November 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Civil Law

Posted on December 6, 2013 Posted in Civil Law, Philippines - Cases,

Philippines - Law
Here are select ovember 2013 r!lin"s o# the $!preme Co!rt o# the Philippines on
civil law%
CIVIL COD
Contracts& bindin" e##ect' (t is hornboo) doctrine in the law on contracts that the
parties are bo!nd b* the stip!lations, cla!ses, terms and conditions the* have
a"reed to provided that s!ch stip!lations, cla!ses, terms and conditions are not
contrar* to law, morals, p!blic order or p!blic polic*' Consolidated Industrial
Gases, Inc. v. Alabang Medical Center, +',' o' 1-1.-3, ovember 13, 2013'
Contracts& breach o#& when moral dama"es ma* be awarded' (n Francisco v.
Ferrer,this Co!rt r!led that moral dama"es ma* be awarded on the #ollowin"
bases%
/o recover moral dama"es in an action #or breach o# contract, the breach m!st be
palpabl* wanton, rec)less, malicio!s, in bad #aith, oppressive or ab!sive'
0nder the provisions o# this law, in c!lpa contract!al or breach o# contract, moral
dama"es ma* be recovered when the de#endant acted in bad #aith or was "!ilt* o#
"ross ne"li"ence 1amo!ntin" to bad #aith2 or in wanton disre"ard o# his contract!al
obli"ation and, e3ceptionall*, when the act o# breach o# contract itsel# is
constit!tive o# tort res!ltin" in ph*sical in4!ries'
5oral dama"es ma* be awarded in breaches o# contracts where the de#endant
acted #ra!d!lentl* or in bad #aith'
6ad #aith does not simpl* connote bad 4!d"ment or ne"li"ence, it imports a
dishonest p!rpose or some moral obli7!it* and conscio!s doin" o# a wron", a
breach o# )nown d!t* thro!"h some motive or interest or ill will that parta)es o#
the nat!re o# #ra!d'
/he person claimin" moral dama"es m!st prove the e3istence o# bad #aith b* clear
and convincin" evidence #or the law alwa*s pres!mes "ood #aith' (t is not eno!"h
that one merel* s!##ered sleepless ni"hts, mental an"!ish, serio!s an3iet* as the
res!lt o# the act!ations o# the other part*' (nvariabl* s!ch action m!st be shown to
have been will#!ll* done in bad #aith or will ill motive' 5ere alle"ations o#
besmirched rep!tation, embarrassment and sleepless ni"hts are ins!##icient to
warrant an award #or moral dama"es' (t m!st be shown that the pro3imate ca!se
thereo# was the !nlaw#!l act or omission o# the 8private respondent9 petitioners'
:n award o# moral dama"es wo!ld re7!ire certain conditions to be met, to wit% 112
#irst, there m!st be an in4!r*, whether ph*sical, mental or ps*cholo"ical, clearl*
s!stained b* the claimant& 122 second, there m!st be c!lpable act or omission
#act!all* established& 132 third, the wron"#!l act or omission o# the de#endant is the
pro3imate ca!se o# the in4!r* s!stained b* the claimant& and 1;2 #o!rth, the award
o# dama"es is predicated on an* o# the cases stated in :rticle 221. o# the Civil
Code' Alejandro V. Tankeh v. Developent !ank o" the #hilippines, et al', +','
o' 1<1;2-, ovember 11, 2013'
Contracts& breach o#& dama"es& e3emplar* dama"es& concept' =3emplar* dama"es
are disc!ssed in :rticle 222. o# the Civil Code, as #ollows%
:,/' 222.' =3emplar* or corrective dama"es are imposed, b* wa* o# e3ample or
correction o# the p!blic "ood, in addition to moral, temperate, li7!idated or
compensator* dama"es'
=3emplar* dama"es are #!rther disc!ssed in :rticles 2233 and 223;, partic!larl*
re"ardin" the pre-re7!isites o# ascertainin" moral dama"es and the #act that it is
discretionar* !pon this Co!rt to award them or not%
:,/' 2233' =3emplar* dama"es cannot be recovered as a matter o# ri"ht& the co!rt
will decide whether or not the* sho!ld be ad4!dicated'
:,/' 223;' >hile the amo!nt o# the e3emplar* dama"es need not be proven, the
plainti## m!st show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensator*
dama"es be#ore the co!rt ma* consider the 7!estion o# whether or not e3emplar*
dama"es sho!ld be awarded 3 3 3
/he p!rpose o# e3emplar* dama"es is to serve as a deterrent to #!t!re and
s!bse7!ent parties #rom the commission o# a similar o##ense' /he case o# #eople v.
$ante citin" #eople v. Dalisa% held that%
:lso )nown as ?p!nitive@ or ?vindictive@ dama"es, e3emplar* or corrective
dama"es are intended to serve as a deterrent to serio!s wron" doin"s, and as a
vindication o# !nd!e s!##erin"s and wanton invasion o# the ri"hts o# an in4!red or a
p!nishment #or those "!ilt* o# o!tra"eo!s cond!ct' /hese terms are "enerall*, b!t
not alwa*s, !sed interchan"eabl*' (n common law, there is pre#erence in the !se o#
e3emplar* dama"es when the award is to acco!nt #or in4!r* to #eelin"s and #or the
sense o# indi"nit* and h!miliation s!##ered b* a person as a res!lt o# an in4!r* that
has been malicio!sl* and wantonl* in#licted, the theor* bein" that there sho!ld be
compensation #or the h!rt ca!sed b* the hi"hl* reprehensible cond!ct o# the
de#endantAassociated with s!ch circ!mstances as will#!lness, wantonness, malice,
"ross ne"li"ence or rec)lessness, oppression, ins!lt or #ra!d or "ross #ra!dAthat
intensi#ies the in4!r*' /he terms p!nitive or vindictive dama"es are o#ten !sed to
re#er to those species o# dama"es that ma* be awarded a"ainst a person to p!nish
him #or his o!tra"eo!s cond!ct' (n either case, these dama"es are intended in "ood
meas!re to deter the wron"doer and others li)e him #rom similar cond!ct in the
#!t!re'
/o 4!sti#* an award #or e3emplar* dama"es, the wron"#!l act m!st be accompanied
b* bad #aith, and an award o# dama"es wo!ld be allowed onl* i# the "!ilt* part*
acted in a wanton, #ra!d!lent, rec)less or malevolent manner' Alejandro V. Tankeh
v. Developent !ank o" the #hilippines, et al', +',' o' 1<1;2-, ovember 11,
2013'
Contracts& #ra!d& concept& dolo incidente distin"!ished #rom dolo ca!sante' (n
&olidbank Corporation v. Mindanao Ferroallo% Corporation, et al.,this Co!rt
elaborated on the distinction between dolo ca!sante and dolo incidente% Bra!d
re#ers to all )inds o# deception A whether thro!"h insidio!s machination,
manip!lation, concealment or misrepresentation A that wo!ld lead an ordinaril*
pr!dent person into error a#ter ta)in" the circ!mstances into acco!nt' (n contracts,
a #ra!d )nown as dolo ca!sante or ca!sal #ra!d is basicall* a deception !sed b* one
part* prior to or sim!ltaneo!s with the contract, in order to sec!re the consent o#
the other' eedless to sa*, the deceit emplo*ed m!st be serio!s' (n
contradistinction, onl* some partic!lar or accident o# the obli"ation is re#erred to
b* incidental #ra!d or dolo incidente, or that which is not serio!s in character and
witho!t which the other part* wo!ld have entered into the contract an*wa*'
Alejandro V. Tankeh v. Developent !ank o" the #hilippines, et al', +',' o'
1<1;2-, ovember 11, 2013'
Contracts& #ra!d& dolo incidente and dolo ca!sante& e##ect on contracts'/he
distinction between #ra!d as a "ro!nd #or renderin" a contract voidable or as basis
#or an award o# dama"es is provided in :rticle 13;;% (n order that #ra!d ma* ma)e
a contract voidable, it sho!ld be serio!s and sho!ld not have been emplo*ed b*
both contractin" parties' (ncidental #ra!d onl* obli"es the person emplo*in" it to
pa* dama"es' 112<02 /here are two t*pes o# #ra!d contemplated in the per#ormance
o# contracts% dolo incidente or incidental #ra!d and dolo ca!sante or #ra!d serio!s
eno!"h to render a contract voidable'
/his #ra!d or dolo which is present or emplo*ed at the time o# birth or per#ection
o# a contract ma* either be dolo ca!sante or dolo incidente' /he #irst, or ca!sal
#ra!d re#erred to in :rticle 133-, are those deceptions or misrepresentations o# a
serio!s character emplo*ed b* one part* and witho!t which the other part* wo!ld
not have entered into the contract' Dolo incidente, or incidental #ra!d which is
re#erred to in :rticle 13;;, are those which are not serio!s in character and witho!t
which the other part* wo!ld still have entered into the contract' Dolo ca!sante
determines or is the essential ca!se o# the consent, while dolo incidente re#ers onl*
to some partic!lar or accident o# the obli"ation' /he e##ects o# dolo ca!sante are
the n!llit* o# the contract and the indemni#ication o# dama"es, and dolo incidente
also obli"es the person emplo*in" it to pa* dama"es'

Alejandro V. Tankeh v.
Developent !ank o" the #hilippines, et al', +',' o' 1<1;2-, ovember 11,
2013'
Contracts& #ra!d& 7!ant!m o# evidence re7!ired to prove e3istence o#& clear and
convincin" evidence' either law nor 4!rispr!dence distin"!ishes whether it is dolo
incidente or dolo ca!sante that m!st be proven b* clear and convincin" evidence' (t
stands to reason that both dolo incidente and dolo ca!sante m!st be proven b* clear
and convincin" evidence' /he onl* 7!estion is whether this #ra!d, when proven,
ma* be the basis #or ma)in" a contract voidable 1dolo ca!sante2, or #or awardin"
dama"es 1dolo incidente2, or both'
/he standard o# proo# re7!ired is clear and convincin" evidence' /his standard o#
proo# is derived #rom :merican common law' (t is less than proo# be*ond
reasonable do!bt 1#or criminal cases2 b!t "reater than preponderance o# evidence
1#or civil cases2' /he de"ree o# believabilit* is hi"her than that o# an ordinar* civil
case' Civil cases onl* re7!ire a preponderance o# evidence to meet the re7!ired
b!rden o# proo#' However, when #ra!d is alle"ed in an ordinar* civil case
involvin" contract!al relations, an entirel* di##erent standard o# proo# needs to be
satis#ied' /he imp!tation o# #ra!d in a civil case re7!ires the presentation o# clear
and convincin" evidence' 5ere alle"ations will not s!##ice to s!stain the e3istence
o# #ra!d' /he b!rden o# evidence rests on the part o# the plainti## or the part*
alle"in" #ra!d' /he 7!ant!m o# evidence is s!ch that #ra!d m!st be clearl* and
convincin"l* shown' Alejandro V. Tankeh v. Developent !ank o" the #hilippines,
et al', +',' o' 1<1;2-, ovember 11, 2013'
Contracts& ,eciprocal obli"ations& concept& #or #ailin" to per#orm all its correlative
obli"ation !nder the reciprocal contract, a part* cannot !nilaterall* demand
per#ormance b* the other part*' ,eciprocal obli"ations are those which arise #rom
the same ca!se, and in which each part* is a debtor and a creditor o# the other, s!ch
that the obli"ation o# one is dependent !pon the obli"ation o# the other' /he* are to
be per#ormed sim!ltaneo!sl*, so that the per#ormance o# one is conditioned !pon
the sim!ltaneo!s #!l#illment o# the other'C (n reciprocal obli"ations, neither part*
inc!rs in dela* i# the other does not compl* or is not read* to compl* in a proper
manner with what is inc!mbent !pon him' Brom the moment one o# the parties
#!l#ills his obli"ation, dela* b* the other be"ins'
(n reciprocal obli"ations, be#ore a part* can demand the per#ormance o# the
obli"ation o# the other, the #ormer m!st also per#orm its own obli"ation'
Consolidated Industrial Gases, Inc. v. Alabang Medical Center, +',' o' 1-1.-3,
ovember 13, 2013'
Contracts& rescission& "ro!nds' ,escission o# a contract will not be permitted #or a
sli"ht or cas!al breach, b!t onl* #or s!ch s!bstantial and #!ndamental violations as
wo!ld de#eat the ver* ob4ect o# the parties in ma)in" the a"reement' >hether a
breach is s!bstantial is lar"el* determined b* the attendant circ!mstances'
Consolidated Industrial Gases, Inc. v. Alabang Medical Center, +',' o' 1-1.-3,
ovember 13, 2013'
Dama"es& act!al dama"es& concept& when awarded' Bor dama"es to be recovered,
the best evidence obtainable b* the in4!red part* m!st be presented' :ct!al or
compensator* dama"es cannot be pres!med, b!t m!st be proved with reasonable
de"ree o# certaint*' /he Co!rt cannot rel* on spec!lation, con4ect!re or "!esswor)
as to the #act and amo!nt o# dama"es, b!t m!st depend !pon competent proo# that
the* have been s!##ered and on evidence o# the act!al amo!nt' (# the proo# is
#lims* and !ns!bstantial, no dama"es will be awarded' Consolidated Industrial
Gases, Inc. v. Alabang Medical Center, +',' o' 1-1.-3, ovember 13, 2013'
=stoppel& cannot be made to appl* a"ainst the "overnment' +rantin" that the
persons representin" the "overnment was ne"li"ent, the doctrine o# estoppel cannot
be ta)en a"ainst the ,ep!blic' (t is a well-settled r!le that the ,ep!blic or its
"overnment is not estopped b* mista)e or error on the part o# its o##icials or a"ents'
(n an* case, even "rantin" that the said o##icial was ne"li"ent, the doctrine o#
estoppel cannot operate a"ainst the $tate' D(t is a well-settled r!le in o!r
4!risdiction that the ,ep!blic or its "overnment is !s!all* not estopped b* mista)e
or error on the part o# its o##icials or a"ents 15anila Lod"e o' <61 vs' C:, <3
$C,: 166, 1-6& ,ep!blic vs' 5arcos, E2 $C,: 23-, 2;;& L!ciano vs' =strella, 3;
$C,: <6.2' $epublic o" the #hilippines v. Antonio !acas, et al', +',' o' 1-2.13,
ovember 20, 2013'
$ales& sale o# real propert*& a!thorit* o# the a"ent m!st be in writin"& otherwise the
sale is n!ll and void' :rticles 1-<; o# the Civil Code provides%
:rt' 1-<;' >hen a sale o# a piece o# land or an* interest therein is thro!"h an
a"ent, the a!thorit* o# the latter shall be in writin"& otherwise, the sale shall be
void'
Li)ewise, :rticle 1-<- para"raph E o# the Civil Code speci#icall* mandates that
the a!thorit* o# the a"ent to sell a real propert* m!st be con#erred in writin", to
wit%
:rt' 1-<-' $pecial powers o# attorne* are necessar* in the #ollowin" cases%
112 3 3 3
3 3 3
1E2 /o enter into an* contract b* which the ownership o# an immovable is
transmitted or ac7!ired either "rat!ito!sl* or #or a val!able consideration&
3 3 3'
/he #ore"oin" provisions e3plicitl* re7!ire a written a!thorit* when the sale o# a
piece o# land is thro!"h an a"ent, whether the sale is "rat!ito!sl* or #or a val!able
consideration' :bsent s!ch a!thorit* in writin", the sale is n!ll and void' &pouses
'liseo $. !autista and 'peratri( C. !autista v. &pouses Mila )alandoni and
Antonio )alandoni and Manila Credit Corporation, +',' o' 1<1;6;F+',' o'
1..3;1, ovember 2<, 2013'
$ales& sale o# real propert*& b!*er in "ood #aith& conditions to prove "ood #aith&
#ail!re to veri#* e3tent and nat!re o# a"ent@s a!thorit*' : b!*er in "ood #aith is one
who b!*s the propert* o# another witho!t notice that some other person has a ri"ht
to or interest in s!ch propert*' He is a b!*er #or val!e i# he pa*s a #!ll and #air
price at the time o# the p!rchase or be#ore he has notice o# the claim or interest o#
some other person in the propert*' D+ood #aith connotes an honest intention to
abstain #rom ta)in" !nconscientio!s advanta"e o# another'C/o prove "ood #aith,
the #ollowin" conditions m!st be present% 1a2 the seller is the re"istered owner o#
the land& 1b2 the owner is in possession thereo#& and 132 at the time o# the sale, the
b!*er was not aware o# an* claim or interest o# some other person in the propert*,
or o# an* de#ect or restriction in the title o# the seller or in his capacit* to conve*
title to the propert*' :ll these conditions m!st be present, otherwise, the b!*er is
!nder obli"ation to e3ercise e3tra ordinar* dili"ence b* scr!tiniGin" the certi#icates
o# title and e3aminin" all #act!al circ!mstances to enable him to ascertain the
seller@s title and capacit* to trans#er an* interest in the propert*' &pouses 'liseo $.
!autista and 'peratri( C. !autista v. &pouses Mila )alandoni and Antonio
)alandoni and Manila Credit Corporation, +',' o' 1<1;6;F+',' o' 1..3;1,
ovember 2<, 2013'
$ales& sale o# real propert* on installment& "race period' $ection 31a2 o# ,':' 6EE2
provides that the total "race period corresponds to one month #or ever* one *ear o#
installment pa*ments made, provided that the b!*er ma* e3ercise this ri"ht onl*
once in ever* #ive *ears o# the li#e o# the contract and its e3tensions' /he b!*er@s
#ail!re to pa* the installments d!e at the e3piration o# the "race period allows the
seller to cancel the contract a#ter 30 da*s #rom the b!*er@s receipt o# the notice o#
cancellation or demand #or rescission o# the contract b* a notarial act'
$ale o# real propert* on installment& cash s!rrender val!e& when the b!*er is
entitled thereto' ,ep!blic :ct o' 6EE2, also )nown as the 5aceda Law, or the
,ealt* (nstallment 6!*er Protection :ct, has the declared p!blic polic* o#
Dprotectin" b!*ers o# real estate on installment pa*ments a"ainst onero!s and
oppressive conditions'C
$ection 3 o# ,':' 6EE2 provides #or the ri"hts o# a b!*er who has paid at least two
*ears o# installments b!t de#a!lts in the pa*ment o# s!cceedin" installments'
$ection 3 provides that in all transactions or contracts involvin" the sale or
#inancin" o# real estate on installment pa*ments, incl!din" residential
condomini!m apartments b!t e3cl!din" ind!strial lots, commercial b!ildin"s and
sales to tenants !nder ,':' o' 3-;;, as amended b* ,':' o' 63-., where the
b!*er has paid at least two *ears o# installments, the b!*er is entitled to the
#ollowin" ri"hts in case he de#a!lts in the pa*ment o# s!cceedin" installments%
1a2 /o pa*, witho!t additional interest, the !npaid installments d!e within the total
"race period earned b* him which is hereb* #i3ed at the rate o# one month "race
period #or ever* one *ear o# installment pa*ments made% Provided, /hat this ri"ht
shall be e3ercised b* the b!*er onl* once in ever* #ive *ears o# the li#e o# the
contract and its e3tensions, i# an*'
1b2 (# the contract is cancelled, the seller shall re#!nd to the b!*er the cash
s!rrender val!e o# the pa*ments on the propert* e7!ivalent to #i#t* per cent o# the
total pa*ments made, and, a#ter #ive *ears o# installments, an additional #ive per
cent ever* *ear b!t not to e3ceed ninet* per cent o# the total pa*ments made%
Provided, /hat the act!al cancellation o# the contract shall ta)e place a#ter thirt*
da*s #rom receipt b* the b!*er o# the notice o# cancellation or the demand #or
rescission o# the contract b* a notarial act and !pon #!ll pa*ment o# the cash
s!rrender val!e to the b!*er'
Down pa*ments, deposits or options on the contract shall be incl!ded in the
comp!tation o# the total n!mber o# installment pa*ments made' Gatchalian $ealt%,
Inc. v. 'vel%n Angeles, +',' o' 2023E-, ovember 2<, 2013'
$ales& sale o# real propert* on installment& cancellation o#& twin re7!irements o# a
notariGed notice o# cancellation and a re#!nd o# the cash s!rrender val!e' /he
Co!rt has been consistent in r!lin" that a valid and e##ective cancellation !nder
,':' 6EE2 m!st compl* with the mandator* twin re7!irements o# a notariGed
notice o# cancellation and a re#!nd o# the cash s!rrender val!e'
(n *l%pia +ousing, Inc. v. #anasiatic Travel Corp', the Co!rt r!led that the
notarial act o# rescission m!st be accompanied b* the re#!nd o# the cash s!rrender
val!e'
/he act!al cancellation o# the contract can onl* be deemed to ta)e place !pon the
e3pir* o# a 30-da* period #ollowin" the receipt b* the b!*er o# the notice o#
cancellation or demand #or rescission b* a notarial act and the #!ll pa*ment o# the
cash s!rrender val!e'
(n #agtalunan v. Dela Cru( Vda. De Man(ano, the Co!rt r!led that there is no
valid cancellation o# the Contract to $ell in the absence o# a re#!nd o# the cash
s!rrender val!e' (t stated that D$ec' 3 1b2 o# ,':' o' 6EE2 re7!ires re#!nd o# the
cash s!rrender val!e o# the pa*ments on the propert* to the b!*er be#ore
cancellation o# the contract' /he provision does not provide a di##erent re7!irement
#or contracts to sell which allow possession o# the propert* b* the b!*er !pon
e3ec!tion o# the contract li)e the instant case' Hence, petitioner cannot insist on
compliance with the re7!irement b* ass!min" that the cash s!rrender val!e
pa*able to the b!*er had been applied to rentals o# the propert* a#ter respondent
#ailed to pa* the installments d!e'C Gatchalian $ealt%, Inc. v. 'vel%n Angeles, +','
o' 2023E-, ovember 2<, 2013'
SPCI!L L!"S
Land re"istration& application #or land re"istration re7!ires that the names and
addresses o# all ad4oinin" owners and occ!pants be stated, i# )nown, and i# not
)nown, to state the search made to #ind them& omission thereo# constit!tes #ra!d'
/he "overnin" r!le in the application #or re"istration o# lands at that time was
$ection 21 o# :ct ;.6 which provided #or the #orm and content o# an application
#or re"istration, and it provides that the application shall be in writin", si"ned and
sworn to b* applicant, or b* some person d!l* a!thoriGed in his behal#' (t shall also
state the name in #!ll and the address o# the applicant, and also the names and
addresses o# all ad4oinin" owners and occ!pants, i# )nown& and, i# not )nown, it
shall state what search has been made to #ind them'
/he reason behind the law was e3plained in the case o# Fe,kes vs. Vas-ue(,where
it was noted that !nder $ection 21 o# the Land ,e"istration :ct an application #or
re"istration o# land is re7!ired to contain, amon" others, a description o# the land
s!b4ect o# the proceedin", the name, stat!s and address o# the applicant, as well as
the names and addresses o# all occ!pants o# the land and o# all ad4oinin" owners, i#
)nown, or i# !n)nown, o# the steps ta)en to locate them' >hen the application is
set b* the co!rt #or initial hearin", it is then that notice 1o# the hearin"2, addressed
to all persons appearin" to have an interest in the lot bein" re"istered and the
ad4oinin" owners, and indicatin" the location, bo!ndaries and technical description
o# the land bein" re"istered, shall be p!blished in the H##icial +aGette #or two
consec!tive times' (t is this p!blication o# the notice o# hearin" that is considered
one o# the essential bases o# the 4!risdiction o# the co!rt in land re"istration cases,
#or the proceedin"s bein" in rem, it is onl* when there is constr!ctive seiG!re o# the
land, e##ected b* the p!blication and notice, that 4!risdiction over the res is vested
on the co!rt' B!rthermore, it is s!ch notice and p!blication o# the hearin" that
wo!ld enable all persons concerned, who ma* have an* ri"hts or interests in the
propert*, to come #orward and show to the co!rt wh* the application #or
re"istration thereo# is not to be "ranted'$epublic o" the #hilippines v. Antonio
!acas, et al', +',' o' 1-2.13, ovember 20, 2013'
Land re"istration& an* title to inalienable p!blic land is void ab initio& all
proceedin"s o# the Land ,e"istration Co!rt involvin" the s!ch propert* is witho!t
le"al e##ect, hence cannot attain #inalit*' (n Collado v. Court o" Appeals and the
$epublic, the Co!rt declared that an* title to an inalienable p!blic land is void ab
initio' :n* proced!ral in#irmities attendin" the #ilin" o# the petition #or ann!lment
o# 4!d"ment are immaterial since the L,C never ac7!ired 4!risdiction over the
propert*' :ll proceedin"s o# the L,C involvin" the propert* are n!ll and void and,
hence, did not create an* le"al e##ect' : 4!d"ment b* a co!rt witho!t 4!risdiction
can never attain #inalit*' /he Land ,e"istration Co!rt has no 4!risdiction over non-
re"istrable properties, s!ch as p!blic navi"able rivers which are parts o# the p!blic
domain, and cannot validl* ad4!d"e the re"istration o# title in #avor o# private
applicant' $epublic o" the #hilippines v. Antonio !acas, et al', +',' o' 1-2.13,
ovember 20, 2013'
Land re"istration& con#irmation and re"istration o# imper#ect and incomplete title&
7!ali#ications' C':' o' 1;1 "overns the classi#ication and disposition o# lands o#
the p!blic domain' $ection 11 o# C':' o' 1;1 provides, as one o# the modes o#
disposin" p!blic lands that are s!itable #or a"ric!lt!re, the Dcon#irmation o#
imper#ect or incomplete titles'C $ection ;-, on the other hand, en!merates those
who are considered to have ac7!ired an imper#ect or incomplete title over p!blic
lands and, there#ore, entitled to con#irmation and re"istration !nder the Land
,e"istration :ct'
:s amended b* P'D' o' 10<3 on Ian!ar* 2E, 1.<<, $ection ;-1b2 o# C':' o' 1;1
provides%
$ection ;-' /he #ollowin" described citiGens o# the Philippines, occ!p*in" lands o#
the p!blic domain or claimin" to own an* s!ch lands or an interest therein, b!t
whose titles have not been per#ected or completed, ma* appl* to the Co!rt o# Birst
(nstance 8now ,e"ional /rial Co!rt9 o# the province where the land is located #or
con#irmation o# their claims and the iss!ance o# a certi#icate o# title there#or, !nder
the Land ,e"istration :ct, to wit%
3 3 3 3
1b2 /hose who b* themselves or thro!"h their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, contin!o!s, e3cl!sive, and notorio!s possession and occ!pation o#
a"ric!lt!ral lands o# the p!blic domain, !nder a bona #ide claim o# ac7!isition or
ownership, since I!ne 12, 1.;E, or earlier, immediatel* precedin" the #ilin" o# the
application #or con#irmation o# title e3cept when prevented b* war or #orce
ma4e!re' /hese shall be concl!sivel* pres!med to have per#ormed all the
conditions essential to a +overnment "rant and shall be entitled to a certi#icate o#
title !nder the provisions o# this chapter'
Prior to the amendment introd!ced b* P'D' o' 10<3, $ection ;-1b2 o# C':' o'
1;1, then operated !nder the ,ep!blic :ct 1,':'2 o' 1.;2 1I!ne 22, 1.E<2
amendment, which reads%
1b2 /hose who b* themselves or thro!"h their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, contin!o!s, e3cl!sive and notorio!s possession and occ!pation o#
a"ric!lt!ral lands o# the p!blic domain, !nder a bona #ide claim o# ac7!isition or
ownership, #or at least thirt* *ears, immediatel* precedin" the #ilin" o# the
application #or con#irmation o# title e3cept when prevented b* war or #orce
ma4e!re' /hese shall be concl!sivel* pres!med to have per#ormed all the
conditions essential to a +overnment "rant and shall be entitled to a certi#icate o#
title !nder the provisions o# this chapter'
333
(n relation to C':' o' 1;1, $ection 1; o# Presidential Decree P'D'2 o' 1E2. or
the Propert* ,e"istration Decree speci#ies those who are 7!ali#ied to re"ister their
incomplete title over an alienable and disposable p!blic land !nder the /orrens
s*stem' P'D' o' 1E2., which was approved on I!ne 11, 1.<-, s!perseded and
codi#ied all laws relative to the re"istration o# propert*'
/he pertinent portion o# $ection 1; o# P'D' o' 1E2. reads%
$ection 1;' >ho ma* appl*' /he #ollowin" persons ma* #ile in the proper Co!rt o#
Birst (nstance 8now ,e"ional /rial Co!rt9 an application #or re"istration o# title to
land, whether personall* or thro!"h their d!l* a!thoriGed representatives%
112 /hose who b* themselves or thro!"h their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, contin!o!s, e3cl!sive and notorio!s possession and occ!pation o# alienable
and disposable lands o# the p!blic domain !nder a bona #ide claim o# ownership
since I!ne 12, 1.;E, or earlier'
$oan Catholic Archbishop o" Manila v. Cresencia &ta. Teresa $aos, assisted
b% her husband, #onciano Francisco, +',' o' 1<.1-1, ovember 1-, 2013'
Land re"istration& con#irmation and re"istration o# imper#ect and incomplete title&
open, contin!o!s, e3cl!sive and notorio!s possession' /he possession
contemplated b* $ection ;-1b2 o# C':' o' 1;1 is act!al, not #ictional or
constr!ctive' (n Carlos v $epublic o" the #hilippines,the Co!rt e3plained the
character o# the re7!ired possession, as #ollows%
/he law spea)s o# possession and occ!pation' $ince these words are separated b*
the con4!nction and, the clear intention o# the law is not to ma)e one s*non*mo!s
with the other' Possession is broader than occ!pation beca!se it incl!des
constr!ctive possession' >hen, there#ore, the law adds the word occ!pation, it
see)s to delimit the all-encompassin" e##ect o# constr!ctive possession' /a)en
to"ether with the words open, contin!o!s, e3cl!sive and notorio!s, the word
occ!pation serves to hi"hli"ht the #act that #or an applicant to 7!ali#*, his
possession m!st not be a mere #iction' :ct!al possession o# a land consists in the
mani#estation o# acts o# dominion over it o# s!ch a nat!re as a part* wo!ld
nat!rall* e3ercise over his own propert*'
Proo# o# act!al possession o# the propert* at the time o# the #ilin" o# the application
is re7!ired beca!se the phrase adverse, contin!o!s, open, p!blic, and in concept o#
owner,C the ,C:5 !sed to describe its alle"ed possession, is a concl!sion o#
law,not an alle"ation o# #act' Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent
8and9 notorio!s 3 3 3 contin!o!s when !ninterr!pted, !nbro)en and not
intermittent or occasional& e3cl!sive when 8the possession is characteriGed b* acts
mani#estin"9 e3cl!sive dominion over the land and an appropriation o# it to 8the
applicantJs9 own !se and bene#it& and notorio!s when it is so conspic!o!s that it is
"enerall* )nown and tal)ed o# b* the p!blic or the people in the
nei"hborhood'C$oan Catholic Archbishop o" Manila v. Cresencia &ta. Teresa
$aos, assisted b% her husband, #onciano Francisco, +',' o' 1<.1-1,
ovember 1-, 2013'
Land re"istration& lands #ormin" part o# a militar* reservation are inalienable,
hence not re"istrable' /he law "overnin" the applications was Commonwealth :ct
1C':'2 o' 1;1,as amended b* ,: 1.;2, partic!larl* $ec' ;-1b2 which provided
that those who b* themselves or thro!"h their predecessors in interest have been in
open, contin!o!s, e3cl!sive and notorio!s possession and occ!pation o#
a"ric!lt!ral lands o# the p!blic domain, !nder a bona #ide claim o# ac7!isition o#
ownership, #or at least thirt* *ears immediatel* precedin" the #ilin" o# the
application #or con#irmation o# title e3cept when prevented b* war or #orce
ma4e!re' /hese shall be concl!sivel* pres!med to have per#ormed all the
conditions essential to a +overnment "rant and shall be entitled to a certi#icate o#
title !nder the provisions o# this chapter'
:s can be "leaned there#rom, the necessar* re7!irements #or the "rant o# an
application #or land re"istration are the #ollowin"%
1' /he applicant m!st, b* himsel# or thro!"h his predecessors-in-interest, have
been in possession and occ!pation o# the s!b4ect land&
2' /he possession and occ!pation m!st be open, contin!o!s, e3cl!sive and
notorio!s&
3' /he possession and occ!pation m!st be !nder a bona #ide claim o# ownership #or
at least thirt* *ears immediatel* precedin" the #ilin" o# the application& and
;' /he s!b4ect land m!st be an a"ric!lt!ral land o# the p!blic domain' :s earlier
stated, in 1.3-, President K!eGon iss!ed Presidential Proclamation o' 26E, which
too) e##ect on 5arch 31, 1.3-, reservin" #or the !se o# the Philippine :rm*
parcels o# the p!blic domain sit!ated in the barrios o# 6!l!a and Carmen, then
5!nicipalit* o# Ca"a*an, 5isamis Hriental' /he s!b4ect parcels o# land were
withdrawn #rom sale or settlement or reserved #or militar* p!rposes, Ds!b4ect to
private ri"hts, i# an* there be'C
$!ch power o# the President to se"re"ate lands was provided #or in $ection 6;1e2
o# the old ,evised :dministrative Code and C':' o' 1;1 or the P!blic Land :ct'
Later, the power o# the President was restated in $ection 1;, Chapter ;, 6oo) ((( o#
the 1.-< :dministrative Code' >hen a propert* is o##iciall* declared a militar*
reservation, it becomes inalienable and o!tside the commerce o# man'(t ma* not be
the s!b4ect o# a contract or o# a compromise a"reement' : propert* contin!es to be
part o# the p!blic domain, not available #or private appropriation or ownership,
!ntil there is a #ormal declaration on the part o# the "overnment to withdraw it
#rom bein" s!ch' (n the case o# $epublic v. Court o" Appeals and De )esus, it was
even stated that
Lands covered b* reservation are not s!b4ect to entr*, and no law#!l settlement on
them can be ac7!ired'/he claims o# persons who have settled on, occ!pied, and
improved a parcel o# p!blic land which is later incl!ded in a reservation are
considered worth* o# protection and are !s!all* respected, b!t where the President,
as a!thoriGed b* law, iss!es a proclamation reservin" certain lands and warnin" all
persons to depart there#rom, this terminates an* ri"hts previo!sl* ac7!ired in s!ch
lands b* a person who was settled thereon in order to obtain a pre#erential ri"ht o#
p!rchase' :nd patents #or lands which have been previo!sl* "ranted, reserved #rom
sale, or appropriate, are void' $epublic o" the #hilippines v. Antonio !acas, et al',
+',' o' 1-2.13, ovember 20, 2013'
/rademar) re"istration& not a mode o# ac7!irin" ownership b!t merel* creates
pres!mption o# the validit* o# the re"istration, o# the re"istrant@s ownership o# the
trademar) and o# the e3cl!sive ri"ht to the !se thereo#' (t m!st be emphasiGed that
re"istration o# a trademar), b* itsel#, is not a mode o# ac7!irin" ownership'(# the
applicant is not the owner o# the trademar), he has no ri"ht to appl* #or its
re"istration' ,e"istration merel* creates a prima #acie pres!mption o# the validit*
o# the re"istration, o# the re"istrant@s ownership o# the trademar), and o# the
e3cl!sive ri"ht to the !se thereo#' $!ch pres!mption, 4!st li)e the pres!mptive
re"!larit* in the per#ormance o# o##icial #!nctions, is reb!ttable and m!st "ive wa*
to evidence to the contrar*'
Clearl*, it is not the application or re"istration o# a trademar) that vests ownership
thereo#, b!t it is the ownership o# a trademar) that con#ers the ri"ht to re"ister the
same' : trademar) is an ind!strial propert* over which its owner is entitled to
propert* ri"hts which cannot be appropriated b* !nscr!p!lo!s entities that, in one
wa* or another, happen to re"ister s!ch trademar) ahead o# its tr!e and law#!l
owner' /he pres!mption o# ownership accorded to a re"istrant m!st then
necessaril* *ield to s!perior evidence o# act!al and real ownership o# a trademar)'
/he Co!rt@s prono!ncement in !erris Agricultural Co., Inc. v. Ab%adang is
instr!ctive on this point%
/he ownership o# a trademar) is ac7!ired b* its re"istration and its act!al !se b*
the man!#act!rer or distrib!tor o# the "oods made available to the p!rchasin"
p!blic' 3 3 3 : certi#icate o# re"istration o# a mar), once iss!ed, constit!tes prima
#acie evidence o# the validit* o# the re"istration, o# the re"istrant@s ownership o#
the mar), and o# the re"istrant@s e3cl!sive ri"ht to !se the same in connection with
the "oods or services and those that are related thereto speci#ied in the certi#icate' 3
3 3 (n other words, the prima #acie pres!mption bro!"ht abo!t b* the re"istration
o# a mar) ma* be challen"ed and overcome in an appropriate action, 3 3 3 b*
evidence o# prior !se b* another person, i'e' , it will controvert a claim o# le"al
appropriation or o# ownership based on re"istration b* a s!bse7!ent !ser' /his is
beca!se a trademar) is a creation o# !se and belon"s to one who #irst !sed it in
trade or commerce'
!irkenstock *rthopaedi G!+ and Co. .g, etc. v. #hilippine &hoe '/po
Marketing Corp', +',' o' 1.;30<, ovember 20, 2013'