(1)

GOVERNMENT V. CABANGIS
GR NO. 28379 MARCH 27, 1929

FACTS:
In 1896, defendant owned a parcel of land, but because of the
action of the waves of manila Bay, part of said land was gradually
submerged in the sea. It remained submerged in the sea until 1912 when
the government decided to make the necessary dredging to claim the land
from the sea. As soon as the land had been recovered defendants took
possession of it.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendants are the owner of the reclaimed
land.

HELD:
The government owned the reclaimed land in the sense that it
has become property of public dominion, because in letting it remain
submerged, defendant may be said to have abandoned the same. Having
become part of the sea or seashore, it became property for public use.
When the government took steps to make it land again, its status as
public dominion remained unchained; therefore A, is not entitled to the
land.

(2)
REPUBLIC V. HOLY TRINITY DEVELOPMENT CORP
GR NO. 172410 APRIL 14, 2008

FACTS:
Petitioner deposited to LBP-South Harbor branch a sufficient
amount to cover the payment for the filed petition with the RTC a
Consolidated Complaint for Expropriation for the construction, expansion
of and rehabilitation of North Luzon Expressway. Respondent was one of
the affected landowner. Respondent filed with the RTC a motion to
withdraw deposit together with its accrued interests. The RTC approved
only the withdrawal of the principal amount of 22, 968, 00.00, leaving
out the accrued interest.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the owner of the accrued interest is the
respondent.

HELD:
The ownership over the deposit transferred by operation of
law to the respondent and whatever interest, considered as civil fruits,
should properly pertain to the respondent as the lawful owner of the
principal amount following the principle of accession. Bank interest
partake the nature of civil fruits under Art. 442 of the new Civil Code.
And since these are considered fruits, ownership thereof should be due
to the owner of the principal. Undoubtedly, being an attribute of
ownership, the respondents right over the fruits, that is the bank
interests, must be respected.

(3)
LUCASAN VS PDIC
GR NO. 176929 JULY 4, 2008
FACTS:
Pacific banking Corporation (PBC) extended a 5, 000.00 loan
to herein petitioner. Petitioner failed to pay the loan when it became
due and demandable. Consequently, PBC filed a collection case with the
RTC of Bacolod City, which the latter granted. Petitioner failed to pay
the monetary reward; thus, to satisfy the judgment, the RTC issued a
writ of execution directing the sheriff to effect a levy on the
properties owned by Lucasan and sell the same at public auction. The
City Sheriff of Bacolod issued a Notice of Embargo, which was annotated
on petitioners TCT nos. t-68115 and t-13816 as entry number 1110107.
Annotated as prior encumbrances on the same title were the mortgages of
PNB and RPB executed to secure Lucasans loans with the banks. The lots
were sold at a public auction and were awarded to PBC as highest bidder.
Neither PNB nor RPB assailed the auction sale. Lucasan, as well as the
mortgagee banks, PNB and RPB, did not redeem the properties within the
redemption period. Nevertheless, PBC did not file a petition for
consolidation of ownership.
Lucasan wrote a letter to the PDIC to cancel the certificate
of sale and offering to pay PBCs claim against him which PDIC denied.
Not long thereafter, Lucasan was able to pay his loans with PNB and RPB
resulting in the cancellation of prior encumbrances in favor of the said
banks.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Petitioner has a right in quieting the title
over the subject lots.

HELD:
To avail the remedy of quieting the title, two indispensable
requisites must concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff must show that he has
a legal or at least an equitable title over the real property in dispute,
and (2) that some deed or proceedings beclouds its validity or efficacy.
Unfortunately, the foregoing requisites are wanting in this case. With
the expiration of the 12-month redemption period and no redemption having
made, Lucasan lost whatever right he had over the land in question.
Furthermore, Lucasan failed to demonstrate that the notice of embargo
and the certificate of sale are invalid or inoperative.

(4)
JOAQUINO V. REYES
GR N NO. 154645 JULY 13, 2004
FACTS:
Herein defendant, is the widow of the late Rodolfo Reyes and
alleges that his husband had illicit relationship with herein petitioner.
The defendant alleges that the house owned and registered in the name
of the petitioner was bought using the money of the salary of his late
which is part of their conjugal property. To secure the finances with
which to pay the purchase price of the property, petitioner executed a
SPA in favor of Rodolfo A. Reyes, to secure a loan from commonwealth
Insurance Company. An application for loan was filed by Rodolfo A. Reyes
with the Commonwealth Insurance Company and a Real Estate Mortgage was
executed as collateral to the mortgage loan. The loan was payable in 10
years with monthly amortization which was paid by Rodolfo Reyes and
after his death, the balance was paid in full by Philam Life Insurance
Co. as insurer of the deceased.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the subject property belongs to the conjugal
property of the deceased and defendant.

HELD:
The disputed house and lot was paid by Rodolfo Reyes, using
his salaries and earnings which was during the marriage of Rodolfo and
Lourdes, a fact that gives rise to the presumption that it is conjugal.
The proceeds of the loan obtained by Rodolfo were used to pay for the
property; and that the loan was, in turn, paid from his salaries and
earnings, which were conjugal funds under the Civil Code.

(5)
IMUAN V. CERENA
GR NO. 167995 SEPTEMBER 11, 2009
FACTS:
Pablo de Guzman contracted two marriages. His first was with
Teodora Soriano, with whom he had three children. His second was with
Juana Velasquez, with whom he also had three children. Pablo died
intestate on July 15, 1936 leaving two parcels of land. After his death
his second wife Juana and their children continued to be in possession
of the parcel of land located at Salaan, Mangldan, Pangasinan, where
they lived since they were married. On January 24, 1970, Juana executed
a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of respondent spouses, Soledad, Juana
and Pablos daughter, and her husband Juanito conveying the subject
property. On April 5, 1999, petitioners filed with the RTC of of Dagupan
Citya complaint for annulment of document, reconveyance and damages and
damages against respondents alleging that: (1)the estate of their
grandfather Pablo has not yet been settled or partitioned among the his
heirs nor Pablo made disposition of his properties during his lifetime;
(2) it was only through their tolerance that Juana and his children
constructed their house on the subject lot; (3) the sale of the disputed
property made by Juana to respondent-spouses Cereno and the issuance of
tax declarations in the latters name are null and void. The RTC rendered
judgment in favor of the plaintiff which the CA reversed. Hence, this
petition for review of the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the deed of sale and the issuance of the tax
declaration in the respondent-spouses name were null and void.

HELD:
 The respondents acquired the disputed property by acquisitive
prescription. When the property was sold by Juana to respondent-spouses
Cereno, the latter immediately took possession of the property. Since
then, the respondents possessed the property continuously, openly,
peacefully, in the concept of an owner, exclusively and in good faith
with just title, to the exclusion of the petitioners and their
predecessors-in-interest until the filing of the complaint on 1999. It
was admitted by the petitioners that they saw the house of respondent
constructed on the lot and yet never questioned the same. It was also
established that respondents are the ones gathering the fruits of the
land and enjoying the same to the exclusion of the petitioners and yet
the latter never prevented them from doing so. In fact, while petitioners
learned of the sale of the property of Juana to the spouses in 1980,
they never took any action to protect whatever rights they have over the
property nor raised any objection on the respondents possession of the
property. Petitioners inaction is aggravated by the fact that
petitioners just live 100 meters away from the property.

(6)
MATEO V. LAGUA
GR NO. L-26270 OCTOBER 30, 1969
FACTS:
Cipriano Lagua donated two lots to his son Alejandro Dumlao
in consideration of the latters marriage to Bonifacia Mateo. After their
marriage, the couple took possession of the properties, but the
Certificate of Titles remained in the donors name. When Alejandro died,
his widow and her infant daughter lived with her father-in-law who
undertook the farming of the donated lots. On July 31, 1941 Cipriano
Lagua executed a deed of sale of the same two parcel of lots in favor
of his younger son, Gervasio. The sale notwithstanding, Bonifacia was
continuously given the owners share of the harvest until 1956, when it
was altogether stopped. It was only then that Bonifacia learned of the
sale of the lots to her brother-in-law, who had the sale in his favor
registered only on September 22, 1955.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the donation was inofficious.
HELD:
In order that a donation may be reduced for being inofficious,
there must be proof that the value of the donated property exceeds that
of the disposable free portion plus the donees share as legitime in the
properties of the donor. In the present case, it can be hardly said that,
with the evidence then before the court, it was any position to rule on
the inofficiousness of the donation involved here and to order its
reduction and reconveyance of the deducted portion to the respondents.