G.R. No. L-3404, Tuason v. Tuason and Gregorio Araneta Inc., 88 Phil. 48 A!

ril , "#$"
In 1941 the sisters Angela I. Tuason and Nieves Tuason de Barreto and their brother Antonio Tuason Jr., held a parcel of
land with an area of 4,9!". s#. $. covered b% &ertificate of Title No. '911 in (a$paloc, )anila, in co$$on, each
owning an undivided 1*+ portion. Nieves wanted and as,ed for a partition of the co$$on propert%, but failing in this, she
offered to sell her 1*+ portion. The share of Nieves was offered for sale to her sister and her brother but both declined to
bu% it. The offer was later $ade to their $other but the old lad% also declined to bu%, sa%ing that if the propert% later
increased in value, she $ight be suspected of having ta,en advantage of her daughter. -inall%, the share of Nieves was
sold to .regorio Araneta Inc., a do$estic corporation, and a new &ertificate of Title No. 1/!1 was issued in lieu of the
old title No. '911 covering the sa$e propert%. The three co0owners agreed to have the whole parcel subdivided into
s$all lots and then sold, the proceeds of the sale to be later divided a$ong the$. This agree$ent is e$bodied in a
docu$ent 123h. 4 entitled 5)e$orandu$ of Agree$ent5 consisting of ten pages, dated June +', 1941.
Before, during and after the e3ecution of this contract 123h. 4, Att%. J. Antonio Araneta was acting as the attorne%0in0fact
and law%er of the two co0owners, Angela I. Tuason and her brother Antonio Tuason Jr. At the sa$e ti$e he was a
$e$ber of the Board of 6irector of the third co0owner, Araneta, Inc.
The pertinent ter$s of the contract 123h. 4 $a% be briefl% stated as follows7 The three co0owners agreed to i$prove the
propert% b% filling it and constructing roads and curbs on the sa$e and then subdivide it into s$all lots for sale. Araneta
Inc. was to finance the whole develop$ent and subdivision8 it was prepare a schedule of prices and conditions of sale,
sub9ect to the sub9ect to the approval of the two other co0owners8 it was invested with authorit% to sell the lots into which
the propert% was to be subdivided, and e3ecute the corresponding contracts and deeds of sale8 it was also to pa% the real
estate ta3es due on the propert% or of an% portion thereof that re$ained unsold, the e3penses of surve%ing,
i$prove$ents, etc., all advertising e3penses, salaries of personnel, co$$issions, office and legal e3penses, including
e3penses in instituting all actions to e9ect all tenants or occupants on the propert%8 and it undertoo, the dut% to furnish
each of the two co0owners, Angela and Antonio Tuason, copies of the subdivision plans and the $onthl% sales and rents
and collections $ade thereon. In return for all this underta,ing and obligation assu$ed b% Araneta Inc., particularl% the
financial burden, it was to receive :' per cent of the gross selling price of the lots, and an% rents that $a% be collected
fro$ the propert%, while in the process of sale, the re$aining :' per cent to be divided in e#ual portions a$ong the three
co0owners so that each will receive 1.++ per cent of the gross receipts.
Because of the i$portance of paragraphs 9, 11 and 1: of the contract 123h. 4, for purposes of reference we are
reproducing the$ below7
194 This contract shall re$ain in full force and effect during all the ti$e that it $a% be necessar% for the ;A<T= >- T?2
(2&>N6 ;A<T to full% sell the said propert% in s$all and subdivided lots and to full% collect the purchase prices due
thereon8 it being understood and agreed that said lots $a% be rented while there are no purchasers thereof8
1114 The ;A<T= >- T?2 (2&>N6 ;A<T 1$eaning Araneta Inc.4 is hereb% given full power and authorit% to sign for
and in behalf of all the said co0owners of said propert% all contracts of sale and deeds of sale of the lots into which this
propert% $ight be subdivided8 the powers herein vested to the ;A<T= >- T?2 (2&>N6 ;A<T $a%, under its own
responsibilit% and ris,, delegate an% of its powers under this contract to an% of its officers, e$plo%ees or to third persons8
11:4 No co0owner of the propert% sub9ect0$atter of this contract shall sell, alienate or dispose of his ownership, interest
or participation therein without first giving preference to the other co0owners to purchase and ac#uire the sa$e under the
sa$e ter$s and conditions as those offered b% an% other prospective purchaser. (hould none of the co0owners of the
propert% sub9ect0$atter of this contract e3ercise the said preference to ac#uire or purchase the sa$e, then such sale to a
third part% shall be $ade sub9ect to all the conditions, ter$s, and dispositions of this contract8 provided, the ;A<TI2( >-
T?2 -I<(T ;A<T 1$eaning Angela and Antonio4 shall be bound b% this contract as long as the ;A<T= >- T?2
(2&>N6 ;A<T, na$el%, the .<2.><I> A<AN2TA, IN&. is controlled b% the $e$bers of the Araneta fa$il%, who
are stoc,holders of the said corporation at the ti$e of the signing of this contract and*or their lawful heirs8
>n (epte$ber 1, 1944, Angela I. Tuason revo,ed the powers conferred on her attorne%0in0fact and law%er, J. Antonio
Araneta. Then in a letter dated >ctober 19, 194, Angela notified Araneta, Inc. that because of alleged breach of the
ter$s of the 5)e$orandu$ of Agree$ent5 123h. 4 and abuse of powers granted to it in the docu$ent, she had decided
to rescind said contract and she as,ed that the propert% held in co$$on be partitioned. @ater, on Nove$ber !', 194,
Angela filed a co$plaint in the &ourt of -irst Instance of )anila as,ing the court to order the partition of the propert% in
#uestion and that she be given 1*+ of the sa$e including rents collected during the ti$e that the sa$e including rents
collected during the ti$e that Araneta Inc., ad$inistered said propert%.
The suit was ad$inistered principall% against Araneta, Inc. ;laintiffAs brother, Antonio Tuason Jr., one of the co0owners
evidentl% did not agree to the suit and its purpose, for he evidentl% did not agree to the suit and its purpose, for he 9oined
Araneta, Inc. as a co0defendant. After hearing and after considering the e3tensive evidence introduce, oral and
docu$entar%, the trial court presided over b% Judge 2$ilio ;eBa in a long and considered decision dis$issed the
co$plaint without pronounce$ent as to costs. The plaintiff appealed fro$ that decision, and because the propert% is
valued at $ore than ;:',''', the appeal ca$e directl% to this &ourt.
(o$e of the reasons advanced b% appellant to have the $e$orandu$ contract 123h. 4 declared null and void or
rescinded are that she had been tric,ed into signing it8 that she was given to understand b% Antonio Araneta acting as her
attorne%0in0fact and legal adviser that said contract would be si$ilar to another contract of subdivision of a parcel into
lots and the sale thereof entered into b% .regorio Araneta Inc., and the heirs of 6. Tuason, 23hibit 5@5, but it turned out
that the two contracts widel% differed fro$ each other, the ter$s of contract 23h. 5@5 being relativel% $uch $ore
favorable to the owners therein the less favorable to Araneta Inc.8 that Att%. Antonio Araneta was $ore or less
dis#ualified to act as her legal adviser as he did because he was one of the officials of Araneta Inc., and finall%, that the
defendant co$pan% has violated the ter$s of the contract 123h. 4 b% not previousl% showing her the plans of the
subdivision, the schedule of prices and conditions of the sale, in not introducing the necessar% i$prove$ents into the
land and in not delivering to her her share of the proceeds of the rents and sales.
Ce have e3a$ined 23h. 5@5 and co$pared the sa$e with the contract 123h. 4 and we agree with the trial court that in
the $ain the ter$s of both contracts are si$ilar and practicall% the sa$e. )oreover, as correctl% found b% the trial court,
the copies of both contracts were shown to the plaintiff Angela and her husband, a bro,er, and both had ever%
opportunit% to go over and co$pare the$ and decide on the advisabilit% of or disadvantage in entering into the contract
123h. 48 that although Att%. Antonio Araneta was an official of the Araneta Inc.8 being a $e$ber of the Board of
6irectors of the &o$pan% at the ti$e that 23hibit 55 was e3ecuted, he was not the part% with which Angela contracted,
and that he co$$itted no breach of trust. According to the evidence Araneta, the pertinent papers, and sent to her chec,s
covering her receive the sa$e8 and that as a $atter of fact, at the ti$e of the trial, Araneta Inc., had spent about ;11/,'''
in i$prove$ent and had received as proceeds on the sale of the lots the respectable su$ of ;1,!:,:+".4". Ce #uote with
approval that portion of the decision appealed fro$ on these points7
The evidence in this case points to the fact that the actuations of J. Antonio Araneta in connection with the e3ecution of
e3hibit b% the parties, are above board. ?e co$$itted nothing that is violative of the fiduciar% relationship e3isting
between hi$ and the plaintiff. The act of J. Antonio Araneta in giving the plaintiff a cop% of e3hibit before the sa$e
was e3ecuted, constitutes a full disclosure of the facts, for said cop% contains all that appears now in e3hibit .
;laintiff charges the defendant .regorio Araneta, Inc. with infringing the ter$s of the contract in that the defendant
corporation has failed 114 to $a,e the necessar% i$prove$ents on the propert% as re#uired b% paragraphs 1 and + of the
contract8 1!4 to sub$it to the plaintiff fro$ ti$e to ti$e schedule of prices and conditions under which the subdivided
lots are to be sold8 and to furnish the plaintiff a cop% of the subdivision plans, a cop% of the $onthl% gross collections
fro$ the sale of the propert%.
The &ourt finds fro$ the evidence that he defendant .regorio Araneta, Incorporated has substantiall% co$plied with
obligation i$posed b% the contract e3hibit in its paragraph 1, and that for i$prove$ents alone, it has disbursed the
a$ount of ;11/,1/.'9. It has li,ewise paid ta3es, co$$issions and other e3penses incidental to its obligations as denied
in the agree$ent.
Cith respect to the charged that .regorio Araneta, Incorporated has failed to sub$it to plaintiff a cop% of the subdivision
plains, list of prices and the conditions governing the sale of subdivided lots, and $onthl% state$ent of collections for$
the sale of the lots, the &ourt is of the opinion that it has no basis. The evidence shows that the defendant corporation
sub$itted to the plaintiff periodicall% all the data relative to prices and conditions of the sale of the subdivided lots,
together with the a$ount corresponding to her. But without an% 9ustifiable reason, she refused to accept the$. Cith the
indifferent attitude adopted b% the plaintiff, it was thought useless for .regorio Araneta, Incorporated to continue sending
her state$ent of accounts, chec,s and other things. (he had shown on various occasions that she did not want to have
an% further dealings with the said corporation. (o, if the defendant corporation proceeded with the sale of the subdivided
lots without the approval of the plaintiff, it was because it was under the correct i$pression that under the contract
e3hibit the decision of the $a9orit% co0owners is binding upon all the three.
The &ourt feels that recission of the contract e3hibit is not $inor violations of the ter$s of the agree$ent, the general
rule is that 5recission will not be per$itted for a slight or casual breach of the contract, but onl% for such breaches as are
so substantial and funda$ental as to defeat the ob9ect of the parties in $a,ing the agree$ent5 1(ong -o D &o. vs.
?awaiian0;hilippine &o., 4/ ;hil. "!14.
As regards i$prove$ents, the evidence shows that during the Japanese occupation fro$ 194! and up to 194, the
Araneta Inc. although willing to fill the land, was unable to obtain the e#uip$ent and gasoline necessar% for filling the
low places within the parcel. As to sales, the evidence shows that Araneta Inc. purposel% stopped selling the lots during
the Japanese occupantion, ,nowing that the purchase price would be paid in Japanese $ilitar% notes8 and Att%. Araneta
clai$s that for this, plaintiff should be than,full because otherwise she would have received these notes as her share of
the receipts, which currenc% later beca$e valueles.
But the $ain contention of the appellant is that the contract 123h. 4 should be declared null and void because its ter$s,
particularl% paragraphs 9, 11 and 1: which we have reproduced, violate the provisions of Art. 4'' of the &ivil &ode,
which for the purposes of reference we #uote below7
A<T. 4''. No co0owner shall be obliged to re$ain a part% to the co$$unit%. 2ach $a%, at an% ti$e, de$and the partition
of the thing held in co$$on.
Nevertheless, an agree$ent to ,eep the thing undivided for a specified length of ti$e, not e3ceeding ten %ears, shall be
valid. This period $a% be a new agree$ent.
Ce agree with the trial court that the provisions of Art. 4'' of the &ivil &ode are not applicable. The contract 123h., 4
far fro$ violating the legal provision that forbids a co0owner being obliged to re$ain a part% to the co$$unit%, precisel%
has for its purpose and ob9ect the dissolution of the co0ownership and of the co$$unit% b% selling the parcel held in
co$$on and dividing the proceeds of the sale a$ong the co0owners. The obligation i$posed in the contract to preserve
the co0ownership until all the lots shall have been sold, is a $ere incident to the $ain ob9ect of dissolving the co0owners.
B% virtue of the docu$ent 23h. , the parties thereto practicall% and substantiall% entered into a contract of partnership as
the best and $ost e3pedient $eans of eventuall% dissolving the co0ownership, the life of said partnership to end when the
ob9ect of its creation shall have been attained.
This aspect of the contract is ver% si$ilar to and was perhaps based on the other agree$ent or contract 123h. 5@54
referred to b% appellant where the parties thereto in e3press ter$s entered into partnership, although this ob9ect is not
e3pressed in so $an% words in 23h. . Ce repeat that we see no violation of Art. 4'' of the &ivil &ode in the parties
entering into the contract 123h. 4 for the ver% reason that Art. 4'' is not applicable.
@oo,ing at the case fro$ a practical standpoint as did the trial court, we find no valid ground for the partition insisted
upon the appellant. Ce find fro$ the evidence as was done b% the trial court that of the 4,9!". s#. $. which is the total
area of the parcel held in co$$on, onl% 1,'' s#. $. or !.: per cent of the entire area re$ained unsold at the ti$e of the
trial in the %ear 194/, while the great bul, of 9/.: per cent had alread% been sold. As well observed b% the court below,
the partnership is in the process of being dissolved and is about to be dissolved, and even assu$ing that Art. 4'' of the
&ivil &ode were applicable, under which the parties b% agree$ent $a% agree to ,eep the thing undivided for a period not
e3ceeding 1' %ears, there should be no fear that the re$aining 1,'' s#. $. could not be disposed of within the four %ears
left of the ten0%ears period fi3ed b% Art. 4''.
Ce dee$ it unnecessar% to discuss and pass upon the other points raised in the appeal and which counsel for appellant
has e3tensivel% and abl% discussed, citing nu$erous authorities. As we have alread% said, we have viewed the case fro$
a practical standpoint, brushing aside technicalities and disregarding an% $inor violations of the contract, and in deciding
the case as we do, we are full% convinced that the trial court and this Tribunal are carr%ing out in a practical and
e3peditious wa% the intentions and the agree$ent of the parties contained in the contract 123h. 4, na$el%, to dissolve the
co$$unit% and co0ownership, in a $anner $ost profitable to the said parties.
In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed fro$ is hereb% affir$ed. There is no pronounce$ent as to costs.
(o ordered.
L%&N'I& '. &LI(%R&), re!resented *+ his heirs, ,&I)%) -% LA 'R./, and the 0%IR) &1 L.'I& -%LA
'R./, re!resented *+ 1%LI2 -%LA 'R./, () )AN ,IG.%L '&RP&RATI&N, T0% R%GI)T%R &1 -%%-) &1
'AL&&'AN 'IT3, and T0% R%GI)T%R &1 -%%-) &1 (AL%N/.%LA, ,%TR& ,ANILA, G.R. No. "43$3"
&nl+ holders o5 valid titles can invo6e the !rinci!le o5 inde5easi*ilit+ o5 Torrens titles.

Before the &ourt is a ;etition for <eviewE1F of the April !1, !'' 6ecision of the &ourt of Appeals 1&A4 in &A0..<. &G
No. :9/'4, as well as its Jul% /, !'' <esolution, den%ing reconsideration of the assailed 6ecision. The dispositive portion of the
April !1, !'' 6ecision reads7
70%R%1&R%, the appealed 6ecision dated August 1!, 199/ is affir$ed, sub9ect to the $odification
that the award of attorne%Hs fees is reduced to ;1'','''.''.

)& &R-%R%-.E!F


The &A affir$ed the trial courtHs 9udg$ent, which dis8issed petitionersH co$plaint for the nullification of the title of (an )iguel
&orporationHs 1()&4 predecessor0in0interest, <a$ie Te3tile 1<a$ite34, Inc., over @ot 11+1 of the )alinta 2state and granted
<a$ite3H pra%er for the cancellation of petitioner @eoncio &. >liverosH 1>liveros4 title over the sub9ect propert%.

Factual Antecedents

This case involves a parcel of land ,nown as @ot 11+1 1sub9ect propert%4 of the )alinta 2state located in Barrio Bagbaguin of
GalenIuela, )etro )anila.

<a$ite3 bought the sub9ect propert% fro$ co0owners To$as (oriano 1(oriano4 and &oncepcion @oIada 1@oIada4 in 19:/. >n the
basis of such sale, the <egister of 6eeds of Bulacan 1Bulacan <64 cancelled the vendorsH Transfer &ertificate of Title 1T&T4 No.
!9++4E+F and issued T&T No. T01"4' on )arch , 19:/ in favor of <a$ite3.

@ot 11+1 is 9ust one of the 1/ lots owned b% <a$ite3 within the )alinta 2state. In 19", <a$ite3 consolidated and
subdivided its 1/ lots within the )alinta 2state into si3 lots onl% under &onsolidation (ubdivision ;lan ;cs01+0''':+:.E4F @ot
11+1, which contains ",9:' s#uare $eters, was consolidated with portions of @ots 11!/0A and 11!"0B to beco$e consolidated @ot
No. 4 1consolidated @ot 44. The consolidated area of @ot 4 is 1,9:" s#uare $eters. B% virtue of this consolidation, the <egister of
6eeds of &aloocan &it% 1&aloocan <64 cancelled <a$ite3H individual title to @ot 11+1 1T&T No. T01"4'4 and issued a new title,
T&T No. T01+/!1, for the consolidated @ot 4.

Troubles began for <a$ite3 on -ebruar% !!, 19"9, when >liveros filed a petitionE:F in Branch 1/! of the <egional Trial
&ourt of GalenIuela 1GalenIuela <T&4 for the reconstitution of T&T No. T01/1", his alleged title over @ot 11+1 of the )alinta
2state 1reconstitution case4.EF ?e clai$ed that the original cop% was destro%ed in the fire that gutted the office of the Bulacan <6
on )arch /, 19"/.E/F

<a$ite3 filed its opposition to >liverosH petitionE"F asserting that T&T No. T01/1" never e3isted in the records of the
Bulacan <6 and cannot therefore be reconstituted.E9F The (tate, through the provincial prosecutor, also opposed on the basis that
>liverosH T&T No. T01/1", which is e$bodied on a 9udicial for$ with (erial Nu$ber 1(erial No.4 1!4'4, does not co$e fro$
official sources. The (tate sub$itted a certification fro$ the @and <egistration Authorit% 1@<A4 that its ;ropert% (ection issued the
for$ with (erial No. 1!4'4 to the <egister of 6eeds of 6avao &it% 16avao <64, and not to the Bulacan <6, as clai$ed in
>liverosH alleged title.E1'F

In light of <a$ite3H opposition and ownership clai$s over @ot 11+1, >liveros filed a co$plaint for the declaration of nullit%
of <a$ite3H title over @ot 11+1 on Nove$ber 1, 199' 1nullit% case4.E11F This co$plaint was doc,eted as &ivil &ase No. +!+!0G0
"9 and raffled to Branch 1/! of the GalenIuela <T&. >liveros clai$ed that he bought the sub9ect propert% so$eti$e in Nove$ber
19: fro$ the spouses 6o$ingo 6e @eon and )odesta )olina, and pursuant to such sale, the Bulacan <6 issued T&T No. T0
1/1" in his favor on Nove$ber 14, 19:.
?e was 9oined in the suit b% his alleged overseers to @ot 11+1, petitioners )oises and -eli3 6ela &ruI, who were 9udiciall%
e9ected b% <a$ite3 fro$ @ot 11!/ two %ears before.E1!F

>liveros and his co0petitioners alleged that <a$ite3 did not own @ot 11+1 and that its individual title to @ot 11+1, T&T No.
1"4', was fa,e and was used b% <a$ite3 to consolidate @ot 11+1 with its other properties in the )alinta 2state. The% further
clai$ed that the resulting consolidated @ot 4 is not actuall% a consolidation of several lots but onl% contains @ot 11+1, which
belongs to >liveros. Thus, the% as,ed for the nullification as well of <a$ite3H title to consolidated @ot 4,E1+F insofar as it
unlawfull% included @ot 11+1.

.iven the pre9udicial nature of the nullit% case on the reconstitution case, the latter was held in abe%ance until the resolution
of the for$er.

<a$ite3 answered that its title over @ot 11+1 is valid and clai$ed continuous possession and ownership of the sub9ect
propert%. It pra%ed for the dis$issal of petitionersH co$plaint against it for lac, of $erit.E14F <a$ite3 counterclai$ed that it is
>liverosH title, T&T No. T01/1", that should be cancelled for being spurious and non0e3istent.

6uring trial, E1:F >liveros testified that the Bulacan <6 lost the original of his alleged title when its office and records were
destro%ed b% fire on )arch /, 19"/. ?e presented a certification fro$ the Bulacan <6 to the effect that all its records, titles and
docu$ents were burned.E1F ?e also presented a certification fro$ the &aloocan <6 to the effect that it did not receive the original
certificate of title bearing T&T No. T01/1" fro$ the Bulacan <6, after ;residential 6ecree No. "!4E1/F re$oved 9urisdiction over
the )unicipalit% of GalenIuela fro$ the ;rovince of Bulacan to &aloocan.E1"F The GalenIuela <6 li,ewise certified that it has no
record of the original of T&T No. T01/1".E19F

Chen #uestioned wh% the original of his title was not trans$itted to the &aloocan <6 and the GalenIuela <6 when the
9urisdiction over the properties of the )alinta 2state was transferred to these offices, >liveros e3plained that it was onl% the titles
with new transactions that were transferred. (ince his title was dor$ant, $eaning he did not $a,e an% transaction on it, it was
never tras$itted to the &aloocan or GalenIuela <6.

Notabl%, >liveros failed to present his ownerHs duplicate of T&T No. T01/1" during the entire trial but onl% presented a
$achine cop% thereof. ?e clai$ed that he had alread% sold @ot 11+1 to a certain Nelson .o of 6N. <ealt% and 6evelop$ent
&orporation 16N. <ealt%4 in June of 1991,E!'F and that the vendee has possession of the ownerHs duplicate. >liveros e3plained
that .o would not lend to hi$ the ownerHs duplicate for presentation to the court because of a pending case for rescission of sale
between the$.E!1F The co$plaint for rescission alleged that >liveros deceived and defrauded Nelson .o and 6N. <ealt% b%
$isrepresenting ownership and actual possession of @ot 11+1, which turned out to be owned and possessed b% <a$ite3.E!!F

Instead of his ownerHs duplicate, >liveros presented a lot data co$putationE!+F fro$ the @and )anage$ent Bureau 1@)B4
as proof that @ot 11+1 e3ists in the public records as co$prising 1,9:" s#uare $eters, not ",9:' as clai$ed b% ()& and <a$ite3.
E!4F ?e also showed an undated and unapproved surve% planE!:F to prove that @ot 11+1 was surve%ed to contain the said area.E!F
As further proof of his ownership, >liveros presented his ta3 declarations covering @ot 11+1.

Cith respect to his allegation that <a$ite3H title to @ot 11+1 is void, >liveros pointed out that the title does not contain the
propert%Hs technical description8 it was issued on )arch , 19:/, the sa$e date that 1+ other titles over other lots within the )alinta
2state were issued in favor of <a$ite38 and the signatures of the registrar, (oledad B. 6e Jesus, on the said titles were dubious.E!/F

>n the other hand, ()& 1having substitutedE!"F <a$ite3 as part%0defendant after bu%ing <a$ite3H interests over the sub9ect
propert%E!9F4 presented officials fro$ various govern$ent offices to prove that >liverosH purported title to @ot 11+1 does not
actuall% e3ist in the official records.

-ortunato T. ;ascual 1;ascual4,E+'F who heads the ;ropert% (ection of the @and <egistration Authorit%,E+1F e3plained that
his office supplies all the <6s throughout the countr% with the blan, title for$s, called Judicial -or$ No. 1'906. (tarting in 19:4,
Judicial -or$s No. 1'906 beca$e accountable for$s bearing unique serial nu$bers.E+!F >nce a for$ is used b% a registrar for
issuing a land title, the registrar has to account for such for$s b% sub$itting a report of consu$ption 1of the title for$s4 to the @<A.
E++F The ;ropert% (ection of the @<A $aintains a record of all the title for$s alread% used b% the different registers of deeds.E+4F
;ascual then testified that, based on the @<AHs <ecord of &onsu$ption of Judical -or$s,E+:F the @<A issued Judicial -or$ No.
1'906 with (erial No. 1!4'4 to the 6avao <6 on -ebruar% !1, 19:/, and not to the Bulacan <6 so$eti$e in 19:, as stated on
>liverosH purported title.E+F As further proof that the Bulacan <6 has not been issued a Judicial -or$ No. 1'906 with (erial No.
1!4'4 in Nove$ber 19: 1as stated in >liverosH title4, ;ascual presented the record of consu$ption that was sub$itted b% the
Bulacan <6 for the said $onth and %ear. The record states that the Bulacan <6 consu$ed or issued :! pieces of Judicial -or$ No.
1'906, with serial nu$bers starting fro$ 11+!9! up to 11++4+ onl%.E+/F

Att%. Aludia ;. .adia 1.adia4, the <egistrar of 6avao <6, confir$ed ;ascualHs testi$on%. (he personall% conducted the
research and verifications fro$ her office records that Judicial -or$ No. 1'906 bearing (erial No. 1!4'4 was used for issuing
T&T No. T0/:!! on August ", 19:/ in the na$e of a certain &onsuelo Javellana, $arried to Angel Javellana. (he presented the
cancelled cop% of T&T No. T0/:!! to the court.E+"F .adia li,ewise attested to the fact that the serial nu$bers close to (erial No.
1!4'4 1e.g. 1!4:99, 1!4'', 1!4'1, etc.4 are all accounted for in Boo, No. +" of the 6avao <6.E+9F

()& then assailed >liverosH Ta3 6eclaration 1T64 No. B0'!/0'199: over @ot 11+1. It presented &esar )ar#ueI
1)ar#ueI4, the $unicipal assessor of the )unicipalit% of GalenIuela. )ar#ueI testified that T6 No. B0'!/0'199:, which on its face
states that it covers @ot 11+1 with T&T No. T01/1",E4'F is actuall% a revision of T6 No. B0'!/0'11/',E41F which covers @ot 11+4
of the )alinta 2state with T&T No. T019+11.E4!F

Bartolo$e .arcia, the acting chief of the <ealt% Ta3 6ivision of the >ffice
of the )unicipal Treasurer of GalenIuela,E4+F corroborated )ar#ueIH testi$on% that it was onl% on (epte$ber 1!, 19"+E44F that
>liveros started pa%ing real estate ta3es, but the said pa%$ents were for @ot 11+4,E4:F not @ot 11+1. ;er the records of his office,
>liveros began pa%ing ta3es for @ot 11+1 onl% on )arch 1!, 199'. >n the other hand, <a$ite3 had been pa%ing realt% ta3es for
@ot 11+1 since 19/.E4F

2ngineer 2rnesto 2rive 12ngineer 2rive4, chief of the (urve%s 6ivision of the @and )anage$ent (ector, testified that the lot
data co$putation and unapproved surve% plan presented b% >liveros are used b% geodetic engineers for reference purposes onl%,
not for registration purposes.E4/F

2ngineer 2rive also pointed out that >liverosH title, which describes @ot 11+1 as containing 1,9:" s#uare $eters, is clearl%
erroneous. According to their office records, @ot 11+1 of the )alinta 2state contains ",9:' s#uare $eters onl%. ?e presented as
proof the approved surve% plan for @ot 11+1, ;lan (;0!9'. 2ngineer 2rive e3plained that it was onl% after the consolidation $ade
b% <a$ite3 that @ot 11+1 beca$e a part of consolidated @ot 4 with the consolidated area of 1,9:" s#uare $eters.E4"F Thus,
>liverosH title, unapproved surve% plan and lot data co$putation all contain technical descriptions of the consolidated @ot 4 of
<a$ite3H ;cs01+0'''0:+:, and not of @ot 11+1 of the )alinta 2state.E49F

2ngineer 2rive dispelled doubts regarding the absence of a technical description on T&T No. 1T01"4'4 T044++, <a$ite3H title
over @ot 11+1. ?e e3plained that such was the usual practice with respect to lots within the )alinta 2state8 that titles there usuall%
include onl% the lot nu$ber and the case nu$ber.E:'F

()& also debun,ed the alleged parent title, fro$ which >liverosH title was
derived, T&T No. T019!1. -or this purpose, ()& presented &hristian Bautista 1Bautista4, the land registration e3a$iner fro$ the
GalenIuela <6, who testified that the onl% record it has of T&T No. T019!1 pertains to @ot !'06 of the @olo$bo% 2state in the
na$e of BeatriI 6ela &ruI. It does not pertain to @ot 11+1 of the )alinta 2state and is not in the na$e of >liverosH alleged
transferors, 6o$ingo 6e @eon and )odesta )olina.E:1F

In star, contrast, ()& established its clai$ to @ot 11+1. Bautista presented the original copies of <a$ite3H individual titles
over the 1 parcels of land within the )alinta 2state, as well as the original titles of the consolidated lots,E:!F which are all properl%
recorded in the GalenIuela <6.E:+F Bautista also brought to court T&T No. 1T0!9++44 T0+/9', which is the title of <a$ite3Hs
alleged predecessors0in0interest to @ot 11+1, (oriano and @oIada.E:4F

-or his rebuttal, >liveros presented <a$on Gas#ueI 1Gas#ueI4, a record custodian of the @)B assigned to the 2scolta
Branch.E::F Gas#ueI testified that their office has a record of an unsigned and undated lot data co$putation for @ot 11+1 of the
)alinta 2state in the na$e of 6o$ingo 6e @eon.E:F Jpon cross e3a$ination, however, Gas#ueI ad$itted that the 2scolta branch
had no record of surve% plans for the )alinta 2stateE:/F and that a lot data co$putation is not used as basis for the registration of
land.E:"F

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court[59]

The trial court found sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that >liverosH T&T No. T01/1" does not e3ist. It gave
due credence to the certification of the @<A that Bulacan <6 never possessed, hence could never have issued, Judicial -or$ No.
1'906 with (erial No. 1!4'4.E'F

It observed that the certification fro$ the Bulacan <6 onl% proved that its records and docu$ents were destro%ed in the fire
of )arch 19"/. It did not, in the least, prove that T&T No. T01/1" e3isted prior to the fire.E1F

-urther, >liveros failed to e3plain wh% the parent title of T&T No. T01/1" refers to a lot in the @olo$bo% 2state.E!F ?e
did not present the deed of sale allegedl% e3ecuted in his favor b% his vendors 6o$ingo de @eon and )odesta )olina8 nor could he
produce the correct title, fro$ which his T&T No. T01/1" was derived.E+F

>n the other hand, the trial court found overwhel$ing evidence supporting ()&Hs clai$ as to the validit% of its title to the
sub9ect propert%. The title fro$ which ()&Hs predecessor0in0interest <a$ite3 derived its own title, T&T No. 1T0+/9'4 !9++4, was
in the na$e of <a$ite3H vendors (oriano and @oIada, and was still in e3istence in the Bulacan <6. )oreover, 2ntr% No. +9'9
can be found on the dorsal portion thereof, which corroborates <a$ite3H clai$ that it bought @ot 11+1 fro$ the said vendors.E4F

The trial court ruled in favor of ()&, thus7

C?2<2-><2, 9udg$ent is hereb% rendered as follows7

14. 6eclaring T&T No. T01/1" of >liveros as not genuine and dis$issing the above0entitled case for
lac, of $erit8 and

!4. >rdering the plaintiffs, 9ointl% and severall%, to pa% defendant ()& the a$ount of ;/'','''.'' as
attorne%Hs fees, plus the costs of suit.

(> ><62<26.E:F


Ruling of the Court of AppealsEF

;etitioners appealed to the &A. The% as,ed for the reversal of the finding that >liverosH title over @ot 11+1 is spurious and non0
e3istent.E/F ;etitioners averred that T&T No. T01/1" was issued earlier than <a$ite3H title, contains the technical description for
@ot 11+1 and is signed b% (oledad B. 6e Jesus, the registrar of the Bulacan <6. Thus, T&T No. T01/1" en9o%s the presu$ption of
regularit% accorded to ever% public instru$ent and thus, cannot be collaterall% attac,ed.E"F ;etitioners relied heavil% on the
alleged conclusiveness of >liverosH title based on its earlier issuance.E9F

The appellate court affir$ed the trial courtHs 6ecision.

After reviewing the factual findings of the trial court, the &A agreed that there is no evidence that >liverosH title ca$e fro$
official sources. >n the other hand, ()& ade#uatel% established the e3istence and validit% of its title 1T&T No. T01"4'4, as well as
those of its predecessorsH titles K those of <a$ite3 1T&T No. T01+/!14 and (oriano and @oIada 1T&T No. !9++44.E/'F .iven that
these titles e3ist in official sources, the% are indefeasible unless and until credible evidence is presented to obtain their annul$ent on
grounds of fraud. In this instance, the &A found that >liveros failed to present such evidence and thus, sustained the validit% of
()&Hs title.

The &A however found the trial courtHs award of ;/'','''.'' as attorne%Hs fees e3cessive, and thus reduced the sa$e to
;1'','''.''.E/1F
;etitioners filed a )otion for <econsideration,E/!F which was denied for lac, of $erit in the appellate courtHs Jul% /, !''
<esolution.E/+F

?ence, this petition.

Petitioners ArgumentsE/4F

;etitioners insist that the $ere e3istence of >liverosH earlier title negates the conclusiveness of <a$ite3H title.E/:F >liverosH
T&T No. T01/1", as the older title, should en9o% presu$ptive conclusiveness of ownership and indefeasibilit% of title. &orollaril%,
<a$ite3Hs title being a later title should have the presu$ption of invalidit%. Thus, ()& has the burden of overco$ing this
presu$ption.E/F >liveros argues that ()& failed to prove the validit% of its title, which should be cancelled accordingl%.

;etitioners then assail the &A 6ecision for allowing a collateral attac, on >liverosH title. (ince the co$plaint filed below
was for the declaration of nullit% of Ramitexs title, not >liverosH title, what occurred below when the trial and appellate courts
nullified >liverosH title was a collateral attac,.E//F

;etitioners pra% that >liverosH title over @ot 11+1 be declared valid8 while that of ()& be declared null and void.

Respondents Arguments[7]

<espondent ()& argues that the principle of indefeasibilit% of titles applies onl% to an e3isting valid title to the litigated
propert%. In the instant case, ()& showed that >liverosH title, while clai$ing priorit%, is actuall% spurious8 thus, between ()& and
>liveros, it is onl% ()& which has a valid title and in whose favor the doctrine of indefeasibilit% of title applies.

()& further stresses that >liveros cannot assert a right b% virtue of a title, the e3istence of which >liveros cannot establish.
B% the best evidence rule, the contents of a title can onl% be proved b% presenting the original docu$ent. (econdar% evidence, such
as the ones presented b% >liveros 1photocop% of T&T No. T01/1", ta3 declaration, and unapproved land surve%s4, are inad$issible
until the offeror has laid the predicate for the presentation of secondar% evidence. In the instant case, >liveros failed to la% the
predicate for the presentation of secondar% evidence. The certifications he presented fro$ the various <6s attest onl% that their
offices do not have a record of T&T No. T01/1". The% did not certif% that T&T No. T01/1" e3isted in their records but was
destro%ed or transferred to another office.

)oreover, >liveros ad$its that his ownerHs duplicate of T&T No. T01/1" is in the possession of his vendee, 6N. <ealt%.
(ince it is not lost or destro%ed, >liveros is not 9ustified in not presenting it in court. >liverosH e3planation that 6N. <ealt% will not
lend hi$ the title is unacceptable because there is legal recourse for such recalcitrance, which is to co$pel 6N. <ealt% to present
the duplicate cop% in the instant case through a subpoena duces tecum.

@astl%, ()& argues against the validit% of >liverosH title b% reiterating the evidence the% presented during trial.

Issues

;etitioners present the following issues for this &ourtHs resolution7E/9F

1. Chether the &A erred in appl%ing the doctrines of indefeasibilit% and conclusiveness of title in favor of respondent ()&8

!. Chether the decisions of the &A and the trial court allowed a collateral attac, on >liverosH certificate of title.


&ur Ruling

;etitioners contend that the &A erred in holding that it was their burden to prove the invalidit% of ()&Hs title and that the%
failed to discharge such burden. The% $aintain that the mere existence of a prior title in Oliveros name suffices to create the
presu$ption that ()&Hs title, being the later title, is void.E"'F Cith that presu$ption, it was incu$bent upon ()& to prove the
validit% of its alleged title.

;etitioners are oversi$plif%ing the rule. The principle that the earlier title prevails over a subse#uent one applies when there
are two apparentl% valid titles over a single propert%. The e3istence of the earlier valid title renders the subse#uent title void because
a single propert% cannot be registered twice. As stated in Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Systems v. Court of ppeals,E"1F
which petitioners the$selves cite, La certificate is not conclusive evidence of title i5 it is sho9n that the sa$e land had alread+
*een registered and an earlier certificate for the sa$e is in e:istence.M &learl%, a $ere allegation of an earlier title will not suffice.

It is ele$entar% that parties have the burden of proving their respective allegations.E"!F (ince petitioners allege that the%
have a title which was issued earlier than ()&Hs title, it was their burden to prove the alleged existence and priority of their title.
The trial and appellate courtsH shared conclusion that petitionersH T&T No. T01/1" does not exist in the official records is a finding
of fact that is binding on this &ourt. ;etitioners have not offered a reason or pointed to evidence that would 9ustif% overturning this
finding. Neither did the% assert that this factual finding is unsubstantiated b% the records. Cithout a title, petitioners cannot assert
priorit% or presu$ptive conclusiveness.E"+F

In contrast to petitioners, ()& ade#uatel% proved its title to @ot 11+1. ()& proved that its and its predecessorsH titles to @ot
11+1 all e3ist in the official records, and petitioners failed to present an% convincing evidence to cast doubt on such titles. Thus, the
&A correctl% ruled that ()&Hs title en9o%s presu$ptive conclusiveness and indefeasibilit% under the Torrens s%ste$.E"4F

;etitionersH argu$ent that the ruling of the trial and appellate courts allowed a collateral attac, on his title is clearl%
un$eritorious and easil% disposed of.

In the first place, the prohibition against collateral attac, does not appl% to spurious or non0e3istent titles, since such titles do
not en9o% indefeasibilit%. LCell0settled is the rule that the indefeasibilit% of a title does not attach to titles secured b% fraud and
$isrepresentation. In view of these circu$stances, it was as if no title was ever issued in this case to the petitioner and therefore this
is hardl% the occasion to tal, of collateral attac, against a title.ME":F

)oreover, the attac, on >liverosH title was not a collateral attac,. LAn action or proceeding is dee$ed an attac, on a title when the
ob9ect of the action is to nullif% the title, and thus challenge the 9udg$ent pursuant to which the title was decreed. The attac, is
direct when the ob9ect of the action is to annul or set aside such 9udg$ent, or to en9oin its enforce$ent. >n the other hand, it is
indirect or collateral when, in an action or proceeding to obtain a different relief, an attac, on the 9udg$ent is nevertheless $ade as
an incident thereof.ME"F
?ere, ()&*<a$ite3 assailed the validit% of >liverosH title as part of its counterclai$ in an action to declare ()&*<a$ite3Hs
title a nullit%. A counterclai$ is essentiall% a co$plaint filed b% the defendant against the plaintiff and stands on the sa$e footing as
an independent action.E"/F Thus, <a$ite3Hs counterclai$ can be considered a direct attac, on >liverosH title.

70%R%1&R%, pre$ises considered, the petition is -%NI%-. The April !1, !'' 6ecision and the Jul% /, !''
<esolution of the &ourt of Appeals in &A0..<. &G No. :9/'4 areA11IR,%-.

)& &R-%R%-.
T%)TAT% %)TAT% &1 ;&)% %.G%NI& RA,IR%/, ,ARIA L.I)A PALA'I&), Ad8inistratri:, petitioner0
appellee, vs. ,AR'%LL% -. (-A. -% RA,IR%/, %T AL., o!!ositors, ;&RG% and R&<%RT& RA,IR%/,
legatees, oppositors0 appellants. G.R. No. L-4#$ 1e*ruar+ "$, "#8

The 8ain issue in this a!!eal is the 8anner o5 !artitioning the testate estate o5 ;ose %ugenio Ra8ire= a8ong the
!rinci!al *ene5iciaries, na$el%7 his widow )arcelle 6e$oron de <a$ireI8 his two grandnephews <oberto and Jorge
<a$ireI8 and his co$panion Canda de Crobles,i.
The tas, is not trouble0free because the widow )arcelle is a -rench who lives in ;aris, while the co$panion Canda is an
Austrian who lives in (pain. )oreover, the testator provided for substitutions.
Jose 2ugenio <a$ireI, a -ilipino national, died in (pain on 6ece$ber 11, 194, with onl% his widow as co$pulsor% heir.
?is will was ad$itted to probate b% the &ourt of -irst Instance of )anila, Branch N, on Jul% !/, 19:. )aria @uisa
;alacios was appointed ad$inistratri3 of the estate. In due ti$e she sub$itted an inventor% of the estate as follows7
ING2NTA<I>
Jna se3ta parte 11*4 proindiviso de un te
rreno, con sus $e9oras % edificaciones, situadoen
la 2scolta, )anila............................................................. ;:'','''.''
Jna se3ta parte 11*4 proindiviso de dos
parcelas de terreno situadas en Antipolo, <iIal................... :".+4
&uatrocientos noventa % uno 14914 acciones
de la A&entral AIucarera de la &arlota a ;1/.''
por accion ................................................................................",+4/.''
6ieI $il ochocientos seiIe 11',"'4 acciones
de la A&entral @uIon )illing &o.A, disuelta % en
li#uidacion a ;'.1: por accion ..............................................1,!'.9'
&uenta de Ahorros en el ;hilippine Trust
&o.............................................................................................. !,+:'./+
T>TA@.............................................................. ;:1!,9/.9/
)2N>(7
6euda al Banco de las Islas -ilipinas, garan0
tiIada con prenda de las acciones de @a &arlota ......... ; :,''',''
GA@>< @IOJI6>........................................... ;:'/,9/.9/
The testa$entar% dispositions are as follows7
A.P2n nuda propiedad, a 6. <oberto % 6. Jorge <a$ireI, a$bas $enores de edad, residentes en )anila,
I.-., calle AAlright, No. 1"1", )alate, hi9os de su sobrino 6. Jose )a. <a$ireI, con sustitucion vulgar a
favor de sus respectivos descendientes, %, en su defecto, con sustitucion vulgar reciprocal entre a$bos.
2l precedente legado en nuda propiedad de la participacion indivisa de la finca (anta &ruI Building, lo
ordena el testador a favor de los legatarios no$brados, en atencion a #ue dicha propiedad fue creacion del
#uerido padre del otorgante % por ser a#uellos continuadores del apellido <a$ireI,
B.P= en usufructo a saber7 P
a. 2n cuanto a una tercera parte, a favor de la esposa del testador, 6a. )arcelle <a$ireI, do$iciliada en
I2 ;2&>, calle del .eneral .allieni No. ++, (eine -rancia, con sustitucion vulgar u fideico$isaria a favor
de 6a. Canda de Crobles,i, de ;al$a de )allorca, (on <apina Avenida de los <e%es 1+,
b.P= en cuanto a las dos terceras partes restantes, a favor de la no$brada 6a. Canda de Nrobles,i con
sustitucion vulgar v fideico$isaria a saber7P
2n cuanto a la $itad de dichas dos terceras partes, a favor de 6. Juan ;ablo Jan,ows,i, de (on <apina
;al$a de )allorca8 % encuanto a la $itad restante, a favor de su sobrino, 6. ?orace G. <a$ireI, (an @uis
Building, -lorida (t. 2r$ita, )anila, I.-.
A pesar de las sustituciones fideiconiisarias precedente$ente ordinadas, las usufiructuarias no$bradas
con9unta$ente con los nudo propietarios, podran en cual#uier $e$ento vender a tercero los bienes ob9eto
delegado, sin intervencion alguna de los titulares fideico$isaarios.
>n June !+, 19, the ad$inistratri3 sub$itted a pro9ect of partition as follows7 the propert% of the deceased is to be
divided into two parts. >ne part shall go to the widow Aen pleno do$inio5 in satisfaction of her legiti$e8 the other part or
5free portion5 shall go to Jorge and <oberto <a$ireI 5en nuda propriedad.5 -urther$ore, one third 11*+4 of the free
portion is charged with the widowAs usufruct and the re$aining two0thirds 1!*+4 with a usufruct in favor of Canda.
Jorge and <oberto opposed the pro9ect of partition on the grounds7 1a4 that the provisions for vulgar substitution in favor
of Canda de Crobles,i with respect to the widowAs usufruct and in favor of Juan ;ablo Jan,ows,i and ?oracio G.
<a$ireI, with respect to CandaAs usufruct are invalid because the first heirs )arcelle and Canda4 survived the testator8
1b4 that the provisions for fideico$$issar% substitutions are also invalid because the first heirs are not related to the
second heirs or substitutes within the first degree, as provided in Article "+ of the &ivil &ode8 1c4 that the grant of a
usufruct over real propert% in the ;hilippines in favor of Canda Crobles,i, who is an alien, violates (ection :, Article III
of the ;hilippine &onstitution8 and that 1d4 the proposed partition of the testatorAs interest in the (anta &ruI 12scolta4
Building between the widow )arcelle and the appellants, violates the testatorAs e3press win to give this propert% to the$
Nonetheless, the lower court approved the pro9ect of partition in its order dated )a% +, 19/. It is this order which Jorge
and <oberto have appealed to this &ourt.
1. The widowAs legiti$e.
The appellantAs do not #uestion the legalit% of giving )arcelle one0half of the estate in full ownership. The% ad$it that
the testatorAs dispositions i$paired his widowAs legiti$e. Indeed, under Art. 9'' of the &ivil &ode 5If the onl% survivor is
the widow or widower, she or he shall be entitled to one0half of the hereditar% estate.5 And since )arcelle alone survived
the deceased, she is entitled to one0half of his estate over which he could i$pose no burden, encu$brance, condition or
substitution of an% ,ind whatsoever. 1Art. 9'4, par. !, &ivil &ode.4
It is the one0third usufruct over the free portion which the appellants #uestion and 9ustifiabl% so. It appears that the court
a !uo approved the usufruct in favor of )arcelle because the testa$ent provides for a usufruct in her favor of one0third
of the estate. The court a !uo erred for )arcelle who is entitled to one0half of the estate 5en pleno do$inio5 as her
legiti$e and which is $ore than what she is given under the will is not entitled to have an% additional share in the estate.
To give )arcelle $ore than her legiti$e will run counter to the testatorAs intention for as stated above his dispositions
even i$paired her legiti$e and tended to favor Canda.
!. The substitutions.
It $a% be useful to recall that 5(ubstitution is the appoint0 9udg$ent of another heir so that he $a% enter into the
inheritance in default of the heir originall% instituted.5 1Art. ":/, &ivil &ode. And that there are several ,inds of
substitutions, na$el%7 si$ple or co$$on, brief or co$pendious, reciprocal, and fideico$$issar% 1Art. ":", &ivil &ode.4
According to Tolentino, 5Although the &ode enu$erates four classes, there are reall% onl% two principal classes of
substitutions7 the simple and the fideicommissary. The others are $erel% variations of these two.5 1111 &ivil &ode, p. 1":
E19/+F.4
The si$ple or vulgar is that provided in Art. ":9 of the &ivil &ode which reads7
A<T. ":9. The testator $a% designate one or $ore persons to substitute the heir or heirs instituted in case
such heir or heirs should die before hi$, or should not wish, or should be incapacitated to accept the
inheritance.
A si$ple substitution, without a state$ent of the cases to which it refers, shall co$prise the three
$entioned in the preceding paragraph, unless the testator has otherwise provided.
The fideico$$issar% substitution is described in the &ivil &ode as follows7
A<T. "+. A fideico$$issar% substitution b% virtue of which the fiduciar% or first heir instituted is
entrusted with the obligation to preserve and to trans$it to a second heir the whole or part of inheritance,
shall be valid and shall ta,e effect, provided such substitution does not go be%ond one degree fro$ the
heir originall% instituted, and provided further that the fiduciar% or first heir and the second heir are living
at ti$e of the death of the testator.
It will be noted that the testator provided for a vulgar substitution in respect of the legacies of <oberto and Jorge
<a$ireI, the appellants, thus7 con sustitucion vulgar a favor de sus respectivos descendientes, %, en su defecto, con
substitution vulgar reciprocal entre a$bos.
The appellants do not #uestion the legalit% of the substitution so provided. The appellants #uestion the sustitucion vulgar
% fideico$isaria a favor de 6a. Canda de Crobles,i5 in connection with the one0third usufruct over the estate given to
the widow )arcelle ?owever, this #uestion has beco$e $oot because as Ce have ruled above, the widow is not entitled
to an% usufruct.
The appellants also #uestion the sustitucion vulgar % fideico$isaria in connection with CandaAs usufruct over two thirds
of the estate in favor of Juan ;ablo Jan,ows,i and ?orace v. <a$ireI.
The% allege that the substitution in its vulgar aspect as void because Canda survived the testator or stated differentl%
because she did not predecease the testator. But d%ing before the testator is not the onl% case for vulgar substitution for it
also includes refusal or incapacit% to accept the inheritance as provided in Art. ":9 of the &ivil &ode, supra. ?ence, the
vulgar substitution is valid.
As regards the substitution in its fideico$$issar% aspect, the appellants are correct in their clai$ that it is void for the
following reasons7
1a4 The substitutes 1Juan ;ablo Jan,ows,i and ?orace G. <a$ireI4 are not related to Canda, the heir originall% instituted.
Art. "+ of the &ivil &ode validates a fideico$$issar% substitution 5provided such substitution does not go be%ond one
degree fro$ the heir originall% instituted.5
Chat is $eant b% 5one degree5 fro$ the first heir is e3plained b% Tolentino as follows7
(caevola )aura, and Traviesas construe 5degree5 as designation, substitution, or trans$ission. The
(upre$e &ourt of (pain has decidedl% adopted this construction. -ro$ this point of view, there can be
onl% one tran$ission or substitution, and the substitute need not be related to the first heir. )anresa,
)orell and (ancheI <o$an, however, construe the word 5degree5 as generation, and the present &ode has
obviousl% followed this interpretation. b% providing that the substitution shall not go be%ond one degree
5fro$ the heir originall% instituted.5 The &ode thus clearl% indicates that the second heir $ust be related to
and be one generation fro$ the first heir.
-ro$ this, it follows that the fideico$$issar% can onl% be either a child or a parent of the first heir. These
are the onl% relatives who are one generation or degree fro$ the fiduciar% 1Op. cit., pp. 19+0194.4
1b4 There is no absolute dut% i$posed on Canda to trans$it the usufruct to the substitutes as re#uired b% Arts. ": and
"/ of the &ivil &ode. In fact, the appellee ad$its 5that the testator contradicts the establish$ent of a fideico$$issar%
substitution when he per$its the properties sub9ect of the usufruct to be sold upon $utual agree$ent of the
usufructuaries and the na,ed owners.5 1Brief, p. !.4
+. The usufruct of Canda.
The appellants clai$ that the usufruct over real properties of the estate in favor of Canda is void because it violates the
constitutional prohibition against the ac#uisition of lands b% aliens.
The 19+: &onstitution which is controlling provides as follows7
(2&. :. (ave in cases of hereditar% succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned
e3cept to individuals, corporations, or associations #ualified to ac#uire or hold lands of the public do$ain
in the ;hilippines. 1Art. NIII.4
The court a !uo upheld the validit% of the usufruct given to Canda on the ground that the &onstitution covers not onl%
succession b% operation of law but also testa$entar% succession. Ce are of the opinion that the &onstitutional provision
which enables aliens to ac#uire private lands does not e3tend to testa$entar% succession for otherwise the prohibition
will be for naught and $eaningless. An% alien would be able to circu$vent the prohibition b% pa%ing $one% to a
;hilippine landowner in e3change for a devise of a piece of land.
This opinion notwithstanding, Ce uphold the usufruct in favor of Canda because a usufruct, albeit a real right, does not
vest title to the land in the usufructuar% and it is the vesting of title to land in favor of aliens which is proscribed b% the
&onstitution.
IN GI2C >- T?2 -><2.>IN., the estate of Jose 2ugenio <a$ireI is hereb% ordered distributed as follows7
>ne0half 11*!4 thereof to his widow as her legiti$e8
>ne0half 11*!4 thereof which is the free portion to <oberto and Jorge <a$ireI in na,ed ownership and the usufruct to
Canda de Crobles,i with a si$ple substitution in favor of Juan ;ablo Jan,ows,i and ?orace G. <a$ireI.
The distribution herein ordered supersedes that of the court a !uo. No special pronounce$ent as to costs.
(> ><62<26.
G.R. No. L-56838 April 26, 1990 GENARO NAVERA AND EMMA AMADOR, vs. THE HONORABLE
CORT O! A""EAL#, AR#EN$O NARE# AND !EL$% NARE#
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the &ourt of Appeals in &A0..<. No. +9!0< affir$ing in
toto the decision of the &ourt of -irst Instance of Alba% 1now <egional Trial &ourt4 in &ivil &ase No. 4+:9 entitled
5Arsenio Nares and -eli3 Nares vs. .enaro Navera and 2$$a A$ador,5 which declared the private respondents Arsenio
Nares and -eli3 Nares owners of the land in dispute.
The antecedent facts of this case are as follows7
@eocadio Navera has five 1:4 children, na$el%7 2lena, )ariano, Basilio, 2duarda and -eli3, all surna$ed Navera.
)ariano Navera is the father of petitioner .enaro Navera. 2lena Navera, on the other hand has three children b% Antonio
Nares. Two of the$ are respondent Arsenio Nares and -eli3 Nares. The other child, 6ionisia is alread% deceased and has
left children. ;etitioner and respondents are therefore, first cousins.
Ca% bac, in 191, @eocadio Navera donated to -austo )ustar in a private instru$ent a certain propert% in consideration
of the $arriage of the for$erAs son, )ariano Navera, to the daughter of -austo )ustar b% the na$e of <estituta )ustar.
The said propert% donated is described as follows7
The land that I a$ giving to $% co$padres 1&abla%e4 is located in &aguiba &a$alig, Alba%, ;hilippines,
and the boundaries and area are the following7 North, propert% of Angel Navera, and $easures 9" $eters
on this side and the visible boundar% is a row of ;asao8 2ast, propert% of Josefa )oratalla and $easures
1:' $eters on this side with row of ;asao and bani, on the (outh, propert% belong to $e and $easures +
$eters on this side and the visible $ar, is shoulder of the $ountain7 on the west, $% own propert% and
$easures 1'" $eters on this side with row of ;asao with a dita tree.5 1p. 11', <ecords4
>n Jul% 19, 19!/, >riginal &ertificate of Title No. <>01:41NA4 was issued in the na$e of 52lena Navera, et al.5,
covering the land in dispute, na$el% @ot 14', situated in the )unicipalit% of &a$alig, Alba%, particularl% described as
follows7
A parcel of land 1@ot No. 14' of the &adastral (urve% of &a$alig4, with all the i$prove$ents thereon8
bounded on the (2, along lines 1!, b% @ot 14:98 on the (C, along lines !0+040:00/0", b% cree,8 on the
N2, along line "09, b% @ot 14/48 and on the 2, along line 901, b% @ot 1441, containing an area of
TC2NT= (IN T?>J(AN6 NIN2 ?JN6<26 NIN2T= -IG2 1!,99:4 s#uare $eters $ore or less8 . . .
1pp. +'0 +1, <ecords4
(o$eti$e in 19!4, 2lena Navera died.
>n )a% 14, 194/, 2duarda Navera, b% $eans of a public instru$ent, sold to her nephew, respondent Arsenio Nares, all
of her share in @ot 14', which is titled in the na$e of 52lena Navera, et al.5 2duarda NaveraAs share in the
afore$entioned lot is one0half 11*!4 of the total area of @ot 14'. The deed of sale which the latter e3ecuted in favor of
respondent Arsenio Nares particularl% describes the lot sub9ect of the sale, as follows7
A portion fro$ the ta3 No. !"'"1, of one 1114 half belong to 26JA<6A NAG2<A and the other one 114
half to own b% the deceased @ina Navera, onl% is sold b% this present deed of sale, the one to belong to
2duarda Navera. But the other half being owned b% @ina Navera, is the ver% deceased $other of the bu%er
of this deed of absolute sale. Although the other half to belong to @ina Navera but the present
ad$inistrator is also na$eEdF the present bu%er. And b% this reason, the whole lot is now under care of
Arsenio Nares. The boundaries of the portion to belong to 2duarda Navera, to sell the said purchaser are7
on the North b% )ariano Navera8 on the 2ast b% <o$an )arga, on the (outh b% 2nrico >bligado and on
the Cest b% -eli3 (a$son. 1pp. +!0++, <ecords4
>n June !, 194", 2duarda Navera sold for the second ti$e a portion of @ot 14' to )ariano Navera. The propert% sold
is described as follows7
A portion of :' $eters long, :9 $eters wide, the length has a ter$inus consisting of stone set b% the
Bureau of @ands fro$ the Cest and straight to the 2ast, reaching the goal of a tree na$el% 6itadita and
fro$, that point down the (outh reaching the point with the s%$bol of a .o$ian tree and fro$ .o$ian for
North 6irection reaching Anonang with a di$ension of 4" $eters and fro$ Anonang tree curving to the
point of a goal set b% the Bureau of @ands and fro$ that point at ends North direction to the last is again a
stone placed b% the Bureau of @ands, 1! $. This portion is ta,en fro$ land ta3 No. <01!4. Title No.
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ and @ot No. QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
QQQQ. The declaration has the value of ;!"'.''. The boundaries of the portion to be sold are7 P North, b%
Ig$edio Navera8 on the east b% )ariano Navera8 on the south b% Arsenio Nares, and on the west, b%
Januario Nolasco, Arsenio Nares had also sa$e bought a portion fro$ the whole lot. 1p. 111, <ecords4
>n Januar% +', 19:+, respondent Arsenio Nares sold to ;erpetua 6acillo a portion of @ot No. 41/ containing an area of
five thousand seven hundred twent% si3 1:,/!4 s#uare $eters 1p. 11!, <ecords4. ;erpetua 6acillo thereafter donated the
said propert% to -rancisco 6acillo. >n August 1+, 19::, )ariano Navera, sold to his brother0in0law, (erapio )ustar, the
lot which he bought fro$ 2duarda Navera, particularl% described as follows7
A certain parcel of land situated in the barrio of Tiniguiban, &aguiba &a$alig, Alba%, ;hilippines,
containing an area of 1''0'9014 s#uare $eters $ore or less. Bounded on the North b% Ig$edio Navera.
This propert% is declared for ta3ation purposes under Ta3 No. <01!4. Gisible boundaries consist of $o9on
and other trees. Assessed at ;!"'.''. 1pp. 1':01', <ecords4
>n -ebruar% 11, 19:, the foregoing deed of sale was supple$ented b% the following stipulation7
1b4 As to the propert% under paragraph 1!4 thereof, the sa$e pertains to &adastral @ot No. 14', containing
an area of 109909 s#uare $eters, $ore or less, 1in the said docu$ent there was clerical error of the area,
as previousl% stated in the total area of ''0'901, which is hereto corrected as 109'0/1 s#uare $eters, as
the total area sold4. 1p. 1'/, <ecords4
>n April /, 19:9, (erapio )ustar later sold to petitioner .enaro Navera @ot 14' which he bought fro$ the latterAs
father, )ariano Navera, containing an area of nineteen thousand nine hundred si3t% nine 119,994 s#uare $eters $ore or
less 1p. 1', <ecords4.
>n (epte$ber +, 19/1, -rancisco 6acillo sold to petitioner .enaro Navera the land which the for$er received b% wa% of
donation fro$ ;erpetua 6acillo. The lot sold is specificall% described as follows7
A parcel of land 1@ot No. 14', &a$alig, &ad. (urve%4, Alba%, with all the i$prove$ents thereon.
Bounded on the N. b% .enaro Navera8 on the 2 b% <o$an )orga8 on the (. b% &I;<IAN> )orga and on
the C. b% ?eirs of -eli3 (a$son . . containing an area of seven thousand and twent% si3 hundred 1/,'!4
s#uare $eters. 1p. 1'1, <ecords4
All of the foregoing transfers of @ot 14' were not annotated and inscribed in the >riginal &ertificate of Title.
In their co$plaint dated )arch 14, 19/1 filed with the then &ourt of -irst Instance of Alba% 1now <egional Trial &ourt4,
respondents Arsenio Nares and -eli3 Nares, alleged inter alia7 that the% are the absolute owners of the whole of @ot 14'
covered b% >riginal &ertificate of Title No. <>01:41NA4, and are entitled to the possession of the sa$e8 that @ot 14' is
registered in the na$e of 52lena Navera, et al.5, the 5et. al5 being 2duarda Navera8 that the respondents ac#uired the
above described propert% b% inheritance fro$ their deceased $other 2lena Navera8 that a portion thereof which had been
ad9udicated to 2duarda Navera was later sold to respondent Arsenio Nares8 that so$eti$e in August, 19::, )ariano
Navera, without an% legal right whatsoever and under the pretense of ownership sold the said propert% to his brother0in0
law (erapio )ustar, who in turn sold the sa$e to .enaro Navera, son of )ariano. ;laintiffs, respondents herein, also
clai$ed that all the foregoing sales were sha$ and $anipulated transactions and that )ariano Navera ,new full% well
that he had no right to sell the propert%. <espondents ad$itted however, that the% sold a portion of the propert%
containing :,/! s#uare $eters to ;erpetua 6acillo, so that the re$aining portion still belongs to the$. The% further
contended that petitioner .enaro Navera entered the land after the sale to hi$ b% )ustar and too, possession of the sa$e
and ac#uired the produce thereof since 19:/ up to the present ti$e8 and that respondents have e3erted earnest efforts
toward a co$pro$ise but petitioners instead challenged the$ to go to court.
;etitioners .enaro Navera and 2$$a A$ador filed their answer with counterclai$, den%ing all the respondentsA clai$s,
and alleging inter alia7 that @eocadio Navera is the father of five children, na$el%, 2lena, )ariano, 2duarda, Basilio and
-eli38 that after deducting 1!,41: s#uare $eters which @eocadio Navera donated to -austo )ustar in 191, the
re$aining area of @ot 14' was divided in e#ual shares a$ong 2lena, )ariano and 2duarda, to the e3tent of 4,"'
s#uare $eters each8 that Basilio and -eli3 were given their shares in other parcels of land. ;etitioners also sub$itted that
the et. al. appearing in the title of the propert% refers to -austo )ustar01!,41: s#uare $eters, 2duarda Navera04,"'
s#uare $eters, )ariano Navera04,"' s#uare $eters and 2lena Navera04,"' s#uare $eters8 that 2duarda Navera sold
!,9: s#uare $eters of her share to )ariano Navera while the re$aining !,1 s#uare $eters of her share was sold to
Arsenio Nares8 that ArsenioAs propert% totalled /,'! s#. $eters which he later sold to ;erpetua 6acillo. ;etitioners
further contended that the% are presentl% in possession of @ot 14' and their possession tac,ed to that of their
predecessor0in0interest as earl% as 1918 that the co$plaint states no cause of action and that if the respondents had an%,
the sa$e has long prescribed.
6uring the pre0trial on 6ece$ber 14, 19/+, the parties agreed on the following $atters7 identit% of the land, the identit%
of the parties, that :,/! s#. $eters of the said @ot 14' had alread% been sold to ;erpetua 6acillo and8 that the
defendants are in possession of the land in #uestion.
>n -ebruar% !", 19/", the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which states7
;<2)I(2( &>N(I62<26, 9udg$ent is hereb% rendered7
1. 6eclaring the plaintiffEsF ownerEsF of the lot described in the >riginal &ertificate of Title <>01:4"',
e3cept :,/! s#uare $eters which rightfull% belongs to defendant .enaro Navera.
(> ><62<26. 1p. 4/, Rollo4
Not satisfied with the decision of the trial court, the petitioner appealed to the &ourt of Appeals. >n 6ece$ber 1, 19"',
the respondent appellate court rendered 9udg$ent affir$ing in toto the decision of the trial court.
?ence, the instant petition was filed, pra%ing for a reversal of the above0$entioned decision, with the petitioner
assigning the following errors7
1. That the ?onorable &ourt of Appeals failed to appreciate ac#uisitive prescription in favor of defendants
1now petitioners4. 1p. 1 ', Rollo4
!. That the ?onorable @ower &ourt failed to appl% the rule of law that actual ,nowledge is e#uivalent to, if
not serve the purpose of registration. 1p. 1 !, Rollo4
+. That the ?onorable &ourt of Appeals erred in finding defendants0appellants 1now petitioners4 to be in
bad faith instead of the plaintiff0appellees 1now private respondents4. 1p. 1+, Rollo4
In their first assigned error, petitioners0spouses .enaro Navera and 2$$a A$ador allege that the evidence on record,
particularl% 23hibit 1! and 1!0A, clearl% show their possession of the disputed propert%, the whole of @ot 14', for $ore
than fort%0si3 144 %ears which is tanta$ount to their ownership of the sa$e b% prescription, be it ordinar% or
e3traordinar% prescription8 that respondents Arsenio Nares and -eli3 Nares should not have been declared owners of @ot
14' since the% have lost whatever rights the% have on the land due to the possession thereof b% petitioners8 and that the
sale b% 2duarda Navera of her propert% to Arsenio Nares was not recorded or annotated in the title 9ust li,e the sale b%
2duardo Navera of the sa$e lot to )ariano Navera.
As found b% the trial court and respondent appellate court, the propert% in dispute, na$el%, the whole of @ot 14' is titled
in the na$e of 52lena Navera, et al.5, the phrase et. al.5 referring onl% to 2duarda, sister of 2lena since the other brothers
of 2lena and 2duarda na$el%, )ariano, Basilio and -eli3 had received their shares fro$ the other properties of their
father @eocadio Navera. These factual findings are conclusive upon Js. Thus, when 2lena Navera died so$eti$e in
19!4, her co$pulsor% heirs including respondents Arsenio Nares and -eli3 Nares ac#uired 2lenaAs shares in @ot 14' b%
inheritance, which is one0half of @ot 14'. As to the other half of @ot 14' owned b% 2duarda Navera, the latter sold the
sa$e to two vendees, one in favor of respondent Arsenio Nares and the other in favor of )ariano Navera, petitionerAs
predecessor0in0interest.
>n this $atter of double sale, the appellate court upheld the findings of the trial court, as follows, to wit7
5As correctl% noted b% the trial court, all the transfers or conve%ances are not inscribed in the >riginal
&ertificate of Title No. <>01:4"'1NA4 1523hibit A54. It would not be a$iss to state that the saElFe of
2duarda Navera to Arsenio Nares, and the sale of 2duarda Navera to )ariano Navera, which as above0
$entioned, the propert% referred to in both sales is the ver% sa$e propert% covered b% reconstituted title
P 23hibit A. The sale of 2duarda Navera to appellee Arsenio Nares covered all her portion to the
propert%, thus, she could not possibl% sell on June !, 194", another portion of the sa$e propert% to
)ariano Navera. Thus, the portion referred to in the sale to )ariano Navera b% 2duarda Navera $a% not
be validl% transferred b% )ariano Navera to (erapio )ustar. It li,ewise follow that (erapio )ustar $a%
not effectivel% conve% the sa$e to .enaro Navera . . . It is irre$issible to state that the alleged conve%ance
$ade b% (erapio )ustar in favor of appellant .enaro Navera have no legal effect whatsoever, for the
si$ple reason that (erapio )ustar could not properl% conve% the portion referred to in the sale of June !,
194", b% 2duarda Navera in favor of )ariano Navera. In the first place, 2duarda Navera has no e3isting
right to conve% another portion of the propert% because she had alread% sold all her portion to appellee
Arsenio Nares. Thus at the ti$e 2duarda Navera conve%ed a portion of the propert% which she alread%
conve%ed to appellee Arsenio Nares, she has no right on the propert% and the power to dispose it. It clearl%
appears, therefore, that )ariano Navera never ac#uired that portion sub9ect of the sale on June !, 194".
?aving ac#uired that portion of the propert% sub9ect of the sale on June !, 194" fro$ )ariano Navera,
(erapio )ustar has li,ewise no e3isting right and power to dispose of that portion of the propert% to
appellant .enaro Navera.
&ontrar% to the appellantsA clai$ that the% are possessors in good faith, Article :! of the New &ivil &ode
provides that a possessor in good faith is one who is not aware that there e3ists in his title or $ode of
ac#uisition an% flaw which invalidates it and a possessor in bad faith is one who possesses in an% case
contrar% to the foregoing. And our (upre$e &ourt said 5ever% possessor in good faith beco$es a
possessor in bad faith fro$ the $o$ent he beco$es aware that what he believed to be true is not so.5 ?is
possession is legall% interrupted when he is su$$oned to trial according to Article 11!+ of the New &ivil
&ode. Tacas v. Tabon, :+ ;hil. +:45 1pp. !:0!, Rollo4.
Ce agree with the afore#uoted findings and conclusions of the lower court which were affir$ed on appeal b% the &ourt
of Appeals. The conclusions and findings of facts b% the trial court are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed
on appeal unless for strong and cogent reasons because the trial court is in a better position to e3a$ine real evidence as
well as to observe the de$eanor of witnesses while testif%ing on the ease. 1)acua vs. Inter$ediate Appellate &ourt, No.
@0/'"1', >ctober !, 19"/, 1:: (&<A !94.
&learl% applicable herein is Article 1:44 of the &ivil &ode which provides7
If the sa$e thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the
person who $a% have first ta,en possession thereof in good faith, if it should be $ovable propert%.
(hould it be i$$ovable propert%, the ownership shall belong to the person ac#uiring it who in good faith
first recorded it in the <egistr% of ;ropert%.
Should there "e no inscription# the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the
possession8 and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good
faith.12$phasis >urs4
In the instant case, the first sale of 2duarda NaveraAs share in the said lot to Arsenio Nares was $ade in a public
instru$ent on )a% 14, 194/. The second sale of the sa$e propert% was e3ecuted also in a public instru$ent in favor of
)ariano Navera, who is the predecessor in interest of petitioner .enaro Navera, on June !, 194", or $ore than a %ear
after the first sale. (ince the records show that both sales were not recorded in the <egistr% of ;ropert%, the law clearl%
vests the ownership upon the person who in good faith was first in possession of the disputed lot.
The possession $entioned in Article 1:44 for deter$ining who has better right when the sa$e piece of land has been
sold several ti$es b% the sa$e vendor includes not onl% the $aterial but also the s%$bolic possession, which is ac#uired
b% the e3ecution of a public instru$ent. This $eans that after the sale of a realt% b% $eans of a public instru$ent, the
vendor, who resells it to another, does not trans$it an%thing to the second vendee, and if the latter, b% virtue of this
second sale, ta,es $aterial possession of the thing, he does it as $ere detainer, and it would be un9ust to protect this
detention against the rights of the thing lawfull% ac#uired b% the first vendee 1Oui$son vs. <osete, "/ ;hil. 1:98 (ancheI
vs. <a$os, 4' ;hil. 148 -lorendo vs. -oI, !' ;hil. +""4. In the case at bar, the prior sale of the land to respondent
Arsenio Nares b% $eans of a public instru$ent is clearl% tanta$ount to a deliver% of the land resulting in the $aterial
and s%$bolic possession thereof b% the latter. Geril%, factual evidence points to the prior actual possession b% respondent
Nares before he was evicted fro$ the land b% petitioners and their predecessors in 19:/ when the latter entered the
disputed propert%. No other evidence e3ists on record to show the contrar%.
Based on the foregoing, it is correct to conclude that the priorit% of possession stands good in favor of respondents. It is
well0settled in our 9urisprudence that prior est in tempore# potior est in $ure 1he who is first in ti$e is preferred in right4.
>wnership should therefore be recogniIed in favor of the first vendee, respondent Arsenio Nares.
;etitioners further sub$it that the% have been in possession of the whole lot for $ore than 4 %ears, that this can be
gleaned fro$ the letter sent b% respondent Nares, wherein the latter ad$itted that it was the petitioner Navera who
continuousl% gathered the produce of the land for 4 %ears8 that such possession for a considerable length of ti$e entitled
the$ to ownership b% prescription whether ordinar% or e3traordinar%.
This contention is devoid of $erit. ;rescription as a defense, $ust be e3pressl% relied upon in the pleadings. It cannot be
availed of, unless it is speciall% pleaded in the answer8 and it $ust be proved or established with the sa$e degree of
certaint% as an% essential allegation in the civil action 1?odges vs. (alas, + ;hil. :/8 &orporacion de ;;. Autinus
<ecolectos vs. &risosto$o, +! ;hil. 4!/4. In the instant case, petitioners, who were the defendants in the lower court, did
not clai$ ac#uisitive prescription in their answer, and even if the% did, it cannot be given 9udicial sanction on $ere
allegations. The law re#uires one who asserts ownership b% adverse possession to prove the presence of the essential
ele$ents of ac#uisitive prescription 1)orales vs. &-I, et al., No. @0 :!!/", )a% !9, 19"', 9/ (&<A "/!4.
After a careful e3a$ination of the records, Ce are of the opinion that there is lac, of sufficient proof to establish clearl%
and positivel% petitionerAs clai$ of ac#uisitive prescription. In fact, Ce are $ore inclined to believe respondentsA version
that respondent Arsenio Nares was evicted fro$ the propert% b% petitioner so$eti$e in 19:/, thereb% showing the latterAs
bad faith in ac#uiring the possession of the propert% until 19/1 when the action against petitioner was filed. Thus, the
ordinar% ac#uisitive prescription of ten %ears cannot be considered in favor of petitioner in the absence of good faith.
Neither is the petitioner entitled to e3traordinar% ac#uisitive prescription, in the absence of sufficient proof of co$pliance
with the thirt%0%ear re#uire$ent of possession in case of bad faith.
)oreover, the law clearl% states that 5possession has to be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful and
uninterrupted5 1Article 111", &ivil &ode4. The actuations of petitioners, however, show the contrar%. A reading of the
de$and letter fro$ respondents dated )a% !/, 19/', sub$itted in evidence b% petitioners, shows that the dispute over
@ot 14' had been going on for a nu$ber of %ears a$ong petitioners, respondents and their fa$ilies. This goes to show
that during the ti$e when the petitioners bought the land in 19:9 and the following %ears thereafter when the latter
possessed the propert%, the% have ,nown or should have ,nown of the rights and interests of their cousins, respondents
herein, over the disputed land. )oreover, the ta3 declarations for the %ears 19:1 and 19: showed that the respondents
Arsenio Nares and -eli3 Nares were the declared owners 1p. +4 and 11+, <ecords4. In other words, petitionerAs
predecessors in interest, na$el%, )ariano Navera and the subse#uent purchasers of the lot, had not bothered to declare
the land in their own na$es for purposes of ta3ation during the ti$e that the% were allegedl% in possession of the land. It
was onl% in the %ear 19 when petitioner .enaro Navera started to declare hi$self owner of the land for ta3ation
purposes 1p. 1!, <ecords4.
In their second assign$ent of error, petitioners contend that private respondents are bound b% their ,nowledge of the
previous donation propter nuptias b% their ancestor, @eocadio Navera in favor of -austo )ustar. This contention has no
$erit. The respondent appellate court affir$ed the findings of the lower court on this $atter, as follows, to wit7
After a careful perusal and thorough review of the whole evidence on record, we cannot find an% basis
therein for upholding the clai$ of appellants, articulated in their appellantsA brief. It is apropos to state that
the donation propter nuptias $ade b% @eocadio Navera so$eti$e in >ctober, 191, should have been at
least recorded in the registr% of propert% or inscribed in the >riginal &ertificate of Title or the donee shall
have titled the propert% in his na$e. As the trial court correctl% noted that the alleged donee -austo )ustar
is not a part% to the case nor had he transferred the said donated propert% to the spouses )ariano Navera
in a public instru$ent or conve%ance. Nowhere in the evidence on record would show that the said
donated propert% was ever transferred to )ariano Navera, father of defendant0appellant .enaro Navera.5
1p. !4, Rollo4
No i$portant reasons e3ist to co$pel Js to ignore the findings of the respondent appellate court. Besides, the ,nowledge
of private respondents concerning the alleged previous donation is i$$aterial. The facts are clear that the original
certificate of title itself covers the whole of !,99: s#uare $eters of the disputed @ot 14' in the na$e of 52lena Navera,
et al.5, without an% $ention of an% previous donation of a portion of the said lot to the alleged donee.
;etitionersA third assigned error was alread% treated and resolved in the foregoing discussions.
A&&><6IN.@=, the petition is 62NI26 but the decision of the &ourt of Appeals dated 6ece$ber 1, 19"' is hereb%
)>6I-I26 to the effect that as against the petitioners .enaro Navera and 2$$a A$ador, the respondents Arsenio
Nares and -eli3 Nares are declared the rightful owners of the disputed @ot 14', e3cept with respect to :,/! s#uare
$eters thereof which belongs to petitioner .enaro Navera, without pre9udice however, to whatever rights and interests
that the other co$pulsor% heirs of 2lena Navera $a% have in the one0half portion of @ot 14'. The respective rights of
respondents to @ot 14' as between the$selves is a $atter outside of this controvers% and is therefore, be%ond the
9urisdiction of this &ourt to pass upon.
(> ><62<26.
G.R. No. 80638 April 26, 1989 GABR$EL ELANE vs. CORT O! A""EAL# &'( $NOCENC$O V. CHA
The decision pro$ulgated on (epte$ber +',19"/ b% respondent &ourt of Appeals in &A0..<. (; No. '9:+, "which
reversed the decision of the <egional Trial &ourt and, correlativel%, the )unicipal Trial &ourt of >longapo &it%, 3 is
assailed in this petition for review on certiorari.
;rivate respondent Inocencio G. &hua filed an action for forcible entr% in the then &it% &ourt of >longapo &it% for the
eviction of petitioner .abriel 2lane fro$ a portion of a parcel of land designated as Bloc, G, @& ;ro9ect No. 14,
>longapo &it%, B- )ap @& !4!/, which was the sub9ect of a per$it to occup% issued to private respondent b% the
Bureau of -orestr% on August 1, 191. ;rivate respondent alleges that on -ebruar% 1:, 19"', while visiting the propert%,
he discovered that petitioner was constructing a se$i0concrete building on a portion thereof, without his ,nowledge and
consent. The order $ade b% private respondent upon petitioner to desist therefro$ was ignored b% the latter. 4 Chen his
de$and letter of )arch 1, 19"' to stop said construction was refused, private respondent filed an action for forcible
entr%. $
In his answer, petitioner 2lane clai$s that he was granted a per$it b% the Bureau of -orest 6evelop$ent over a parcel of
land located at Jpper Rala,lan, with an area of +' s#uare $eters, $ore or less, designated as Bloc, G, @& ;ro9ect No.
14, >longapo &it%, B- )ap @& !4!/, as allegedl% evidenced b% a certification fro$ the said bureau dated April 1',
19/98 that he has been in possession and occupation of that parcel of land continuousl% and uninterruptedl% since 19/',
having originall% erected a hut thereon which was later replaced b% a bungalow8 and that the land has been declared for
ta3ation in his na$e and the real propert% ta3es thereon paid b% hi$ for the %ears 19/' to 19/9. >
>n -ebruar% 14,19"4, the )unicipal Trial &ourt of >longapo &it% rendered a decision dis$issing the co$plaint and
which, on appeal, was affir$ed in toto b% the <egional Trial &ourt of >longapo &it%.
Thereafter, herein private respondent elevated the case on a petition for review to respondent court which reversed the
decisions of the two courts a !uo and rendered 9udg$ent ordering therein respondent 2lane to re$ove or de$olish the
residential house or building that he constructed on that part of the land in #uestion, to vacate and return possession of
said parcel of land to therein petitioner &hua and to pa% said petitioner ;:,'''.'' b% wa% of attorne%As fees, with the
costs of suit. 4 A $otion for reconsideration was denied on Nove$ber +, 19"/. 8
In the present appeal, petitioner contends that the respondent court 114 gravel% abused its discretion in giving due course
to the petition for review notwithstanding the fact that the decision sought to be reviewed had alread% beco$e final and
e3ecutor%8 and 1!4 gravel% erred in holding that 5the instant petition $ust be resolved on the all i$portant issue of
priorit% of possession instead of the issue as to who is the legal possessor of the lot sub9ect of the litigation.5 #
&oncordant with the clai$ of private respondent, the respondent court found the following relevant facts established b%
the evidence of record7
>n August 1, 191, >rdinar% <esidence ;er$it No. 1/: was issued b% the Bureau of -orestr%
authoriIing the petitioner to occup% four hectares of public forest land situated in (itio Jpper Rala,lan,
>longapo, Sa$bales 123hibit A4, on which he constructed a warehouse and a gasoline station pursuant to
per$its issued to hi$ b% the said bureau 123hibits &, &01, 1 and J4, which on -ebruar% 1', 19/' were
declared for purposes of ta3ation in his na$e 123hibits 2 and 2014 and ta3es due thereon were paid
123hibits -04 and -0:4.
>n Januar% 19,19//, the parcel of land in #uestion, designated as Bloc, G, @& ;ro9ect No. 14, >longapo
&it%, B- )ap @& !4!/, containing an area of 4!,'" s#uare $eters, covered b% the s,etch 123hibit .4,
having been declared alienable and disposable, the petitioner filed an application with the Bureau of @ands
to purchase it under )iscellaneous (ales Application No. 1111044 9'19 123hibit )4.
>n )arch 1, 19"', the petitioner wrote to the respondent advising hi$ to stop construction of the building
that he was putting up within the parcel of land in #uestion 123hibit ?4.
>n )arch , 19"', the respondent having refused to desist fro$ constructing the building that he was
putting up, the petitioner filed the instant co$plaint for forcible entr% in the then &it% &ourt of
>longapo."0
Ce initiall% ta,e up the first error i$puted b% petitioner which, although the records do not show that the sa$e was
raised in the petition for review in respondent court, deserves a corresponding resolution since it indirectl% attributes a
9urisdictional defect.
;etitioner clai$s that a cop% of the decision of the <egional Trial &ourt of >longapo &it% was sent b% registered $ail to
the counsel of private respondent at his given address. ?owever, the envelope was supposedl% returned to the court when
counsel for private respondent allegedl% failed to clai$ the sa$e after a second notice was $ade on Jul% 1', 19":.
;etitioner then contends that, pursuant to (ection +, <ule 1+ of the <ules of &ourt, the decision of the regional trial court
beca$e final on Jul% 1:, 19":, private respondent not having seasonabl% filed either a $otion for reconsideration or a
notice of appeal. ""
Ce are not persuaded b% this argu$ent belatedl% raised b% petitioner. It is incu$bent upon a part% who relies upon
constructive service under (ection : of <ule 1+ of the <ules to prove that the first notice of the registered letter was sent
and delivered to the addressee, as the presu$ption that official dut% has been regularl% perfor$ed does not appl% to such
a situation. " ?ere, the assertions in the ;etition of the facts stated in the ne3t preceding paragraph are unsubstantiated.
In the absence of such proof in the record, the disputable presu$ption of co$pleteness of service does not arise.
-urther$ore, not onl% has petitioner failed in such re#uisite proof, but, as earlier stated, the records do not show that such
issue was raised or proved b% hi$ in the respondent court when the petition for review was filed with and was pending
therein. The principle of estoppel b% laches, which is in the interest of a sound ad$inistration of the laws, conse#uentl%
bars this ob9ection fro$ being raised b% petitioner for the first ti$e and at this late stage. "3
It is ne3t alleged that respondent court gravel% erred in ad9udicating the case on the basis of priorit% of ph%sical
possession instead of legal possession.
As alread% adu$brated, respondent court held that private respondent was granted a residence per$it over a lot with an
area of 4!,'" s#uare $eters b% the Bureau of -orestr% on August 1, 191, and a per$it to construct a warehouse and
gasoline station thereon b% the then $unicipal govern$ent of >longapo on >ctober 1, 19+. "4 This residence per$it,
which was renewable ever% %ear, was not renewed after June +',199 because it was stopped b% then Gice0;resident
-ernando @opeI, although private respondent continued to pa% rental fees for the land until 19/+. "$ Jpon application b%
private respondent, the said lot was declared alienable and disposable public land and released b% the Bureau of -orest
6evelop$ent to the Bureau of @ands in )arch, 19/+. Thereafter, he filed a )iscellaneous (ales Application with the
Bureau of @ands on Januar% 19, 19// for the purchase of the said lot. "> It li,ewise appears that private respondent
declared the warehouse and gasoline stallion for ta3ation purposes and paid ta3es thereon in 19/' and 19/1. "4
>n the other hand, petitioner clai$s that he entered into and too, possession of the contested lot in 19/' pursuant to a
per$it granted to hi$ b% the Bureau of -orest 6evelop$ent, as supposedl% evidenced b% a certification fro$ the latter
dated April 1', 19/9, "8 and a building per$it and sanitar%*plu$bing per$it issued for the construction of his house
thereon. "# This is an egregious inaccurac% as aptl% observed b% respondent court, thus7
(aid per$its 1Anne3es A, B and & to answer4 were not actuall% introduced in evidence b% the respondent
2lane in support of his allegations and defenses The% $a% not, therefore, be considered at all as evidence.
Besides, the certification 1Anne3 A to answer4 do 1sic4 not attest to the issuance of an% per$it to occup%
the parcel of land in #uestion in favor of the respondent 2lane. It $erel% certified to the fact that the parcel
of land in #uestion was found to be Alienable and 6isposable @and. And the building and
sanitar%*plu$bing per$its 1Anne3es B and & to answer4 could not have established his possession of the
parcel of land since 19/' because aside fro$ the fact that the% bear no date of actual issuance, the% were
acco$plished b% the applicant whose residence certificate appears to have been issued onl% on Januar% :,
19/9. ?ow then can it be correctl% concluded that based upon such certification and per$its 1Anne3es A,
B and & to answer4, the respondent 2lane had entered into and had ta,en possession of the parcel of land
in #uestion since 19/'T
)oreover, the surve% of the parcel of land in #uestion was prepared for the respondent 2lane onl% on
-ebruar% !:, 19/9 123hibit 4. ?is $iscellaneous sales application was filed in the Bureau of @ands onl%
on )arch !, 19/9 123hibit /4. The lot and residential building constructed thereon were declared for
purposes of ta3ation onl% on >ctober 1", 19/9 and April 1, 19"1 123hibits 40A and :4. The realt% ta3es
due for 19/'0/+, 19/40/" and 19/9 123hibit "4 and those due for the succeeding %ears were paid onl% on
April 14, 19"', )a% ", 19"1 and )arch 1, 19"! 123hibits "01 to "0:4. <espondent 2laneAs possession
based on those docu$ents cannot, therefore retroact as of 19/'. 0
Jnder these circu$stances, Ce are convinced that private respondent has priorit% of possession over petitioner whose
entr% into the sub9ect lot $a% be rec,oned onl% as of 19/9. There is no $erit in the suggestion that petitioner was
authoriIed b% the Bureau of -orest 6evelop$ent to occup% the land b% virtue of an alleged per$it issued b% said bureau.
A cursor% e3a$ination of said docu$ent readil% shows that it is a $ere certification that the lot clai$ed b% petitioner is
part of the alienable and disposable land of the public do$ain. Nowhere is it stated therein that petitioner is allowed to
ta,e possession of the sub9ect lot. -urther$ore, it is uncontroverted that private respondent was issued a residence per$it
wa% bac, in 191 which entitled hi$ to possession of the disputed land starting in the sa$e %ear.
;etitioner, however, sub$its that the e3piration of private respondentAs per$it in 199, and its non0renewal, deprived the
latter of his possessor% right over and the corresponding right to e9ect petitioner fro$ the sub9ect lot. ;etitioner argues
that b% reason of the e3piration of said per$it, the right of possession over the land reverted to the Bureau of @ands
thereb% vesting in said entit% the sole right to institute an% forcible entr% case over the land in #uestion.
Ce li,ewise re9ect this sub$ission.
The respondent court e3pressl% observed that while private respondentAs per$it to occup% the land $a% have e3pired in
199, he re$ained in ph%sical possession thereof. (ince the decisive issue is priorit% of possession and private
respondent had been in actual and continuous possession of the land since August 1, 191, his $aterial possession $ust
be protected in this e9ect$ent case until a co$petent court in an appropriate case deter$ines which of the contending
parties has the better right of possession. "
As tersel% e$phasiIed b% respondent court, and correctl% so, 5it is of no $o$ent that petitionerAs right to occup% said
parcel of land b% reason of the per$it issued to hi$ b% the Bureau of -orestr% has alread% e3pired. -or, it is not whether
he has a legal right to possess it that is in issue8 it is whether he is in actual ph%sical possession of it that is decisive in the
instant case for forcible entr%.5
In su$, private respondent was in earlier possession of the contested lot8 his sales application preceded that of petitioner8
his warehouse and gasoline station alread% e3isted long before petitioner too, possession of the parcel of land in
#uestion8 and he has been pa%ing ta3es and rental fees thereon since 19". As provided b% the &ivil &ode 0
Art. :+". ;ossession as a fact cannot be recogniIed at the sa$e ti$e in two different personalities e3cept
in the case of co0possession. (hould a #uestion arise regarding the fact of possession, the present
possessor shall be preferred8 if there are two possessors, the one longer in possession8 ...
?aving been in prior continuous possession, private respondent is preferentiall% entitled to occup% the land.
;etitionerAs intrusion upon the disputed pre$ises can properl% be categoriIed as one effected through stealth. Chere
forcible entr% was thus $ade clandestinel%, the one0%ear prescriptive period should be counted fro$ the ti$e private
respondent de$anded that the deforciant desist fro$ such dispossession when the for$er learned thereof.3 The records
reflect that such discover% and prohibition too, place on -ebruar% 1:, 19"', reiterated thereafter in the de$and letter of
)arch 1, 19"', both to no avail. &onse#uentl%, the one0%ear period had not e3pired on )arch , 19"' when private
respondent filed the e9ect$ent suit with the then &it% &ourt of >longapo &it%.
C?2<2-><2, the 9udg$ent appealed fro$ is hereb% A--I<)26 in toto# without pronounce$ent as to costs.
(> ><62<26.
G.R. No. )1283 No*+,-+r 12, 198) M$GEL E#CR$TOR, .R., ET AL, vs. $NTERMED$ATE A""ELLATE
CORT &'( #$MEON ACNA,
This is a petition for review on certiorari see,ing the reversal of the decision of the Inter$ediate Appellate &ourt in A&0
..<. No. &G0'1!40< entitled %Simeon cuna vs. Miguel &scritor# 'r.# et al#% a case which originated fro$ the &ourt of
-irst Instance of OueIon.
The record of the case discloses the following facts7
@ot No. !/49, located at Ati$onan, OueIon, was the sub9ect of cadastral proceedings in the &ourt of -irst Instance of
OueIon, .u$aca Branch, )iguel 2scritor, as clai$ant, filed an answer thereto declaring his ownership over the lot
alleging that he ac#uired it b% inheritance fro$ his deceased father. " As re#uired, a notice of hearing was dul%
published, after which an order of general default was entered. The lot having beco$e uncontested, onl% )iguel
2scritor appeared in order to adduce his evidence of ownership.
>n )a% 1:, 19:", the &ourt rendered a decision in the above$entioned case, &adastral &ase No. /!, ad9udicating the lot
with its i$prove$ents in favor of clai$ant 2scritor and confir$ing his title thereto. 3 I$$ediatel% thereafter, 2scritor
too, possession of the propert%. >n Jul% 1:, 19:", the &ourt, in an >rder, directed the &hief of the .eneral @and
<egistration >ffice to issue the corresponding decree of registration in favor of 2scritor, the decision in &adastral &ase
No. /! having beco$e final. 4
>n August !, 19:", (i$eon (. Acuna, the herein respondent, filed a petition for review of the above0$entioned decision
contending that it was obtained b% clai$ant 2scritor through fraud and $isrepresentation. $ The petition was granted on
Jul% 1", 19' and a new hearing was set for (epte$ber 1+, 19'. > Chile the proceedings were going on, clai$ant
2scritor died. ?is heirs, the petitioners in this case, too, possession of the propert%.
>n -ebruar% 1, 19/1 or thirteen %ears after the disputed decision was rendered, the &ourt ad9udicated @ot No. !/49 in
favor of respondent Acuna, ordering petitioners to vacate the land. 4 A writ of possession was later issued and petitioners
voluntaril% gave up their possession. 8
)ore than four %ears later, or on >ctober 1+, 19/: respondent Acuna filed with the sa$e &ourt in &ivil &ase No. 11+"0
., a co$plaint for recover% of da$ages against petitioners for the fruits of lot No. !/49 which was allegedl% possessed
b% the latter unlawfull% for thirteen %ears. According to respondent AcuBa, the registration of the said lot was effectuated
b% the deceased clai$ant 2scritor through fraud, $alice, and $isrepresentation. The lower court, however, rendered a
decision dis$issing AcuBaAs co$plaint for da$ages, finding that though petitioners en9o%ed the fruits of the propert%,
the% were in good faith possessing under a 9ust title, and the cause of action, if there was an%, has alread% prescribed. #
>n Appeal to the Inter$ediate Appellate &ourt, the 9udg$ent of the lower court was reversed in a decision pro$ulgated
on >ctober +1, 19"4, the dispositive portion of which reads7
C?2<2-><2, in view of the foregoing considerations, the decision appealed fro$ is hereb%
<2G2<(26 and set aside and another one entered herein, ordering the defendants0appellees 9ointl% and
severall% 1a4 to pa% the plaintiff0 appellant the su$ of ;1',/!:.'' representing the value of the fruits
appellees received for the 1+ %ears the% have been in unlawful possession of the land sub9ect0$atter8 1b4 to
pa% plaintiff0appellant the su$ of ;+,'''.'' for attorne%As fees and e3penses of litigation, and 1c4 to pa%
the costs.
?ence this petition.
The $ain issue that has to be resolved in this case is whether or not petitioners should be held liable for da$ages.
&ontrar% to the finding of the trial court, the Inter$ediate Appellate &ourt $ade the pronounce$ent that petitioners were
possessors in bad faith fro$ 19:" up to 19/1 and should be held accountable for da$ages. This conclusion was based on
the state$ent of the cadastral court in its August !1, 19/1 decision, read9udicating @ot No. !/49 to respondent (i$eon
Acuna, that 5)iguel 2scritor forcibl% too, possession of the land in )a%, 19:", and benefited fro$ the coconut trees
thereon. "0 The Inter$ediate Appellate &ourt observed that on the basis of the uni$peached conclusion of the cadastral
court, it $ust be that the petitioners have wrongfull% entered possession of the land. "" The Inter$ediate Appellate &ourt
further e3plains that as such possessors in bad faith, petitioners $ust rei$burse respondent Acuna for the fruits of the
land the% had received during their possession. "
Ce cannot affir$ the position of the Inter$ediate Appellate &ourt. It should be re$e$bered that in the first decision of
the cadastral court dated )a% 1:, 19:", @ot No. !/49 was ad9udicated in favor of clai$ant 2scritor, petitionersA
predecessor0in0interest. In this decision, the said court found to its satisfaction that clai$ant 2scritor ac#uired the land b%
inheritance fro$ his father who in turn ac#uired it b% purchase, and that his open, public, continuous, adverse, e3clusive
and notorious possession dated bac, to the -ilipino0(panish <evolution. "3 It $ust also be recalled that in its >rder for
the issuance of decrees dated Jul% 1:, 19:", the sa$e &ourt declared that the above0$entioned decision had beco$e
final. (ignificantl%, nowhere during the entire cadastral proceeding did an%thing co$e up to suggest that the land
belonged to an% person other than 2scritor.
>n the basis of the afore$entioned favorable 9udg$ent which was rendered b% a court of co$petent 9urisdiction, 2scritor
honestl% believed that he is the legal owner of the land. Cith this well0grounded belief of ownership, he continued in his
possession of @ot No. !/49. This cannot be categoriIed as possession in bad faith.
As defined in the law, a possessor in bad faith is one in possession of propert% ,nowing that his title thereto is defective.
"4 ?ere, there is no showing that 2scritor ,new of an% flaw in his title. Nor was it proved that petitioners were aware that
the title of their predecessor had an% defect.
Nevertheless, assu$ing that clai$ant 2scritor was a possessor in bad faith, this should not pre9udice his successors0in0
interest, petitioners herein, as the rule is that onl% personal ,nowledge of the flaw in oneAs title or $ode of ac#uisition can
$a,e hi$ a possessor in bad faith, for bad faith is not trans$issible fro$ one person to another, not even to an heir. "$
As Article :+4 of the &ivil &ode e3plicitl% provides, 5one who succeeds b% hereditar% title shall not suffer the
conse#uences of the wrongful possession of the decedent, if it is not shown that he was aware of the flaws affecting
it8 ...5 The reason for this article is that bad faith is personal and intrans$issible. Its effects $ust, therefore, be suffered
onl% b% the person who acted in bad faith8 his heir should not be saddled with such conse#uences. ">
Jnder Article :!/ of the &ivil &ode, good faith is alwa%s presu$ed, and upon hi$ who alleges bad faith on the part of a
possessor rests the burden of proof. If no evidence is presented proving bad faith, li,e in this case, the presu$ption of
good faith re$ains.
<espondent Acuna, on the other hand, bases his co$plaint for da$ages on the alleged fraud on the part of the petitionersA
predecessor in having the land registered under his 1the predecessorAs4 na$e. A review of the record, however, does not
indicate the e3istence of an% such fraud. It was not proven in the cadastral court nor was it shown in the trial court.
@ot No. !/49 was not awarded to 2scritor on the basis of his $achinations. Chat is clear is that in the hearing of Januar%
!!, 19:", the &ourt per$itted 2scritor to adduce his evidence of ownership without opposing evidence as the lot had
beco$e uncontested. "4 <espondent Acuna hi$self failed to appear in this hearing because of a $isunderstanding with a
law%er. "8There is no finding that such failure to appear was caused b% petitioners in this case. >n the contrar%, all the
re#uire$ents of publication were followed. Notice of hearing was dul% published. &learl% then, the allegation of fraud is
without basis.
<espondent having failed to prove fraud and bad faith on the part of petitioners, Ce sustain the trial courtAs finding that
petitioners were possessors in good faith and should, therefore, not be held liable for da$ages.
Cith the above pronounce$ent, the issue of prescription of cause of action which was also presented need not be passed
upon.
C?2<2-><2, the petition is .<ANT26 and the decision appealed fro$ is hereb% <2G2<(26 and (2T A(I62 and
another decision is rendered dis$issing the co$plaint. No pronounce$ent as to costs.
(> ><62<26.
(eehankee# C.'.# )arvasa# Cru* and +aras# ''.# concur.
Alvarez vs. IAC
Al*&r+/ *0. $AC
Facts:
The Yanes filed a complaint against Alvarez for the return of ownership and possession of two lots. During the pendenc of the
case! the lots were sold to an innocent purchaser for value. The court afterwards found Alvarez to "e lia"le for the return of the
su"#ect lots.
Issue:
$hether or not the lia"ilit arising from the sale of the su"#ect lots should "e the sole lia"ilit of the late Alvaerez or of his estate!
after his date.
%eld:
&o! 'etitioners "eing the heirs of the late (osendo Alvarez! the cannot escape the legal conse)uences of their father*s transaction!
which gave rise to the present claim for damages. That petitioners did not inherit the propert involved herein is of no moment
"ecause " legal fiction! the monetar e)uivalent thereof devolved into the mass of their father*s hereditar estate! and we have
ruled that the hereditar assets are alwas lia"le in their totalit for the pament of the de"ts of the estate. It must! however! "e
made clear that petitioners are lia"le onl to the e+tent of the value of their inheritance
G.R. No. )3118 #+p2+,-+r 20, 1988 "EL$CLA #AB$DO &'( MA%$MO RANCE#, vs. IAC &'( DOM$NADOR #TA. ANA,
This petition for review on certiorari see,s to set aside the decision of the then Inter$ediate Appellate &ourt which nullified the orders of
the trial court for the issuance of the writs of e3ecution and de$olition in favor of the petitioners and which ordered the trial court to
assess the value of the de$olished properties of the private respondent for the purposes of set0off against respondentAs liabilit% to the
petitioners.
This case originated fro$ an action for #uieting of title which was filed b% the spouses Gictor 6asal and )aria ;ecunio against herein
petitioners, )a3i$o <ances and ;elicula (abido on the #uestion of ownership over two parcels of land otherwise ,nown as @ots 5B5 and
565.
>n >ctober /, 199, the trial court presided b% Judge 6elfin (unga declared the petitioners as owners of @ots 5B5 and 565. The decision
beca$e final. ?owever, when the decision was being carried out to put the petitioners in possession of @ot 5B5, the ;rovincial (heriff
found three 1+4 persons occup%ing portions of @ot 5B5. >ne of the$ was private respondent 6o$inador (ta. Ana.
The petitioners filed a $otion to re#uire the private respondent to show cause wh% he should not be e9ected fro$ the portion of @ot 5B5. In
his answer, (ta. Ana clai$ed ownership b% purchase fro$ one ;rudencio @agarto, of a bigger area of which @ot 5B5 is a part. ?e stated
that the two other persons occup%ing the disputed portion are his tenants.
(ubse#uentl%, an order of de$olition was issued b% the trial court against the private respondent. This order was challenged b% the private
respondent and upon his filing of certiorari proceedings, this &ourt on Nove$ber !, 19/+, set aside the order of the trial court and
re$anded the case to the latter for further reception of evidence to deter$ine7 14 Chether or not the private respondent is priv% to the
spouses Gictor 6asal and )aria ;ecunio as the losing parties in the action below8 and !4 Chether or not the petitioners and the private
respondent are litigating over the sa$e parcel of land or whether there is overlapping of boundaries of their respective lands.
>n 6ece$ber 1!, 19/4, after conducting an ocular inspection and hearing, Judge (unga issued an order for the private respondent to
vacate @ot 5B5 upon finding that there is no proof that what the respondent allegedl% purchased fro$ @agarto covers a portion of @ot 5B5
but on the contrar%, the deed of sale and ta3 declaration show that what was sold to the respondent was bounded on the south b% Tig$an
river and therefore, the respondentAs ownership could not have e3tended to @ot 5B5 which was separated b% the Tig$an river and
$angrove swa$ps fro$ the portion he purchased.
Before the order of 6ece$ber 1!, 19/4, could be e3ecuted, however, Judge (unga inhibited hi$self fro$ the case so the sa$e was
transferred to the then &ourt of -irst Instance 1now Branch ), <egional Trial &ourt4 of Naga &it% presided b% Judge )ericia B. ;al$a.
The e3ecution of the order $et with so$e further dela% when the records were reconstituted. Judge ;al$a, feeling the need for a clearer
understanding of the facts and issues involved in the case, proceeded to hear and received evidence.
>n )a% 1, 19"+, Judge ;al$a issued a resolution finding that there was privit% between the private respondent and the spouses Gictor
6asal and )aria ;ecunio as to the ownership of @ot 5&5 and as to the possession over the western portion of the private road and the
disputed @ot 5B58 and that @ot 5B5 and the private road are not included in the land purchased b% the respondent fro$ @agarto.
According to the trial court, the private respondent was in the co$pan% of 6asal 1fro$ who$ he was renting @ot 5&A and who was also the
brother0in0law of @agarto4 and was present when &o$$issioner Tubianosa inspected the land in #uestion in 19:+ supporting the clai$
that the respondent ,new that the land was alread% in dispute between 6asal and the petitioners8 and if the respondent reall% believed that
he owns the entire @ot 5B5 and the private road, he should have raised his clai$ of ownership when Tubianosa inspected the land. The
respondent also failed to include the land in dispute in the surve% of his purchased lot with the fli$s% e3cuse that the surve%or failed to
return to finish the surve% and include the disputed land.
Before arriving at the above findings, however, the trial court clarified the issues involved in the case. It said7
C2 N>C co$e to the <2(>@JTI>N >- T?2 TC> I((J2(7 114 Cas there privit% between ;etitioner (ta. Ana and
;laintiffs 6asalT and 1!4 Is the disputed area Identified in paragraph 1 of the foregoing enu$eration, part of the land
purchased b% ;etitioner fro$ ;rudencio @agartoT
If there is a privit% between the ;etitioner and 6asal, then the ;etitioner is bound b% the final decision in this && No. <0
+9 1!'4'4 against 6asal and therefore ;etitioner is sub9ect to the order of e3ecution and is bound to vacate the land in
#uestion or sub9ect a portion of his house and the surrounding walls to de$olition. If there is no privit% then he is not
bound b% said final decision. 1<ollo, pp. 4"0494.
In the dispositive portion, however, the trial court held7
C?2<2-><2, pre$ises considered, the &ourt finds7
1.4 That there is privit% between the petitioner and the plaintiffs spouses Gictor 6asal and )aria ;ecunio as to ownership
of @ot & and as to the possession over the western portion of the private road and the disputed @ot B as so Identified in
23hibit :8
!.4 That the private road Identified as within points 1, !, +, 4, :, and 1 in 23h. : is owned b% the respondents as alread%
decided in && No. 11'+, and the sa$e private road and the @ot B in 23hibit : are both owned b% the respondents as
alread% decided in this && No. <0+9 1!'4'48
+.4 That the balcon% of the present house of the petitioner is located in the disputed @ot B and its southern 1or
southeastern4 part of the western portion of the Aprivate roadA8
333 333 333
.4 That therefore, this &ourt reco$$ends to the ?onorable (upre$e &ourt, that the petitioner be ordered to re$ove the
entire balcon% and the northern portion of the $ain house to the e3tent of about one $eter found to be standing on the
private road, as well as the northern e3tension of the hollow bloc, walls on the eastern boundar% of @ot & that stand on
the private road and to the northern end of @ot B which wall $easures to a total length of about 1: $eters fro$ the
northern boundar% of @ot B to the southern edge of the private road8 or in the alternative to re#uire the petitioner to pa%
the respondents the value of the western portion of the disputed area which is now enclosed in the wall constructed b% the
petitioner8
/.4 And to hold the petitioner liable to the respondents for reasonable attorne%As fees and da$ages. 1<ollo, p. :!4
>n June /, 19"+, the private respondent filed with this &ourt a pleading captioned 5Notice of Appeal for <eview.5 (aid petition was
denied in this &ourtAs resolution on >ctober !,19"+, to wit7
@0+!4! 16o$inador (ta. Ana v. ?on. 6elfin Gir, (unga, etc., et al.4. &onsidering the petition of petitioner for review of
trial court resolution dated )a% 1, 19"+, the &ourt <esolved to 62N= the petition, said resolution of )a% 1, 19"+,
being in accord with the decision of Nove$ber !, 19/+ 1<ec., p. 4+"4 and the resolution of )a% 1, 19/: 1ide$, p. :9:4
as well as the order of 6ece$ber 1!,19/4 1ide$, p. :''4 which ordered the petitioner to vacate the pre$ises 1which is
presu$abl% final4. As stated in the aforesaid resolution of )a% 1, 19/:, an% review has to be sought b% ti$el% appeal to
the appellate court and cannot be sought in this case. 1<ollo, p. :4.
A series of resolutions were subse#uentl% issued b% this &ourt den%ing the private respondentAs $otion to reconsider the above0#uoted
resolution. -inall%, on -ebruar% !/, 19"4, this &ourt issued a resolution ordering 5the &hief of the Judg$ent 6ivision of this &ourt to
<2TJ<N the records thereof to the respondent court for e3ecution of 9udg$ent.5
>n August 9, 19"4, the petitioners filed $otion for e3ecution of 9udg$ent, acco$panied b% a bill of costs, as follows7 14 Attorne%As fees P
; !:,'''.''8 !4 &ost of litigation P ;/,'''.''8 +4 23penses for transcript of record P ;''.''8 44 23penses for 3ero3ing of i$portant
papers and docu$ents0; :''.''8 :4 Accrued rentals for the lot in #uestion ;11,"''.'' and 4 @egal interest of accrued rentals at 1!U a
%ear P ;1,4+.'' for a total of ;4,++.''.
>n >ctober :, 19"4, the trial court issued an order granting the petitionersA $otion for e3ecution and application for a writ of attach$ent
and approving the bill of costs. In said order, the trial court ordered the de$olition of an% part of the private respondentAs building and all
other construction within @ot 5B5 and the private road. The de$olition was effected.
The private respondent appealed to the then Inter$ediate Appellate &ourt, contending that the order of the trial court departed fro$ the
intention of the (upre$e &ourtAs resolution ordering e3ecution of the 9udg$ent, for it thereb% deprived hi$ of the alternative choice of
pa%ing the value of the disputed area which was allowed in the trial courtAs resolution of )a% 1, 19"+, which the (upre$e &ourt found to
be in accord with, a$ong others, its decision in ..<. No. @0+!4! 1(ta. Ana v. (unga, :4 (&<A +4.
>n (epte$ber !', 19":, the appellate court rendered the assailed decision, the dispositive portion of which provided8
C?2<2-><2, the writs of certiorari and prohibition applied for are granted. The >rder of >ctober :, 19"4 approving
the bill of courts and granting e3ecution of Aprevious ordersA, as well as the order*writ of de$olition are hereb% set aside,
<espondent &ourt is ordered to forthwith deter$ine the value of the de$olished portion of petition of petitionerAs
residential building and other structures affected b% the de$olition and also, to assess the value of the disputed area for
purposes of set off and whatever is the e3cess in value should be paid to the part% entitled thereto. 1<ollo, pp. 4'0414
In its decision, the appellate court e3plained the rationale behind the dispositive portion. It said7
333 333 333
The un#ualified affir$ance of said resolution of )a% 1, 19"+, to >ur )ind, carried with it the approval of the above
reco$$endation. The fact that the (upre$e &ourt was silent on the reco$$ended alternative choice of de$olition and
pa%$ent of the disputed area and $erel% returned the records for e3ecution of 9udg$ent, did not indicate that the
reco$$ended de$olition was preferred. The sufficienc% and efficac% of the resolution of )a% 1, 19"+, as the 9udg$ent
to be enforced or e3ecuted, cannot be doubted considering its substance rather than its for$. The afore#uoted
reco$$endation, itself the dispositive portion, can be ascertained as to its $eaning and operation. Thereb%, the petitioner
is given the option to pa% the value of the western portion of the disputed area which is enclosed in the wall constructed
b% said petitioner. It is petitioner who is given the alternative choice since if he does not pa%, then he can be ordered to
re$ove whatever structure he had introduced in the #uestioned pre$ises. Notabl%, petitioner indicated his willingness to
pa% the price of the disputed area or otherwise e3ercised that option.
<espondent &ourt therefore acted with grave abuse of discretion tanta$ount to lac, or e3cess of 9urisdiction in
abandoning the alternative choice of pa%$ent of the value of the area in dispute, which it authoriIed in its final resolution
of )a% 1, 19"+, when it ordered e3ecution of its Aprevious ordersA for the petitioner to vacate the land in #uestion and for
de$olition, which was set aside when the case was re$anded for hearing pursuant to the (upre$e &ourt decision of
Nove$ber !, 19/+. The previous orders referred to have not been specified b% the respondent &ourt in its >rder of
>ctober , 19"4. If it is the >rder of 6ece$ber 1!, 19/4 which is being referred to b% respondent &ourt, it should have so
specified8 however, it did not presu$abl% because it was reconsidered as can be deduced fro$ the fact that thereafter,
respondent &ourt further heard the parties and received their respective evidence in co$pliance with the decision of
Nove$ber !, 19/+, or which proceedings, the respondent &ourt issued its resolution of )a% 1, 19"+. 1<ollo, p. +"4
In the petition before us, the petitioners $aintain that the appellate court co$$itted grave abuse of discretion when it granted the private
respondent the option of e3ercising the alternative choice of sta%ing in the disputed land when it has been established that the private
respondent was in priv% with the spouses Gictor 6asal and )aria ;ecunio and, therefore, he could not be considered a builder in good
faith as to entitle hi$ to the alternative choice of retention8 and that the de$olition of the private respondentAs construction on @ot 5B5 and
on the private road is a logical conse#uence of the finding that he was priv% to the losing parties who were also the adversaries of the
petitioners in the original case.
Ce agree.
Chen this &ourt ordered the re$and of the case between the petitioners and the private respondent in our decision of Nove$ber !, 19/+
1see (ta. Ana v. (unga, supra4, it was precisel% to deter$ine whether herein respondent was priv% to the spouses 6asals as to $a,e the
decision against the latter and in favor of the petitioners over @ot 5B5 binding upon hi$. And this fact was clearl% pointed out b% Judge
;al$a in her resolution of )a% 1, 19"+ stating that if there is privit% between the private respondent and the spouses 6asals, then the
for$er is bound b% the final decision in && No. <0+9 1!'4'4 which is the case between the 6asals and the petitioners. ?owever, an
apparent confusion was brought about b% the dispositive portion of the afore$entioned resolution when it reco$$ended to this &ourt
either to order the respondent to re$ove all his constructions over @ot 5B5 or to re#uire said respondent to pa% the petitioners the value of
the disputed area which was alread% enclosed b% a wall constructed b% the respondent. This, nevertheless, was rectified when we issued
the series of resolutions den%ing the respondentAs petition and $otions for reconsideration before this &ourt wherein we stated that the
resolution of )a% 1, 19"+ was in accord, a$ong others, with the order of 6ece$ber 1!, 19/4 5which ordered the petitioner 1private
respondent4 to vacate the pre$ises 1which is presu$abl% final4.5
?ence, it is clear that the private respondent has to re$ove all his constructions over @ot 5B5 and vacate the pre$ises. This is his onl%
option. Being ad9udged in priv% with the spouses 6asals, he cannot avail hi$self of the rights granted to a builder in good faith. ?e,
therefore, $ust re$ove all his useful i$prove$ents over @ot 5B5 at his own e3pense and if the sa$e have alread% been re$oved, he
cannot be entitled to the right of retention or to an% rei$burse$ent. Thus, in the case of Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewarage System v.
Court of ppeals, 114+ (&<A !+, !94, we ruled7
Article 449 of the &ivil &ode of the ;hilippines provides that 5he who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of
another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to inde$nit%.5 As a builder in bad faith, NACA(A lost
whatever useful i$prove$ents it had $ade without right to inde$nit% 1(antos v. )o9ica, Jan. +1, 199, ! (&<A /'+4
)oreover, under Article :4 of said code, onl% a possessor in good faith shall be refunded for useful e3penses with the
right of retention until rei$bursed8 and under Article :4/ thereof, onl% a possessor in good faith $a% re$ove useful
i$prove$ents if this can be done without da$age to the principal thing and if the person who recovers the possession
does not e3ercise the option of rei$bursing the useful e3penses. The right given a possessor in bad faith to re$ove
i$prove$ents applies onl% to i$prove$ents for pure lu3ur% or $ere pleasure, provided the thing suffers no in9ur%
thereb% and the lawful possessor does not prefer to retain the$ b% pa%ing the value the% have at the ti$e he enters into
possession 1Article :49, ,d.4.
Ce, therefore, find that the appellate court co$$itted reversible error in holding that the private respondent is entitled to e3ercise the
option to pa% the value of the disputed area of @ot 5B5 and to rei$burse$ent for the value of the de$olished portion of his building. Ce,
however, affir$ its ruling that the petitionerAs bill of costs $ust be set aside and that while the resolution of )a% 1, 19"+ included
attorne%As fees and da$ages, the necessit% of proof cannot be dispensed with. (ince no proof was presented before the trial regarding an%
of these clai$s, the% cannot be awarded.
C?2<2-><2, the petition is .<ANT26 and the decision of the court of Appeals dated (epte$ber !', 19": is ANNJ@26 and (2T
A(I62. The writ of attach$ent issued b% the trial court for the purpose of satisf%ing the award for da$ages and the bill of costs is,
however, per$anentl% (2T A(I62.
(> ><62<26.