REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,,v.v.MARJENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, G.R. No.MARJENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, G.R. No. 156205,
156205, NovemeNoveme! 12! 12, 201", 201" F#$%&'
F#$%&' On December 22, 1998, or almost 46 years after the issuance of OCT No. 0669, !e"ublic,On December 22, 1998, or almost 46 years after the issuance of OCT No. 0669, !e"ublic, re"resente# by the !e$ion %& !e$ional '(ecuti)e Director of the D'N!, *le# a "etition before the re"resente# by the !e$ion %& !e$ional '(ecuti)e Director of the D'N!, *le# a "etition before the Co
Court urt of of +"+""e"ealals s fofor r annannulmulment ent of of u#u#$m$menent, t, cacancencellallatition on of of tittitlele, , anan# # rere)er)ersiosion n a$a$ainainstst res"on#ents, the !e$ister of Dee#s for the -ro)ince of atan$as, an# the !e$ional Trial Court of res"on#ents, the !e$ister of Dee#s for the -ro)ince of atan$as, an# the !e$ional Trial Court of /i"a City.
/i"a City.
-etitioner alle$es that res"on#ents a""ear as re$istere# oners of a lan# i#enti*e# as /ot 1 -cs -etitioner alle$es that res"on#ents a""ear as re$istere# oners of a lan# i#enti*e# as /ot 1 -cs 94, hich is a "ortion of /ots 1 an# 2, "lan -su11440 /!C !ecor# No. N44, co)ere# by TCT 94, hich is a "ortion of /ots 1 an# 2, "lan -su11440 /!C !ecor# No. N44, co)ere# by TCT No. T1892.
No. T1892. The
The O3 O3 alle$es alle$es that that u"on u"on )eri*cation, )eri*cation, it it as as ascertaine# ascertaine# that that the the lan# lan# co)ere# co)ere# by by TCT No. TCT No. TT 18
1892 92 is is ithithin in the the unclunclassiassi*e# "ublic *e# "ublic forforest est "er /an# "er /an# ClaClassi*ssi*catication on ConContrtrol ol 5a" 5a" NoNo. . 1010,, therefore, cannot be subect of #is"osition or re$istration an# the re$istration "rocee#in$s, the therefore, cannot be subect of #is"osition or re$istration an# the re$istration "rocee#in$s, the u#$ment
u#$ment in in the the subect subect case, case, the the OCT OCT No. No. O669 O669 issue# issue# "ursuant "ursuant thereto, thereto, an# an# all all subseuentsubseuent titles are null an# )oi#. The lan# co)ere# by TCT No. T1892, not ha)in$ been le$ally re$istere#, titles are null an# )oi#. The lan# co)ere# by TCT No. T1892, not ha)in$ been le$ally re$istere#, remains an# forms "art of the "ublic #omain of the 3tate.
remains an# forms "art of the "ublic #omain of the 3tate.
%n their comment, res"on#ents #eny the O37s alle$ations. They claim that their titles, their %n their comment, res"on#ents #eny the O37s alle$ations. They claim that their titles, their "r
"re#ece#ecessessors7 titlesors7 titles, , an# their an# their mothmother er titltitle e arare e issuissue# e# in in accoaccor#r#ance ith ance ith la, an# la, an# that thethat the "ro"erty as re$istere# an# brou$ht un#er the Torrens system. !es"on#ents conten# that the "ro"erty as re$istere# an# brou$ht un#er the Torrens system. !es"on#ents conten# that the subect "ro"erty as alrea#y "ri)ate "ro"erty e)en before the 3"anish Cron ce#e# so)erei$nty subect "ro"erty as alrea#y "ri)ate "ro"erty e)en before the 3"anish Cron ce#e# so)erei$nty o)er the -hili""ine %slan#s to the nite# 3tates of +merica.
o)er the -hili""ine %slan#s to the nite# 3tates of +merica. The Court of
The Court of +""eals #ismis+""eals #ismisse# the se# the case an# a"case an# a""lie# the "lie# the case ofcase ofCariho v. Insular Government of Cariho v. Insular Government of the
the PhilippinPhilippinee %slan#s, %slan#s,hich reco$nihich reco$nie# "ri)ate onershi" of e# "ri)ate onershi" of lan#s alrea#y "ossesse# or hel# lan#s alrea#y "ossesse# or hel# byby in#i)i#uals un#er claim of onershi" as far bac: as testimony or memory $oes an# therefore in#i)i#uals un#er claim of onershi" as far bac: as testimony or memory $oes an# therefore ne)er to ha)e been "ublic lan# that 3"ain coul# beueath to the nite# 3tates of +merica. ne)er to ha)e been "ublic lan# that 3"ain coul# beueath to the nite# 3tates of +merica. ncon)ince#, the O3 *le# this "etition for re)ie on
ncon)ince#, the O3 *le# this "etition for re)ie oncertioraricertiorari before the Court. before the Court. I&&(e'
I&&(e' ;<N the sub;<N the subect "ro"erty is a ect "ro"erty is a "ri)ate "ro"erty"ri)ate "ro"erty.. )*&
)*&$(&$(&&*o&*o+'+' The The case case ofofCarCariño iño vv. . InsInsular ular GovGovernernment ment of of the the PhilPhilippiippine ne IslIslandsands st stateates s thathatt =>"rescri"tion is mentione# a$ain in the royal ce#ula of October 1, 1?4, cite# in -hili""ine, =>"rescri"tion is mentione# a$ain in the royal ce#ula of October 1, 1?4, cite# in -hili""ine, 46@ 7>Ahere such "ossessors shall not be able to "ro#uce title #ee#s, it shall be suBcient if they 46@ 7>Ahere such "ossessors shall not be able to "ro#uce title #ee#s, it shall be suBcient if they shall sho that ancient "ossession, as a )ali# title by "rescri"tion.7 %t may be that this means shall sho that ancient "ossession, as a )ali# title by "rescri"tion.7 %t may be that this means "ossession from before 1?00@ but, at all e)ents, the "rinci"le is a#mitte#. +s "rescri"tion, e)en "ossession from before 1?00@ but, at all e)ents, the "rinci"le is a#mitte#. +s "rescri"tion, e)en a$a
a$ainst Croinst Cron n lan#lan#s, s, as recoas reco$ni$nie# e# by by the las the las of 3"ain e of 3"ain e see no see no suBsuBciencient t rereasoason n forfor hesitatin$ to a#mit that it as reco$nie# in the -hili""ines in re$ar# to lan#s o)er hich 3"ain hesitatin$ to a#mit that it as reco$nie# in the -hili""ines in re$ar# to lan#s o)er hich 3"ain ha# only
ha# only a "a"er sa "a"er so)erei$ntyo)erei$nty.=.=
+s for res"on#ents, it is un#is"ute# that the subect "ro"erty traces its title to the "ro"erty +s for res"on#ents, it is un#is"ute# that the subect "ro"erty traces its title to the "ro"erty ori$inally one# by !ita &#a. #e %lustre since 1890. rom her it "asse# on to se)eral han#s until it ori$inally one# by !ita &#a. #e %lustre since 1890. rom her it "asse# on to se)eral han#s until it as transferre# to ammon . uc:, ho successfully re$istere# it in his name. rom 1890, as transferre# to ammon . uc:, ho successfully re$istere# it in his name. rom 1890, res"on#ents7 "re#ecessors in interest ha# been in "eaceful, o"en, continuous, e(clusi)e, a#)erse, res"on#ents7 "re#ecessors in interest ha# been in "eaceful, o"en, continuous, e(clusi)e, a#)erse, an
an# # nonototoriorious us "o"ossessessission on in in the the coconcence"t "t of of an an oonener r of of ththe e subsubeect ct "r"ro"eo"ertyrty. . ollollooin$in$ the
theCariñoCariño rulin$, the subect "ro"erty ha# been a "ri)ate lan# an# e(clu#e# from the "ublic rulin$, the subect "ro"erty ha# been a "ri)ate lan# an# e(clu#e# from the "ublic #omain since 1890 "rior to the si$nin$ of the Treaty of -aris on December 10, 1898. Therefore, it #omain since 1890 "rior to the si$nin$ of the Treaty of -aris on December 10, 1898. Therefore, it
is not "art of the "ublic #omain that "asse# on from 3"ain to the nite# 3tates of +merica. or the same reason, it is also not "art of the unclassi*e# "ublic forest as "etitioner claims. %nRepublic v. Court of Appeals and Cosalan, the Court hel# that = 7hile the o)ernment has the ri$ht to classify "ortions of "ublic lan#, the "rimary ri$ht of a "ri)ate in#i)i#ual ho "ossesse# an# culti)ate# the lan# in $oo# faith much "rior to such classi*cation must be reco$nie# an# shoul# not be "reu#ice# E be consi#ere# forestry lan#, unless "ri)ate interests ha)e inter)ene# before such reser)ation is ma#e7=
R(*+-' ;'!'O!', "remises consi#ere#, the Court of +""eals Decision is +%!5'D.
ANDY ANG,v. SEVERINO PACUNIO, G.R. No. 208928, July 08, 2015
Fac!"Respondents filed a complaint for Declaration for nullity of Sale, Reconveyance and damages before the RTC involving the subject land originally owned by Udiaan. Respondents alleged that they are grandchildren and successorininterest of Udiaan. !owever, an imposter falsely representing herself as Udiaan sold the subject land to petitioner.
"etitioner entered the subject land and used the same in his livestoc# business. Respondents then informed petitioner that he did not validly ac$uire the subject land, and thereafter, demanded its return, but to no avail. !ence, they filed the aforesaid complaint, contending the Udiaan cannot sold the subject considering that she was already dead for more than %& years when the sale occurred.
"etitioner denied respondents' allegations and countered that( )a* at first, he bought the subject land from a person representing herself as Udiaan who showed a community ta+ certificate as proof of identity, has in her possession CT -o. T/0, #new the location of the subject land, and was not afraid to face the notary public when they e+ecuted the 1uestioned Deed of 2bsolute Sale3 )b* he was initially prevented from
entering the subject land since it was being occupied by the !eirs of 2lfredo 4accion3 )c * in order to buy
peace, he had to 5buy5 the subject land anew from the !eirs of 4accion3 )d * he was a buyer in good faith,
for value, and was without any #nowledge or participation in the alleged defects of the title thereof3 and )e* respondents were never in possession of the subject land and they never paid real property ta+es over the same. Ultimately, petitioner claimed that he was duped and swindled into buying the subject land twice. !TC rule# in fa)our of the "etitioner. C+ mo#i*e# !TCFs #ecision as follosG )a* ,/&% s$. m. to petitioner3 )b* 6,07 s$. m. to the !eirs of 4accion3 and )c* the remainder of the subject land to Udiaan's children.
"etitioner 8R but was denied, hence, this petition.
I!!u#" 9:- the respondents are not real parties in interest.
Discussion( The rule on real parties in interest has two )%* re$uirements, namely( )a* to institute an action,
the plaintiff must be the real party in interest3 and )b* the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real
party in interest. ;nterest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the $uestion involved. ne having no material interest cannot invo#e the jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff in an action. 9hen the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the case is dismissible on the ground of lac# of cause of action.
;n the instant case, respondents claim to be the successorsininterest of the subject land just because they are Udiaan's grandchildren. Under the law, however, respondents will only be deemed to have a material
interest over the subject land and the rest of Udiaan's estate for that matter if the right of representation provided under 2rticle 0<&,& in relation to 2rticle 07%,= of the Civil Code is available to them. ;n this situation, representatives will be called to the succession by the law and not by the person represented3 and the representative does not succeed the person represented but the one whom the person represented
would have succeeded.
>or such right to be available to respondents, they would have to show first that their mother( )a* predeceased Udiaan3 )b* is incapacitated to inherit3 or )c * was disinherited, if Udiaan died testate. !owever,
as correctly pointed out by the C2, nothing in the records would show that the right of representation is available to respondents. !ence, the RTC and the C2 correctly found that respondents are not real parties in interest to the instant case. ;t is wellsettled that factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the C2, are entitled to great weight and respect by the Court and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on record, as in this case.
Rul$%&" 9!?R?>R?, the petition is 4R2-T?D.
SPOUSES )OMINA)OR MARCOS #+ GLORIA MARCOS, v. HEIRS OF ISI)RO BANGI, G.R. No. 1/5"5, O$%oe! 15, 201"
F#$%&' On Hune 26, 1998, the heirs of %si#roI an# eno)e)a, *le# ith the !TC a com"laint for annulment of #ocuments, cancellation of transfer certi*cates of titles, restoration of ori$inal certi*cate of title an# reco)ery of onershi" "lus #ama$es a$ainst s"ouses Domina#or an# loria. /i:eise im"lea#e# in the sai# com"laint are s"ouses Hose an# -acita, Ceasaria , an# s"ouses 'milio an# Jenai#a.
%n their com"laint, the res"on#ents a)erre# that their "arents, %si#ro an# eno)e)a, bou$ht the onethir# "ortion of subect "ro"erty from 'usebio, as e)i#ence# by a Dee# of +bsolute 3ale e(ecute# by the latter, hich as subseuently re$istere# in the name of +li"io, 'usebioFs father. +fter the sale, the res"on#ents claime# that %si#ro an# eno)e)a too: "ossession of the subect "ro"erty until they "asse# aay. The res"on#ents then too: "ossession of the same.
urther, the res"on#ents alle$e# that sometime in 1998, they learne# that the title to the subect "ro"erty, inclu#in$ the "ortion sol# to %si#ro an# eno)e)a, as transferre# to herein "etitioner Domina#or, -rimo, CeasariaFs husban#, Hose, an# 'milio throu$h a Dee# of +bsolute 3ale #ate# +u$ust 10, 199, su""ose#ly e(ecute# by +li"io ith the consent of his ife !amona. The res"on#ents claime# that the sai# #ee# of absolute sale is a for$ery since +li"io #ie# in 1918 hile !amona "asse# aay on Hune 1, 19?.
-etitioners, to$ether ith the s"ouses Hose an# -acita, Ceasaria an# the s"ouses 'milio an# Jenai#a, #enie# the alle$ations of the res"on#ents, claimin$ that they are the oners of the subect "ro"erty, inclu#in$ the onethir# "ortion thereof alle$e#ly sol# by 'usebio to the res"on#entsF "arents %si#ro an# eno)e)a.
!TC rule# in fa)our of the res"on#ent. C+ #enie# the 5!. ence, this "etition. I&&(e' ;<N the transfer of the subect lan# by #ee# of absolute sale is )ali#.
)*&$(&&*o+' The a""ellate court u"hel# the )ali#ity of the sale of the onethir# "ortion of the subect "ro"erty to the s"ouses %si#ro an# eno)e)a mainly on the *n#in$ that, after the #eath of +li"io in 1918, an oral "artition as ha# beteen 'usebio an# his siblin$s 's"e#ita an# Hose
an$i@ that at the time of the sai# sale on No)ember , 194 to the s"ouses %si#ro an# eno)e)a, 'usebio as alrea#y the oner of the subect "ro"erty.
3ection 1, !ule 4 of the !ules of Court cate$orically states that the "etition *le# shall raise only uestions of la, hich must be #istinctly set forth. + uestion of la arises hen there is #oubt as to hat the la is on a certain state of facts, hile there is a uestion of fact hen the #oubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alle$e# facts. or a uestion to be one of la, the same must not in)ol)e an e(amination of the "robati)e )alue of the e)i#ence "resente# by the liti$ants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on hat the la "ro)i#es on the $i)en set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue in)ites a re)ie of the e)i#ence "resente#, the uestion "ose# is one of fact.
The #etermination of hether the heirs of +li"io ha# alrea#y "artitione# his estate "rior to the sale of the onethir# "ortion of the subect "ro"erty on No)ember , 194 necessarily reuires an e(amination of the "robati)e )alue of the e)i#ence "resente# by the "arties@ the #oubt arises on the truth or falsity of the alle$ations of the "arties.
')en $rantin$ ar$uen#o that the "etition falls un#er any of the e(ce"tions ustifyin$ a factual re)ie of the *n#in$s of the a""ellate court, the "etition cannot "ros"er. The Court is of the o"inion, an# so hol#s, that the C+ #i# not commit any re)ersible error in rulin$ that an oral "artition of the estate of +li"io ha# alrea#y been eKecte# by his heirs "rior to the sale by 'usebio of the onethir# "ortion of the subect "ro"erty to the s"ouses %si#ro an# eno)e)a on No)ember , 194.
R(*+-' ;'!'O!', in consi#eration of the fore$oin$ #isuisitions, the "etition is D'N%'D.
A'NAR (RO)*ERS REA+)Y COP., -. SPOUSES Y(AE' , G.R. No. 1/180, A$l 21, 2013
Fac!" n 8arch %=, =06@, Casimiro, with the marital consent of 8aria Daclan, e+ecuted a Deed of Absolute Salein favor of 2Anar Brothers conveying unregistered agricultural land planted with =< coconut trees situated in Bani#aBulacao, "ardo, Cebu City. The Deed of 2bsolute Sale described the property as bounded on the -orth by 2Anar Brothers3 on the ?ast by 2ngel Sabellano3 on the South by Bernardo Sabellano3 and on the 9est by 2gaton Bacalso. The parties agreed to register the sale under 2ct -o. @@. n >ebruary =<, =06<, Saturnino Tanuco sold to 2Anar Brothers a parcel of corn and cogon land planted with =< coconut trees situated in Candawawan, "ardo, Cebu City, bounded on the -orth by 2lfonso "acaa3 on the ?ast by Tecla Cabales3 on the South by 2ngel 2bellana3 and on the 9est by Castor Sabellano. The parties agreed to register the parcel of land under 2ct -o. @@.
Casimiro died intestate leaving as heirs his wife 8aria, and their children, namely, >abian and 2driano, both surnamed baeA. 2driano sold the land to Eose R. baeA, which then applied the same for a patent.
+nar rothers *le# in the !TC a com"laint a$ainst Hose !. LbaMe claimin$ absolute onershi" the lot by )irtue of the Dee# of +bsolute 3ale #ate# 5arch 21, 1964 e(ecute# in its fa)or by Casimiro. +lle$in$ that the free "atent issue# in fa)or of Hose !. LbaMe co)ere# the same "ro"erty alrea#y a#u#icate# as "ri)ate "ro"erty. -etitioner mo)e# to #ismiss the com"laint but the same as #enie#. !TC rule# in fa)our of the res"on#ents. C+ aBrme# the #ecision of the !TC.
)*&$(&&*o+' Court sustain the C+Fs conclusion that the 3"ouses LbaMe ere $uilty of ba# faith, an# that they acuire# /ot No. 186 from sellers ho ere not the oners. +ccor#in$ly, e resol)e the secon# error raise# herein in fa)or of +nar rothers.
The recor#s an# e)i#ence fully substantiate# the C+Fs conclusion. The 3"ouses LbaMe acuire# /ot No. 186 throu$h the #ee# of sale e(ecute# on Hune 21, 19?8 by +#riano in fa)or of Hose !. LbaMe. To$ether ith his siblin$s abian LbaMe, Carmen LbaMeTa$imacru, e LbaMe+lison,
an# Dulcisima LbaMeTa$imacru, +#riano ha# su""ose#ly inherite# /ot No. 186 from Casimiro, their father, ho ha# #ie# intestate on Huly , 1968. ol#in$ themsel)es as the heirs an# successorsininterest of Casimiro, they ha# then e(ecute# on +u$ust 29, 19?? the '(trau#icial Declaration of eirs ith an '(trau#icial 3ettlement of 'state of Decease# -erson an# Dee# of +bsolute 3ale, hereby they #i)i#e# an# a#u#icate# /ot No. 186 amon$ themsel)es, an# then sol# the entire lot to +#riano
C+ correctly foun#, the 3"ouses LbaMe hel# no ri$ht to /ot No. 186 because +#riano, their seller, an# his siblin$s ere not the oners of /ot No. 186. %n#ee#, Casimiro ha# absolutely con)eye# his interest in /ot No. 186 to +nar rothers un#er the Dee# of +bsolute 3ale of 5arch 21, 1964 ith the marital consent of 5aria Daclan, CasimiroFs sur)i)in$ s"ouse an# the mother of +#riano an# his siblin$s. Consi#erin$ that such con)eyance as eKecti)e an# bin#in$ on +#riano an# his siblin$s, there as no )ali# transmission of /ot No. 186 u"on CasimiroFs #eath to any of sai# heirs, an# they coul# not le$ally a#u#icate /ot No. 186 unto themsel)es, an# )ali#ly transfer it to +#riano. The con)eyance by +#riano to Hose !. LbaMe on Hune 21, 19?8 as absolutely )oi# an# ineKectual.
R(*+-' 9!?R?>R?, the Court R?F?RS?S and S?TS 2S;D? the decision of Court of 2ppeals.
SPOUSES MARIO AN) JULIA CAMPOS, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 1/"1, M#!$ 5, 201"
F#$%&' On No)ember 1?, 200, the "etitioners a""lie# for the re$istration of a "arcel of lan# situate# in accuit, auan$, /a nion. The "etitioners bou$ht the subect lan# from !oberto /ai$o, as e)i#ence# by a Dee# of +bsolute 3ale e(ecute# by the "arties on Huly 26, 1990.
%n su""ort of their a""lication, the "etitioners "resente#, amon$ others, the folloin$ e)i#enceG P1I testimony of "etitioner 5ario Cam"os@ P2I testimony of a#oinin$ lotoner, /eo"ol#o 3uban$@ PI /inen cloth of /ot 8?6 of +-1002221, Ca#4?4D@ P4I Ori$inal technical #escri"tion of the lot@ PI Certi*cate of +ssessment@ P6I Dee# of +bsolute 3ale #ate# Huly 26, 1990@ P?I Certi*e# true co"ies of Ta( #eclarations for the years 1948 an# 19 in the name of 5ar$arita /ai$o, the mother of !oberto /ai$o@ P8I Certi*e# true co"ies of Ta( #eclarations for the years 19?0, 19?4, 1980, 198 an# 198? in the name of !oberto /ai$o@ P9I Certi*e# true co"ies of Ta( #eclarations for the years 1990, 1994, 199 an# 1998 in the names of the "etitioners@ P10I Ta( recei"ts for the years 19911994, 19992000, 20012002, 200 an# 2004@ an# P11I Certi*cation from the D'N! C'N!O that /ot 8?6 falls ithin the alienable or #is"osable lan# of the "ublic #omain.
Only the re"ublic *le# a formal o""osition to the "etitionerFs a""lication, hich the 5TC #ismisse#. /ater on, 5TC $rante# the re$istration. C+ re)erse# the 5TCFs #ecision an# #ismisse# the "etitionerFs a""lication for re$istration of title.
ence, this "etition.
%33'G ;<N "etitioner "resente# suBcient e)i#ence to sho the nature an# #uration of their "ossession an# the fact that they ha# "ossesse# an# culti)ate# the lan# sou$ht to be re$istere#. )*&$(&&*o+' Court foun# no error by the C+ in resol)in$ the issues on the nature an# #uration of the "etitionersF "ossession an# on the alienable character of the subect lan#. These issues ere a""arently not raise# by the !e"ublic in its a""eal before the C+, but are crucial in #eterminin$ hether the "etitioners ha)e re$istrable title o)er the subect lan#. %n 5en#oa ). autista, the Court hel# that the a""ellate court reser)es the ri$ht, restin$ on its "ublic #uty, to ta:e co$niance of "al"able error on the face of the recor# an# "rocee#in$s, an# to notice errors that are ob)ious u"on ins"ection an# are of a controllin$ character, in or#er to "re)ent a miscarria$e of ustice #ue to o)ersi$ht.
%n #eci#in$ on the merits of the "resent "etition, e aBrm the C+ in #ismissin$ the "etitioners7 a""lication for re$istration of title.
-ersons a""lyin$ for re$istration of title un#er 3ection 14P 1I of -resi#ential Decree No. 129 must "ro)eG P1I that the lan# sou$ht to be re$istere# forms "art of the #is"osable an# alienable lan#s of the "ublic #omain, an# P2I that they ha)e been in o"en, continuous, e(clusi)e an# notorious "ossession an# occu"ation of the same un#er a bona *#e claim of onershi" since Hune 12, 194, or earlier.
R(*+-' ;'!'O!', "remises consi#ere#, e hereby D'NL the "etition an# +%!5 the #ecision of the C+.
