LTD- Heirs of Claro Laureta vs.

Intermediate Appellate Court

No. 25- The heirs of Claro Laureta-petitioners vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, Maros
Mata and Codii Mata- respondents
!etition to revie" on appeal #$ ertiorari the deision of the Intermediate Appellate Court
%. !etitioners are all heirs of the late Claro Laureta, su#stitutin& for their father, "ho
died, "hen durin& the liti&ation of the ase in the lo"er ourt.
2. Maros and Codii Mata are spouses and "hen Maros Mata passed a"a$ durin& the
penden$ of the ase, his heirs li'e"ise su#stituted for him.
(. )une %*, %+,5- Maros Mata onve$ed a lar&e trat of a&riultural land overed #$
-CT No. (*%+, in favor of Claro Laureta. The deed of a#solute sale in favor of Laureta
"as not re&istered #eause it "as not a'no"led&ed #efore a notar$ pu#li or an$
authori.ed offier, sine no one "as availa#le to do so #eause the ivil &overnment in
Ta&um, Davao "as not $et or&ani.ed.
,. Mata delivered to Laureta, the land to&ether "ith pertinent papers li'e the o"ner/s
dupliate of the -CT, s'eth plan, ta0 delaration, ta0 reeipts and other papers. 1ine
then, Laureta has #een in ontinuous oupation of said land "ithout #ein& distur#ed #$
Mata. Laureta has also #een pa$in& the realt$ ta0es thereon and had introdued
improvements on the propert$.
5. Ma$ 5, %+,2, the same land "as sold #$ Mata to 3ermin Caram, )r. The deed of sale
"as a'no"led&ed #efoe Att$. Aportadera.
4. Ma$ 22, %+,2, Maros Mata filed "ith the C3I-Davao, a petition for the issuane of a
ne" -"ner/s dupliate of -CT alle&in& that the title "as lost in the evauation plae of
Mata in Ta&um, Davao Cit$. A ne" -"ner/s dupliate of title no. (*%+ "as issued and
delarin& the lost title as null and void.
2. De. +, %+,2- the seond sale "as re&istered "ith the 5e&ister of Deeds and TCT No.
%,* "as issued in the name of Caram.
6. )une 25, %+5+- Laureta filed in C3I-Davao an ation for nullit$, reover$ of o"nership
and7or reonve$ane "ith dama&es a&ainst 1ps. Mata and Caram and the 5e&ister of
Deeds of Davao., docketed as Civil case no. 3083.
+. The trial ourt ruled in favor of Laureta. It ordered the 5e&ister of Deeds for the Cit$
and !rovine of Davao to anel TCT No. %,* in the name of Caram. The 5e&ister of
Deeds "as direted to issue a ne" title in favor of Laureta upon presentation of the deed
e0euted #$ Mata in his favor, dul$ a'no"led&ed #$ him and approved #$ the 1e. of
A&riulture and Natural 5esoures.
%*. The CA li'e"ise affirmed in full the deision of the C3I- Davao.
%%. 3rom this deision of the CA, t"o separate petitions "ere filed #efore the 1C8
a. !etition filed #$ the Mata spouses a&ainst Laureta- denied for la' of merit. 9eame
final and e0eutor$ on )ul$ 24, %+46 "hen entr$ of :ud&ment "as made.
#. !etition of Caram a&ainst Laureta- &iven due ourse. 3e#ruar$ 2,, %+6%, the petition
of Caram "as dismissed and deision of CA "as upheld. )ud&ment #eame final and
e0eutor$ on 3e#. %2, %+62.
The ne" deed of sale "as a'no"led&ed #$ the Cler' of Court , approved #$ the Minister
-f Natural 5esoures and TCT No. T ,4(,4 "as issued in the name of Laureta.
%2. 3e#ruar$ 2(, %+2+, the 1ps. Mata filed "ith C3I- Davao an ation for reover$ of
o"nership and possession of said land, do'eted as Civil Case No. 1071. Deed of sale
e0euted #$ Maros Mata in favor of Laureta "as null and void and or unenforea#le
sine the same had not #een approved #$ the 1e. of A&riulture as re;uired #$ la" and
as direted #$ C3I-Davao. 1aid deision annot #e enfored for havin& presri#ed.
%(. April 2*, %+6(- Trial ourt rendered a deision on the Civil Case returnin& the land to
the Matas. -n appeal, the ourt affirmed this deision in toto.
I11<=8 >hether or not petitioners ould still validl$ e0eute, enfore and7or ompl$
"ith the :ud&ment rendered #$ the C3I-Davao on 3e#ruar$ 2+, %+4, in Civil Case no.
(*6( at the time private respondents filed Civil ase No. %*2% a&ainst the petitioners on
3e#ruar$ 2(, %+2+.
H=LD8 ?=1.
%. 9oth the C3I and CA adopted the ten $ear statutor$ limit #ased on the date of entr$ of
:ud&ment , "hih is )ul$ 24, %+46. The Matas ontention "as that the date should #e
3e#. 2,, %+62, "hen Caram/s petition "as dismissed #$ this Court.
The matter "as ad:udiated in favor of Laureta on )ul$ 24, %+46, "ith finalit$. Caram
had no partiipation in the ase #et"een Laureta and Matas. In the event that the matter
"as ad:udiated in favor of Caram, he an &et #a' o"nership from Laureta. Caram,
ho"ever, eventuall$ lost.
2. This ase did not involve several or separate :ud&ments, #ut one omplete inte&rated
:ud&ment, a&ainst all the appellants and their laims therein ould not #e the su#:et of
separate e0eutor$ proesses.
(. The Court ruled in favor of the first sale made to Laureta and a&ainst the le&alit$ of
the su#se;uent sale to Caram. Caram/s validit$ of title depended lar&el$ on "hether he
had 'no"led&e, atual or onstrutive, of the prior sale to Laureta.
,. The ten $ear period ommened to run onl$ on 3e#ruar$ %2, %+62 "hen the deision
den$in& Caram/s petition #eame final and e0eutor$ and the :ud&ment appealed from is
reversed and set aside. Civil case no. 1071 of the RTC-Davao is dismissed.