Llenares vs. Court of Appeals, Zabella (J.

Davide, 13 May 1993) Facts Juan Zabella and Anastacio Llenares were co-owners of a parcel of land. Anastacio later sold his share of the lot to Aristo Zabella, who was survived by Apolinar. Some time after the sale, the cadastral court awarded the parcel of land to Juan and Anastacio in equal shares, and an OCT was issued in their favor. Anastacio died in 1931, leaving Magdalena as his sole heir. She adjudicated to herself the share of the property that belonged to Anastacio. However, because of the sale that Anastacio made to Aristo, Apolinar filed an adverse claim on the property. Magdalena claims she is entitled to the property and alleged that she had been in possession of it since she 1931, and that her cousin had administered the land since she was only 4 years old at the time, and that she began and has been administering the property since 1959. She also further proved that she had been paying taxes. Apolinar claims that he and his siblings were in possession of the land since 1930 that he had been paying irrigation charges since 1960. The trial court found for Magdalena, as the property was registered and titled in the name of Anasticio since 1937; the cadastral proceedings led to Anastacio being the registered owner, and was binding and conclusive against the whole world. The trial court also noted that the sale was conducted before the finality of the cadastral case, and it had, therefore, lost its efficacy. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Apolinar had promptly filed his adverse claim, and found that Magdalena wasnt in possession since the tax payments were not in her name until 1977. Issues/Held Which between the parties is entitled to the ownership of the property the Court rules for Magdalena Ratio The Supreme Court finds the ruling of the Trial Court to be in consonance with the law. That the petitioner did not declare the property in her name or paid taxes on the same is not fatal to her case; until 1976, the property was

registered under the names of Juan Zabella and Anastacio Llenares, as evidenced by the OCT. The OCT itself does not contain an adverse claim by Apolinar and his family, and no evidence shows that he made any action to enforce his claim on the property based on the deed of sale. On the other hand, as Magdalena is Anastacios sole heir, the continued existence of the OCT in the name of Juan and Anastacio fully protected her rights; her failure to declare the portion of the land for tax purposes does not prejudice her because the payments of the real estate taxes by others for and in behalf of the registered owners counts as payment by the registered owners. Furthermore, the claim of Apolinar cannot be considered a claim as contemplated by Section 110 of the Land Registration Act, as it was based on a transaction that occurred long before the rendition of judgment in the cadastral proceedings. It must be noted that cadastral proceedings are judicial and in rem, so they bind the whole world. Finally, there is no law which requires Magdalena to execute an affidavit of adjudication and cause the cancellation of the OCT and the issuance of a new one her name in order to transfer the ownership of the property to her or to protect her rights and interests therein. As soon as Anastacio died, the transfer in her favor took place.