1.)SIASOCOv.

NARVAJABALOG(MIKAELONG)
G.R.No.130460

Facts

DavidSiasocowastheregisteredownerofLotNos.29and30,Block2oftheSaintJohnVillage,Sta.
Rosa,Laguna,coveredbyTCTNos.T38343andT28344.PetitionersaretheheirsofDavidSiasoco,who
allegedlydiedonNovember23,1982.OnAugust20,1984,petitioners,representedbypetitionerRodolfoA.
Siasoco,soldthetwolotstorespondentNarvaja.
RespondentlaterfiledacomplaintforspecificperformanceagainstpetitionerintheHousingandLand
UseRegulationBoard(HLURB).TheHLURBArbiterorderedpetitionerstoaccepttheamountofP105,320.00
asbalanceforthepurchaseofthe2questionedparcelsofland;andtoexecutetheDeedofAbsoluteSaleofthe
propertyinquestion.
PetitionersappealedtotheHLURBBoardofCommissioners,buttheirappealwasdismissedonthe
groundoffailuretoprosecute.TheHLURBBoardofCommissionersorderedHLURBArbitertoacceptthe
amount from NarvajaBalog in trust for respondent Siasoco which amount represents the balance for the
purchaseofLots29and30;andtoexecutetheDeedsofAbsoluteSaleinfavorofNarvajarelativetothe
aforementionedparcelsofland.
TheRegistrarofDeedsofLagunawasdirectedtotransferthetitlestoLotNos.29and30torespondent.
Accordingly,adeedofabsolutesale,coveringthepropertiesinquestion,wasexecutedbyrespondentonthe
onehandandHLURBArbiter,actinginbehalfofpetitioner,ontheotherhand.However,theRegistrarof
Deedsrefusedtoregisterthesaiddeedofabsolutesaleuntiltheownersduplicatecertificatescoveringthe
propertiesinquestionhadbeenpresentedtohim.Upontherefusalofpetitionertodelivertheownersduplicate
certificatesinhispossession,respondentfiledapetitionbeforethetrialcourttorequiretheformertosurrender
thesame.
Petitionersfiledamotiontodismissandanothermotiontosuspendproceedings.Theycontendedthat
thetrialcourtlackedjurisdictiontoentertainthepetitionandthatanothercaseinvolvingthesameissueandthe
samepartieswasstillpendingintheHLURB.Thetrialcourtdeniedpetitioner'smotions.Petitionersthenfileda
specialcivilactionforcertiorariintheCourtofAppealswhich,however,dismissedtheaction.
Issue

DoestheHousingandLandUseRegulatoryBoardhaveoriginalandexclusivejurisdictionovertheinstant
case?

Ruling

YES.TheHLURBhasexclusivejurisdictiontohearanddecidecasesofunsoundrealestatebusiness
practices;claimsinvolvingrefundfiledagainstprojectowners,developers,dealers,brokers,orsalesmen;and
casesofspecificperformance.ItistheHLURB,notthetrialcourt,whichhasjurisdictionovercomplaintsfor
specificperformancefiledagainstsubdivisiondeveloperstocompelthelattertoexecutedeedsofabsolutesale
andtodeliverthecertificatesoftitletobuyers.(UnitedHousingCorporationv.Dayrit)

2.BENINV.TUASON(RAPHAELPATAJO)

Page 1 of 34
Facts:

TheplaintiffsBenin,AlcantaraandPilifiledthreeseparatecomplaintsandallegedthattheywerethe
ownersandpossessorsofthethreeparcelsofagriculturallands,locatedinthebarrioofLaLoma(now
SanJose)inthemunicipality(nowcity)ofCaloocan,thattheyinheritedsaidparcelsoflandfromtheir
ancestorSixtoBenin,whointurninheritedthesamefromhisfather,EugenioBenin;

Plaintiffs uniformlyalleged, thatsometimeintheyear1951whiletheywereenjoyingthepeaceful

possession of their lands, the defendants, J.M. Tuason and Co. Inc. through their agents and
representatives, with the aid of armed men, by force and intimidation, using bulldozers and other
demolishingequipment,illegallyenteredandstarteddefacing,demolishinganddestroyingthedwellings
andconstructionsofplaintiffslessees,aswellastheimprovements.

Theymadeinquiriesregardingtheprobableclaimofdefendants,andin1953theydiscoveredforthe
firsttimethattheirlands,hadeitherbeenfraudulentlyorerroneouslyincluded,inwhatappearsasParcel
No.1(knownasSantaMesaEstate)inOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.735oftheLandRecordsofthe
provinceofRizalinthenamesoftheoriginal applicants forregistration, nowdefendants,Mariano
Tuason.

Theplaintiffsallegedthattheregisteredownershadappliedfortheregistrationoftwoparcelsofland
(known as the Santa Mesa Estate and the Diliman Estate; that the registration proceedings were
docketedasLRCNo.7681oftheCourtofLandRegistration; Theyallege thattheapplicationfor
registrationinLRCNo.7681,containingtheboundaries,technicaldescriptionsandareasofparcelNo.
1(SantaMesaEstate)andparcelNo.2(DilimanEstate)waspublishedintheOfficialGazette;

That before the decision was handed down in LRC No. 7681, the area, boundaries and technical
descriptionsofparcelNo.1werealteredandamended;thattheareaofparcelNo.1asmentionedin
DecreeNo.17431isbiggerthantheareaofparcelNo.1appearingintheapplicationforregistrationas
published in the Official Gazette; that the amendments and alterations, which were made after the
publicationoftheoriginalapplication,wereneverpublished;thatadecisionwasrenderedinLRCNo.
7681basedontheamendedplan;thatpursuanttothedecision,adecreeofregistrationwasissued,
knownasDecreeNo.17431,decreeingtheregistrationinthenamesoftheapplicantsofthetwoparcels
ofland(SantaMesaEstateandDilimanEstate).

Theplaintiffsprayedthecourttodeclarethemownersandentitledtothepossessionoftheparcel,or
parcels,oflandandtorevokethedecisionoftheCourtofLandRegistration,inLRCNo.7681,andto
declareDecreeNo.17431,datedJuly6,1914nullandvoidfromthebeginningwithrespecttoParcel
No.1 (Santa MesaEstate) in Original Certificate of Title No. 735which include the lands ofthe
plaintiffs;

Thethreecasesweretriedtogether,anddecidedinonejointdecision,bytheCourtofFirstInstanceof
Rizal;werejointlyappealeddirectlytotheSupremeCourtbecauseofthevalueofthepropertyinvolved
ineachcase.

TheCourtofFirstInstancedeclaredthatthedecision,thedecreeandthetitleissuedinLRCNo.7681,
arenullandvoid,abinitio,andofnoeffectwhatsoeverandthatOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.735
foundonpage136Vol.A7oftheRegistrationBookofRizalisnullandvoidfromtheverybeginning
andofnoeffectwhatsoever;
Page 2 of 34
ISSUE:

WhetherornotthedecreeandtitleissuedbytheLRCarenullandvoid?

HELD:

NO,assoonasthedecreeoftitlehasbeenregisteredintheofficeoftheRegisterofDeeds,theproperty
includedinsaiddecreeshallbecomeregisteredland,andthecertificateshalltakeeffectuponthedateof
thetranscriptionofthedecree.Thecertificateoftitleisatruecopyofthedecreeofregistration.The
OCT mustcontain the full transcription ofthe decree ofregistration. Anydefect inthe manner of
transcribingthetechnicaldescriptionshouldbeconsideredasformal,andnotasubstantialdefect.

What matters is that the original certificate of title contains the full transcription of the decree of
registration,andthattherequireddataprovidedforinSection40ofAct496arestatedintheoriginal
certificateoftitle.

We,therefore,holdthattheformaldefectinthetranscriptionofDecreeofRegistrationNo.17431inthe
RegistrationBookdidnotrendernullandvoidOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.735.

ThejointdecisionoftheCourtofFirstInstance,appealedfrom,isREVERSEDandSETASIDE.

3.)BALBINvsREGISTERofILOCOS(SHAYNERAMIREZ)

4.ENG,representedbyENEDINOH.FERRER,petitioners,vs.COURTOFAPPEALS,JACINTO
VELEZ,JR.,CARMENVELEZTING,AVENUEMERCHANDISING,INC.,FELIXTINGAND
ALFREDOGO,respondents.
(MARYJANESECRETARIA)

FACTS:

(Novationisneverpresumed;itmustbesufficientlyestablishedthatavalidnewagreementorobligation
hasextinguishedorchangedanexistingone.Theregistrationofalatersalemustbedoneingoodfaithtoentitle
theregistranttopriorityinownershipoverthevendeeinanearliersale.)

The Velezes, owners of a lot and commercial building, through Carmen Velez Ting wrote a letter to the
petitioners, the lessees of the said building, offering to sell the subject property forP1,050,000.00. The
petitionerssentareplylettertotheVelezesacceptingtheoffertosell.

PetitionerEmiliaUracawenttoseeCarmenTingabouttheoffertosellbutshewastoldbythelatterthatthe
pricewasP1,400,000.00incashormanagerscheckandnotP1,050,000.00aserroneouslystatedintheirletter
offeraftersomehaggling.EmiliaUracaagreedtothepriceofP1,400,000.00butcounterproposedthatpayment
bepaidininstallmentswithadownpaymentofP1,000,000.00andthebalanceofP400,000tobepaidin30
days.CarmenVelezTingdidnotacceptthesaidcounterofferofEmiliaUraca.Nopaymentwasmadebythe
petitionerstotheVelezes.

Page 3 of 34
The Velezes sold the subject lot and commercial building to the Avenue Group, Private Respondent,
forP1,050,000.00.

AtthetimetheAvenueGrouppurchasedthesubjectpropertyonJuly13,1985fromtheVelezes,thecertificate
oftitleofthesaidpropertywascleanandfreeofanyannotationofadverseclaimsorlispendens.

OnJuly31,1985,thepetitionersfiledtheinstantcomplaintagainsttheVelezes.OnAugust1,1985,petitioners
registeredanoticeoflispendensoverthepropertyinquestionwiththeOfficeoftheRegisterofDeeds.

TheAvenueGroupfiledanejectmentcaseagainstpetitionersorderingthelattertovacatethecommercial
buildingstandingonthelotinquestion.

TRIALCOURT:thereweretwoperfectedcontractsofsalebetweentheVelezesandthepetitioners.Thefirst
salewasforP1,050,000.00andthesecondwasforP1,400,000.00.Hence,theVelezeswerenotfreetosellthe
propertiestotheAvenueGroup.ItalsofoundthattheAvenueGrouppurchasedthepropertyinbadfaith.

PrivaterespondentsappealedtotheCourtofAppeals.

CA:ruledthattherewasaperfectedcontractofsaleofthepropertyforP1,050,000.00betweentheVelezesand
thepetitionersbutsuchperfectedcontractofsalewassubsequentlynovated.theoriginalcontract.However,the
same was mutually withdrawn,cancelled andrescinded bynovation, andwas therefore abandoned bythe
partieswhenCarmenVelezTingraisedtheconsiderationofthecontractmakingthepriceP1,400,000.00.Since
therewasnoagreementastothesecondpriceoffered,therewaslikewisenomeetingofmindsbetweenthe
parties,hence,nocontractofsalewasperfected.

ISSUES:

1.WONtherewasanovation

2.WONthepetitionershavebetterrightstobuyandowntheVelezespropertyforregisteringtheirnoticeoflis
pendensaheadoftheAvenueGroupsregistrationoftheirdeedsofsaletakingintoaccountArt.1544,2nd
paragraph,oftheCivilCode.

RULING:

FirstIssue:NoExtinctiveNovation
TheCourtnotesthatthepetitionersacceptedinwritingandwithoutqualificationtheVelezeswrittenoffer
tosellatP1,050,000.00withinthethreedayperiodstipulatedtherein.Hence,fromthemomentofacceptance
onJuly10,1985,acontractofsalewasperfectedsinceundisputedlythecontractualelementsofconsent,object
certainandcauseconcurred.
Novationiseffectedonlywhenanewcontracthasextinguishedanearliercontractbetweenthesame
parties.Inthislight,novationisneverpresumed;itmustbeprovenasafacteitherbyexpressstipulationofthe
partiesorbyimplicationderivedfromanirreconcilableincompatibilitybetweenoldandnewobligationsor
contracts.Inthiscase,therewasnonovation.

Page 4 of 34
 ThepetitionersandtheVelezesclearlydidnotperfectanewcontractbecausetheessentialrequisiteof
consentwasabsent,thepartieshavingfailedtoagreeonthetermsofthepayment.Thefirstsaleoftheproperty
incontroversy,bytheVelezestopetitionersforP1,050,000.00,remainedvalidandexisting.

SecondIssue:DoubleSaleofanImmovable

doublesalefirst,tothepetitioner;second,totheAvenueGroup.
Article1544oftheCivilCodeprovides:

Shoulditbeimmovableproperty,theownershipshallbelongtothepersonacquiringitwhoingoodfaithfirst
recordeditintheRegistryofProperty.

Shouldtherebenoinscription,theownershipshallpertaintothepersonwhoingoodfaithwasfirstinthe
possession;and,intheabsencethereof,tothepersonwhopresentstheoldesttitle,providedthereisgoodfaith.

Thepriorregistrationofthedisputedpropertybythesecondbuyerdoesnotbyitselfconferownershipora
betterrightovertheproperty.Article1544requiresthatsuchregistrationmustbecoupledwithgoodfaith.The
governingprincipleisprimustempore,potiorjure(firstintime,strongerinright).Knowledgegainedbythe
firstbuyerofthesecondsalecannotdefeatthefirstbuyersrightsexceptwherethesecondbuyerregisters
ingoodfaiththesecondsaleaheadofthefirst.

Suchknowledgeofthefirstbuyerdoesnotbarherfromavailingofherrightsunderthelaw,amongthem,to
registerfirstherpurchaseasagainstthesecondbuyer.Butinconversoknowledgegainedbythesecondbuyer
ofthefirstsaledefeatshisrightsevenifheisfirsttoregisterthesecondsale,sincesuchknowledgetaintshis
priorregistrationwithbadfaith.Beforethesecondbuyercanobtainpriorityoverthefirst,hemustshowthat
heactedingoodfaiththroughout(i.e.inignoranceofthefirstsaleandofthefirstbuyersrights)fromthe
timeofacquisitionuntilthetitleistransferredtohimbyregistrationorfailingregistration,bydeliveryof
possession.

TheCourtfindsthatbadfaithtaintedtheAvenueGroupspurchaseonJuly13,1985oftheVelezesrealproperty
subjectofthiscase,andthesubsequentregistrationthereofonAugust1,1995.TheAvenueGrouphadactual
knowledgeoftheVelezespriorsaleofthesamepropertytothepetitioners,afactantitheticaltogoodfaith.For
asecondbuyerliketheAvenueGrouptosuccessfullyinvokethesecondparagraph,Article1544oftheCivil
Code,itmustpossessgoodfaithfromthetimeofthesaleinitsfavoruntiltheregistrationofthesame.

TheAvenueGroup,whosestoreisclosetothepropertiesinquestion,hadknownthepetitionerstobethe
lesseeoccupantsofthesaidproperty.FelixTingadmittedtohaveatalkwithOngSengabouttheproperties.
ManuelTingalsoadmittedthataboutamonthafterEsterBorromeoallegedlyofferedthesaleoftheproperties
Felix Ting went to see Ong Seng again.If these were so, it can be safely assumed that Ong Seng had
consequently told Felix about the offer on to buy the properties forP1,000,000.00 and of their timely
acceptancetobuythesameatP1,050,000.00.

5.)MILLENAVS.CA,G.R.No.127797,January31,2000(MARYGRACECRUZ)

Facts:

Page 5 of 34
 Thecaseinvolvesa3,934sq.meterparceloflandinbarangayBalinad,Daraga,Albay.Suchlandwas
partofLot1874,whichisalandsubjectofcadastralproceedinginthe1920sbeforetheCourtofFirstInstance
inAlbay.Amongitsclaimantsarethefollowing:(1)GregoriaListana;(2)PotencianaMaramba(hersisterin
law);and(3)withthelatters7children(allsurnamedListana).

OnAugust17,1926,theclaimantsreachedanagreementtodivideLot1874amongthemselves;went
toGregoriaListanawhiletheremainingtoPotencianaMarambaandher7children.Suchagreementwasthen
submittedtothecadastralcourt.Thus,thenorthernportionofLot1874wasawardedtoGregoriaListana.

Atthetime,GregoriaListanawasillduetotuberculosis.Hence,sheexecutedapowerofattorneyin
favorofhercousin(AntoniaLipato);authorizedattorneyinfacttoselltheportionoflot1874belongingtohis
principal.Withthat,theproceedsofthesalewouldbeusedforherinterment.Asanattorneyinfact,Lipatosold
theportiontoGaudencioJacob.Thereafter,Jacobenteredthelotsoldtohimandstartedharvesting.

UponlearningJacobsentryofsaidlot,PotencianaMarambaconfrontedhim.Thus,thelatterfiledan
ejectmentcaseagainstJacob.However,theJusticeofPeacedismissedthecase.Thereafter,uponthedismissal
ofthecase,Jacobcontinuedpossessionofthepropertyforover40yearsuntilApril4,1966.OnNovember
1981, Felisa Jacob (Daughter of Gaudencio Jacob) discovered that Florencio Listana (son of Potenciana
Maramba)hadacquiredfromtheBureauofLandsafreepatentcertificatecoveringtheentire14,284sq.meter
areaLot1874;thus,includestheportionofFelisaJacob.Thelatter,thereafter,filedaprotestbeforetheBureau
ofLands.

AfterthedeathofFlorencioListana,theheirsofthelattersoldtheentirelot1874includingtheportion
soldbyGregoriaListanatoGaudencioJacobtoAlejandroMillena.Thus,FelisaJacobfiledacomplaintagainst
AlejandroMillenaforannulmentoftitle.

Issue:

Whetherornotprescriptionhasnowbarredtheactionforreconveyance.

Held:

Anactionforreconveyancecanbebarredbyprescription.Ifitisbasedonfraud,itmustbefiledwithin
4yearsfromthediscoveryoffraud,andsuchdiscoveryisdeemedtotakeplacefromtheissuanceofthe
originalcertificateoftitle.Ontheotherhand,anactionforreconveyancebasedonimpliedorconstructivetrust
prescribesin10yearsfromthedateoftheissuanceoftheoriginalcertificateoftitleortransfercertificateof
title.

But,itmustbestressedthatprescriptioncannotbeinvokedinnactionforreconveyancewhenthe
plaintiffisinpossessionofthelandtobereconveyed.Moreover,underarticle253ofthecivilcode,possession
istheholdingofathingortheenjoymentofaright.Inordertopossess,onemustfirsthavecontrolofthething
and,second,adeliberateintentiontopossessit.Inthiscase,FelisaJacobhadexerciseddominionoverthe
contestedparcelofland.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.

Page 6 of 34
6.)GATIOANvsGAFFUD(ROSEMARIEKHOLOMA)

7.)BAYOCAvsNOGALES(RENIERHIPOLITO)

Facts:

The heirs of spouses Juan Canino and Brigida Domasig inherited a parcel of land located in
Prieto-Diaz Sorsogon in an assessed value of P500.
Tomas Canino being a minor at 17 yrs old is under the custody of his sister Preciosa Canino
and her husband Emilio Deocareza
December 15, 1947 Preciosa executed an unnotarized deed of sale of real property with
right to repurchase with an area of 5,000sqm in favor of her sister in law Julia Deocareza
for P200, right to repurchase is within 5 years from the execution of the deed.
February 2, 1948 Preciosa and Tomas executed an unnotarized in favour of Julia covering
5,330sqm for P60, right to repurchase within 1yr.
August 29, 1948 Preciosa executed another unnotarized deed over the entirety of the
property in favour of Julia for P270, right to repurchase within 2 years.
On January 31, 1951, Preciosa executed a notarized deed over the entirety of the land for P800, right to
repurchase within 1 year.
Tax declaration was issued in the name of Julia, she then allowed her brothers Ambrosio and Emilio to
occupy the said property. Preciosa failed to repurchase the land
Gaudioso Nogales acquired the property on the east side of the land and installed a tenant
thereon.
April 29, 1968 Julia executed an unnotarized compromise agreement in favour of Gaudioso
whereby she sold 21,080 sqm to Gaudioso for P3,500. Julia also executed an absolute sale
of real property in favour of Gaudioso for P3,000. She promised to have her brothers
vacate the said property.
Emilio and Preciosa refused to vacate the property upon demand of Gaudioso. Latter filed
a complaint with the RTC Sorsogon against Emilio and Julia for recovery of possession of
property. RTC ruled in favour of Gaudioso
Gaudioso discovered that petitioners claims ownership of the said property. Nonito
Dichoso and Francisco Bayoca constructed their house on the portion of the property.
Siblings Canino executed deed of partition on the said property on June 2, 1971, neither
Julia nor Gaudioso conformed.
June 21, 1971 Isidra Canino executed a deed of absolute sale in favour of Pio Dichoso and
Lourdes Donor for P750 on the area of 5,929sqm, Isidra showed them the deed of
partition.
Pio Dichoso and Lourdes Donor applied for a free patent over the property they purchase
from Isidra.
Preciosa Canino executed a deed of absolute sale In favour of Erwin Bayoca with an area
of 6,550sqm for P4,000
Consolacion Canino executed a deed of absolute sale in favour of Nonito Dichoso over an
area of 5959sqm for P1,300
Dolores Canino executed a deed of absolute sale of real property in favour of Francisco
Bayoca over an area of 7090sqm for P5,000.
Preciosa executed a deed of absolute sale of real property in favour of Erwin Bayoca for
P5,000.
Page 7 of 34
 Gaudioso filed a case against petitioners for Accion Reinvindicatoria with damages in RTC.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners claim of ownership will prevail over the respondent

Held: No, the petitioners does not have a better right over the property against the respondent.

Nogales was the first to buy the subject property from Julia Deocareza, who in turn bought the same from the
Canino brothers and sisters. Petitioners, however, rely on the fact that they were the first to register the sales of
the different portions of the property, resulting in the issuance of new titles in their names. Petitioners insist that
they have a better right over respondent Nogales

Article 1544 of the Civil Code governs the preferential rights of vendees in cases of multiple sales, as follows:

Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the
person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.

Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first
recorded it in the Registry of Property.

Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the
possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.

Following the above-quoted law, in the double sales of immovables, ownership is transferred in the order
hereunder stated to -

(a) the first registrant in good faith;

(b) the first in possession in good faith; and

(c) the buyer who presents the oldest title in good faith.

8.)CRUZvsCABANA(AMEIRMUKSAN)

FACTS:

InJune1965,respondentLeodegariaCabaasoldthesubjectpropertytorespondentspousesTeofiloLegaspi
andIluminadaCabaa(spousesLegaspi)undertheircontractentitledBilihangMulingMabibiliwhich
stipulatedthatCabaacanrepurchasethelandwithinoneyearfromDecember31,1966.Thesaidlandwasnot
repurchased,however,sothespousesLegaspitookpossessionofthesaidproperty.Later,Cabaarequestedthat
thelandtitlebelenttoherinordertomortgagethepropertytothePhilippineNationalBank(PNB),towhich
thespousesLegaspiyielded.OnOctober21,1968,CabaaformallysoldthelandtospousesLegaspibywayof
anabsolutesale.ThespousesLegaspithenattemptedtoregisterthedeedofsale,butfailedbecausetheycould
notpresenttheowner'sduplicateoftitlewhichwasstillinthepossessionofthePNBasmortgage.
Subsequently,theywereabletoregisterthedocumentofsaleonMay13,1969underPrimaryEntryNo.
210113oftheRegisterofDeedsofQuezonProvince.

Page 8 of 34
OnNovember29,1968,CabaasoldthesamepropertytohereinpetitionerAbelardoCruz(nowdeceased),
who,inturn,triedtoregisterthedeedofsaleonSeptember3,1970.However,hewasinformedthatCabaa
hadalreadysoldthepropertytothespousesLegaspi,sohewasonlyabletoregisterthelandinhisnameon
February9,1971.TheCFIofQuezonProvincedeclaredthespousesLegaspiasthetrueandrightfulownersof
thesubjectpropertyandthelandtitlethatCruzhadacquiredasnullandvoid.TheCourtofAppealsaffirmed
saiddecision,butorderedCabaareimbursetoCruz'sheirstheamountsofP2,352.50,whichthelatepetitioner
AbelardoCruzpaidtoPNBtodischargethemortgageobligationofCabaainfavorofsaidbank,andthe
amountofP3,397.50,representingtheamountpaidbysaidAbelardoCruztoherasconsiderationofthesale
withpactoderetroofthesubjectproperty.

ISSUE:
Whoistherightfulownerofthesubjectproperty?

Held:

TheSupremeCourtaffirmedthedecisionoftheappellatecourtwithmodificationorderingandsentencing
respondentLeodegariaCabaatoreimburseandpaytopetitioner'sheirsthetotalsumofP5,750.00.

ThereisnoquestionthatspousesLegaspiwerethefirstbuyers,firstonJune1,1965underasalewithrightof
repurchaseandlateronOctober21,1968underadeedofabsolutesaleandthattheyhadtakenpossessionofthe
landsoldtothem;thatAbelardoCruzwasthesecondbuyerunderadeedofsaledatedNovember29,1968,
whichtoailindications,contrarytothetext,wasasalewithrightofrepurchaseforninety(90)days.Thereisno
question,either,thatspousesLegaspiwerethefirstandtheonlyonestobeinpossessionofthesubject
property.

TheknowledgeofthefirstsaleAbelardoCruzhadgaineddefeatshisrightsevenifheisfirsttoregisterthe
secondsale,sincesuchknowledgetaintshispriorregistrationwithbadfaith.ThisisthepriceexactedbyArticle
1544oftheCivilCode.Beforethesecondbuyercanobtainpriorityoverthefirst,hemustshowthatheactedin
goodfaiththroughout(i.e.inignoranceofthefirstsaleandofthefirstbuyer'srights)fromthetimeof
acquisitionuntilthetitleistransferredtohimbyregistrationorfailingregistration,bydeliveryofpossession.
Thesecondbuyermustshowcontinuinggoodfaithandinnocenceorlackofknowledgeofthefirstsaleuntilhis
contractripensintofullownershipthroughpriorregistrationasprovidedbylaw."

9.)DAGUPANvs.MACAM(NEALCAJETADROPPED)

FACTS:

SammyMaronandhissevenbrothersandsisterswereproindivisoownersofaparcelofunregisteredland
locatedinPangasinan.PendingtheirapplicationforregistrationofsaidlandunderActNo.496,they
executedtwodeedsofsaleconveyingthepropertytoMacam,whotookpossessionandintroduced
substantialimprovementstoit.OnemonthlateranOCTwasissuedinthenameoftheMaron's,freefrom
allliensandencumbrances.
Page 9 of 34
 ByvirtueofafinaljudgmentrenderedinacivilcaseoftheMTCofManilaagainstMaroninfavorofthe
ManilaTradingandSupplyCompany,levywasmadeuponwhateverinteresthehadintheproperty.The
interestwassoldatpublicauctiontothejudgmentcreditor.Thecorrespondingnoticeoflevy,certificateof
saleandtheSheriff'scertificateoffinalsaleinfavoroftheManilaTradingandSupplyCo.because
nobodyexercisedtherightofredemptionsweredulyregistered.ManilaTradingandSupplycompany
soldallitsrightsandtitletothepropertytoDagupan.

ISSUE:
WhohasthebetterrightasbetweenDagupanTradingCompany,andRusticoMacamtotheoneeighthshareof
SammyMaroninthesubjectproperty?

HELD:Dagupan

RATIO:
Ifthepropertywereunregisteredland,Macamwouldhavethebetterrightbecausehisclaimwouldthenbe
basedonapriorsalecoupledwithpublic,exclusiveandcontinuouspossessionasowner.
Ifthepropertywereregisteredland,Dagupanwouldhaveabetterright.TheCourtconsistentlyheldthatin
caseofconveyanceofregisteredrealestate,theregistrationofthedeedofsaleistheoperativeactthatgives
validitytothetransfer.
ThedeedsofsaleexecutedinMacamsfavorwerenotregisteredwhilethelevyinexecutionandthe
provisionalcertificateofsaleaswellasthefinaldeedofsaleinfavorofDagupanwereregistered.
Consequently,thisregisteredconveyancemustprevailalthoughposteriortotheoneexecutedinfavorof
Macam,andDagupanmustbedeemedtohaveacquiredsuchright,titleandinterestasappearedonthe
certificateoftitleissuedinfavorofSammyMaron,subjecttonolien,encumbranceorburdennotnoted
thereon.
Thepresentcase,however,doesnotfallwithineither,situation.Here,thesaleinfavorofMacamwas
executedbeforethesubjectlandwasregistered,whiletheconflictingsaleinfavorofDagupanwasexecuted
afterthesamepropertyhadbeenregistered.
Section35,Rule39oftheRulesofCourt:Upontheexecutionanddeliveryofthefinalcertificateofsalein
favorofthepurchaseroflandsoldinanexecutionsale,suchpurchaser"shallbesubstitutedtoandacquire
alltheright,title,interestandclaimofthejudgmentdebtortothepropertyasofthetimeofthelevy.
Atthetimeofthelevy,Maronhadnointerestandclaimonthe1/8portionofthepropertyinheritedbyhim
andhiscoheirsbecauseforaconsiderabletimepriortothelevy,hisinteresthadalreadybeenconveyedto
Macam.Consequently,subsequentlevymadeonthepropertyforthepurposeofsatisfyingthejudgment
renderedagainstSammyMaroninfavoroftheManilaTradingCompanywasvoidandofnoeffect.
TheunregisteredsaleandtheconsequentconveyanceoftitleandownershipinfavorofMacamcouldnot
havebeencancelledandrenderedofnoeffectuponthesubsequentissuanceoftheTorrenstitleoverthe
entireparcelofland.
ToquotetheCAdecision:
....Separateandapartfromthishowever,webelievethatintheinevitableconflictbetweenarightof
ownershipalreadyfixedandestablishedundertheCivilLawand/ortheSpanishMortgageLaw
whichcannotbeaffectedbyanysubsequentlevyorattachmentorexecutionandanewlaworsystem
whichwouldmakepossibletheoverthrowingofsuchownershiponadmittedlyartificialandtechnical
grounds,theformermustbeupheldandapplied.
Asstated,upontheexecutionofthedeedofsaleinhisfavorbyMaron,Macamtookpossessionoftheland
asowner,andintroducedconsiderableimprovement.Todeprivehimnowofthesamebysheerforceof
technicalitywouldbeagainstbothjusticeandequity.
Page 10 of 34
10.)TOMADAVS.TOMADA,20SCRA1028(ALLENCABURAL)

FACTS:

OnJune18,1963thespousesTeotimoT.TomadaandRosaliaTanfiledapetitionwiththecourtaquoalleging:
thattheyweretheregisteredownersoftwoparcelsoflandknownasLotNo.166BandLotNo.167A,bothof
theOrmocCadastre,withTransferCertificatesofTitleNos.4631and4630,respectively,andoneseventh(1/7)
ofLotNo.1691,alsooftheOrmocCadastre,withTransferCertificateofTitleNo.3649;thattheyacquiredthe
saidpropertiesfromFelisaT.Tomada(Tan)Hilton,aresidentof1903WendoverDrive,Fayetteville,North
Carolina,U.S.A.,underadeedofsaleexecutedonApril5,1963byherattorneyinfact,Atty.BrunoA.
Villamor;thatthedeedofsalewasnotregisteredbytheRegisterofDeedsofOrmocCitybecausethespecial
powerofattorney,whichwasexecutedintheUnitedStates,wasnotauthenticatedbyaPhilippineconsulin
saidcountry;thatonApril6,1963,VicenteTomada,byvirtueofageneralpowerofattorneygrantedtohim
byFelisaTomada(Tan)Hilton,executedinfavoroftherespondentadeedofsaleoverseveralparcelsofland,
includingtheaforementionedproperties;thatonApril10,1963therespondentexecutedanaffidavitofadverse
claimoverthepropertiessoldtohimandregisteredtheclaimonthecorrespondingcertificatesoftitleonApril
16,1963;thatonMay8,1963thepetitionersremittedtoFelisaT.Tomada(Tan)Hiltonthesumof$1,775.00
representingthepurchasepriceofthepropertiessoldtothem;thatonMay22,1963anewspecialpowerof
attorneyinfavorofAtty.BrunoA.Villamor,withthesametermsasthefirstone,wasexecutedbyFelisaT.
Tomada(Tan)Hilton,andthistimedulyauthenticatedbythePhilippineConsulGeneralinWashingtonD.C.,
U.S.A.;thatbyvirtueofthenewspecialpowerofattorney,Atty.BrunoA.Villamorexecutedanotherdeedof
sale,datedJune5,1963,confirmingthesalemadetothepetitionersonApril5,1963;thatonJune7,1963the
petitionersregisteredthisconfirmatorydeedofsaleintheOfficeoftheRegisterofDeedsofOrmocCity;that
thecorrespondingcertificatesoftitleNos.4631and4630overLotsNos.166Band167A,respectively,were
issuedintheirfavorwhiletheirrightsandinterestsovertheoneseventh(1/7)shareinLotNo.1691wereduly
annotatedonTCTNo.3649.Theadverseclaimoftherespondentwasalsoannotatedontheaforementioned
transfercertificatesoftitle.

ISSUES:
Whetherornotthevalidityoftheadverseclaimshouldbecancelledorallowedtoremainasanannotationto
thetilles;and

WhetherornottheCFI/RTCasalandregistrationcourtcandecidethequestionofownershipofthelotssubject
ofthecase.

RULING:

Itistobenotedthatintheirpetitiontheappelleesnotonlyaskedthelowercourttocanceltheadverseclaimof
theappellantbutalsoaskedthattheybedeclaredthelawfulpurchasersofLotsNos.166B,167A,and1/7of
LotNo.1691byvirtueofthedeedofsalewhichwasexecutedintheirfavoronApril5,1963bytheattorney
infactoftheformerowner,andregisteredonJune7,1963.Inopposition,theappellantclaimedownershipof
thesamelotsbyvirtueofthesaleeffectedinhisfavoronApril6,1963byanotherattorneyinfactofthe
formerowner,whichsalewasregisteredasadverseclaimonApril16,1963.Itis,therefore,evidentthatthereal
issueinthiscaseisnotonlythevalidityoftheadverseclaimforpurposesofdeterminingwhetheritshouldbe
cancelledorallowedtoremainasanannotationonthetitles,butinrealityoneofownership,andinvolvesother
Page 11 of 34
corollaryissues,namely,thevalidityofasaleunderasupposedgeneralpowerofattorneywithauthorityto
sell,aswellastheconflictofrightsbetweentwodifferentvendeesofthesameproperties.Theseissuesare
beyondthejurisdictionofalandregistrationcourtactingonapetitionfiledunderSection110oftheLand
RegistrationAct."Questionswhichinvolvetheownershipofthelitigatedlandsarenotwithintheprovinceofa
courtoflandregistration.Theseproperlypertaintothecourtactingundertheirordinaryciviljurisdiction."2
Thereasonisobvious:theproceedingsprovidedintheLandRegistrationActbeingsummaryinnature,theyare
inadequateforthelitigationofissuesproperlypertainingtocivilactions.

11.)THEHEIRSOFCLAROLAURETAVS.INTERMEDIATEAPPELLATECOURT,MARCOS
MATAANDCODICIMATA(CARLOTABANGCURA)

FACTS:PetitionersareallheirsofthelateClaroLaureta,substitutingfortheirfather,whodied,whenduring
thelitigationofthecaseinthelowercourt.

MarcosandCodiciMataarespousesandwhenMarcosMatapassedawayduringthependencyofthecase,his
heirslikewisesubstitutedforhim.

June10,1945MarcosMataconveyedalargetractofagriculturallandinfavorofClaroLaureta.Thedeedof
absolutesaleinfavorofLauretawasnotregisteredbecauseitwasnotacknowledgedbeforeanotarypublicor
anyauthorizedofficer,sincenoonewasavailabletodosobecausethecivilgovernmentinTagum,Davaowas
notyetorganized.

MatadeliveredtoLaureta,thelandtogetherwithpertinentpapersliketheownersduplicateoftheOCT,sketch
plan,taxdeclaration,taxreceiptsandotherpapers.Sincethen,Lauretahasbeenincontinuousoccupationof
saidlandwithoutbeingdisturbedbyMata.Lauretahasalsobeenpayingtherealtytaxesthereonandhad
introducedimprovementsontheproperty.

May5,1947,thesamelandwassoldbyMatatoFerminCaram,Jr.Thedeedofsalewasacknowledgedbefore
Atty.Aportadera.

May22,1947,MarcosMatafiledwiththeCFIDavao,apetitionfortheissuanceofanewOwnersduplicateof
OCTallegingthatthetitlewaslostintheevacuationplaceofMatainTagum,DavaoCity.AnewOwners
duplicateoftitleno.3019wasissuedanddeclaringthelosttitleasnullandvoid.

Page 12 of 34
Dec.9,1947thesecondsalewasregisteredwiththeRegisterofDeedsandTCTNo.140wasissuedinthe
nameofCaram.

June25,1959LauretafiledinCFIDavaoanactionfornullity,recoveryofownershipand/orreconveyance
withdamagesagainstSps.MataandCaramandtheRegisterofDeedsofDavao.,docketedasCivilcaseno.
3083.

ThetrialcourtruledinfavorofLaureta.ItorderedtheRegisterofDeedsfortheCityandProvinceofDavaoto
cancelTCTNo.140inthenameofCaram.TheRegisterofDeedswasdirectedtoissueanewtitleinfavorof
LauretauponpresentationofthedeedexecutedbyMatainhisfavor,dulyacknowledgedbyhimandapproved
bytheSec.ofAgricultureandNaturalResources.

TheCAlikewiseaffirmedinfullthedecisionoftheCFIDavao.

FromthisdecisionoftheCA,twoseparatepetitionswerefiledbeforetheSC:

PetitionfiledbytheMataspousesagainstLauretadeniedforlackofmerit.Becamefinalandexecutory
onJuly26,1968whenentryofjudgmentwasmade.

PetitionofCaramagainstLauretagivenduecourse.February24,1981,thepetitionofCaramwas
dismissedanddecisionofCAwasupheld.JudgmentbecamefinalandexecutoryonFeb.12,1982.

ThenewdeedofsalewasacknowledgedbytheClerkofCourt,approvedbytheMinister

OfNaturalResourcesandTCTNo.T46346wasissuedinthenameofLaureta.

February23,1979,theSps.MatafiledwithCFIDavaoanactionforrecoveryofownershipandpossessionof
saidland,docketedasCivilCaseNo.1071.DeedofsaleexecutedbyMarcosMatainfavorofLauretawas
nullandvoidandorunenforceablesincethesamehadnotbeenapprovedbytheSec.ofAgricultureasrequired
bylawandasdirectedbyCFIDavao.Saiddecisioncannotbeenforcedforhavingprescribed.

April20,1983TrialcourtrenderedadecisionontheCivilCasereturningthelandtotheMatas.Onappeal,
thecourtaffirmedthisdecisionintoto.

Page 13 of 34
ISSUE:Whetherornotpetitionerscouldstillvalidlyexecute,enforceand/orcomplywiththejudgment
renderedbytheCFIDavaoonFebruary29,1964inCivilCaseno.3083atthetimeprivaterespondentsfiled
CivilcaseNo.1071againstthepetitionersonFebruary23,1979.

HELD:YES.

BoththeCFIandCAadoptedthetenyearstatutorylimitbasedonthedateofentryofjudgment,whichisJuly
26,1968.TheMatascontentionwasthatthedateshouldbeFeb.24,1982,whenCaramspetitionwas
dismissedbythisCourt.

ThematterwasadjudicatedinfavorofLauretaonJuly26,1968,withfinality.Caramhadnoparticipationin
thecasebetweenLauretaandMatas.IntheeventthatthematterwasadjudicatedinfavorofCaram,hecanget
backownershipfromLaureta.Caram,however,eventuallylost.

Thiscasedidnotinvolveseveralorseparatejudgments,butonecompleteintegratedjudgment,againstallthe
appellantsandtheirclaimsthereincouldnotbethesubjectofseparateexecutoryprocesses.

TheCourtruledinfavorofthefirstsalemadetoLauretaandagainstthelegalityofthesubsequentsaleto
Caram.Caramsvalidityoftitledependedlargelyonwhetherhehadknowledge,actualorconstructive,ofthe
priorsaletoLaureta.

ThetenyearperiodcommencedtorunonlyonFebruary12,1982whenthedecisiondenyingCaramspetition
becamefinalandexecutoryandthejudgmentappealedfromisreversedandsetaside.Civilcaseno.1071of
theRTCDavaoisdismissed.

CHAPTERV:

1.)CAVILLES,JR.VSBAUTISTA(ANNADERLA)

FACTS

1.OnSeptember22,1982,petitionersappellees,thespousesAlendryandFloraCaviles,Jr.filedwiththethen
CourtofFirstInstanceofManila,CivilCaseNo.8212668againstRenatoC.Plataforrecoveryofasumof
Page 14 of 34
money.Thecomplaintcontainedanapplicationfortheissuanceofawritofpreliminaryattachment.On
September24,1982,theCFIissuedthewritprayedforandonOctober4,1982DeputySheriffJaimeL.de
LeonissuedaNoticeofAttachmentoverapieceofrealestateownedbyPlatacoveredbyTransferCertificate
ofTitleNo.S33634ofthePasayCity(nowLasPias)Registry.

2.TheNoticeofAttachmentwasenteredinthePrimaryEntryBook(alsoknownasDayBook)onOctober6,
1982,butwasnotannotatedonTCTNo.S33634bytheRegisterofDeeds,nordidthedeputysherifforthe
plaintiffsinCivilCaseNo.8212668,nowhereinpetitionersappellees,takeanysteptoannotatetheattachment
ontheTCTNo.S33634.

3.OnOctober18,1982,PlatasoldthepropertycoveredbyTCTNo.S33634tohereinrespondentsappellants,
thespousesEvelynandRamonBautista,free,ofcourse,fromtheattachmentoranyencumbrance,andonthe
samedatePlatasTCTNo.S33634wascancelledandinlieuthereofTCTNo.57006wasissuedinthenameof
respondentsappellants.Fromthenon,respondentsappellantsappeartohavetakenoverandresidedinthe
property.

4.Noactionwastakenbypetitionersappelleestoannotatetheattachmentasindeedtheyremainedignorantthat
thepropertyhadbeensoldandanewtitleissueduntilverymuchlaterwhen,afterobtainingafavorable
judgmentinCivilCaseNo.8212668onSeptember30,1983,theyattemptedexecution.Thus,evenas
petitionersappelleeswereabletoobtainawritofexecutiononFebruary3,1984,thelevyeffectedonFebruary
21,1984,wasin(sic)stillinregardtothebythencancelledTCTNo.S3364.TheNoticeofLevywasentered
intheDayBookonFebruary22,1984.

5.OnMarch30,1987,closeto4yearsafterthepropertywasboughtbyrespondentsappellants,and3years
afterlevyonexecutionwaseffected,thepropertywassoldonexecutiontopetitionersappellees.

6.TheCertificateofSalewasenteredintheDayBookonApril2,1987,butwhenitsinscriptionwassoughtto
bemadethefirsttimesuchideaenteredpetitionersappelleesmind,apparentlyitwasfoundoutthatPlatas
certificatehadbeencancelledandanewoneissuedtorespondentsappellants.Theentrywasmadenonetheless
onthetitleofrespondentsappellantswhichannotationtheRegisterofDeeds,however,refusedtosign.Upon
thematterbeingelevatedonconsultatotheNationalLandTitlesandDeedsRegistrationAdministration,the
Administratorthereof,theHonorableTeodoroG.Bonifacio,opinedonFebruary23,1988,thatthecertificateof
salemaybeannotatedonrespondentsappellantsTCTNo.57006.

7.DuetotherefusalofrespondentsappellantstosurrendertheirownerscopyofTCTNo.57006,the
proceedingsbelowwereinitiatedonJanuary30,1989,withpetitionersappelleesinvokingSection107of
PresidentialDecreeNo.1529,whichinsofarashereinpertinentspeaksofanactiontocompelsurrenderofthe
ownersduplicateoftitleforannotationofavoluntaryinstrument.Inanyevent,onJune2,1990,adecisionwas
handeddownbyBranch145oftheRegionalTrialCourtoftheNationalCapitalJudicialRegionstationedin
MakatiandpresidedoverbytheHonorableJobB.Madayag,ordering,interalia,respondentsappellantsto
surrendertheirownersduplicatecopyofTCTNo.57006forinscriptionorannotationofthecertificateofsale,
andforthesubsequentcancellationofsaidcertificateoftitleandtheissuanceofanewcertificateoftitlein
favorofpetitionersappellees

ISSUE

Whetherornottherightofonepartytoacquiretitletoregisteredlandfromthemomentofinscriptionofan
attachmentonthedaybook(orentrybook)ononehand;andontheother,therightoftheotherpartytorelyon
Page 15 of 34
whatappearsontheownersduplicatecertificateoftitleforpurposesofvoluntarydealingswiththesameparcel
ofland.

HELD

TheCourtofAppealsstatedthatthepetitionersdidnottakeanysteptoannotatetheattachmentonTCTNo.S
33634andthatNoactionwastakenbypetitionersappelleestoannotatetheattachment.Therespondents
likewisecontendthattheprobleminthiscasewouldnothavearisenwereitnotforthenegligenceandvery
longdelayonthepartofpetitionersinannotatingtheirattachmentintheoriginalcertificateoftitleinthe
possessionoftheRegisterofDeeds.

Inthecaseatbar,thenoticeofattachmentcoveringthesubjectpropertywasannotatedintheentrybookofthe
RegisterofDeedsofPasayCityonOctober6,1982,whilethenewtransfercertificateoftitleinthenameof
respondentspouseswasissuedonOctober18,1982,thedatewhenPlatasoldthepropertytosaid
respondents.Petitionerslevyonpreliminaryattachmentwasputintoeffectwhenthepropertywassoldon
executiontopetitioners,afterthelatterobtainedawritofexecutionbyvirtueofafavorablejudgmentinCivil
CaseNo.8212668.

Wherefore,theappealedDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.27758datedSeptember20,
1991,anditsResolutiondatedNovember4,1991,areherebySETASIDE,andtheDecisionofBranch145of
theRegionalTrialCourtofMakatidatedJune2,1990,isherebyAFFIRMEDandREINSTATED.
Nopronouncementastocosts.

2.)HEIRSOFMANLAPATV.C.A,2005(RUSSELRODRIGUEZ)

Facts:Thecaseinvolvesa1,058sqmparceloflandatBulacan.Thishadbeenoriginallyinthepossessionof
Eduardo'sgrandfather.Itremainedunregistereduntil1976whenOCTwasissuedinthenameofEduardo
pursuanttoafreepatentissued.

Beforethelotwastitled,Eduardosoldaportionthereofwithanareaof553squaremeterstoRicardo.Thesale
isevidencedbyadeedofsale.AnotherDeedofSaleconveyinganotherportionofthelotconsistingof50
squaremetersasrightofwaywasexecutedbyEduardoinfavorofRicardoinordertoreachtheportioncovered
bythefirstsale.

Banaag,fatherinlawofEduardo,executedamortgagewiththe(RBSP)withthelotascollateral.Hedeposited
theowner'sduplicatecertificateofOCTwiththebank.Ricardodiedwithoutlearningofthepriorissuanceof
OCTinthenameofEduardo.Hisheirs,theCruzes,werenotimmediatelyawareoftheconsummatedsale
betweenEduardoandRicardo.

Eduardodied.NeitherdidtheheirsofEduardoinformtheCruzesofthepriorsaleinfavoroftheirpredecessor
ininterest,Ricardo.Uponlearningoftheirrighttothelot,theCruzesimmediatelytriedtoconfrontpetitioners
onthemortgageandobtainthesurrenderoftheOCT.Petitioners,however,wereunwillingtosurrenderthe
OCT.

Page 16 of 34
Havingfailedtophysicallyobtainthetitlefrompetitioners,theCruzesinsteadwenttoRBSPwhichhad
custodyoftheowner'sduplicateoftheOCT.TheCruzessoughttoborrowtheowner'sduplicateforthepurpose
ofphotocopyingthesameandthereaftershowingacopythereoftotheRegisterofDeeds.TheCruzesreturned
theowner'sduplicateonthesamedayafterhavingcopiedthesame.TheCruzeshiredgeodeticengineersto
preparethecorrespondingsubdivisionplan.

AftertheCruzespresentedtheowner'sduplicate,alongwiththedeedsofsaleandthesubdivisionplan,theRD
cancelledtheOCTandissuedinlieuthereofTCTcovering603squaremetersinthenameofRicardoandTCT
coveringtheremaining455squaremetersinthenameofEduardo.

TheCruzeswentbacktothebankandsurrenderedTCTinthenameofEduardoandretrievedthetitletheyhad
earliergivenassubstitutecollateral.Aftersecuringthenewseparatetitles,theCruzesfurnishedpetitionerswith
acopyofTCT.BanaagwenttoRBSP,intendingtotenderfullpaymentofthemortgageobligation.Itwasonly
thenthathelearnedofthedealingsoftheCruzeswiththebankwhicheventuallyledtothesubdivisionofthe
subjectlotandtheissuanceoftwoseparatetitlesthereon.RTCruledforthepetitionersbyvoidingthe2TCTs
andorderingtheRDtorestoretheOCTunderthenameofEduardo.CAreversedRTC

Issue:WasthecancellationoftheOCTinthenameofEduardoManlapatanditssplittingintotwoseparate
titles,oneforthepetitionersandfortherespondentproper?

Ruling:Yes.Section53ofP.D1529hasneverbeencleareronthepointthataslongastheowner'sduplicate
certificateispresentedtotheRegisterofDeedstogetherwiththeinstrumentofconveyance,suchpresentation
servesasconclusiveauthoritytotheRegisterofDeedstoissueatransfercertificateormakeamemorandumof
registrationinaccordancewiththeinstrument.

TherecordsofthecaseshowthatdespitetheeffortsmadebytheCruzesinpersuadingtheheirsofEduardoto
allowthemtosecureaseparateTCTontheclaimedportion,theheirsadamantlyrejectedthenotionofseparate
titling.ThispromptedtheCruzestoapproachthebankmanagerofRBSPforthepurposeofprotectingtheir
propertyright.Theysucceededinpersuadingthelattertolendtheowner'sduplicatecertificate.Despitethe
apparentirregularityinallowingtheCruzestogetholdoftheowner'sduplicatecertificate,thebankofficers
consentedtotheCruzes'plantoregisterthedeedsofsaleandsecuretwonewseparatetitles,withoutnotifying
theheirsofEduardoaboutit.

Further,thelawonthematter,specificallyP.D.No.1529,hasnoexplicitrequirementastothemannerof
acquiringtheowner'sduplicateforpurposesofissuingaTCT.Section53ofP.D.No.1529simplyrequiresthe
productionoftheowner'sduplicatecertificate,wheneveranyvoluntaryinstrumentispresentedforregistration

Quiteinteresting,however,isthecontentionoftheheirsofEduardothatthesurreptitiouslendingoftheowner's
duplicatecertificateconstitutesfraudwithintheambitofthethirdparagraphofSection53whichcouldnullify
theeventualissuanceoftheTCTs.Yetwecannotsubscribetotheirposition.

ImpelledbytheinactionoftheheirsofEduardoastotheirclaim,theCruzeswenttothebankwherethe
propertywasmortgaged.Throughitsmanagerandlegalofficer,theywereassuredofrecoveryoftheclaimed
parceloflandsincetheyarethesuccessorsininterestoftherealownerthereof.Relyingonthebankofficers'

Page 17 of 34
opinionastothelegalityofthemeanssoughttobeemployedbythemandthesuggestionoftheCentralBank
officerthatthemattercouldbebestsettledbetweenthemandthebank,theCruzespursuedthetitlingofthe
claimedportioninthenameofRicardo.TheRegisterofDeedseventuallyissuedthedisputedTCTs.

TheCruzesresortedtosuchmeanstoprotecttheirinterestinthepropertythatrightfullybelongstothemonly
becauseofthebankofficers'acquiescencethereto.TheCruzescouldnothavesecuredaseparateTCTinthe
nameofRicardowithoutthebank'sapproval.

3.)DURANvsIAC(ANALYNPANGCATAN)

Facts:

PetitionerDuranowned2parcelsofland.SheleftthePhilippinesinJune1954andreturnedinMay1966.On
1963,aDeedofSalewasmadeinfavorofthepetitionersmother.OnDecember1965,Duransmother
mortgagedthesamepropertytoprivaterespondentErlindaMarceloTiangco.WhenDurancametoknowabout
themortgagemadebyhermother,shewrotetheRegisterofDeedsinformingthelatterthatshehadnotgiven
hermotheranyauthoritytosellormortgageanyofherpropertiesinthePhilippines.Meanwhile,foreclosure
proceedingswereinitiatedbyTiangcouponthefailureofDuransmothertoredeemthemortgaged
properties.DuranclaimsthattheDeedofSaleisaforgery,sayingthatatthetimeofitsexecutionin1963she
wasintheUnitedStates.RespondentCourtruledthatthereisapresumptionofregularityinthecaseofapublic
document.

Issue:Whetherprivaterespondentwasabuyeringoodfaithandforvalue?

Held:

Yes.Goodfaithconsistsinthepossessorsbeliefthatthepersonfromwhohereceivedthethingwastheowner
ofthesameandcouldconveyhistitle(Arriolav.GomezDelaSerna,14Phil.627).Goodfaith,whileitis
alwaystobepresumedintheabsenceofprooftothecontrary,requiresawellfoundedbeliefthattheperson
fromwhomtitlewasreceivedwashimselftheowneroftheland,withtherighttoconveyit(Santiagov.Cruz,
19Phil.148).Themortgageehastherighttorelyonwhatappearsinthecertificateoftitleand,intheabsenceof
anythingtoexcitesuspicion,heisundernoobligationtolookbeyondthecertificateandinvestigatethetitleof
themortgagorappearingonthefaceofthesaidcertificate.Everypersondealingwithregisteredlandmaysafely
relyonthecorrectnessofthecertificateoftitleissuedthereforeandthelawwillinnowayobligehimtogo
behindthecertificatetodeterminetheconditionoftheproperty.Iftherulewereotherwise,theefficacyand
conclusivenessoftheTorrensCertificateofTitleswouldbefutileandnugatory.Thustheruleissimple:the
fraudulentandforgeddocumentofsalemaybecometherootofavalidtitleifthecertificatehasalreadybeen
transferredfromthenameofthetrueownertothenameindicatedbytheforger.Whileitistruethatunder
Article2085oftheCivilCode,itisessentialthatthemortgagorbetheabsoluteowneroftheproperty
mortgaged,andwhileasbetweenthedaughterandhermother,itwasthedaughterwhostillownsthelots,
STILLinsofarasinnocentthirdpersonsareconcernedtheownerwasalreadythemotherinasmuchasshehad
alreadybecometheregisteredowner.

4.)DBPvsACTINGREGISTEROFDEEDSOFNUEVAECIJA(MARKYSALES)

Page 18 of 34
5.)BelAirVillageAssociation,Inc.vsVirgilioDionisio(KRYSTLEABRIOL)

G.R.L383454June30,1989

Facts:

TheTransferCertificateofTitlecoveringthesubjectparceloflandissuedinthenameofVirgilioDionisio,the
petitionercontainsanannotationtotheeffectthatthelotownerbecomesanautomaticmemberofBelAir
VillageAssociation,therespondent,andmustabidebysuchrulesandregulationslaiddownbythe
Associationintheinterestofthesanitation,securityandthegeneralwelfareofthecommunity.Thepetitioner
questionedthecollectionoftheduesonthefollowinggrounds:thequestionedassessmentisapropertytax
outsidethecorporatepoweroftheassociation;theassociationhasnopowertocompelthepetitionertopaythe
assessmentforlackofprivityofcontract;thequestionedassessmentshouldnotbeenforcedforbeing
unreasonable,arbitrary,oppressive,confiscatoryanddiscriminatory;therespondentassociationisexercising
governmentalpowerswhichshouldnotbesanctioned.Issue:Whetherornottheassociationcanlawfullycollect
duesRuling:TheSupremeCourtdismissedthepetitionforlackofmerit.Itheldthatthepurchasersofa
registeredlandareboundbytheannotationsfoundatthebackofthecertificateoftitlecoveringthesubject
parcelofland.Thepetitionerscontentionthathehasnoprivitywiththerespondentassociationisnot
persuasive.Whenthepetitionervoluntarilyboughtthesubjectparceloflanditwasunderstoodthathetookthe
samefreeofallecumbrancesexceptannotationsatthebackofthecertificateoftitle,amongthem,thathe
automaticallybecomesamemberoftherespondentassociation.Oneoftheobligationsofamemberistopay
certainamountsfortheoperationandactivitiesoftheassociation.Themodeofpaymentaswellasthe
purposesforwhichtheduesareintendedclearlyindicatesthattheduesarenotintheconceptofapropertytax
asclaimedbythepetitioner.Theyaresharesinthecommonexpensesfornecessaryservices.Apropertytaxis
assessedaccordingtothevalueofthepropertybutthebasisofthesharinginthiscaseistheareaofthelot.The
duesarefeeswhichamemberoftherespondentassociationisrequiredinhiringsecurityguards,cleaningand
maintainingstreets,streetlightsandothercommunityprojectsforthebenefitofallresidentswithintheBelAir
Village.Theseexpensesarenecessary,validandreasonablefortheparticularcommunityinvolved.The
limitationsupontheownershipofthepetitionerdonotcontraveneprovisionsoflaws,morals,goodcustoms,
publicorderorpublicpolicy.Theconstitutionalproscriptionthannopersoncanbecompelledtobeamember
ofanassociationagainsthiswillappliesonlytogovernmentalactsandnottoprivatetransactionsliketheone
inquestion.Thepetitionercannotlegallymaintainthatheiscompelledtobeamemberoftheassociation
againsthiswillbecausethelimitationisimposeduponhisownershipofproperty.Ifhedoesnotdesireto
complywiththeannotationorlieninquestion,hecanatanytimeexercisehisinviolablefreedomofdisposing
ofthepropertyandfreehimselffromtheburdenofbecomingamemberoftheassociation.

6.)LEVISTEVSNOBLEJAS:April30,1979(HERACERILLO)

Facts:

Thepropertyinvolved,situatedinParaaque,Rizalhasatotalareaofapproximately1.6hectaresandis
coveredbyTransferCertificateofTitleNo.108425oftheProvinceofRizalinthenameofZ.GarciaRealty,
Page 19 of 34
Inc,acorporationdulyorganizedandexistingunderourlaws.Thepropertywasconvertedintoasubdivision
calledtheGarvilleSubdivision.Thissubdivisionhasblocksandcertainlotsandthecontroversyinthiscase
centerson Lot6,Block4 (subsequentlyLot16).GarciaRealtyandrespondentVillanuevaconsummateda
contractofsaleoverthedisputedlot.RespondentVillanuevasoughttohavethesaleregisteredandtitleissued
inherfavor,freeofanyencumbrance,butpetitionersLevisteandBerthelsenobjectedallegingthattheyhad
registeredadverseclaimsandattachments.TheRegisterofDeedsrefusedtoissueanewtitletoVillanueva
withoutcarryingover(A)thetwoannotationsregisteredpriortoVillanueva'sadverseclaim,namely,thenotice
oflispendensandtheadverseclaimofLeviste,and(B)theattachmentscoveringtheentirepropertyannotated
onthetitlesubsequenttoVillanueva'sadverseclaim.TheLandRegistrationCommissionorderedthatthedeed
ofsalemayberegisteredandanewcertificateoftitlecoveringLot16maybeissuedtoMariaVillanuevafree
ofanyencumbrance.

Issue:

WhetherVillanueva'sadverseclaimis,infact,registerable,andifso,whetheritcanbepreferredover
theattachments

Ruling:

ItdoesnotappearthatVillanuevaattemptedtoregistertheagreementtosellunderSection52ofAct
No.496andthattheregisteredowner,GarciaRealty,refusedtosurrendertheduplicatecertificateforthe
annotationofsaidinstrument.Instead,Villanuevamerelyfiledanadverseclaimbasedonsaidagreementtosell
considering that Section 62 of the Land Registration Act prescribes the procedure for the registration of
Villanueva'sinterestlessthananestateinfeesimpleonthedisputedlotandtherebeingnoshowingofher
inabilitytoproducetheowner'sduplicatecertificate,theremedyprovidedinSection110ofAct496,whichwas
resortedtobyVillanueva,is,therefore,ineffectiveforthepurposeofprotectingherrightorinterestonthe
disputedlot.

InasmuchastheadverseclaimfiledbyVillanuevawasnotvalid,thesamedidnothavetheeffectofa
conveyanceofherrightorinterestonthedisputedlotandcouldnotprejudiceanyrightthatmayhavearisen
thereafter in favor of third parties. Consequently, the attachments of Berthelsen and Leviste covering the
disputedlotaresuperiortothatacquiredbyVillanuevaandwillhavetobecarriedovertothenewtitletobe
issuedinherfavor.

Act 496 provides that, if at the time of any transfer there appear upon the registration book
encumbrancesorclaimsadversetothetitleoftheregisteredowner,theyshallbestatedinthenewcertificateor
certificates,exceptsofarastheymaybesimultaneouslyreleasedordischarged.

7.)BelAirVillageAssociation,Inc.vsVirgilioDionisio(JOSEPHCABANIT)

G.R.L383454June30,1989

Facts:

Page 20 of 34
TheTransferCertificateofTitlecoveringthesubjectparceloflandissuedinthenameofVirgilioDionisio,the
petitionercontainsanannotationtotheeffectthatthelotownerbecomesanautomaticmemberofBelAir
VillageAssociation,therespondent,andmustabidebysuchrulesandregulationslaiddownbythe
Associationintheinterestofthesanitation,securityandthegeneralwelfareofthecommunity.

Thepetitionerquestionedthecollectionoftheduesonthefollowinggrounds:thequestionedassessmentisa
propertytaxoutsidethecorporatepoweroftheassociation;theassociationhasnopowertocompelthe
petitionertopaytheassessmentforlackofprivityofcontract;thequestionedassessmentshouldnotbe
enforcedforbeingunreasonable,arbitrary,oppressive,confiscatoryanddiscriminatory;therespondent
associationisexercisinggovernmentalpowerswhichshouldnotbesanctioned.

Issue:

Whetherornottheassociationcanlawfullycollectdues

Whetherornotheisboundbytheannotationsatthebackofthecertificate?

Ruling:

Sec.39.Everypersonreceivingacertificateoftitleinpursuanceofadecreeofregistration,andevery
subsequentpurchaserofregisteredlandwhotakesacertificateoftitleforvalueingoodfaithshallholdthe
samefreeofallencumbrancesexceptthosenotedonsaidcertificate...

TheSupremeCourtdismissedthepetitionforlackofmerit.Itheldthatthepurchasersofaregisteredlandare
boundbytheannotationsfoundatthebackofthecertificateoftitlecoveringthesubjectparcelofland.The
petitionerscontentionthathehasnoprivitywiththerespondentassociationisnotpersuasive.Whenthe
petitionervoluntarilyboughtthesubjectparceloflanditwasunderstoodthathetookthesamefreeofall
encumbrancesexceptannotationsatthebackofthecertificateoftitle,amongthem,thatheautomatically
becomesamemberoftherespondentassociation.Oneoftheobligationsofamemberistopaycertainamounts
fortheoperationandactivitiesoftheassociation.

Themodeofpaymentaswellasthepurposesforwhichtheduesareintendedclearlyindicatesthattheduesare
notintheconceptofapropertytaxasclaimedbythepetitioner.Theyaresharesinthecommonexpensesfor
necessaryservices.Apropertytaxisassessedaccordingtothevalueofthepropertybutthebasisofthesharing
inthiscaseistheareaofthelot.Theduesarefeeswhichamemberoftherespondentassociationisrequiredin
hiringsecurityguards,cleaningandmaintainingstreets,streetlightsandothercommunityprojectsforthe
benefitofallresidentswithintheBelAirVillage.Theseexpensesarenecessary,validandreasonableforthe
particularcommunityinvolved.

Thelimitationsupontheownershipofthepetitionerdonotcontraveneprovisionsoflaws,morals,good
customs,publicorderorpublicpolicy.Theconstitutionalproscriptionthannopersoncanbecompelledtobea
memberofanassociationagainsthiswillappliesonlytogovernmentalactsandnottoprivatetransactionslike
theoneinquestion.

Page 21 of 34
Thepetitionercannotlegallymaintainthatheiscompelledtobeamemberoftheassociationagainsthiswill
becausethelimitationisimposeduponhisownershipofproperty.Ifhedoesnotdesiretocomplywiththe
annotationorlieninquestion,hecanatanytimeexercisehisinviolablefreedomofdisposingoftheproperty
andfreehimselffromtheburdenofbecomingamemberoftheassociation.

8.)VeronicaGonzalesvs.JudgeLucasBersamin(JPULIGAN)

[A.M.No.RTJ961344.March13,1996](254SCRA652)

Facts:

PetitionerfiledanadministrativecaseagainstJudgeLucasBersaminofQuezonCityRegionalTrialCourt
Branch96forgravemisconductandknowinglyrenderedaunjustjudgementandmaliciousrefusaltoimplead
complainantasanindispensablepartyinalotwithTCTNo.319410.Thiscaseisallaboutonwhenon1 stearly
case(Peoplevs.ZoiloCruz),ZoiloCruzwereorderedtopayspousesGonzalesamountingofP600,000.00.
Priortothat1stcase,anothercasewasrenderedjudgementinfavorofthespousesagainbutbythistime,the
liabilitynowincludesthewifeofZoiloCruz.ThelatterwasorderedtopaycomplainantspousesGonzales
amountingtoP3,700,000.00.Tosatisfythetotalamount,twonoticesoflevywerepresentedintherecordof
therealpropertyofspousesCruz.Itisunfortunatelyhowever,thatatthattime,TCTNo.319410ispendingfor
reconstitution.OnDecember3,1991TCTNo.319140wasreconstitutedandanewtitle(TCTNo.RT48658
(319140))wasissuedinthenameofthespousesCruz.

OnAugust23,1994thespousesGinaChanandSalvadorChanfiledacaseagainsttheRegisterofDeedsof
QuezonCity,forCancellationofNoticeofLevywithDamageswithPrayerfortheImmediateIssuanceofa
WritofPreliminaryMandatoryInjunction.Thiscasewasdocketedandwasraffledtorespondentjudge.

IntheircomplaintspousesChanallegedthatthepropertysubjectofthelevyhadbeenpreviouslypurchasedby
themfromthespousesCruzbyvirtueofaDeedofAbsoluteSaledatedMarch21,1991.Forthesamereason
thatthetitleofspousesCruzwasstillbeingreconstituted,thedeedofsalewasprovisionallyregisteredonApril
1,1991,severalmonthsbeforetheprovisionallyregistrationofthenoticesoflevy.

Thereafter,byvirtueofthedeedofsale,anewtitle(TCTNo.50572)wasissuedinthenameofspousesGina
ChanandSalvadorChan.

Inhisanswer,theRegisterofDeedsjustifiedhisactiononthegroundthatitwashisministerialdutytotransfer
theannotationsonthereconstitutedtitletothenewtitle.Heinterposednoobjection,however,totheissuanceof
anymandatoryinjunctionissuedtohimbecauseitispreciselysuchajudicialorderxxxthatwillauthorizethe
RegisterofDeedstoannotateamemorandumxxxcancellingthenoticesoflevythereonxxx.

ThespousesChanmovedforajudgmentonthepleadings.TheRegisterofDeedsmanifestedthathewas
submittingtothediscretionofthecourtandthathehadnoobjectiontothecancellationoftheannotations
becausethenoticesoflevywereenteredsubsequenttotherecordingofthesaleoftheproperty.

Page 22 of 34
RespondentjudgethereafterrenderedadecisiononOctober13,1994orderingtheRegisterofDeedstocancel
theannotationsofthenoticesoflevyonTCTNo.50572.

Afterthisdecision,complainantVeronicafiledadministrativecaseagainstthejudgeforunwillfullyfavoring
thespousesChan.

Issue:

WhetherornotJudgeBersamincommittedunjustjudgement?

Held:

No.Thecourtstatesthatrespondentjudgedidnotactwithinordinatehasteinrenderingjudgmentinasummary
mannerbecauseaccordingtoJudgeBersamin,theregistrarsweregivenanopportunitytocontesttheaction.He
allegesthatcomplainantwasnotanindispensablepartyandthatshehadnopriorityofrightovertheplaintiffs
inrelationtotheproperty.Thecourtalsocitedthatiftherewasanydutytonotifycomplainant,thatduty
devolvedontheRegisterofDeeds.

However, respondent judge should have ordered notice to be given to complainant and petitioner to
impleadcomplainantsinceitappearsthatshehadanadverseinterestannotatedonthebackoftheircertificate
title.P.D.No.1529readsinpart:

108.Amendmentandalterationofcertificates.Noerasure,alterationoramendmentshallbemadeuponthe
registrationbookaftertheentryofacertificateoftitleorofamemorandumthereonandtheattestationofthe
samebytheRegisterofDeeds,exceptbyorderoftheproperCourtofFirstInstance.Aregisteredowneror
otherpersonhavinganinterestinregisteredproperty,or,inpropercases,theRegisterofDeedswiththe
approvaloftheCommissionerofLandRegistration,mayapplybypetitiontothecourtuponthegroundthatthe
registeredinterestsofanydescription,whethervested,contingent,expectantinchoateappearingonthe
certificate,haveterminatedandceased;orthatnewinterestnotappearinguponthecertificateshavearisenor
beencreated;orthatanomissionorerrorwasmadeinenteringacertificateormemorandumthereon,oronany
duplicatecertificate;xxxoruponanyotherreasonableground;andthecourtmayhearanddeterminethe
petitionafternoticetoallpartiesininterest,andmayordertheentryorcancellationofanewcertificate,the
entryorcancellationofamemorandumuponacertificate,orgrantanyotherreliefuponsuchtermsand
conditions,requiringsecurityorbondifnecessary,asitmayconsiderproper.

Decision:

ThecourtrendereditsdecisionthatrespondentjudgeisADMONISHED(warned)tobemorecarefuland
diligentinthedischargeofjudicialfunction.

9.)LLOYD'SENTERPRISESVDOLLETON(MIKAELONG)
G.R.No.171373

Facts

Page 23 of 34
 SpousesDolletonweretheregisteredownersofaparceloflandcoveredbyTCTNo.153554witha
fourdoorapartmentbuildingbeingleasedtovarioustenants.Respondentsmortgagedthepropertytoacertain
SantostosecurealoanintheamountofP100,000.00.Uponpaymentoftheloanon15August1994,Santos
executedareleaseandcancellationofthemortgage.ThesamewasannotatedontheTCT.
TCTNo.153554inthenameofrespondentswascancelledandanewTCTNo.197220wasissuedinthe
nameofGaganonthebasisofaDeedofAbsoluteSaledated5August1994wherebyrespondentspurportedly
soldtoGaganthesubjectpropertyforthesumofP120,000.00.
GaganandGueverramortgagedsaidpropertywithTCTNo.197220topetitionerLECCforsecondloan
ofP542,928.00andwasannotatedonsaidTitle.However,GaganandGuevarrafailedtopaytheloanupon
maturity.Thus,petitionerforeclosedmortgagedpropertybeingthehighestbidderandwasnotredeemedwithin
theoneyearperiod.Hence,ownershipwasconsolidatedinfavorofpetitionerandwasissueanewTCTNo.
210363cancellingTCTNo.197220.
Petitionerthensentnoticestotheapartmenttenantsonthetransferofownershipandrentalswerenot
remittedtorespondentsanymore,promptingthelattertocausetheannotationofanadverseclaimonTCTNo.
210363.
RespondentsprayedfortherestorationofTCTNo.153554andnullificationoftheDeedofAbsolute
Sale,andtheextrajudicialforeclosureproceedings.TheydeniedhavingexecutedtheDeedofAbsoluteSaleand
allegedthattheyhadmerelyofferedtoselltoGaganthesubjectpropertyforP900,000.00oninstallmentbasis
sothattheycouldpaytheirloanobligationtoSantos.AfterGaganhadinitiallypaidP200,000.00,theyentrusted
theowner'scopyofTCTNo.153554tohim.Gaganwasunabletopaythebalanceofthepurchaseprice,rather
shecausedthefraudulentcancellationofTCTNo.153554andtheissuanceofTCTNo.197220inhername,
andofeventuallyusingTCTNo.197220tosecuretheloansobtainedfrompetitioner.
Respondentsalsofaultedpetitionerforfailingtomakeadequateinquiriesonthetrueownershipofthe
property considering the suspicious circumstances surrounding Gagan's and Guevarra's request for loan
immediatelyaftertheissuanceofthenewcertificateoftitle.
TheRTCdeclaredtheDeedofAbsoluteSalebetweenGaganandDolletonasspuriousanddirectedthe
reconveyance of the property to the true and genuine owners, the spouses Dolleton. CA affirmed RTCs
decision.

Issue

DidtheCAerrinnotdeclaringpetitionerasmortgageeingoodfaith?

Ruling

NO.Petitionerisnotmortgageeingoodfaith.Petitioner'sclaimthatitshouldnotberequiredtolook
beyondthecertificateoftitleforflawsintheownershipofthepropertyinviewofthepresumptionthata
Torrenstitleisregularlyissuedandthattheburdenisonrespondentstorebutthepresumptionofgoodfaithis
erroneous.Petitionerisengagedinthebusinessofextendingcredit tothepublicandis,thus,expectedto
exerciseduediligenceindealingwithpropertiesofferedassecurity.InExpresscreditFinancingCorporationv.
SpousesVelasco,theCourtheldthatentitiesengagedinthebusinessofofferingrealestateloansmustexercise
ahigherdegreeofcautioninacceptingpropertiesassecurity.
TheCourtaffirmedthereconveyanceofthepropertytorespondentsDolletonaspetitionerisnota
mortgageeingoodfaith,hence,foreclosurewasnotvalid.Petitionerfailedtoverifytheactualconditionofthe
property,particularlyastowhoisinactualpossessionandifthepremisesareleasedtothirdpersons,whois
receivingtherentalpaymentstherefore.

Page 24 of 34
10.)SpsBELOVSPNB&SpsESLABON(RAPHAELPATAJO)

Facts:

Eduarda Belo owned an agricultural land in Timpas, Panitan, Capiz, which she
leasedaportiontoSpousesMarcosandArseniaEslaboninconnectionwiththesaidspousessugar
plantationbusiness.

Tofinancetheirbusinessventure,RespondentspousesEslabonobtainedaloanfrom
PNBsecuredbyarealestatemortgageontheirownfour(4)residentialhouseslocatedinRoxasCity,as
wellasonthelandownedbyEduardaBelo.SpecialPowerofAttorneywasexecutedbyEduardaBelo
astothemortgageofherproperty

Sps Eslabon failed to pay mortgages and extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings

againstthemortgagedpropertieswereinstitutedbyPNB.PNBwasthehighestbidderattheauctionsale
(P447,632.00).

PNBappraisedEduardaBeloofthesaleatpublicauctionofheragriculturalland.
Shehadoneyearperiodtoredeemtheland.

EduardaBelosoldherrightofredemptiontopetitionerSpsEnriqueandFlorencia
Belounderadeedofabsolutesaleofproprietaryandredemptionrights.

Sps Belo tendered payment for the redemption of the agricultural land for
(P484,482.96),whichincludesthebidpriceofrespondentPNB,plusinterestandexpensesasprovided
underActNo.3135.

PNBrejectedpaymentcontendingthatredemptionpriceshouldbethetotalclaimof
thebankonthedateoftheauctionsaleandcustodyofpropertypluschargesaccruedandinterests
(P2,779,978.72).

SpsBelofiledactiontoannulthemortgage,withanalternativecauseofactionto
compel PNB to accept offer of spouses Belo which is based on the winning bid price of PNB
(P447,632.00)plusinterestandexpenses.

RTC:GrantedalternativecauseofactionofSpsBeloP447,632.00,plusinterestand
othercharges

CA:ModifiedTCrulingthatthepetitionersshouldpaytheentireamountdueto
PNBunderthemortgagedeedatthetimeoftheforeclosuresaleplusinterest,costsandexpenses.As
Page 25 of 34
 assigneesofEduardaBelosrightofredemption,theappelleessucceedtothepreciserightofEduarda
includingallconditions attendanttosuchright.Moreover,theindivisiblecharacterofacontractof
mortgage(Article2089,CivilCode)willextendtoapplyintheredemptionstageofthemortgage.

Issue:

1.WONSPA,realestatemortgagecontract,theforeclosureproceedingsandthesubsequentauctionsale
involvingEduardaBelospropertyarevalid.

2.WONthepetitionersarerequiredtopay,asredemptionprice,theentireclaimofrespondentPNB
(P2,779,978.72)?

Held:

1.YES.ThesubjectSPA,therealestatemortgagecontract,theforeclosureproceedingsandthesubsequent
auctionsaleofEduardaBelospropertyarevalidandlegal.

Thefindingsoftrialcourtswhicharefactualinnaturemustnotbedisturbed.

It is stipulated in paragraph three (3) of the SPA that Eduarda Belo appointed the Eslabon
spousesasheragents.Theaccommodationrealestatemortgageoverherpropertyismerelyanaccessory
contract.

Anaccommodationmortgageisnotnecessarilyvoidsimplybecausetheaccommodationmortgagordid
notbenefitfromthesame.ThevalidityofanaccommodationmortgageisallowedunderArticle2085of
theNewCivilCodewhichprovidesthat(t)hirdpersonswhoarenotpartiestotheprincipalobligation
maysecurethelatterbypledgingormortgagingtheirownproperty.

TheletterofEduardaBeloaddressedtorespondentPNBmanifestingherintenttoredeemthe
propertyisawaiverofherrighttoquestionthevalidityoftheSPA,etc.

2.NO.ThisCourtfindsthepetitionerspositiononthatissuetobemeritorious.

0 There is no doubt that Eduarda Belo, assignor of the petitioners, is an accommodation mortgagor.
Mortgagor in Section 25 of P.D. No. 694 pertains only to a debtormortgagor and not to an
accommodationmortgagor.RespondentPNBmaintainsthatSection25ofPresidentialDecreeNo.694
(righttoredeemthepropertybypayingallclaimsoftheBankagainsthimonthedateofthesale)
PetitionersasserttofollowSection6ofActNo.3135&Section28ofRule39oftheRulesofCourt(by
payingthepurchasertheamountofhispurchaseplusinterest&otherexpenses)

Page 26 of 34
 TheinterpretationaccordedbyrespondentPNBtoSection25ofP.D.No.694isunfairandunjustto
accommodationmortgagorsandtheirassignees.ForcinganaccommodationmortgagorlikeEduarda
Belotopayforwhattheprincipaldebtors(Eslabonspouses)owetorespondentbankistopunishherfor
theaccommodationandgenerositysheaccordedtotheEslabonspouses.Also,PNBsapplicationfor

extrajudicialforeclosureandpublicauctionsaleofEduardaBelosmortgagedproperty wasfiledunder
Act No. 3135 and none of the proceedings thereafter mentioned P. D. No. 694 as the basis for
redemption.

Similarrulings:

Syv.CourtofAppealsandothercaseTheGeneralBankingActandP.D.No.694shallprevailoverAct
No.3135withrespecttotheredemptionprice.accommodationmortgagorsassucharenotinanyway
liableforthepaymentoftheloanorprincipalobligationofthedebtor/borrower.Theliabilityofthe
accommodationmortgagorsextendsonlyuptotheloanvalueoftheirmortgagedpropertyandnottothe
entireloanitself.

While the petitioners, as assignees of Eduarda Belo, are not required to pay the entire claim of
respondentPNBagainsttheprincipaldebtors,spousesEslabon,theycanonlyexercisetheirrightof
redemptionwithrespecttotheparceloflandbelongingtoEduardaBelo,theaccommodationmortgagor.
Thus, they have to pay the bid price less the corresponding loan value of the foreclosed four (4)
residentiallotsofthespousesEslabon.

PNBcontendstoallowpetitionerstoredeemonlythepropertybelongingtotheirassignor,Eduarda
Belo,wouldviolatetheprincipleofindivisibilityofmortgagecontracts(Art2089).Theindivisibility
conceptdoesnotapplytotherightofredemptionofanaccommodationmortgagorandherassignees.

Indivisibilityarisesonlywhenthereisadebt,thatis,thereisadebtorcreditorrelationship.But,this
relationshipiswantinginthecaseatbarinthesensethatpetitionersareassigneesofanaccommodation
mortgagorandnotofadebtormortgagor.Hence,itisfairandlogicaltoallowthepetitionerstoredeem
onlythepropertybelongingtotheirassignor,EduardaBelo.

RedemptiononlyextendstothesubjectpropertyofEduardaBeloforthereasonthatthenoticeofthe
salelimitedtheredemptiontosaidproperty.Petitionispartiallygranted:PetitionerSpsBeloareallowed
toredeemonlythepropertyofEduardaBelo,bypayingonlythebidpricelessthecorrespondingloan
valueoftheforeclosedfour(4)residentiallotsoftherespondentsSpsEslabon,consistentwiththeRTC

11.)SAJONASvsCA(SHAYNERAMIREZ)
Page 27 of 34
12.)DIAZDUARTEvsONG(MARYJANESECRETARIA)
ROGELIA P. DIAZDUARTE,petitioner, vs. SPS. BEN and ETHYL ONG, and the COURT OF
APPEALS,respondents.
FACTS:

Macario Diaz married Encarnacion Reyes.Out ofthis union, Trinidad Diaz was born.Sometime in 1903,
Encarnacion Reyes died. In 1905, Macario Diaz married Cristina Pedrosa.Out of this union, RogeliaDiaz
Duartewasbornin1910.

TrinidadDiaz,marriedFilomenoArteche.Theyhadninechildren,includingEncarnacionArtecheandallthe
otherplaintiffsinthecase.TrinidadArtechedied.

InaCadastralCase,JudgeOrtizadjudicatedLot1208(26,738squaremeters)to`MacarioDiazmarriedto
CristinaPedrosa.Thedecisionhavingbecomefinal,adecreewasissuedbytheGeneralLandRegistration
OfficeandOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.19486wasissued.

Macario Diaz and his second wife Cristina died. Rogelia DiazDuarte sold the property to Wilfredo M.
Corregidor.Byvirtueofthesale,OCTofMacarioDiazwascancelledandanewTCTinfavorofWilfredowas
issued.

WilfredoCorregidorsoldbackLots1208,3332,and3364to.RogeliaDiazDuarte.

Mrs.RogeliaDiazDuarteexecutedanadverseclaimtoLot1208coveredbyTCTofWilfredoCorregidoron
thebasisofthedeedofsaleexecutedbyWilfredotoher.

30 days having elapsed, the affidavit of adverse claim of DiazDuarte was cancelled by the Register of
Deeds,albeiterroneously, pursuant to Sec. 70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the
PropertyRegistrationDecreeofthePhilippines.

NotwithstandingtheresaleofthepropertymadebyhiminfavorofMrs.RogeliaDiazDuartein1979,Wilfredo
CorregidorsoldagainLot1208toBenS.OngandhiswifeEthylOng.

BenS.OngmortgagedLot1208andsomeotherpropertiestotheRizalCommercialBankingCorporationto
securealoan.

EncarnacionA.ArtecheandtheotherchildrenandheirsofthedeceasedTrinidadDiazArteche,filedacivil
caseforrecoveryofLot1208againstpetitionerRogeliaDiazDuarte,WilfredoCorregidorandhiswife,BenS.
Ongandhiswife,andtheRizalCommercialBankingCorporationandPabloG.AmascualJr.,theRegisterof
DeedsofTaclobanCity.

RegionalTrialCourt:decidedthecivilcasefortherecoveryofLot1208infavorofEncarnacionArteche.

CA:awardedLot1208toappellantspousesBenandEthylOngafterafindingthattheywerebuyersingood
faithandforvalue.

Page 28 of 34
ISSUE:WhobetweenpetitionerRogeliaDiazDuarteandrespondentspousesOng,hasabetterrightoverLot
1208.

RULING:

ThegoodfaithofappellantspousesrestsheavilyonwhetherthenoticeofadverseclaimonLot1208was
validlycancelledbytheRegistrarofDeeds.Anoticeofadverseclaimremainsvalidevenafterthelapseofthe
30day period provided by Section 70 of P.D. No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree.Section 70
provides:

"Whoeverclaimsanypartorinterestinregisteredlandadversetotheregisteredowner,arisingsubsequentto
thedateoftheoriginalregistration,may,ifnootherprovisionismadeinthisDecreeforregisteringthesame,
makeastatementinwriting,settingforthfullyhisallegedrightorinterest,andhoworunderwhomacquired,a
referencetothenumberofthecertificateoftitleoftheregisteredowner,andadescriptionofthelandinwhich
therightorinterestisclaimed.

"Thestatementshallbesignedandswornto,andshallstatetheadverseclaimant'sresidence,andaplaceat
whichallnoticesmaybeserveduponhim.Thisstatementshallbeentitledtoregistrationasanadverseclaimon
the certificate of title.The adverse claim shall be effective for a period of thirty days from the date of
registration.Afterthelapseofsaidperiod,theannotationofadverseclaimmaybecancelleduponfilingofa
verifiedpetitionthereforbythepartyininterest.Provided,howeverthataftercancellation,nosecondadverse
claimbasedonthesamegroundshallberegisteredbythesameclaimant."

Foraslongasthereisyetnopetitionforitscancellation,thenoticeofadverseclaimremainssubsisting.

Inapetitionforcancellationofadverseclaim,ahearingmustfirstbeconducted.Thehearingwillafford
thepartiesanopportunitytoprovetheproprietyorimproprietyoftheadverseclaim.Petitionerwasunlawfully
deniedthisopportunitywhentheRegistrarofDeedsautomaticallycancelledtheadverseclaim.Needlessto
state,thecancellationofheradverseclaimisineffective.
Appellantspousesallegedgoodfaithisnegatedbytheevidenceonrecord.Atthetrialcourt,respondent
spousesdeclaredthattheyretainedAtty.ReyestoassisttheminbuyingLot1208.AccordingtoAtty.Reyes,his
clientsaskedhimtoverifythestatusofthelandfromtheRegisterofDeeds.However,hefailedtodoso.Had
hedoneso,hewouldhavediscoveredtheadverseclaimofthepetitioneroverthelot.Respondentspouses
areboundbythenegligenceoftheirlawyer.
Apurchaseringoodfaithandforvalueisonewhobuysthepropertyofanotherwithoutnoticethatsome
otherpersonhasarighttoorinterestinsuchpropertyandpaysafullandfairpriceforthesame,atthetimeof
suchpurchase,orbeforehehasnoticeoftheclaimsorinterestofsomeotherpersonintheproperty.Theadverse
claimofpetitionerRogeliaDiazDuartewasannotatedinCorregidor'stitleasearlyasOctober17,1979.Itwas
existing when Corregidor sold the property to respondents Ong.Hence, respondent spouses cannot be
consideredinnocentpurchasersforvalueandingoodfaith.TheirclaimoverLot1208mustyieldtothelienin
favorofpetitioner.

13.)NICANORSANTOSVS.ROSAGANAYO,G.R.No.L31854,September9,1982(MARYGRACE
CRUZ)

Page 29 of 34
Facts:

PetitioneristheregisteredownerofLot147,aresidentiallotof10,000sq.meterssituatedatResidential
sectionB,Pacdal,BaguioCity.Priortothelattersownershipofsaidproperty,thelotbelongedtothefollowing
owners,towit:(1)totheheirsofMolintas;and(2)toJustoLeanobutafterhisdeath,thesamewas
adjudicatedtoMagdalenaLeano.

OnJanuary1960,theabovementionedcoownerssoldthelottoPacitaJocson,whohadsoldthesame
tothepetitioneronJune11,1960.Thereafter,ofJuly15,1960,atransfercertificateoftitlewasissuedin
petitionersname.OnOctober31,1959,MagdalenaLeanoexecutedanaffidavitwhichprovidesthatsheowned
Lot147consistingof10,000sq.meters;beforeworldwarIIshesold750sq.meterstoRosaGanayo.

However,onDecember31,1961,MagdalenaLeanorepudiatedtheaffidavitandexecutedanotherone
denyingtheshesoldtoRosaGanayothe750sq.metersclaimedbyher.ByMay18,1959,RosaGanayo
(respondent)wasabletosecuretheannotationofanadverseclaimontransfercertificateoftitleinthenameof
Magdalena Leano. Inthe Affidavit ofAdverseClaim theagreement between Rosa GanayowithPulmano
Molintascouldnotberegisteredbecausethelandwaswithoutanyindicationastothenumberofthetitleofthe
vendor.

OnJune11,1960,whenpetitioneracquiredLot147,TCTNo.4583wasissuedinhisname.then,said
titlecarriedovertheadverseclaimofrespondentGanayo.Then,onJune21,1962,petitionerfiledwiththe
CourtofFirstInstanceapetitionforthecancellationofadverseclaimofRosaGanayo.

Issue:

WhetherornottheoppositorRosaGanayohadanyrightatallonthe750sq.meterssheclaims.

Held:

ThePetitioner(NicanorSantos)isthetrueandlawfulownerofthewholeareaof10,000sq.metersas
coveredbythecertificateoftitle.Itisevidentthattherewasnofinalconveyanceandtransferofthearea
consistingof750sq.meterscoveredbytransfercertificateoftitleNo.4583oftheRegisterofDeedsofBaguio
City.SinceMagdalenaLeanoconfirmedthatherhusbandneversoldtheportionofthe10,000sq.metersto
RosaGanayobefore,during,andafterthelastwar.Undersection121ofRule123oftheRulesofCourt,an
agreementfortheleasingforalongerperiodthan1yearorforthesaleofrealpropertyorofinteresttherein
mustbeevidencedbywriting.

14.)VIEWMASTERvsMAULIT(ROSEMARIEKHOLOMA)

15.)PEOPLEvsRTCofMANILA(REINERHIPOLITO)

16.)TANCHOCOvsHIPOLITO(AMEIRMUKSAN)

17.)YAREDVSLLARDE(CAJETA)
18.)ROMEROVS.CA458SCRA483(ALLENCABURAL)

Page 30 of 34
Facts:

PrivaterespondententeredintoaConditionalDeedofSalewithpetitioneroveraparceloflandinParanaque,
thelatteradvancingP50,000fortheevictionofsquatterstherein.Anejectmentsuitwasthenfiledbytheprivate
respondentagainstthesquatters.Althoughsuccessful,privaterespondentsoughtthereturnofthedownpayment
shereceivedbecauseshecouldnotgetridofthesquatters.

Issue:

Maythevendordemandtherescissionofacontractforthesaleofaparceloflandforacausetraceabletohis
ownfailuretohavethesquattersonthesubjectpropertyevictedwithinthecontractuallystipulatedperiod?

Held:

Aperfectedcontractofsalemayeitherbeabsoluteorconditionaldependingonwhethertheagreementis
devoidof,orsubjectto,anyconditionimposedonthepassingoftitleofthethingtobeconveyedoronthe
obligationofapartythereto.Whenownershipisretaineduntilthefulfillmentofapositiveconditionthebreach
oftheconditionwillsimplypreventthedutytoconveytitlefromacquiringanobligatoryforce.Ifthecondition
isimposedonanobligationofapartywhichisnotcompliedwith,theotherpartymayeitherrefusetoproceed
orwaivesaidcondition.Where,ofcourse,theconditionisimposedupontheperfectionofthecontractitself,
thefailureofsuchconditionwouldpreventthejuridicalrelationitselffromcomingintoexistence.
Indeterminingtherealcharacterofthecontract,thetitlegiventoitbythepartiesisnotasmuchsignificantas
itssubstance.Forexample,adeedofsale,althoughdenominatedasadeedofconditionalsale,maybetreated
asabsoluteinnature,iftitletothepropertysoldisnotreservedinthevendororifthevendorisnotgrantedthe
righttounilaterallyrescindthecontractpredicatedonthefulfillmentornonfulfillment,asthecasemaybe,of
theprescribedcondition.Theterm"condition"inthecontextofaperfectedcontractofsalepertains,inreality,
tothecompliancebyonepartyofanundertakingthefulfillmentofwhichwouldbeckon,inturn,the
demandabilityofthereciprocalprestationoftheotherparty.Thereciprocalobligationsreferredtowould
normallybe,inthecaseofvendee,thepaymentoftheagreedpurchasepriceand,inthecaseofthevendor,the
fulfillmentofcertainexpresswarranties(which,inthecaseatbenchisthetimelyevictionofthesquatterson
theproperty).
Itwouldbefutiletochallengetheagreementhereinquestionasnotbeingadulyperfectedcontract.Asaleisat
onceperfectedwhenaperson(theseller)obligateshimself,forapricecertain,todeliverandtotransfer
ownershipofaspecifiedthingorrighttoanother(thebuyer)overwhichthelatteragrees.Fromthemomentthe
contractisperfected,thepartiesareboundnotonlytothefulfillmentofwhathasbeenexpresslystipulatedbut
alsotoalltheconsequenceswhich,accordingtotheirnature,maybeinkeepingwithgoodfaith,usageandlaw.
Undertheagreement,privaterespondentisobligatedtoevictthesquattersontheproperty.Privaterespondent's
failure"toremovethesquattersfromtheproperty"withinthestipulatedperiodgivespetitionertherightto
eitherrefusetoproceedwiththeagreementorwaivethatconditioninconsonancewithArticle1545oftheCivil
Code.Thisoptionclearlybelongstopetitionerandnottoprivaterespondent.
Incontractsofsaleparticularly,Article1545oftheCivilCodeallowstheobligeetochoosebetweenproceeding
withtheagreementorwaivingtheperformanceofthecondition.Here,evidently,petitionerhaswaivedthe
performanceoftheconditionimposedonprivaterespondenttofreethepropertyfromsquatters.
Therightofresolutionofapartytoanobligationispredicatedonabreachoffaithbytheotherpartythat
violates the reciprocity between them. It is private respondent who has failed in her obligation under the
contract. Petitioner did not breach the agreement. He has agreed, infact, to shoulder the expenses ofthe
Page 31 of 34
execution ofthejudgment intheejectment caseandtomakearrangements withthesherifftoeffect such
execution.

19.)AFPMUTUALBENEFITVSCA(CARLOTABANGCURA)

FACTS:

ThiscaseinvolvedSolidHomesInc'sMRoftheSC'sdecisionreversingtheCA'sdecisionandorderingthe
RDtocancelthenoticeoflispendensonthetitlesissuedtoAFPMBAI,declaringitasbuyeringoodfaith
andforvalue.InvestcoIncandSolidHomesIncenteredintoacontracttosell.Duringthistime,thetitlesto
theQuezonCityandMarikinapropertieshadnotbeentransferredinthenameofInvestcoIncasasigneeof
theowners,AngelaPerezStaleyandAntonioPerez.Thus,InvestcoIncmerelyagreedtosellandSolid
Homestobuytheformer'srightsandinterestintheproperties.

However,SolidHomesInc.renegedordefaultedonitsobligation.Thus,InvestcoIncrescindedextra
judiciallysuchcontracttosell.Aftersuchevent,AFPMBAIandInvestcoIncenteredintoacontractof
absolutesale,whereintheformerpaidinfull,causingthetransferoftitlesinitsname.

ISSUE:

WhetherornotInvestcoIncproperlyrescindeditscontracttosellandbuywithSolidHomesInc

HELD:

YES.UponSolidHomesInc'sfailuretocomplywithitsobligationunderthecontract,therewasnoneedto
judiciallyrescindthecontract.Failurebyoneofthepartiestoabidebytheconditionsinacontracttosell
resultedintherescissionofthecontract.

InSalazarv.CourtofAppeals,weexplainedthedistinctionbetweenacontracttosellandacontractofsale:

Inacontractofsale,thetitletothepropertypassestothevendeeuponthedeliveryofthethingsold;ina
contracttosell,ownershipis,byagreement,reservedinthevendorandisnottopasstothevendeeuntilfull
paymentofthepurchaseprice.Otherwisestated,inacontractofsale,thevendorlosesownershipoverthe
propertyandcannotrecoverituntilandunlessthecontractisresolvedorrescinded;whereasinacontractto
sell,titleisretainedbythevendoruntilfullpaymentoftheprice.Inthelattercontract,paymentoftheprice
isapositivesuspensivecondition,failureofwhichisnotabreachbutaneventthatpreventstheobligation
ofthevendortoconveytitlefrombecomingeffective.

UponSolidHomes,Inc.sfailuretocomplywithitsobligationthereunder,therewasnoneedtojudicially
rescindthecontracttosell.Failurebyoneofthepartiestoabidebytheconditionsinacontracttosell
resultedintherescissionofthecontract.

Unquestionably,SolidHomes,Inc.renegedonitsobligationtopaytheinstallmentsforthepurchaseofthe
QuezonCityandMarikinapropertyofInvestco,Inc.onthedatesspecifiedinthecontracttosell

20.)GONZALESVS.ORDONEZBENITEZ(ANNADERLA)

FACTS

Page 32 of 34
 Inthefirstmarriage,RodolfoGonzaleshad4children:Salvador,Eduardo,RamonandPacita.Afterthe
deathofthefirstwife,RodolfomarriedDr.LuzDizon.Two(2)childrenwerebegottenofthissecond
marriage,namely:MariaLuisaandIsabel.

RodolfoP.Gonzalezandhissecondwifeexecutedan"AgreementforDissolutionofConjugalPartnership
andforEstablishmentofSeparationofProperty,"forthedeclaredpurposeofavoiding"confusionand/or
differencesamongthetwosetsofheirs(ofsaidRodolfoGonzalez)inthesettlementoftheestatesofthe
saidspousesincaseofdeath."TheythenfiledapetitionwiththeJuvenile&DomesticRelationsCourtof
Manilaforapprovaloftheiragreement,entitled"IntheMatteroftheVoluntaryDissolutionofConjugal
Partnership,RodolfoP.Gonzalez'schildrenbyhisfirstmarriagemovedfor,andweregrantedleave,to
interveneinthecase.

SalvadorR.Gonzalez,theeldestofthefourchildrenofthefirstmarriage,institutedinthesameCourt
proceedingstoplaceunderguardianshipthepropertyofhisfatherRodolfoP.Gonzalez,groundedonthe
latter's allegedincapacity "tomanageanddirect hisfinancial andownershipstatus"resulting fromthe
deteriorationofhismentalfacultiesonaccountofillnessandadvancedage.OnMay1975,RodolfoandLuz
drew up a contract of sale over 2 parcels of property mortgaged in favor of Phil. Trust and Co. the
mortgageebankswerenotwillingtoaccedetotheassumptionbythevendeesofthespouses'mortgage
obligations.Whatthevendorspousesdid,onJuly16,1975,wastocauseannotationofthesalesasadverse
claimsonthecorrespondingcertificatesoftitle.

SalvadorcausednoticesoflispendenstobeannotatedonsomeofthepropertiesofRodolfoandLuz,
includingthe2parcelsoflandalreadysold.Theannotationwasbasedonthependencyoftheguardianship
proceeding.Rodolfofiledapetitiontocanceltheannotationonthegroundthatthepropertywashisand
Luzsconjugalproperty.TheRTCdeniedRodolfospetition.MRwasalsodenied

ISSUES&ARGUMENTS

Whethernoticeoflispendensisproperlybasedontheguardianshipproceeding?

HELD

Yes.

Thechildrenofthefirstmarriageindisputablyhaveaninterestinthepropertyofthefirstmarriage,aswellasin
thepropertyofthesecond.Theyhavearighttoallegeandproveintheappropriateproceedingintheproper
forumthattheirfather,RodolfoP.Gonzalez,hadbroughtpropertyacquiredbyhimandhisfirstwifeintohis
secondmarriage withLuz Dizon,andalso thatall orcertain oftheproperty acquired duringsaid second
marriageisconjugalincharacter.Andtheyhavetherighttochallengeintheappropriateproceedinginthe
properforumtheirfather'scapacitytomakedispositionsofpropertyacquiredduringeitherofhismarriages.
Theissuesnecessarilyinvolvedarefactual, i.e.,thedegreeofRodolfoP.Gonzalez'allegedincapacity;the
mannerandothercircumstancesoftheacquisitionofthepropertiesduringthefirstandsecondmarriages;the
attendanceoffraud,orunduepressureorinfluenceonanydispositionsorattemptsatdispositionbyRodolfoP.

Page 33 of 34
Gonzalezofanyproperty.Obviously,theseissuescannotberesolvedwithoutevidencewhich,tobesure,may
notbereceivedandpasseduponbythisCourtinthefirstinstance.Anduntiltheseissuesareresolved,thereis
clearlyaneedtowarnanypersoninterestedinanypropertytitledinthenameofRodolfoP.Gonzalez,among
others,ofthependencyoftheproceedingswhichmighteventuallyresultintheinvalidationofanytransaction
madebysaidRodolfoP.Gonzalezaffectingsuchproperty.

AsMr.andMrs.RodolfoP.Gonzalezpointout,"theeffectofthenoticesoflispendens...arenotdelimitedto
thepropertiesofDr.RODOLFOP.GONZALEZ,butextendtotheproprietaryinterestsofDra.LUZDIZON
GONZALEZ,...whoisnotpersonallyinvolvedintheproceedingsforguardianship."Thisistrue,butitcannot
behelped,sincethelatter'snamedoesinfactappearinthetitlestogetherwithherhusband's,andunderthelaw,
nodispositionofpropertycanbemadealonebyeitherofthem.

Whetherthepersonwhosepropertyissoughttobeplacedunderguardianshipbesoleowner,orcoownerof
property is immaterial. If shown to be non compos mentis, any disposition made by him under either
suppositionwouldbeequallydefective.Theargumentthatanyway,Mrs.LuzDizonGonzalezisrequiredby
lawto"concurandcosign"andhence,there"couldbenoinstance...thatDr.Gonzalezmightbeinfluencedto
executedeedsoftransferstohisprejudice,"wouldappeartobegthequestionsincetheaccusationisthatitis
preciselythewifewhohasinfluencedandmightcontinuetoinfluencehim"tohisprejudice.

Page 34 of 34