. driano and 'osario and teir cildren wen ewas still alive, te )o"rt also recognizes tat "man compassion, more otentan not, opens te door to merc# and orgiveness once a amil# member :oins is )reator. Notabl#, it is an "ndisp"ted act tat te respondents

wasted no time in ma+ing rantic pleas to alino or te dela# o teinterment or a ew da#s so te# co"ld attend te service and view teremains o te deceased. s soon as te# came to +now abo"t tt#.driano;s deat in te morning o December 19, 199$ December $0, 199$in te 4ilippines, te respondents immediatel# contacted alino and terlington *emorial )apel to eEpress teir re/"est, b"t to no avail.

It is generally recogni*ed that the corpse of an individual is outside thecommerce of man. 0owever, the law recogni*es that a certain right of possession over the corpse exists, for the purpose of a decent burial, and for the exclusion of the intrusion by third persons who have no legitimate

interest in it. This $uasi-property right, arising out of the duty of thoseobligated by law to bury their dead, also authori*es them to take possessionof the dead body for purposes of burial to have it remain in its nal resting place, or to even transfer it to a proper place where the memory of the deadmay receive the respect of the living. This is a family right. There can be nodoubt that persons having this right may recover the corpse from third persons.


19/483

Topic: Rescission of ContractPonente: Maria ourdes +ranal-/ereno

/angguniang Panlungsod ng Baguio Cit3 v. Jade"ell Par?ing/3stems Corporation$R Nos.%0))*(H%0


20/483

'esol"tion %7, alleging s"bstantial breac o te *O on te part o adewell. (en *a#or lredo ergara vetoed te 'esol"tion. (e 3angg"nian4anl"ngsod overrode te veto tro"g an "nn"mbered 'esol"tion dated 17pril $00$. (ese twin 'esol"tions constit"te wat we call ere as te frstact o 'escission o te *O b# te cit# ocials o ag"io. adewell denied

te breac and commenced an action beore te 'egional (rial )o"rt o ag"io, /"estioning te validit# o te *O;s revocation and te3angg"nian;s capacit# to pass a resol"tion revo+ing te *O.

ssue: =eter or not te act o rescission is considered as valid.

/C: >es.t te o"tset tat on $$ November $006, 60 da#s ad lapsed rom

receipt o te letter dated $$ 3eptember $006, inorming adewell o tedecision o te )it# o ag"io to rescind te *O "nder 3ection 1$ tereo. Atma# be recalled tat 3ection 1$ re/"ires tat notice o te intention to

rescind be given 60 da#s prior to te eBectivit# o te rescission. adewellas not /"estioned te legal ecac# o tis notice. At as bro"gt tis mattero a second rescission to te )o"rt;s attention onl# as a matter o cont"macio"s beavior on te part o te respondents in F.'. No. 17-&79, inte same wa# tat it bro"gt vario"s actions o te p"blic respondentsbeore te )o"rt in its oter contempt petitions. 3ince te legal ecac# o te rescission in $006 as not been contested b# adewell in an# o tepetitions beore "s, we t"s consider tis notice o rescission to ave ta+enlegal eBect and tereore, at te latest, te *O between te )it# o ag"ioand adewell as ceased to legall# eEist as o $$ November $006.

Note<1. adewell as not /"estioned te implication o te '() and ) Decisions tote eBect tat te 3angg"nian ad te a"torit# to perorm acts o contract"al rescission on beal o te )it# o ag"io wen bot tese co"rtsignored te iss"e raised b# adewell in its 4etition beore te '(), and wetereore do not consider tis to be a gen"ine iss"e in tis 4etition beore "sJ$. =ile te 3angg"niang 4anl"ngsod as insin"ated tat tere was ra"dand eEcess o a"torit# on te part o te ma#or in te eEec"tion o te *O2 beca"se te latter provided or a smaller saring o Q$0 U rom te grossproft o te operation or 50U o te net proft wicever is igerQ instead o te intended Q$0U o gross receipts,Q2 petitioners in F.'. No. 1600$5

conceded even at te '() level tat te# are not assailing te *O or beingdeective b"t or aving been breaced in te perormance. =e t"sdisregard all arg"ments in F.'. No. 1600$5 regarding te validit# o teeEec"tion o te *O, or being a non2iss"e in tis caseJ%. (e )o"rt also immediatel# set aside claims o adewell in its 4etitionbeore te '() tat an alternative relie so"ld be provided b# te co"rts inte orm o compensation or terminated "ild2Operate2(ranser O(contracts "nder te O( Law 'ep"blic ct No. 6957 as tere is not te


21/483

sligtest basis on record tat te administration o on2street par+ing can beclassifed as an inrastr"ct"re contract, a basic element tat m"st be presentor an# contract to come witin te terms o te O( Law.

Topic: 2ouble /alePonente: 2iosdado M. Peralta

/?unac Corporation v. Roberto /. /3lianteng$R No. *)(@&'*< +pril *)%,


22/483


23/483

*anagement and rcives Oce o *anila, sows tat te sale o tes"b:ect lots b# L"is to merenciana was indeed reg"larl# notarized.

4etitioners, noneteless, insist tat te# ave valid title over tes"b:ect properties. (e# trace teir respective titles rom tat o 'omeo.'omeo, in t"rn, derives is s"pposed ownersip o and title over te s"b:ect

lots rom is claim tat e is te sole eir o te estate o is allegedpredecessor2in2interest, L"is. vidence, owever, sows tat 'omeo neverbecame te owner o te s"b:ect properties or two reasons. !irst, as sownabove, te disp"ted lots were alread# sold b# L"is d"ring is lietime.3econd, even granting tat te s"b:ect lots ormed part o te estate o L"is,it was s"bse/"entl# proven in a separate case tat 'omeo is not is eir. an#rigt watsoever over te s"b:ect lots, even i e was able to s"bse/"entl#obtain a title in is name. At is a well2settled principle tat no one can givewat one does not ave, nemo dat 3uod non habet . One can sell onl#wat one owns or is a"torized to sell, and te b"#er can ac/"ire no morerigt tan wat te seller can transer legall#. 3ince 'omeo as no rigt to

te s"b:ect lots, petitioners, wo simpl# stepped into te soes o 'omeo, int"rn, ac/"ired no rigts to te same.


24/483

Topic: +ction for Reconve3ancePonente: 2iosdado M. Peralta

Rodolfo F. rancisco v. Emiliana M. Roas$R No. %0&%*)

*< +pril *)%,

acts: (e entire acienda "sed to be owned b# one Don "enavent"raF"ido # 3anta na "pon wose deat let a portion tereo, consisting o tesaid %,1&1.7- ectares, to is two sons !rancisco F"ido and ermogenesF"ido. 3ometime in 3eptember 1911, Decreto No. 61-5, covering te same%,1&1.7-2ectare portion o acienda de ngono was iss"ed in avor o tebroters !rancisco and ermogenes. Original )ertifcate o (itle O)( No.6%% over te same %,1&1.7- ectares was iss"ed in te names o te twobroters. On *a# 1$, 19%%, O)( No. 6%% was cancelled, (ranser )ertifcateo (itle No. $%%77 was iss"ed. Nine #ears later, or sometime in 19-$, te

eirs o !rancisco and ermogenes ad:"dicated among temselves te same%,1&1.7- ectares and transerred te one2al portion tereo to ose 'o:as.llegedl#, te ad:"dication was ormalized b# te eirs o !rancisco andermogenes onl# on December 17, 197%, wen te# p"rportedl# eEec"tedan Etra2"dicial 3ettlement o state =it I"itclaim.

On *arc $9, 1976, lredo F"ido, 3r., representing te oter eirs,fled wit te 'egistr# o Deeds o *orong a petition or reconstit"tion o ()(No. $%%77, alleging tat te original o te same title co"ld not be located inte fles o te 'egistr# o Deeds o 'izal wen e and is co2eirs so"gt teregistration o teir aorementioned SEtraT2"dicial 3ettlement o state =itI"itclaim. (e petition was s"pported b# te owner;s d"plicate cop# o te

title so"gt to be reconstit"ted. On te same date tat F"ido, 3r. fled tepetition or reconstit"tion, te same was granted and a reconstit"tedcertifcate o title @ ()( $%%77 '(2*2000$ @ was iss"ed.

(ereater, te eirs wo eEec"ted te aoresaid doc"ment o eEtra2 :"dicial settlement, incl"ding te now spo"ses ose 'o:as and miliana 'o:as,sold te propert# to 4acil *anagement )orporation, and new titles wereiss"ed in avor o 4acil on "ne $6, 1976. (ree monts later, or on "g"st$6, 1976, 4acil reconve#ed all te $1 lots to te ormer owners. On "g"st$5, 197&, o"rteen o te $1 lots were eEcanged or sares o stoc+ o Anterport 'eso"rces )orporation. On pril $5, 19&0, all te named eirs in tesame Etra2"dicial 3ettlement o state =it I"itclaim reno"nced teir

rigts over te remaining portion o te %,1&1.7- ectares in avor o teirco2eir lredo F"ido, 3r., in eEcange or monetar# considerations.At appears, owever, tat on "g"st 1%, 1976, barel# fve monts rom tetime lredo F"ido, 3r. fled is petition or reconstit"tion o ()( No. $%%77on *arc $9, 1976, wic petition was approved on te same date, anpplication or 'egistration o (itle over o"r parcels o land lots 1, $, % and-, wic lots are presentl# alleged b# te 'o:ases to be Qoverlapping aportion o te area covered b# ()( No. $%%77,Q E E E was fled wit te ten


25/483

)o"rt o !irst Anstance o 'izal, ranc 10, b# 'osalina, 'odolo, )armela and)armen, all s"rnamed !rancisco, abo"t wic petition te 'o:ases now claimto be "naware o.

ssue: =eter or not an ction or 'econve#ance is te appropriate

proceeding.

/C: >es. (e Qappropriate proceedingQ reerred to in F"ido is a case were te

!ranciscos m"st present specifc acts o ownersip to s"bstantiate teir claimtat te# are bona fde occ"pants o Lots 12- o 4s"20-2001-6% wile, at tesame time, respondents are accorded d"e process o law b# availing o teopport"nit# to oppose and re"te te representations made b# te!ranciscos. =atever te Qappropriate proceedingQ ma# be, te decisiveactor is tat te same so"ld be a proceeding in personam werein personalservice o s"mmons and cop# o te complaintKpetition is necessar#.

(r"l#, one o te appropriate legal remedies tat so"ld ave beenavailed o b# te !ranciscos is an action or reconve#ance. )ontrar# topetitioner;s declaration, proo o act"al ra"d is not re/"ired as it ma# befled even wen no ra"d intervened s"c as wen tere is mista+e inincl"ding te land or registration. An te action or reconve#ance, te decreeo registration is igl# respected as incontrovertibleJ wat is so"gt insteadis te transer o te propert# wrong"ll# or erroneo"sl# registered inanoter;s name to its rigt"l owner or to te one wit a better rigt.

n action or reconve#ance res"lting rom ra"d prescribes o"r #earsrom te discover# o te ra"d and i it is based on an implied or aconstr"ctive tr"st it prescribes ten 10 #ears rom te alleged ra"d"lent

registration or date o iss"ance o te certifcate o title over te propert#.owever, an action or reconve#ance based on implied or constr"ctive tr"stis imprescriptible i te plaintiB or te person enorcing te tr"st is inpossession o te propert#. An eBect, te action or reconve#ance is an actionto /"iet te propert# title, wic does not prescribe. An tis case, te!ranciscos claim to be in open, contin"o"s, eEcl"sive, and notorio"spossession and occ"pation o te s"b:ect lots. At appears tat te# never lostpossession o said properties, and as s"c, te# are in a position to fle tecomplaint to protect teir alleged rigts and clear watever do"bts as beencast tereon.


26/483

Topics: and transfer7 Encumbrances - +nnotations7 iens -Registration and Eect7 Bu3er in good fait6 and for value7 Contractof /ale v. Contract to /ell7 Ripening of 5"ners6ip7 ac6es7 Builder in$ood ait6Ponente: Jose Catral Mendo!a

/aberon# et al. v. Fentanilla# Jr.$.R. No. %'*00'

*% +pril *)%,

acts: This case is an o1shoot of two 2 cases involving the same property,which had been decided, respectively, by the "upreme )ourt with nality.

*anila 'emnant )o., Anc. *')A owned several parcels o landconstit"ting a s"bdivision. At entered into a contract wit .?. alencia W )o.Anc. ?), wereb# or a consideration, te latter was to, among oters,develop te aoresaid s"bdivision wit a"torit# to manage te sales tereo and eEec"te contracts to sell to lot b"#ers. t tat time, te president o ?), was rtemio ?. alencia alenciaX.

3"bse/"entl#, *')A and ?) eEec"ted two $ contracts to sell in

avor o Oscar ). entanilla, r. and )armen Floria D. entanilla entanillas.terwards, alencia, olding o"t imsel as president o *')AX, and

without the knowledge o te entanillas, resold te same propert# to )arlos)risostomo )risostomo, wito"t an# consideration. alencia transmitted tefctitio"s contract wit )risostomo to *')A wile e +ept te contracts to sellwit te entanillas in is private oce fles. ll te amo"nts paid b# telatter were deposited in alencia;s ban+ acco"nt and remitted to *')A aspa#ments o )risostomo. (e entanillas contin"ed to pa# te montl#installment.

(ereater, *')A terminated its b"siness relationsip wit ?) onacco"nt o irreg"larities discovered in its collection and remittances.

)onse/"entl#, alencia was removed as president b# te oard o Directorso *')AX. e ten stopped transmitting te entanillas; montl# installments,wic appearing in *')A;s records as credited under the name of )risostomo.

?) s"ed *')A to imp"gn te abrogation o teir agenc# agreement.?) ten inormed te entanillas tat it was still a"torized b# te trialco"rt to collect te montl# amortizations and re/"ested tem to contin"e


27/483

remitting teir pa#ment, wit te ass"rance tat said pa#ments wo"ld bedeposited later in co"rt.

!or ?);s ail"re to orward its collections to te trial co"rt asordered, *')A ca"sed te p"blication o a notice cancelling te contracts tosell o some lot b"#ers incl"ding tose o )risostomo in wose name te

pa#ments o te entanillas ad been credited.At was onl# ater some time wen te entanillas discovered alencia;sdeception. Believing t6at t6e3 6ad alread3 remitted a substantialamount for t6e lots# t6e Fentanillas oered to pa3 t6e balance toMRC. (o teir soc+, teir names as lot b"#ers did not appear in *')A;srecords. Anstead, *')A sowed tem a cop# o te contract to sell signed b#alencia, in avor o )risostomo. MRC refused t6e FentanillasK oer topa3 for t6e remainder of t6e contract price.

ggrieved, te entanillas commenced an action or specifcperormance, ann"lment o deeds and damages against *')A, ?), and)risostomo. (e ten )!A rendered a decision declaring te contracts to sell

in avor o te entanillas as valid and s"bsisting, and ann"lling te contractto sell in avor o )risostomo.On separate appeals fled b# ?) and *')A, te ) s"stained te )!A

I"ezon )it#;s decision in toto.

*he 4556 )ase*')A ten fled beore te 3"preme )o"rt a petition or certiorari. (e

decision o te ) was armed and declared te :"dgment o te )!AI"ezon )it# immediately e7ecutory.

nco"raged b# te seeming tri"mp o teir ca"se, te entanillasmoved or te iss"ance o a writ o eEec"tion, and was d"l# iss"ed. notice

of levy was annotated in te titles o *')A on 8ay 94, 4554.An a maniestation and motion, owever, *')A alleged tat te s"b:ect

properties co"ld no longer be delivered to te entanillas beca"se te# adalread3 been sold to 3am"el *ar/"ez *ar/"ez on !ebr"ar# 7, 1990,wile its petition was pending. Neverteless, *')A oBered to reimb"rse teamo"nt paid b# te entanillas, incl"ding legal interest pl"s damages. *')Aalso pra#ed tat its tender o pa#ment be accepted and tat allgarnisments on teir acco"nts lited. (e entanillas accepted teamo"nt o 4$10,000.00 as damages and attorne#;s ees b"t re:ected tereimb"rsement.

*')A ten moved or reconsideration pra#ing tat it be ordered to

reimb"rse te entanillas and tat te garnisment o its ban+ deposit belited. (is plea was denied twice b# te trial co"rt prompting *')A to fleanot6er petition for certiorari wit te ), wic r"led tat te contractto sell in avor o *ar/"ez did not constit"te a legal impediment to teimmediate eEec"tion o te :"dgment.

*he 455: )ase


28/483

!rom te ), te case was elevated to te 3"preme )o"rt were *')Aarg"ed tat te sale o te properties to *ar/"ez was valid beca"se at tetime o te sale, te iss"e o te validit# o te sale to te entanillas adnot #et been resolved. !"rter, tere was no specifc in:"nction against it re2selling te propert#. s a b"#er in good faith, *ar/"ez ad a rigt to rel# on

te recitals in te certifcate o title. (e s"b:ect matter o te controvers#aving been passed to an innocent purchaser for value, te eEec"tion o teabsol"te deed o sale in avor o te entanillas co"ld not be ordered b# tetrial co"rt.

(e entanillas co"ntered tat te validit# o te sale to tem adalready been established even wile te previo"s petition was still awaitingresol"tion. (e petition only $uestioned the solidary liability o *')A to teentanillas. 0ence, the portion of the decision ordering 3#)I to execute anabsolute deed of sale in their favor had already become nal and executory when 3#)I failed to appeal it to the )ourt. ("s, an order en:oining *')Arom reselling te propert# in litigation was "nnecessar#. esides, te

"n"s"al lac+ o interest, on te part o *ar/"ez, to protect and assert isrigt over te disp"ted propert# was, to te entanillas, a clear indicationtat te alleged sale to im was merel# a plo# o *')A to evade teeEec"tion o te absol"te deed o sale in teir avor.

(e )o"rt settled te controvers# in avor o te entanillas and citedcirc"mstances tat cast s"spicion on te validit#, not to sa# te ver#eEistence, o te contract wit *ar/"ez. >et, 3am"el )leoe, 'egister o Deeds or I"ezon )it# 'OD )leoe revealedto tem, tat on *arc 11, 199$, MRC registered a deed of absolutesale to Marue! "6o eventuall3 sold t6e same propert3 to t6e'aberons erein petitioners, wic conve#ance was registered in "l#

199$. 'OD )leoe opined tat a :"dicial order or te cancellation o te titlesin te name o te 3aberons was essential beore e complied wit te saidwrit o eEec"tion. %pparently, the notice of levy, through inadvertence, wasnot carried over to the title issued to 3ar$ue*, the same being a junior encumbrance which was entered after the contract to sell to 3ar$ue* hadalready been annotated.

Civil Case No. L-'0-*0,@0

Once again, te entanillas were constrained to go to co"rt to see+ teann"lment o te deed o sale eEec"ted between *')A and *ar/"ez as well

as te deed o sale between *ar/"ez and te 3aberons, as te r"its o voidconve#ances. (e case was fled wit te 'egional (rial )o"rt '(), wicr"led or te entanillas.

(e deendants fled separate appeals. (e 3aberons relied on onecentral arg"mentYtat they were purchasers in good faith, having relied onthe correctness of the certicates of title covering the lots in $uestion andtherefore, holders of a valid and indefeasible title.


29/483

(e ) said tat *')A and te oter deendants were o"nd g"ilt# o bad faith or selling te lots to *ar/"ez at a time wen litigation as to tevalidit# o te frst sale to te entanillas was still pending. An oter words,*')A was s"cientl# aware o te )o"rt decision confrming its ail"re tos"pervise and control te aBairs o its a"torized agent, ?), wic led to

te eEplicit prono"ncement tat te frst sale to te entanillas was valid.This should have served as a warning to 3#)I that it could no longer dealwith the property in deference to the )ourts ruling and a4rmation of thetrial courts order to execute the deed of sale in favor of the 5entanillas.

("s, te 3aberons fled te instant petition, reiterating tat te# wereinnocent p"rcasers or val"e and in good ait. At was onl# "pon receipt o te s"mmons in te case fled b# te entanillas wit te '() tat te#learned o te present controvers#.

ssues: 1. =eter or not te registration o te notice o lev# ad prod"ced

constr"ctive notice tat wo"ld bind tird persons despite te ail"reo te 'OD2I) to annotate te same in te certifcates o title.$. =eter or not te rigts or interests o te entanillas in tes"b:ect properties ripened into ownersip.%. =eter or not laces co"ld be attrib"ted to te entanillas.-. =eter or not te 3aberons were b"ilders in good ait.

/C: 1. >es.3ections 51 and 5$ o 4.D. No. 15$9 eEplain te p"rpose and eBects o

registering bot vol"ntar# and invol"ntar# instr"ments, to wit<3ection 51. )onve#ance and oter dealings b# registered owner. n owner o

registered land ma# conve#, mortgage, lease, carge or oterwise deal witte same in accordance wit eEisting laws. e ma# "se s"c orms o deeds,mortgages, leases or oter vol"ntar# instr"ments as are s"cient in law. "tno deed, mortgage, lease, or oter vol"ntar# instr"ment, eEcept a willp"rporting to conve# or aBect registered land sall ta+e eBect as aconve#ance or bind te land, b"t sall operate onl# as a contract betweente parties and as evidence o a"torit# to te 'egister o Deeds to ma+eregistration.

(e act o registration sall be te operative act to conve# or aBect teland insoar as tird persons are concerned, and in all cases "nder tis

Decree, te registration sall be made in te oce o te 'egister o Deedsor te province or cit# were te land lies.

3ection 5$. )onstr"ctive notice "pon registration. ver# conve#ance,mortgage, lease, lien, attacment, order, :"dgment, instr"ment or entr#aBecting registered land sall, i registered, fled or entered in te oce o te 'egister o Deeds or te province or cit# were te land to wic it


30/483

relates lies, be constr"ctive notice to all persons rom te time o s"cregistering, fling or entering.

(ese provisions encaps"late te r"le tat doc"ments, li+e tecertifcates o title do not eBect a conve#ance o or enc"mbrances on a

parcel o land. %egistration is the operative act that conveysownership or aects the land insofar as third persons areconcerned. # virt"e o registration, a constr"ctive notice to te woleworld o s"c vol"ntar# or invol"ntar# instr"ment or co"rt writ or processes,is tereb# created.

(e )o"rt is t"s bec+oned to r"le on two conVicting rigts over tes"b:ect properties< the right of the 5entanillas to ac$uire the title to theregistered land from the moment of inscription of the notice of levy on teda# boo+ or entr# boo+, on one andJ and the right of the "aberons to rely on what appears on the certicate of title for purposes of voluntary dealings

with the same parcel of land, on te oter.

(e 3aberons maintain tat te# ad no notice o an# deect,irreg"larit# or enc"mbrance in te titles o te propert# te# p"rcased. Anits decision, owever, te '() pointed o"t tat teir s"spicion so"ld avebeen aro"sed b# te circ"mstance tat *ar/"ez, wo was not engaged inte b"#2and2sell b"siness and ad te propert# or onl# a ew monts, wo"ldoBer te same or sale. lto"g te '() o"nd tat te 3aberons ma# notbe considered as innocent p"rcasers or val"e beca"se o tiscirc"mstance, it, noneteless, r"led tat te#, wo migt well be "nwillingvictims o te ra"d"lent sceme emplo#ed b# *')A and *ar/"ez, were

entitled to act"al and compensator# damages.

To t6is latter >nding# t6e Court agrees. T6e /aberons could notbe said to 6ave aut6ored t6e entanglement t6e3 found t6emselvesin. No fault can be attributed to t6em for rel3ing on t6e face of t6etitle presented b3 Marue!. T6is is bolstered b3 t6e fact t6at t6eRTC decision s6o"s no categorical >nding t6at t6e /aberonsKpurc6ase of t6e lots from Marue! "as tainted "it6 bad fait6. (atte 3aberons so"ld ave arbored do"bts against *ar/"ez is too high astandard to impose on a b"#er o titled land. (is is in consonance to te r"letat te one wo deals wit propert# registered "nder te (orrens s#stem is

carged wit notice onl# o s"c b"rdens and claims as are annotated on tetitle. ll persons dealing wit propert# covered b# (orrens certifcate o titleare not re/"ired to eEplore "rter tan wat te (orrens title "pon its aceindicates in /"est or an# idden deect or incoate rigt tat ma#s"bse/"entl# deeat is rigt tereto. (ese r"les remain as essentialeat"res o te (orrens s#stem. (e present case does not entail amodifcation or overt"rning o tese principles.


31/483

e tat as it ma#, no a"lt can li+ewise be imp"ted to te entanillas.At as alread# been establised in te two previo"s cases decided b# te)o"rt tat te contracts to sell eEec"ted in avor o te entanillas are validand s"bsisting. )learl#, it as been acknowledged, even b# *')A, as can beseen in te latter;s own coice to onl# /"estion teir solidar# liabilit# in te

1990 case and its ail"re to assign te same as an error in te 199- case. Ante same vein, te iss"e on *ar/"ez;s title ad already been passed uponand settled in te 199- case. That he purchased the lots prior to theannotation of the notice of levy in 3#)Is title was of no moment. An act, te)o"rt eEplicitl# declared tat *')A;s transaction wit *ar/"ez Qcannotprevail over te fnal and eEec"tor# :"dgment ordering *')A to eEec"te anabsol"te deed o sale in avor o te entanillas.Q

(ese avorable fndings prompted te entanillas to register tenotice o lev# on te properties. (e records sow tat on te strengt o afnal and eEec"tor# decision b# te )o"rt, te# s"ccess"ll# obtained a writ

o eEec"tion rom te '() and a notice o lev# was ten entered, albeit onte primar# entr# boo+ onl#. (e contract to sell to *ar/"ez was registeredon *a# $1, 1991, wile te notice o lev# was iss"ed ten 10 da#s later, oron *a# %1, 1991. An !ebr"ar# 199$, *')A eEec"ted te Deed o 3ale wit*ar/"ez, "nder wose name te clean titles, sans te notice o lev#, wereiss"ed. #ear later, or on *arc 11, 199$, *')A registered te deed o saleto *ar/"ez wo later sold te same propert# to te 3aberons.

(is compleE sit"ation co"ld ave been avoided i it were not or teail"re o 'OD )leoe to carr# over te notice o lev# to *ar/"ez;s title,serving as a senior enc"mbrance tat migt ave diss"aded te 3aberons

rom p"rcasing te properties.

Distinctions between a contract to sell and a contract o sale are well2establised in :"rispr"dence. n a contract of sale# t6e vendor loseso"ners6ip over t6e propert3 and cannot recover it until and unlesst6e contract is resolved or rescinded7 "6ereas# in a contract to sell#title is retained b3 t6e vendor until full pa3ment of t6e price. An telatter contract, pa#ment o te price is a positive s"spensive condition,ail"re o wic is not a breac b"t an event tat prevents te obligation o te vendor to conve# title rom becoming eBective.

At is "ndeniable, tereore, tat no title was transferred to 3ar$ue* upon the annotation of the contract to sell on 3#)Is title. s correctl# o"ndb# te trial co"rt, te contract to sell cannot be s"bstit"ted b# te Deed o bsol"te 3ale as a Qmere concl"sionQ o te previo"s contract since teowners o te properties "nder te two instr"ments are diBerent.


32/483

Considering t6at t6e deed of sale in favor of Marue! "as of later registration# t6e notice of lev3 s6ould 6ave been carried overto t6e title as a senior encumbrance.

)orollar# to tis is te r"le tat a lev# o a :"dgment debtor creates a

lien, wic noting can s"bse/"entl# destro# eEcept te ver# dissol"tion o te attacment o te lev# itsel. 4rior registration o te lien creates apreerence, since te act o registration is te operative act to conve# andaBect te land. "rispr"dence dictates tat te said lien continues until thedebt is paid, or te sale is ad "nder an eEec"tion iss"ed on te :"dgment or"ntil te :"dgment is satisfed, or te attacment is discarged or vacated inte same manner provided b# law. ?nder no law, not even 4.D. No. 15$9, is itstated tat an attacment sall be discarged "pon sale o te propert#oter tan "nder eEec"tion.

dditionall#, 'ection 5 o 4.D. No. 15$9 undoubtedly speaks of the

ministerial duty on the part of the #egister of 6eeds to carry over existing encumbrances to the certicates of title.

!rom te oregoing, 'OD )leoe;s teor# tat a deed o sale, as a mereconcl"sion o a contract to sell, t"rns into a senior enc"mbrance wic ma#s"rpass a notice o lev#, as no leg to stand on. At was, in act, properl#re:ected b# te co"rts a /"o. 5erily, the controversy at hand arose not fromthe 5entanillas fault, but from #!6 )leofes misplaced understanding of hisduty under the law.

3"rel#, te entanillas had every right to presume that the #egister of

6eeds would carry over the notice of levy to s"bse/"ent titles covering tes"b:ect properties. (e notice was registered precisel# to bind te propertiesand to serve as ca"tion to tird persons wo migt potentiall# deal wit tepropert# "nder te c"stod# o te law.

=ile te )o"rt is not "nmind"l tat a b"#er is carged wit noticeonl# o s"c b"rdens and claims as are annotated on te title, te '() andte ) are bot correct in appl#ing te r"le as to te eBects o invol"ntar#registration. An cases o vol"ntar# registration o doc"ments, an innocentp"rcaser or val"e o registered land becomes te registered owner, and, incontemplation o law te older o a certifcate o title, te moment e

presents and fles a d"l# notarized and valid deed o sale and te same isentered in te da# boo+ and at te same time e s"rrenders or presents teownerCs d"plicate certifcate o title covering te land sold and pa#s teregistration ees, beca"se wat remains to be done lies not witin is powerto perorm. (e 'egister o Deeds is d"t#2bo"nd to perorm it. An cases o invol"ntar# registration, an entr# tereo in te da# boo+ is a s"cient noticeto all persons even i te ownerCs d"plicate certifcate o title is not presentedto te register o deeds. *herefore, in the registration of an


33/483

attachment, levy upon e7ecution, notice of lis pendens, and the li


34/483

)onse/"entl#, rticle --& in relation to rticle 5-6 o te )ivil )ode willappl#. (e provisions respectivel# read<

rticle --&. (e owner o te land on wic an#ting as been b"ilt, sow or

planted in good ait, sall ave te rigt to appropriate, as is own tewor+s, sowing, or planting, ater pa#ment o te indemnit# provided or inrticle 5-6 and 5-&, or to oblige te one wo b"ilt or planted to pa# te priceo te land, and te one wo sowed, te proper rent. owever, te b"ilder orplanter cannot be obliged to b"# te land and i its val"e is considerabl#more tan tat o te b"ilding or trees. An s"c case, e sall pa# reasonablerent, i te owner o te land does not coose to appropriate te b"ilding ortrees ater proper indemnit#. (e parties sall agree "pon te terms o telease and in case disagreement, te co"rt sall fE te terms tereo.

rticle 5-6. Necessar# eEpenses sall be re"nded to ever# possessorJ b"t

onl# te possessor in good ait ma# retain te ting "ntil e as beenreimb"rsed tereore.

?se"l eEpenses sall be re"nded onl# to te possessor in good ait witte same rigt o retention, te person wo as deeated im in tepossession aving te option o re"nding te amo"nt o te eEpenses or o pa#ing te increase in val"e wic te ting ma# ave ac/"ired b# reasontereo.

("s 2 (wo options available to te entanillas<

1 te# ma# eEercise te rigt to appropriate ater pa#ment o indemnit#representing te val"e o te improvements introd"ced and te necessar#and "se"l eEpenses dera#ed on te s"b:ect lotsJ or$ te# ma# orego pa#ment o te said indemnit# and instead, oblige te3aberons to pa# te price o te land.

)onse/"ences<1. 3o"ld te entanillas elect to appropriate te improvements, t6e trialcourt is ordered to determine t6e value of t6e improvements andt6e necessar3 and useful eDpenses ater earing and reception o evidence.

3o"ld te entanillas, owever, p"rs"e te option to oblige te 3aberons topa# te Qprice o te land,Q te trial court is ordered to determine saidprice to be paid to t6e Fentanillas.

Depending on te option eEercised b# te entanillas, te )o"rtremanded te case to te co"rt o origin or "rter proceedings as to tedetermination o reimb"rsement d"e to te petitioners or o te QpriceQ o te s"b:ect lots d"e te entanillas.


35/483

Topic: EDtinguis6ment of iabilit3Ponente: Mariano 2el Castillo

Jacinto v. $umaru# Jr.#$.R. No. %'%')0# June *# *)%,

acts: An December $00-, a decision was rendered in avor o F"mar" in acertain Labor )ase. 4etitioner acinto posted an appeal wic was notperectedJ ence, te said decision attained fnalit#. s a res"lt, a writ o eEec"tion was iss"ed and properties o petitioner were levied.

(is act was callenged b# elevating te case to te )o"rt o ppeals.4etitioner alleges tat te petition was "nsigned and "nverifed b# te

complainant imsel b"t onl# b# co"nsel, and t"s is a :"risdictional infrmit#.

ssue: =eter or not 4etitioner;s contention co"ld be given wa#.

/C: No.

T6e case 6as been rendered moot and academic. =ile te)o"rt ta+es te petitionerCs side wit regard to te proced"ral iss"e dealingwit verifcation and te certifcation against or"m sopping, it nonetelessappears tat te 4etition as been overta+en b# events. An a *a# $-, $011*aniestation, respondent inormed tis )o"rt tat t6e udgment a"ard6as been satis>ed in full. (e petitioner does not disp"te tis claim, inwic case, t6e labor case is no" deemed ended. At is aEiomatic tatater a :"dgment as been "ll# satisfed, te case is deemed terminatedonce and or all.

86en a udgment 6as been satis>ed# it passes be3ond revie",satisaction being te last act and te end o te proceedings, and pa#mentor satisaction o te obligation tereb# establised prod"ces permanent and


36/483

irrevocable discargeJ ence, a :"dgment debtor wo ac/"iesces to andvol"ntaril# complies wit te :"dgment is estopped rom ta+ing an appealtererom.

=it te above development in te case, t6e instant Petition isrendered moot and academic. (e satisaction o te :"dgment in "ll as

placed te case be#ond te )o"rtCs review. Andeed, tere are no moreproceedings to spea+ o inasm"c as tese were terminated b# tesatisaction o te :"dgment.

Topic: Co-5"ners6ip v. Conugal Partners6ipPonente: +rturo Brion

PNB v. $arcia# et al.$.R. no. %@*@


37/483

119 o te )ivil )ode. ?nder rticle 160 o te )ivil )ode, all propert3 of t6e marriage is presumed to belong to t6e conugal partners6ip#unless it can be proven t6at it pertains eDclusivel3 to t6e 6usbandor to t6e "ife.

?pon te deat o Liga#a on an"ar# $1, 19&7, te con:"galpartnersip was a"tomaticall# dissolved and terminated p"rs"ant to rticle1751 o te )ivil )ode, and te s"ccessional rigts o er eirs vest, asprovided "nder rticle 777 o te )ivil )ode, wic states tat Gte rigts tote s"ccession are transmitted rom te moment o te deat o tedecedent.H

)onse/"entl#, t6e conugal partners6ip "as converted into animplied ordinar3 co-o"ners6ip bet"een t6e surviving spouse# on t6eone 6and# and t6e 6eirs of t6e deceased# on t6e ot6er.

(e law provides tat eac co2owner as te "ll ownersip o is partor sare in te co2ownersip and ma#, tereore, alienate, assign ormortgage it eEcept wen personal rigts are involved. 3o"ld a co2owneralienate or mortgage te co2owned propert# itsel, te alienation ormortgage sall remain valid b"t onl# to te eEtent o te portion wic ma#be allotted to im in te division "pon te termination o te co2ownersip.

An te present case, ose 3r. constit"ted te mortgage overte entire s"b:ect propert# ater te deat o Liga#a, b"t beore teli/"idation o te con:"gal partnersip. =ile "nder rticle -9% o te )ivil)ode, even i e ad te rigt to reel# mortgage or even sell is "ndivided

interest in te disp"ted propert#, e co"ld not dispose o or mortgage teentire propert# wito"t is cildren;s consent. s correctl# empasized b#te trial co"rt, ose 3r.;s rigt in te s"b:ect propert# is limited onl3 to 6iss6are in t6e conugal partners6ip as "ell as 6is s6are as an 6eir ont6e ot6er 6alf of t6e estate "6ic6 is 6is deceased spouseKs s6are .ccordingl#, te mortgage contract is void insoar as it eEtends to te"ndivided sares o is cildren Nora, ose r., obb# and imm# beca"sete# did not give teir consent to te transaction.


38/483

Topics: Propert37 +ction for Reconve3ance7 Fested Rig6tPonente: 2iosdado Peralta

Campos v. 5rtega

$.R. no. %&%*@0# June *# *)%,

acts: 4laintiB )ampos is a lessee o a b"ilding constr"cted on governmentlands. An 1977, ater a cens"s, te# were /"alifed as bona fde occ"pantswic operated to te eBect tat i te# co"ld b"# te b"ilding te# wereleased, ten te# wo"ld be awarded te said lot. Negotiations ens"ed.

An 19&& owever, plaintiB learned tat te propert# as alread# beenawarded to erein respondents and tat a deed o absol"te sale waseEec"ted between respondents and )larita olo#, owner o te leasedb"ilding. (is appened despite te act tat d"ring te said initial meeting

or te negotiations, plaintiB was given one mont to eEercise te option o b"#ing te propert#. 4laintiB, tr" er representative, in/"ired wit teNational o"sing "torit# N and /"estioned te award o te lot todeendants wo are dis/"alifed or not aving been d"l# cens"sed eiter asrenters or sarers, and also te matter regarding te alteration te lotn"mber act"all# being occ"pied b# plaintiB. ence, tis reco"rse.

ssue: =eter or not plaintiB as a vested rigt over te propert#, wic, in


39/483

te armative, wo"ld render te award to respondents void.

/C: No.

+ censused o"ner "it6 assigned N=+ tag number acuired no

vested rig6t over t6e subect propert3. =ile it is tr"e tat Nrecognizes plaintiB as te cens"sed owner o te str"ct"re b"ilt on te lot,te iss"ance o te tag n"mber is not a g"arantee or lot allocation. 4laintiB ad petitioned te N or te award to er o te lot se is occ"p#ing.owever, te cens"s, tagging, and plaintiBCs petition, did not vest "pon er alegal title to te lot se was occ"p#ing, b"t a mere eEpectanc# tat te lotwill be awarded to er. (e eEpectanc# did not ripen into a legal title.

vested rigt is one tat is absolute# complete and unconditionaland no obstacle eDists to its eEercise. At is immediate and perect in itsel and not dependent "pon an# contingenc#. (o be vested, a rigt m"st ave

become a title @ legal or e/"itable @ to te present or "t"re en:o#ment o propert#.

T6e appropriate legal remed3 t6at petitioner s6ould 6aveavailed is an action for reconve3ance. 4roo o act"al ra"d is notre/"ired as it ma# be fled even wen no ra"d intervened s"c as wentere is mista+e in incl"ding te land or registration.

?nder te principle o constr"ctive tr"st, registration o propert# b# oneperson in is name, weter b# mista+e or ra"d, te real owner beinganoter person, impresses "pon te title so ac/"ired te caracter o a

constr"ctive tr"st or te real owner, wic wo"ld :"sti# an action orreconve#ance. An te action or reconve#ance, te decree o registration isrespected as incontrovertible b"t wat is so"gt instead is te transer o tepropert# wrong"ll# or erroneo"sl# registered in anoterCs name to its rigt"lowner or to one wit a better rigt. A te registration o te land isra"d"lent, te person in wose name te land is registered olds it as amere tr"stee, and te real owner is entitled to fle an action orreconve#ance o te propert#.


40/483

Topic: /ale

Ponente: Presbitero Felasco# Jr.

Rebusuillo# et al v. /ps. $ualve!# et al.$.R. No. *),)*'# June ,# *)%,

acts: "lalio died intestate on "l# %, 196-, s"rvived b# is wie ictoria,siE legitimate cildren, and one illegitimate cild. (e# are erein petitionersand respondents. 4etitioner velina was s"pposedl# made to sign two $doc"ments b# er da"gter and er son2in2law, erein respondents on tepreteEt tat te doc"ments were needed to acilitate te titling o te lot. Atwas onl# in $00%, so petitioners claim, tat velina realized tat wat se

signed was an davit o 3el2d:"dication and a Deed o bsol"te 3ale inavor o respondents.

velina so"gt te intervention o te '() to declare n"ll and void tetwo $ doc"ments and to correct te in:"stice done to te oter eirs o "lalio. ssue: =eter or not te deed o sale is valid.


41/483

/C: No.

At is apparent rom te admissions o respondents and te records o tis case tat +velina 6ad no intention to transfer t6e o"ners6ip# of

"6atever eDtent# over t6e propert3 to respondents. ence, te Deedo bsol"te 3ale is noting more tan a simulated contract.

An absol"te sim"lation, tere is a colorable contract b"t it as nos"bstance as te parties ave no intention to be bo"nd b# it. (e maincaracteristic o an absol"te sim"lation is tat te apparent contract is notreall# desired or intended to prod"ce legal eBect or in an# wa# alter te :"ridical sit"ation o te parties. s a res"lt, an absol"tel# sim"lated orfctitio"s contract is void, and te parties ma# recover rom eac oter watte# ma# ave given "nder te contract. owever, i te parties state a alseca"se in te contract to conceal teir real agreement, te contract is

relativel# sim"lated and te parties are still bo"nd b# teir real agreement.ence, were te essential re/"isites o a contract are present and tesim"lation reers onl# to te content or terms o te contract, te agreementis absol"tel# binding and enorceable between te parties and teirs"ccessors in interest.

An te present case, te tr"e intention o te parties in te eEec"tion o te Deed o bsol"te 3ale is immediatel# apparent rom respondents; ver#own nswer to petitioners; )omplaint. s respondents temselvesac+nowledge# t6e purpose of t6e 2eed of +bsolute /ale "as simpl3 tofacilitate t6e titling of t6e subect propert3# not to transer teownersip o te lot to tem. !"rtermore, respondents concede tat

petitioner 3alvador remains in possession o te propert# and tat tere is noindication tat respondents ever too+ possession o te s"b:ect propert#ater its s"pposed p"rcase. 3"c ail"re to ta+e eEcl"sive possession o tes"b:ect propert# or, in te alternative, to collect rentals rom its possessor, iscontrar# to te principle o ownersip and is a clear badge o sim"lation tatrenders te wole transaction void.

(e act tat te /"estioned Deed o bsol"te 3ale was red"ced towriting and notarized does not accord it te /"alit# o incontrovertibilit#oterwise provided b# te parole evidence r"le. (e orm o a contract doesnot ma+e an oterwise sim"lated and invalid act valid.


42/483

Topic: +lienable andsPonente: Jose Catral Mendo!a

Republic v. /ese# et al.$.R. No. %@()'*# June *# *)%,

acts: An $00$, respondents fled wit te *() an application or originalregistration o land over a parcel sit"ated in 4"lilan "lacan. 'espondentsalleged tat on "l# $$, 197$, te# ac/"ired, tro"g a donation inter vivos

rom teir moter, te s"b:ect agric"lt"ral landJ tat te#, tro"g teirpredecessors2in2interest, ad been in possession o te s"b:ect propert#J andtat te propert# was not witin a reservation.

s part o teir evidence, te# s"bmitted a s"rve# plan certifed b# te"rea" o !orestr# stated tat it is o"tside an# civil or militar# reservation.


43/483

(e O3F interposed an appeal and arg"ed tat tere was no proo tatte s"b:ect propert# was alread# segregated rom inalienable lands o tep"blic domain. eril#, it was onl# rom te date o declaration o s"c landsas alienable and disposable tat te period or co"nting te stat"tor#re/"irement o possession wo"ld start. lso, tere was absol"tel# no proo o

respondents; s"pposed possession o te s"b:ect propert#.

ssue: =eter or not te land is alienable and disposable.

/C: No.

!or te original registration o title, te applicant m"st overcome tepres"mption tat te land so"gt to be registered orms part o te p"blicdomain. nless public land is s6o"n to 6ave been reclassi>ed oralienated to a private person b3 t6e /tate# it remains part of t6einalienable public domain. Andeed, Qocc"pation tereo in te concept o

owner, no matter ow long, cannot ripen into ownersip and be registered asa title.Q (o overcome s"c pres"mption, incontrovertible evidence m"st besown b# te applicant. bsent s"c evidence, te land so"gt to beregistered remains inalienable.

An te present case, petitioners cite a s"rve#or geodetic engineer;snotation indicating tat te s"rve# was inside alienable and disposable land.3"c notation does not constit"te a positive government act validl# cangingte classifcation o te land in /"estion. eril## a mere surve3or 6as noaut6orit3 to reclassif3 lands of t6e public domain . # rel#ing solel# onte said s"rve#or;s assertion, petitioners ave not s"cientl# proven tatte land in /"estion as been declared alienable.Q

T6e burden of proof in overcoming t6e presumption of /tateo"ners6ip of t6e lands of t6e public domain is on t6e personappl3ing for registration or claiming ownersip, wo m"st prove tatte land s"b:ect o te application is alienable or disposable. (o overcometis pres"mption, incontrovertible evidence m"st be establised tat teland s"b:ect o te application or claim is alienable or disposable. (eapplicant m"st establis te eEistence o a positive act o te governments"c as a presidential proclamation or an eEec"tive orderJ an administrativeactionJ investigation reports o "rea" o Lands investigatorsJ or a legislativeact or a stat"te. (e applicant ma# also sec"re a certifcation rom tegovernment tat te land claimed to ave been possessed or te re/"iredn"mber o #ears is alienable and disposable.


44/483

Topic: Reconstitution ProceedingsPonente: Jose Catral Mendo!a

Paulino# et al. v. Court of +ppeals# et al.$.R. no *)()0(# June ,# *)%,

acts: (e late )elso !ernandez p"rcased, in a p"blic a"ction cond"cted b#te I"ezon )it# government, a real propert# owned and registered in tename o Lolita F. avier avier,married to 4edro avier, as evidenced b# acertifcate o sale o delin/"ent propert#. (e s"b:ect propert# appeared tobe covered b# an owner;s d"plicate o ()( No. %01617 o te I)'D.

ter is deat, te s"rviving eirs o )elso !ernandez eEec"ted an


45/483

Etra2"dicial 3ettlement o state wit bsol"te 3ale covering te s"b:ectpropert#, selling it in avor o te petitioners, spo"ses ergel L. 4a"lino and)iremia 4a"lino 3po"ses 4a"lino,or a consideration o 41,&05,000.00.

On "ne 11, 19&&, a fre bro+e o"t in te I"ezon )it# all wic b"rneda portion tereo wic incl"ded te oce o te I)'D.

)onse/"entl#, on *arc 9, $010, 3po"ses 4a"lino fled a petition orreconstit"tion o te original cop# o ()( No. %01617 wit te '(), allegingtat its original cop# was among tose titles tat were razed d"ring te fre.

*eanwile, on "g"st 17, $010, te '() received te L''eport, stating tat ()( No. %01617was registered in te name o a certainmma . !lorendo and tat it was previo"sl# te s"b:ect o an application oradministrative reconstit"tion. At was also discovered tat te original cop# o te title on fle in te 'egistr# o Deeds was among tose saved titles romte fre tat g"tted te oce o I)'D on "ne 11, 19&&.

(e case was appealed to te ) and te decision o te '() was laterann"lledJ ence, tis reco"rse.

ssue: =eter or not te '() lac+ed :"risdiction over te petition orreconstit"tion.

/C: >es.

T6e governing la" for udicial reconstitution of title is R.+. No.*0. (e ollowing m"st be present or an order or reconstit"tion to iss"e<

a tat te certifcate o title ad been lost or destro#edJb tat te doc"ments presented b# petitioner are s"cient andproper to warrant te reconstit"tion o te lost or destro#ed certifcateo titleJ

c tat te petitioner is te registered owner o te propert# or ad aninterest tereinJ

d tat te certifcate o title was in orce at te time it was lost anddestro#edJ and

e tat te description, area and bo"ndaries o te propert# ares"bstantiall# te same as tose contained in te lost or destro#edcertifcate o title.

An reconstit"tion proceedings, te )o"rt as repeatedl# r"led tatbefore urisdiction over t6e case can be validl3 acuired# it is acondition sine uo non t6at t6e certi>cate of title 6as not beenissued to anot6er person. A a certifcate o title as not been lost b"t is inact in te possession o anoter person, te reconstit"ted title is void andte co"rt rendering te decision as not ac/"ired :"risdiction over tepetition or iss"ance o new title. (e co"rts simpl# ave no :"risdiction over


46/483

petitions b# s"c tird parties or reconstit"tion o allegedl# lost ordestro#ed titles over lands tat are alread# covered b# d"l# iss"ed s"bsistingtitles in te names o teir d"l# registered owners. (e eEistence o a priortitle ipso acto n"llifes te reconstit"tion proceedings. (e proper reco"rse isto assail directl# in a proceeding beore te regional trial co"rt te validit# o

te (orrens title alread# iss"ed to te oter person.An te case at benc, te ) o"nd tat te '() lac+ed :"risdiction to

order te reconstit"tion o te original cop# o ()( No. %01617, tere beingno lost or destro3ed title over te s"b:ect real propert#, te respondentaving d"l# proved tat ()( No. %01617 was in te name o a diBerentowner, !lorendo, and te tecnical description appearing on tat ()( No.%01617 was similar to te tecnical description appearing in Lot 9%9, 4iedadstate covered b# ()( No. '(255&69 -$5%$ in te name o ntonino. An act, ()( No. '(255&69 -$5%$ was alread# cancelled b# ()( Nos. $967$5 to$967$& also in te name o ntonino. (e )o"rt, t"s, fnds no reversibleerror in te fndings o te ).

Topic: 2amagesPonente: +rturo Brion

Princess Jo3 Placement and $eneral /ervices# nc. v. Binalla#$.R. No. %'&))(# June ,# *)%,


47/483

acts: inalla, a registered n"rse, alleged tat in pril $00$, e applied oremplo#ment wit 4rincess o# wo reerred im to 'eginaldo 4ag"io and)#ntia Latea or processing o is papers. ter completing is doc"mentar#re/"irements, e was toldtat e wo"ld be deplo#ed to l dwani. On pril1$, $00$, e signed a o"r2#ear contract wit l dwani as staB n"rse. e

paid Latea 4-,500.00 and 4ag"io, 4%,000.00, alto"g no receipts wereiss"ed to im. Later, e was given a telegram noti#ing im o is depart"reon pril 19, $00$.

inalla "rter alleged tat on te da# o is depart"re, 4ag"io met imat te airport and gave im a cop# o is emplo#ment contract, plane tic+et,passport, a cop# o is Overseas mplo#ment )ertifcate rom te 4ilippineOverseas mplo#ment dministration 4O and oter doc"ments. At wasonl# ater boarding is 3a"di rabia irlines plane tat e eEamined ispapers and discovered tat )* was is deplo#ing agenc#. ?nder tecontract certifed b# te 4O, is salar# was s"pposed to be ?3P550.00 ortwent#2o"r $- monts or or two #ears.

inalla also saw tat "nder te o"r2#ear contract e signed, ismontl# salar# was onl# 1,500 3a"di 'i#als 3' e/"ivalent to P-00. ewor+ed "nder is contract or onl# two #ears and ret"rned to te 4ilippinesin pril $00- ater posting a bond o 3' %,000.00, s"pposedl# to g"aranteetat e wo"ld come bac+ to fnis is contract. e opted not to ret"rn andfle a complaint against erein petitioner and claims among oter, damages.

ssue: =eter or not respondent is entitled to damages.

/C: ;es.

ter an eEamination o te acts s"bstantial evidence sows tatinalla was emplo#ed b# l dwani in 3a"di rabia tro"g a ra"d"lentsceme or arrangement, called QreprocessingQ or oterwise, participated inb# 4rincess o#. ?nder te circ"mstances, 4rincess o# is as liable as )* andl dwani or te contract s"bstit"tion, no matter ow it tries to avoidliabilit# b# disclaiming an# participation in te recr"itment and deplo#mento inalla to l dwani. s a res"lt e is legall# entitled to te award o damages.

owever, te )o"rt o"nd te award o damages to inallao 4500,000.00 in moral damages and P())#))).)) in eDemplar3

damages eDcessive. =ile 4rincess o#, )* and l dwani were complicitin te s"bstit"tion o inalla;s emplo#ment contract wic res"lted in teviolation o is rigts as an overseas !ilipino wor+er# t6e a"ard of damages is unusuall3 6ig6# an a"ard t6at even t6e Court does notmete out in labor cases. ?nder te circ"mstances, an awardo 450,000.00 in moral damages and 450,000.00 in eEemplar# damages toinalla to be appropriate.Topic: 2amages


48/483

Ponente: 2iosdado Peralta

McMer Corporation nc.# et al. vs. NRC# et al.$.R. No. %'


49/483

constructivel3 dismissed from emplo3ment.

At cannot be gainsaid tat private respondent "as unustl3 treatedin t6e "or?place# and# conseuentl3# bore "ounded feelings andsuered mental anguis6 d"ring is ten"re wit petitioner *c*er "ntil e

was constructivel3 dismissed from service. ("s, te )o"rt "peld tegrant o moral, eEemplar# and nominal damages in te aggregate amo"nt o 490,000.00 in avor o private respondent d"e to te wanton, oppressive andmalevolent manner b# wic private respondent was illegall# andconstr"ctivel# terminated.

n moral damages# it suOces to prove t6at t6e claimant 6assuered anDiet3# sleepless nig6ts# besmirc6ed reputation and social6umiliation b3 reason of t6e act complained of . Eemplar# damages,on te oter and, are granted in addition to, inter alia, moral damages Gb#wa# o eEample or correction or te p"blic goodH i te emplo#er Gacted in a

wanton, ra"d"lent, rec+less, oppressive or malevolent manners.H


50/483

Topic: 2amages

Ponente: Mariano 2el Castillo

J5/E E/PNE +.G.+. 2+N5 E/PNE v. PE5PE 5 T=EP=PPNE/ $.R. No. %&'(


51/483

oter doc"mentar# evidence. (e ) did not grant an# award o damages or loss o earning

capacit# and rigtl# so. (o"g 3abina testifed as to te montl# salar# o te deceased, te same remains "ns"bstantiated. G3"c indemnit# cannotbe awarded in te absence o doc"mentar# evidence eEcept were te

victim was eiter sel2emplo#ed or a dail# wage wor+er earning less tan teminim"m wage "nder c"rrent labor laws.H (e eEceptions fnd no applicationin tis case.

An addition and in conormit# wit c"rrent polic#, an interest at telegal rate o 6U per annum is imposed on all te monetar# awards ordamages rom date o fnalit# o tis :"dgment "ntil "ll# paid.


52/483

Topic: +ctual 2amagesPonente: Mariano 2el Castillo

C6arles Bumagat# et al. vs. Regalado +rriba3 C6arles Bumagat# et al.vs. Regalado +rriba3$.R No. %',@%@# June '# *)%,

acts: 4etitioners fled a complaint or orcible entr# against respondent

beore te $nd *"nicipal )irc"it (rial )o"rt *)() o )abagan2Delfn lbano,Asabela. An an mended )omplaint, petitioners alleged tat on *a# 9, $005,respondent @ wit te aid o armed goons, and tro"g te "se o intimidation and treats o p#sical arm @ entered te s"b:ect parcels o land and o"sted tem rom teir law"l possession. 3"bse/"entl#,respondent ten too+ over te p#sical possession and c"ltivation o teseparcels o land. eca"se o tat, petitioners inc"rred losses and in:"ries b#wa# o lost arvests

Date post:	06-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jordan-tumayan
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Barops Civil

Documents