Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 133140
PUNO, J.:
This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
to set aside the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. No. 44707 entitled "Jose Ma. T. Garcia, Plaintiff-Appellee
versus Spouses Luisito and Ma. Luisa Magpayo and Sheriff of
Makati, Defendants, Philippine Bank of Communications,
Defendant-Appellant".1
LTD
In its summary judgment, the lower court held that the mortgage
executed by the Magpayo spouses in favor of PBCom was void.
It found that:
The Magpayos, on the other hand, asserted that title over the
land was transferred to them by Mrs. Magpayo's parents to
enable them (Magpayos) to borrow from PBCom.
The court a quo denied the motion for summary judgment on the
ground that PBCom raised in its answer both factual and legal
issues which could only be ventilated in a full-blown trial.
LTD
I
The respondent Court of Appeals has departed from the accepted
and usual course of proceedings when it decided the appeal
subject of this case based on issues which were raised neither in
the trial court nor in the appellant's brief.
When the land is registered in the vendor's name, and the public
instrument of sale is also registered, the sale may be considered
consummated and the buyer may exercise the actions of an
owner (Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil
Code of the Philippines, 1992 Ed., p. 55).
III
II
That the Magpayos' title, TCT No. S-108412, was issued four (4)
days following the execution of the deed of real estate mortgage
is of no moment, for registration under the Torrens system does
not vest ownership but is intended merely to confirm and
register the title which one may already have on the land
(Municipality of Victorias v. Court of Appeals, 149 SCRA 32,
44-45 [1987]).
LTD
Due to the wrong cited case, the trial court opined erroneously
that "Magpayo Spouses could not have acquired the property
3. The petitioner and his family have been and are continuously
to the present in actual physical possession of the property. At
LTD
xxx
xxx
LTD
The lower court held that the mortgage was void but, upon
appeal, CA reversed its decision. Petitioner appealed to the SC
and raised, as one of the errors, that CA decided the case based
on issues not raised in the trial court nor in the appellants brief.
Held: No. PBComs appellate brief alleged that the trial court
could not distinguish ownership from possession; that plaintiffappellees possession could not ripen into ownership; that he
was an intruder in bad faith and his possession is certainly not in
the concept of an owner.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Kapunan, Pardo and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.,
concur.
LTD
THIRD DIVISION
LTD
Branch 196, issued on April 29, 2005 in Civil Case No. 05-0155.
LTD
xxxx
The subject of acquisitive prescription in the instant case is the
accreted portion which [was] duly proven by the Appellants. It is
clear that since 1930, Appellants together with their predecessorin-interest, PEDRO VITALEZ[,] have been in exclusive
possession of the subject property and starting 1964 had
introduced improvements thereon as evidenced by their
LTD
assignment of errors:
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION AND RESOLUTION
OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS THAT
RESPONDENTS HAVE A RIGHT IN ESSE IS IN ACCORD
WITH THE LAW AND ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE[;]
xxxx
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION AND RESOLUTION
OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE
SUBJECT LOT IS AVAILABLE FOR ACQUISITIVE
PRESCRIPTION IS IN ACCORD WITH THE LAW AND
ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE[;] AND
xxxx
In sum, We are fully convinced and so hold that the Appellants
[have] amply proven their right over the property in question.
SO ORDERED.22
On June 8, 2007, the appellate court denied petitioners motion
for reconsideration. Hence, this petition raising the following
LTD
10
We do not agree.
It is an uncontested fact that the subject land was formed from
the alluvial deposits that have gradually settled along the banks
of Cut-cut creek. This being the case, the law that governs
ownership over the accreted portion is Article 84 of the Spanish
Law of Waters of 1866, which remains in effect,26 in relation to
Article 457 of the Civil Code.
In the instant case, the action for prohibition seeks to enjoin the
LTD
11
In the case at bar, respondents assert that their predecessor-ininterest, Pedro Vitalez, had occupied and possessed the subject
lot as early as 1930. In 1964, respondent Mario Ebio secured a
permit from the local government of Paraaque for the
construction of their family dwelling on the said lot. In 1966,
Pedro executed an affidavit of possession and occupancy
allowing him to declare the property in his name for taxation
purposes. Curiously, it was also in 1966 when Guaranteed
Homes, Inc., the registered owner of Road Lot No. 8 (RL 8)
which adjoins the land occupied by the respondents, donated RL
8 to the local government of Paraaque.
From these findings of fact by both the trial court and the Court
of Appeals, only one conclusion can be made: that for more than
thirty (30) years, neither Guaranteed Homes, Inc. nor the local
LTD
12
Nemo dat quod dat non habet. No one can give what he does not
have. Such principle is equally applicable even against a
sovereign entity that is the State.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The
January 31, 2007 Decision, as well as the July 8, 2007
Resolution, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91350
are hereby AFFIRMED.
With costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
Paranaque vs Ebio
G.R. No. 178411 June 23, 2010
FACTS:
LTD
13
HELD:No.
LTD
14
BARRERA, J.:
This is an appeal taken by petitioners Ignacio, Eulogia, Alfonso,
Eulalia, and Sofia Grande, from the decision of the Court of
Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 25169-R) reversing that of the Court of
First Instance of Isabela (Civil Case No. 1171), and dismissing
petitioners' action against respondents Domingo and Esteban
Calalung, to quiet title to and recover possession of a parcel of
land allegedly occupied by the latter without petitioners' consent.
LTD
15
LTD
16
January 25, 1958, they have not been in possession of the land
for ten (10) years; hence, they could not have acquired the land
by ordinary prescription (Arts. 1134 and 1138, New Civil Code).
Moreover, as the alluvium is, by law, part and parcel of the
registered property, the same may be considered as registered
property, within the meaning of Section 46 of Act No. 496: and,
therefore, it could not be acquired by prescription or adverse
possession by another person.
LTD
17
LTD
18
The next issue is, did respondents acquire said alluvial property
through acquisitive prescription? This is a question which
requires determination of facts: physical possession and dates or
duration of such possession. The Court of Appeals, after
LTD
19
The CFI found for the Grandes and ordered the Calalungs to
vacate the premises and pay for damages. Upon appeal to the
CA, however, the decision was reversed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the alluvium deposited land automatically
belongs to the riparian owners?
GRANDE v. CA
HELD:
FACTS:
LTD
20
THIRD DIVISION
LTD
22
LTD
23
earth's surface which separates Lot 307 and Lot 821 is, during
part of the year, the bed of the eastern branch of the Cagayan
River.
It is a familiar rule that the findings of facts of the trial court are
entitled to great respect, and that they carry even more weight
when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 9 This is in recognition
of the peculiar advantage on the part of the trial court of being
able to observe first-hand the deportment of the witnesses while
testifying. Jurisprudence is likewise settled that the Court of
Appeals is the final arbiter of questions of fact. 10 But whether a
conclusion drawn from such findings of facts is correct, is a
question of law cognizable by this Court. 11
In the instant case, the conclusion reached by both courts below
apparently collides with their findings that periodically at the
onset of and during the rainy season, river water flows through
the eastern bed of the Cagayan River. The trial court held:
LTD
24
of land in question.
Cagayan River occur with the annual coming of the rains as the
river waters in their onward course cover the entire depressed
portion. Though the eastern bed substantially dries up for the
most part of the year (i.e., from January to August), we cannot
ignore the periodical swelling of the waters ( i.e., from
September to December) causing the eastern bed to be covered
with flowing river waters.
LTD
25
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers,
torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks,
shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character;
(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public
use, and are intended for some public service or for the
development of the national wealth. (Emphasis supplied)
Although Article 420 speaks only of rivers and banks, "rivers" is
a composite term which includes: (1) the running waters, (2) the
bed, and (3) the banks. 19 Manresa, in commenting upon Article
339 of the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 from which Article 420
of the Philippine Civil Code was taken, stressed the public
ownership of river beds:
LTD
26
LTD
27
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.
LTD
28
LTD
29