Reynante v.

CA More than 50 years ago, petitioner Jose Reynante was taken as tenant of the late Don Cosme Carlos over a fishpond. During his tenancy, Jose Reynante constructed a nipa hut where his family resided and took care of nipa palms which he planted on lots 1 and 2. Petitioner harvested and sold the nipa palms without interference and prohibition from anybody. However, after the death of Don Cosme Carlos, petitioner was made to surrender the fishpond and all his rights therein by virtue of the Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pagsasauli ng Karapatan with a P200k consideration by the heirs of Don Cosme. The respondents, heirs of Don Cosme, leased the fishpond to Carlos dela Cruz while petitioner continued to live in the nipa hut he constructed on lots 1 and 2 and took care of the nipa palms he planted thereto. Formal demand to vacate was made but petitioner refused or failed to vacate. Thus, a complaint for forcible entry was instituted by the private respondents. ISSUE: Who has prior physical possession of the property? WON accretion benefits the owners. RULLING: Petitioner proved prior possession for more than 50 years. What was surrendered was the fishpond and his rights thereon not the sasahan where he built his hut. It was found out that Lots 1 & 2 were created by alluvial formation and properties of the respondents by accretion. However, failure of the respondents to register said accretion for more than 50 years subjected said accretion to acquisition through prescription by third persons. Reynante has a better right to the accretions. BAES v. CA

In 1962, the government dug a canal on a private parcel of land to streamline the Tripa de Gallina Creek. This lot was later acquired by Felix Baes who registered the same and had it subdivided into 3 lots. In exchange for the lot totally occupied by the canal, the government executed a Deed of Exchange of Real Property and gave a lot with exactly the same area to Baes. The soil diplaced by the canal was used to fill up the old bed of the creek. Meanwhile, Baes had resurveyed and subdivided the lots into 4 in accordance with the resurvey subdivision plan it filed to and was approved by the CFI. In 1978, the Republic of the Philippines discovered that the lot on which Baes erected an apartment was a filled-up portion of the Tripa De Gallina Creek, which Baes claimed as his own relying on Art. 461 of the CC. ISSUE: Who owns the old river bed? RULLING: The government. While it is true that the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damages to or loss of his property due to natural caused and through artificial means of changing the course of the river, Baes cannot be allowed to acquire ownership of the dried-up portion of the creek because he was already compensated through the Deed of Exchange of Real Property. Under the exchange, the two lots have the same area and value and it was a result of the voluntary negotiation of the parties. If Baes would be allowed to acquire the abandoned river bed it will result to double compensation.

CARAGAY-LAYNO v. CA Petitioner spouses Caragay-layno owned a parcel of land which was mistakenly or fraudulently included in the OCT of his cousin Mariano de Vera.

Respondent Salvador Estrada is the administrator of Mariano de Veras estate. It was established by a relocation survey that the disputed portion lacking in the inventory of all the properties of Mariano was occupied by Sps. Layno. Estrada demanded that the souses vacate the disputed portion but petitioner spouses refused claiming that the property belonged to them. Estrada then instituted a suit against Juliana Layno for the recovery of the disputed lot. Juliana claimed that they have been in actual, continuous and uninterrupted possession in the concept of an owner of the property for 45 years until the disturbance thereof. The trial court ordered Juliana to vacate the premises as her claim for reconveyance has prescribed. ISSUE: WON prescription barred the case. RULING: No. the action to quiet ones title is imprescriptible. Prescription cannot be invoked against Juliana for the reason that as a lawful possessor and owner of the disputed portion, her cause of action for reconveyance seeks to quiet title to the property. Her undisturbed possession gave her a continuing right to seek the aid of court of equity to determine the nature if adverse claim to her title. Besides, prescription attaches only when she was made aware of the adverse claim to her own title.

RUMARATE v. HERNANDEZ Sps. Rumarate filed an action for reconveyance of real property and/ quieting of title against the heirs of sps. Hernandez. Rumarate averred that Santiago Guerrero orally bequeathed his rights over lot 379 to him in 1929. Thereafterm their family cleared the land, built a house, and planted on it. A quitclaim was also executed by Santiago in their favor in 1960.

In 1970, Rumarate discovered that sps. Hernandez were able to obtain title over lot 379 but he did not file a case immediately. Respondent heirs of sps. Hernandez claimed that Santaigo sold the lot to them in 1964 but they were not able to possess the land. ISSUE: To whom should lot 379 be awarded? RULLING: To Rumarates. Rumarates open, continuous, exclusive, notorious possession and occupation of lot 379 for more than 30 years vested them title over the lot. Action for quieting of title is aimed to determine the respective rights of the parties and to prevent future disturbances thereon; it is merely a confirmation proceeding and; is imprescriptible. The requisites for an action for quieting of title are: 1. Plaintiff has legal or equitable title to or interest in the subject property. 2. The deed, claim, incumberance, or proceeding casts cloud on his title even if it appears to be valid or legally efficient but was really invalid.

KILARIO v. CA Respondent Silverio Pada filed an ejectment case against sps. Kilario. The latter occupies a portion of the intestate estate of Jacinto Pada, Grandfather of Silverio. The Kilarios have been living therein since 1960 by sheer tolerance. When Jacinto Pada dies, his heirs entered into extrajudicial partition of his estate in 1951. As a result thereof, lot 5581 was allocated to Ananias and Marciano who became co-owners of said lot.

Ananias died and his daughter succeeded in his right as co-owner. Eventually, Juanita sold her right in the co-ownership to Engr. Paderes. Mariaon the other hand, heir of Marciano, sold her share to her cousin respondent Silverio Pada. The latter demanded sps. Kilario to vacate but the sps. refused. On June 1995, a complaint for ejectment was filed against sps. Kilario. On July 1995 a deed of donation in their favor was executed by heirs of Amador Pada. ISSUE: Who owns the disputed property? RULLING: Silverio Pada. By virtue of the extrajudicial partition of Jacinto Padas estate, being legal and effective among the heirs, the ownership rights over lot 5581 was transferred to engr. Paderes and Silverio Pada. Co-owners can partition and sell the property they co-own. The donation was void because the donors are not the owners of the property donated.

ADILLE v. CA Petitioner Rustico Adille and respondents Asejo were half-siblings. The property under dispute was originally owned by their mother Felisa Alzul, who got married twice. During her lifetime, Felisa Alzul sold the property in pacto de retro with a 3 year repurchase period. However, she died before she can redeem the property. During the redemption period, Rustico Adille repurchased the property alone at his own expense and he executed a deed of extrajudicial partition representing as the only heir and child of Felisa.

After efforts of compromised had failed, his half-siblings filed a case for partition and accounting on the position that Rustico was only a trustee on an an implied trust whem he redeemed the property. ISSUE: May a co-owner acquire exclusive ownership over the property held in common upon repurchase of the same? RULLING: No. the right of repurchase may be exercised by a co-owner with respect to his share in the properties alone. Should petitioner redeem the property entirely, it will not put to an end the existing state of co-ownership. The property remains to be co-owned. Petitioner must be said to be a trustee of the property on behalf of respondents. Art. 1456 provides that if property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.

SPS. SI v. CA The sps. Escolastica and Severino Armada Sr. transferred to their children, the property in dispute, during their lifetime. The Registry of Deeds issued TCT 16007 in the names of Crisostomo, Severo and Jose Armada. Annotated in the title is the total cancellation of said title by virtue of the deed of sale executed by the attorney-in-fact of Crisostomo Armada in 1979 conveying the 113.34 sq. m. of said property in favor of Anita Si, married to Serafin Si., for P75k. In 1980, sps. Jose Armada filed a complaint for annulment of deed of sale and reconveyance of title with damages against sps. Si. Sps. Armada were alleging that they were not notified of the sale and they were claiming that they had a right of redemption. Sps. Si contended that since the property was already 3 distinct parcels of lad, there was no co-ownership among the brothers.

ISSUE: Whether private respondents may claim the right of redemption? RULLING: No. After the physical division of the lot among the brothers, the community ownership was terminated, the right or pre-emption or redemption for each brother was no longer available. Art. 484 provides that there is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. There is no co-ownership when the different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined and separately identifiable, even if not yet technically described.