PROPERTY – A

CASE NO. 32

Sibal vs. Buquel,

GR No. 197825, January 11, 2016

Facts: Respondents inherited from their parents a parcel of land.

Sometime in January 1999, petitioner and one Tobi Mangoba took
possession of a portion of the subject property. The Buquels made
several demands against Sibal and Mangoba for them to vacate and
turn over the property, but the latter refused. Hence, they filed a
complaint before the for recovery of possession and damages. The
RTC granted their complaint, and a writ of execution was later issued.
Thereafter, Sibal filed a Petition for Annulment of the RTC Decision
before the CA raising lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud as
grounds.

Issue: Should the RTC decision be annulled?

Held: No. Sibal contends that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction as
the complaint filed merely alleged the value of the subject property,
and that only the real property tax order of payment was attached to
the complaint and not the tax declaration that would determine the
assessed value of the property. But, upon review of the records, the
Court notes that the Real Property Tax Order of Payment shows that
the alleged amount is truly the assessed value of the property, which
fact Sibal failed to refute.

SAROMINEZ, GLADYS
PROPERTY – A

CASE NO. 120

Zamboanga vs. Plagata

G.R. No. 148433, September 30, 2008
Facts: ZBTKBI, thru its President, Atty. Hassan G. Alam, donated to
the Republic of the Philippines a parcel of land. The Republic
accepted the donation with conditions contained in the Deed of
Donation: “That upon the effectivity or acceptance hereof the DONEE
shall, thru the authorized agency/ministry, construct a P5 Million
Barter Trade market building at the afore-described parcel of land.” In
the event that barter trading was phased out, prohibited or suspended
for more than one year in Zamboanga City, shall revert to the donor
without need of any further formality or documentation. However,
effective October 1, 1988, per Memorandum Circular No. 1 of the
Office of the President dated June 17, 1988, barter trade in
Zamboanga City was totally phased out.
Issue: Has the donated property been already reverted to petitioner-
donor?
Held: As above ruled, the deed of donation contains a stipulation that
allows automatic reversion. Such stipulation, not being contrary to
law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, is valid and
binding on the parties to the donation. Where such propriety is
sustained, the decision of the court will be merely declaratory of the
revocation, but it is not in itself the revocatory act.

SAROMINEZ, GLADYS
PROPERTY – A

CASE NO. 121

Quijada vs. CA
G.R. No. 126444, December 4, 1998
Facts: Trinidad Quijada, together with her siblings executed a
Conditional Deed of Donation in favor of the Municipality of
Talacogon, being that the land shall be used exclusively for the
construction of a provincial high school. Trinindad remained in
possession of the land. Thereafter, Trinidad sold the land to
Mondejar. The heirs to Trinidad, herein Petitioners, filed a complaint
for forcible entry against the respondents. The proposed campus did
not materialize and the Sangguniang Bayan enacted a resolution
donating back the land to the donor. In the meantime, Mondejar
conveyed portions of the land to complaint for quieting of title,
recovery of possession, and ownership of the land.
Issue: Was the sale between Trinindad and Mondejar valid?
Held: The Donor may have an inchoate interest in the donated
property during the time that ownership of the land has not reverted
to her. Such inchoate interest maybe the subject of contracts
including a Contract of Sale. In this case, what the donor sold was the
land itself which she no longer owns. It would have been different if
the donor-seller sold her interest over the property under the deed of
donation which is subject to the possibility of reversion of ownership
arising from the non-fulfillment of the resolutory condition.

SAROMINEZ, GLADYS
PROPERTY – A

CASE NO. 122

Metropolitan Fabrics, Inc. vs. Prosperity Credit Resources, Inc.
G.R. No. 154390, March 17, 2014
Facts: In July 1984, Metropolitan Fabrics, Inc. (MFI) obtained a loan
from Prosperity Credit Resources, Inc (PCRI) in the amount of
Php3.5 Million, represented by herein respondents Domingo and
Caleb Ang. The blank loan form had no entries specifying the rate of
interest and schedules of amortization. Petitioner Enrique and Vicky
Ang entrusted to the respondents their seven titles to secure the
Php3.5 Million loan. In September 1984, it was then that the
petitioners named that PCRI had filled up the said checks with dates
and amounts reflected at 35% interest rate per annum, instead of just
24%, and a two-year repayment period, instead of ten years.
Issue: Did the action to assail the mortgage already prescribed?
Held: Here, it is important to first determine if the mortgage was void
or merely voidable. Where consent was given through fraud alone,
the contract was voidable, not void ab initio. Article 1390, in relation
to Article 1391 of the Civil Code, provides that if the consent of the
parties was obtained through fraud, the contract is considered
voidable and maybe annulled within four years from the time of the
discovery thereof. Thus, because the mortgage involving the seven
lots was registered on September 5, 1984, they had until September
5, 1988. But their complaint was instituted in the RTC on October 10,
1991. Hence, the action had already prescribed.

SAROMINEZ, GLADYS