Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
about the impending sale of the two (2) lots but the former failed to respond.
The respondent spouses Nemenio caused the transfer of the titles to the said
lots and the issuance of tax declarations in their names. Thereafter, the
respondent spouses Nemenio demanded from petitioner to vacate the said lots
but the latter refused to do so. Thus, a complaint for quieting of title was filed
by the respondent spouses Nemenio against petitioner.
The Trial court rendered a decision, declaring Nemenio spouses as the owners
of the disputed lot. Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the judgment of the trial
court.
Issues: 1) WON Amores was in good faith when he registered the sale.
2) WON the respondent spouses Nemenio are purchasers in good faith.
Held:
1) No, Amores was not in good faith when he registered the land.
For a second buyer to successfully invoke the protection provided by article
1544 of the Civil Code, he must possess good faith from the time of
acquisition of the property until the registration of the deed of conveyance
covering the same. In the case at bar, Amores was in good faith when he
bought the subdivision, However, when he registered his title he already had
knowledge of the previous sale. The preponderance of evidence supports the
finding that he already had knowledge of the previous sale of the disputed lots
to petitioner, as showed in the cross examinations. Such knowledge tainted his
registration with bad faith. To merit protection under article 1544, the second
buyer must act in good faith from the time of the sale until the registration of
the same.
2) No, the respondent spouses Nemenio are not purchasers in good faith.
It appears from the records that while respondent spouses Nemenio bought the
disputed lots from respondent Amores on December 27, 1974, they registered
the deeds of sale only on August 30, 1976. Respondent Mariano Nemenio
IGLESIA NI CRISTO
vs.
HON. THELMA A. PONFERRADA
Facts:
Heirs of Santos alleged therein that, during his lifetime, Enrique Santos was
the owner of a 936-square-meter parcel of land located in Tandang Sora,
Quezon City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 57272.He had
been in possession of the owners duplicate of said title and had been in
continuous, open, adverse and peaceful possession of the property. He died
onFebruary 9, 1970 and was survived by his wife, Alicia Santos, and other
plaintiffs, who were their children. Thereafter, plaintiffs tookpeaceful and
adverse possession of the property, and of the owners duplicate of said title.
Sometime in February 1996, heirs of santos learned that iglesia ni cristo was
claiming ownership over the property. They alleged that EnriqueSantos,
during his lifetime, and his heirs, after his death, never encumbered or
disposed the property. In 1996, Santos had the property fencedbut Iglesia ni
Cristo deprived them of the final use and enjoyment of their property. Thus,
Santos filed for the quieting the title of plaintiffs over and/or recover
possession of their said property in the name of deceased Enrique Santos.
Trial court and CA later ruled in favor of Private Respondents. CA stated that
as to the issue of prescription, the appellate court held that theprescriptive
period should be reckoned from 1996, when petitioner claimed ownership and
barred respondents from fencing the property.
Whether or not respondent judge gravely erred and abused her discretion
when she held that the action for quieting of titleand/or accion reinvindicatoria
(civil case no. Q-01-45415) has not yet prescribed
Petitioners argument:
run, even if petitioner was able to secure TCT No.321744 over the property in
1984.
VDA DE AVILES V. CA
264 SCRA 473
FACTS:
Aviles was the owner of this parcel of land and was in actual possession.
Carlos, with the intent of creating a color of title over the land, constructed
bamboo fences and moved the earthen dikes. This prompted the owner to file
an
action
for
quieting
of
title.
HELD:
Boundary disputes are not cognizable in a special civil action to quiet title.
Ongsiako vs Ongsiako
HELD:
(1)
In order to set aside the donation, the revocation will only be effective upon
court judgment or consent of the donee. In this case, there was neither a
court judgment ordering the revocation, nor was there a consent of Ramon
& Emilia.
(2)
FACTS:
(3)
Prescribed because more than 20 years had elapsed since the partition
(prescription: 10 years after partition only).
conformity of the other heirs. The subject property is also declared for
taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No. 10376 in the name of
respondent.
FACTS:
Before us is a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
seeking the reversal of the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals dated
June 15, 1993.
Agustin Dizon died intestate on May 15, 1942 leaving behind his five children
Eduardo, Gaudencio, Salud, Valenta and Natividad as surviving heirs. Among
the properties left by the decedent was a parcel of land in Barrio San Nicolas,
Hagonoy, Bulacan, with an area of 2,188 square meters covered by Original
Certificate of Title No. 10384.
On January 8, 1944, Eduardo sold his hereditary rights in the sum of P3,000 to
his sister Salud Dizon Salamat. The sale was evidenced by a private document
bearing the signatures of his sisters Valenta and Natividad as witnesses.
The trial court noted that the alleged endowment which was made orally by
the deceased Agustin Dizon to herein respondent partook of the nature of a
donation which required the observance of certain formalities set by law.
Petitioners contend that Lot 2557, described and covered by OCT 10384 in
the name of the heirs of Agustin Dizon is part of the Dizon estate while
respondent claims that her father donated it to her sometime in 1936 with the
consent of her co-heirs. In support of her claim, respondent Natividad
presented a private document of conformity which was allegedly signed and
executed by her elder brother, Eduardo, in 1936.
Petitioners, however, question the authenticity of the document inasmuch as it
is marred by unexplained erasures and alterations.
ISSUE:
On June 2, 1949, Gaudencio likewise sold his hereditary rights for the sum of
P4,000 to his sister Salud. The sale was evidenced by a notarized document
which bore the signature of Eduardo Dizon and a certain Angela Ramos as
witnesses. Gaudencio died on May 30, 1951 leaving his daughters Priscila D.
Rivera and Maria D. Jocson as heirs.
Sometime in 1987, petitioners instituted an action for compulsory judicial
partition of real properties registered in the name of Agustin Dizon with the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 18 of Malolos, Bulacan. The action was
prompted by the refusal of herein respondent Natividad Dizon Tamayo to
agree to the formal distribution of the properties of deceased Agustin Dizon
among his heirs. Respondent's refusal stemmed from her desire to keep for
herself the parcel of land covered by OCT 10384 where she presently resides,
claiming that her father donated it to her sometime in 1936 with the
Whether or not Lot 2557 located in Barrio San Nicolas, Hagonoy, Bulacan,
part of the Dizon estate.
HELD/RULING:
Art 749 of the Civil Code reads:
In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a
public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the
charges which the donee must satisfy. The acceptance may be made in the
same deed of donation or in a separate public document, unless it is done
during the lifetime of the donor. If the acceptance is made in a separate
instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof in an authentic form and this
step shall be noted in both instruments.
No. 14376 is of no moment. It is well settled that tax declarations or realty tax
payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership. 15
It is clear from Article 749 that a transfer of real property from one person to
another cannot take effect as a donation unless embodied in a public
document.
In any case, assuming that Agustin really made the donation to respondent,
albeit orally, respondent cannot still claim ownership over the property. While
it is true that a void donation may be the basis of ownership which may ripen
into title by prescription, it is well settled that possession, to constitute the
foundation of a prescriptive right, must be adverse and under a claim of title.
Respondent was never in adverse and continuous possession of the property. It
is undeniable that petitioners and respondent, being heirs of the deceased, are
co-owners of the properties left by the latter. A co-ownership is a form of a
trust, with each owner being a trustee for each other and possession of a coowner shall not be regarded as adverse to other co-owner but in fact is
beneficial to them. Mere actual possession by one will not give rise to the
inference that the possession was adverse because a co-owner is, after all,
entitled to possession of the property.
The elements in order that a co-owner's possession may be deemed adverse to
the cestui que trust or the co-owner are: (1) that he has performed unequivocal
acts of repudiation amounting to ouster of the cestui que trust or other coowners (2) that such positive acts or repudiation have been made known to the
cestui que trust or other co-owners and (3) that the evidence thereon must be
clear and convincing.
Not one of the aforesaid requirements is present in the case at bar.
Finally, the fact that the subject property is declared for taxation purposes in
the name of respondent who pays realty taxes thereon under Tax Declaration
No. It does not appear that any contract of partnership whatever was
made between them for the purposes expressed in article 1665 of the
Civil Code, for the sole transaction performed by them was the
acquisition jointly by mutual agreement of the land in question,
since it was undivided, under the condition that they each should pay
one-half of the price thereof and that the property so acquired should
be divided between the two purchasers; and as, under this title, the
plaintiff and the defendant are the co-owners of the said land, the
partition or division of such property held in joint tenancy must of
course be allowed, and the present possessor of the land has no right to
deny the plaintiff's claim on grounds or reasons unsupported by proof.
action under Article 487 not only against a third person, but also against
another co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive
ownership of the property. However, the only purpose of the action is to
obtain recognition of the co-ownership. The plaintiff cannot seek
exclusion of the defendant from the property because as a co-owner he
has a right of possession.
If one co-owner alone occupies the property without opposition from the
other co-owners, and there is no lease agreement, the other co-owners
cannot demand the payment of rent. Conversely, if there is an agreement
to lease the house, the co-owners can demand rent from the co-owner who
dwells in the house.
The Lejano Heirs and TeofiloAbejo agreed to lease the entire FISHPOND
to DE GUIA. After DE GUIAs lease expired in 1979, he could no longer
use the entire FISHPOND without paying rent.
valid
(2)
whether
REM
between
Hilario
(3) whether issuance of free patent is valid
and
RBC
is
valid
FACTS
HELD
(1) Petitioners have valid title by virtue of their continued and open
occupation and possession as owners of the subject property.
In this case, the cloud on petitioners title emanate from the apparent validity
of the free patent issued and the tax declarations and other evidence in favour
of respondents ultimately leading to the transfer of the property to spouses
Santos. WRT title of the spouses Santos, such is deemed invalid/inoperative
insofar as it is rooted in the title and appropriation of Hilario. Hilario could
not have prejudiced the rights of his co-heirs as co-owners of the real estate.
He must have first repudiated the ownership clearly and evidently. CA failed
to consider the irregularities in the transactions involving the property. No
instrument/deed of conveyance was presented to show any transaction
between petitioners and Ballane or even Hilario.
ISSUES
(1) whether petitioners have the appropriate title essential to an action for
quieting of title (relevant issue) and whether title claimed by respondents is
(3) 1916 by the petitioners. Issuance of patents covering private lands is out of
the jurisdiction of the Director of Lands or Bureau of Lands.
Hence, the sale of the property in favour of the spouses Santos WRT the share
of Hiario was valid but the patent issued was null.
MINDANAO v YAP
FACTS: Rosenda and Sotero were among co-owners of 3 parcels of land,
which they sold to Ildefonso Yap for some P100K without the consent of the
other co-owners. They included in the sale certain buildings and laboratory
and other educational equipment within the said properties, which were
actually owned by Mindanao Academy. Mindanao Academy and the other coowners assailed the validity of the sale. The trial court declared the sale null
and void. Yap contends that Erlinda, one of the co-owners owning 5/12 share
of the co-ownership, does not have the standing to challenge the sale for being
in bad faith.
ISSUE: W/N the sale is null and void as to its entirety
HELD: YES. Although the general rule is that if a co-owner alienates the
entire property without the consent of the other co-owners, the sale will affect
only his share, such rule does not apply if the property cannot be
partitioned/subdivided. In this case, aside from the fact that Rosenda and
Sotero cannot sell the entire property including the school equipment, they
cannot dealer or intermediary between the field office and the
customers. Thus, it is not liable for the said taxes.
Bongalon v. CA
Facts:
Rosalia is the owner of a lot and sometime in the year 1943, her 3 children,
Trinidad, Conchita and Teodora executed a deed of sale conveying to Cirila a
part of the lot.
o On the same day, Cirila, Trinidad and Conchita and Teodora executed
another deed of sale conveying to Pedro Bongalon a part of the lot for a
consideration.
However, acting alone, Cirila executed another deed of absolute sale
conveying the said lot to Amparo which was subsequently declared in her
name for tax purposes and paid real estate taxes therefor.
Meanwhile, in an extrajudicial settlement instituted by Pedro, he declared
that Cirila is the only heir of Rosalia and therefore, he is the only heir of Cirila
making the subject property's TCT here issued in his own name. He thereafter
filed a case for Quieting of title and Recovery of portion of the property and
damages against Amparo alleging that he is the registered owner of such
property.
o In support of his claim during the trial he presented the deeds of absolute
sale executed to him and the extrajudicial settlement declaration that Cirila
was the owner of the entire lot which she later sold to Amparo (double sale).
The trial court ruled that Pedro was the rightful owner of the property and
ordered Amparo to vacate the land in question.
o Respondent appealed to the CA and reversed the RTC decision saying that,
the basis of the complaint of Pedro is that he inherited the said property as
evidenced by the Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate but such extrajudicial
settlement is tainted with fraud and misrepresentation since there are 7
more children.
Issues:
What is the basis and extent of Pedro's interest in the subject property?
Whether or not the sale to Amparo casts a cloud on Pedro's title.
Whether or not the extrajudicial settlement is valid.
Ratio:
When Rosalia died, she passed on the piece of property to her surviving
spouse and their five children. Such heirs inherited the lot in co-ownership at
1/6 undivided share each. After their father died, their shares increased to 1/5
each. Since they were co-owners of the property, the extent of Pedro's share
in the property is only up to the undivided shares of Cirila, Trinidad,
Teodora and Conchita (the sellers). He did not acquire ownership of the
entire lot since the other co-owners did not take part in the sale.
o Each co-owner has dull ownership of his part and may alienate it but the
alienation affects only the portion which pertains to him in the division upon
the termination of the co-ownership.
The deed of sale to Amparo casts a cloud on Pedro's title. (Cloud means
any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding which is
apparently valid or effective but in truth it is invalid).
o The sale to Amparo is invalid because at the time of the execution, Cirila
had no interest to sell the lot because she already sold her interest to Pedro.
Pedro falsely stated that Cirila was the only heir of Rosalia and in
turn, he was the sole heir of Cirila. This is not a minor defect and renders
the Extrajudicial settlement void. But this cancellation does not deprive him of
the right to maintain action for quieting title. He has interest over the lot
insofar as it as sold to him by the co-owners.
GO ONG VS. CA
Petitioner cited cases arguing that in the settlement proceedings of the estate
of the deceased spouse, the entire conjugal partnership property of the
marriage is under administration. While such may be in a sense true, that fact
alone is not sufficient to invalidate the whole mortgage, willingly and
voluntarily entered into by the petitioner.. Under similar circumstances, this
Court applied the provisions of Article 493 of the Civil Code, where the heirs
as co-owners shall each have the full ownership of his part and the fruits and
benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage
it, and even effect of the alienation or mortgage, with respect to the coowners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the
division upon the termination of the co-ownership
The reference to judicial approval in Sec. 7, Rule 89 of the Rules of Court
cannot adversely affect the substantive rights of private respondent to dispose
of her Ideal [not inchoate, for the conjugal partnership ended with her
husbands death, and her hereditary rights accrued from the moment of the
death of the decedent (Art. 777, Civil Code) share in the co-heirship and/or
co-ownership formed between her and the other heirs/co-owners (See Art.
493, Civil Code, supra.).
PILAPIL VS. CA
by TCT No. 4026 which, in turn, was superseded by TCT No. 4029, indicating
PILAPIL VS. CA
29, 1962.
Later, Antonio sold his one-fourth share to his cousin Bensig, who ceded one-
December 4, 1995
quitclaim. Because of such, TCT No. 4029 was cancelled and supplanted by
TCT No. 4484, which showed Agaton, Vitaliana, Maxima, Bensig, and the
Ormoc city covered by OCT No. 26026. He died and was survived by his
names did not appear among the owners, although in the memorandum of
encumbrances at the back of TCT No. 4484 regarding the sale to them by
Leona and the three children sold portions of said lot, leaving a portion with
Despite the sale of 18, 626 sqm of their undivided share in said lot earlier
On March, 1962, the Otadora siblings, together with their nephew Antonio,
made in favor of petitioners, Agaton AGAIN sold his one-fourth share in the
lot to his daughter Carmen covered by TCT No. 9130. Vitaliana on the other
hand, RE-SOLD her one-fourth share to Maxima. 4 days later, Maxima sold
very same day, Vitallana and Agaton sold to petitioners Pilapil and
her now one-half share to her sons Dionisio and Macario who were able to
register the said properties in their names. On Sept, 1971, TCT was issued
lot Lot 8734-B-5.The deed of sale, which was executed in the presence of
to spouses Visitacion and S. Aldrin, and another TCT for Carmen and her
Antonio and another witness, specified that the possession and ownership of
husband.
the property sold shall be transferred to the buyers from the date of the
Upon discovery of the new titles, petitioners filed a protest with the register of
26026. Because of such partition, OCT No. 26026 was cancelled and replaced
and Dionisio of the existence of the deed of sale in favor of petitioner and
required them to present their original titles for proper annotation. Such
On July 1972, Carmen and her husband Masias sold the one-fourth share
already cancelled by TCT(s) Nos. 4026 and 4029. It would have been against
the law to have the deed of sale registered in TCT No. 4029 without an order
Corp. which was not able to register the same because of the annotation in
from the proper court authorizing such registration, specifically because OCT
TCT No. 9130 earlier made showing the sale in favor of petitioners. Because
No. 26026 had already undergone two cancellations, first by TCT No. 4026
of this, the corporation charged the vendors with estafa before the City
and then by TCT No. 4029 .It held that Appellants should have filed the
necessary petition with the proper court asking that the Register of Deeds be
Vitaliana Otadora in their favor. The said title was, therefore, null and void,
and the same did not acquire the effect of a constructive notice to the whole
12,000 square meters of the lot and needed 6,626 square meters more to
complete the total area purchased from Vitaliana and Agaton in 1962.
and the vendors appearing therein but without any binding effect upon their
persons and upon whom bad faith cannot be imputed. Also, The deed of sale
The trial court rendered a decision in favor of the defendants (Serafica &
did not specify what part of the 1/4 share of each of the registered owners who
executed the sale was sold to the appellants. The CA also agreed with the
plaintiffs complaint, and ordering the plaintiffs to pay the defendants for
attorneys fee, to vacate the lot in question and deliver the same to defendant.
purchaser for value as it was not required by law to go beyond TCT No.
In its decision dated June 1994, the court a quo concluded that the annotation
petitioners was null and void because the latter failed to surrender the
(1) The annotation of the sale in their favor on TCT No. 4029 is ineffectual;
(2) The deeds of sale respectively executed by Agaton and Vitaliana in favor
(2) It is undisputed that after the sale of the lot to petitioners, the same vendors
of Carmen and Maxima are valid and superior to that executed earlier by
Petitioners contend that the liability of the Otadoras who sold the same
parties who are not bound by the prior sale between Agaton and Vitaliana as
SET ASIDE. Petitioners are declared the lawful owners of 18,626 square
meters of said lot and the unclaimed lot of petitioners be taken in equal
them and their predecessors. The reason for this is that the validity of a title
portions from the shares thereof of Agaton and Vitaliana or their successors-
in-interest.
constructive, of a prior sale. While there is no direct proof that Carmen and
(1) The court below correctly ruled that the annotation of Entry No. 10903 in
Maxima actually knew of the sale to petitioners, they are deemed to have
the certificates of title was not made in accordance with law. To affect the land
sold, the presentation of the deed of sale and its entry in the day book must be
and Vitaliana. Hence, it has become immaterial if the sale to petitioners was
It is not disputed that of the 25,510 square meters which pertain to Vitaliana
by Section 55 of Act No. 496 (now Section 53 of PD No. 1529), and only after
and Agaton as their combined undivided share in Lot No. 8734-B-5, an area of
compliance with this and other requirements shall actual registration retroact
18,626 square meters had been sold to petitioners who, in turn, were able to
to the date of entry in the day book. However, nonproduction of the owners
possess only 12,000 square meters thereof. Thus, at most, Vitaliana and
Agaton had a remainder of 6,884 square meters of undivided share which they
ownership over the lot involved considering the factual circumstances of this
could have legally disposed of. As it turned out, however, they sold
case.
managed to possess only 12,000 square meters of the 18,625 square meters
they bought from Agaton and Vitaliana, the whole area purchased by them
her own father who sold to her the property had himself earlier
should be taken from the shares of Agaton and Vitaliana upon partition of the
property.
Whether or not the land in question is conjugal property, and therefore subject
to the rules on co-ownership?
HELD:
FACTS:
Leis and Isidro married each other in 1923. Isidro subsequently acquired from
the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources a parcel of land, which
was titled in her name, with the description that she was a widow. Leis only
passed away in 1973 without executing a will.
Isidro then secured a loan from Cruz (PhP 15,000, with 5% interest) secured
by a mortgage on the land from DANR, but failed to pay on due date. Isidro
executed 2 contracts in favor of Cruz: an Deed of Absolute Sale and a
Contract indicating a pacto de retro sale. Isidro still failed to repurchase the
property within 1 year, so she consolidated the ownership of the land in favor
of Cruz.
When Isidro died, Cruz demanded her heirs to vacate the premises. The heirs
then filed a complaint with the RTC averring that the land was conjugal
property having been purchased during their marriage. The RTC found in
favor of the heirs. The case was appealed to the CA, but the CA merely
affirmed the ruling because Cruz failed to get a judicial order to have the land
consolidated in his name after failure of Isidro to comply with the
requirements of the right to repurchase (Art. 1607).
ISSUE:
Although the land was purchased during the marriage, upon Leis death, the
conjugal property regime ceased, and gave Isidro an equal portion of Leis
half of the property to be divided among his legitimes. Co-ownership of the
land then began.
However, upon failure of Isidro the heirs to exercise the right to repurchase,
the ownership of the land transferred to Cruz. Despite the TCT being void for
non-compliance with 1607, the ownership did not transfer back to the heirs,
for compliance with 1607 is merely for purposes of registering the title in the
Torrens System.
desire for partition but this was rejected by the latter. Hence the suit for
petition.
respective shares to the spouses Tarun, both registered and annotated on the
OTC.
HELD: Petitioners aver that the sale to respondents is void, because it did not
Later, the co-owners of the subject fishpond and another fishpond executed a
comply with the requirements of the Civil Code. According to them, they
were not notified of the sale, but learned about it only when they received the
of shares. Among the parties to the deed are the Fernandez siblings. It was
summons for the partition case. They claim their right to redeem the property
stipulated in the deed that the parties recognize and respect the sale in favor of
his share on the 2nd fishpond to the shares of his co-owners in the remaining
portion of the first fishpond, making Angel and the Spouses Tarun co-owners
In this case, it is quite clear that respondents are petitioners co-owners. The
of the first fishpond. By virtue of said deed, a TCT was issued in the name of
sale of the contested property to Spouses Tarun had long been consummated
Angel and spouses Tarun. However, it was Angel and later on his heirs who
When Angel was still alive, Spouses Tarun sought the partition of the property
persons, but had already become co-owners of the whole property. A third
and their share of its income. Angel refused to heed their demand. After the
person, within the meaning of Article 1620, is anyone who is not a co-owner.
death of Angel, Spouses Tarun wrote his heirs (petitioners herein) of their