1

sL
Sem School ?ear 20112012


Are||ano Un|vers|ty Schoo| Cf Law

@A8LL CI CCN@LN@S

I roperty Cases

1 rudenLlal vs anls C8 # L30003/ Aug 31 1987 buLch
2 Serg's vs Cl Leaslng C8# 137703 /Aug 22 2000 buLch
3 1sal vs CA C8# 1201098 /CcL 02 20 buLch
4 CalLex hlls v C8AA C8# L30466 May 31 1982 buLch
3 ML8ALCC vs C8AA C8# L47943/ May 31 1982 buLch
6 Laurel v Abrogar C8# 133076/ !an 13 2009 May
7 Acap vs CA C8# 118114 /uec 07 1993 May
8
CaLhollc 8lshop of 8alanga vs
CA C8# 112319/ nov 14 1996 May
9 ecson vs CA C8# 113814/ May 26 1993 May
10 narvaez v Alclso C8# 163907 /!uly 27 2009 May
11 Cheng v uonlnl C8# 167017/ !une 22 2009 !oan 1usl
12 1uaLls v Lscol C8# 173399 /CcL 27 2009 !oan 1usl
13 Lsmaquel vs Coprada C8 # 132423/ uec 13 2010 !oan 1usl
14 8enedlcLo vs vlllaflores C8# 183020/ CcL 6 2010 !oan 1usl
13 8rlones vsMacabagdal C8# 130666/ Aug 3 2010 !oan 1usl
16 Llmense vs vda de 8amos C8# 132319/ CcL 28 2010 uen
17 Mores vs ?uCo C8# 172292/ !uly 23 2010 uen
18 new 8egenL v 1an[uaLco C8# 168800 /Aprll 16 2009 uen
19 Meneses vs CA C8# 83039/ !uly 14 1993 uen
20 ClLy Mayor of aranaque v Lblo C8# 178411/!une 23 2010 uen
21 Almagro vs kwan
C8# 173806/173810/ CcL 20
2010 8em
22 Pelrs of Malabanan v 8epubllc C8# 179987 /Aprll 29 2009 8em
23 1an vs 8ep C8# 177797/ uec 04 2008 8em
24 8ep vs 1sal C8# 168184/ !une 22 2009 8em
23 Llm vs 8ep C8# 162047/ SepL 4 2009 8em
26 8ep vs Chlng C8# 186166/ CcL 20 2010 Marle
27 8ep vs uela az C8# 171631/ nov 13 2010 Marle
28 8ep vs vega C8# 177790/ !an 17 2011 Marle
29 8ep vs 8oche C8# 173846/ !uly 6 2010 Marle
30 Calara vs lranclsco C8# 136439/ SepL 29 2010 Marle
31 Carbonllla vs Ablera C8# 177637/ !uly 26 2010 Mar[
32 ModesLo vs urblna C8# 189839/ CcL 18 2010 Mar[
33 8rlLo vs ulanala C8# 171717/ uec 13 2010 Mar[
34 1an vs 8amlrez C8# 138929/ Aug 3 2010 Mar[
33 Lamsls vs uonge C8# 173021/ CcL 20 2010 Mar[
36 ney vs Cul[ano C8# 178609/ Aug 4 2010 !oan naoe
37 1orlng vs 8oqullaga C8# 163610/ SepL 27 2010 !oan naoe
38 Canezo vs 8auLlsLa C8# 170189/ SepL 1 2010 !oan naoe
39 8epubllc v Pelrs of Sorono C8 # 171371 Mar 24 2008 !oan naoe
40 Cruz v CaLapang C8 # 164110 leb 12 2008 !oan naoe
41 SanLos v Pelrs of LusLre C8 # 131016 Aug 06 2008 Crace
42 M81C v ascual C8 # 163744 leb 29 2008 Crace
43 Arrlola v Arrlola C8 # 177703 !an 28 2008 Crace
44 adllla vs Magdula C8# 176838/ SepL 13 2010 Crace
43 1aghoy vs 1lgol !r C8# 139663/ Aug 3 2010 Crace
46 MonLeroso v CA C8 # 103608 Apr 30 2008 Agelyn
47 SorlenLe vs Concepclon C8# 160239/ nov 23 2009 Agelyn
48 PulsL v 8 8ullders C8 # 136364 SepL 23 2008 Agelyn
49 8unyl v lacLor C8 # 172347 !un 30 2009 Agelyn
30 Cng v 8epubllc C8 # 173746 Mar12 2008 Agelyn
31 eople v enaflorlda C8 # 173604 Apr 10 2008 AnLhony
32 Chua8ruce v CA C8 # 109393 Apr 27 2000 AnLhony
33 uaclag v uel 8osarlo C8 # 139378 leb 18 2009 AnLhony
34 Laurora v SLerllng 1echpark C8 # 146813 Apr 9 2003 AnLhony
33 LuCA ubl v SanLos C8 # 80298 Apr 26 1990 AnLhony
36 8l lamlly v lranco C8 # 123498 nov 23 2007 buLch

37 la[ardo v lreedom Lo 8ulld C8 # 134692 Aug 1 2000 buLch
38 ColdcresL v Cypress C8 # 171072 Apr 7 2009 buLch
39 Abellana v CA C8 # 97039 Apr 24 1992 buLch
60 8lcol Agrolnd v Cblas C8 # 172077 CcL 09 2009 buLch
61 Sallmbangon v 1an C8 # 183240 !an 20 2010 May
62 Culmen v CA C8 # 112331 May 29 1996 May
63 SLa Marla v CA C8 # 127349 !an 28 1998 May
64 CulnLanllla v Abangan C8 # 160613 leb 12 2008 May
63 valdez v 1ablsula C8 # 173310 !uly 28 2008 May
66 La vlsLa Assoc v CA C8 # 93232 SepL 3 1997 !oan 1usl
67 unlsource v Chung C8 # 173232 !ul 17 2009 !oan 1usl
68 1elmo v 8usLamanLe C8 # 182367 !ul 13 2009 !oan 1usl
69 Acap v CA C8 # 118114 uec 7 1993 !oan 1usl
70 Pelrs of Seraspl v CA C8 # 133602 Apr 28 2000 !oan 1usl
71 alero1an v urdaneLa AM # 072399 !un 18 2008 uen
72 8ep vs Cuzman C8# 132964/ leb 18 2000 uen
73 8 v Slllm C8 # 140487 Apr 2 2001 uen
74 Cul[ada vs CA C8# 126444/ uec 4 1998 uen
73 Lagazo vs CA C8# 112796/ Mar 3 1998 uen
76 llorenclo v ue Leon C8# 149370/ Mar 12 2004 8em
77 Sevllla vs Sevllla C8# 130179/ Apr 30 2003 8em
78 CaLalan vs 8asa C8# 139667/ !uly 31 2007 8em
79 CesLopa v llapll C8# 111904 CcL 3 2000 8em
80 MagaL v CA C8 # 106733 leb 1 2002 8em
81 Maglasang v CabaLlngan C8 # 131933 !un 3 2002 Marle
82 Aluad v Aluad C8 # 176943 CcL 17 2008 Marle
83 Slcad vs CA C8# 123888/ Aug 13 1998 Marle
84 uel 8osarlo vs lerrer C8# 187036/ SepL 202010 Marle
83 Canuelas v Cawed C8 # 123968 Apr 24 2003 Marle
86 CenLral hll unlv v CA C8 #112127 !ul 17 1993 Mar[
87 Pelrs of Maramag v Maramag C8 # 181132 !un 3 2009 Mar[
88 lnsular Llfe v Lbrado C8 # 44039 CcL 28 1977 Mar[
89 ArangoLe v Maglunob C8 # 178906 leb 18 2009 Mar[
90 Cullala v AlcanLara C8 # 132681 uec 3 2001 Mar[
91 Arcaba v 8aLocael C8 # 146683 nov 22 2001 !oan naoe
92 Zamboanga v lagaLa C8 # 148433 SepL 30 2008 !oan naoe
93 Archblshop of Mla v CA C8 # 77423 !un 19 1991 !oan naoe
94 ue Luna v Abrlgo C8 # 37433 !an 18 1990 !oan naoe
93 1y v 1y C8 # 163696 Apr 30 2008 !oan naoe
96 LduarLe vs CA C8# 103944/ leb 9 1996 Crace
97 velasquez vs CA C8# 126996/ leb 13 2000 Crace

IISUCCLSSICN CASLS
98 Alvarez v lAC C8# 68033 May 7 1990 Crace
99 venLura vs MlllLanLe C8# 63143 CcL 3 1999 Crace
100 Sumal[ag v LlLeraLo C8# 149787 !une 18 2008 Crace
101 u8 v Cagaranl C8# 172248 SepL 17 2008 Agelyn
102 8onllla vs 8arcena nC L41713 !une 18 1976 Agelyn
103 Cruz vs Cruz C8# 173292/SepL 1 2010 Agelyn
104 Pelrs of Sande[as vs Llna C8 # 141634 leb 3 2001 Agelyn
103 8alus v 8alus C8# 168970 !an 13 2010 Agelyn
106 Arellano vs ascual C8# 189776/ uec 13 2010 AnLhony
107 8eyes vs Lnrlquez C8# 162936/Aprll 10 2008 AnLhony
108 ?apLlnchay vs uel 8osarlo C8# 124320/ Mar 2 1999 AnLhony
109 Llmos vs Cdones C8# 186979/ Aug 11 2010 AnLhony
110 Alfonso vs Andres C8# 166236/ !uly 29 2010 AnLhony
111 Acap vs CA C8# 118114 uec 7 1993 buLch

112 Arrlola v Arrlola C8# 177703 !an 28 2008 buLch

113 8eyes v 81C MakaLl C8# 163744 Aug 11 2008 buLch
114 uno v uno LnLerprlses C8# 177066 SepL 11 2009 buLch
113 ukC Poldlngs Corp vs CA C8# 118248 Aprll 3 2000 8uLch
116 8eyes v Lnrlquez C8# 162936 Aprll 10 2008 May
117 vlLug vs CourL of Appeals C8# 82027 Mar 29 1990 May
118 Slcad vs CA C8# 123888 Aug 13 1998 May
119 Aluad v Aluad C8# 176943 CcL 17 2008 May
120 Suroza vs Ponrado AM no 2026Cll uec 19 1981 May
121 Lee v 1ambago AC no 3281 leb 12 2008 !oan 1usl
122 Cuerrero v 8lhls C8#174144 Aprll 17 2007 !oan 1usl
123 Caneda vs CA C8# 103334 May 28 1993 !oan 1usl
124 Abangan vs Abangan Cr # 13431 nov 12 1919 !oan 1usl
123 Celada v Abena C8# 143343 !une 30 2008 !oan 1usl
126 !avellana vs Ledesma C8# L7179 !une 30 1933 uen
127 Cruz vs vlllasor C8# L32213 nov 26 1973 uen
128 Azuela v CA C8# 122880 Aprll 12 2006 uen
129 Carcla vs vasquez C8# L26613 Aprll 30 1970 uen
130 Alvarado vs Cavlola !r C8 # 74693 SepL 14 1993 uen
131 8oxas vs ue !esus C8 # L38338 !an 28 1983 8em
132 Labrador vs CA C8# 8384344 Aprll 3 1990 8em
133 kalaw vs 8elova C8 # L40207 SepL 28 1984 8em
134 Lchavez vs uozen cons C8# 192916/ CcL 11 2010 8em
133 A[ero vs CA C8# 106720 SepL 13 1994 8em
136 Codoy vs Calugay C8# 123486 Aug 12 1999 Marle
137 8odelas vs Aranza no L38309 uec 7 1982 Marle
138 vda ue erez vs 1oleLe C8# 76714 !une 2 1994 Marle
139 Adrlana MaloLo vs CA no L76464 leb 29 1988 Marle
140 Cago vs Mamuyac no L26317 !an 29 1927 Marle
141 Molo vs Molo no L 2338 SepL 21 1931 Mar[
142 ulaz vs ue Leon no L 17714 May 31 1922 Mar[
143 uoroLheo vs CA C8# 108381 uec 8 1999 Mar[
144 SanLos vs 8uenavenLura C8 no L22797 SepL 22 1966 Mar[
143 8eyes vs 8areLLouaLu C8 # L17818 !an 23 1967 Mar[
146 Aznar vs uuncan C8 # L 24363 !une 30 1966 !oan naoe
147 Acaln vs lAC C8 #L 72706 CcL 27 1987 !oan naoe
148 nuguld vs nuguld C8 # L 23443 !une 23 1966 !oan naoe
149 Seanglo v 8eyes C8 # 14037172 nov 27 2006 !oan naoe
130 alaclos vs 8amlrez C8 # L 27932 leb 13 1982 !oan naoe
131 Cl8 vs Lscolln
C8# L27860 27896 Mar 29
1974 Crace
132 8abadllla vs CourL of Appeals C8# 113723 !une 29 2000 Crace
133 lranclsco vs lranclscoAlfonso C8# 138774 March 8 2001 Crace
134 CaplLle v Llbambuena C8# 169193 nov 30 2006 Lrlc
133 Ldroso vs Sablan C8 # L6878 SepL 13 1913 Crace
136 Slenes vs Lsparcla C8 #L12937 March 24 1961 Agelyn
137 Conzales vs Cll C8 #L34393 May 19 1981 Agelyn
138 Cano vs ulrecLor C8 #L10701 !an 16 1939 Agelyn
139 vlzconde v CA C8# 118449 leb 11 1998 !erome
160 Seanglo v 8eyes C8# 14037172 nov 27 2006 Lrlc
161 8agunu vs ledad C8# 140973 uec 8 2000 AnLhony
162 Sayson vs CA C8# 8922423 !an 23 1992 AnLhony
163 Sayson vs CA C8# 8922423 !an 23 1992 AnLhony
164 Corpus vs Corpus C8 # L22469 CcL 23 1978 AnLhony
163 Leonardo vs CA C8 #L31263 leb 28 1983 !erome
166 ulaz vs lAC C8 #L66374 !une 17 1987 !erome
167 ulaz vs lAC C8 #L66374 leb 21 1990 Lrlc
168 SunLay v SunLay C8 # 183033 !une 16 2010 !erome
169 verdad vs CA C8# 109972 Aprll 29 1996 Lrlc
170 Cabales v CA C8# 162421 Aug 31 2007 !erome

171 Pelrs of urlarLe vs CA C8# 116773 !an 22 1998 Lrlc

172 Conzales vs CA C8# 117740 CcL 30 1998 !erome
173 8epubllc vs CA C8# 143483 !an 31 2002 Lrlc
174
arlsh rlesL of vlcLorla 1arlac
vs 8lgor C8# L22036 Aprll 30 1979 !erome
173 Cuy v CA C8# 163707 SepL 13 2006 Lrlc
176 Zaragoza vs CA C8# 106401 SepL 29 2000 !erome
177 nazareno vs CA C8# 138842 CcL 18 2000 Lrlc
178 vlzconde vs CA C8# 118449 leb 11 1998 !erome
179 1y v 1y C8# 163696 Aprll 30 2008 Lrlc
180 noceda vs CA C8# 119730 SepL 2 1999 !erome
181 Sllverlo v CA C8# 178933 SepL 16 2009 Lrlc
182 Avellno vs CA C8# 113181 March 31 2000 !erome
183 Zaragoza vs CA C8# 106401 SepL 29 2000 Lrlc
184 ArroganLe v uellarLe C8# 132132 !uly 24 2007 !erome
183 Crendaln !r vs 8odrlguez C8# 168660/ !une 30 2009 AnLhony

8CCk II kCLk@ CWNLkSnI AND I@S MCDIIICA@ICNS (Arts 414 773)

@|t|e I CLASSIIICA@ICN CI kCLk@ (Arts 414 426)


kLLIMINAk kCVISICNS (Art 414)

See also kA 349 as amended by kA 10S6 (Ao Act to leqollze letmlssloos to use
nomoo Otqoos ot Aoy lottloo ot pottloos of tbe nomoo 8oJy fot MeJlcol 5otqlcol ot
5cleotlflc lotposes ooJet cettolo cooJltloos) kA 7170 (Ao Act Aotbotlzloq 1be leqocy ot
uoootloo of All ot lott of o nomoo 8oJy Aftet ueotb lot 5peclfleJ lotposes) as amended by
kA 787S (Ao Act to AJvooce cotoeol 1toosploototloos lo tbe lblllpploes)



Chapter 1 Immovab|e roperty (Art 41S)
Chapter 2 Movab|e roperty (Arts 416418)

rudent|a| vs an|s
Gk # LS0003] Aug 31 1987
1S3 SCkA 391

lacLs Cn november 19 1971 plalnLlffsspouses lernando A Magcale and 1eodula 8aluyuL
Magcale secured a loan ln Lhe sum of 7000000 from Lhe defendanL rudenLlal 8ank 1o secure
paymenL of Lhls loan plalnLlffs execuLed ln favor of defendanL on Lhe aforesald daLe a deed of 8eal
LsLaLe MorLgage over Lhe Seml concreLe 2sLorey resldenLlal bulldlng wlLh warehouse and a flrsL
class resldenLlal land evldenced only by Lax declaraLlon ln Lhe name of lernando Magcale slLuaLed
ln Clongapo ClLy Cn Lhe ueed of MorLgage a rlder Lyped aL Lhe boLLom of Lhe page ln whlch case
made rudenLlal bank become aware LhaL Lhe morLgagee (defendanL rudenLlal 8ank) was aL Lhe
ouLseL aware of Lhe facL LhaL Lhe morLgagors (plalnLlffs) have already flled a Mlscellaneous Sales
AppllcaLlon over Lhe loL possessory rlghLs over whlch were morLgaged Lo lL lalnLlffs secured an
addlLlonal loan from defendanL rudenLlal 8ank ln Lhe sum of 2000000 1o secure paymenL of
Lhls addlLlonal loan plalnLlffs execuLed ln favor of Lhe sald defendanL anoLher deed of 8eal LsLaLe
MorLgage over Lhe same properLles prevlously morLgaged lor fallure of plalnLlffs Lo pay Lhelr
obllgaLlon Lo defendanL 8ank afLer lL became due and upon appllcaLlon of sald defendanL Lhe
deeds of 8eal LsLaLe MorLgage were foreclosed 1he aucLlon sale aforesald was held desplLe
wrlLLen requesL from plalnLlffs Lhrough counsel for Lhe defendanL ClLy Sherlff Lo deslsL from golng
wlLh Lhe scheduled publlc aucLlon sale ln Lhe declslon of Cll lL declared LhaL Lhe 8eal LsLaLe
MorLgage ls null and vold rudenLlal flle for an M8 buL was also denled for lack of merlL

lssue WheLher or noL a valld real esLaLe morLgage can be consLlLuLed on Lhe bulldlng erecLed on
Lhe land belonglng Lo anoLher WCn Lhe supervenlng lssuance ln favor of prlvaLe respondenLs of
mlscellaneous sales paLenL have Lhe effecL of lnvalldaLlng Lhe deeds of real esLaLe morLgage

Peld 1he answer ls ln Lhe afflrmaLlve under ArLlcle 413 of Lhe Clvll Code lL ls obvlous LhaL Lhe
lncluslon of bulldlng separaLe and dlsLlncL from Lhe land ln sald provlslon of law can only mean
LhaL a bulldlng ls by lLself an lmmovable properLy Whlle lL ls Lrue LhaL a morLgage of land
necessarlly lncludes ln Lhe absence of sLlpulaLlon of Lhe lmprovemenLs Lhereon bulldlngs sLlll a
bulldlng by lLself may be morLgaged aparL from Lhe land on whlch lL has been bullL Such a
morLgage would be sLlll a real esLaLe morLgage for Lhe bulldlng would sLlll be consldered
lmmovable properLy even lf dealL wlLh separaLely and aparL from Lhe land ln Lhe same manner
Lhls CourL has also esLabllshed LhaL possessory rlghLs over sald properLles before LlLle ls vesLed on
Lhe granLee may be valldly Lransferred or conveyed as ln a deed of morLgage under Lhe foregolng
conslderaLlons lL ls evldenL LhaL Lhe morLgage execuLed by prlvaLe respondenL on hls own bulldlng
whlch was erecLed on Lhe land belonglng Lo Lhe governmenL ls Lo all lnLenLs and purposes a valld
morLgage

8uL lL ls a dlfferenL maLLer as regards Lhe second morLgage execuLed over Lhe same properLles on
May 2 1973 for an addlLlonal loan of 2000000 whlch was reglsLered wlLh Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds
of Clongapo ClLy on Lhe same daLe 8elaLlve LhereLo lL ls evldenL LhaL such morLgage execuLed
afLer Lhe lssuance of Lhe sales paLenL and of Lhe Crlglnal CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle falls squarely under Lhe
prohlblLlons sLaLed ln SecLlons 121 122 and 124 of Lhe ubllc Land AcL and SecLlon 2 of 8epubllc
AcL 730 and ls Lherefore null and vold

We belleve LhaL as ln parl dellcLo may noL be lnvoked Lo defeaL Lhe pollcy of Lhe SLaLe nelLher may
Lhe docLrlne of esLoppel glve a valldaLlng effecL Lo a vold conLracL lndeed lL ls generally consldered
LhaL as beLween parLles Lo a conLracL valldlLy cannoL be glven Lo lL by esLoppel lf lL ls prohlblLed by
law or ls agalnsL publlc pollcy


Serg's vs CI Leas|ng
Gk# 13770S ]Aug 22 2000
338 SCkA 499

lacLs Cl Leaslng flled wlLh Lhe 81CCC a complalnL for collecLlon of sum of money wlLh an
appllcaLlon of a wrlL of replevln upon an exparLe appllcaLlon of Cl Leaslng respondenL [udge
lssued a wrlL of replevln dlrecLlng lLs sherlff Lo selze and dellver Lhe machlnerles and equlpmenL Lo
Cl Leaslng afLer 3 days and upon Lhe paymenL of Lhe necessary expenses ln lmplemenLaLlon of
sald wrlL Lhe sherlff proceeded Lo peLlLloner's facLory selzed one machlnery wlLh Lhe word LhaL
he would reLurn for Lhe oLher machlnerles eLlLloner Serg's flled a moLlon for speclal proLecLlve
order lnvoklng Lhe power of Lhe courL Lo conLrol Lhe conducL of lLs offlcers and amend and conLrol
lLs processes praylng for a dlrecLlve for Lhe sherlff Lo defer enforcemenL of Lhe wrlL of replevln
1hls moLlon was opposed by Cl Leaslng on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe properLles were sLlll personal
and Lherefore sLlll sub[ecL Lo selzure and a wrlL of replevln ln Lhelr 8eply peLlLloners asserLed LhaL
Lhe properLles soughL Lo be selzed were lmmovable as deflned ln ArLlcle 413 of Lhe Clvll Code Lhe
parLles' agreemenL Lo Lhe conLrary noLwlLhsLandlng 1hey argued LhaL Lo glve effecL Lo Lhe
agreemenL would be pre[udlclal Lo lnnocenL Lhlrd parLles 1hey furLher sLaLed LhaL Cl Leaslng
was esLopped from LreaLlng Lhese machlnerles as personal because Lhe conLracLs ln whlch Lhe
alleged agreemenL were embodled were LoLally sham and farclcal 1he sherlff agaln soughL Lo
enforce Lhe wrlL of selzure and Lake possesslon of Lhe remalnlng properLles Pe was able Lo Lake
Lwo more buL was prevenLed by Lhe workers from Laklng Lhe resL 1he CA held LhaL Lhe sub[ecL
machlnes were personal properLy and LhaL Lhey had only been leased noL owned by peLlLloners

lL also ruled LhaL Lhe words of Lhe conLracL are clear and leave no doubL upon Lhe Lrue lnLenLlon of
Lhe conLracLlng parLles"

lssue WheLher or noL Lhe machlnerles purchased and lmporLed by SL8C'S became real properLy by
vlrLue of lmmoblllzaLlon and Lhus should noL be sub[ecLed Lo Lhe wrlL of selzure

Peld under A81 413 1he followlng are lmmovable properLy

xxx (3) Machlnery recepLacles lnsLrumenLs or lmplemenLs lnLended by Lhe owner of Lhe
LenemenL for an lndusLry or works whlch may be carrled on ln a bulldlng or on a plece of land and
whlch Lend dlrecLly Lo meeL Lhe needs of Lhe sald lndusLry or works
xxx

ln Lhe presenL case Lhe machlnes LhaL were Lhe sub[ecLs of Lhe WrlL of Selzure were placed by
peLlLloners ln Lhe facLory bullL on Lhelr own land lndlspuLably Lhey were essenLlal and prlnclpal
elemenLs of Lhelr chocolaLemaklng lndusLry Pence alLhough each of Lhem was movable or
personal properLy on lLs own all of Lhem have become lmmoblllzed by desLlnaLlon because Lhey
are essenLlal and prlnclpal elemenLs ln Lhe lndusLry"16 ln LhaL sense peLlLloners are correcL ln
argulng LhaL Lhe sald machlnes are real noL personal properLy pursuanL Lo ArLlcle 413 (3) of Lhe
Clvll Code

8e LhaL as lL may we dlsagree wlLh Lhe submlsslon of Lhe peLlLloners LhaL Lhe sald machlnes are noL
proper sub[ecLs of Lhe WrlL of Selzure

1he CourL has held LhaL conLracLlng parLles may valldly sLlpulaLe LhaL a real properLy be consldered
as personal AfLer agreelng Lo such sLlpulaLlon Lhey are consequenLly esLopped from clalmlng
oLherwlse under Lhe prlnclple of esLoppel a parLy Lo a conLracL ls ordlnarlly precluded from
denylng Lhe LruLh of any maLerlal facL found Lhereln AlLhough Lhere ls no speclflc sLaLemenL
referrlng Lo Lhe sub[ecL house as personal properLy yeL by cedlng selllng or Lransferrlng a properLy
by way of chaLLel morLgage defendanLsappellanLs could only have meanL Lo convey Lhe house as
chaLLel or aL leasL lnLended Lo LreaL Lhe same as such so LhaL Lhey should noL now be allowed Lo
make an lnconslsLenL sLand by clalmlng oLherwlse ln Lhe presenL case Lhe Lease AgreemenL clearly
provldes LhaL Lhe machlnes ln quesLlon are Lo be consldered as personal properLy Clearly Lhen
peLlLloners are esLopped from denylng Lhe characLerlzaLlon of Lhe sub[ecL machlnes as personal
properLy under Lhe clrcumsLances Lhey are proper sub[ecLs of Lhe WrlL of Selzure


@sa| vs CA
Gk# 1201098 ]Cct 02 20
366 SCkA 324

lacLs 8espondenL Lver 1exLlle Mllls lnc (LvL81Lx) obLalned a Lhree mllllon peso (300000000)
loan from peLlLloner hlllpplne 8ank of CommunlcaLlons (8Com) As securlLy for Lhe loan
LvL81Lx execuLed ln favor of 8Com a deed of 8eal and ChaLLel MorLgage over Lhe loL where Lhe
facLory sLands and a llsL of machlnerles and equlpmenL AfLer someLlme 8Com granLed a second
loan of 333600000 Lo LvL81Lx 1he loan was secured by a ChaLLel MorLgage over personal
properLles enumeraLed ln a llsL aLLached LhereLo 1hese llsLed properLles were slmllar Lo Lhose
llsLed ln Lhe flrsL morLgage deed AfLer Lhe daLe of Lhe execuLlon of Lhe second morLgage
menLloned above LvL81Lx purchased varlous machlnes and equlpmenLs uue Lo buslness
reverses LvL81Lx flled lnsolvency proceedlngs All lLs asseLs were Laken lnLo Lhe cusLody of Lhe
lnsolvency CourL lncludlng Lhe collaLeral real and personal securlng Lhe Lwo morLgages as
abovemenLloned upon LvL81Lxs fallure Lo meeL lLs obllgaLlon Lo 8Com Lhe laLLer commenced
exLra[udlclal foreclosure proceedlngs agalnsL LvL81Lx Cn Lhe flrsL and second publlc aucLlons 8
Com emerged Lo be Lhe hlghesL bldder 8Com consolldaLed lLs ownershlp over Lhe loL and all Lhe
properLles ln lL 8 Com leased Lhe properLy Lo 8ubl 1sal Cn 1988 8Com sold Lhe facLory lock
sLock and barrel Lo 1sal for 900000000 lncludlng Lhe conLesLed machlnerles LvL81Lx flled a
complalnL for annulmenL of sale reconveyance and damages wlLh Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL agalnsL
8Com LvL81Lx clalmed LhaL no rlghLs havlng been LransmlLLed Lo 8Com over Lhe asseLs of
lnsolvenL LvL81Lx Lherefore 1sal acqulred no rlghLs over such asseLs sold Lo her and should
reconvey Lhe asseLs 1he 81C found LhaL Lhe lease and sale of sald personal properLles were
lrregular and lllegal because Lhey were noL duly foreclosed nor sold aL Lhe uecember 13 1982
aucLlon sale slnce Lhese were noL lncluded ln Lhe schedules aLLached Lo Lhe morLgage conLracLs
1he CA afflrmed Lhe [udgmenL

lssue WCn Lhe machlnerles llsLed are personal properLy ouLslde Lhe deed of real esLaLe morLgage
and LhaL lL should be excluded from Lhe real properLy forclosed desplLe Lhe provlslon ln Lhe deed
LhaL all afLeracqulred properLles durlng Lhe llfeLlme of Lhe morLgage shall form parL Lhere and
desplLe Lhe undlspuLed facL LhaL sald machlnerles are blg and heavy bolLed or cemenLed on Lhe
real properLy

Peld eLlLloners conLend LhaL Lhe naLure of Lhe dlspuLed machlnerles le LhaL Lhey were heavy
bolLed or cemenLed on Lhe real properLy morLgaged by LvL81Lx Lo 8Com make Lhem lpso facLo
lmmovable under ArLlcle 413 (3) and (3) of Lhe new Clvll Code 1hls asserLlon however does noL
seLLle Lhe lssue Mere nuLs and bolLs do noL foreclose Lhe conLroversy We have Lo look aL Lhe
parLles lnLenL

Whlle lL ls Lrue LhaL Lhe conLroverLed properLles appear Lo be lmmoblle a perusal of Lhe conLracL of
8eal and ChaLLel MorLgage execuLed by Lhe parLles hereln glves us a conLrary lndlcaLlon ln Lhe case
aL bar boLh Lhe Lrlal and Lhe appellaLe courLs reached Lhe same flndlng LhaL Lhe Lrue lnLenLlon of
8CCM and Lhe owner LvL81Lx ls Lo LreaL machlnery and equlpmenL as chaLLels We flnd no
reverslble error ln Lhe respondenL appellaLe courLs rullng LhaL lnasmuch as Lhe sub[ecL morLgages
were lnLended by Lhe parLles Lo lnvolve chaLLels lnsofar as equlpmenL and machlnery were
concerned Lhe ChaLLel MorLgage Law applles whlch provldes ln SecLlon 7 Lhereof LhaL a chaLLel
morLgage shall be deemed Lo cover only Lhe properLy descrlbed Lhereln and noL llke or subsLlLuLed
properLy LhereafLer acqulred by Lhe morLgagor and placed ln Lhe same deposlLory as Lhe properLy
orlglnally morLgaged anyLhlng ln Lhe morLgage Lo Lhe conLrary noLwlLhsLandlng As Lhe aucLlon
sale of Lhe sub[ecL properLles Lo 8Com ls vold no valld LlLle passed ln lLs favor ConsequenLly Lhe
sale Lhereof Lo 1sal ls also a nulllLy under Lhe elemenLary prlnclple of nemo daL quod non habeL
one cannoL glve whaL one does noL have




Ca|tex h||s v C8AA

Gk# LS0466 May 31 1982

114 SCkA 296

lacLs CalLex lnsLalled machlnerles and equlpmenL conslsLlng of underground Lanks elevaLed Lank
elevaLed waLer Lanks waLer Lanks gasollne pumps compuLlng pumps waLer pumps car washer
car holsLs Lruck holsLs alr compressors and LlreflaLors 1he sald machlnes and equlpmenL are
loaned by CalLex Lo gas sLaLlon operaLors under an approprlaLe lease agreemenL or recelpL lL ls
sLlpulaLed ln Lhe lease conLracL LhaL Lhe operaLors upon demand shall reLurn Lo CalLex Lhe
machlnes and equlpmenL ln good condlLlon as when recelved excepL ordlnary wear and Lear
CalLex reLalns Lhe ownershlp Lhereof durlng Lhe Lerm of Lhe lease 1he clLy assessor of asay ClLy
characLerlzed Lhe sald lLems of gas sLaLlon equlpmenL and machlnery as Laxable realLy 1he clLy
board of Lax appeals ruled LhaL Lhey are personalLy Cn appeal Lhe CenLral 8oard of AssessmenL
Appeals held LhaL Lhe sald machlnes and equlpmenL are real properLy wlLhln Lhe meanlng of
secLlons 3(k) (m) and 38 of Lhe 8eal roperLy 1ax Code resldenLlal uecree no 464 whlch Look
effecL on !une 1 1974 and LhaL Lhe deflnlLlons of real properLy and personal properLy ln arLlcles
413 and 416 of Lhe Clvll Code are noL appllcable Lo Lhls case

lssue WCn Lhe machlnes and equlpmenL are sub[ecL Lo 8eal roperLy 1ax

Peld We hold LhaL Lhe sald equlpmenL and machlnery as appurLenances Lo Lhe gas sLaLlon bulldlng
or shed owned by CalLex (as Lo whlch lL ls sub[ecL Lo realLy Lax) and whlch flxLures are necessary Lo
Lhe operaLlon of Lhe gas sLaLlon for wlLhouL Lhem Lhe gas sLaLlon would be useless and whlch have
been aLLached or afflxed permanenLly Lo Lhe gas sLaLlon slLe or embedded Lhereln are Laxable
lmprovemenLs and machlnery wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Lhe AssessmenL Law and Lhe 8eal roperLy
1ax Code

CalLex lnvokes Lhe rule LhaL machlnery whlch ls movable ln lLs naLure only becomes lmmoblllzed
when placed ln a planL by Lhe owner of Lhe properLy or planL buL noL when so placed by a LenanL a
usufrucLuary or any person havlng only a Lemporary rlghL unless such person acLed as Lhe agenL of
Lhe owner (uavao Saw Mlll Co vs CasLlllo 61 hll 709)

lmprovemenLs on land are commonly Laxed as realLy even Lhough for some purposes Lhey mlghL be
consldered personalLy (84 C!S 1812 noLes 40 and 41) lL ls a famlllar phenomenon Lo see Lhlngs
classed as real properLy for purposes of LaxaLlon whlch on general prlnclple mlghL be consldered
personal properLy (SLandard Cll Co of new ?ork vs !aramlllo 44 hll 630 633)

1hls case ls also easlly dlsLlngulshable from 8oard of AssessmenL Appeals vs Manlla LlecLrlc Co
119 hll 328 where Meralcos sLeel Lowers were consldered poles wlLhln Lhe meanlng of
paragraph 9 of lLs franchlse whlch exempLs lLs poles from LaxaLlon 1he sLeel Lowers were
consldered personalLy because Lhey were aLLached Lo square meLal frames by means of bolLs and
could be moved from place Lo place when unscrewed and dlsmanLled

nor are CalLexs gas sLaLlon equlpmenL and machlnery Lhe same as Lools and equlpmenL ln Lhe
repalr shop of a bus company whlch were held Lo be personal properLy noL sub[ecL Lo realLy Lax
(Mlndanao 8us Co vs ClLy Assessor 116 hll 301)

1he CenLral 8oard of AssessmenL Appeals dld noL commlL a grave abuse of dlscreLlon ln upholdlng
Lhe clLy assessors ls lmposlLlon of Lhe realLy Lax on CalLexs gas sLaLlon and equlpmenL


MLkALCC vs C8AA
Gk# L47943] May 31 1982
114 SCkA 273

lacLs 1hls case ls abouL Lhe lmposlLlon of Lhe realLy Lax on Lwo oll sLorage Lanks lnsLalled ln 1969
by Manlla LlecLrlc Company on a loL ln San ascual 8aLangas whlch lL leased ln 1968 from CalLex
(hll) lnc 1he Lanks are wlLhln Lhe CalLex reflnery compound 1hey are used for sLorlng fuel oll for
Meralcos power planLs Accordlng Lo Meralco Lhe sLorage Lanks are made of sLeel plaLes welded
and assembled on Lhe spoL 1helr boLLoms resL on a foundaLlon conslsLlng of compacLed earLh as
Lhe ouLermosL layer a sand pad as Lhe lnLermedlaLe layer and a Lwolnch Lhlck blLumlnous asphalL
sLraLum as Lhe Lop layer 1he boLLom of each Lank ls ln conLacL wlLh Lhe asphalL layer

1he sLeel sldes of Lhe Lank are dlrecLly supporLed underneaLh by a clrcular wall made of concreLe
elghLeen lnches Lhlck Lo prevenL Lhe Lank from slldlng Pence accordlng Lo Meralco Lhe Lank ls noL
aLLached Lo lLs foundaLlon lL ls noL anchored or welded Lo Lhe concreLe clrcular wall lLs boLLom
plaLe ls noL aLLached Lo any parL of Lhe foundaLlon by bolLs screws or slmllar devlces 1he Lank
merely slLs on lLs foundaLlon Lach empLy Lank can be floaLed by floodlng lLs dlkelnclosed locaLlon
wlLh waLer four feeL deep

Meralco flled Lhls speclal clvll acLlon of cerLlorarl Lo annul Lhe 8oards declslon and resoluLlon lL
conLends LhaL Lhe 8oard acLed wlLhouL [urlsdlcLlon and commlLLed a grave error of law ln holdlng
LhaL lLs sLorage Lanks are Laxable real properLy

lssue WCn Lhe sald fuel Lanks are sub[ecL Lo 8ealLy 1ax

Peld 1he Lanks are consldered real properLles sub[ecL Lo 8ealLy 1ax We hold LhaL whlle Lhe Lwo
sLorage Lanks are noL embedded ln Lhe land Lhey may neverLheless be consldered as
lmprovemenLs on Lhe land enhanclng lLs uLlllLy and renderlng lL useful Lo Lhe oll lndusLry lL ls
undenlable LhaL Lhe Lwo Lanks have been lnsLalled wlLh some degree of permanence as recepLacles
for Lhe conslderable quanLlLles of oll needed by Meralco for lLs operaLlons

Cll sLorage Lanks were held Lo be Laxable realLy ln SLandard Cll Co of new !ersey vs ALlanLlc ClLy
13 ALl 2nd 271

lor purposes of LaxaLlon Lhe Lerm real properLy may lnclude Lhlngs whlch should generally be
regarded as personal properLy (84 C!S 171 noLe 8) lL ls a famlllar phenomenon Lo see Lhlngs
classed as real properLy for purposes of LaxaLlon whlch on general prlnclple mlghL be consldered
personal properLy (SLandard Cll Co of new ?ork vs !aramlllo 44 hll 630 633)

1he case of 8oard of AssessmenL Appeals vs Manlla LlecLrlc Company 119 hll 328 whereln
Meralcos sLeel Lowers were held noL Lo be sub[ecL Lo realLy Lax ls noL ln polnL because ln LhaL case
Lhe sLeel Lowers were regarded as poles and under lLs franchlse Meralcos poles are exempL from

LaxaLlon Moreover Lhe sLeel Lowers were noL aLLached Lo any land or bulldlng 1hey were
removable from Lhelr meLal frames

nor ls Lhere any parallellsm beLween Lhls case and Mlndanao 8us Co vs ClLy Assessor 116 hll
301 where Lhe Lools and equlpmenL ln Lhe repalr carpenLry and blacksmlLh shops of a
LransporLaLlon company were held noL sub[ecL Lo realLy Lax because Lhey were personal properLy

Laure| v Abrogar
Gk# 1SS076] Ian 13 2009
S76 SCkA 41

lAC1S

Lu1 sued peLlLloner for vlolaLlon of ArL 308 of Lhe 8C or LhefL for allegedly uslng wlLhouL lLs
prevlous knowledge and consenL Lhe lnLernaLlonal long dlsLance calls belonglng Lo Lu1 by
conducLlng lnLernaLlonal Slmple 8esale (lS8) whlch ls a meLhod of rouLlng and compleLlng
lnLernaLlonal long dlsLance calls uslng llnes cables anLenae and/or alr wave frequency whlch
connecL dlrecLly Lo Lhe local or domesLlc exchange faclllLles of Lhe counLry where Lhe call ls
desLlned effecLlvely sLeallng Lhls buslness from Lu1 whlle uslng lLs faclllLles ln Lhe esLlmaLed
amounL of 2037063192 Lo Lhe damage and pre[udlce of Lu1 ln Lhe sald amounL

eLlLloner flled a MoLlon Lo Cuash (wlLh MoLlon Lo uefer ArralgnmenL) on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe
facLual allegaLlons ln Lhe Amended lnformaLlon do noL consLlLuLe Lhe felony of LhefL 1he Lrlal courL
denled Lhe MoLlon Lo Cuash Lhe Amended lnformaLlon as well as peLlLloner's subsequenL MoLlon
for 8econslderaLlon

eLlLloner's speclal clvll acLlon for cerLlorarl was dlsmlssed by Lhe CourL of Appeals 1hus peLlLloner
flled Lhe lnsLanL peLlLlon for revlew wlLh Lhls CourL ln hls peLlLlon for revlew peLlLloner argued LhaL
Lhe 8evlsed enal Code should be lnLerpreLed ln Lhe conLexL of Lhe Clvll Code's deflnlLlon of real
and personal properLy 1he enumeraLlon of real properLles ln ArLlcle 413 of Lhe Clvll Code ls
excluslve such LhaL all Lhose noL lncluded Lhereln are personal properLles Slnce ArLlcle 308 of Lhe
8evlsed enal Code used Lhe words personal properLy wlLhouL quallflcaLlon lL follows LhaL all
personal properLles as undersLood ln Lhe conLexL of Lhe Clvll Code may be Lhe sub[ecL of LhefL
under ArLlcle 308 of Lhe 8evlsed enal Code Lu1 alleges LhaL Lhe lnLernaLlonal calls and buslness
of provldlng LelecommunlcaLlon or Lelephone servlce are personal properLles capable of
approprlaLlon and can be ob[ecLs of LhefL

ln hls CommenL peLlLloner Laurel clalms LhaL a Lelephone call ls a conversaLlon on Lhe phone or a
communlcaLlon carrled ouL uslng Lhe Lelephone lL ls noL synonymous Lo elecLrlc currenL or
lmpulses Pence lL may noL be consldered as personal properLy suscepLlble of approprlaLlon Pe
also lnslsLs LhaL buslness ls noL personal properLy lL ls noL Lhe buslness LhaL ls proLecLed buL
Lhe rlghL Lo carry on a buslness 1hls rlghL ls whaL ls consldered as properLy Slnce Lhe servlces of
Lu1 cannoL be consldered as properLy Lhe same may noL be sub[ecL of LhefL


lSSuL WCn Lhe lnLernaLlonal calls as well as Lhe buslness of provldlng LelecommunlcaLlon or
Lelephone servlce are personal properLles capable of approprlaLlon and can be ob[ecLs of LhefL

PLLu

1he courL granLed Lu1's peLlLlon buL remanded Lhe case Lo Lhe Lrlal courL and Lhe ubllc
rosecuLor of MakaLl ClLy ls hereby ul8LC1Lu Lo amend Lhe Amended lnformaLlon Lo show LhaL Lhe
properLy sub[ecL of Lhe LhefL were servlces and buslness of Lhe prlvaLe offended parLy because Lhe
lnLernaLlonal calls alLhough consldered as personal properLles are noL owned by Lu1 hence
peLlLloner cannoL be llable for LhefL on LhaL maLLer buL Lhe buslness of provldlng
LelecommunlcaLlon ls a personal properLy whlch ls capable of belng approprlaLed hence sub[ecL LoL
LhefL ln explalnlng lLs declslon Lhe courL sald

rlor Lo Lhe passage of Lhe 8evlsed enal Code on uecember 8 1930 Lhe deflnlLlon of Lhe Lerm
personal properLy ln Lhe penal code provlslon on LhefL had been esLabllshed ln hlllpplne
[urlsprudence 1hls CourL ln unlLed SLaLes v CenaLo unlLed SLaLes v Carlos and unlLed SLaLes v
1ambunLlng conslsLenLly ruled LhaL any personal properLy Langlble or lnLanglble corporeal or
lncorporeal capable of approprlaLlon can be Lhe ob[ecL of LhefL

Moreover slnce Lhe passage of Lhe 8evlsed enal Code on uecember 8 1930 Lhe Lerm personal
properLy has had a generally accepLed deflnlLlon ln clvll law ln ArLlcle 333 of Lhe Clvll Code of
Spaln personal properLy ls deflned as anyLhlng suscepLlble of approprlaLlon and noL lncluded ln
Lhe foregolng chapLer (noL real properLy) 1hus Lhe Lerm personal properLy ln Lhe 8evlsed enal
Code should be lnLerpreLed ln Lhe conLexL of Lhe Clvll Code provlslons ln accordance wlLh Lhe rule
on sLaLuLory consLrucLlon LhaL where words have been long used ln a Lechnlcal sense and have
been [udlclally consLrued Lo have a cerLaln meanlng and have been adopLed by Lhe leglslaLure as
havlng a cerLaln meanlng prlor Lo a parLlcular sLaLuLe ln whlch Lhey are used Lhe words used ln
such sLaLuLe should be consLrued accordlng Lo Lhe sense ln whlch Lhey have been prevlously used
ln facL Lhls CourL used Lhe Clvll Code deflnlLlon of personal properLy ln lnLerpreLlng Lhe LhefL
provlslon of Lhe penal code ln unlLed SLaLes v Carlos

1he only requlremenL for a personal properLy Lo be Lhe ob[ecL of LhefL under Lhe penal code ls LhaL
lL be capable of approprlaLlon lL need noL be capable of asporLaLlon whlch ls deflned as
carrylng away7 !urlsprudence ls seLLled LhaL Lo Lake under Lhe LhefL provlslon of Lhe penal
code does noL requlre asporLaLlon or carrylng away

1o approprlaLe means Lo deprlve Lhe lawful owner of Lhe Lhlng9 1he word Lake ln Lhe 8evlsed
enal Code lncludes any acL lnLended Lo Lransfer possesslon whlch as held ln Lhe assalled ueclslon
may be commlLLed Lhrough Lhe use of Lhe offenders' own hands as well as any mechanlcal devlce
such as an access devlce or card as ln Lhe lnsLanL case 1hls lncludes conLrolllng Lhe desLlnaLlon of
Lhe properLy sLolen Lo deprlve Lhe owner of Lhe properLy such as Lhe use of a meLer Lamperlng as
held ln naLlvldad v CourL of Appeals10 use of a devlce Lo fraudulenLly obLaln gas as held ln unlLed
SLaLes v 1ambunLlng and Lhe use of a [umper Lo dlverL elecLrlclLy as held ln Lhe cases of unlLed
SLaLes v CenaLo unlLed SLaLes v Carlos and unlLed SLaLes v Menagas

As lllusLraLed ln Lhe above cases approprlaLlon of forces of naLure whlch are broughL under conLrol
by sclence such as elecLrlcal energy can be achleved by Lamperlng wlLh any apparaLus used for
generaLlng or measurlng such forces of naLure wrongfully redlrecLlng such forces of naLure from
such apparaLus or uslng any devlce Lo fraudulenLly obLaln such forces of naLure ln Lhe lnsLanL

case peLlLloner was charged wlLh engaglng ln lnLernaLlonal Slmple 8esale (lS8) or Lhe unauLhorlzed
rouLlng and compleLlng of lnLernaLlonal long dlsLance calls uslng llnes cables anLennae and/or alr
wave frequency and connecLlng Lhese calls dlrecLly Lo Lhe local or domesLlc exchange faclllLles of
Lhe counLry where desLlned

1he rlghL of Lhe ownershlp of elecLrlc currenL ls secured by arLlcles 317 and 318 of Lhe enal Code
Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhese arLlcles ln cases of subLracLlon of gas a fluld used for llghLlng and ln some
respecLs resembllng elecLrlclLy ls conflrmed by Lhe rule lald down ln Lhe declslons of Lhe supreme
courL of Spaln of !anuary 20 1887 and Aprll 1 1897 consLrulng and enforclng Lhe provlslons of
arLlcles 330 and 331 of Lhe enal Code of LhaL counLry arLlcles 317 and 318 of Lhe code ln force ln
Lhese lslands

1he acLs of subLracLlon lnclude (a) Lamperlng wlLh any wlre meLer or oLher apparaLus lnsLalled
or used for generaLlng conLalnlng conducLlng or measurlng elecLrlclLy Lelegraph or Lelephone
servlce (b) Lapplng or oLherwlse wrongfully deflecLlng or Laklng any elecLrlc currenL from such
wlre meLer or oLher apparaLus and (c) uslng or en[oylng Lhe beneflLs of any devlce by means of
whlch one may fraudulenLly obLaln any currenL of elecLrlclLy or any Lelegraph or Lelephone servlce

ln Lhe lnsLanL case Lhe acL of conducLlng lS8 operaLlons by lllegally connecLlng varlous equlpmenL
or apparaLus Lo prlvaLe respondenL Lu1's Lelephone sysLem Lhrough whlch peLlLloner ls able Lo
resell or rerouLe lnLernaLlonal long dlsLance calls uslng respondenL Lu1's faclllLles consLlLuLes all
Lhree acLs of subLracLlon menLloned above

1he buslness of provldlng LelecommunlcaLlon or Lelephone servlce ls llkewlse personal properLy
whlch can be Lhe ob[ecL of LhefL under ArLlcle 308 of Lhe 8evlsed enal Code 8uslness may be
approprlaLed under SecLlon 2 of AcL no 3932 (8ulk Sales Law) hence could be ob[ecL of LhefL
lnLeresL ln buslness was noL speclflcally enumeraLed as personal properLy ln Lhe Clvll Code ln force
aL Lhe Llme Lhe above declslon was rendered ?eL lnLeresL ln buslness was declared Lo be personal
properLy slnce lL ls capable of approprlaLlon and noL lncluded ln Lhe enumeraLlon of real properLles
ArLlcle 414 of Lhe Clvll Code provldes LhaL all Lhlngs whlch are or may be Lhe ob[ecL of approprlaLlon
are consldered elLher real properLy or personal properLy 8uslness ls llkewlse noL enumeraLed as
personal properLy under Lhe Clvll Code !usL llke lnLeresL ln buslness however lL may be
approprlaLed

lL was conceded LhaL ln maklng Lhe lnLernaLlonal phone calls Lhe human volce ls converLed lnLo
elecLrlcal lmpulses or elecLrlc currenL whlch are LransmlLLed Lo Lhe parLy called A Lelephone call
Lherefore ls elecLrlcal energy lL was also held ln Lhe assalled ueclslon LhaL lnLanglble properLy such
as elecLrlcal energy ls capable of approprlaLlon because lL may be Laken and carrled away
LlecLrlclLy ls personal properLy under ArLlcle 416 (3) of Lhe Clvll Code whlch enumeraLes forces of
naLure whlch are broughL under conLrol by sclence

lndeed whlle lL may be conceded LhaL lnLernaLlonal long dlsLance calls Lhe maLLer alleged Lo be
sLolen ln Lhe lnsLanL case Lake Lhe form of elecLrlcal energy lL cannoL be sald LhaL such
lnLernaLlonal long dlsLance calls were personal properLles belonglng Lo Lu1 slnce Lhe laLLer could
noL have acqulred ownershlp over such calls Lu1 merely encodes augmenLs enhances decodes
and LransmlLs sald calls uslng lLs complex communlcaLlons lnfrasLrucLure and faclllLles Lu1 noL
belng Lhe owner of sald Lelephone calls Lhen lL could noL valldly clalm LhaL such Lelephone calls
were Laken wlLhouL lLs consenL lL ls Lhe use of Lhese communlcaLlons faclllLles wlLhouL Lhe consenL
of Lu1 LhaL consLlLuLes Lhe crlme of LhefL whlch ls Lhe unlawful Laklng of Lhe Lelephone servlces
and buslness

Chapter 3 roperty In ke|at|on to the erson to Whom |t 8e|ongs (Arts 41942S)

rov|s|ons Common to the reced|ng Chapters (Art 426)

@|t|e II Cwnersh|p (Arts 427483)


Chapter 1 Cwnersh|p |n Genera| (Arts 427439)


Acap vs CA
Gk# 118114 ]Dec 07 199S
2S1 SCkA 30

lAC1S

lellxberLo vasquez lnherlLed a parcel of land from hls parenLs Lhe ownershlp of whlch he
Lransferred ln favor of Cosme ldo by execuLlng a ueclaraLlon of Pelrshlp and ueed of AbsoluLe
Sale" ldo however dled and was survlved by hls wlfe All of Lhelr helrs execuLed ueclaraLlon of
Pelrshlp wlLh walver of rlghLs" for Lhe Lransfer of sald land Lo prlvaLe respondenL ue los 8eyes lL
appeared however LhaL even durlng Lhe Llme LhaL Lhe land was allegedly Lransferred Lo
respondenL peLlLloner Acap remalned as Lhe LenanL of Lhe land 8y reason of Lhe Lransfer
respondenL now wanLed Lhe lease renLals Lo be pald Lo hlm lnlLlally boLh parLles allegedly agreed
buL when respondenL demanded for Lhe paymenL peLlLloner regused Lo recognlze respondenL as
owner of Lhe land 8espondenL was Lhus prompLed Lo flle a complalnL for recovery of possesslon of
Lhe land agalnsL peLlLloner lL was however Lhe conLenLlon of peLlLloner LhaL he had no knowledge
of any sale or Lransfer of Lhe land Lo respondenL 1he Lrlal courL rendered a declslon ln favor of
respondenL and recognlzed Lhe laLLer's ownershlp over Lhe land When peLlLloner appealed CA
afflrmed Lhe assalled declslon rullng LhaL respondenL acqulred ownershlp over Lhe land Lhrough
Lhe documenL execuLed

lSSuL WCn respondenL had acqulred ownershlp of Lhe land Lhrough Lhe ueclaraLlon of Pelrshlp
and ueed of AbsoluLe Sale

PLLu

no
ln Lhe case aL bench Lhe Lrlal courL was obvlously confused as Lo Lhe naLure and effecL of Lhe
ueclaraLlon of Pelrshlp and Walver of 8lghLs equaLlng Lhe same wlLh a conLracL (deed) of sale
1hey are noL Lhe same

ln a ConLracL of Sale one of Lhe conLracLlng parLles obllgaLes hlmself Lo Lransfer Lhe ownershlp of
and Lo dellver a deLermlnaLe Lhlng and Lhe oLher parLy Lo pay a prlce cerLaln ln money or lLs
equlvalenL 9

upon Lhe oLher hand a declaraLlon of helrshlp and walver of rlghLs operaLes as a publlc lnsLrumenL
when flled wlLh Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds whereby Lhe lnLesLaLe helrs ad[udlcaLe and dlvlde Lhe esLaLe
lefL by Lhe decedenL among Lhemselves as Lhey see flL lL ls ln effecL an exLra[udlclal seLLlemenL
beLween Lhe helrs under 8ule 74 of Lhe 8ules of CourL 10

Pence Lhere ls a marked dlfference beLween a sale of heredlLary rlghLs and a walver of heredlLary
rlghLs 1he flrsL presumes Lhe exlsLence of a conLracL or deed of sale beLween Lhe parLles 11 1he
second ls Lechnlcally speaklng a mode of exLlncLlon of ownershlp where Lhere ls an abdlcaLlon or
lnLenLlonal rellnqulshmenL of a known rlghL wlLh knowledge of lLs exlsLence and lnLenLlon Lo
rellnqulsh lL ln favor of oLher persons who are cohelrs ln Lhe successlon 12 rlvaLe respondenL
belng Lhen a sLranger Lo Lhe successlon of Cosme ldo cannoL concluslvely clalm ownershlp over
Lhe sub[ecL loL on Lhe sole basls of Lhe walver documenL whlch nelLher reclLes Lhe elemenLs of
elLher a sale 13 or a donaLlon 14 or any oLher derlvaLlve mode of acqulrlng ownershlp

lL ls even erroneous Lo sLaLe LhaL a sale had Lransplred beLween Lhe helrs of ldo and respondenL
by vlrLue of sald declaraLlon"
Cn record LxhlblL u whlch ls Lhe ueclaraLlon of Pelrshlp and Walver of 8lghLs was excluded by
Lhe Lrlal courL ln lLs order daLed 27 AugusL 1990 because Lhe documenL was nelLher reglsLered wlLh
Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds nor ldenLlfled by Lhe helrs of Cosme ldo 1here ls no showlng LhaL prlvaLe
respondenL had Lhe same documenL aLLached Lo or made parL of Lhe record WhaL Lhe Lrlal courL
admlLLed was Annex L a noLlce of adverse clalm flled wlLh Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds whlch conLalned
Lhe ueclaraLlon of Pelrshlp wlLh Walver of rlghLs and was annoLaLed aL Lhe back of Lhe Crlglnal
CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle Lo Lhe land ln quesLlon

A noLlce of adverse clalm by lLs naLure does noL however prove prlvaLe respondenLs ownershlp
over Lhe LenanLed loL A noLlce of adverse clalm ls noLhlng buL a noLlce of a clalm adverse Lo Lhe
reglsLered owner Lhe valldlLy of whlch ls yeL Lo be esLabllshed ln courL aL some fuLure daLe and ls
no beLLer Lhan a noLlce of lls pendens whlch ls a noLlce of a case already pendlng ln courL 13

lL ls Lo be noLed LhaL whlle Lhe exlsLence of sald adverse clalm was duly proven Lhere ls no
evldence whaLsoever LhaL a deed of sale was execuLed beLween Cosme ldos helrs and prlvaLe
respondenL Lransferrlng Lhe rlghLs of ldos helrs Lo Lhe land ln favor of prlvaLe respondenL rlvaLe
respondenLs rlghL or lnLeresL Lherefore ln Lhe LenanLed loL remalns an adverse clalm whlch cannoL
by lLself be sufflclenL Lo cancel Lhe CC1 Lo Lhe land and LlLle Lhe same ln prlvaLe respondenLs name

Catho||c 8|shop of 8a|anga vs CA
Gk# 112S19] Nov 14 1996
264 SCkA 181

lAC1S
A confllcL arose wlLh respecL Lo ownershlp of LoL 1272 locaLed somewhere ln 8alanga 8aLaan Sald
loL was allegedly ceded Lhru donaLlon by Lhe Lhe Lhen parlsh prlesL of CaLhollc Archblshop of
Manlla prlor LhereLo or on AugusL 23 1936 ln favor of Lhe predecessor of prlvaLe respondenL Sald
predecessor before her deaLh was able Lo glve sald loL Lo prlvaLe respondenL also Lhrough a deed
of donaLlon 1he deed was however refused Lo be reglsLered for unknown reasons by Lhe
8eglsLered of ueeds uesplLe Lhls however Lhe laLLer when hls predecessor dled ln 1943 wlLhouL
an lssu had allegedly been ln open and conLlnuous possesslon of sald loL bullL a house Lhereon and

declared lL for Lax purposes unLll hls ownershlp was dlsLurbed on november 3 1983 or more Lhan
49 years afLer sald donaLlon by peLlLloner (who obLalned lL from 8oman CaLhollc 8lshop of
8alanga and Lhe laLLer from 8oman CaLhollc 8lshop of Manlla) when peLlLloner flled a complalnL
agalnsL prlvaLe respondenL ln lLs complalnL peLlLloner alleged LhaL durlng Lhe !apanese
occupaLlon wlLhouL lLs knowledge and prlor consenL prlvaLe respondenL enLered and occupled Lhe
sub[ecL properLy LhaL desplLe requesLs by peLlLloner prlvaLe respondenL refused Lo vacaLe Lhe
properLy ln quesLlon
rlvaLe respondenL flled a moLlon Lo dlsmlss Lhe case on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe acLlon has been
barred by prescrlpLlon for havlng been flled afLer more Lhan 49 years afLer Lhe donaLlon eLlLloner
flled an opposlLlon LhereLo alleglng LhaL Lhe defense of prescrlpLlon was noL ralsed ln a Llmely flled
moLlon Lo dlsmlss and as an afflrmaLlve defense ln Lhe answer

1he Lrlal courL ruled ln favor of peLlLloner Cn appeal Lhe CA sLaLed LhaL prlvaLe respondenL could
noL have acqulred ownershlp over Lhe sub[ecL properLy Lhrough acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon because
Lhe same havlng been duly reglsLered under Lhe 1orrens sysLem LlLle LhereLo was lndefeaslble

noneLheless respondenL CourL of Appeals ulLlmaLely ruled LhaL under Lhe docLrlne of laches Lhe
consequence of peLlLloners lnacLlon for 49 years slnce Lhe execuLlon of Lhe deed of donaLlon
desplLe lLs apparenLly undenlable knowledge of prlvaLe respondenLs adverse peaceful and
conLlnuous possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy ln Lhe concepL of an owner from 1936 Lo Lhe
lnsLlLuLlon of Lhe recovery sulL ln 1983 ls LhaL lL has losL lLs rlghLs Lo Lhe sub[ecL properLy and can
no longer recover Lhe same due Lo lLs own lnexcusable negllgence and grave lack of vlgllance ln
proLecLlng lLs rlghLs over a Lremendously long perlod of Llme

lSSuL WCn Lhe ownershlp of Lhe sald loL by prlvaLe respondenL whlch ls premlsed on a duly
accepLed donaLlon alLhough unreglsLered prevall over Lhe LlLled ownershlp of peLlLloner

PLLu ?es
A [usL falr and compleLe resoluLlon of Lhe presenL case necesslLaLes Lhe conslderaLlon and Lhe
appllcaLlon of Lhe docLrlne of laches whlch ls noL Lhe same as buL ls undoubLedly closely relaLed Lo
Lhe lssue of prescrlpLlon whlch was properly ralsed by prlvaLe respondenL before Lhe respondenL
CourL of Appeals
Laches means Lhe fallure or neglecL for an unreasonable and unexplalned lengLh of Llme Lo do LhaL
whlch by exerclslng due dlllgence could or should have been done earller lL ls negllgence or
omlsslon Lo asserL a rlghL wlLhln a reasonable Llme warranLlng Lhe presumpLlon LhaL Lhe parLy
enLlLled Lo asserL lL elLher has abandoned or decllned Lo asserL lL lL has also been deflned as such
neglecL or omlsslon Lo asserL a rlghL Laken ln con[uncLlon wlLh Lhe lapse of Llme and oLher
clrcumsLances causlng pre[udlce Lo an adverse parLy as wlll operaLe as a bar ln equlLy

1he prlnclple of laches ls a creaLlon of equlLy whlch as such ls applled noL really Lo penallze neglecL
or sleeplng upon ones rlghL buL raLher Lo avold recognlzlng a rlghL when Lo do so would resulL ln a
clearly lnequlLable slLuaLlon As an equlLable defense laches does noL concern lLself wlLh Lhe
characLer of Lhe defendanLs LlLle buL only wlLh wheLher or noL by reason of Lhe plalnLlffs long ln
acLlon or lnexcusable neglecL he should be barred from asserLlng Lhls clalm aL all because Lo allow
hlm Lo do so would be lnequlLable and un[usL Lo Lhe defendanL

1he followlng are Lhe essenLlal elemenLs of laches

(1) ConducL on Lhe parL of Lhe defendanL or of one under whom he clalms glvlng rlse Lo
Lhe slLuaLlon complalned of
(2) uelay ln asserLlng complalnanLs rlghL afLer he had knowledge of Lhe defendanLs
conducL and afLer he has an opporLunlLy Lo sue
(3) Lack of knowledge or noLlce on Lhe parL of Lhe defendanL LhaL Lhe complalnanL would
asserL Lhe rlghL on whlch he bases hls sulL and
(4) ln[ury or pre[udlce Lo Lhe defendanL ln Lhe evenL rellef ls accorded Lo Lhe complalnanL

under Lhe presenL clrcumsLances all of Lhe aforegolng elemenLs are aLLendanL ln Lhls case
Cn or some Llme before AugusL 23 1936 8ev lr Marlano Sarlll Lhe parlsh prlesL and
admlnlsLraLor of Lhe church properLy ln Lhe MunlclpallLy of 8alanga 8aLaan execuLed a deed of
donaLlon over a 263square meLer church loL ln favor of Ana de los 8eyes and her helrs ln
recognlLlon of her long and saLlsfacLory servlce Lo Lhe church of 8alanga 8aLaan lor some reason
or anoLher Lhe sald deed was refused reglsLraLlon by Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds Powever she accepLed
Lhe donaLlon lndlcaLed such accepLance ln Lhe sald deed occupled Lhe donaLed properLy and
exerclsed acLs of ownershlp Lhereupon

ln 1943 Lhe donee Ana de los 8eyes dled wlLhouL lssue She had however glven Lhe sub[ecL
properLy Lo her nephew who ls Lhe prlvaLe respondenL ln Lhe lnsLanL case upon accepLance of Lhe
glfL prlvaLe respondenL lmmedlaLely Look possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy ln Lhe concepL of
owner bullL hls house Lhereon and LhenceforLh pald land Laxes Lherefor afLer declarlng Lhe sub[ecL
properLy for LhaL purpose

1he acL of peLlLlonerdefendanL LhaL culmlnaLed ln Lhe flllng of Lhe presenL acLlon ls Lhus clearly hls
occupaLlon slnce 1943 of Lhe sub[ecL properLy ln Lhe concepL of owner ln conLlnuaLlon of Lhe
occupaLlon of Lhe same naLure regardlng Lhe same properLy by Lhe donee Ana de los 8eyes sLarLlng
ln 1936 undoubLedly Lhe flrsL elemenL of laches exlsLs

1he second elemenL also exlsLs ln Lhls case 1he second elemenL ls LhreeLlered (a) knowledge of
defendanLs acLlon (b) opporLunlLy Lo sue defendanL afLer obLalnlng such knowledge and (c) delay
ln Lhe flllng of such sulL eLlLloner ln hls complalnL flled ln Lhe Lrlal courL alleged LhaL wlLhouL lLs
consenL prlvaLe respondenL enLered and occupled Lhe sub[ecL properLy durlng Lhe Second World
War 8y lLs own admlsslon Lherefore peLlLloner was clearly aware of prlvaLe respondenLs
possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy ln Lhe concepL of owner eLlLloner dld noL also rebuL Lhe
LesLlmony of lLs own auLhorlzed represenLaLlve and sole wlLness one Crlspulo 1orrlco LhaL Lhe
sub[ecL properLy was so proxlmaLely locaLed Lo Lhe resL of peLlLloners church properLy as Lo
foreclose asserLlon of lgnorance of prlvaLe respondenLs possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy on Lhe
parL of peLlLloner

lrom LhaL Llme durlng Lhe Second World War Lo 1983 when peLlLloner acLually commenced sulL
agalnsL prlvaLe respondenL Lhere was doubLlessly all Lhe opporLunlLy Lo flle Lhe approprlaLe acLlon
Lo have Lhe donaLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy Lo Ana de los 8eyes and her helrs declared null and
vold and Lo demand reconveyance of sald properLy from lLs presenL occupanLs

noLwlLhsLandlng such opporLunlLy avallable Lo peLlLloner however forLy (40) years had Lo flrsL
pass by for peLlLloner Lo flnally lnsLlLuLe Lhe approprlaLe courL proceedlngs As such Lhe second

elemenL of knowledge opporLunlLy Lo flle sulL and delay ln flllng such sulL ls undoubLedly presenL
ln Lhe lnsLanL conLroversy

1he Lhlrd elemenL of laches ls llkewlse presenL 1here ls noLhlng on Lhe record LhaL lmpresses us as
clear evldence of aL leasL an lnkllng on Lhe parL of prlvaLe respondenL as Lo peLlLloners serlous
lnLenLlon Lo revoke Lhe donaLed properLy 1here was nelLher a demand leLLer nor poslLlve
LesLlmony of any person who acLually lnformed prlvaLe respondenL of peLlLloners lnLenLlons ln
oLher words prlvaLe respondenL manlfesLly had every reason Lo belleve LhaL wlLh Lhe passlng of
almosL half a cenLury slnce hls predecessorlnlnLeresL accepLed Lhe donaLed properLy and wlLhouL
unamblguous lnLlmaLlon of peLlLloners nonrecognlLlon of such donaLlon he was secure ln hls
possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy ln Lhe concepL of owner

ln Lhe llghL of all Lhe above lL goes wlLhouL saylng LhaL prlvaLe respondenL wlll suffer lrreparable
ln[ury under Lhe mosL unfalr clrcumsLances were we Lo dlsregard peLlLloners lnacLlon for more
Lhan forLy (40) years ln asserLlng lLs rlghLs

ln Lhls case peLlLloner flled lLs complalnL ln courL only afLer forLy nlne (49) years had lapsed slnce
Lhe donaLlon ln lLs behalf of Lhe sub[ecL properLy Lo prlvaLe respondenLs predecessorlnlnLeresL
1here ls nary an explanaLlon for Lhe long delay ln Lhe flllng by peLlLloner of Lhe complalnL ln Lhe
case aL bench and LhaL lnacLlon for an unreasonable and unexplalned lengLh of Llme consLlLuLes
laches As such peLlLloner cannoL clalm nulllLy of Lhe donaLlon as an excuse Lo avold Lhe
consequences of lLs own un[usLlfled lnacLlon and as a basls for Lhe asserLlon of a rlghL on whlch
Lhey had slepL for so long 30 CourLs cannoL look wlLh favor aL parLles who by Lhelr sllence delay
and lnacLlon knowlngly lnduce anoLher Lo spend Llme efforL and expense ln culLlvaLlng Lhe land
paylng Laxes and maklng lmprovemenLs Lhereon for an unreasonable perlod only Lo sprlng an
ambush and clalm LlLle when Lhe possessors efforLs and Lhe rlse of land values offer an opporLunlLy
Lo make easy proflL aL Lhelr own expense 31 Conslderable delay ln asserLlng ones rlghL before a
courL of [usLlce ls sLrongly persuaslve of Lhe lack of merlL of hls clalm slnce lL ls human naLure for a
person Lo enforce hls rlghL when same ls LhreaLened or lnvaded Lhus lL can also be sald LhaL
peLlLloner ls esLopped by laches from quesLlonlng prlvaLe respondenLs ownershlp of Lhe sub[ecL
properLy 32 AL any raLe peLlLloners rlghL Lo recover Lhe possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy from
prlvaLe respondenL has by Lhe laLLers long perlod of possesslon and by peLlLloners lnacLlon and
neglecL been converLed lnLo a sLale demand Such passlvlLy ln Lhe face of whaL mlghL have glven
rlse Lo an acLlon ln courL ls vlslLed wlLh Lhe loss of such rlghL and lgnorance resulLlng from
lnexcusable negllgence does noL sufflce Lo explaln such fallure Lo flle seasonably Lhe necessary sulL

Chapter 2 k|ght of Access|on (Art 44047S)

ecson vs CA
Gk# 11S814] May 26 199S
244 SCkA 407

lAC1S

eLlLloner was Lhe reglsLered owner of a commerclal loL wlLh an aparLmenL bulldlng lor fallure Lo
pay Lhe realLy Laxes Lhereon Lhe loL was sold aL a publlc aucLlon Lo nepumoceno who ln Lurn sold lL
Lo spouses naguld eLlLloner challenged Lhe valldlLy of Lhe sale and alleged LhaL Lhe sale dld noL
lnclude Lhe bulldlng 1he 81C rendered a declslon ln favor of prlvaLe respondenL buL ruled LhaL
Lhere ls no legal basls Lo conclude LhaL Lhe sale lncluded Lhe bulldlng When Lhe case was appealed
Lhe CA afflrmed Lhe 81C's declslon and also agreed wlLh Lhe 81C LhaL Lhe sale of Lhe loL dld noL
lnclude Lhe bulldlng ln Lhe meanLlme Lhe spouses naguld flled a moLlon for dellvery of possesslon
of Lhe loL and Lhe aparLmenL bulldlng clLlng arLlcle 346 of Lhe Clvll Code ln Lhelr complalnL Lhey
admlLLed LhaL Lhe bulldlng was under lease by some LenanLs 1hey furLher agreed Lo comply wlLh
Lhe rules on relmbursemenL of Lhe value of Lhe bulldlng for accordlng Lo Lhem peLlLloner was a
bullder ln good falLh 1he Lrlal courL rendered Lhe assalled declslon orderlng Lhe spouses among
oLhers Lo relmburse Lhe peLlLloner wlLh Lhe value of Lhe bulldlng Lo offseL Lhe renLal paymenLs
prevlously collecLed by peLlLloner from Lhe LenanLs of Lhe loL from Lhe value of Lhe bulldlng whlch
wlll be relmbursed by Lhe spouses Lo peLlLloner eLlLloner flled a speclal clvll acLlon for cerLlorarl

lSSuL WCn peLlLloner has a rlghL Lo be relmbursed for Lhe value of Lhe bulldlng and Lhe
lmprovemenLs Lhereon

PLLu ?es
8y lLs clear language ArLlcle 448 refers Lo a land whose ownershlp ls clalmed by Lwo or more
parLles one of whom has bullL some works or sown or planLed someLhlng 1he bulldlng sowlng or
planLlng may have been made ln good falLh or ln bad falLh 1he rule on good falLh lald down ln
ArLlcle 326 of Lhe Clvll Code shall be applled ln deLermlnlng wheLher a bullder sower or planLer had
acLed ln good falLh

ArLlcle 448 does noL apply Lo a case where Lhe owner of Lhe land ls Lhe bullder sower or planLer
who Lhen laLer loses ownershlp of Lhe land by sale or donaLlon 1hls CourL sald so ln Coleongco vs
8egalado

ArLlcle 361 of Lhe old Clvll Code ls noL appllcable ln Lhls case for 8egalado consLrucLed Lhe house
on hls own land before he sold sald land Lo Coleongco ArLlcle 361 applles only ln cases where a
person consLrucLs a bulldlng on Lhe land of anoLher ln good or ln bad falLh as Lhe case may be lL
does noL apply Lo a case where a person consLrucLs a bulldlng on hls own land for Lhen Lhere can
be no quesLlon as Lo good or bad falLh on Lhe parL of Lhe bullder

Llsewlse sLaLed where Lhe Lrue owner hlmself ls Lhe bullder of works on hls own land Lhe lssue of
good falLh or bad falLh ls enLlrely lrrelevanL

1hus ln sLrlcL polnL of law ArLlcle 448 ls noL apposlLe Lo Lhe case aL bar neverLheless we belleve
LhaL Lhe provlslon Lhereln on lndemnlLy may be applled by analogy conslderlng LhaL Lhe prlmary
lnLenL of ArLlcle 448 ls Lo avold a sLaLe of forced coownershlp and LhaL Lhe parLles lncludlng Lhe
Lwo courLs below ln Lhe maln agree LhaL ArLlcles 448 and 346 of Lhe Clvll Code are appllcable and
lndemnlLy for Lhe lmprovemenLs may be pald alLhough Lhey dlffer as Lo Lhe basls of Lhe lndemnlLy

ArLlcle 346 does noL speclflcally sLaLe how Lhe value of Lhe useful lmprovemenLs should be
deLermlned 1he respondenL courL and Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs espouse Lhe bellef LhaL Lhe cosL of
consLrucLlon of Lhe aparLmenL bulldlng ln 1963 and noL lLs currenL markeL value ls sufflclenL
relmbursemenL for necessary and useful lmprovemenLs made by Lhe peLlLloner 1hls poslLlon ls
however noL ln consonance wlLh prevlous rullngs of Lhls CourL ln slmllar cases ln !avler vs
Concepclon !r Lhls CourL pegged Lhe value of Lhe useful lmprovemenLs conslsLlng of varlous frulLs

bamboos a house and camarln made of sLrong maLerlal based on Lhe markeL value of Lhe sald
lmprovemenLs ln SarmlenLo vs Agana desplLe Lhe flndlng LhaL Lhe useful lmprovemenL a
resldenLlal house was bullL ln 1967 aL a cosL of beLween elghL Lhousand pesos (800000) Lo Len
Lhousand pesos(1000000) Lhe landowner was ordered Lo relmburse Lhe bullder ln Lhe amounL
of forLy Lhousand pesos (4000000) Lhe value of Lhe house aL Lhe Llme of Lhe Lrlal ln Lhe same
way Lhe landowner was requlred Lo pay Lhe presenL value of Lhe house a useful lmprovemenL
ln Lhe case of ue Cuzman vs ue la luenLe clLed by Lhe peLlLloner

1he ob[ecLlve of ArLlcle 346 of Lhe Clvll Code ls Lo admlnlsLer [usLlce beLween Lhe parLles lnvolved
ln Lhls regard Lhls CourL had long ago sLaLed ln 8lvera vs 8oman CaLhollc Archblshop of Manlla
LhaL Lhe sald provlslon was formulaLed ln Lrylng Lo ad[usL Lhe rlghLs of Lhe owner and possessor ln
good falLh of a plece of land Lo admlnlsLer compleLe [usLlce Lo boLh of Lhem ln such a way as
nelLher one nor Lhe oLher may enrlch hlmself of LhaL whlch does noL belong Lo hlm Culded by Lhls
precepL lL ls Lherefore Lhe currenL markeL value of Lhe lmprovemenLs whlch should be made Lhe
basls of relmbursemenL A conLrary rullng would un[usLly enrlch Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs who
would oLherwlse be allowed Lo acqulre a hlghly valued lncomeyleldlng fourunlL aparLmenL
bulldlng for a measly amounL ConsequenLly Lhe parLles should Lherefore be allowed Lo adduce
evldence on Lhe presenL markeL value of Lhe aparLmenL bulldlng upon whlch Lhe Lrlal courL should
base lLs flndlng as Lo Lhe amounL of relmbursemenL Lo be pald by Lhe landowner

1he Lrlal courL also erred ln orderlng Lhe peLlLloner Lo pay monLhly renLals equal Lo Lhe aggregaLe
renLals pald by Lhe lessees of Lhe aparLmenL bulldlng Slnce Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs have opLed Lo
approprlaLe Lhe aparLmenL bulldlng Lhe peLlLloner ls Lhus enLlLled Lo Lhe possesslon and en[oymenL
of Lhe aparLmenL bulldlng unLll he ls pald Lhe proper lndemnlLy as well as of Lhe porLlon of Lhe loL
where Lhe bulldlng has been consLrucLed 1hls ls so because Lhe rlghL Lo reLaln Lhe lmprovemenLs
whlle Lhe correspondlng lndemnlLy ls noL pald lmplles Lhe Lenancy or possesslon ln facL of Lhe land
on whlch lL ls bullL planLed or sown 18 1he peLlLloner noL havlng been so pald he was enLlLled Lo
reLaln ownershlp of Lhe bulldlng and necessarlly Lhe lncome Lherefrom

lL follows Loo LhaL Lhe CourL of Appeals erred noL only ln upholdlng Lhe Lrlal courLs deLermlnaLlon
of Lhe lndemnlLy buL also ln orderlng Lhe peLlLloner Lo accounL for Lhe renLals of Lhe aparLmenL
bulldlng from 23 !une 1993 Lo 23 SepLember 1993


Narvaez v A|c|so
Gk# 16S907 ]Iu|y 27 2009
S94 SCkA 60

lAC1S
8espondenL owns a parcel of land slLuaLed ln 8engueL whlch she allegedly sold wlLh rlghL Lo
repurchase flrsL Lo Sansano ln 1979 whlch he laLer repurchased and second Lo 8aeL ln 1980
8aeL ln Lurn sold Lhe land Lo spouses narvaez ln 1981 As per demand of respondenL however Lhe
deed of sale beLween 8aeL and narvaez conLalned a sLlpulaLlon whlch allows respondenL Lo
repurchase sald land from spouses narvaez 1he Spouses narvaez furnlshed respondenL wlLh a
copy of Lhe ueed Corollary Lo Lhe sald sale spouses narvaez bullL a commerclal bulldlng on Lhe
sald land When respondenL was abouL Lo exerclse lLs rlghL Lo repurchase she and Lhe spouses
narvaez dld noL agree wlLh Lhe selllng prlce prompLlng respondenL Lo flle a complalnL praylng for
Lhe cancellaLlon of Lhe 1979 1980 and 1981 sale alleglng LhaL her Lrue lnLenLlon was Lo morLgage
Lhe land and noL Lo sell lL and also praylng LhaL spouses narvaez should reconvey Lhe land Lo her
1he courL rendered a declslon declarlng LhaL Lhe repurchase ln Lhe 1979 sale becomes funcLus
offlclo when she repurchased Lhe properLy Lhe acLlon Lo annul Lhe 1980 sale had prescrlbed and
LhaL she had no legal personallLy Lo annul Lhe 1981 sale buL she could repurchase Lhe land and
approprlaLe Lhe commerclal bulldlng afLer paymenL of Lhe lndemnlLy equlvalenL Lo onehalf of lLs
markeL value or sell Lhe land Lo spouses narvaez 1he spouses appealed 1he CA rendered a
declslon applylng ArL 448 of Lhe Clvll Code Lo Lhe exLenL of declarlng LhaL Lhe Spouses narvaez
were bullders ln good falLh and LhaL respondenL could elLher approprlaLe Lhe commerclal bulldlng
afLer paymenL of Lhe lndemnlLy or obllge Lhe Spouses narvaez Lo pay Lhe prlce of Lhe land unless
Lhe prlce was conslderably more Lhan LhaL of Lhe bulldlng


lSSuL WCn ArL 448 of Lhe Clvll Code ls appllcable ln Lhls case such LhaL respondenL could elLher
approprlaLe Lhe commerclal bulldlng afLer paymenL of Lhe lndemnlLy or obllge Lhe Spouses narvaez
Lo pay Lhe prlce of Lhe land unless Lhe prlce was conslderably more Lhan LhaL of Lhe bulldlng

PLLu no

ArLlcle 448 ls lnappllcable ln cases lnvolvlng conLracLs of sale wlLh rlghL of repurchase lL ls
lnappllcable when Lhe owner of Lhe land ls Lhe bullder sower or planLer ln ecson v CourL of
Appeals26 Lhe CourL held LhaL

ArLlcle 448 does noL apply Lo a case where Lhe owner of Lhe land ls Lhe bullder sower or planLer
who Lhen laLer loses ownershlp of Lhe land by sale or donaLlon

ArLlcle 448 ls lnappllcable ln Lhe presenL case because Lhe Spouses narvaez bullL Lhe commerclal
bulldlng on Lhe land LhaL Lhey own 8esldes Lo compel Lhem Lo buy Lhe land whlch Lhey own
would be absurd

ln a sale wlLh rlghL of repurchase Lhe appllcable provlslons are ArLlcles 1606 and 1616 of Lhe Clvll
Code noL ArLlcle 448 ArLlcles 1606 and 1616 sLaLe

ArL 1606 1he rlghL referred Lo ln ArLlcle 1601 ln Lhe absence of an express agreemenL shall lasL
four years from Lhe daLe of Lhe conLracLlawph!l

Should Lhere be an agreemenL Lhe perlod cannoL exceed Len years

Powever Lhe vendor may sLlll exerclse Lhe rlghL Lo repurchase wlLhln LhlrLy days from Lhe Llme
flnal [udgmenL was rendered ln a clvll acLlon on Lhe basls LhaL Lhe conLracL was a Lrue sale wlLh
rlghL Lo repurchase

ArL 1616 1he vendor cannoL avall hlmself of Lhe rlghL of repurchase wlLhouL reLurnlng Lo Lhe
vendee Lhe prlce of Lhe sale and ln addlLlon

(1) 1he expenses of Lhe conLracL and any oLher leglLlmaLe paymenLs made by reason of Lhe sale

(2) 1he necessary and useful expenses made on Lhe Lhlng sold

under ArLlcle 1616 Alclso may exerclse her rlghL of redempLlon by paylng Lhe Spouses narvaez (1)
Lhe prlce of Lhe sale (2) Lhe expenses of Lhe conLracL (3) leglLlmaLe paymenLs made by reason of
Lhe sale and (4) Lhe necessary and useful expenses made on Lhe Lhlng sold ln Lhe presenL case Lhe
cosL of Lhe bulldlng consLlLuLes a useful expense useful expenses lnclude lmprovemenLs whlch
augmenL Lhe value of Lhe land28

under Lhe flrsL paragraph of ArLlcle 1606 Alclso had four years from 1981 Lo repurchase Lhe
properLy slnce Lhere was no express agreemenL as Lo Lhe perlod when Lhe rlghL can be exerclsed
1ender of paymenL of Lhe repurchase prlce ls necessary ln Lhe exerclse of Lhe rlghL of redempLlon
1ender of paymenL ls Lhe seller's manlfesLaLlon of hls or her deslre Lo repurchase Lhe properLy wlLh
Lhe offer of lmmedlaLe performance

WPL8LlC8L Lhe CourL uLnlLS Lhe peLlLlon 1he CourL Alll8MS Lhe ueclslon of Lhe CourL of
Appeals ln wlLh MCulllCA1lCn 8espondenL 8ose C Alclso may exerclse her rlghL of redempLlon
by paylng Lhe peLlLloners Spouses uomlnador 8 narvaez and Lllla W narvaez (1) Lhe prlce of Lhe
sale (2) Lhe expenses of Lhe conLracL (3) leglLlmaLe paymenLs made by reason of Lhe sale and (4)
Lhe necessary and useful expenses made on Lhe sub[ecL properLy 1he CourL ul8LC1S Lhe 8eglonal
1rlal CourL !udlclal 8eglon 1 8ranch 8 La 1rlnldad 8engueL Lo deLermlne Lhe amounLs of Lhe
expenses of Lhe conLracL Lhe leglLlmaLe expenses made by reason of Lhe sale and Lhe necessary
and useful expenses made on Lhe sub[ecL properLy


Cheng v Don|n|
Gk# 167017] Iune 22 2009
S90 SCkA 406

lAC1S 1here was an oral lease agreemenL beLween Cheng and Sps uonlnl on Lhe former's
properLy ln Mandaluyong ClLy 8espondenLs uonlnl puL up a resLauranL ln Lhe leased properLy and
agreed Lo pay a monLhly renLal of 17 000 from uecember 1990 LaLer on respondenLs proceeded
Lo lnLroduce lmprovemenLs ln Lhe premlses Powever before respondenLs' buslness could Lake off
and before any flnal lease agreemenL could be drafLed and slgned Lhe parLles began Lo have
serlous dlsagreemenLs regardlng lLs Lerms and condlLlons eLlLloner Cheng Lhus wroLe
respondenLs on !anuary 28 1991 demandlng paymenL of Lhe deposlL and renLals and slgnlfylng
LhaL he had no lnLenLlon Lo conLlnue wlLh Lhe agreemenL should respondenLs fall Lo pay
8espondenLs however lgnorlng peLlLloner's demand conLlnued Lo occupy Lhe premlses unLll Aprll
17 1991 when Lhelr careLaker volunLarlly surrendered Lhe properLy Lo peLlLloner

8espondenLs Lhen flled an acLlon for speclflc performance and damages before 81C aslg and
prayed LhaL peLlLloner be ordered Lo execuLe a wrlLLen lease conLracL for flve years deducLlng from
Lhe deposlL and renL Lhe cosL of repalrs ln Lhe amounL of 443000 or Lo order peLlLloner Lo reLurn
Lhelr lnvesLmenL ln Lhe amounL of 964000 and compensaLe for Lhelr unearned neL lncome of
200000 wlLh lnLeresL plus aLLorney's fees

eLlLloner ln hls answer denled respondenLs' clalms and soughL Lhe award of moral and exemplary
damages and aLLorney's fees AfLer Lrlal Lhe 81C rendered lLs declslon ln favor of peLlLloner
8espondenLs appealed Lo Lhe CourL of Appeals (CA) whlch ln lLs declslon daLed March 31 2004
recalled and seL aslde Lhe 81C declslon and enLered a new one orderlng peLlLloner Lo pay
respondenLs Lhe amounL of 964000 represenLlng Lhe laLLer's expenses lncurred for Lhe repalrs
and lmprovemenLs of Lhe premlses

eLlLloner flled a moLlon for reconslderaLlon on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe award of relmbursemenL had
no facLual and legal bases buL Lhls was denled by Lhe CA ln lLs resoluLlon daLed lebruary 21 2003

Pence Lhls peLlLlon for cerLlorarl under 8ule 43 of Lhe 8ules of CourL

lSSuL WCn respondenLs are bullders or possessors ln good falLh?

PLLu nC SC held LhaL ArLlcles 448 and 346 of Lhe Clvll Code dld noL apply under Lhese
provlslons Lo be enLlLled Lo relmbursemenL for useful lmprovemenLs lnLroduced on Lhe properLy
respondenLs musL be consldered bullders ln good falLh ArLlcles 448 and 346 whlch allow full
relmbursemenL of useful lmprovemenLs and reLenLlon of Lhe premlses unLll relmbursemenL ls
made apply only Lo a possessor ln good falLh or one who bullds on land ln Lhe bellef LhaL he ls Lhe
owner Lhereof A bullder ln good falLh ls one who ls unaware of any flaw ln hls LlLle Lo Lhe land aL
Lhe Llme he bullds on lL

Pereln respondenLs cannoL be consldered possessors or bullders ln good falLh As early as 1936 ln
Lopez v hlllpplne LasLern 1radlng Co lnc Lhe CourL clarlfled LhaL a lessee ls nelLher a bullder
nor a possessor ln good falLh x x x 1hls prlnclple of possessor ln good falLh naLurally cannoL apply
Lo a lessee because as such lessee he knows LhaL he ls noL Lhe owner of Lhe leased properLy
nelLher can he deny Lhe ownershlp or LlLle of hls lessor knowlng LhaL hls occupaLlon of Lhe
premlses conLlnues only durlng Lhe llfe of Lhe lease conLracL and LhaL he musL vacaLe Lhe properLy
upon LermlnaLlon of Lhe lease or upon Lhe vlolaLlon by hlm of any of lLs Lerms he lnLroduces
lmprovemenLs on sald properLy aL hls own rlsk ln Lhe sense LhaL he cannoL recover Lhelr value from
Lhe lessor much less reLaln Lhe premlses unLll such relmbursemenL

8elng mere lessees respondenLs knew LhaL Lhelr rlghL Lo occupy Lhe premlses exlsLed only for Lhe
duraLlon of Lhe lease CorLez v Manlmbo wenL furLher Lo sLaLe LhaL lf Lhe rule were oLherwlse 'lL
would always be ln Lhe power of Lhe LenanL Lo lmprove hls landlord ouL of hls properLy 1hese
prlnclples have been conslsLenLly adhered Lo and applled by Lhe CourL ln many cases

lL appears however LhaL as soon as respondenLs vacaLed Lhe premlses peLlLloner lmmedlaLely
reclalmed Lhe properLy and barred respondenLs from enLerlng lL 8espondenLs also alleged and
peLlLloner dld noL deny LhaL Lhe properLy sub[ecL of Lhls case had already been leased Lo anoLher
enLlLy slnce 1991 1hls ls where conslderaLlons of equlLy should come lnLo play lL ls obvlously no
longer feaslble for respondenLs Lo remove Lhe lmprovemenLs from Lhe properLy lf Lhey sLlll exlsL
eLlLloner should Lherefore lndemnlfy respondenLs Lhe amounL of 17163093 1hls ls ln accord
wlLh Lhe law's lnLenL of prevenLlng un[usL enrlchmenL of a lessor who now has Lo pay onehalf of
Lhe value of Lhe useful lmprovemenLs aL Lhe end of Lhe lease because Lhe lessee has already
en[oyed Lhe same whereas Lhe lessor can en[oy Lhem lndeflnlLely LhereafLer


@uat|s v Lsco|

Gk# 17S399 ]Cct 27 2009

604 SCkA 471

lAC1S ln november 1989 vlsmlnda (seller) and 1uaLls (buyer) enLered lnLo a ueed of Sale of a
arL of a 8eglsLered Land by lnsLallmenL (ueed of Sale by lnsLallmenL) locaLed ln oblaclon
Slndangan Zamboanga del norLe 1uaLls clalmed LhaL she had pald by lnsLallmenL Lhe agreed prlce
of 10000 pesos buL vlsmlnda counLered LhaL 1uaLls made no oLher paymenL Lo her buL 4000 pesos
only desplLe verbal demands

ln Lhe meanLlme 1uaLls already Look possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy and consLrucLed a
resldenLlal bulldlng Lhereon

Cn 18 !une 1996 1uaLls flled a ComplalnL for Speclflc erformance wlLh uamages agalnsL vlsmlnda
before Lhe 81C 1hen 1uaLls requesLed vlsmlnda Lo slgn a prepared absoluLe deed of sale coverlng
Lhe sub[ecL properLy buL Lhe laLLer refused conLendlng LhaL Lhe purchase prlce had noL yeL been
fully pald 81C rendered a ueclslon ln vlsmlnda's favor When lL was appealed Lo CA lL dlsmlssed
ouLrlghL 1uaLls' eLlLlon for fallure Lo compleLely pay Lhe requlred dockeL fees Lo aLLach a cerLlfled
Lrue or auLhenLlcaLed copy of Lhe assalled 81C Crder and Lo lndlcaLe Lhe place of lssue of her
counsel's l8 and 18 Cfflclal 8ecelpLs Pence 1uaLls flled Lhe lnsLanL eLlLlon prlnclpally argulng
LhaL ArLlcle 448 of Lhe Clvll Code musL be applled Lo Lhe slLuaLlon beLween her and vlsmlnda

lSSuL WCn ArLlcle 448 of Lhe Clvll Code shall apply?

PLLu ?LS A81 448 1he owner of Lhe land on whlch anyLhlng has been bullL sown or planLed ln
good falLh shall have Lhe rlghL Lo approprlaLe as hls own Lhe works sowlng or planLlng afLer
paymenL of Lhe lndemnlLy provlded for ln ArLlcles 346 and 348 or Lo obllge Lhe one who bullL or
planLed Lo pay Lhe prlce of Lhe land and Lhe one who sowed Lhe proper renL Powever Lhe bullder
or planLer cannoL be obllged Lo buy Lhe land lf lLs value ls conslderably more Lhan LhaL of Lhe
bulldlng or Lrees ln such case he shall pay reasonable renL lf Lhe owner of Lhe land does noL
choose Lo approprlaLe Lhe bulldlng or Lrees afLer proper lndemnlLy 1he parLles shall agree upon
Lhe Lerms of Lhe lease and ln case of dlsagreemenL Lhe courL shall flx Lhe Lerms Lhereof

Accordlng Lo Lhe aforequoLed provlslon Lhe landowner can choose beLween approprlaLlng Lhe
bulldlng by paylng Lhe proper lndemnlLy for Lhe same as provlded for ln ArLlcles 346 and 348 of Lhe
Clvll Code or obllglng Lhe bullder Lo pay Lhe prlce of Lhe land unless lLs value ls conslderably more
Lhan LhaL of Lhe sLrucLures ln whlch case Lhe bullder ln good falLh shall pay reasonable renL

1he CourL hlghllghLs LhaL Lhe opLlons under ArLlcle 448 are avallable Lo vlsmlnda as Lhe owner of
Lhe sub[ecL properLy 1here ls no basls for 1uaLls' demand LhaL slnce Lhe value of Lhe bulldlng she
consLrucLed ls conslderably hlgher Lhan Lhe sub[ecL properLy she may choose beLween buylng Lhe
sub[ecL properLy from vlsmlnda and selllng Lhe bulldlng Lo vlsmlnda for 30207300 Agaln Lhe
cholce of opLlons ls for vlsmlnda noL 1uaLls Lo make And dependlng on vlsmlnda's cholce 1uaLls'
rlghLs as a bullder under ArLlcle 448 are llmlLed Lo Lhe followlng (a) under Lhe flrsL opLlon a rlghL Lo
reLaln Lhe bulldlng and sub[ecL properLy unLll vlsmlnda pays proper lndemnlLy and (b) under Lhe
second opLlon a rlghL noL Lo be obllged Lo pay for Lhe prlce of Lhe sub[ecL properLy lf lL ls
conslderably hlgher Lhan Lhe value of Lhe bulldlng ln whlch case she can only be obllged Lo pay
reasonable renL for Lhe same

1he rule LhaL Lhe cholce under ArLlcle 448 of Lhe Clvll Code belongs Lo Lhe owner of Lhe land ls ln
accord wlLh Lhe prlnclple of accesslon le LhaL Lhe accessory follows Lhe prlnclpal and noL Lhe
oLher way around Lven as Lhe opLlon lles wlLh Lhe landowner Lhe granL Lo hlm neverLheless ls
precluslve 1he landowner cannoL refuse Lo exerclse elLher opLlon and compel lnsLead Lhe owner of
Lhe bulldlng Lo remove lL from Lhe land 1he ralson d'eLre for Lhls provlslon has been enunclaLed
Lhus Where Lhe bullder planLer or sower has acLed ln good falLh a confllcL of rlghLs arlses
beLween Lhe owners and lL becomes necessary Lo proLecL Lhe owner of Lhe lmprovemenLs wlLhouL
causlng ln[usLlce Lo Lhe owner of Lhe land ln vlew of Lhe lmpracLlcablllLy of creaLlng a sLaLe of
forced coownershlp Lhe law has provlded a [usL soluLlon by glvlng Lhe owner of Lhe land Lhe
opLlon Lo acqulre Lhe lmprovemenLs afLer paymenL of Lhe proper lndemnlLy or Lo obllge Lhe
bullder or planLer Lo pay for Lhe land and Lhe sower Lhe proper renL Pe cannoL refuse Lo exerclse
elLher opLlon lL ls Lhe owner of Lhe land who ls auLhorlzed Lo exerclse Lhe opLlon because hls rlghL
ls older and because by Lhe prlnclple of accesslon he ls enLlLled Lo Lhe ownershlp of Lhe accessory
Lhlng


Lsmaque| vs Coprada
Gk # 1S2423] Dec 1S 2010
638 SCkA 428

lAC1S ln 1943 Marla Coprada (respondenL) was able Lo persuade spouses Marcos (peLlLloners
Lsmaquel and vlcLorla) Lo allow her and her famlly Lo use and occupy a parcel of land ln Laguna for
Lhelr resldence under Lhe condlLlon LhaL Lhey wlll vacaLe Lhe premlses should Lhe
owners/peLlLloners need Lo use Lhe same 8espondenL and her famlly were allowed Lo consLrucL
Lhelr resldenLlal house Slnce Lhen Lhe peLlLloners dld noL obllge Lhe respondenLs Lo pay renL and
never made an aLLempL Lo drlve Lhem away ouL of plLy knowlng LhaL respondenL and her elghL
chlldren have no oLher place Lo llve ln

8espondenL's presenL clrcumsLances have compleLely lmproved le some of her chlldren are
already worklng Lhey are regularly sendlng her flnanclal asslsLance and she has acqulred her own
resldenLlal house also ln Laguna 8ecause of Lhls peLlLloners verbally demanded LhaL respondenL
vacaLe Lhe sub[ecL land buL Lhe laLLer refused

Cn lebruary 24 1997 peLlLloners flled an e[ecLmenL case agalnsL respondenL before MC1C of
Magdalena Llllw and Ma[ay[ay Laguna MC1C dlsmlssed Lhe complalnL as laches had already seL ln
Cn appeal Lhe 81C reversed and ruled LhaL respondenL's occupaLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy was by
vlrLue of peLlLloners' Lolerance and permlsslon Pence respondenL ls bound by an lmplled promlse
LhaL she wlll vacaLe Lhe properLy upon demand Lhus ordered respondenL and her famlly Lo vacaLe
and surrender Lhe possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL land Lo Lhe peLlLloners and Lo remove any and all
lmprovemenLs she lnLroduced on Lhe parcel of land When broughL Lo CA Lhe declslon of 81C was
reversed and granLed respondenL's peLlLlon Pence Lhls lnsLanL peLlLlon

lSSuL WCn peLlLloners have a valld ground Lo evlcL respondenL from Lhe sub[ecL properLy

PLLu ?LS Slnce respondenL's occupaLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy was by mere Lolerance she
has no rlghL Lo reLaln lLs possesslon under ArLlcle 448 of Lhe Clvll Code She ls aware LhaL her

LoleraLed possesslon may be LermlnaLed any Llme and she cannoL be consldered as bullder ln good
falLh lL ls well seLLled LhaL boLh ArLlcle 448 and ArLlcle 346 of Lhe new Clvll Code whlch allow full
relmbursemenL of useful lmprovemenLs and reLenLlon of Lhe premlses unLll relmbursemenL ls
made apply only Lo a possessor ln good falLh le one who bullds on land wlLh Lhe bellef LhaL he ls
Lhe owner Lhereof verlly persons whose occupaLlon of a realLy ls by sheer Lolerance of lLs owners
are noL possessors ln good falLh AL Lhe Llme respondenL bullL Lhe lmprovemenLs on Lhe premlses ln
1943 she knew LhaL her possesslon was by mere permlsslon and Lolerance of Lhe peLlLloners
hence she cannoL be sald Lo be a person who bullds on land wlLh Lhe bellef LhaL she ls Lhe owner
Lhereof

Cn Lhe oLher hand lL ls undlspuLed LhaL Lhe sub[ecL properLy ls covered by 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of
1lLle no 193342 reglsLered ln Lhe name of Lhe peLlLloners As agalnsL Lhe respondenL's unproven
clalm LhaL she acqulred a porLlon of Lhe properLy from Lhe peLlLloners by vlrLue of an oral sale Lhe
1orrens LlLle of peLlLloners musL prevall eLlLloners' LlLle over Lhe sub[ecL properLy ls evldence of
Lhelr ownershlp Lhereof lL ls a fundamenLal prlnclple ln land reglsLraLlon LhaL Lhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle
serves as evldence of an lndefeaslble and lnconLroverLlble LlLle Lo Lhe properLy ln favor of Lhe
person whose name appears Lhereln Moreover Lhe ageold rule ls LhaL Lhe person who has a
1orrens LlLle over a land ls enLlLled Lo possesslon Lhereof

8ened|cto vs V|||af|ores
Gk# 18S020] Cct 6 2010
632 SCkA 446

lAC1S Marla vlllaflores (peLlLloner) owned a loL ln 8ulacan Cn AugusL 31 1994 Marla sold Lhe
same loL Lo lllomena as evldenced by a kasulaLan ng 8lllhang 1uluyan lllomena reglsLered Lhe sale
wlLh Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds of Meycauayan on SepLember 6 1994 Slnce Lhen lllomena pald Lhe real
properLy Laxes for Lhe sub[ecL parcel of land

Meanwhlle AnLonlo (respondenL and nephew of Marla) averred LhaL ln 1980 Marla sold lL Lo hlm
and he evenLually Look possesslon and consLrucLed a house Lhereon LhaL on AugusL 13 1992
Marla execuLed ln favor of hlm a kasulaLan ng 8lllhang 1uluyan coverlng Lhe enLlre loL Lhough he
falled Lo reglsLer lL and LhaL lllomena was aware of Lhls prlor sale hence Lhe subsequenL sale ln
favor of lllomena was resclsslble fraudulenL flcLlLlous or slmulaLed

Cn SepLember 28 2000 lllomena flled a case for Acclon ubllclana wlLh CancellaLlon of noLlce of
Adverse Clalm uamages and ALLorney's lees agalnsL AnLonlo AfLer Lrlal Lhe 81C rendered a
declslon susLalnlng lllomena's ownershlp on Lhe ground LhaL lL was lllomena who reglsLered Lhe
sale ln good falLh as such she has beLLer rlghL Lhan AnLonlo Cn Lhelr separaLe appeals wlLh Lhe
CA Lhe laLLer afflrmed Lhe 81C for upholdlng lllomena's ownershlp of Lhe loL ln quesLlon and for
declarlng AnLonlo a bullder ln good falLh Powever lL remanded Lhe case Lo Lhe 81C for furLher
proceedlngs Lo deLermlne Lhe respecLlve rlghLs of Lhe parLles under ArLlcles 448 and 346 of Lhe Clvll
Code and Lhe amounL due AnLonlo Pence Lhls case

lSSuL WCn respondenL AnLonlo ls a bullder ln good falLh?

PLLu ?LS AnLonlo ls a bullder ln good falLh ln Lhls case AnLonlo was noL aware of any flaw ln
hls LlLle Pe belleved belng Lhe owner of Lhe sub[ecL premlses on accounL of Lhe ueed of Sale
Lhereof ln hls favor desplLe hls lnablllLy Lo reglsLer Lhe same 1he lmprovemenL was ln facL
lnLroduced by AnLonlo prlor Lo lllomena's purchase of Lhe land

under ArLlcle 448 a landowner ls glven Lhe opLlon Lo elLher approprlaLe Lhe lmprovemenL as hls
own upon paymenL of Lhe proper amounL of lndemnlLy or sell Lhe land Lo Lhe possessor ln good
falLh 8elaLedly ArLlcle 346 provldes LhaL a bullder ln good falLh ls enLlLled Lo full relmbursemenL
for all Lhe necessary and useful expenses lncurred lL also glves hlm rlghL of reLenLlon unLll full
relmbursemenL ls made

1he ob[ecLlve of ArLlcle 346 of Lhe Clvll Code ls Lo admlnlsLer [usLlce beLween Lhe parLles lnvolved
ln Lhls regard Lhls CourL had long ago sLaLed ln 8lvera vs 8oman CaLhollc Archblshop of Manlla 40
hll 717 (1920) LhaL Lhe sald provlslon was formulaLed ln Lrylng Lo ad[usL Lhe rlghLs of Lhe owner
and possessor ln good falLh of a plece of land Lo admlnlsLer compleLe [usLlce Lo boLh of Lhem ln
such a way as nelLher one nor Lhe oLher may enrlch hlmself of LhaL whlch does noL belong Lo hlm
Culded by Lhls precepL lL ls Lherefore Lhe currenL markeL value of Lhe lmprovemenLs whlch should
be made Lhe basls of relmbursemenL A conLrary rullng would un[usLly enrlch Lhe prlvaLe
respondenLs who would oLherwlse be allowed Lo acqulre a hlghly valued lncomeyleldlng fourunlL
aparLmenL bulldlng for a measly amounL ConsequenLly Lhe parLles should Lherefore be allowed Lo
adduce evldence on Lhe presenL markeL value of Lhe aparLmenL bulldlng upon whlch Lhe Lrlal courL
should base lLs flndlng as Lo Lhe amounL of relmbursemenL Lo be pald by Lhe landowner

8r|ones vsMacabagda|
Gk# 1S0666] Aug 3 2010
626 SCkA 300

lAC1S 8espondenLspouses Macabagdal purchased from vergon 8ealLy lnvesLmenLs CorporaLlon
(vergon) LoL no 28 a 323squaremeLer land locaLed ln vergonvllle Subdlvlslon no 10 aL Las
lnas ClLy MeLro Manlla and covered by 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle no 62181 of Lhe 8eglsLry of
ueeds of asay ClLy Cn Lhe oLher hand peLlLloners are Lhe owners of LoL no 2S whlch ls ad[acenL
Lo LoL no 28

SomeLlme ln 1984 afLer obLalnlng Lhe necessary bulldlng permlL and Lhe approval of vergon
peLlLloners consLrucLed a house on LoL no 28 whlch Lhey LhoughL was LoL no 2S AfLer belng
lnformed of Lhe mlx up by vergon's manager respondenLspouses lmmedlaLely demanded
peLlLloners Lo demollsh Lhe house and vacaLe Lhe properLy eLlLloners however refused Lo heed
Lhelr demand 1hus respondenLspouses flled an acLlon Lo recover ownershlp and possesslon of
Lhe sald parcel of land wlLh Lhe 81C of MakaLl ClLy

eLlLloners lnslsLed LhaL Lhe loL on whlch Lhey consLrucLed Lhelr house was Lhe loL whlch was
conslsLenLly polnLed Lo Lhem as Lhelrs by vergon's agenLs over Lhe seven (7)year perlod Lhey were
paylng for Lhe loL 1hey lnLerposed Lhe defense of belng buyers ln good falLh and lmpleaded vergon
as LhlrdparLy defendanL clalmlng LhaL because of Lhe warranLy agalnsL evlcLlon Lhey were enLlLled
Lo lndemnlLy from vergon ln case Lhe sulL ls declded agalnsL Lhem

1he 81C ruled ln favor of respondenLspouses orderlng peLlLloners Lo vacaLe CA afflrmed Lhe 81C's
flndlngs Pence Lhls peLlLlon for revlew on cerLlorarl

lSSuL WCn peLlLloners are bullders ln good falLh?

PLLu ?LS CA erred ln ouLrlghLly orderlng peLlLloners Lo vacaLe Lhe sub[ecL properLy or Lo pay
respondenL spouses Lhe prevalllng prlce of Lhe land as compensaLlon ArLlcle 327 of Lhe Clvll Code
presumes good falLh and slnce no proof exlsLs Lo show LhaL Lhe mlsLake was done by peLlLloners ln
bad falLh Lhe laLLer should be presumed Lo have bullL Lhe house ln good falLh When a person
bullds ln good falLh on Lhe land of anoLher ArLlcle 448 of Lhe Clvll Code governs Sald arLlcle
provldes LhaL Lhe owner of Lhe land on whlch anyLhlng has been bullL sown or planLed ln good
falLh shall have Lhe rlghL Lo approprlaLe as hls own Lhe works sowlng or planLlng afLer paymenL of
Lhe lndemnlLy provlded for ln ArLlcles 346 and 348 or Lo obllge Lhe one who bullL or planLed Lo pay
Lhe prlce of Lhe land and Lhe one who sowed Lhe proper renL Powever Lhe bullder or planLer
cannoL be obllged Lo buy Lhe land lf lLs value ls conslderably more Lhan LhaL of Lhe bulldlng or Lrees
ln such case he shall pay reasonable renL lf Lhe owner of Lhe land does noL choose Lo approprlaLe
Lhe bulldlng or Lrees afLer proper lndemnlLy 1he parLles shall agree upon Lhe Lerms of Lhe lease
and ln case of dlsagreemenL Lhe courL shall flx Lhe Lerms Lhereof"

1he aboveclLed arLlcle covers cases ln whlch Lhe bullders sowers or planLers belleve Lhemselves Lo
be owners of Lhe land or aL leasL Lo have a clalm of LlLle LhereLo 1he bullder ln good falLh can
compel Lhe landowner Lo make a cholce beLween approprlaLlng Lhe bulldlng by paylng Lhe proper
lndemnlLy or obllglng Lhe bullder Lo pay Lhe prlce of Lhe land 1he cholce belongs Lo Lhe owner of
Lhe land a rule LhaL accords wlLh Lhe prlnclple of accesslon le LhaL Lhe accessory follows Lhe
prlnclpal and noL Lhe oLher way around Powever even as Lhe opLlon lles wlLh Lhe landowner Lhe
granL Lo hlm neverLheless ls precluslve Pe musL choose one16 Pe cannoL for lnsLance compel
Lhe owner of Lhe bulldlng Lo remove Lhe bulldlng from Lhe land wlLhouL flrsL exerclslng elLher
opLlon lL ls only lf Lhe owner chooses Lo sell hls land and Lhe bullder or planLer falls Lo purchase lL
where lLs value ls noL more Lhan Lhe value of Lhe lmprovemenLs LhaL Lhe owner may remove Lhe
lmprovemenLs from Lhe land 1he owner ls enLlLled Lo such remoLlon only when afLer havlng
chosen Lo sell hls land Lhe oLher parLy falls Lo pay for Lhe same
Moreover peLlLloners have Lhe rlghL Lo be lndemnlfled for Lhe necessary and useful expenses Lhey
may have made on Lhe sub[ecL properLy ln accordance wlLh ArLlcles 346 and 348 of Lhe Clvll Code
1hls case was remanded Lo Lhe 81C Lo conducL Lhe approprlaLe proceedlngs Lo assess Lhe
respecLlve values of Lhe lmprovemenL and of Lhe land as well as Lhe amounLs of reasonable renLals
and lndemnlLy flx Lhe Lerms of Lhe lease lf Lhe parLles so agree and Lo deLermlne oLher maLLers
necessary for Lhe proper appllcaLlon of ArLlcle 448 ln relaLlon Lo ArLlcles 346 and 348 of Lhe Clvll
Code


L|mense vs Vda de kamos
Gk# 1S2319] Cct 28 2010
604 SCkA S99

lacLs
ualmaclo Lozada was Lhe reglsLered owner of a parcel of land ldenLlfled as LoL no 12 8lock no
1074 locaLed ln 8eaLa SLreeL andacan Manlla Pe subdlvlded hls properLy lnLo flve (3) loLs
namely LoL nos 12A 128 12C 12u and 12L 1hrough a ueed of uonaLlon daLed March 9
19324 he donaLed Lhe subdlvlded loLs Lo hls daughLers namely lsabel Salud CaLallna and
lellcldad all surnamed Lozada LoL 12C whlch was donaLed Lo CaLallna lsabel and Salud and was
lssued 1C1 no 40043 Cn LoL 12u whlch was donaLed Lo Salud Lhe respondenLs' predecessorsln
lnLeresL consLrucLed Lhelr resldenLlal bulldlng ln 1932 ad[acenL Lo LoL 12C

ln 1969 1C1 no 968866 was lssued ln Lhe name of !oaquln Llmense coverlng Lhe very
same area of LoL no 12C And ln 1981 Llmense secured a bulldlng permlL for Lhe consLrucLlon of a
hollow block fence on Lhe boundary llne beLween hls aforesald properLy and LoL 12u 1he fence
however could noL be consLrucLed because a subsLanLlal porLlon of respondenLs resldenLlal
bulldlng ln LoL 12u encroached upon porLlons of Llmenses properLy ln LoL 12C

Llmense demanded Lhe removal of Lhe encroached area however respondenL lgnored boLh oral
and wrlLLen demands 1he parLles falled Lo amlcably seLLle Lhe dlfferences beLween Lhem desplLe
referral Lo Lhe barangay 1hus ln 1983 Llmense lnsLlLuLed a ComplalnL agalnsL for removal of
obsLrucLlon and damages

8espondenLs on Lhe oLher hand averred LhaL Lhey were Lhe survlvlng helrs of lranclsco 8amos
who durlng hls llfeLlme was marrled Lo Salud Lozada LoL no 12C was donaLed ln favor of hls
daughLers CaLallna marrled Lo SoLero naLlvldad lsabel marrled Lo lsaac Llmense and Salud
marrled Lo lranclsco 8amos 8elng Lhe survlvlng helrs of lranclsco 8amos respondenLs laLer
became coowners of LoL no 12C LoL no 12C has served as rlghL of way or common alley of all
Lhe helrs of ualmaclo Lozada slnce 1932 up Lo Lhe presenL As a common alley lL could noL be
closed or fenced by !oaquln Llmense wlLhouL causlng damage and pre[udlce Lo respondenLs

1he 81C ruled ln favor of Lhe respondenLs rullng LhaL an apparenL easemenL of rlghL of way exlsLed
ln favor of respondenLs whlch was afflrmed by Lhe CA

lssue
W/n Lhe respondenLs are bullders ln good falLh and lf so whaL are Lhe respecLlve rlghLs of Lhe
parLles relaLlve Lo Lhe porLlons encroachlng upon respondenLs house

Peld
(noLe Lhe lssue of W/n respondenLs were enLlLled Lo an easemenL of rlghL of way was also
dlscussed by Lhe CourL and held LhaL Lhey are Slnce LoL 12C has conLlnuously been used as an
alley slnce Lhe Llme LhaL ualmaclo Lozada donaLed Lhe properLy Lo hls daughLers Lhe same musL be
respecLed by Lhe peLlLloners and also Lhe peLlLloners knew LhaL sald loL serves no oLher purpose
Lhan an alley slnce Lhe Llme LhaL Lhe 1C1 was lssued Lo Lhem 1hls lssue however ls noL relevanL
under whlch Lhls case was asslgned ln our ouLllne)

?es Lhe respondenLs are bullders ln good falLh 8espondenLs' rlghL Lo have access Lo Lhe
properLy of peLlLloners does noL lnclude Lhe rlghL Lo conLlnually encroach upon Lhe laLLer's
properLy lL ls noL dlspuLed LhaL porLlons of respondenLs house on LoL no 12u encroach upon LoL
no 12C 29 ln order Lo seLLle Lhe rlghLs of Lhe parLles relaLlve Lo Lhe encroachmenL Lhe CourL
deemed lL proper Lo deLermlne Lhe lssue above

8espondenLs predecessorlnlnLeresL owned Lhe 1/3 porLlon of LoL no 12C aL Lhe Llme Lhe
properLy was donaLed Lo Lhem by ualmaclo Lozada ln 1932 1he porLlons of LoL no 12u
parLlcularly Lhe overhang coverlng 1 meLer ln wldLh and 17 meLers ln lengLh are all wlLhln Lhe 1/3

share alloLed Lo Lhem by Lhelr donor ualmaclo Lozada and hence Lhere was absence of a showlng
LhaL respondenLs acLed ln bad falLh when Lhey bullL porLlons of Lhelr house on LoL no 12C

1he CourL held LhaL when Lhe coownershlp ls LermlnaLed by a parLlLlon and lL appears LhaL Lhe
house of an ersLwhlle coowner has encroached upon a porLlon perLalnlng Lo anoLher coowner
buL Lhe encroachmenL was ln good falLh Lhen Lhe provlslons of ArLlcle 448 should apply Lo
deLermlne Lhe respecLlve rlghLs of Lhe parLles ln Lhls case Lhe coownershlp was LermlnaLed due
Lo Lhe Lransfer of Lhe LlLle of Lhe whole properLy ln favor of !oaquln Llmense

under Lhe foregolng provlslon peLlLloners have Lhe rlghL Lo approprlaLe sald porLlon of Lhe house
of respondenLs upon paymenL of lndemnlLy Lo respondenLs as provlded for ln ArLlcle 346 of Lhe
Clvll Code CLherwlse peLlLloners may obllge respondenLs Lo pay Lhe prlce of Lhe land occupled by
Lhelr house Powever lf Lhe prlce asked for ls conslderably much more Lhan Lhe value of Lhe
porLlon of Lhe house of respondenLs bullL Lhereon Lhen Lhe laLLer cannoL be obllged Lo buy Lhe
land 8espondenLs shall Lhen pay Lhe reasonable renL Lo peLlLloners upon such Lerms and
condlLlons LhaL Lhey may agree ln case of dlsagreemenL Lhe Lrlal courL shall flx Lhe Lerms Lhereof
Cf course respondenLs may demollsh or remove Lhe sald porLlon of Lhelr house aL Lhelr own
expense lf Lhey so declde 1he cholce belongs Lo Lhe owner of Lhe land (peLlLloners) a rule LhaL
accords wlLh Lhe prlnclple of accesslon LhaL Lhe accessory follows Lhe prlnclpal and noL Lhe oLher
way around

Mores vs uGo
Gk# 172292] Iu|y 23 2010
62S SCkA 290

lacLs
?uCo eLal flled a ComplalnL for ln[uncLlon and uamages wlLh rayer for lssuance of a
1emporary 8esLralnlng Crder and rellmlnary ln[uncLlon agalnsL spouses AnLonlo and Allda Mores
8espondenLs alleged LhaL Lhey coowned a parcel of land locaLed ln SLo 1omas Magarao
Camarlnes Sur on whlch a bulldlng of sLrong maLerlals was bullL ln March 1983 peLlLloners
pleaded Lo respondenLs LhaL Lhey be allowed Lo sLay ln Lhe sub[ecL properLy ln Lhe meanLlme LhaL
Lhey dld noL own a house yeL Slnce AnLonlo Mores used Lo be an errand boy of respondenLs'
famlly Lhey readlly agreed wlLhouL asklng for any renLal buL sub[ecL only Lo Lhe condlLlon LhaL Lhe
sald sLay would lasL unLll anyone of Lhe respondenLs would need Lhe sub[ecL properLy lorLhwlLh
peLlLloners and Lhelr chlldren occupled Lhe same as agreed upon

ln november 1997 respondenLs made known Lo peLlLloners LhaL Lhey were already ln need of Lhe
sub[ecL properLy 1hey explalned LhaL Shlrley ?uCo needed Lhe same and besldes peLlLloners
already have Lhelr own house ln vllla Crande Pomes naga ClLy ?eL peLlLloners begged LhaL Lhey
be glven a 6monLh exLenslon Lo sLay LhereaL or unLll May 1998 Powever even afLer May 1998
peLlLloners falled Lo make good Lhelr promlse and even furLher asked LhaL Lhey be allowed Lo sLay
Lhereln unLll CcLober 1998 whlch was agaln exLended unLll Lhe end of Lhe same year 1hus
someLlme ln Lhe flrsL week of !anuary 1999 respondenLs gave Lhelr flnal demand for peLlLloners Lo
vacaLe Lhe sub[ecL properLy Powever lnsLead of heedlng such demand peLlLloners hlred some
laborers and sLarLed demollshlng Lhe lmprovemenLs on Lhe sub[ecL properLy on !anuary 20 1999
and even Look away and approprlaLed for Lhemselves Lhe maLerlals derlved from such unlawful
demollLlon

ln Lhelr Answer Lo Lhe complalnL peLlLloners averred LhaL Lhey were Lhe ones who
caused Lhe renovaLlon Lo Lhe properLy wlLh Lhe respondenLs' consenL 1hey also alleged LhaL whaL
Lhey removed were merely Lhe lmprovemenLs made on Lhe properLy by Lhem whlch removal had
noL caused any subsLanLlal damage LhereLo

lssue
W/n Lhe spouses Mores were bullders ln good falLh

Peld
no 1he relaLlonshlp beLween Lhe ?u slbllngs and Lhe spouses Mores ls one beLween a
lessor and a lessee maklng ArLlcle 1678 of Lhe Clvll Code appllcable Lo Lhe presenL case 1enanLs
llke Lhe spouses Mores cannoL be sald Lo be bullders ln good falLh as Lhey have no preLenslon Lo be
owners of Lhe properLy lndeed full relmbursemenL of useful lmprovemenLs and reLenLlon of Lhe
premlses unLll relmbursemenL ls made applles only Lo a possessor ln good falLh le one who bullds
on land wlLh Lhe bellef LhaL he ls Lhe owner Lhereof lL does noL apply where one's only lnLeresL ls
LhaL of a lessee under a renLal conLracL oLherwlse lL would always be ln Lhe power of Lhe LenanL Lo
lmprove hls landlord ouL of hls properLy

ArLlcle 1678 reads lf Lhe lessee makes ln good falLh useful lmprovemenLs whlch are sulLable Lo
Lhe use for whlch Lhe lease ls lnLended wlLhouL alLerlng Lhe form or subsLance of Lhe properLy
leased Lhe lessor upon Lhe LermlnaLlon of Lhe lease shall pay Lhe lessee onehalf of Lhe value of Lhe
lmprovemenLs aL LhaL Llme Should Lhe lessor refuse Lo relmburse sald amounL Lhe lessee may
remove Lhe lmprovemenLs even Lhough Lhe prlnclpal Lhlng may suffer damage Lhereby Pe shall
noL however cause any more lmpalrmenL upon Lhe properLy leased Lhan ls necessary

When Lhe spouses Mores demanded relmbursemenL Lhe ?u slbllngs should have offered Lo pay Lhe
spouses Mores onehalf of Lhe value of Lhe lmprovemenLs Slnce Lhe ?u slbllngs falled Lo make such
offer Lhe spouses Mores had Lhe rlghL Lo remove Lhe lmprovemenLs

New kegent v @an[uatco
Gk# 168800 ]Apr|| 16 2009
S8S SCkA 329

lacLs
new 8egenL Sources lnc (n8Sl) flled a ComplalnL for 8esclsslon/ueclaraLlon of nulllLy of ConLracL
8econveyance and uamages agalnsL respondenL 1an[uaLco and Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds of Calamba
n8Sl alleged LhaL ln 1994 lL auLhorlzed vlcenLe Cuevas lll lLs Chalrman and resldenL Lo apply
on lLs behalf for Lhe acqulslLlon of Lwo parcels of land by vlrLue of lLs rlghL of accreLlon Cuevas
purporLedly applled for Lhe loLs ln hls name by paylng 82 400 Lo Lhe 8ureau of Lands Cn !anuary
2 1993 Cuevas and hls wlfe execuLed a voLlng 1rusL AgreemenL over Lhelr shares of sLock ln Lhe
corporaLlon 1hen pendlng approval of Lhe appllcaLlon wlLh Lhe 8ureau of Lands Cuevas asslgned
hls rlghL Lo 1an[uaLco for Lhe sum of 83000 Cn March 12 1996 Lhe ulrecLor of Lands released an
Crder whlch approved Lhe Lransfer of rlghLs from Cuevas Lo 1an[uaLco 1ransfer CerLlflcaLes of 1lLle
nos 13694067 and 13694078 were Lhen lssued ln Lhe name of 1an[uaLco

lssue

W/n n8Sl acqulred Lhe sub[ecL properLy by accreLlon and lf so W/n 1an[uaLco ls an lnnocenL
purchaser for value

Peld
AccreLlon as a mode of acqulrlng properLy under ArLlcle 437 of Lhe Clvll Code requlres
Lhe concurrence of Lhe followlng requlslLes (1) LhaL Lhe deposlLlon of soll or sedlmenL be gradual
and lmpercepLlble (2) LhaL lL be Lhe resulL of Lhe acLlon of Lhe waLers of Lhe rlver and (3) LhaL Lhe
land where accreLlon Lakes place ls ad[acenL Lo Lhe banks of rlvers 1hus lL ls noL enough Lo be a
rlparlan owner ln order Lo en[oy Lhe beneflLs of accreLlon Cne who clalms Lhe rlghL of accreLlon
musL show by preponderanL evldence LhaL he has meL all Lhe condlLlons provlded by law eLlLloner
has noLably falled ln Lhls regard as lL dld noL offer any evldence Lo prove LhaL lL has saLlsfled Lhe
foregolng requlslLes

Also lL ls undlspuLed LhaL 1an[uaLco derlved hls LlLle Lo Lhe lands from Crlglnal
CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle (CC1) no 243 reglsLered ln Lhe name of Lhe 8epubllc of Lhe hlllpplnes Sald
parcels of land formed parL of Lhe urled San !uan 8lver 8ed whlch under ArLlcle 302 (1)34 of Lhe
Clvll Code rlghLly perLalns Lo Lhe publlc domlnlon Clearly Lhe 8epubllc ls Lhe enLlLy whlch had
every rlghL Lo Lransfer ownershlp Lhereof Lo respondenL

1he law no doubL conslders 1an[uaLco an lnnocenL purchaser for value An lnnocenL
purchaser for value ls one who buys Lhe properLy of anoLher wlLhouL noLlce LhaL some oLher
person has a rlghL or lnLeresL ln such properLy and pays Lhe full prlce for Lhe same aL Lhe Llme of
such purchase or before he has noLlce of Lhe clalms or lnLeresL of some oLher person ln Lhe
properLy

As regards Lhe conslderaLlon whlch 1an[uaLco pald Cuevas for Lhe asslgnmenL of rlghLs
Lo Lhe lands sufflce lL Lo sLaLe LhaL Lhe asslgnmenL merely vesLed upon 1an[uaLco all of Cuevas's
lnLanglble clalms rlghLs and lnLeresLs over Lhe properLles and noL Lhe properLles Lhemselves AL Lhe
Llme of Lhe asslgnmenL Lhe loLs were sLlll Lhe sub[ecLs of a pendlng sales appllcaLlon before Lhe
8ureau of Lands lor lL was noL unLll May 24 1996 LhaL LlLles were lssued ln 1an[uaLco's name 1he
asslgnmenL noL belng a sale of real properLy lL was noL surprlslng LhaL Cuevas demanded from
1an[uaLco only 83000 for Lhe Lransfer of rlghLs

Meneses vs CA
Gk# 830S9] Iu|y 14 199S
246 SCkA 162

lacLs
ln 1977 abllLo Meneses was lssued lree aLenL and Crlglnal CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle over
Lwo parcels of land locaLed ln Los 8anos Laguna abllLo Meneses acqulred sald properLy from
Sllverlo 8auLlsLa Lhrough a ueed of Walver and 1ransfer of 8lghLs execuLed on May 3 1973 ln
conslderaLlon of 8auLlsLas love and affecLlon for and some moneLary obllgaLlons ln favor of
abllLo Meneses AfLer Lhe execuLlon of sald documenL abllLo Meneses Look possesslon of Lhe
land lnLroduced lmprovemenLs Lhereon declared Lhe land as hls own for Lax purposes and pald
Lhe correspondlng realLy Laxes ln Lurn 8auLlsLa acqulred Lhe 900squaremeLer land from hls aunL
Sergla (Cllcerla) M Almeda Pe had been occupylng Lhe land slnce 1936

Cn Lhe oLher hand Lhe Culsumblng famlly Lraces ownershlp of Lhe land as far back as SepLember 6
1919 when Lhelr maLrlarch Clrlaca Arguelles vda de Culsumblng was lssued Crlglnal CerLlflcaLe of
1lLle no 989 coverlng a loL wlLh an area of 839 square meLers locaLed ln Los 8anos Laguna wlLh
Lhe Laguna de 8ay as lLs norLhwesLern boundary 1he same parcel of land was reglsLered on AugusL
14 1973 under 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle no 133393 ln Lhe names of Clrlacas helrs Lmlllo
Manuel Lduardo norberLo erla !oseflna napoleon PonoraLo 8emedlos and Alfonso all
surnamed Culsumblng 1he Culsumblngs applled for reglsLraLlon and conflrmaLlon of LlLle over an
addlLlonal area of 2387 square meLers whlch had gradually accrued Lo Lhelr properLy by Lhe
naLural acLlon of Lhe waLers of Laguna de 8ay

1he Culsumblngs Lhen flled a complalnL agalnsL Lorenzo and abllLo Meneses 8raullo C uarum
and Cesar 8 Almendral for nulllflcaLlon of Lhe free paLenLs and LlLles lssued Lo abllLo Meneses
1hey alleged LhaL Lorenzo Meneses Lhen Lhe Mayor of Los 8anos uslng hls broLher abllLo as a
Lool and dummy lllegally occupled Lhelr prlvaLe accreLlon land an AugusL 6 1976 and
confederaLlng wlLh ulsLrlcL Land Cfflcer uarum and Land lnspecLor Cesar Almendral obLalned free
paLenLs and orlglnal cerLlflcaLes of LlLle Lo Lhe land

lssue
W/n Lhe lands ln quesLlon are accreLlon lands of Lhe Culsumblngs

Peld
?es AccreLlon as a mode of acqulrlng properLy under ArLlcle 437 of Lhe Clvll Code
requlres Lhe concurrence of Lhese requlslLes (1) LhaL Lhe deposlLlon of soll or sedlmenL be gradual
and lmpercepLlble (2) LhaL lL be Lhe resulL of Lhe acLlon of Lhe waLers of Lhe rlver (or sea) and (3)
LhaL Lhe land where accreLlon Lakes place ls ad[acenL Lo Lhe banks of rlvers (or Lhe sea coasL)
ConsequenLly Lhe lands held Lo be accreLlon lands could only beneflL Lhe Culsumblngs who own
Lhe properLy ad[acenL Lo Lhe lands ln conLroversy

Slnce Laguna de 8ay ls a lake Lhe submerslon ln waLer of a porLlon of Lhe land ln quesLlon ls due Lo
Lhe ralns falllng dlrecLly on or flowlng lnLo Laguna de 8ay from dlfferenL sources Slnce Lhe
lnundaLlon of a porLlon of Lhe land ls noL due Lo flux and reflux of Lldes lL cannoL be consldered a
foreshore land wlLhln Lhe meanlng of Lhe auLhorlLles clLed by peLlLloner ulrecLor of Lands 1he land
soughL Lo be reglsLered noL belng parL of Lhe bed or basln of Laguna de 8ay nor a foreshore land as
clalmed by Lhe ulrecLor of Lands lL ls noL a publlc land and Lherefore capable of reglsLraLlon as
prlvaLe properLy provlded LhaL Lhe appllcanL proves LhaL he has a reglsLerable LlLle

C|ty Mayor of araaque v Lb|o
Gk# 178411]Iune 23 2010
621 SCkA SSS

lacLs
8espondenLs clalm LhaL Lhey are Lhe absoluLe owners of a parcel of land conslsLlng of
406 square meLers more or less locaLed aL 9781 vlLalez Compound ln 8arangay vlLalez aranaque
ClLy Sald land was an accreLlon of CuLcuL creek 8espondenLs asserL LhaL Lhe orlglnal occupanL and
possessor of Lhe sald parcel of land was Lhelr greaL grandfaLher !ose vlLalez SomeLlme ln 1930
!ose gave Lhe land Lo hls son edro vlLalez whose daughLer Zenalda marrled Marlo Lblo Cn Aprll
21 1987 edro execuLed a noLarlzed 1ransfer of 8lghLs cedlng hls clalm over Lhe enLlre parcel of

land ln favor of Marlo Lblo SubsequenLly Lhe Lax declaraLlons under edro's name were cancelled
and new ones were lssued ln Marlo Lblo's name

Cn March 30 1999 Sanggunlang 8arangay of vlLalez passed a 8esoluLlon seeklng
asslsLance from Lhe ClLy CovernmenL for Lhe consLrucLlon of an access road along CuLcuL Creek Lo
whlch Lhe respondenLs flled an opposlLlon As a resulL Lhe pro[ecL was Lemporarlly suspended ln
!anuary 2003 however several offlclals from Lhe barangay and Lhe clLy plannlng offlce proceeded
Lo cuL 8 coconuL Lrees planLed on Lhe sub[ecL properLy 8espondenLs flled leLLercomplalnLs before
Lhe 8eglonal ulrecLor of Lhe 8ureau of Lands ulLC and Cfflce of Lhe vlce Mayor Several meeLlng
were conducLed buL no deflnlLe agreemenL was reached

Powever on March 28 2003 Lhe ClLy AdmlnlsLraLor senL a leLLer Lo respondenLs orderlng Lhem Lo
vacaLe Lhe properLy wlLhln 30 days or be physlcally evlcLed 8espondenLs flled a wrlL of prellmlnary
ln[uncLlon agalnsL peLlLloners on Aprll 21 2003 ln Lhe course of Lhe proceedlngs respondenLs
admlLLed before Lhe Lrlal courL LhaL Lhey have a pendlng appllcaLlon for Lhe lssuance of a sales
paLenL before Lhe ueparLmenL of LnvlronmenL and naLural 8esources (uLn8) 1he 81C lssued an
Crder denylng Lhe peLlLlon for lack of merlL 1he Lrlal courL reasoned LhaL respondenLs were noL
able Lo prove successfully LhaL Lhey have an esLabllshed rlghL Lo Lhe properLy slnce Lhey have noL
lnsLlLuLed an acLlon for conflrmaLlon of LlLle and Lhelr appllcaLlon for sales paLenL has noL yeL been
granLed CA reversed

lssue
W/n Lhe characLer of respondenLs' possesslon and occupaLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy enLlLles
Lhem Lo avall of Lhe rellef of prohlblLory ln[uncLlon

Peld
?es lL ls an unconLesLed facL LhaL Lhe sub[ecL land was formed from Lhe alluvlal deposlLs
LhaL have gradually seLLled along Lhe banks of CuLcuL creek 1hls belng Lhe case Lhe law LhaL
governs ownershlp over Lhe accreLed porLlon ls ArLlcle 84 of Lhe Spanlsh Law of WaLers of 1866
whlch remalns ln effecL ln relaLlon Lo ArLlcle 437 of Lhe Clvll Code
under Lhese provlslons lLs ls clear LhaL alluvlal deposlLs along Lhe banks of a creek do
noL form parL of Lhe publlc domaln as Lhe alluvlal properLy auLomaLlcally belongs Lo Lhe owner of
Lhe esLaLe Lo whlch lL may have been added 1he only resLrlcLlon provlded for by law ls LhaL Lhe
owner of Lhe ad[olnlng properLy musL reglsLer Lhe same under Lhe 1orrens sysLem oLherwlse Lhe
alluvlal properLy may be sub[ecL Lo acqulslLlon Lhrough prescrlpLlon by Lhlrd persons Pence whlle
lL ls Lrue LhaL a creek ls a properLy of publlc domlnlon Lhe land whlch ls formed by Lhe gradual and
lmpercepLlble accumulaLlon of sedlmenLs along lLs banks does noL form parL of Lhe publlc domaln
by clear provlslon of law
Slnce for more Lhan LhlrLy (30) years nelLher CuaranLeed Pomes lnc nor Lhe local governmenL of
aranaque ln lLs corporaLe or prlvaLe capaclLy soughL Lo reglsLer Lhe accreLed porLlon
undoubLedly respondenLs are deemed Lo have acqulred ownershlp over Lhe sub[ecL properLy
Lhrough prescrlpLlon


A|magro vs kwan
Gk# 17S806]17S810] Cct 20 2010
634 SCkA 2S0

lacLs 8espondenLs are Lhe successors ln lnLeresL of Lhe LoL no 6278M a 17181 square meLer
parcel of land locaLed aL Maslog Slbulan negros CrlenLal Cn 18 SepLember 1996 Lhey flled wlLh
Lhe M1C an acLlon for recovery of possesslon and damages agalnsL Lhe occupanLs on of whlch are
Lhe eLlLloners M1C dlsmlssed Lhe complalnL on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe remalnlng dry porLlon of LoL
no 6278M has become foreshore land and should be reLurned Lo Lhe publlc domaln
8espondenLs appealed Lo Lhe 81C 1he 81C conducLed ocular lnspecLlons of sub[ecL loL
on Lwo separaLe daLes on 3 CcLober 2001 durlng low Llde and on 13 CcLober 2001 when Lhe hlgh
Llde reglsLered 13 meLers 81C concluded LhaL Lhe small porLlon of respondenL's properLy whlch
remalns as dry land ls noL wlLhln Lhe scope of Lhe wellseLLled deflnlLlon of foreshore and foreshore
land Lhe small dry porLlon ls noL ad[acenL Lo Lhe sea Lhus 8espondenL have Lhe rlghL Lo recover
possesslon of Lhe remalnlng small dry porLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy ln quesLlon CA afflrmed sald
declslon

lssue WCn Lhe dlspuLed porLlon of LoL ls no longer prlvaLe land buL has become foreshore land
and ls now parL of Lhe publlc domaln?

Peld 1he dlspuLed land ls noL foreshore land 1o quallfy as foreshore land lL musL be shown LhaL
Lhe land lles beLween Lhe hlgh and low waLer marks and ls alLernaLely weL and dry accordlng Lo Lhe
flow of Lhe Llde1he lands proxlmlLy Lo Lhe waLers alone does noL auLomaLlcally make lL a
foreshore land
1hus ln 8epubllc of Lhe hlllpplnes v Lenslco Lhe CourL held LhaL alLhough Lhe Lwo corners of
Lhe sub[ecL loL ad[olns Lhe sea Lhe loL cannoL be consldered as foreshore land slnce lL has noL been
proven LhaL Lhe loL was covered by waLer durlng hlgh Llde
Slmllarly ln Lhls case lL was clearly proven LhaL Lhe dlspuLed land remalned dry even durlng
hlgh Llde lndeed all Lhe evldence supporLs Lhe concluslon LhaL Lhe dlspuLed porLlon of LoL no
6278M ls noL foreshore land buL remalns prlvaLe land owned by respondenLs

Chapter 3 u|et|ng of @|t|e (Arts476481) + Cther Modes of kecovery

ne|rs of Ma|abanan v kepub||c
Gk# 179987 ]Apr|| 29 2009
S87 SCkA 172

lacLs Cn 20 lebruary 1998 Marlo Malabanan flled an appllcaLlon for land reglsLraLlon (land
slLuaLed ln 1lblg Sllang CavlLe) Malabanan clalmed LhaL he had purchased Lhe properLy from
Lduardo velazco and LhaL he and hls predecessorslnlnLeresL had been ln open noLorlous and
conLlnuous adverse and peaceful possesslon of Lhe land for more Lhan LhlrLy (30) years
velazco LesLlfled LhaL Lhe properLy orlglnally belonged Lo a 22 hecLare properLy owned by hls greaL
grandfaLher Llno velazco upon Llno's deaLh hls four sons lnherlLed Lhe properLy ln 1966
LsLeban's (1 of Lhe sons) wlfe Magdalena had become Lhe admlnlsLraLor AfLer Lhe deaLh of
LsLeban and Magdalena Lhelr son vlrglllo succeeded Lhem ln admlnlsLerlng Lhe properLles
lncludlng LoL 9864A whlch orlglnally belonged Lo hls uncle Lduardo velazco lL was Lhls properLy
LhaL was sold by velazco Lo Malabanan
1he 8epubllc dld noL presenL any evldence Lo conLroverL Lhe appllcaLlon
Among Lhe evldence presenLed by Malabanan was a CerLlflcaLlon daLed 11 !une 2001
lssued by Lhe CommunlLy LnvlronmenL naLural 8esources Cfflce (CLn8C) uLn8 whlch sLaLed

LhaL Lhe sub[ecL properLy was verlfled Lo be wlLhln Lhe Allenable or ulsposable land approved as
such under on March 13 1982
81C rendered [udgmenL ln favor of Malabanan 1he 8epubllc lnLerposed an appeal Lo Lhe CA
argulng LhaL Malabanan had falled Lo prove LhaL Lhe properLy belonged Lo Lhe allenable and
dlsposable land of Lhe publlc domaln and LhaL Lhe 81C had erred ln flndlng LhaL he had been ln
possesslon of Lhe properLy ln Lhe manner and for Lhe lengLh of Llme requlred by law for
conflrmaLlon of lmperfecL LlLle
CA reversed Lhe 81C lL held LhaL under Sec 14(1) of Lhe roperLy 8eglsLraLlon uecree any perlod of
possesslon prlor Lo Lhe classlflcaLlon of Lhe loLs as allenable and dlsposable was lnconsequenLlal
and should be excluded from Lhe compuLaLlon of Lhe perlod of possesslon 1hus lL noLed LhaL slnce
Lhe CLn8CuLn8 cerLlflcaLlon had verlfled LhaL Lhe properLy was declared allenable and dlsposable
only on 13 March 1982 Lhe velazcos' possesslon prlor Lo LhaL daLe could noL be facLored ln Lhe
compuLaLlon of Lhe perlod of possesslon 1hls lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe CA was based on Lhe CourL's
rullng ln 8epubllc v PerbleLo

Malabanan dled whlle Lhe case was pendlng Pelrs appealed Lhe declslon

lssues Are peLlLloners enLlLled Lo Lhe reglsLraLlon of Lhe sub[ecL land ln Lhelr names under SecLlon
14(1) or SecLlon 14(2) of Lhe roperLy 8eglsLraLlon uecree or boLh?

Peld 1he eLlLlon ls denled ln connecLlon wlLh SecLlon 14(1) of Lhe roperLy 8eglsLraLlon uecree
SecLlon 48(b) of Lhe ubllc Land AcL recognlzes and conflrms LhaL Lhose who by Lhemselves or
Lhrough Lhelr predecessors ln lnLeresL have been ln open conLlnuous excluslve and noLorlous
possesslon and occupaLlon of allenable and dlsposable lands of Lhe publlc domaln under a bona
flde clalm of acqulslLlon of ownershlp slnce !une 12 1943" have acqulred ownershlp of and
reglsLrable LlLle Lo such lands based on Lhe lengLh and quallLy of Lhelr possesslon
Slnce SecLlon 48(b) merely requlres possesslon slnce 12 !une 1943 and does noL requlre LhaL Lhe
lands should have been allenable and dlsposable durlng Lhe enLlre perlod of possesslon Lhe
possessor ls enLlLled Lo secure [udlclal conflrmaLlon of hls LlLle LhereLo as soon as lL ls declared
allenable and dlsposable sub[ecL Lo Lhe Llmeframe lmposed by SecLlon 47 of Lhe ubllc Land AcL
1he rlghL Lo reglsLer granLed under SecLlon 48(b) of Lhe ubllc Land AcL ls furLher conflrmed by
SecLlon 14(1) of Lhe roperLy 8eglsLraLlon uecree
ln complylng wlLh SecLlon 14(2) of Lhe roperLy 8eglsLraLlon uecree conslder LhaL under Lhe Clvll
Code prescrlpLlon ls recognlzed as a mode of acqulrlng ownershlp of paLrlmonlal properLy
Powever publlc domaln lands become only paLrlmonlal properLy noL only wlLh a declaraLlon LhaL
Lhese are allenable or dlsposable 1here musL also be an express governmenL manlfesLaLlon LhaL
Lhe properLy ls already paLrlmonlal or no longer reLalned for publlc servlce or Lhe developmenL of
naLlonal wealLh under ArLlcle 422 of Lhe Clvll Code And only when Lhe properLy has become
paLrlmonlal can Lhe prescrlpLlve perlod for Lhe acqulslLlon of properLy of Lhe publlc domlnlon begln
Lo run
aLrlmonlal properLy ls prlvaLe properLy of Lhe governmenL 1he person acqulres ownershlp of
paLrlmonlal properLy by prescrlpLlon under Lhe Clvll Code ls enLlLled Lo secure reglsLraLlon Lhereof
under SecLlon 14(2) of Lhe roperLy 8eglsLraLlon uecree
1here are Lwo klnds of prescrlpLlon by whlch paLrlmonlal properLy may be acqulred one ordlnary
and oLher exLraordlnary under ordlnary acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon a person acqulres ownershlp of a
paLrlmonlal properLy Lhrough possesslon for aL leasL Len (10) years ln good falLh and wlLh [usL LlLle
under exLraordlnary acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon a person's unlnLerrupLed adverse possesslon of
paLrlmonlal properLy for aL leasL LhlrLy (30) years regardless of good falLh or [usL LlLle rlpens lnLo
ownershlp
lL ls clear LhaL Lhe evldence of peLlLloners ls lnsufflclenL Lo esLabllsh LhaL Malabanan has acqulred
ownershlp over Lhe sub[ecL properLy under SecLlon 48(b) of Lhe ubllc Land AcL 1here ls no
subsLanLlve evldence Lo esLabllsh LhaL Malabanan or peLlLloners as hls predecessorslnlnLeresL
have been ln possesslon of Lhe properLy slnce 12 !une 1943 or earller 1he earllesL LhaL peLlLloners
can daLe back Lhelr possesslon accordlng Lo Lhelr own evldenceLhe 1ax ueclaraLlons Lhey
presenLed ln parLlcularls Lo Lhe year 1948 1hus Lhey cannoL avall Lhemselves of reglsLraLlon
under SecLlon 14(1) of Lhe roperLy 8eglsLraLlon uecree
nelLher can peLlLloners properly lnvoke SecLlon 14(2) as basls for reglsLraLlon Whlle Lhe sub[ecL
properLy was declared as allenable or dlsposable ln 1982 Lhere ls no compeLenL evldence LhaL ls no
longer lnLended for publlc use servlce or for Lhe developmenL of Lhe naLlonal evldence
conformably wlLh ArLlcle 422 of Lhe Clvll Code 1he classlflcaLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy as
allenable and dlsposable land of Lhe publlc domaln does noL change lLs sLaLus as properLy of Lhe
publlc domlnlon under ArLlcle 420(2) of Lhe Clvll Code 1hus lL ls lnsuscepLlble Lo acqulslLlon by
prescrlpLlon

@an vs kep
Gk# 177797] Dec 04 2008
S73 SCkA 89

lacLs Spouses 1an were naLuralborn llllplno clLlzens who became AusLrallan clLlzens 1hey seek
Lo have Lhe sub[ecL properLy reglsLered ln Lhelr names 1he sub[ecL properLy was declared allenable
and dlsposable ln 1923 as esLabllshed by a CerLlflcaLlon lssued by Lhe uLn8 and CommunlLy
LnvlronmenL and naLural 8esources Cfflce (CLn8C) Cagayan de Cro ClLy Spouses 1an acqulred
Lhe sub[ecL properLy from Luclo and !uanlLo nerl and Lhelr spouses by vlrLue of a duly noLarlzed
ueed of Sale of unreglsLered 8eal LsLaLe roperLy 1he spouses 1an Look lmmedlaLe possesslon of
Lhe sub[ecL properLy on whlch Lhey planLed rubber gemellna and oLher frulLbearlng Lrees 1hey
declared Lhe sub[ecL properLy for LaxaLlon purposes ln Lhelr names Powever a cerLaln aLermaLeo
Caslno (Caslno) clalmed a porLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy prompLlng spouses 1an Lo flle a
ComplalnL for CuleLlng of 1lLle agalnsL hlm before Lhe 81C 81C rendered a ueclslon favorlng Lhe
spouses 1an and declarlng Lhelr LlLle Lo Lhe sub[ecL properLy Lhus quleLed Caslno appealed Lo Lhe
CA whlch dlsmlssed Lhe appeal for lack of lnLeresL Lo prosecuLe Caslno elevaLed hls case Lo Lhe SC
vla a eLlLlon for 8evlew whlch was for belng lnsufflclenL ln form and subsLance 1he sald
8esoluLlon became flnal and execuLory ln 1991

8efuslng Lo glve up Caslno flled an AppllcaLlon for lree aLenL on Lhe sub[ecL properLy before Lhe
8ureau of Lands Caslno's appllcaLlon was ordered cancelled by uLn8CLn8C ln 2000 Spouses 1an
flled Lhelr AppllcaLlon for 8eglsLraLlon of 1lLle Lo Lhe sub[ecL properLy before Lhe 81C lnvoklng Lhe
provlslons of AcL no 496 and/or SecLlon 48 of CommonwealLh AcL no 141 as amended 81C
granLed Lhe appllcaLlon of Spouses 1an CA reversed Lhe ueclslon of Lhe 81C on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe
spouses 1an falled Lo comply wlLh SecLlon 48(b) of CommonwealLh AcL no 141 (ubllc Land AcL) as
amended by resldenLlal uecree no 1073 whlch requlres possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy Lo
sLarL on or prlor Lo 12 !une 1943 Pence Lhe appellaLe courL ordered Lhe spouses 1an Lo reLurn Lhe
sub[ecL properLy Lo Lhe 8epubllc

lssue WheLher or noL Spouses 1an have been ln open conLlnuous excluslve and noLorlous
possesslon and occupaLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy under a bona flde clalm of acqulslLlon or
ownershlp slnce 12 !une 1943 or earller lmmedlaLely precedlng Lhe flllng of Lhe appllcaLlon for
conflrmaLlon of LlLle

8ullng 1he ubllc Land AcL as amended by resldenLlal uecree no 1073 governs lands of Lhe
publlc domaln excepL Llmber and mlneral lands frlar lands and prlvaLely owned lands whlch
reverLed Lo Lhe SLaLe lL expllclLly enumeraLes Lhe means by whlch publlc lands may be dlsposed of
Lo wlL
(1) lor homesLead seLLlemenL
(2) 8y sale
(3) 8y lease and
(4) 8y conflrmaLlon of lmperfecL or lncompleLe LlLles
(a) 8y [udlclal legallzaLlon
(b) 8y admlnlsLraLlve legallzaLlon (free paLenL)

Slnce Lhe spouses 1an flled Lhelr appllcaLlon before Lhe 81C Lhen lL can be reasonably lnferred LhaL
Lhey are seeklng Lhe [udlclal conflrmaLlon or legallzaLlon of Lhelr lmperfecL or lncompleLe LlLle over
Lhe sub[ecL properLy !udlclal conflrmaLlon or legallzaLlon of lmperfecL or lncompleLe LlLle Lo land
noL exceedlng 144 hecLares may be avalled of by persons ldenLlfled under SecLlon 48 of Lhe ubllc
Land AcL as amended by resldenLlal uecree no 1073
(b) 1hose who by Lhemselves or Lhrough Lhelr predecessorsln lnLeresL have been ln open
conLlnuous excluslve and noLorlous possesslon and occupaLlon of agrlculLural lands of Lhe publlc
domaln under a bona flde clalm of acqulslLlon of ownershlp slnce !une 12 1943 or earller
lmmedlaLely precedlng Lhe flllng of Lhe appllcaLlon for conflrmaLlon of LlLle excepL when prevenLed
by war or force ma[eure 1hese shall be concluslvely presumed Lo have performed all Lhe
condlLlons essenLlal Lo a CovernmenL granL and shall be enLlLled Lo a cerLlflcaLe of LlLle under Lhe
provlslons of Lhls chapLer

noL belng members of any naLlonal culLural mlnorlLles spouses 1an may only be enLlLled Lo [udlclal
conflrmaLlon or legallzaLlon of Lhelr lmperfecL or lncompleLe LlLle under SecLlon 48(b) of Lhe ubllc
Land AcL as amended under CommonwealLh AcL no 141 as amended Lhe Lwo requlslLes whlch
Lhe appllcanLs musL comply wlLh for Lhe granL of Lhelr AppllcaLlon for 8eglsLraLlon of 1lLle are (1)
Lhe land applled for ls allenable and dlsposable and (2) Lhe appllcanLs and Lhelr predecessorsln
lnLeresL have occupled and possessed Lhe land openly conLlnuously excluslvely and adversely
slnce 12 !une 1943 1o prove LhaL Lhe land sub[ecL of an appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon ls allenable an
appllcanL musL concluslvely esLabllsh Lhe exlsLence of a poslLlve acL of Lhe governmenL such as a
presldenLlal proclamaLlon or an execuLlve order or admlnlsLraLlve acLlon lnvesLlgaLlon reporLs of
Lhe 8ureau of Lands lnvesLlgaLor or a leglslaLlve acL or sLaLuLe unLll Lhen Lhe rules on conflrmaLlon
of lmperfecL LlLle do noL apply

A cerLlflcaLlon from Lhe uLn8 LhaL a loL ls allenable and dlsposable ls sufflclenL Lo esLabllsh Lhe Lrue
naLure and characLer of Lhe properLy and en[oys a presumpLlon of regularlLy ln Lhe absence of
conLradlcLory evldence44 Conslderlng LhaL no evldence was presenLed Lo dlsprove Lhe conLenLs of
Lhe aforesald uLn8CLn8C CerLlflcaLlon Lhls CourL ls duLybound Lo uphold Lhe same
noneLheless even when Lhe spouses 1an were able Lo sufflclenLly prove LhaL Lhe sub[ecL properLy
ls parL of Lhe allenable and dlsposable lands of Lhe publlc domaln as early as 31 uecember 1923
Lhey sLlll falled Lo saLlsfacLorlly esLabllsh compllance wlLh Lhe second requlslLe for [udlclal
conflrmaLlon of lmperfecL or lncompleLe LlLle le open conLlnuous excluslve and noLorlous
possesslon and occupaLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy slnce 12 !une 1943 or earller A mere showlng of
possesslon for LhlrLy years or more ls noL sufflclenL lL musL be shown Loo LhaL possesslon and
occupaLlon had sLarLed on 12 !une 1943 or earller

ln addlLlon Lax declaraLlons and recelpLs are noL concluslve evldence of ownershlp AL mosL Lhey
consLlLuLe mere prlma facle proofs of ownershlp of Lhe properLy for whlch Laxes have been pald ln
Lhe absence of acLual publlc and adverse possesslon Lhe declaraLlon of Lhe land for Lax purposes
does noL prove ownershlp 1hey may be good supporLlng or collaboraLlng evldence LogeLher wlLh
oLher acLs of possesslon and ownershlp buL by Lhemselves Lax declaraLlons are lnadequaLe Lo
esLabllsh possesslon of Lhe properLy ln Lhe naLure and for Lhe perlod requlred by sLaLuLe for
acqulrlng lmperfecL or lncompleLe LlLle Lo Lhe land

lor fallure of Lhe Spouses 1an Lo saLlsfy Lhe requlremenLs prescrlbed by SecLlon 48(b) of Lhe ubllc
Land AcL as amended Lhls CourL has no oLher opLlon buL Lo deny Lhelr appllcaLlon for [udlclal
conflrmaLlon and reglsLraLlon of Lhelr LlLle Lo Lhe sub[ecL properLy

kep vs @sa|
Gk# 168184] Iune 22 2009
S90 SCkA 423

lacLs 1sal flled an appllcaLlon for Lhe conflrmaLlon and reglsLraLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy under
u 1329 1sal sLaLed LhaL on 31 May 1993 she purchased Lhe properLy from ManollLa Carungcong
1sal declared LhaL she and her predecessorslnlnLeresL have been ln open conLlnuous excluslve
and noLorlous possesslon and occupaLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy for more Lhan 30 years

8epubllc opposed on Lhe followlng grounds (1) LhaL 1sal and her predecessorslnlnLeresL
falled Lo presenL sufflclenL evldence Lo show LhaL Lhey have been ln open conLlnuous excluslve
and noLorlous possesslon and occupaLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy slnce 12 !une 1943 or earller (2)
LhaL Lhe Lax declaraLlons and Lax recelpL paymenLs do noL consLlLuLe compeLenL and sufflclenL
evldence and (3) LhaL Lhe properLy forms parL of Lhe publlc domaln and ls noL sub[ecL Lo prlvaLe
approprlaLlon

1rlal courL granLed 1sals appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon 1he 8epubllc appealed Lo Lhe CA CA
afflrmed Lhe Lrlal courL's declslon

lssue WheLher Lhe Lrlal courL can granL Lhe appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon desplLe Lhe lack of proof of
1sals open conLlnuous excluslve and noLorlous possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy slnce 12 !une
1943 or earller

Peld 1he peLlLlon has merlL

ln 1sals orlglnal appllcaLlon before Lhe Lrlal courL she clalmed LhaL she was enLlLled Lo Lhe
conflrmaLlon and reglsLraLlon of her LlLle Lo Lhe sub[ecL properLy under u 1329 Powever she dld
noL speclfy under whaL paragraph of SecLlon 14 of u 1329 she was flllng Lhe appllcaLlon lL
appears LhaL she flled her appllcaLlon under SecLlon 14(1) of u 1329 whlch sLaLes

SLC 14 Who may apply xxx
(1) 1hose who by Lhemselves or Lhrough Lhelr predecessorslnlnLeresL have been ln open
conLlnuous excluslve and noLorlous possesslon and occupaLlon of allenable and dlsposable lands of
Lhe publlc domaln under a bona flde clalm of ownershlp slnce !une 12 1943 or earller

1hus Lhere are Lhree requlslLes (1) LhaL Lhe properLy ln quesLlon ls allenable and dlsposable
land of Lhe publlc domaln (2) LhaL Lhe appllcanL by hlmself or Lhrough hls predecessorslnlnLeresL
have been ln open conLlnuous excluslve and noLorlous possesslon and occupaLlon and (3) LhaL
such possesslon ls under a bona flde clalm of ownershlp slnce 12 !une 1943 or earller 1he rlghL Lo
flle Lhe appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon derlves from a bona flde clalm of ownershlp golng back Lo 12
!une 1943 or earller by reason of Lhe clalmanL's open conLlnuous excluslve and noLorlous
possesslon of allenable and dlsposable land of Lhe publlc domaln

A slmllar rlghL ls glven under SecLlon 48(b) of CA 141 as amended by u 1073

As Lhe law now sLands a mere showlng of possesslon and occupaLlon for 30 years or
more ls noL sufflclenL Slnce Lhe effecLlvlLy of u 1073 on 23 !anuary 1977 lL musL now be shown
LhaL possesslon and occupaLlon of Lhe plece of land by Lhe appllcanL by hlmself or Lhrough hls
predecessorslnlnLeresL sLarLed on 12 !une 1943 or earller 1hls provlslon ls ln LoLal conformlLy
wlLh SecLlon 14(1) of u 1329

1sal falled Lo comply wlLh Lhe perlod of possesslon and occupaLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy as
requlred by boLh u 1329 and CA 141 1sals evldence was noL enough Lo prove LhaL her
possesslon of Lhe properLy because Lhe earllesL evldence can be Lraced back Lo a Lax declaraLlon
lssued ln Lhe name of her predecessorslnlnLeresL only ln Lhe year 1948 ln vlew of Lhe lack of
sufflclenL showlng LhaL 1sal and her predecessorslnlnLeresL possessed Lhe sub[ecL properLy under
a bona flde clalm of ownershlp slnce 12 !une 1943 or earller her appllcaLlon for conflrmaLlon and
reglsLraLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy under u 1329 and CA 141 should be denled

1sal also falled Lo prove LhaL Lhe sub[ecL properLy has been declared allenable and dlsposable
by Lhe resldenL or Lhe SecreLary of Lhe uLn8

AppllcanL for land reglsLraLlon musL prove LhaL Lhe uLn8 SecreLary had approved Lhe
land classlflcaLlon and released Lhe land of Lhe publlc domaln as allenable and dlsposable and LhaL
Lhe land sub[ecL of Lhe appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon falls wlLhln Lhe approved area per verlflcaLlon
Lhrough survey by Lhe Ln8C or CLn8C ln addlLlon Lhe appllcanL for land reglsLraLlon musL
presenL a copy of Lhe orlglnal classlflcaLlon approved by Lhe uLn8 SecreLary and cerLlfled as a Lrue
copy by Lhe legal cusLodlan of Lhe offlclal records 1hese facLs musL be esLabllshed Lo prove LhaL
Lhe land ls allenable and dlsposable

L|m vs kep
Gk# 162047] Sept 4 2009
S98 SCkA 247

lAC1S !oyce Llm (peLlLloner) flled on SepLember 7 1998 before Lhe 81C of 1agayLay ClLy an
AppllcaLlon for 8eglsLraLlon of 1lLle (L8C Case no 1C837) over LoL 13687 a 9638squaremeLer
and ad[acenL LoL 13686 conLalnlng 18997squaremeLers locaLed ln Sllang CavlLe

eLlLloner declarlng LhaL she purchased boLh loLs on Aprll 30 1997 from Spouses Ldgardo and
!orglna agkallnawan soughL Lhe appllcaLlon of resldenLlal uecree no 1329 or Lhe roperLy
8eglsLraLlon uecree for boLh appllcaLlons clalmlng LhaL she and her predecessorslnlnLeresL
1rlnldad Mercado lernanda 8elardo vlcLorla Abueg and Lhe Spouses agkallnawan have been ln
open conLlnuous excluslve and noLorlous possesslon and occupancy of Lhe loLs under a bona flde
clalm of ownershlp for more Lhan LhlrLy (30) years eLlLloner alLernaLlvely lnvoked Lhe provlslons
of CommonwealLh AcL no 141 as amended or Lhe ubllc Land AcL as basls of her appllcaLlons
Powever per CerLlflcaLlon from Lhe CommunlLy LnvlronmenL and naLural 8esources Cfflce
(CLn8C) Lhe land was sald Lo be wlLhln Lhe Allenable or ulsposable Land per Land ClasslflcaLlon
Map no 3013 esLabllshed under ro[ecL no 20A lAC 41636 on March 13 1982"

1he 81C granLed peLlLloners appllcaLlon 1he SollclLor Ceneral on behalf of Lhe 8epubllc appealed
Lo Lhe CA on Lhe ground LhaL peLlLloner falled Lo comply wlLh Lhe provlslons of Lhe roperLy
8eglsLraLlon uecree and ArLlcle 1137 of Lhe Clvll Code boLh laws of whlch requlre aL leasL 30 years
of adverse possesslon counLed from March 13 1982 when lL became parL of Lhe allenable and
dlsposable land 1hls was granLed Pence Lhls appeal

lSSuL WheLher Lhe provlslons of u 1329 may defeaL peLlLloner's rlghL LhaL has already been
vesLed prlor Lo promulgaLlon Lhereof

PLLu As for peLlLloners lnvocaLlon of Lhe provlslons of Lhe ubllc Land AcL Lo have her appllcaLlons
consldered as conflrmaLlons of lmperfecL LlLles Lhe same falls When SecLlon 48 (b) of Lhe ubllc
Land AcL was amended by resldenLlal uecree no 1073 whlch made !une 12 1943 as Lhe cuLoff
daLe Lhe amendmenL made Lhe law concordanL wlLh SecLlon 14 (1) of Lhe roperLy 8eglsLraLlon
uecree

SecLlon 48 (b) of Lhe ubllc Land AcL and SecLlon 14 (1) of Lhe roperLy 8eglsLraLlon uecree vary
however wlLh respecL Lo Lhelr operaLlon slnce Lhe laLLer operaLes when Lhere exlsLs a LlLle whlch
only needs conflrmaLlon whlle Lhe former works under Lhe presumpLlon LhaL Lhe land applled for
sLlll belongs Lo Lhe SLaLe Whlle Lhe sub[ecL loLs were verlfled Lo be allenable or dlsposable lands
slnce March 13 1982 Lhere ls no sufflclenL proof LhaL open conLlnuous and adverse possesslon
over Lhem by peLlLloner and her predecessorslnlnLeresL commenced on !une 12 1943 or earller
eLlLloners appllcaLlons cannoL Lhus be granLed

Whlle a properLy classlfled as allenable and dlsposable publlc land may be converLed lnLo prlvaLe
properLy by reason of open conLlnuous excluslve and noLorlous possesslon of aL leasL 30 years
publlc domlnlon lands become paLrlmonlal properLy noL only wlLh a declaraLlon LhaL Lhese are
allenable or dlsposable buL also wlLh an express governmenL manlfesLaLlon LhaL Lhe properLy ls
already paLrlmonlal or no longer reLalned for publlc use publlc servlce or Lhe developmenL of
naLlonal wealLh 42 And only when Lhe properLy has become paLrlmonlal can Lhe prescrlpLlve
perlod for Lhe acqulslLlon of properLy of Lhe publlc domlnlon begln Lo run

Whlle Lhe sub[ecL loLs were declared allenable or dlsposable on March 13 1982 Lhere ls no
compeLenL evldence LhaL Lhey are no longer lnLended for publlc use or for publlc servlce 1he
classlflcaLlon of Lhe loLs as allenable and dlsposable lands of Lhe publlc domaln does noL change lLs
sLaLus as properLles of Lhe publlc domlnlon eLlLloner cannoL Lhus acqulre LlLle Lo Lhem by
prescrlpLlon as yeL

ln AddlLlon
As gaLhered from Lhe CLn8C CerLlflcaLlons Lhe loLs were verlfled Lo be allenable or dlsposable
lands on March 13 1982 1hese CerLlflcaLlons en[oy Lhe presumpLlon of regularlLy ln Lhe absence of
conLradlcLory evldence 1here ls also no sufflclenL proof LhaL peLlLloners predecessorslnlnLeresL
had been ln open conLlnuous and adverse possesslon of Lhe loLs slnce !une 12 1943 or earller

As for peLlLloners rellance on Lhe Lax declaraLlons and recelpLs of realLy Lax paymenLs Lhe
documenLs Lax declaraLlons for LoL no 13687 and LoL no 13686 whlch were lssued only ln 1991
and 1994 respecLlvely are lndlcla of Lhe possesslon ln Lhe concepL of an owner 1here ls no
showlng of Lax paymenLs before Lhese years

kep vs Ch|ng
Gk# 186166] Cct 20 2010
634 SCkA 41S

lAC1S
Cn AugusL 9 1999 respondenL !ose Chlng represenLed by hls ALLorneylnlacL AnLonlo Chlng
flled a verlfled AppllcaLlon for 8eglsLraLlon of 1lLle coverlng a parcel of land wlLh lmprovemenLs
before Lhe 81C 1he sub[ecL loL ls a consolldaLlon of Lhree (3) conLlguous loLs slLuaLed ln 8anza
8uLuan ClLy Agusan del norLe wlLh an area of 38229 square meLers 8espondenL alleged LhaL on
Aprll 10 1979 he purchased Lhe sub[ecL land from Lhe laLe former governor and Congressman
uemocrlLo C laza as evldenced by a ueed of Sale of unreglsLered Lands
lnlLlally Lhe 81C acLlng as a land reglsLraLlon courL ordered respondenL Lo show cause why hls
appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon of LlLle should noL be dlsmlssed for hls fallure Lo sLaLe Lhe currenL
assessed value of Lhe sub[ecL land and hls noncompllance wlLh Lhe lasL paragraph of SecLlon 17 of
resldenLlal uecree (u) no 13298
1he CSC duly depuLlzed Lhe rovlnclal rosecuLor of Agusan del norLe flled an CpposlLlon Lo Lhe
appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon of LlLle as well as Lhe ueparLmenL of LnvlronmenL and naLural
8esources
Cn uecember 3 2002 Lhe 81C resolved Lo dlsmlss Lhe respondenL's appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon
1he 81C was noL convlnced LhaL respondenL's ueed of Sale sufflclenLly esLabllshed LhaL he was Lhe
owner ln fee slmple of Lhe land soughL Lo be reglsLered 8espondenL flled a moLlon for
reconslderaLlon and a subsequenL supplemenLal moLlon for reconslderaLlon wlLh aLLached
addlLlonal Lax declaraLlons 1he 81C denled 8espondenL appealed Lhe 81C rullng before Lhe CA CA
reversed Lhe 81C's earller resoluLlon and granLed respondenL's appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon of LlLle
Pence Lhls peLlLlon for revlew on cerLlorarl flled by CSC
lSSuL
WheLher or noL Lhe respondenL appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon of LlLle be granLed
PLLu
1he CourL flnds LhaL Lhe respondenL provlded no compeLenL and persuaslve evldence Lo show LhaL
Lhe land has been classlfled as allenable and dlsposable Lherefore Lhe appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon
should be denled
Llkewlse afLer revlewlng Lhe documenLs submlLLed by Lhe respondenL lL ls clear LhaL Lhere was no
subsLanLlve evldence Lo show LhaL he complled wlLh Lhe requlremenL of possesslon and occupaLlon
slnce !une 12 1943 or earller 1he earllesL Lax declaraLlon LhaL respondenL Lrled Lo lncorporaLe ln
hls SupplemenLal MoLlon for 8econslderaLlon does noL measure up Lo Lhe Llme requlremenL
8ased on Lhese legal parameLers appllcanLs for reglsLraLlon of LlLle under SecLlon 14(1) of u
1329 ln relaLlon Lo SecLlon 48(b) of CommonwealLh AcL 141 as amended by SecLlon 4 of u 1073
musL sufflclenLly esLabllsh (1) LhaL Lhe sub[ecL land forms parL of Lhe dlsposable and allenable
lands of Lhe publlc domaln (2) LhaL Lhe appllcanL and hls predecessorslnlnLeresL have been ln
open conLlnuous excluslve and noLorlous possesslon and occupaLlon of Lhe same and (3) LhaL lL ls
under a bona flde clalm of ownershlp slnce !une 12 1943 or earller
1hus before an appllcanL can adduce evldence of open conLlnuous excluslve and noLorlous
possesslon and occupaLlon of Lhe properLy ln quesLlon he musL flrsL prove LhaL Lhe land belongs Lo
Lhe allenable and dlsposable lands of Lhe publlc domaln lL ls docLrlnal LhaL under Lhe 8egallan
docLrlne all lands of Lhe publlc domaln perLaln Lo Lhe SLaLe and Lhe laLLer ls Lhe foundaLlon of any
asserLed rlghL Lo ownershlp ln land Accordlngly Lhe SLaLe presumably owns all lands noL oLherwlse
appearlng Lo be clearly wlLhln prlvaLe ownershlp 1o overcome such presumpLlon lrrefuLable
evldence musL be shown by Lhe appllcanL LhaL Lhe land sub[ecL of reglsLraLlon has been declasslfled
and now belongs Lo Lhe allenable and dlsposable porLlon of Lhe publlc domaln

kep vs De|a az
Gk# 171631] Nov 1S 2010
634 SCkA 610

lAC1S
Cn november 13 2003 respondenLs Avellno 8 dela az Arsenlo 8 dela az !ose 8 dela az and
Cllcerlo 8 dela az represenLed by !ose 8 dela az (!ose) flled wlLh Lhe 81C of aslg ClLy an
appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon of land3 under resldenLlal uecree no 1329 (u 1329) oLherwlse
known as Lhe roperLy 8eglsLraLlon uecree 1he appllcaLlon covered a parcel of land wlLh an area of
23823 square meLers slLuaLed aL lbayo naplndan 1agulg MeLro Manlla

8espondenLs alleged LhaL Lhey acqulred Lhe sub[ecL properLy whlch ls an agrlculLural land by
vlrLue of Salaysay ng agkakaloob4 daLed !une 18 1987 execuLed by Lhelr parenLs Zoslmo dela az
and LsLer dela az (Zoslmo and LsLer) who earller acqulred Lhe sald properLy from Lhelr deceased
parenL Ale[andro dela az (Ale[andro) by vlrLue of a Slnumpaang ahayag sa agllllpaL sa Sarlll ng
mga agaarl ng namaLay3 daLed March 10 1979 1he respondenLs clalmed LhaL Lhey are co
owners of Lhe sub[ecL properLy and Lhey are ln conLlnuous open excluslve and noLorlous
possesslon ln Lhe concepL of owner slnce Lhey acqulred lL ln 1987

eLlLloner 8epubllc of Lhe hlllpplnes (8epubllc) Lhrough Lhe Cfflce of Lhe SollclLor Ceneral (CSC)
opposed Lhe appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon Cn May 3 2004 Lhe Lrlal courL lssued an Crder of Ceneral
uefaulL agalnsL Lhe whole world excepL as agalnsL Lhe 8epubllc 1hereafLer respondenLs presenLed
Lhelr evldence ln supporL of Lhelr appllcaLlon

ln lLs ueclslon daLed november 17 2004 Lhe 81C granLed respondenLs appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon
of Lhe sub[ecL properLy

Aggrleved by Lhe ueclslon peLlLloner flled a noLlce of Appeal8 1he CA ln lLs ueclslon daLed
lebruary 13 2006 dlsmlssed Lhe appeal and afflrmed Lhe declslon of Lhe 81C 1he CA ruled LhaL
respondenLs were able Lo show LhaL Lhey have been 1he CA found LhaL respondenLs acqulred Lhe
sub[ecL land from Lhelr predecessorslnlnLeresL who have been ln acLual conLlnuous
unlnLerrupLed publlc and adverse possesslon ln Lhe concepL of an owner slnce Llme lmmemorlal
1he CA llkewlse held LhaL respondenLs were able Lo presenL sufflclenL evldence Lo esLabllsh LhaL
Lhe sub[ecL properLy ls parL of Lhe allenable and dlsposable lands of Lhe publlc domaln Pence Lhe
lnsLanL peLlLlon ralslng Lhe followlng grounds

lSSuL WheLher or noL Lhe appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy should be granLed

PLLu

ln Lhe presenL case Lhe records do noL supporL Lhe flndlngs made by Lhe CA LhaL Lhe sub[ecL land ls
parL of Lhe allenable and dlsposable porLlon of Lhe publlc domaln
SecLlon 14 (1) of u 1329 oLherwlse known as Lhe roperLy 8eglsLraLlon uecree provldes

SLC 14 Who may apply 1he followlng persons may flle ln Lhe proper CourL of llrsL lnsLance an
appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon of LlLle Lo land wheLher personally or Lhrough Lhelr duly auLhorlzed
represenLaLlves
(1) 1hose who by Lhemselves or Lhrough Lhelr predecessorslnlnLeresL have been ln open
conLlnuous excluslve and noLorlous possesslon and occupaLlon of allenable and dlsposable lands of
Lhe publlc domaln under a bona flde clalm of ownershlp slnce !une 12 1943 or earller

lrom Lhe foregolng respondenLs need Lo prove LhaL (1) Lhe land forms parL of Lhe allenable and
dlsposable land of Lhe publlc domaln and (2) Lhey by Lhemselves or Lhrough Lhelr predecessorsln
lnLeresL have been ln open conLlnuous excluslve and noLorlous possesslon and occupaLlon of Lhe
sub[ecL land under a bona flde clalm of ownershlp from !une 12 1943 or earller12 1hese Lhe
respondenLs musL prove by no less Lhan clear poslLlve and convlnclng evldence
under Lhe 8egallan docLrlne whlch ls embodled ln our ConsLlLuLlon all lands of Lhe publlc domaln
belong Lo Lhe SLaLe whlch ls Lhe source of any asserLed rlghL Lo any ownershlp of land All lands noL
appearlng Lo be clearly wlLhln prlvaLe ownershlp are presumed Lo belong Lo Lhe SLaLe Accordlngly
publlc lands noL shown Lo have been reclasslfled or released as allenable agrlculLural land or
allenaLed Lo a prlvaLe person by Lhe SLaLe remaln parL of Lhe lnallenable publlc domaln14 1he
burden of proof ln overcomlng Lhe presumpLlon of SLaLe ownershlp of Lhe lands of Lhe publlc
domaln ls on Lhe person applylng for reglsLraLlon (or clalmlng ownershlp) who musL prove LhaL Lhe
land sub[ecL of Lhe appllcaLlon ls allenable or dlsposable 1o overcome Lhls presumpLlon
lnconLroverLlble evldence musL be esLabllshed LhaL Lhe land sub[ecL of Lhe appllcaLlon (or clalm) ls
allenable or dlsposable

1he noLaLlon of Lhe surveyorgeodeLlc englneer on Lhe blue prlnL copy of Lhe converslon and
subdlvlslon plan approved by Lhe 8ureau of loresL uevelopmenL ls lnsufflclenL and does noL
consLlLuLe lnconLroverLlble evldence Lo overcome Lhe presumpLlon LhaL Lhe land remalns parL of
Lhe lnallenable publlc domaln

1o prove LhaL Lhe land sub[ecL of an appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon ls allenable an appllcanL musL
esLabllsh Lhe exlsLence of a poslLlve acL of Lhe governmenL such as a presldenLlal proclamaLlon or
an execuLlve order an admlnlsLraLlve acLlon lnvesLlgaLlon reporLs of 8ureau of Lands lnvesLlgaLors
and a leglslaLlve acL or sLaLuLe 1he appllcanL may also secure a cerLlflcaLlon from Lhe CovernmenL
LhaL Lhe lands applled for are allenable and dlsposable

lurLher Lhe pleces of evldence Laken LogeLher falled Lo palnL a clear plcLure LhaL respondenLs by
Lhemselves or Lhrough Lhelr predecessorslnlnLeresL have been ln open excluslve conLlnuous and
noLorlous possesslon and occupaLlon of Lhe sub[ecL land under a bona flde clalm of ownershlp
slnce !une 12 1943 or earller

kep vs Vega
Gk# 177790] Ian 17 2011
639 SCkA S41
lAC1S

Cn 26 May 1993 respondenLs Carlos 8 vega Marcos 8 vega 8ogello 8 vega Lubln 8 vega and
Pelrs of Clorla 8 vega namely lranclsco L ?ap Ma Wlnona ? 8odrlguez Ma Wendelyn v ?ap
and lranclsco v ?ap !r (respondenLs vegas) flled an appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon of LlLle 1he
appllcaLlon covered a parcel of land ldenLlfled as LoL no 6191 CadasLre 430 of Los 8anos Laguna
wlLh a LoLal area of slx Lhousand nlne hundred Lwo (6902) square meLers (Lhe sub[ecL land)

8espondenLs vegas alleged LhaL Lhey lnherlLed Lhe sub[ecL land from Lhelr moLher Marla 8evllleza
vda de vega who ln Lurn lnherlLed lL from her faLher Lorenzo 8evllleza 1helr moLhers slbllngs
(Lwo broLhers and a slsLer) dled lnLesLaLe all wlLhouL leavlng any offsprlng

Cn 21 !une 1993 peLlLloner 8epubllc flled an opposlLlon Lo respondenLs vegas appllcaLlon for
reglsLraLlon on Lhe ground lnLer alla LhaL Lhe sub[ecL land or porLlons Lhereof were lands of Lhe
publlc domaln and as such noL sub[ecL Lo prlvaLe approprlaLlon

1he Lrlal courL granLed respondenLs vegas appllcaLlon and dlrecLed Lhe Land 8eglsLraLlon AuLhorlLy
(L8A) Lo lssue Lhe correspondlng decree of reglsLraLlon ln Lhe name of respondenLs vegas and
respondenLslnLervenors 8uhays predecessors ln proporLlon Lo Lhelr clalms over Lhe sub[ecL land
CA afflrmed ln LoLo Aggrevled by Lhe rullng peLlLloner flled Lhe lnsLanL peLlLlon

lSSuL

WheLher Lhe evldence on record ls sufflclenL Lo supporL Lhe lower courLs concluslon LhaL Lhe
sub[ecL land ls allenable and dlsposable

PLLu

under SecLlon 14 u 1329 roperLy 8eglsLraLlon uecree appllcanLs for reglsLraLlon of LlLle musL
prove Lhe followlng (1) LhaL Lhe sub[ecL land forms parL of Lhe dlsposable and allenable lands of
Lhe publlc domaln and (2) LhaL Lhey have been ln open conLlnuous excluslve and noLorlous
possesslon and occupaLlon of Lhe land under a bona flde clalm of ownershlp slnce 12 !une 1943 or

earller SecLlon 14 (1) of Lhe law requlres LhaL Lhe properLy soughL Lo be reglsLered ls already
allenable and dlsposable aL Lhe Llme Lhe appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon ls flled

8alslng no lssue wlLh respecL Lo respondenLs vegas open conLlnuous excluslve and noLorlous
possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL land ln Lhe presenL eLlLlon Lhe CourL wlll llmlL lLs focus on Lhe flrsL
requlslLe speclflcally wheLher lL has sufflclenLly been demonsLraLed LhaL Lhe sub[ecL land ls
allenable and dlsposable

unless a land ls reclasslfled and declared allenable and dlsposable occupaLlon of Lhe same ln Lhe
concepL of an owner no maLLer how long cannoL rlpen lnLo ownershlp and resulL ln a LlLle publlc
lands noL shown Lo have been classlfled as allenable and dlsposable lands remaln parL of Lhe
lnallenable domaln and cannoL confer ownershlp or possessory rlghLs

MaLLers of land classlflcaLlon or reclasslflcaLlon cannoL be assumed Lhey call for proof 1o prove
LhaL Lhe land sub[ecL of an appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon ls allenable an appllcanL musL concluslvely
esLabllsh Lhe exlsLence of a poslLlve acL of Lhe governmenL such as any of Lhe followlng a
presldenLlal proclamaLlon or an execuLlve order oLher admlnlsLraLlve acLlons lnvesLlgaLlon reporLs
of Lhe 8ureau of Lands lnvesLlgaLor or a leglslaLlve acL or sLaLuLe 1he appllcanL may also secure a
cerLlflcaLlon from Lhe governmenL LhaL Lhe lands applled for are allenable and dlsposable

revlously a cerLlflcaLlon from Lhe uLn8 LhaL a loL was allenable and dlsposable was sufflclenL Lo
esLabllsh Lhe Lrue naLure and characLer of Lhe properLy and en[oyed Lhe presumpLlon of regularlLy
ln Lhe absence of conLradlcLory evldence

kep vs koche
Gk# 17S846] Iu|y 6 2010
624 SCkA 116
lAC1S

Cn uecember 3 1996 8oslla 8oche applled for reglsLraLlon of LlLle1 of her 13333squaremeLer
land ln 8arrlo naplndan 1agulg MeLro Manlla2 denomlnaLed as LoL 8698 before Lhe 8eglonal
1rlal CourL (81C) of aslg ClLy 8ranch 133 8oche alleged LhaL she lnherlLed Lhe land ln 1960 from
her faLher Mlguel who ln Lurn had held Lhe land ln Lhe concepL of an owner when 8oche was only
abouL slx years old She was born on LhaL land on !anuary 10 1938 and had helped her faLher
culLlvaLe lL3 8oche had also pald Lhe realLy Laxes on Lhe land whlch had an assessed value of
49000000

1o supporL her appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon 8oche presenLed among oLhers a cerLlfled Lrue copy of
Lhe survey plan of Lhe land4 lLs Lechnlcal descrlpLlon3 a CerLlflcaLlon from Lhe ueparLmenL of
LnvlronmenL and naLural 8esources (uLn8) ln lleu of Lhe CeodeLlc Lnglneer's CerLlflcaLe6 Lax
declaraLlons7 and real properLy Lax recelpLs8 She also presenLed cerLlflcaLlons LhaL Lhe Land
8eglsLraLlon AuLhorlLy (L8A) and Lhe naLlonal rlnLlng Cfflce lssued Lo show compllance wlLh
requlremenLs of servlce of noLlce Lo ad[olnlng owners and publlcaLlon of noLlce of lnlLlal hearlng9
As proof of her open conLlnuous and unlnLerrupLed possesslon of Lhe land 8oche presenLed
Manuel Adrlano a former resldenL of naplndan who owned an unreglsLered properLy ad[olnlng LoL
8698

1he 8epubllc of Lhe hlllpplnes (Lhe CovernmenL) Lhrough Lhe Cfflce of Lhe SollclLor Ceneral (CSC)
opposed Lhe appllcaLlon on Lhe grounds a) LhaL nelLher 8oche nor her predecessorlnlnLeresL had
occupled Lhe land for Lhe requlred perlod and b) LhaL Lhe land belonged Lo Lhe SLaLe and ls noL
sub[ecL Lo prlvaLe acqulslLlon13 1he Laguna Lake uevelopmenL AuLhorlLy (LLuA) also opposed14
Cn SepLember 30 1999 Lhe 81C rendered [udgmenL17 granLlng 8oche's appllcaLlon Cn appeal by
Lhe CovernmenL19 Lhe CourL of Appeals (CA) afflrmed Lhe declslon of Lhe 81C20 1he CSC flled a
moLlon for reconslderaLlon buL Lhe CA denled Lhe same prompLlng Lhe CovernmenL Lo flle Lhe
presenL peLlLlon

lSSuL
WheLher or noL Lhe land sub[ecL of 8oche's appllcaLlon ls allenable or dlsposable land of Lhe publlc
domaln

PLLu

CA declslon ls reversed and seL aslde

1he CovernmenL lnslsLs LhaL Lhe sub[ecL land forms parL of Lhe lake bed and LhaL lL has noL been
released lnLo Lhe mass of allenable and dlsposable land of Lhe publlc domaln As such 8oche
cannoL reglsLer LlLle Lo lL ln her name

8oche polnLs ouL on Lhe oLher hand LhaL Lhe loL could noL posslbly be parL of Lhe Laguna Lake's
bed slnce lL has always been planLed Lo crops and ls noL covered by waLer 8A 4830 provldes LhaL
Lhe Lake ls LhaL area covered wlLh waLer when lL ls aL Lhe average maxlmum lake level of 1230
meLers 1hls presupposed LhaL Lhe lake exLends only Lo lakeshore lands 1he land ln Lhls case does
noL ad[oln Lhe Laguna Lake
An appllcaLlon for reglsLraLlon of LlLle musL under SecLlon 14(1) u 1329 meeL Lhree
requlremenLs a) LhaL Lhe properLy ls allenable and dlsposable land of Lhe publlc domaln b) LhaL
Lhe appllcanLs by Lhemselves or Lhrough Lhelr predecessorslnlnLeresL have been ln open
conLlnuous excluslve and noLorlous possesslon and occupaLlon of Lhe land and c) LhaL such
possesslon ls under a bona flde clalm of ownershlp slnce !une 12 1943 or earller

under Lhe 8egallan docLrlne all lands of Lhe publlc domaln belong Lo Lhe SLaLe and Lhe laLLer ls Lhe
source of any asserLed rlghL Lo ownershlp ln land 1hus Lhe SLaLe presumably owns all lands noL
oLherwlse appearlng Lo be clearly wlLhln prlvaLe ownershlp 1o overcome such presumpLlon
lnconLroverLlble evldence musL be shown by Lhe appllcanL LhaL Lhe land sub[ecL of reglsLraLlon ls
allenable and dlsposable

8especLlng Lhe Lhlrd requlremenL Lhe appllcanL bears Lhe burden of provlng Lhe sLaLus of Lhe
land23 ln Lhls connecLlon Lhe CourL has held LhaL he musL presenL a cerLlflcaLe of land
classlflcaLlon sLaLus lssued by Lhe CommunlLy LnvlronmenL and naLural 8esources Cfflce
(CLn8C)26 or Lhe rovlnclal LnvlronmenL and naLural 8esources Cfflce (Ln8C)27 of Lhe uLn8 Pe
musL also prove LhaL Lhe uLn8 SecreLary had approved Lhe land classlflcaLlon and released Lhe land
as allenable and dlsposable and LhaL lL ls wlLhln Lhe approved area per verlflcaLlon Lhrough survey
by Lhe CLn8C or Ln8C lurLher Lhe appllcanL musL presenL a copy of Lhe orlglnal classlflcaLlon
approved by Lhe uLn8 SecreLary and cerLlfled as Lrue copy by Lhe legal cusLodlan of Lhe offlclal

records 1hese facLs musL be esLabllshed by Lhe appllcanL Lo prove LhaL Lhe land ls allenable and
dlsposable

Pere 8oche dld noL presenL evldence LhaL Lhe land she applled for has been classlfled as allenable
or dlsposable land of Lhe publlc domaln She submlLLed only Lhe survey map and Lechnlcal
descrlpLlon of Lhe land whlch bears no lnformaLlon regardlng Lhe land's classlflcaLlon She dld noL
boLher Lo esLabllsh Lhe sLaLus of Lhe land by any cerLlflcaLlon from Lhe approprlaLe governmenL
agency 1hus lL cannoL be sald LhaL she complled wlLh all requlslLes for reglsLraLlon of LlLle under
SecLlon 14(1) of u 1329

Slnce 8oche was unable Lo overcome Lhe presumpLlon LhaL Lhe land she applled for ls lnallenable
land LhaL belongs Lo Lhe SLaLe Lhe CovernmenL dld noL have Lo adduce evldence Lo prove lL

Ca|ara vs Iranc|sco
Gk# 1S6439] Sept 29 2010
631 SCkA S0S

noL submlLLed yeL
x
x
x
x
x


Carbon|||a vs Ab|era
Gk# 177637] Iu|y 26 2010
62S SCkA 461

lAC1S

eLlLloner ur uloscoro Carbonllla flled a complalnL for e[ecLmenL agalnsL respondenLs Marcelo
Ablera and Marlcrls Ablera aredes wlLh Lhe Munlclpal 1rlal CourL ln ClLles (M1CC) Maasln ClLy
1he complalnL alleged LhaL peLlLloner ls Lhe reglsLered owner of a parcel of land locaLed ln
8arangay CanLurlng Maasln ClLy ldenLlfled as LoL no 178183828 Su088432u Maasln
CadasLre 1he land ls purporLedly covered by a cerLlflcaLe of LlLle and declared for assessmenL and
LaxaLlon purposes ln peLlLloner's name eLlLloner furLher clalmed LhaL he ls also Lhe owner of Lhe
resldenLlal bulldlng sLandlng on Lhe land whlch bulldlng he acqulred Lhrough a ueed of
LxLra[udlclal SeLLlemenL of LsLaLe (8esldenLlal 8ulldlng) wlLh Walver and CulLclalm of Cwnershlp
Pe malnLalned LhaL Lhe bulldlng was belng occupled by respondenLs by mere Lolerance of Lhe
prevlous owners

ln Lhelr defense respondenLs vehemenLly denled peLlLloner's allegaLlon LhaL Lhey possessed Lhe
bulldlng by mere Lolerance of Lhe prevlous owners lnsLead Lhey asserLed LhaL Lhey occupled Lhe
bulldlng as owners havlng lnherlLed Lhe same from Alfredo Ablera and 1eodorlca CaplsLrano
respondenL Marcelo's parenLs and respondenL Marlcrls' grandparenLs 1hey malnLalned LhaL Lhey
have been ln possesslon of Lhe bulldlng slnce 1960 buL lL has noL been declared for LaxaLlon
purposes

1he M1CC declded Lhe case ln favor of respondenLs lL oplned LhaL peLlLloner's clalm of ownershlp
over Lhe sub[ecL parcel of land was noL successfully rebuLLed by respondenLs hence peLlLloner's
ownershlp of Lhe same was deemed esLabllshed Powever wlLh respecL Lo Lhe bulldlng Lhe courL
declared respondenLs as havlng Lhe beLLer rlghL Lo lLs maLerlal possesslon ln llghL of peLlLloner's
fallure Lo refuLe respondenLs' clalm LhaL Lhelr predecessors had been ln prlor possesslon of Lhe
bulldlng slnce 1960 and LhaL Lhey have conLlnued such possesslon up Lo Lhe presenL

1he 81C reversed Lhe M1CC declslon 1he 81C agreed wlLh Lhe M1CC LhaL Lhe land ls owned by
peLlLloner 1he Lwo courLs dlffered however ln Lhelr concluslon wlLh respecL Lo Lhe bulldlng 1he
81C placed Lhe burden upon respondenLs Lo prove Lhelr clalm LhaL Lhey bullL lL prlor Lo peLlLloner's
acqulslLlon of Lhe land whlch burden Lhe courL found respondenLs falled Lo dlscharge 1he 81C
held LhaL elLher waywheLher Lhe bulldlng was consLrucLed before or afLer peLlLloner acqulred
ownershlp of Lhe landpeLlLloner as owner of Lhe land would have every rlghL Lo evlcL
respondenLs from Lhe land

1he CA reversed Lhe 81C declslon and ordered Lhe dlsmlssal of peLlLloner's complalnL 8ecause of
Lhls Lhe CA followlng Lhls CourL's rullng ln 1en lorLy 8ealLy and uevelopmenL CorporaLlon v Cruz
caLegorlzed Lhe complalnL as one for forclble enLry lL Lhen proceeded Lo declare LhaL Lhe acLlon
had prescrlbed slnce Lhe oneyear perlod for flllng Lhe forclble enLry case had already lapsed

lSSuL Who ls enLlLled Lo Lhe physlcal possesslon of Lhe premlses LhaL ls Lo Lhe possesslon de facLo
and noL Lo Lhe possesslon de [ure

PLLu

1he courL held LhaL whlle peLlLloner may have proven hls ownershlp of Lhe land as Lhere can be no
oLher plece of evldence more worLhy of credence Lhan a 1orrens cerLlflcaLe of LlLle he falled Lo
presenL any evldence Lo subsLanLlaLe hls clalm of ownershlp or rlghL Lo Lhe possesslon of Lhe
bulldlng Llke Lhe CA we cannoL accepL Lhe ueed of LxLra[udlclal SeLLlemenL of LsLaLe (8esldenLlal
8ulldlng) wlLh Walver and CulLclalm of Cwnershlp execuLed by Lhe Carclanos as proof LhaL
peLlLloner acqulred ownershlp of Lhe bulldlng 1here ls no showlng LhaL Lhe Carclanos were Lhe
owners of Lhe bulldlng or LhaL Lhey had any proprleLary rlghL over lL 8anged agalnsL respondenLs'
proof of possesslon of Lhe bulldlng slnce 1977 peLlLloner's evldence pales ln comparlson and leaves
us LoLally unconvlnced WlLhouL a doubL Lhe reglsLered owner of real properLy ls enLlLled Lo lLs
possesslon Powever Lhe owner cannoL slmply wresL possesslon Lhereof from whoever ls ln acLual
occupaLlon of Lhe properLy 1o recover possesslon he musL resorL Lo Lhe proper [udlclal remedy
and once he chooses whaL acLlon Lo flle he ls requlred Lo saLlsfy Lhe condlLlons necessary for such
acLlon Lo prosper

ln Lhe presenL case peLlLloner opLed Lo flle an e[ecLmenL case agalnsL respondenLs L[ecLmenL
casesforclble enLry and unlawful deLalnerare summary proceedlngs deslgned Lo provlde
expedlLlous means Lo proLecL acLual possesslon or Lhe rlghL Lo possesslon of Lhe properLy lnvolved
lor Lhls reason an e[ecLmenL case wlll noL necessarlly be declded ln favor of one who has

presenLed proof of ownershlp of Lhe sub[ecL properLy key [urlsdlcLlonal facLs consLlLuLlve of Lhe
parLlcular e[ecLmenL case flled musL be averred ln Lhe complalnL and sufflclenLly proven

1he sLaLemenLs ln Lhe complalnL LhaL respondenLs' possesslon of Lhe bulldlng was by mere
Lolerance of peLlLloner clearly make ouL a case for unlawful deLalner unlawful deLalner lnvolves
Lhe person's wlLhholdlng from anoLher of Lhe possesslon of Lhe real properLy Lo whlch Lhe laLLer ls
enLlLled afLer Lhe explraLlon or LermlnaLlon of Lhe former's rlghL Lo hold possesslon under Lhe
conLracL elLher expressed or lmplled

A requlslLe for a valld cause of acLlon ln an unlawful deLalner case ls LhaL possesslon musL be
orlglnally lawful and such possesslon musL have Lurned unlawful only upon Lhe explraLlon of Lhe
rlghL Lo possess lL musL be shown LhaL Lhe possesslon was lnlLlally lawful hence Lhe basls of such
lawful possesslon musL be esLabllshed lf as ln Lhls case Lhe clalm ls LhaL such possesslon ls by
mere Lolerance of Lhe plalnLlff Lhe acLs of Lolerance musL be proved

eLlLloner falled Lo prove LhaL respondenLs' possesslon was based on hls alleged Lolerance Pe dld
noL offer any evldence or even only an affldavlL of Lhe Carclanos aLLesLlng LhaL Lhey LoleraLed
respondenLs' enLry Lo and occupaLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLles A bare allegaLlon of Lolerance wlll
noL sufflce lalnLlff musL aL leasL show overL acLs lndlcaLlve of hls or hls predecessor's permlsslon
Lo occupy Lhe sub[ecL properLy 1hus we musL agree wlLh Lhe CA when lL sald

A careful scruLlny of Lhe records revealed LhaL hereln respondenL mlserably falled Lo prove hls
clalm LhaL peLlLloners' possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL bulldlng was by mere Lolerance as alleged ln Lhe
complalnL 1olerance musL be presenL rlghL from Lhe sLarL of possesslon soughL Lo be recovered
Lo be wlLhln Lhe purvlew of unlawful deLalner Mere Lolerance always carrles wlLh lL permlsslon
and noL merely sllence or lnacLlon for sllence or lnacLlon ls negllgence noL Lolerance ln addlLlon
plalnLlff musL also show LhaL Lhe supposed acLs of Lolerance have been presenL rlghL from Lhe very
sLarL of Lhe possesslonfrom enLry Lo Lhe properLy CLherwlse lf Lhe possesslon was unlawful
from Lhe sLarL an acLlon for unlawful deLalner would be an lmproper remedy noLably no menLlon
was made ln Lhe complalnL of how enLry by respondenLs was effecLed or how and when
dlspossesslon sLarLed nelLher was Lhere any evldence showlng such deLalls

ln any evenL peLlLloner has some oLher recourse Pe may pursue recoverlng possesslon of hls
properLy by flllng an acclon publlclana whlch ls a plenary acLlon lnLended Lo recover Lhe beLLer
rlghL Lo possess or an acclon relvlndlcaLorla a sulL Lo recover ownershlp of real properLy We
sLress however LhaL Lhe pronouncemenL ln Lhls case as Lo Lhe ownershlp of Lhe land should be
regarded as merely provlslonal and Lherefore would noL bar or pre[udlce an acLlon beLween Lhe
same parLles lnvolvlng LlLle Lo Lhe land

Modesto vs Urb|na
Gk# 1898S9] Cct 18 2010
633 SCkA 383

lAC1S

ln hls complalnL urblna alleged LhaL he ls Lhe owner of a parcel of land slLuaLed aL Lower 8lcuLan
1agulg deslgnaLed as LoL 36 LS 272 Accordlng Lo urblna Lhe ModesLos Lhrough sLealLh scheme
and machlnaLlon were able Lo occupy a porLlon of Lhls properLy deslgnaLed as LoL 336 LS 272
1hereafLer Lhe ModesLos negoLlaLed wlLh urblna for Lhe sale of Lhls loL Powever before Lhe
parLles could flnallze Lhe sale Lhe ModesLos allegedly cancelled Lhe LransacLlon and began clalmlng
ownershlp over Lhe loL urblna made several demands on Lhe ModesLos Lo vacaLe Lhe properLy Lhe
lasL of whlch was Lhrough a demand leLLer senL on !uly 22 1983 When Lhe ModesLos sLlll refused
Lo vacaLe urblna flled Lhe presenL acLlon agalnsL Lhem

ln Lhelr answer Lhe ModesLos clalmed LhaL urblna could noL be Lhe lawful owner of Lhe properLy
because lL was sLlll governmenL properLy belng a parL of Lhe lorL 8onlfaclo MlllLary 8eservaLlon
1he 81C of aslg ClLy rendered a declslon ln favor of urblna on Aprll 24 2000 orderlng Lhe
peLlLloners Lo lmmedlaLely vacaLe and surrender Lhe loL Lo urblna and Lo pay hlm 20000 monLhly
as compensaLlon for Lhe use of Lhe properLy from !uly 22 1983 unLll Lhey flnally vacaLe 1he 81C
noLed LhaL Lhe peLlLloners recognlzed urblna's possessory rlghLs over Lhe properLy when Lhey
enLered lnLo a negoLlaLed conLracL of sale wlLh hlm for Lhe properLy 1hus Lhe ModesLos were
esLopped from subsequenLly assalllng or dlsclalmlng urblna's possessory rlghLs over Lhls loL

urblna's clalm of ownershlp over LoL 36 ls based prlmarlly on hls Mlscellaneous Sales AppllcaLlon
no (lll1) 460 (Mlscellaneous Sales AppllcaLlon) whlch he flled on !uly 21 1966 1he CA afflrmed ln
LoLo Lhe 81C declslon ln Clvll Case no 33483 on !anuary 26 2009 1he CA agreed wlLh Lhe 81C's
observaLlon LhaL Lhe ModesLos were esLopped from challenglng urblna's rlghL Lo possess Lhe
properLy afLer Lhey acknowledged Lhls rlghL when Lhey enLered lnLo Lhe negoLlaLed conLracL of
sale 1he CA also gave credence Lo Lhe !anuary 31 2008 LM8 order ln LM8 ConfllcL no 110 rullng
LhaL Lhls LM8 order bolsLered urblna's possessory rlghLs over Lhe sub[ecL properLy


lSSuL WheLher or noL Lhe urblna's had possessory rlghLs over Lhe properLy

PLLu

An acclon publlclana ls an ordlnary clvll proceedlng Lo deLermlne Lhe beLLer rlghL of possesslon of
realLy lndependenLly of LlLle Acclon publlclana ls also used Lo refer Lo an e[ecLmenL sulL where Lhe
cause of dlspossesslon ls noL among Lhe grounds for forclble enLry and unlawful deLalner or when
possesslon has been losL for more Lhan one year and can no longer be malnLalned under 8ule 70 of
Lhe 8ules of CourL 1he ob[ecLlve of a plalnLlff ln acclon publlclana ls Lo recover possesslon only noL
ownershlp

As Lhe courL explalned ln Solls v lnLermedlaLe AppellaLe CourL We hold LhaL Lhe power and
auLhorlLy glven Lo Lhe ulrecLor of Lands Lo allenaLe and dlspose of publlc lands does noL dlvesL Lhe
regular courLs of Lhelr [urlsdlcLlon over possessory acLlons lnsLlLuLed by occupanLs or appllcanLs
agalnsL oLhers Lo proLecL Lhelr respecLlve possesslons and occupaLlons Whlle Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe
8ureau of Lands now Lhe Land ManagemenL 8ureau ls conflned Lo Lhe deLermlnaLlon of Lhe
respecLlve rlghLs of rlval clalmanLs Lo publlc lands or Lo cases whlch lnvolve dlsposlLlon of publlc
lands Lhe power Lo deLermlne who has Lhe acLual physlcal possesslon or occupaLlon or Lhe beLLer
rlghL of possesslon over publlc lands remalns wlLh Lhe courLs

1he raLlonale ls evldenL 1he 8ureau of Lands does noL have Lhe wherewlLhal Lo pollce publlc lands
nelLher does lL have Lhe means Lo prevenL dlsorders or breaches of peace among Lhe occupanLs lLs

power ls clearly llmlLed Lo dlsposlLlon and allenaLlon and whlle lL may declde dlspuLes over
possesslon Lhls ls buL ln ald of maklng Lhe proper awards 1he ulLlmaLe power Lo resolve confllcLs
of possesslon ls recognlzed Lo be wlLhln Lhe legal compeLence of Lhe clvll courLs and lLs purpose ls
Lo exLend proLecLlon Lo Lhe acLual possessors and occupanLs wlLh a vlew Lo quell soclal unresL
ConsequenLly whlle we leave lL Lo Lhe LM8 Lo deLermlne Lhe lssue of who among Lhe parLles
should be awarded Lhe LlLle Lo Lhe sub[ecL properLy Lhere ls no quesLlon LhaL we have sufflclenL
auLhorlLy Lo resolve whlch of Lhe parLles ls enLlLled Lo rlghLful possesslon

Cn Lhe lssue of possessory rlghLs

refaLorlly Lhe courL observe LhaL Lhe sub[ecL properLy has noL yeL been LlLled nor has lL been Lhe
sub[ecL of a valldly lssued paLenL by Lhe LM8 1herefore Lhe land remalns parL of Lhe publlc
domaln and nelLher urblna nor Lhe ModesLos can legally clalm ownershlp over lL 1hls does noL
mean however LhaL nelLher of Lhe parLles have Lhe rlghL Lo possess Lhe properLy urblna alleged
LhaL he ls Lhe rlghLful possessor of Lhe properLy slnce he has a pendlng Mlscellaneous Sales
AppllcaLlon as well as Lax declaraLlons over Lhe properLy Pe also relled Lo supporL hls clalm of a
beLLer rlghL Lo possess Lhe properLy on Lhe admlsslon on Lhe parL of Lhe ModesLos LhaL Lhey
negoLlaLed wlLh hlm for Lhe sale of Lhe loL ln quesLlon Cn Lhe oLher hand Lhe ModesLos anchored
Lhelr rlghL Lo possess Lhe same on Lhelr acLual possesslon of Lhe properLy 1hey also quesLloned Lhe
legallLy of urblna's Mlscellaneous Sales AppllcaLlon and hls Lax declaraLlons over Lhe properLy
argulng LhaL slnce Lhese were obLalned when Lhe land was sLlll noL allenable and dlsposable Lhey
could noL be Lhe source of any legal rlghLs

AfLer revlewlng Lhe records of Lhls case Lhe courL flnds Lhe reasonlng of Lhe ModesLos Lo be more
ln accord wlLh appllcable laws and [urlsprudence 1he courL held LhaL urblna uLLerly falled Lo prove
LhaL he has a beLLer rlghL Lo possess Lhe properLy 1hus Lhe courL cannoL susLaln hls complalnL for
e[ecLmenL agalnsL Lhe ModesLos and perforce musL dlsmlss Lhe same for lack of merlL

8r|to vs D|ana|a
Gk# 171717] Dec 1S 2010
638 SCkA S29

lAC1S

Cn SepLember 27 1976 MargarlLa ulchlmo asslsLed by her husband 8amon 8rlLo Sr LogeLher
wlLh 8lenvenldo ulchlmo lranclsco ulchlmo LdlLo ulchlmo Marla ulchlmo Permlnla ulchlmo
asslsLed by her husband Angellno Mlsslon Leonora uechlmo asslsLed by her husband lgmedlo
Mlsslon lellclLo and Merllnda uechlmo asslsLed by her husband lausLo uolleno flled a
ComplalnL for 8ecovery of ossesslon and uamages wlLh Lhe Lhen CourL of llrsL lnsLance (now
8eglonal 1rlal CourL) of negros CccldenLal agalnsL a cerLaln !ose Marla Colez 1he case was
dockeLed as Clvll Case no 12887

eLlLloners wlfe MargarlLa LogeLher wlLh 8lenvenldo and lranclsco alleged LhaL Lhey are Lhe helrs
of a cerLaln vlcenLe ulchlmo whlle LdlLo Marla Permlnla Leonora lellclLo and Merllnda clalmed
Lo be Lhe helrs of one Luseblo ulchlmo LhaL vlcenLe and Luseblo are Lhe only helrs of LsLeban and
Lufemla LhaL LsLeban and Lufemla dled lnLesLaLe and upon Lhelr deaLh vlcenLe and Luseblo as
compulsory helrs lnherlLed LoL no 13368 LhaL ln Lurn vlcenLe and Luseblo and Lhelr respecLlve
spouses also dled lnLesLaLe leavlng Lhelr pro lndlvlso shares of LoL no 13368 as parL of Lhe
lnherlLance of Lhe complalnanLs ln Clvll Case no 12887

Cn !uly 29 1983 hereln respondenLs flled an AnswerlnlnLervenLlon clalmlng LhaL prlor Lo hls
marrlage Lo Lufemla LsLeban was marrled Lo a cerLaln lranclsca uumalagan LhaL LsLeban and
lranclsca bore flve chlldren all of whom are already deceased LhaL hereln respondenLs are Lhe
helrs of LsLeban and lranclscas chlldren LhaL Lhey are ln open acLual publlc and unlnLerrupLed
possesslon of a porLlon of LoL no 13368 for more Lhan 30 years LhaL Lhelr legal lnLeresLs over Lhe
sub[ecL loL prevalls over Lhose of peLlLloner and hls cohelrs LhaL ln facL peLlLloner and hls cohelrs
have already dlsposed of Lhelr shares ln Lhe sald properLy a long Llme ago

SubsequenLly Lhe parLles ln Clvll Case no 12887 agreed Lo enLer lnLo a Compromlse AgreemenL
whereln LoL no 13368 was dlvlded beLween !ose Marla Colez on one hand and Lhe helrs of
vlcenLe namely MargarlLa 8lenvenldo and lranclsco on Lhe oLher lL was sLaLed ln Lhe sald
agreemenL LhaL Lhe helrs of Luseblo had sold Lhelr share ln Lhe sald loL Lo Lhe moLher of Colez
1hus on SepLember 9 1998 Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL (81C) of 8acolod ClLy 8ranch 43 rendered a
declslon approvlng Lhe sald Compromlse AgreemenL Cn !anuary 18 1999 hereln peLlLloner and
hls cohelrs flled anoLher ComplalnL for 8ecovery of ossesslon and uamages Lhls Llme agalnsL
hereln respondenLs 1he case flled wlLh Lhe 81C of Cadlz ClLy 8ranch 60 was dockeLed as Clvll
Case no 348C Pereln respondenLs on Lhe oLher hand flled wlLh Lhe same courL on AugusL 18
1999 a ComplalnL for 8econveyance and uamages agalnsL peLlLloner and hls cohelrs

lSSuL WheLher Lhe honorable courL of appeals erred when lL ruled LhaL Lhe lower courL has Lhe
[urlsdlcLlon Lo hear Lhe reconveyance case of Lhe hereln plalnLlffsappellanLs before Lhe reglonal
Lrlal courL

PLLu

1he courL held LhaL lL ls Lrue LhaL Lhe flllng of moLlons seeklng afflrmaLlve rellef such as Lo admlL
answer for addlLlonal Llme Lo flle answer for reconslderaLlon of a defaulL [udgmenL and Lo llfL
order of defaulL wlLh moLlon for reconslderaLlon are consldered volunLary submlsslon Lo Lhe
[urlsdlcLlon of Lhe courL ln Lhe presenL case when respondenLs flled Lhelr AnswerlnlnLervenLlon
Lhey submlLLed Lhemselves Lo Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe courL and Lhe courL ln Lurn acqulred
[urlsdlcLlon over Lhelr persons 8espondenLs Lhus became parLles Lo Lhe acLlon SubsequenLly
however respondenLs AnswerlnlnLervenLlon was dlsmlssed wlLhouL pre[udlce lrom Lhen on
Lhey ceased Lo be parLles ln Lhe case so much so LhaL Lhey dld noL have Lhe opporLunlLy Lo presenL
evldence Lo supporL Lhelr clalms much less parLlclpaLe ln Lhe compromlse agreemenL enLered lnLo
by and beLween hereln peLlLloner and hls cohelrs on one hand and Lhe defendanL ln Clvll Case no
12887 on Lhe oLher SLaLed dlfferenLly when Lhelr AnswerlnlnLervenLlon was dlsmlssed hereln
respondenLs losL Lhelr sLandlng ln courL and consequenLly became sLrangers Lo Clvll Case no
12887 lL ls baslc LhaL no man shall be affecLed by any proceedlng Lo whlch he ls a sLranger and
sLrangers Lo a case are noL bound by [udgmenL rendered by Lhe courL 1hus belng sLrangers Lo Clvll
Case no 12887 respondenLs are noL bound by Lhe [udgmenL rendered Lhereln

nelLher does Lhe CourL concur wlLh peLlLloners argumenL LhaL respondenLs are barred by
prescrlpLlon for havlng flled Lhelr complalnL for reconveyance only afLer more Lhan elghL years
from Lhe dlscovery of Lhe fraud allegedly commlLLed by peLlLloner and hls cohelrs argulng LhaL

under Lhe law an acLlon for reconveyance of real properLy resulLlng from fraud prescrlbes ln four
years whlch perlod ls reckoned from Lhe dlscovery of Lhe fraud ln Lhelr complalnL for
reconveyance and damages respondenLs alleged LhaL peLlLloner and hls cohelrs acqulred Lhe
sub[ecL properLy by means of fraud ArLlcle 1436 of Lhe Clvll Code provldes LhaL a person acqulrlng
properLy Lhrough fraud becomes by operaLlon of law a LrusLee of an lmplled LrusL for Lhe beneflL
of Lhe real owner of Lhe properLy An acLlon for reconveyance based on an lmplled LrusL prescrlbes
ln Len years Lhe reckonlng polnL of whlch ls Lhe daLe of reglsLraLlon of Lhe deed or Lhe daLe of
lssuance of Lhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle over Lhe properLy 1hus ln Caro v CourL of Appeals Lhls CourL
held as follows

x x x 1he case of Llwalug Amerol eL al v Molok 8agumbaran C8 no L33261 SepLember 30
1987134 SC8A 396 lllumlnaLed whaL used Lo be a gray area on Lhe prescrlpLlve perlod for an
acLlon Lo reconvey Lhe LlLle Lo real properLy and corollarlly lLs polnL of reference
x x x lL musL be remembered LhaL before AugusL 30 1930 Lhe daLe of Lhe effecLlvlLy of Lhe new
Clvll Code Lhe old Code of Clvll rocedure (AcL no 190) governed prescrlpLlon lL provlded
SLC 43 CLher clvll acLlons how llmlLed Clvll acLlons oLher Lhan for Lhe recovery of real properLy
can only be broughL wlLhln Lhe followlng perlods afLer Lhe rlghL of acLlon accrues
x x x xx
3 WlLhln four years xxx An acLlon for rellef on Lhe ground of fraud buL Lhe rlghL of acLlon
ln such case shall noL be deemed Lo have accrued unLll Lhe dlscovery of Lhe fraud
x x x x x x x x x
ln conLrasL under Lhe presenL Clvll Code we flnd LhaL [usL as an lmplled or consLrucLlve LrusL ls an
offsprlng of Lhe law (ArL 1436 Clvll Code) so ls Lhe correspondlng obllgaLlon Lo reconvey Lhe
properLy and Lhe LlLle LhereLo ln favor of Lhe Lrue owner ln Lhls conLexL and vlsavls prescrlpLlon
ArLlcle 1144 of Lhe Clvll Code ls appllcable

ArLlcle 1144 1he followlng acLlons musL be broughL wlLhln Len years from Lhe Llme Lhe rlghL of
acLlon accrues
(1) upon a wrlLLen conLracL
(2) upon an obllgaLlon creaLed by law
(3) upon a [udgmenL
x x x x x x x x x (lLallcs supplled)
An acLlon for reconveyance based on an lmplled or consLrucLlve LrusL musL perforce prescrlbe ln
Len years and noL oLherwlse A long llne of declslons of Lhls CourL and of very recenL vlnLage aL
LhaL lllusLraLes Lhls rule undoubLedly lL ls now well seLLled LhaL an acLlon for reconveyance based
on an lmplled or consLrucLlve LrusL prescrlbes ln Len years from Lhe lssuance of Lhe 1orrens LlLle
over Lhe properLy 1he only dlscordanL noLe lL seems ls 8albln vs Medalla whlch sLaLes LhaL Lhe
prescrlpLlve perlod for a reconveyance acLlon ls four years Powever Lhls varlance can be explalned
by Lhe erroneous rellance on Cerona vs de Cuzman 8uL ln Cerona Lhe fraud was dlscovered on
!une 23 1948 hence SecLlon 43(3) of AcL no 190 was applled Lhe new Clvll Code noL comlng lnLo
effecL unLll AugusL 30 1930 as menLloned earller lL musL be sLressed aL Lhls [uncLure LhaL arLlcle
1144 and arLlcle 1436 are new provlslons 1hey have no counLerparLs ln Lhe old Clvll Code or ln Lhe
old Code of Clvll rocedure Lhe laLLer belng Lhen resorLed Lo as legal basls of Lhe fouryear
prescrlpLlve perlod for an acLlon for reconveyance of LlLle of real properLy acqulred under false
preLenses

An acLlon for reconveyance has lLs basls ln SecLlon 33 paragraph 3 of resldenLlal uecree no 1329
whlch provldes ln all cases of reglsLraLlon procured by fraud Lhe owner may pursue all hls legal
and equlLable remedles agalnsL Lhe parLles Lo such fraud wlLhouL pre[udlce however Lo Lhe rlghLs
of any lnnocenL holder of Lhe decree of reglsLraLlon on Lhe orlglnal peLlLlon or appllcaLlon

1he law Lhereby creaLes Lhe obllgaLlon of Lhe LrusLee Lo reconvey Lhe properLy and Lhe LlLle LhereLo
ln favor of Lhe Lrue owner CorrelaLlng SecLlon 33 paragraph 3 of resldenLlal uecree no 1329 and
ArLlcle 1436 of Lhe Clvll Code wlLh ArLlcle 1144(2) of Lhe Clvll Code supra Lhe prescrlpLlve perlod
for Lhe reconveyance of fraudulenLly reglsLered real properLy ls Len (10) years reckoned from Lhe
daLe of Lhe lssuance of Lhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle x x x ln Lhe lnsLanL case 1C1 no 112361 was
obLalned by peLlLloner and hls cohelrs on SepLember 28 1990 whlle respondenLs flled Lhelr
complalnL for reconveyance on AugusL 18 1999 Pence lL ls clear LhaL Lhe Lenyear prescrlpLlve
perlod has noL yeL explred

1he CourL llkewlse does noL agree wlLh peLlLloners conLenLlon LhaL respondenLs are gullLy of
laches and are already esLopped from quesLlonlng Lhe declslon of Lhe 81C ln Clvll Case no 12887
on Lhe ground LhaL Lhey slepL on Lhelr rlghLs and allowed Lhe sald declslon Lo become flnal
ln Lhe flrsL place respondenLs cannoL be faulLed for noL appeallng Lhe declslon of Lhe 81C ln Clvll
Case no 12887 slmply because Lhey are no longer parLles Lo Lhe case and as such have no
personallLy Lo assall Lhe sald [udgmenL Secondly respondenLs acL of flllng Lhelr acLlon for
reconveyance wlLhln Lhe Lenyear prescrlpLlve perlod does noL consLlLuLe an unreasonable delay ln
asserLlng Lhelr rlghL 1he CourL has ruled LhaL unless reasons of lnequlLable proporLlons are
adduced a delay wlLhln Lhe prescrlpLlve perlod ls sancLloned by law and ls noL consldered Lo be a
delay LhaL would bar rellef Laches ls recourse ln equlLy LqulLy however ls applled only ln Lhe
absence never ln conLravenLlon of sLaLuLory law

Moreover Lhe prescrlpLlve perlod applles only lf Lhere ls an acLual need Lo reconvey Lhe properLy
as when Lhe plalnLlff ls noL ln possesslon Lhereof CLherwlse lf Lhe plalnLlff ls ln possesslon of Lhe
properLy prescrlpLlon does noL commence Lo run agalnsL hlm 1hus when an acLlon for
reconveyance ls noneLheless flled lL would be ln Lhe naLure of a sulL for quleLlng of LlLle an acLlon
LhaL ls lmprescrlpLlble 1he reason for Lhls ls LhaL one who ls ln acLual possesslon of a plece of land
clalmlng Lo be Lhe owner Lhereof may walL unLll hls possesslon ls dlsLurbed or hls LlLle ls aLLacked
before Laklng sLeps Lo vlndlcaLe hls rlghL Lhe raLlonale for Lhe rule belng LhaL hls undlsLurbed
possesslon provldes hlm a conLlnulng rlghL Lo seek Lhe ald of a courL of equlLy Lo ascerLaln and
deLermlne Lhe naLure of Lhe adverse clalm of a Lhlrd parLy and lLs effecL on hls own LlLle whlch
rlghL can be clalmed only by Lhe one who ls ln possesslon

ln Lhe presenL case Lhere ls no dlspuLe LhaL respondenLs are ln possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy
as evldenced by Lhe facL LhaL peLlLloner and hls cohelrs flled a separaLe acLlon agalnsL respondenLs
for recovery of possesslon Lhereof 1hus owlng Lo respondenLs possesslon of Lhe dlspuLed
properLy lL follows LhaL Lhelr complalnL for reconveyance ls ln facL lmprescrlpLlble As such wlLh
more reason should respondenLs noL be held gullLy of laches as Lhe sald docLrlne whlch ls one ln
equlLy cannoL be seL up Lo reslsL Lhe enforcemenL of an lmprescrlpLlble legal rlghL

@an vs kam|rez
Gk# 1S8929] Aug 3 2010
626 SCkA 327

lAC1S
Cn AugusL 11 1998 Lhe peLlLloner represenLlng her parenLs (spouses Crlspo and nlcomedesa
Alumbro) flled wlLh Lhe Munlclpal ClrculL 1rlal CourL (MC1C) of Plndanglnopacan LeyLe a
complalnL for Lhe recovery of ownershlp and possesslon and/or quleLlng of LlLle of a onehalf
porLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy agalnsL Lhe respondenLs
1he peLlLloner alleged LhaL her greaLgrandfaLher CaLallno !aca valenzona was Lhe owner of Lhe
sub[ecL properLy under a 1913 1ax ueclaraLlon (1u) no 2724 CaLallno had four chlldren Cllcerla
valenLlna 1omasa and !ullan Cllcerla lnherlLed Lhe sub[ecL properLy when CaLallno dled Cllcerla
marrled Cavlno Cyao buL Lhelr unlon bore no chlldren when Cllcerla dled on Aprll 23 1932
Cavlno lnherlLed a onehalf porLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy whlle nlcomedesa acqulred Lhe oLher
half Lhrough lnherlLance ln represenLaLlon of her moLher valenLlna who had predeceased
Cllcerla and Lhrough her purchase of Lhe shares of her broLhers and slsLers ln 1961 nlcomedesa
consLlLuLed 8oberLo as LenanL of her half of Lhe sub[ecL properLy on !une 30 1963 nlcomedesa
boughL Cavlno's onehalf porLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy from Lhe laLLer's helrs 8onlLo and
Wllfredo Cyao evldenced by a ueed of AbsoluLe Sale of AgrlculLural Land7 on AugusL 3 1963
nlcomedesa sold Lo 8oberLo Lhls onehalf porLlon ln a ueed of AbsoluLe Sale of AgrlculLural Land
and ln 1997 nlcomedesa dlscovered LhaL slnce 1974 8oberLo had been reflecLlng Lhe sub[ecL
properLy solely ln hls name under 1u no 4193
1he respondenLs on Lhe oLher hand Lraced ownershlp of Lhe sub[ecL properLy Lo Cavlno who
culLlvaLed lL slnce 1936 8oberLo boughL half of Lhe sub[ecL properLy from nlcomedesa on AugusL 3
1963 and Lhe remalnlng half from Cavlno's helrs 8onlLo and Wllfredo Cyao on CcLober 16 1972
Cn !anuary 9 1973 a cerLaln SanLa 8elacho clalmlng Lo be Cavlno's naLural chlld flled a complalnL
wlLh Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of 8aybay LeyLe agalnsL 8oberLo nlcomedesa 8onlLo and Wllfredo
Cyao dockeLed as Clvll Case no 8363 for recovery of possesslon and ownershlp of Lwo (2) parcels
of land lncludlng Lhe sub[ecL properLy11 on SepLember 16 1977 8oberLo boughL Lhe sub[ecL
properLy from 8elacho Lhrough a ueed of AbsoluLe Sale of Land and on CcLober 3 1977 8oberLo
and nlcomedesa enLered lnLo a Compromlse AgreemenL wlLh 8elacho Lo seLLle Clvll Case no 8
363 8elacho agreed ln Lhls seLLlemenL Lo dlsmlss Lhe case and Lo walve her lnLeresL over Lhe
sub[ecL properLy ln favor of 8oberLo and Lhe oLher parcel of land ln favor of nlcomedesa ln
conslderaLlon of 180000
1he MC1C found LhaL CaLallno's 1913 1u no 2724 was noL Lhe source of Cavlno's 1943 1u no
3237 because lL lnvolved Lhe oLher parcel of land sub[ecL of Clvll Case no 8363 lL held LhaL
8oberLo was enLlLled Lo only LhreefourLhs as Lhls was Cavlno's enLlre share whlle Lhe peLlLloner
was enLlLled Lo onefourLh of Lhe sub[ecL properLy and gave Lhe parLles slxLy days Lo effecL Lhe
parLlLlon
1he 81C held LhaL Lhe shares of Lhe parLles shall be dlvlded and apporLloned ln Lhe followlng
manner plalnLlff shall own onefourLh (1/4) of LoL 3483 and defendanLs shall collecLlvely own
LhreefourLh (3/4) of LoL 3483
CA declared 8oberLo as Lhe lawful owner of Lhe enLlre area of Lhe sub[ecL properLy 1he appellaLe
courL found LhaL Lhe CcLober 3 1977 Compromlse AgreemenL execuLed by 8elacho gave 8oberLo's
possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy Lhe characLers of possesslon ln good falLh and wlLh [usL LlLle Lhe
respondenLs' LwenLyone years of possesslon from execuLlon of Lhe compromlse agreemenL ln
1977 unLll Lhe flllng of Lhe case ln 1998 ls more Lhan Lhe requlred Lenyear possesslon for ordlnary
acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon 1he CA also noLed LhaL 8oberLo also en[oyed [usL LlLle because 8elacho
execuLed a conLracL of sale ln hls favor on SepLember 16 1977
Pence Lhls peLlLlon
lSSuL wheLher Lhe CA erred ln relylng upon Lhe compromlse agreemenL and Lhe conLracL of sale Lo
conclude LhaL Lhe respondenLs had been possessors ln good falLh and wlLh [usL LlLle and could
acqulre Lhe sub[ecL properLy Lhrough ordlnary acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon
PLLu
rescrlpLlon as a mode of acqulrlng ownershlp and oLher real rlghLs over lmmovable properLy ls
concerned wlLh lapse of Llme ln Lhe manner and under condlLlons lald down by law namely LhaL
Lhe possesslon should be ln Lhe concepL of an owner publlc peaceful unlnLerrupLed and adverse
1he parLy who asserLs ownershlp by adverse possesslon musL prove Lhe presence of Lhe essenLlal
elemenLs of acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon
AcqulslLlve prescrlpLlon of real rlghLs may be ordlnary or exLraordlnary Crdlnary acqulslLlve
prescrlpLlon requlres possesslon ln good falLh and wlLh [usL LlLle for Len years ln exLraordlnary
prescrlpLlon ownershlp and oLher real rlghLs over lmmovable properLy are acqulred Lhrough
unlnLerrupLed adverse possesslon for LhlrLy years wlLhouL need of LlLle or of good falLh
ossesslon ln good falLh" conslsLs ln Lhe reasonable bellef LhaL Lhe person from whom Lhe Lhlng ls
recelved has been Lhe owner Lhereof and could LransmlL hls ownershlp 1here ls [usL LlLle" when
Lhe adverse clalmanL came lnLo possesslon of Lhe properLy Lhrough one of Lhe modes recognlzed
by law for Lhe acqulslLlon of ownershlp or oLher real rlghLs buL Lhe granLor was noL Lhe owner or
could noL LransmlL any rlghL
1he courL furLher held LhaL Lhe CA mlsLakenly relled upon Lhe compromlse agreemenL execuLed by
8elacho Lo conclude LhaL Lhe respondenLs were possessors ln good falLh and wlLh [usL LlLle who
acqulred Lhe properLy Lhrough ordlnary acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon ln 8amnanl v CourL of Appeals
we held LhaL Lhe maln purpose of a compromlse agreemenL ls Lo puL an end Lo llLlgaLlon because of
Lhe uncerLalnLy LhaL may arlse from lL 8eclprocal concesslons are Lhe very hearL and llfe of every
compromlse agreemenL 8y Lhe naLure of a compromlse agreemenL lL brlngs Lhe parLles Lo agree
Lo someLhlng LhaL nelLher of Lhem may acLually wanL buL for Lhe peace lL wlll brlng Lhem wlLhouL a
proLracLed llLlgaLlon
ln Lhe presenL case Lo avold any confllcL wlLh 8elacho 8oberLo and nlcomedesa pald 180000 ln
conslderaLlon of 8elacho's deslsLance from furLher pursulng her clalm over Lwo (2) parcels of land
lncludlng Lhe sub[ecL properLy 1hus no rlghL can arlse from Lhe compromlse agreemenL because
Lhe parLles execuLed Lhe same only Lo buy peace and Lo wrlLe flnls Lo Lhe conLroversy lL dld noL
creaLe or LransmlL ownershlp rlghLs over Lhe sub[ecL properLy ln execuLlng Lhe compromlse
agreemenL Lhe parLles ln effecL merely reverLed Lo Lhelr slLuaLlon before Clvll Case no 8363 was
flled nelLher can Lhe respondenLs beneflL from Lhe conLracL of sale of Lhe sub[ecL properLy
execuLed by 8elacho ln favor of 8oberLo Lo supporL Lhelr clalm of possesslon ln good falLh and wlLh
[usL LlLle ln Lhe vlnLage case of Leung ?ee v lL SLrong Machlnery Co and Wllllamson we
explalned good falLh ln Lhls manner Cne who purchases real esLaLe wlLh knowledge of a defecL or
lack of LlLle ln hls vendor cannoL clalm LhaL he has acqulred LlLle LhereLo ln good falLh as agalnsL Lhe
Lrue owner of Lhe land or of an lnLeresL Lhereln and Lhe same rule musL be applled Lo one who has
knowledge of facLs whlch should have puL hlm upon such lnqulry and lnvesLlgaLlon as mlghL be
necessary Lo acqualnL hlm wlLh Lhe defecLs ln Lhe LlLle of hls vendor Cood falLh or Lhe wanL of lL
can be ascerLalned only from Lhe acLs of Lhe one clalmlng lL as lL ls a condlLlon of mlnd LhaL can
only be [udged by acLual or fancled Loken or slgns
ln Lhe presenL case no dlspuLe exlsLs LhaL 8oberLo wlLhouL nlcomedesa's knowledge or
parLlclpaLlon boughL Lhe sub[ecL properLy on SepLember 16 1977 or durlng Lhe pendency of Clvll
Case no 8363 8oberLo Lherefore had acLual knowledge LhaL 8elacho's clalm Lo ownershlp of Lhe
sub[ecL properLy as Cavlno's purporLed helr was dlspuLed because he (8oberLo) and nlcomedesa
were Lhe defendanLs ln Clvll Case no 8363 8oberLo even admlLLed LhaL he boughL Lhe sub[ecL

properLy from 8elacho Lo avold any Lrouble"33 Pe Lhus cannoL clalm LhaL he acLed ln good
falLh under Lhe bellef LhaL Lhere was no defecL or dlspuLe ln Lhe LlLle of Lhe vendor 8elacho
noL belng a possessor ln good falLh and wlLh [usL LlLle Lhe Lenyear perlod requlred for ordlnary
acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon cannoL apply ln 8oberLo's favor Lven Lhe LhlrLyyear perlod under
exLraordlnary acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon has noL been meL because of Lhe respondenLs' clalm Lo have
been ln possesslon ln Lhe concepL of owner of Lhe sub[ecL properLy for only LwenLyfour years
from Lhe Llme Lhe sub[ecL properLy was Lax declared ln 1974 Lo Lhe Llme of Lhe flllng of Lhe
complalnL ln 1998 8ased on Lhe foregolng Lhe CA erred ln flndlng LhaL Lhe respondenLs acqulred
Lhe peLlLloner's onefourLh porLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy Lhrough acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon As
apLly found by Lhe MC1C Lhe respondenLs are only enLlLled Lo LhreefourLhs of Lhe sub[ecL
properLy because Lhls was Cavlno's rlghLful share of Lhe con[ugal esLaLe LhaL 8oberLo boughL from
8onlLo and Wllfredo Cyao

Lams|s vs Donge
Gk# 173021] Cct 20 2010
634 SCkA 1S4
lAC1S
1hls case lnvolves a confllcL of ownershlp and possesslon over an unLlLled parcel of land
denomlnaLed as LoL no 1 wlLh an area of 80736 square meLers 1he properLy ls locaLed along km
3 Asln 8oad 8agulo ClLy and ls parL of a larger parcel of land wlLh an area of 186090 square
meLers Whlle peLlLloners are Lhe acLual occupanLs of LoL no 1 respondenL ls clalmlng ownershlp
Lhereof and ls seeklng Lo recover lLs possesslon from peLlLloners
Accordlng Lo respondenL MargarlLa Semon uongL (MargarlLa) her famlly's ownershlp and
occupaLlon of LoL no 1 can be Lraced as far back as 1922 Lo her laLe grandfaLher Apap upon Ap
ap's deaLh Lhe properLy was lnherlLed by hls chlldren who obLalned a survey plan ln 1964 of Lhe
186090square meLer properLy whlch lncluded LoL no 1 Cn Lhe same year Lhey declared Lhe
properLy for LaxaLlon purposes ln Lhe name of 1he Pelrs of Apap" 1he 1964 Lax declaraLlon bears
a noLaLlon LhaL reads 8econsLrucLed from an old 1ax ueclaraLlon no 363 daLed May 10 1922 per
Lrue of same presenLed"
SomeLlme beLween 1976 and 1978 CllberL Semon LogeLher wlLh hls wlfe Mary Lamsls allowed hls
lnlaws Manolo Lamsls and nancy LamslsklLma Lo sLay on a porLlon of LoL no 1 LogeLher wlLh
Lhelr respecLlve famllles 1hey were allowed Lo erecL Lhelr houses lnLroduce lmprovemenLs and
planL Lrees Lhereon When Manolo Lamsls and nancy LamslsklLma dled someLlme ln Lhe 1980s
Lhelr chlldren peLlLloners uelfln Lamsls (uelfln) and AgusLln klLma (AgusLln) Look possesslon of
cerLaln porLlons of LoL no 1 uelfln possessed 4000 square meLers of LoL no 1 whlle AgusLln
occupled 3000 square meLers Lhereof neverLheless Lhe helrs of CllberL Semon LoleraLed Lhe acLs
of Lhelr flrsL couslns When CllberL Semon dled ln 1983 hls chlldren exLra[udlclally parLlLloned Lhe
properLy among Lhemselves and alloLLed LoL no 1 Lhereof ln favor of MargarlLa Slnce Lhen
MargarlLa allegedly pald Lhe realLy Lax over LoL no 1 and occupled and lmproved Lhe properLy
LogeLher wlLh her husband whlle aL Lhe same Llme LoleraLlng her flrsL couslns' occupaLlon of
porLlons of Lhe same loL
1hls sLaLe of affalrs changed when peLlLloners uelfln and AgusLln allegedly began expandlng Lhelr
occupaLlon on Lhe sub[ecL properLy and selllng porLlons Lhereof uelfln allegedly sold a 400square
meLer porLlon of LoL no 1 Lo peLlLloner Maynard Mondlgulng (Maynard) whlle AgusLln sold
anoLher porLlon Lo peLlLloner !ose valdez (!ose)
WlLh such developmenLs MargarlLa flled a complalnL for recovery of ownershlp possesslon
reconveyance and damages agalnsL all four occupanLs of LoL no 1 before Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL
(81C) of 8agulo ClLy eLlLloners denled MargarlLa's clalms of ownershlp and possesslon over LoL
no 1 Accordlng Lo uelfln and AgusLln LoL no 1 ls a publlc land clalmed by Lhe helrs of !oaquln
SmlLh (noL parLles Lo Lhe case) 1he SmlLhs gave Lhelr permlsslon for uelfln and AgusLln's parenLs Lo
occupy Lhe land someLlme ln 1969 or 1970 1hey also presenLed Lhelr nelghbors who LesLlfled LhaL
lL was uelfln and AgusLln as well as Lhelr respecLlve parenLs who occupled LoL no 1 noL MargarlLa
and her parenLs uelfln and AgusLln also assalled Lhe munlmenLs of ownershlp presenLed by
MargarlLa as fabrlcaLed unauLhenLlcaLed and lnvalld lL was polnLed ouL LhaL Lhe ueed of
CulLclalm allegedly execuLed by all of Apap's chlldren falled Lo lnclude Lwo 8lLa 8ocahan and
SLewarL SlLo MargarlLa admlLLed durlng Lrlal LhaL 8lLa 8ocahan and SLewarL SlLo were her uncle
and aunL buL dld noL explaln why Lhey were excluded from Lhe qulLclalm ln order Lo debunk
peLlLloners' clalm LhaL Lhe SmlLhs owned Lhe sub[ecL properLy MargarlLa presenLed a cerLlfled copy
of a 8esoluLlon from Lhe Land ManagemenL Cfflce denylng Lhe SmlLhs' appllcaLlon for recognlLlon
of Lhe sub[ecL properLy as parL of Lhelr ancesLral land 1he resoluLlon explalns LhaL Lhe appllcaLlon
had Lo be denled because Lhe SmlLhs dld noL possess occupy or uLlllze all or a porLlon of Lhe
properLy x x x 1he acLual occupanLs (who were noL named ln Lhe resoluLlon) whose lmprovemenLs
are vlslble are noL ln any way relaLed Lo Lhe appllcanL or hls cohelrs" 1o bolsLer her clalm of
ownershlp and possesslon MargarlLa lnLroduced as evldence an unnumbered resoluLlon of Lhe
CommunlLy Speclal 1ask lorce on AncesLral Lands (CS1lAL) of Lhe ueparLmenL of LnvlronmenL and
naLural 8esources (uLn8) acLlng favorably on her and her slbllngs' ancesLral land clalm over a
porLlon of Lhe 186090square meLer properLy 1he sald resoluLlon sLaLes
1he land sub[ecL of Lhe lnsLanL appllcaLlon ls Lhe ancesLral land of Lhe hereln appllcanLs Well
esLabllshed ls Lhe facL LhaL Lhe land LreaLed hereln was flrsL declared for LaxaLlon purposes ln 1922
under 1ax ueclaraLlon no 363 by Lhe appllcanL's grandfaLher ApAp (one name) Sald appllcaLlon
was reconsLrucLed ln 1963 afLer Lhe orlglnal goL losL durlng Lhe war 1hese Lax declaraLlons were
lssued and recorded ln Lhe MunlclpallLy of 1uba 8engueL conslderlng LhaL Lhe land was Lhen
wlLhln Lhe LerrlLorlal [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe sald munlclpallLy 1haL upon Lhe deaLh of declaranL ApAp
hls helrs x x x Lransferred Lhe Lax declaraLlon ln Lhelr name whlch Lax declaraLlon ls now wlLh Lhe
ClLy assessor's offlce of 8agulo Cn Lhe maLLer of Lhe appllcanLs' lndlgulnlLy slc and
quallflcaLlons Lhere ls no doubL LhaL Lhey are members of Lhe naLlonal CulLural CommunlLles
parLlcularly Lhe lbalol Lrlbe 1hey are Lhe leglLlmaLe grandchlldren of ApAp (one name) who llved
along Lhe Asln 8oad area Pls legal helrs are Cranl ApAp marrled Lo Calado Salda 8lLa ApAp
marrled Lo !ose 8acacan Sucdad ApAp marrled Lo Cragon WaklL and CllberL Semon a former
vlcemayor of 1uba 8engueL who adopLed Lhe common name of Lhelr faLher Semon as lL ls Lhe
cusLomary pracLlce among Lhe early lbalols x x x
Cn Lhe maLLer regardlng Lhe lnherlLance of Lhe helrs of ApAp lL ls lmporLanL Lo sLaLe LhaL CllberL
Semon consolldaLed ownershlp Lhereof and became Lhe sole helr ln 1964 by way of a ueed of
CulLclalm" execuLed by Lhe helrs ln hls favor As Lo Lhe respecLlve share of Lhe appllcanLs' co
helrs Lhe same was properly ad[udlcaLed ln 1989 wlLh Lhe execuLlon of an LxLra[udlclal
SeLLlemenL/ arLlLlon of LsLaLe wlLh Walver of 8lghLs"
1he Lrlal courL found LhaL lL preponderaLes ln favor of respondenL's longLlme possesslon of and
clalm of ownershlp over Lhe sub[ecL properLy 1he survey plan of Lhe sub[ecL properLy ln Lhe name
of Lhe Pelrs of Apap execuLed way back ln 1962 and Lhe Lax declaraLlons LhereafLer lssued Lo Lhe
respondenL and her slbllngs all supporL her clalm LhaL her famlly and Lhelr predecessorslnlnLeresL
have all been ln possesslon of Lhe properLy Lo Lhe excluslon of oLhers 1he CA held LhaL Lhe
respondenL was able Lo dlscharge her burden ln provlng her LlLle and lnLeresL Lo Lhe sub[ecL
properLy Per documenLary evldence were amply supporLed by Lhe LesLlmonlal evldence of her
wlLness

lSSuL WheLher peLlLloners have acqulred Lhe sub[ecL properLy by prescrlpLlon

PLLu

1he courL held LhaL Lhey cannoL accepL peLlLloners' clalm of acqulslLlon by prescrlpLlon eLlLloners
admlLLed LhaL Lhey had occupled Lhe properLy by Lolerance of Lhe owner Lhereof Pavlng made Lhls
admlsslon Lhey cannoL clalm LhaL Lhey have acqulred Lhe properLy by prescrlpLlon unless Lhey can
prove acLs of repudlaLlon lL ls seLLled LhaL possesslon ln order Lo rlpen lnLo ownershlp musL be ln
Lhe concepL of an owner publlc peaceful and unlnLerrupLed ossesslon noL ln Lhe concepL of
owner such as Lhe one clalmed by peLlLloners cannoL rlpen lnLo ownershlp by acqulslLlve
prescrlpLlon unless Lhe [urldlcal relaLlon ls flrsL expressly repudlaLed and such repudlaLlon has been
communlcaLed Lo Lhe oLher parLy AcLs of possessory characLer execuLed due Lo llcense or by mere
Lolerance of Lhe owner are lnadequaLe for purposes of acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon ossesslon by
Lolerance ls noL adverse and such possessory acLs no maLLer how long performed do noL sLarL Lhe
runnlng of Lhe perlod of prescrlpLlon ln Lhe lnsLanL case peLlLloners made no efforL Lo allege much
less prove any acL of repudlaLlon sufflclenL for Lhe reckonlng of Lhe acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon AL
mosL Lhe courL can flnd on record Lhe sale by peLlLloners uelfln and AgusLln of parLs of Lhe
properLy Lo peLlLloners Maynard and !ose buL Lhe same was done only ln 1998 shorLly before
respondenL flled a case agalnsL Lhem Pence Lhe 30year perlod necessary for Lhe operaLlon of
acqulslLve prescrlpLlon had yeL Lo be aLLalned WheLher Lhe ancesLral land clalm pendlng before
Lhe naLlonal Commlsslon on lndlgenous eoples (nCl) should Lake precedence over Lhe
relvlndlcaLory acLlon
1he appllcaLlon for lssuance of a CerLlflcaLe of AncesLral Land 1lLle pendlng before Lhe nCl ls akln
Lo a reglsLraLlon proceedlng lL also seeks an offlclal recognlLlon of one's clalm Lo a parLlcular land
and ls also ln rem 1he LlLllng of ancesLral lands ls for Lhe purpose of offlclally esLabllshlng" one's
land as an ancesLral land !usL llke a reglsLraLlon proceedlng Lhe LlLllng of ancesLral lands does noL
vesL ownershlp upon Lhe appllcanL buL only recognlzes ownershlp LhaL has already vesLed ln Lhe
appllcanL by vlrLue of hls and hls predecessorlnlnLeresL's possesslon of Lhe properLy slnce Llme
lmmemorlal As apLly explalned ln anoLher case lL bears sLresslng aL Lhls polnL LhaL ownershlp
should noL be confused wlLh a cerLlflcaLe of LlLle 8eglsLerlng land under Lhe 1orrens sysLem does
noL creaLe or vesL LlLle because reglsLraLlon ls noL a mode of acqulrlng ownershlp A cerLlflcaLe of
LlLle ls merely an evldence of ownershlp or LlLle over Lhe parLlcular properLy descrlbed Lhereln
Corollarlly any quesLlon lnvolvlng Lhe lssue of ownershlp musL be Lhreshed ouL ln a separaLe sulL x
x x 1he Lrlal courL wlll Lhen conducL a fullblown Lrlal whereln Lhe parLles wlll presenL Lhelr
respecLlve evldence on Lhe lssue of ownershlp of Lhe sub[ecL properLles Lo enable Lhe courL Lo
resolve Lhe sald lssue x x x (Lmphasls supplled)
Llkewlse apropos ls Lhe followlng explanaLlon 1he facL LhaL Lhe respondenLs were able Lo secure
1C1s over Lhe properLy dld noL operaLe Lo vesL upon Lhem ownershlp of Lhe properLy 1he
1orrens sysLem does noL creaLe or vesL LlLle lL has never been recognlzed as a mode of acqulrlng
ownershlp x x x lf Lhe respondenLs wlshed Lo asserL Lhelr ownershlp Lhey should have flled a
[udlclal acLlon for recovery of possesslon and noL merely Lo have Lhe land reglsLered under Lhelr
respecLlve names x x x CerLlflcaLes of LlLle do noL esLabllsh ownershlp (Lmphasls supplled) A
reglsLraLlon proceedlng ls noL a concluslve ad[udlcaLlon of ownershlp ln facL lf lL ls laLer on found
ln anoLher case (where Lhe lssue of ownershlp ls squarely ad[udlcaLed) LhaL Lhe reglsLranL ls noL Lhe
owner of Lhe properLy Lhe real owner can flle a reconveyance case and have Lhe LlLle Lransferred
Lo hls name
Clven LhaL a reglsLraLlon proceedlng (such as Lhe cerLlflcaLlon of ancesLral lands) ls noL a concluslve
ad[udlcaLlon of ownershlp lL wlll noL consLlLuLe llLls pendenLla on a relvlndlcaLory case where Lhe
lssue ls ownershlp lor llLls pendenLla Lo be a ground for Lhe dlsmlssal of an acLlon Lhe followlng
requlslLes musL concur (a) ldenLlLy of parLles or aL leasL such parLles who represenL Lhe same
lnLeresLs ln boLh acLlons (b) ldenLlLy of rlghLs asserLed and rellef prayed for Lhe rellef belng
founded on Lhe same facLs and (c) Lhe ldenLlLy wlLh respecL Lo Lhe Lwo precedlng parLlculars ln Lhe
Lwo cases ls such LhaL any [udgmenL LhaL may be rendered ln Lhe pendlng case regardless of whlch
parLy ls successful would amounL Lo res [udlcaLa ln Lhe oLher case" 1he Lhlrd elemenL ls mlsslng
for any [udgmenL ln Lhe cerLlflcaLlon case would noL consLlLuLe res [udlcaLa or be concluslve on Lhe
ownershlp lssue lnvolved ln Lhe relvlndlcaLory case Slnce Lhere ls no llLls pendenLla Lhere ls no
reason for Lhe relvlndlcaLory case Lo be suspended or dlsmlssed ln favor of Lhe cerLlflcaLlon case
Moreover slnce Lhere ls no llLls pendenLla we cannoL agree wlLh peLlLloners' conLenLlon LhaL
respondenL commlLLed forumshopplng SeLLled ls Lhe rule LhaL forum shopplng exlsLs where Lhe
elemenLs of llLls pendenLla are presenL or where a flnal [udgmenL ln one case wlll amounL Lo res
[udlcaLa ln Lhe oLher"
WPL8LlC8L premlses consldered Lhe peLlLlon ls denled for lack of merlL 1he March 30 2006
ueclslon of Lhe CourL of Appeals ln CAC8 Cv no 78987 and lLs May 26 2006 8esoluLlon denylng
Lhe moLlon for reconslderaLlon are Alll8MLu

Ney vs u|[ano
Gk# 178609] Aug 4 2010
626 SCkA 800

lacLs
1hls ls an appeal Lo Lhe ueclslon of Lhe CourL of Appeals seLLlng aslde Lhe ueclslon of Lhe 81C of
Manlla 8ranch 43

eLlLloners Manuel and 8omulo ney are Lhe reglsLered owners of a resldenLlal loL locaLed aL 1648
Maln SLreeL aco Manlla wlLh an area of 120 square meLers more or less covered by 1C1 no
122489 A Lhree (3) door aparLmenL was consLrucLed on Lhe sub[ecL loL 1 for Manuel Lhe oLher
for 8omulo and Lhe lasL one for Lhelr slsLer 8espondenLs Mlna n Cul[ano and her husband Celso
Cul[ano
Cn CcLober 8 1999 respondenLs flled wlLh Lhe 81C of Manlla a sulL for reconveyance parLlLlon and
damages agalnsL peLlLloners 1hey averred LhaL Lhey are coowners of Lhe sub[ecL properLy havlng
pald parL of lLs purchase prlce LhaL Celso's name was lnadverLenLly omlLLed as one of Lhe buyers ln
Lhe execuLlon of Lhe deed of sale ConsequenLly 1C1 no 122489 coverlng Lhe sub[ecL properLy was
lssued only ln Lhe names of Manuel and 8omulo 1o obLaln a separaLe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle Lhey
requesLed from peLlLloners Lhe segregaLlon of Lhe porLlon alloLLed Lo Lhem buL Lhe laLLer refused
1hey laLer dlscovered LhaL Lhe enLlre properLy was morLgaged wlLh MeLropollLan 8ank 1rusL
Company prompLlng Lhem Lo execuLe and reglsLer Lhelr adverse clalm wlLh Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds
and Lo flle Lhe lnsLanL complalnL
eLlLloners ln Lhelr answer denled respondenLs' allegaLlon of coownershlp 1hey averred LhaL
Celso Cul[ano was noL a vendee of Lhe sub[ecL loL Lhus hls name dld noL appear on Lhe LlLle 1hey
asserLed LhaL respondenLs cannoL valldly malnLaln an acLlon agalnsL Lhem because Lhe laLLer
possessed Lhe properLy by mere Lolerance and even assumlng LhaL respondenLs had a valld cause
of acLlon Lhe same had already been barred by prescrlpLlon and/or laches eLlLloners Lherefore
prayed for Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe complalnL

AfLer Lrlal Lhe 81C rendered a ueclslon dlsmlsslng Lhe complalnL lL re[ecLed respondenLs' clalm of
coownershlp and declared Lhelr documenLary and LesLlmonlal evldence unrellable 1he 81C
susLalned peLlLloners' asserLlon LhaL respondenLs possessed parL of Lhe properLy Lhrough mere
Lolerance and LhaL Lhelr cause of acLlon lf any already prescrlbed 1he 81C Lhus ruled LhaL
respondenLs can no longer demand Lhe segregaLlon or reconveyance of Lhe clalmed porLlon of Lhe
properLy llnally Lhe 81C granLed peLlLloners' counLerclalm and ordered Lhe relmbursemenL of Lhe
expenses Lhey lncurred ln defendlng Lhe case

8espondenLs wenL Lo Lhe CA 1hey faulLed Lhe 81C for dlsmlsslng Lhelr complalnL and lnslsLed LhaL
Lhey are coowners of Lhe sub[ecL loL and LhaL Lhelr share was erroneously lncluded ln peLlLloners'
LlLle ClLlng Pelrs of !ose Clvlga v CourL of Appeals respondenLs asserLed LhaL Lhelr rlghL Lo
lnsLlLuLe an acLlon for reconveyance ls lmprescrlpLlble because Lhey are ln possesslon of Lhe
clalmed porLlon of Lhe properLy

Cn !une 29 2007 Lhe CA rendered Lhe now challenged ueclslon reverslng Lhe 81C 1he CA
consldered respondenLs' complalnL as one for quleLlng of LlLle whlch ls lmprescrlpLlble and granLed
Lo respondenLs Lhe rellefs LhaL Lhey prayed for

1he CA declared respondenLs spouses Celso and Mlna Cul[ano as coowners of Lhe sub[ecL loL Lo
Lhe exLenL of oneLhlrd (1/3) Lhereof whlch corresponds Lo LhaL porLlon where Lhelr house sLands
Accordlngly peLlLloners are hereby ordered
1) Lo parLlLlon Lhe sub[ecL loL lnLo Lhree (3) equal porLlons of forLy square meLers (40 sqm) each
speclflcally alloLLlng Lo respondenLs Lhe porLlon where Lhelr house sLands
2) Lo reconvey Lo respondenLs Lhe clean LlLle Lo Lhelr porLlon of Lhe sub[ecL loL
3) Lo surrender Lhe owner's copy of 1C1 no 122489 Lo Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds of Manlla for Lhe
annoLaLlon of respondenLs' share Lhereon and
4) Lo pay respondenLs aLLorney's fees and Lhe cosLs of sulL ln Lhe reasonable amounL of
3000000

1hus Lhls peLlLlon for revlew 1hey ascrlbe reverslble error Lo Lhe CA for LreaLlng respondenLs'
acLlon as one for quleLlng of LlLle 1hey clalm LhaL nowhere ln Lhe complalnL does lL sLaLe LhaL
respondenLs seek Lo quleL Lhelr LlLle Lo Lhe properLy All LhaL respondenLs averred and prayed for ln
Lhelr complalnL was for peLlLloners Lo surrender Lhelr cerLlflcaLe of LlLle and for Lhe parLlLlon of Lhe
sub[ecL properLy eLlLloners asserL LhaL Lhe CA ruled on an lssue noL ralsed ln Lhe pleadlngs and
subsLlLuLed Lhe respondenLs' acLlon wlLh an enLlrely new acLlon for quleLlng of LlLle

lssue/s
1 WheLher Lhe CA erred ln LreaLlng Lhe complalnL as quleLlng of LlLle
2 WheLher Lhe CA faulLed ln susLalnlng respondenL's clalm for coownershlp

1he argumenL ls erroneous
1 1hese allegaLlons make ouL a case for reconveyance 1haL reconveyance was one of Lhe rellefs
soughL was made abundanLly clear by respondenLs ln Lhelr prayer


8espondenLs dld noL only seek Lhe parLlLlon of Lhe properLy and Lhe dellvery of Lhe LlLle buL also
Lhe reconveyance of Lhelr share whlch was lnadverLenLly lncluded ln peLlLloners' 1C1

An acLlon for reconveyance ls one LhaL seeks Lo Lransfer properLy wrongfully reglsLered by
anoLher Lo lLs rlghLful and legal owner lndeed reconveyance ls an acLlon dlsLlncL from an acLlon
for quleLlng of LlLle whlch ls flled whenever Lhere ls a cloud on LlLle Lo real properLy or any lnLeresL
Lhereln by reason of any lnsLrumenL record clalm encumbrance or proceedlng whlch ls
apparenLly valld or effecLlve buL ls ln LruLh and ln facL lnvalld lneffecLlve voldable or
unenforceable and may be pre[udlclal Lo sald LlLle for purposes of removlng such cloud or Lo quleL
LlLle Powever we flnd noLhlng erroneous ln Lhe CA's rullng LreaLlng respondenLs' acLlon for
reconveyance as an acLlon Lo quleL LlLle

ln Mendlzabel v Apao we LreaLed a slmllar acLlon for reconveyance as an acLlon Lo quleL LlLle
explalnlng Lhus
1he CourL has ruled LhaL Lhe 10year prescrlpLlve perlod applles only when Lhe person enforclng
Lhe LrusL ls noL ln possesslon of Lhe properLy lf a person clalmlng Lo be lLs owner ls ln acLual
possesslon of Lhe properLy Lhe rlghL Lo seek reconveyance whlch ln effecL seeks Lo quleL LlLle Lo
Lhe properLy does noL prescrlbe 1he reason ls LhaL Lhe one who ls ln acLual possesslon of Lhe land
clalmlng Lo be lLs owner may walL unLll hls possesslon ls dlsLurbed or hls LlLle ls aLLacked before
Laklng sLeps Lo vlndlcaLe hls rlghL Pls undlsLurbed possesslon glves hlm a conLlnulng rlghL Lo seek
Lhe ald of a courL of equlLy Lo ascerLaln and deLermlne Lhe naLure of Lhe adverse clalm of a Lhlrd
parLy and lLs effecL on hls own LlLle whlch rlghL can be clalmed only by one who ls ln possesslon

1he rullng was relLeraLed ln LasqulLe v vlcLory Pllls lnc"An acLlon for reconveyance based on an
lmplled LrusL prescrlbes ln 10 years 1he reference polnL of Lhe 10year prescrlpLlve perlod ls Lhe
daLe of reglsLraLlon of Lhe deed or Lhe lssuance of Lhe LlLle 1he prescrlpLlve perlod applles only lf
Lhere ls an acLual need Lo reconvey Lhe properLy as when Lhe plalnLlff ls noL ln possesslon of Lhe
properLy Powever lf Lhe plalnLlff as Lhe real owner of Lhe properLy also remalns ln possesslon of
Lhe properLy Lhe prescrlpLlve perlod Lo recover LlLle and possesslon of Lhe properLy does noL run
agalnsL hlm ln such a case an acLlon for reconveyance lf noneLheless flled would be ln Lhe naLure
of a sulL for quleLlng of LlLle an acLlon LhaL ls lmprescrlpLlble

lndublLably Lhe characLerlzaLlon by Lhe CA of respondenLs' acLlon as ln Lhe naLure of an acLlon for
quleLlng of LlLle cannoL be consldered a reverslble error

2 1he ueed of 8econveyance execuLed by Manuel and 8omulo expllclLly sLaLes LhaL
We acknowledge and recognlzed Lhe rlghLs lnLeresLs and parLlclpaLlon of Celso Cul[ano
llllplno of legal age marrled Lo Mlna ney and resldenL of 1648 Maln SLreeL aco Manlla as a
coowner of Lhe oneLhlrd (1/3) porLlon of Lhe sald loL whereln hls resldenLlal house ls now
consLrucLed aL Lhe abovesLaLed address havlng pald Lhe correspondlng amounL over Lhe sald 1/3
porLlon of Lhe properLy for Lhe acqulslLlon cosLs buL whose name does noL appear ln Lhe ueed of
Sale execuLed ln our favor Lhus resulLlng ln Lhe nonconcluslon (slc) of hls name ln Lhe above
sLaLed 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle when lssued as a coowner1avvphl1
nCW 1PL8LlC8L for and ln conslderaLlon of Lhe foregolng premlses WL MAnuLL nL? and
8CMuLC nL? do hereby Lransfer and convey unLo sald Spouses Celso Cul[ano and MlnA
nL? Lhelr oneLhlrd (1/3) porLlon share of Lhe aforedescrlbed (slc) parcel of land where Lhelr
resldenLlal house ls now slLuaLed aL Lhelr aboveglven address wlLh an area of forLy (40) square
meLers more or less by vlrLue of Lhls ueed of 8econveyance

eLlLloners never denled Lhe due execuLlon of Lhe ueed of 8econveyance ln facL Lhey admlLLed
LhaL Lhe slgnaLures appearlng Lhereln are Lhelrs 1he CA cannoL Lherefore be faulLed for declarlng
respondenLs as coowners of Lhe sub[ecL properLy because lL merely conflrmed and enforced Lhe
ueed of 8econveyance volunLarlly execuLed by peLlLloners ln favor of respondenLs

As apLly pronounced by Lhe CA
1he ueed of 8econveyance duly slgned by peLlLloners Lhemselves puL Lo resL Lhe focal lssue
beLween Lhe parLles 1here ls no denylng LhaL lL ouLwelghs Lhe evldence relled upon by
peLlLloners desplLe Lhe facL LhaL Lhey have Lhe Lransfer cerLlflcaLe of LlLle over Lhe enLlre sub[ecL
loL lL ls seLLled LhaL lL ls noL Lhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle LhaL vesLs ownershlp lL merely evldences such
LlLle
ln a number of cases Lhe CourL has ordered reconveyance of properLy Lo Lhe Lrue owner or Lo one
wlLh a beLLer rlghL where Lhe properLy had been erroneously or fraudulenLly LlLled ln anoLher
persons name AfLer all Lhe 1orrens sysLem was noL deslgned Lo shleld and proLecL one who had
commlLLed fraud or mlsrepresenLaLlon and Lhus holds LlLle ln bad falLh 1hus Lhe CA acLed correcLly
ln renderlng Lhe challenged declslon

@or|ng vs 8oqu||aga
Gk# 163610] Sept 27 2010
631 SCkA 278
lacLs
lor revlew under 8ule 43 of Lhe 1997 8ules of Clvll rocedure as amended are Lhe ueclslon of Lhe
CA whlch afflrmed Lhe ueclslon of Lhe 81C excepL as Lo Lhe land covered by reconsLlLuLed 1C1 no
813989 (116803) ln Lhe name of Lnrlque 1orlng

Cn CcLober 10 1996 Lhe helrs of Lnrlque 1orlng (peLlLloners) flled before Lhe Lrlal courL a peLlLlon
for producLlon dellvery surrender of documenLs annulmenL of documenL agalnsL Lhe helrs of
1eodosla 8oqullaga (respondenLs)


Cn !une 3 1927 1eodosla 8oqullaga sold Lo Lnrlque 1orlng now deceased parcels of land for a
conslderaLlon of llve Pundred and Lleven esos (31100) evldenced by a deed of absoluLe sale
wrlLLen ln Spanlsh

1hls deed of absoluLe sale was duly reglsLered wlLh Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds and Lhe fees for Lhe
reglsLraLlon were duly pald 1hereafLer new 1ransfer CerLlflcaLes of 1lLle were lssued by Lhe Cfflce
of Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds ln Lhe rovlnce of Cebu for all Lhe parcels of land ln Lhe name of Lnrlque
1orlng

lrom Lhe lssuance of 1C1 on AugusL 20 1927 plalnLlffs have been ln possesslon and rellglously pald
Lhe real Laxes due on sald descrlbed loLs and collecLlng Lhe proceeds of Lhe frulLs of Lhe land
Powever durlng World War ll Lhe canceled Crlglnal CerLlflcaLe ln Lhe name of 1eodosla
8oqullaga and Lhe 1ransfer CerLlflcaLes of 1lLle ln Lhe name of Lnrlque 1orlng ln Lhe books of
Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds were desLroyed

LaLely whlle peLlLloners were exerclslng Lhelr rlghL over Lhe sald loLs defendanLs refused Lo share
Lhe frulLs of Lhe loL reasonlng LhaL Lhey are Lhe owners Lhereof eLlLloners learned LhaL defendanLs
flled peLlLlon for Lhe reconsLlLuLlon of Lhe CC1s of sald land

eLlLloners Lhus soughL Lhe lssuance of an order dlrecLlng Lhe defendanLs Lo dellver produce and
surrender Lhe reconsLlLuLed Crlglnal CerLlflcaLes of 1lLle Should Lhe defendanLs refuse Lo dellver
Lhe sald LlLles lL ls prayed LhaL Lhe courL (a) declare CC1's null and vold (b) dlrecL Lhe 8eglsLer of
ueeds Lo cancel sald LlLles and ln lleu Lhereof lssue new 1C1s ln Lhe name of Lnrlque 1orlng and (c)
declare CC1 no 13237 null and vold for belng cancelled by 1C1 no 813989

As speclal and afflrmaLlve defenses defendanLs conLended LhaL Lhe 81C has no [urlsdlcLlon ln Lhls
case slnce Lhe assessed value of Lhe properLles lnvolved does noL exceed 2000000 and LhaL
peLlLloners are gullLy of laches for falllng Lo acL and Lake correcLlve measures wlLh Lhe 8eglsLer of
ueeds for slxLynlne (69) years on Lhe alleged desLrucLlon of Lhe documenLs

1he parLles agreed Lo submlL Lhe case for declslon on Lhe basls of poslLlon papers
memoranda/commenL and oLher documenLary evldence ln supporL of Lhelr respecLlve clalms

Cn !anuary 27 1998 Lhe Lrlal courL dlsmlssed Lhe case on Lhe ground LhaL lL cannoL lnLerfere wlLh
or render null and vold Lhe declslon made by a coequal and coordlnaLe branch of Lhe courL whlch
ordered Lhe reconsLlLuLlon of Lhe CC1s ln Lhe name of 1eodosla 8oqullaga under Lhe
clrcumsLances peLlLloners' owner's dupllcaLe cerLlflcaLes of LlLle ln Lhe name of Lnrlque 1orlng are
deemed overLaken by Lhe reconsLlLuLed LlLles lurLher Lhe Lrlal courL found peLlLloners gullLy of
laches ln noL reconsLlLuLlng Lhe orlglnal 1C1s ln Lhe name of Lnrlque 1orlng and ln noL maklng any
opposlLlon Lo Lhe reconsLlLuLlon proceedlngs flled by Lhe helrs of 1eodosla 8oqullaga Powever lL
was declared LhaL Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe case wlll noL affecL Lhe reconsLlLuLed 1C1 no 813989 ln Lhe
name of Lnrlque 1orlng

eLlLloners appealed Lo Lhe CA argulng LhaL
1 Lhe Lrlal courL erred ln concludlng LhaL Lhe acLlon ls one for Lhe annulmenL of Lhe order
of Lhe courL whlch granLed reconsLlLuLlon when ln LruLh Lhe peLlLloners merely soughL Lhe dellvery
of Lhe owner's dupllcaLe coples of Lhe reconsLlLuLed CC1s
2 Lhe Lrlal courL faulLed ln falllng Lo conslder LhaL Lhe defendanLs' predecessorlnlnLeresL
had long ago sold Lhe loLs Lo Lnrlque 1orlng whlch documenL of sale defendanLs have noL denled
and Lherefore defendanLhelrs are no longer owners
3 Lhe Lrlal courL erred ln flndlng Lhem gullLy of laches desplLe recognlzlng Lhe exlsLence of
Lhe owner's dupllcaLe of 1C1s ln Lhe name of Lnrlque 1orlng Lhe submlsslon by Lhe peLlLloners of
annexes ln Lhelr CommenL/8eply Lo defendanLs' memorandum showlng LhaL Lhere were prevlous
cases whereln peLlLloners have asserLed and defended Lhelr rlghL over Lhe sub[ecL properLles and
prevalled and Lhe facL LhaL Lhe CC1s were reconsLlLuLed by defendanLs only ln 1993 and Lhe
peLlLloners lnsLlLuLed Lhls case ln 1996

1he CA dlsmlssed Lhe appeal and afflrmed Lhe Lrlal courL's rullng
A moLlon for reconslderaLlon was flled by Lhe peLlLloners buL Lhe CA denled Lhe same

eLlLloners submlL Lhe followlng argumenLs ln Lhls peLlLlon for revlew on cerLlorarl
l

1PL CCu81 Cl ALALS CvL8LCCkLu Anu ulS8LCA8uLu CCnCLuSlvL LvluLnCL Cn 8LCC8u

1PA1 1PL Su8!LC1 LAnuS WL8L AL8LAu? SCLu AS LA8L? AS !unL 3 1927 8? 1LCuCSlA
8CCulLACA 8LSCnuLn1S' 8LuLCLSSC8 1C Ln8lCuL 1C8lnC L1l1lCnL8S' 8LuLCLSSC8 AS
LvluLnCLu 8? 1PL AnClLn1 uLLu Cl SALL ln SAnlSP LAnCuACL uA1Lu !unL 3 1927 WPlCP
LvluLnCL ll 8CL8L? CCnSluL8Lu WCuLu PAvL CPAnCLu 1PL Cu1CCML Cl 1PL CASL
ll
1PL CCu81 Cl ALALS CvL8LCCkLu Anu ulS8LCA8uLu CCnCLuSlvL LvluLnCL Cn 8LCC8u
1PA1 1PL L1l1lCnL8S A8L ln AC1uAL CSSLSSlCn Cl 1PL C8lClnAL CWnL8S' uuLlCA1L
18AnSlL8 CL81lllCA1LS Cl 1l1LL ln 1PL nAML Cl Ln8lCuL 1C8lnC WPlCP A8L CCCu 8CCl Cl
L1l1lCnL8S' CWnL8SPl Cl Su8!LC1 LAnuS WPlCP LvluLnCL ll 8CL8L? CCnSluL8Lu
WCuLu PAvL AL1L8Lu 1PL Cu1CCML Cl 1PL CASL
lll
1PL CCu81 Cl ALALS CvL8LCCkLu 1PL lAC1 1PA1 1PL 1l1LLS 1PA1 L1l1lCnL8S PAu
8LCCnS1l1u1Lu WL8L 1PL CAnCLLLLu C8lClnAL CL81lllCA1LS Cl 1l1LL ln 1PL nAML Cl
1LCuCSlA 8CCulLACA WPlCP uC nC1 8CvL CWnL8SPl Cl 1PL LAnuS 8LCAuSL 1PL? WL8L
AL8LAu? CAnCLLLLu 8? Ln8lCuL 1C8lnC'S 18AnSlL8 CL81lllCA1LS Cl 1l1LL
lv
1PL CCu81 Cl ALALS L88Lu ln PCLulnC L1l1lCnL8S CulL1? Cl LACPLS !uS1 8LCAuSL 1PL?
lAlLLu 1C 8LCCnS1l1u1L 1C8lnC'S C8lClnAL 18AnSlL8 CL81lllCA1LS Cl 1l1LL Cn llLL ln 1PL
8LCC8uS Cl 1PL 8LClS18? Cl uLLuS l1 ALA8lnC 1PA1 1PL? Anu 1PLl8 8LuLCLSSC8 PAvL
8LLn ln AC1uAL CSSLSSlCn Cl 1PL LAnu SlnCL 1927 Anu A8L ln CSSLSSlCn Cl 1PL C8lClnAL
CWnL8'S uuLlCA1L 18AnSlL8 CL81lllCA1LS Cl 1l1LL ln 1PL nAML Cl 1PLl8 8LuLCLSSC8
Ln8lCuL 1C8lnC
v
1PL CCu81 Cl ALALS L88Lu ln nC1 8LvL8SlnC 1PL 18lAL CCu81'S 8uLlnC 1PA1 1PL
CCMLAln1/L1l1lCn llLLu 8? L1l1lCnL8S Wl1P 1PL 18lAL CCu81 WAS 1An1AMCun1 1C An
AC1lCn 1C ASSAlL 1PL uLClSlCn Cl A CCLCuAL CCu81 l1 ALA8lnC 1PA1 1PL SAlu
CCMLAln1/L1l1lCn WAS ML8LL? 1C CCMLL uLLlvL8? C8 Su88LnuL8 8? 8LSCnuLn1S Cl
1PL 8LCCnS1l1u1Lu CL81lllCA1LS Cl 1l1LL

Peld
1he lssues ralsed are purely quesLlons of facL LhaL Lhls CourL cannoL revlew ln a peLlLlon flled under
8ule 43 ulLlmaLely we are asked Lo deLermlne Lhe ownershlp of Lhe sub[ecL loLs orlglnally
reglsLered ln Lhe name of 1eodosla 8oqullaga respondenLs' predecessorlnlnLeresL

1he CA declared LhaL peLlLloners falled Lo esLabllsh any rlghL over Lhe loLs oLher Lhan Lhelr bare
asserLlon LhaL Lhelr predecessorlnlnLeresL purchased Lhese properLles from 1eodosla 8oqullaga
and subsequenLly LlLles ln hls name were lssued buL were losL durlng Lhe lasL world war lL agreed
wlLh Lhe Lrlal courL ln flndlng LhaL whaLever clalm peLlLloners have on Lhe sub[ecL properLles was
losL by Lhelr unexplalned neglecL for more Lhan flfLy (30) years slnce Lhe desLrucLlon of Lhe records
ln Lhe reglsLry of deeds durlng Lhe lasL world war under Lhe prlnclple of laches As Lo Lhe naLure of
Lhe acLlon flled by peLlLloners Lhe CA llkewlse afflrmed Lhe Lrlal courL's rullng LhaL lL ls one for
annulmenL of Lhe reconsLlLuLed LlLle whlch essenLlally assalls Lhe [udgmenL or order of a coequal
courL

As a general rule facLual flndlngs of Lhe Lrlal courL especlally Lhose afflrmed by Lhe CA are
concluslve on Lhls CourL when supporLed by Lhe evldence on record

ln Lhe case aL bar Lhe records showed LhaL Lhe orlglnal peLlLlon was flled ln Lhe Munlclpal ClrculL
1rlal CourL of 8ogoSan 8emlglo Cebu buL was subsequenLly Lransferred Lo Lhe 81C on moLlon of
Lhe peLlLloners 1C1 nos 16802 16803 16804 and 813989 (116803) were aLLached Lo Lhe
peLlLlon LogeLher wlLh annexes A C Lo C menLloned Lhereln

Powever upon elevaLlon Lo Lhe CA Lhe records LransmlLLed had mlsslng pages lncludlng Lhe pages
subsequenL Lo Lhe orlglnal peLlLlon where coples of Lhe aforesald 1C1s should have been aLLached
AL any raLe Lhere appears Lo be no lndlcaLlon from Lhe pleadlngs flled and orders/declslon lssued
by Lhe Lrlal courL LhroughouL Lhe proceedlngs LhaL such documenLary evldence was noL submlLLed
by peLlLloners Pence Lhe CA could have been mlsled by Lhe absence of Lhese annexes from Lhe
records LransmlLLed on appeal eLlLloners submlLLed Lo Lhls CourL Lhe phoLocoples of 1C1 nos
16802 16803 and 16804 cerLlfled as Lrue copy from Lhe records by Lhe 81C of 8ogo 8ranch 61
Clerk of CourL vl ALLy 8ey uadula Caayon

lL musL be noLed LhaL peLlLloners presenLed before Lhe Lrlal courL Lhe owner's dupllcaLe coples of
Lhe sald 1C1s ln Lhe name of Lnrlque 1orlng lndeed had Lhese pleces of evldence been duly
consldered on appeal Lhe resoluLlon of Lhe lssue of ownershlp would have LllLed ln peLlLloners'
favor

8uL flrsL we resolve Lhe lssue of Lhe proprleLy of Lhe sulL flled by Lhe peLlLloners 1he naLure of an
acLlon ls deLermlned by Lhe maLerlal allegaLlons of Lhe complalnL and Lhe characLer of Lhe rellef
soughL by plalnLlff and Lhe law ln effecL when Lhe acLlon was flled lrrespecLlve of wheLher he ls
enLlLled Lo all or only some of such rellef As gleaned from Lhe avermenLs of Lhe peLlLlon flled
before Lhe Lrlal courL Lhough capLloned as for dellvery or producLlon of documenLs and annulmenL
of documenL peLlLloners' acLlon was really for quleLlng of LlLle and cancellaLlon of reconsLlLuLed
LlLles

eLlLloners had prayed for Lhe followlng rellefs before Lhe Lrlal courL
WPL8LlC8L lL ls respecLfully prayed LhaL an order be lssued
a ulrecLlng defendanLs Lo dellver produce and surrender Crlglnal CerLlflcaLes of 1lLle nos 8C
13240 13238 13239 and 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle no 97613 Lo plalnLlffs and should
defendanLs refuse Lo surrender Lhese documenLs Lo declare Crlglnal CerLlflcaLe of 1lLles nos 8C
13238 13239 13240 and 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle 97613 null and vold and dlrecLlng Lhe
8eglsLer of ueeds of Lhe rovlnce of Cebu Lo cancel sald Crlglnal CerLlflcaLes of 1lLle and 1ransfer
CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle and ln lleu Lhereof lssue new 1ransfer CerLlflcaLes of 1lLle ln Lhe name of Lnrlque
1orlng
b ueclare as null and vold Crlglnal CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle 13237 belng canceled by 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe
of 1lLle 813989
c ulrecLlng defendanLs helrs of 1eodosla 8oqullaga Lo pay 2000000 as aLLorney's fees

lalnLlffs pray for oLher remedles [usL and equlLable appllcable Lo Lhelr case perLlnenL wlLh law
and equlLy

eLlLloners conLend LhaL Lhe dellvery of Lhe reconsLlLuLed CC1s ln Lhe name of 1eodosla 8oqullaga
was necessary Lo conflrm and reglsLer Lhe 1927 sale ln favor of Lhelr predecessorlnlnLeresL

Lnrlque 1orlng lL appears LhaL Lhe remedy conLemplaLed ls a peLlLlon for surrender of wlLhheld
owner's dupllcaLe cerLlflcaLes provlded ln SecLlon 107 of resldenLlal uecree (u) no 1329

SLC1lCn 107 Surrender of wlLhheld dupllcaLe cerLlflcaLes Where lL ls necessary Lo lssue a new
cerLlflcaLe of LlLle pursuanL Lo any lnvolunLary lnsLrumenL whlch dlvesLs Lhe LlLle of Lhe reglsLered
owner agalnsL hls consenL or where a volunLary lnsLrumenL cannoL be reglsLered by reason of Lhe
refusal or fallure of Lhe holder Lo surrender Lhe owner's dupllcaLe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle Lhe parLy ln
lnLeresL may flle a peLlLlon ln courL Lo compel surrender of Lhe same Lo Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds 1he
courL afLer hearlng may order Lhe reglsLered owner or any person wlLhholdlng Lhe dupllcaLe
cerLlflcaLe Lo surrender Lhe same and dlrecL Lhe enLry of a new cerLlflcaLe or memorandum upon
such surrender lf Lhe person wlLhholdlng Lhe dupllcaLe cerLlflcaLe ls noL amenable Lo Lhe process
of Lhe courL or lf for any reason Lhe ouLsLandlng owner's dupllcaLe cerLlflcaLe cannoL be
dellvered Lhe courL may order Lhe annulmenL of Lhe same as well as Lhe lssuance of a new
cerLlflcaLe of LlLle ln lleu Lhereof Such new cerLlflcaLe and all dupllcaLes Lhereof shall conLaln a
memorandum of Lhe annulmenL of Lhe ouLsLandlng dupllcaLe (Lmphasls supplled)

Powever peLlLloners Lhemselves alleged LhaL Lhe 1927 sale had long been duly reglsLered CC1 ln
Lhe name of 1eodosla 8oqullaga as menLloned ln Lhe LscrlLura de venLa AbsoluLa daLed !une 3
1927 were cancelled and ln lleu Lhereof 1C1s have been lssued ln Lhe name of Lnrlque 1orlng on
AugusL 20 1927 1helr predecessorlnlnLeresL havlng already succeeded ln reglsLerlng Lhe deed of
sale as early as 1927 lL ls clear LhaL Lhe procedure under SecLlon 107 of u no 1329 ls
lnappllcable

CuleLlng of LlLle ls a common law remedy for Lhe removal of any cloud upon or doubL or
uncerLalnLy wlLh respecL Lo LlLle Lo real properLy CrlglnaLlng ln equlLy [urlsprudence lLs purpose ls
Lo secure an ad[udlcaLlon LhaL a clalm of LlLle Lo or an lnLeresL ln properLy adverse Lo LhaL of Lhe
complalnanL ls lnvalld so LhaL Lhe complalnanL and Lhose clalmlng under hlm may be forever
afLerward free from any danger of hosLlle clalm ln such acLlon Lhe compeLenL courL ls Lasked Lo
deLermlne Lhe respecLlve rlghLs of Lhe complalnanL and oLher clalmanLs noL only Lo place Lhlngs ln
Lhelr proper places and Lo make Lhe clalmanL who has no rlghLs Lo sald lmmovable respecL and
noL dlsLurb Lhe one so enLlLled buL also for Lhe beneflL of boLh so LhaL whoever has Lhe rlghL wlll
see every cloud of doubL over Lhe properLy dlsslpaLed and he can LhereafLer fearlessly lnLroduce
Lhe lmprovemenLs he may deslre as well as use and even abuse Lhe properLy as he deems flL

ln alleglng LhaL peLlLloners were noL served any noLlce as acLual possessors or ad[acenL owners of
Lhe peLlLlon for reconsLlLuLlon (Cad Case no 7 Cad 8ec no 442 uecree nos 230739 230740
231111 and 231112) flled by Lhe respondenLs for reconsLlLuLlon of CC1s ln Lhe name of 1eodosla
8oqullaga whlch was granLed by Lhe courL and LhaL Lhe sald CC1s have already been cancelled by
Lhe lssuance of 1C1s ln Lhe name of Lnrlque 1orlng by vlrLue of a deed of sale execuLed ln 1927 by
1eodosla 8oqullaga peLlLloners dld noL [usL seek Lo remove any doubL or uncerLalnLy ln Lhe LlLle of
Lhelr predecessorlnlnLeresL over Lhe sub[ecL real properLles buL also clalmed lrregularlLy and
defecLs ln Lhe reconsLlLuLlon proceedlngs whlch resulLed ln Lhe lssuance of reconsLlLuLed CC1 nos
8C13237 8C13238 8C13239 and 8C13240 ln Lhe name of 1eodosla 8oqullaga

lf lndeed as peLlLloners clalmed Lhe CC1s ln Lhe name of 1eodosla 8oqullaga were already
cancelled and new 1C1s have already been lssued ln Lhe name of Lnrlque 1orlng as early as 1927
Lhen Lhe reconsLlLuLed CC1 nos 8C13237 8C13238 8C13239 and 8C13240 lssued ln Cad Case
no 7 Cad 8ec no 442 are null and vold

lL may also be noLed LhaL Lhe peLlLlon for reconsLlLuLlon flled by respondenLs and Lhe CerLlflcaLlons
lssued by Lhe L8A sLaLed only Lhe reglsLraLlon decree numbers lssued ln favor of 1eodosla
8oqullaga wlLhouL menLlonlng Lhe numbers of Lhe CC1s and daLes of Lhelr lssuance 1he
reconsLlLuLed CC1s on Lhelr face conLalned no enLry whaLsoever as Lo Lhe number of Lhe CC1
lssued pursuanL Lo Lhe decrees of reglsLraLlon nor Lhe daLe of lLs lssuance We have held LhaL such
absence of any documenL prlvaLe or offlclal menLlonlng Lhe number of Lhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle and
daLe when Lhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle was lssued does noL warranL Lhe granLlng of a peLlLlon for
reconsLlLuLlon Moreover noLlce of hearlng of Lhe peLlLlon for reconsLlLuLlon of LlLle musL be served
on Lhe acLual possessors of Lhe properLy noLlce Lhereof by publlcaLlon ls lnsufflclenL
!urlsprudence ls Lo Lhe effecL seLLled LhaL ln peLlLlons for reconsLlLuLlon of LlLles acLual owners and
possessors of Lhe land lnvolved musL be duly served wlLh acLual and personal noLlce of Lhe peLlLlon

1he declslon granLlng Lhe peLlLlon for reconsLlLuLlon flled by Lhe respondenLs was promulgaLed on
May 9 1996 1here ls no allegaLlon or proof LhaL peLlLloners avalled of Lhe remedles of appeal
peLlLlon for rellef cerLlorarl or annulmenL of [udgmenL before Lhe CA quesLlonlng Lhe valldlLy of Lhe
sald reconsLlLuLlon order

noLwlLhsLandlng peLlLloners' fallure Lo avall of Lhe aforemenLloned remedles Lhe declslon ln Lhe
reconsLlLuLlon case ls noL a bar Lo Lhe ad[udlcaLlon of Lhe lssue of ownershlp ralsed ln Lhe presenL
case 1he naLure of [udlclal reconsLlLuLlon proceedlngs ls Lhe resLoraLlon of an lnsLrumenL or Lhe
relssuance of a new dupllcaLe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle whlch ls supposed Lo have been losL or desLroyed
ln lLs orlglnal form and condlLlon lLs purpose ls Lo have Lhe LlLle reproduced afLer proper
proceedlngs ln Lhe same form Lhey were when Lhe loss or desLrucLlon occurred and noL Lo pass
upon Lhe ownershlp of Lhe land covered by Lhe losL or desLroyed LlLle

AfLer a careful revlew we hold LhaL peLlLloners have saLlsfacLorlly esLabllshed Lhelr clalm of
ownershlp over Lhe sub[ecL loLs by preponderance of evldence 1he exlsLence and due execuLlon of
Lhe LscrlLura de venLa AbsoluLa was never dlspuLed by Lhe respondenLs eLlLloners' documenLary
evldence showed LhaL Lhe reglsLraLlon fees for Lhe Lransfer of Lhe loLs menLloned ln Lhe sald deed
of absoluLe sale was duly pald resulLlng ln Lhe lssuance of 1C1s ln Lhe name of Lnrlque 1orlng
1hereafLer peLlLloners Look possesslon of Lhe land sharlng ln Lhe frulLs Lhereof and paylng Lhe
realLy Laxes due on Lhe lands Whlle Lhe orlglnal owner's dupllcaLe 1C1s were ln Lhe possesslon of
peLlLloners Lhe orlglnal Lransfer cerLlflcaLes of LlLle on flle wlLh Lhe reglsLry of deeds were losL or
desLroyed durlng Lhe lasL world war eLlLloners were also able Lo [udlclally reconsLlLuLe 1C1 no 1
16803 (813989) on november 11 1994 as per Lhe annoLaLlon Lhereon

Laches means Lhe fallure or neglecL for an unreasonable lengLh of Llme Lo do LhaL whlch by
exerclslng due dlllgence could or should have been done earller lL ls negllgence or omlsslon Lo
asserL a rlghL wlLhln a reasonable Llme warranLlng a presumpLlon LhaL Lhe parLy enLlLled Lo asserL lL
elLher has abandoned lL or decllned Lo asserL lL 1hls equlLable defense ls based upon grounds of
publlc pollcy whlch requlres Lhe dlscouragemenL of sLale clalms for Lhe peace of socleLy lndeed
whlle lL ls Lrue LhaL a 1orrens 1lLle ls lndefeaslble and lmprescrlpLlble Lhe reglsLered landowner
may lose hls rlghL Lo recover Lhe possesslon of hls reglsLered properLy by reason of laches

ln Lhls case however laches cannoL be appreclaLed ln respondenLs' favor

lL should be sLressed LhaL laches ls noL concerned only wlLh Lhe mere lapse of Llme 1he followlng
elemenLs musL be presenL ln order Lo consLlLuLe laches
(1) conducL on Lhe parL of Lhe defendanL or of one under whom he clalms glvlng rlse Lo Lhe
slLuaLlon of whlch complalnL ls made for whlch Lhe complalnL seeks a remedy
(2) delay ln asserLlng Lhe complalnanL's rlghLs Lhe complalnanL havlng had knowledge or noLlce of
Lhe defendanL's conducL and havlng been afforded an opporLunlLy Lo lnsLlLuLe a sulL
(3) lack of knowledge or noLlce on Lhe parL of Lhe defendanL LhaL Lhe complalnanL would asserL Lhe
rlghL on whlch he bases hls sulL and
(4) ln[ury or pre[udlce Lo Lhe defendanL ln Lhe evenL rellef ls accorded Lo Lhe complalnanL or Lhe
sulL ls noL held Lo be barred37

Cnly Lhe flrsL elemenL was presenL ln Lhls case whlch occurred from Lhe momenL respondenLs
refused Lo glve peLlLloners' share ln Lhe frulLs and proceeds of Lhe land clalmlng LhaL Lhey are
owners Lhereof ln Lhe ensulng barangay proceedlngs respondenLs presenLed Lhe reconsLlLuLed
CC1s prompLlng peLlLloners Lo verlfy wlLh Lhe offlce of Lhe reglsLry of deeds lL was only Lhen LhaL
peLlLloners dlscovered LhaL respondenLs lndeed flled a peLlLlon for [udlclal reconsLlLuLlon 1here
belng no personal noLlce Lo Lhem as acLual possessors or ad[acenL loL owners peLlLloners never
had Lhe opporLunlLy Lo flle Lhelr opposlLlon 1he order of reconsLlLuLlon was lssued ln May 1996
eLlLloners' flllng of Lhe presenL sulL for Lhe dellvery and cancellaLlon of sald reconsLlLuLed CC1s ln
Lhe possesslon of respondenLs on CcLober 20 1996 afLer Lhe lapse of only flve monLhs cannoL be
consldered as unreasonable delay amounLlng Lo laches
AddlLlonally peLlLloners showed LhaL Lhey were never amlss ln asserLlng Lhelr rlghLs over Lhe
sub[ecL loLs whenever any lncldenL LhreaLened Lhelr peaceful possesslon and ownershlp

Caezo vs 8aut|sta
Gk# 170189] Sept 1 2010
629 SCkA S80
lacLs
1hls ls a peLlLlon for revlew of Lhe declslon of Lhe CourL of Appeals

Spouses Lleglo and uolla Canezo are Lhe reglsLered owners of a land wlLh an area of 186 sq m
covered by 1C1 no 32911 Spouses Apollnarlo and Consorcla 8auLlsLa are Lhe reglsLered owners of
a land wlLh an area of 181 sq m covered by 1C1 no 31727 8oLh are locaLed aL Coronado PelghLs
8arangka lbaba Mandaluyong ClLy and reglsLered wlLh Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds of Mandaluyong ClLy
AppellanLs' loL ls ad[acenL Lo LhaL of appellees

ln 1993 appellees sLarLed Lhe consLrucLlon of a bulldlng on Lhelr loL uurlng Lhe consLrucLlon
appellees dlscovered LhaL Lhelr loL was encroached upon by Lhe sLrucLures bullL by appellanLs
wlLhouL appellees' knowledge and consenL Powever desplLe oral and wrlLLen demands appellanLs
falled and refused Lo remove Lhe sLrucLures encroachlng appellees' loL

ALLempLs were made Lo seLLle Lhelr dlspuLe wlLh Lhe barangay lupon buL Lo no avall Appellees
lnlLlaLed a complalnL wlLh Lhe 81C for Lhe lssuance of a wrlL of demollLlon AppellanLs were
declared ln defaulL for fallure Lo flle an Answer wlLhln Lhe exLended perlod granLed by Lhe courL
Appellees were allowed Lo presenL Lhelr evldence ex parLe before an appolnLed commlssloner
1hereafLer Lhe 81C rendered Lhe assalled declslon ln Lhe Lerms earller seL forLh

Cn 23 March 2002 Lhe Lrlal courL promulgaLed lLs ueclslon ln favor of Lhe spouses Canezo 1he Lrlal
courL found LhaL Lhe spouses 8auLlsLa bullL sLrucLures encroachlng on Lhe land owned by Lhe
spouses Canezo 1he spouses 8auLlsLa also refused Lo remove Lhe sLrucLures and respecL Lhe
boundarles as esLabllshed by Lhe varlous surveyors A referral Lo Lhe 8arangay Lupon falled Lo
seLLle Lhe conLroversy amlcably 1he Lrlal courL Lhus ruled LhaL Lhe spouses 8auLlsLa are bullders ln
bad falLh such LhaL Lhe spouses Canezo are enLlLled Lo an lssuance of a wrlL of demollLlon wlLh
damages

!udgmenL ls rendered ln favor of Lhe plalnLlffs and agalnsL Lhe defendanLs A wrlL of demollLlon be
was lssued dlrecLlng Lhe removal/demollLlon of Lhe sLrucLures bullL by Lhe defendanLs upon Lhe
porLlon of land belonglng Lo Lhe plalnLlffs aL Lhe former's expense
lurLher
1 Lhe defendanL ls ordered Lo pay 3000000 (hlllpplne Currency) as and by way of moral
damages and
2 Lhe defendanL ls hereby ordered Lo pay 3000000 as and by way of aLLorney's fees

1he spouses 8auLlsLa flled a noLlce of appeal

Cn 17 CcLober 2003 Lhe appellaLe courL reversed Lhe ueclslon of Lhe Lrlal courL 1he appellaLe
courL ruled LhaL slnce Lhe lasL demand was made on 27 March 2000 or more Lhan a year before
Lhe flllng of Lhe complalnL Lhe spouses Canezo should have flled a sulL for recovery of possesslon
and noL for Lhe lssuance of a wrlL of demollLlon A wrlL of demollLlon can be granLed only as an
effecL of a flnal [udgmenL or order hence Lhe spouses Canezo's complalnL should be dlsmlssed 1he
spouses Canezo falled Lo speclfy Lhe assessed value of Lhe encroached porLlon of Lhelr properLy
8ecause of Lhls fallure Lhe complalnL lacked sufflclenL basls Lo consLlLuLe a cause of acLlon llnally
Lhe appellaLe courL ruled LhaL should Lhere be a flndlng of encroachmenL ln Lhe acLlon for recovery
of possesslon and LhaL Lhe encroachmenL was bullL ln good falLh Lhe markeL value of Lhe
encroached porLlon should be proved Lo deLermlne Lhe approprlaLe lndemnlLy
1he CA granLed Lhe appeal and Lhe case was ulSMlSSLu wlLhouL pre[udlce Lo Lhe flllng of Lhe
approprlaLe acLlon wlLh Lhe proper forum

lssues
l WheLher Lhe Ponorable CourL of Appeals gravely erred ln granLlng Lhe peLlLlon of Lhe spouses
8auLlsLa and reverslng Lhe ueclslon of Lhe CourL a quo and

ll WheLher Lhe Ponorable CourL of Appeals gravely erred ln sLaLlng LhaL Lhe peLlLloners should
have flled recovery of possesslon and noL wrlL of demollLlon

Peld
1he peLlLlon has merlL
1he presenL case whlle lnaccuraLely capLloned as an acLlon for a WrlL of uemollLlon wlLh
uamages ls ln reallLy an acLlon Lo recover a parcel of land or an acclon relvlndlcaLorla under ArLlcle
434 of Lhe Clvll Code ArLlcle 434 of Lhe Clvll Code reads ln an acLlon Lo recover Lhe properLy
musL be ldenLlfled and Lhe plalnLlff musL rely on Lhe sLrengLh of hls LlLle and noL on Lhe weakness
of Lhe defendanL's clalm Acclon relvlndlcaLorla seeks Lhe recovery of ownershlp and lncludes Lhe
[us uLendl and Lhe [us fruendl broughL ln Lhe proper reglonal Lrlal courL Acclon relvlndlcaLorla ls an

acLlon whereby plalnLlff alleges ownershlp over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of lLs full
possesslon
ln order LhaL an acLlon for Lhe recovery of LlLle may prosper lL ls lndlspensable ln accordance wlLh
Lhe precedenLs esLabllshed by Lhe courLs LhaL Lhe parLy who prosecuLes lL musL fully prove noL
only hls ownershlp of Lhe Lhlng clalmed buL also Lhe ldenLlLy of Lhe same Powever alLhough Lhe
ldenLlLy of Lhe Lhlng LhaL a parLy deslres Lo recover musL be esLabllshed lf Lhe plalnLlff has already
proved hls rlghL of ownershlp over a LracL of land and Lhe defendanL ls occupylng wlLhouL rlghL any
parL of such LracL lL ls noL necessary for plalnLlff Lo esLabllsh Lhe preclse locaLlon and exLenL of Lhe
porLlons occupled by Lhe defendanL wlLhln Lhe plalnLlff's properLy

Clven Lhe efforLs made by Lhe spouses Canezo Lo seLLle Lhe presenL lssue prlor Lo Lhe flllng of a
ComplalnL Lhe Lrlal courL was [usLlfled ln rullng LhaL Lhe spouses 8auLlsLa were ln defaulL and ln noL
admlLLlng Lhelr Answer 1he ComplalnL was noL Lhe spouses 8auLlsLa's flrsL encounLer wlLh Lhe
presenL lssue Moreover Lhe spouses 8auLlsLa falled Lo flle Lhelr Answer even afLer Lhe explry of
Lhe moLlon of exLenslon granLed Lo Lhem
1he LesLlmony and Lhe relocaLlon survey plan boLh show LhaL Lhe spouses 8auLlsLa were aware of
Lhe encroachmenL upon Lhelr loL by Lhe owner of LoL 13 and Lhus Lhey made a correspondlng
encroachmenL upon Lhe loL of Lhe spouses Canezo 1hls awareness of Lhe Lwo encroachmenLs
made Lhe spouses 8auLlsLa bullders ln bad falLh 1he spouses Canezo are enLlLled Lo Lhe lssuance of
a wrlL of demollLlon ln Lhelr favor and agalnsL Lhe spouses 8auLlsLa ln accordance wlLh ArLlcle 430
of Lhe Clvll Code

A wrlL of demollLlon of Lhe encroachlng sLrucLures should be lssued agalnsL and aL Lhe expense of
Spouses Apollnarlo and Consorcla L 8auLlsLa upon Lhe flnallLy of Lhls [udgmenL Spouses Apollnarlo
and Consorcla L 8auLlsLa are furLher ordered Lo pay Spouses Lleglo and uolla Canezo 30000 as
acLual damages 30000 as moral damages and 30000 as aLLorney's fees 1he lnLeresL raLe of
12 per annum shall apply from Lhe flnallLy of [udgmenL unLll Lhe LoLal amounL awarded ls fully
pald

ArLlcle 430 1he owner of Lhe land on whlch anyLhlng has been bullL planLed or sown ln bad falLh
may demand Lhe demollLlon of Lhe work or LhaL Lhe planLlng or sowlng be removed ln order Lo
replace Lhlngs ln Lhelr former condlLlon aL Lhe expense of Lhe person who bullL planLed or sowed
or he may compel Lhe bullder or planLer Lo pay Lhe prlce of Lhe land and Lhe sower Lhe proper
renL

@|t|e III CoCwnersh|p (Arts 484S01)


kepub||c v ne|rs of Sorono
Gk # 171S71 Mar 24 2008
S49 SCkA S8

1hls ls a eLlLlon for revlew on cerLlorarl Lo Lhe aardeclslon of Lhe CA afflrmlng LhaL of Lhe 81C
CadasLral Survey of Cpon Lapulapu ClLy were ad[udlcaLed on uecember 7 1929 by Lhe Lhen Cll of
Cebu ln four equal shares 1he Lwo loLs were noL parLlLloned by Lhe ad[udlcaLees

lL appears furLher LhaL Lhe helrs of 1lLo ulgnos who was awarded x share ln Lhe Lwo loLs sold for
236339 Lhe enLlre Lwo loLs Lo Lhe Lhen Clvll AeronauLlcs AdmlnlsLraLlon (CAA) vla a publlc
lnsLrumenL enLlLled LxLra[udlclal SeLLlemenL and Sale execuLed on CcLober 11 1937 wlLhouL Lhe
knowledge of respondenLs whose predecessorslnlnLeresL were Lhe ad[udlcaLees of Lhe resL of Lhe
porLlon of Lhe Lwo loLs

ln 1996 CAA's successorlnlnLeresL Lhe MacLan Cebu lnLernaLlonal AlrporL AuLhorlLy (MClAA)
erecLed a securlLy fence Lraverslng LoL no 2316 and relocaLed a number of famllles who had bullL
Lhelr dwelllngs wlLhln Lhe alrporL perlmeLer Lo a porLlon of sald loL Lo enhance alrporL securlLy ln
llne wlLh Lhe sLandards seL by Lhe lnLernaLlonal Clvll AvlaLlon CrganlzaLlon and Lhe lederal AvlaLlon
AuLhorlLy

MClAA laLer caused Lhe lssuance ln lLs name of 1ax ueclaraLlon no 00348 coverlng LoL no 2296
and 1ax ueclaraLlon no 00368 coverlng LoL no 2316
8espondenLs soon asked Lhe agenLs of MClAA Lo cease glvlng Lhlrd persons permlsslon Lo occupy
Lhe loLs buL Lhe same was lgnored

8espondenLs Lhereupon flled on !anuary 8 1996 a ComplalnL for CuleLlng of 1lLle Legal
8edempLlon wlLh rayer for a WrlL of rellmlnary ln[uncLlon agalnsL MClAA before Lhe 81C of Lapu
lapu ClLy alleglng LhaL Lhe exlsLence of Lhe Lax declaraLlons would casL a cloud on Lhelr valld and
exlsLlng LlLles Lo Lhe loLs 1hey alleged LhaL correspondlng orlglnal cerLlflcaLes of LlLle ln favor of
Lhe decreed owners were lssued buL Lhe same could no longer be found and locaLed and ln all
probablllLy were losL durlng Lhe Second World War (1hls clalm was noL speclflcally denled by
peLlLloner ln lLs Answer wlLh CounLerclalm)

8espondenLs furLher alleged LhaL nelLher Lhey nor Lhelr predecessorslnlnLeresLs sold allenaLed or
dlsposed of Lhelr shares ln Lhe loLs of whlch Lhey have been ln conLlnuous peaceful possesslon
8espondenLs furLhermore alleged LhaL nelLher peLlLloner nor lLs predecessorlnlnLeresL had glven
Lhem any wrlLLen noLlce of lLs acqulslLlon of Lhe x share of 1lLo ulgnos

1he Lrlal courL found for respondenLs lL held LhaL respondenLs and Lhelr predecessorslnlnLeresL
were ln peaceful and conLlnuous possesslon of Lhelr shares ln Lhe loLs and were dlsLurbed of such
possesslon only ln 1996 when peLlLloner puL up Lhe securlLy fence LhaL Lraversed LoL no 2316 and
relocaLed famllles LhaL had bullL Lhelr houses wlLhln Lhe alrporL perlmeLer Lo a porLlon of sald loL

Cn peLlLloner's clalm LhaL lL had acqulred ownershlp by exLraordlnary prescrlpLlon Lhe Lrlal courL
brushed lL aslde on Lhe ground LhaL reglsLered lands cannoL be Lhe sub[ecL of acqulslLlve
prescrlpLlon

nelLher held Lhe Lrlal courL had respondenLs' acLlon prescrlbed as acLlons for quleLlng of LlLle
cannoL prescrlbe lf Lhe plalnLlffs are ln possesslon of Lhe properLy ln quesLlon as ln Lhe case of
hereln respondenLs
Cn peLlLloner's defense of laches Lhe Lrlal courL also brushed Lhe same aslde ln llghL of lLs flndlng
LhaL respondenLs who have long been ln possesslon of Lhe loLs came Lo know of Lhe sale only ln
1996 1he Lrlal courL added LhaL respondenLs could noL be charged wlLh consLrucLlve noLlce of Lhe
1937 LxLra[udlclal SeLLlemenL and Sale of Lhe loLs Lo CAA as lL was erroneously reglsLered under AcL
no 3344 Lhe law governlng recordlng of lnsLrumenLs or deeds relaLlng Lo real esLaLe whlch are noL

reglsLered under Lhe 1orrens sysLem 1he sub[ecL loLs belng reglsLered Lhe Lrlal courL found Lhe
reglsLraLlon of Lhe deed should have been made under AcL no 496 Lhe appllcable law ln 1937 ln
flne Lhe Lrlal courL held LhaL Lhe reglsLraLlon of Lhe deed under AcL no 3344 dld noL operaLe as
consLrucLlve noLlce Lo Lhe whole world

Concludlng Lhe Lrlal courL held LhaL Lhe quesLloned sale was valld only wlLh respecL Lo 1lLo ulgnos'
x share of Lhe loLs and LhaL Lhe sale Lhereof was sub[ecL Lo Lhe rlghL of legal redempLlon by
respondenLs followlng ArLlcle 1088 of Lhe Clvll Code readlng
Should any of Lhe helrs sell hls heredlLary rlghLs Lo a sLranger before parLlLlon any or all of Lhe co
helrs may be subrogaLed Lo Lhe rlghLs of Lhe purchaser by relmburslng hlm for Lhe prlce of Lhe sale
provlded Lhey do so wlLhln Lhe perlod of one monLh from Lhe Llme Lhey were noLlfled ln wrlLlng of
Lhe sale by Lhe vendor
ln llghL of lLs flndlng LhaL Lhe helrs of 1lLo ulgnos dld noL glve noLlce of Lhe sale Lo respondenLs Lhe
Lrlal courL held LhaL Lhe perlod for legal redempLlon had noL yeL lapsed and Lhe redempLlon prlce
should be x of Lhe purchase prlce pald by Lhe CAA for Lhe Lwo loLs
1he Lrlal courL Lhus dlsposed

Pence Lhe presenL peLlLlon for revlew on cerLlorarl

lssue
1PL CCu81 Cl ALALS C8AvLL? L88Lu ln Alll8MlnC 1PL 18lAL CCu81'S uLClSlCn WPLn
8LSCnuLn1S nC LCnCL8 PAvL An? 8lCP1 1C 8LCCvL8 LC1S 2296 Anu 2316 uuL 1C 1PL
8lC8 SALL 1PL8LCl 1C 1PL 8Lu8LlC Anu uCn 1PL LCul1A8LL C8CunuS Cl LS1CLL Anu
LACPLS

Peld
ArLlcle 493 of Lhe Clvll Code provldes
Lach coowner shall have Lhe full ownershlp of hls parL and of Lhe frulLs and beneflLs perLalnlng
LhereLo and he may Lherefore allenaLe asslgn or morLgage lL and even subsLlLuLe anoLher person
ln lLs en[oymenL excepL when personal rlghLs are lnvolved 8uL Lhe effecL of Lhe allenaLlon of Lhe
morLgage wlLh respecL Lo Lhe coowners shall be llmlLed Lo Lhe porLlon whlch may be alloLLed Lo
hlm ln Lhe dlvlslon upon Lhe LermlnaLlon of Lhe coownershlp

lrom Lhe foregolng lL may be deduced LhaL slnce a coowner ls enLlLled Lo sell hls undlvlded share
a sale of Lhe enLlre properLy by one coowner wlLhouL Lhe consenL of Lhe oLher coowners ls noL
null and vold Powever only Lhe rlghLs of Lhe coownerseller are Lransferred Lhereby maklng Lhe
buyer a coowner of Lhe properLy

eLlLloner's predecessorlnlnLeresL CAA Lhus acqulred only Lhe rlghLs perLalnlng Lo Lhe sellershelrs
of 1lLo ulgnos whlch ls only x undlvlded share of Lhe Lwo loLs

eLlLloner's lnslsLence LhaL lL acqulred Lhe properLy Lhrough acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon lf noL ordlnary
Lhen exLraordlnary does noL lle 1he Lrlal courL's dlscredlLlng Lhereof ls well Laken lL bears
emphasls aL Lhls [uncLure LhaL ln Lhe LxLra[udlclal SeLLlemenL and Sale forged by CAA and 1lLo
ulgnos' helrs ln 1937

1he Lrlal courL's dlscredlLlng of peLlLloner's lnvocaLlon of laches and prescrlpLlon of acLlon ls well
Laken Loo
As for peLlLloner's argumenL LhaL Lhe redempLlon prlce should be x of Lhe prevalllng markeL value
noL of Lhe acLual purchase prlce slnce so lL clalms (1) Lhey recelved [usL compensaLlon for Lhe
properLy aL Lhe Llme lL was purchased by Lhe CovernmenL and (2) Lhe properLy due Lo
lmprovemenLs lnLroduced by peLlLloner ln lLs vlclnlLy ls now worLh several hundreds of mllllons of
pesos" Lhe law ls noL on lLs slde

1hus ArLlcle 1088 of Lhe Clvll Code provldes
Should any of Lhe helrs sell hls heredlLary rlghLs Lo a sLranger before Lhe parLlLlon any or all of Lhe
cohelrs may be subrogaLed Lo Lhe rlghLs of Lhe purchaser by relmburslng hlm for Lhe prlce of Lhe
sale provlded Lhey do so wlLhln Lhe perlod of one monLh from Lhe Llme Lhey were noLlfled ln
wrlLlng of Lhe sale by Lhe vendor

1he CourL may Lake [udlclal noLlce of Lhe lncrease ln value of Lhe loLs As menLloned earller
however Lhe helrs of 1lLo ulgnos dld noL noLlfy respondenLs abouL Lhe sale AL any raLe slnce Lhe
LxLra[udlclal SeLLlemenL and Sale sLlpulaLes Lhus
1haL Lhe PLl8SvLnuC8S Lhelr helrs asslgns and successors underLake and agree Lo warranL and
defend Lhe possesslon and ownershlp of Lhe properLy/les hereln sold agalnsL any and all [usL clalms
of all persons whomsoever and should Lhe vLnuLL be dlsLurbed ln lLs possesslon Lo prosecuLe and
defend Lhe same ln Lhe CourLs of !usLlce

eLlLloner ls noL wlLhouL any remedy 1hls declslon ls Lherefore wlLhouL pre[udlce Lo peLlLloner's
rlghL Lo seek redress agalnsL Lhe vendorshelrs of 1lLo ulgnos and Lhelr successorslnlnLeresL

Cruz v Catapang
Gk # 164110 Ieb 12 2008
S44 SCkA S12

lacLs
1hls peLlLlon for revlew seeks Lhe reversal of Lhe ueclslon and Lhe 8esoluLlon of Lhe CourL of
Appeals whlch reversed Lhe ueclslon 81C whlch had earller afflrmed Lhe ueclslon of Lhe 7Lh MC1C
orderlng respondenL Lo vacaLe and dellver possesslon of a porLlon of Lhe loL coowned by
peLlLloner Luz Cruz and norma Mallgaya
1he anLecedenL facLs of Lhe case are as follows

eLlLloner Leonor 8 Cruz Luz Cruz and norma Mallgaya are Lhe coowners of a parcel of land
coverlng an area of 1433 square meLers locaLed aL 8arangay Mahabang Ludlod 1aal 8aLangas
WlLh Lhe consenL of norma Mallgaya one of Lhe aforemenLloned coowners respondenL 1eoflla M
CaLapang bullL a house on a loL ad[acenL Lo Lhe abovemenLloned parcel of land someLlme ln 1992
1he house lnLruded however on a porLlon of Lhe coowned properLy

When peLlLloner Leonor 8 Cruz vlslLed Lhe properLy durlng Lhe flrsL week of SepLember 1993 she
was surprlsed Lo see a parL of respondenL's house lnLrudlng unLo a porLlon of Lhe coowned
properLy She Lhen made several demands upon respondenL Lo demollsh Lhe lnLrudlng sLrucLure
and Lo vacaLe Lhe porLlon encroachlng on Lhelr properLy 1he respondenL however refused and
dlsregarded her demands

Cn !anuary 23 1996 Lhe peLlLloner flled a complalnL for forclble enLry agalnsL respondenL before
Lhe 7Lh MC1C of 1aal 8aLangas 1he MC1C declded ln favor of peLlLloner rullng LhaL consenL of
only one of Lhe coowners ls noL sufflclenL Lo [usLlfy defendanL's consLrucLlon of Lhe house and
possesslon of Lhe porLlon of Lhe loL ln quesLlon

Cn appeal Lhe 81C afflrmed Lhe MC1C's rullng and denled Lhe moLlon for reconslderaLlon flled by
CaLapang

8espondenL flled a peLlLlon for revlew wlLh Lhe CourL of Appeals whlch reversed Lhe 81C's
declslon 1he CA held LhaL Lhere ls no cause of acLlon for forclble enLry ln Lhls case because
respondenL's enLry lnLo Lhe properLy conslderlng Lhe consenL glven by coowner norma Mallgaya
cannoL be characLerlzed as one made Lhrough sLraLegy or sLealLh whlch glves rlse Lo a cause of
acLlon for forclble enLry 1he CA furLher held LhaL peLlLloner's remedy ls noL an acLlon for e[ecLmenL
buL an enLlrely dlfferenL recourse wlLh Lhe approprlaLe forum

AfLer peLlLloner's moLlon for reconslderaLlon was denled by Lhe CA she flled Lhe lnsLanL peLlLlon
and ralsed before us for conslderaLlon Lhe followlng lssues
l
WPL1PL8 C8 nC1 1PL knCWLLuCL Anu CCnSLn1 Cl CCCWnL8 nC8MA MALlCA?A lS A vALlu
LlCLnSL lC8 1PL 8LSCnuLn1 1C L8LC1 1PL 8unCALCW PCuSL Cn 1PL 8LMlSLS CWnLu
8ClnulvlSC SAnS CCnSLn1 l8CM 1PL L1l1lCnL8 Anu C1PL8 CCCWnL8
ll
WPL1PL8 C8 nC1 8LSCnuLn1 8? PL8 AC1S PAS ACCul8Lu LxCLuSlvL CWnL8SPl CvL8 1PL
C81lCn Cl 1PL LC1 Su8!LC1 Cl 1PL 8LMlSLS u8SuAn1 1C 1PL CCnSLn1 C8An1Lu un1C
PL8 8? CCCWnL8 nC8MA MALlCA?A 1C 1PL LxCLuSlCn Cl 1PL L1l1lCnL8 Anu 1PL C1PL8
CCCWnL8
lll
WPL1PL8 C8 nC1 8LSCnuLn1 ln lAC1 C81AlnLu CSSLSSlCn Cl 1PL 8CL81? ln
CuLS1lCn 8? MLAnS Cl SlMLL S18A1LC?

eLlLloner conLends LhaL Lhe consenL and knowledge of coowner norma Mallgaya cannoL defeaL
Lhe acLlon for forclble enLry slnce lL ls a baslc prlnclple ln Lhe law of coownershlp LhaL no lndlvldual
coowner can clalm LlLle Lo any deflnlLe porLlon of Lhe land or Lhlng owned ln common unLll
parLlLlon

Cn Lhe oLher hand respondenL ln her memorandum counLers LhaL Lhe complalnL for forclble enLry
cannoL prosper because her enLry lnLo Lhe properLy was noL Lhrough sLraLegy or sLealLh due Lo Lhe
consenL of one of Lhe coowners She furLher argues LhaL slnce norma Mallgaya ls resldlng ln Lhe
house she bullL Lhe lssue ls noL [usL possesslon de facLo buL also one of possesslon de [ure slnce lL
lnvolves rlghLs of coowners Lo en[oy Lhe properLy


lssue
WheLher consenL glven by a coowner of a parcel of land Lo a person Lo consLrucL a house on Lhe
coowned properLy warranLs Lhe dlsmlssal of a forclble enLry case flled by anoLher coowner
agalnsL LhaL person

Peld
As Lo Lhe lssue of wheLher or noL Lhe consenL of one coowner wlll warranL Lhe dlsmlssal of a
forclble enLry case flled by anoLher coowner agalnsL Lhe person who was glven Lhe consenL Lo
consLrucL a house on Lhe coowned properLy we have held LhaL a coowner cannoL devoLe
common properLy Lo hls or her excluslve use Lo Lhe pre[udlce of Lhe coownershlp ln our vlew a
coowner cannoL glve valld consenL Lo anoLher Lo bulld a house on Lhe coowned properLy whlch ls
an acL LanLamounL Lo devoLlng Lhe properLy Lo hls or her excluslve use
lurLhermore ArLlcles 486 and 491 of Lhe Clvll Code provlde
ArL 486 Lach coowner may use Lhe Lhlng owned ln common provlded he does so ln accordance
wlLh Lhe purpose for whlch lL ls lnLended and ln such a way as noL Lo ln[ure Lhe lnLeresL of Lhe co
ownershlp or prevenL Lhe oLher coowners from uslng lL accordlng Lo Lhelr rlghLs 1he purpose of
Lhe coownershlp may be changed by agreemenL express or lmplled
ArL 491 none of Lhe coowners shall wlLhouL Lhe consenL of Lhe oLhers make alLeraLlons ln Lhe
Lhlng owned ln common even Lhough beneflLs for all would resulL Lherefrom Powever lf Lhe
wlLhholdlng of Lhe consenL by one or more of Lhe coowners ls clearly pre[udlclal Lo Lhe common
lnLeresL Lhe courLs may afford adequaLe rellef

ArLlcle 486 sLaLes each coowner may use Lhe Lhlng owned ln common provlded he does so ln
accordance wlLh Lhe purpose for whlch lL ls lnLended and ln such a way as noL Lo ln[ure Lhe lnLeresL
of Lhe coownershlp or prevenL Lhe oLher coowners from uslng lL accordlng Lo Lhelr rlghLs Clvlng
consenL Lo a Lhlrd person Lo consLrucL a house on Lhe coowned properLy wlll ln[ure Lhe lnLeresL of
Lhe coownershlp and prevenL oLher coowners from uslng Lhe properLy ln accordance wlLh Lhelr
rlghLs

under ArLlcle 491 none of Lhe coowners shall wlLhouL Lhe consenL of Lhe oLhers make alLeraLlons
ln Lhe Lhlng owned ln common lL necessarlly follows LhaL none of Lhe coowners can wlLhouL Lhe
consenL of Lhe oLher coowners valldly consenL Lo Lhe maklng of an alLeraLlon by anoLher person
such as respondenL ln Lhe Lhlng owned ln common AlLeraLlons lnclude any acL of sLrlcL domlnlon
or ownershlp and any encumbrance or dlsposlLlon has been held lmpllclLly Lo be an acL of
alLeraLlon 1he consLrucLlon of a house on Lhe coowned properLy ls an acL of domlnlon 1herefore
lL ls an alLeraLlon falllng under ArLlcle 491 of Lhe Clvll Code 1here belng no consenL from all co
owners respondenL had no rlghL Lo consLrucL her house on Lhe coowned properLy

ConsenL of only one coowner wlll noL warranL Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe complalnL for forclble enLry flled
agalnsL Lhe bullder 1he consenL glven by norma Mallgaya ln Lhe absence of Lhe consenL of
peLlLloner and Luz Cruz dld noL vesL upon respondenL any rlghL Lo enLer lnLo Lhe coowned
properLy Per enLry lnLo Lhe properLy sLlll falls under Lhe classlflcaLlon Lhrough sLraLegy or sLealLh

1he CA held LhaL Lhere ls no forclble enLry because respondenL's enLry lnLo Lhe properLy was noL
Lhrough sLraLegy or sLealLh due Lo Lhe consenL glven Lo her by one of Lhe coowners We cannoL
glve our lmprlmaLur Lo Lhls sweeplng concluslon 8espondenL's enLry lnLo Lhe properLy wlLhouL Lhe
permlsslon of peLlLloner could appear Lo be a secreL and clandesLlne acL done ln connlvance wlLh
coowner norma Mallgaya whom respondenL allowed Lo sLay ln her house LnLry lnLo Lhe land
effecLed clandesLlnely wlLhouL Lhe knowledge of Lhe oLher coowners could be caLegorlzed as
possesslon by sLealLh Moreover respondenL's acL of geLLlng only Lhe consenL of one coowner her
slsLer norma Mallgaya and allowlng Lhe laLLer Lo sLay ln Lhe consLrucLed house can ln facL be

consldered as a sLraLegy whlch she uLlllzed ln order Lo enLer lnLo Lhe coowned properLy As such
respondenL's acLs consLlLuLe forclble enLry

eLlLloner's flllng of a complalnL for forclble enLry ln our vlew was wlLhln Lhe oneyear perlod for
flllng Lhe complalnL 1he oneyear perlod wlLhln whlch Lo brlng an acLlon for forclble enLry ls
generally counLed from Lhe daLe of acLual enLry Lo Lhe land Powever when enLry ls made Lhrough
sLealLh Lhen Lhe oneyear perlod ls counLed from Lhe Llme Lhe peLlLloner learned abouL lL21
AlLhough respondenL consLrucLed her house ln 1992 lL was only ln SepLember 1993 LhaL peLlLloner
learned of lL when she vlslLed Lhe properLy Accordlngly she Lhen made demands on respondenL Lo
vacaLe Lhe premlses lalllng Lo geL a favorable response peLlLloner flled Lhe complalnL on !anuary
23 1996 whlch ls wlLhln Lhe oneyear perlod from Lhe Llme peLlLloner learned of Lhe consLrucLlon

Santos v ne|rs of Lustre
Gk # 1S1016 Aug 06 2008
S61 SCkA 120

lacLs

LusLre owned a loL whlch she morLgaged laLer on sold Lo naLlvldad SanLos who subsequenLly sold
lL Lo her son
lrollan for whlch a 1C1 was lssued ln hls name LusLre's helrs Macaspac Manlqulz flled w/ 81C of
Capan nueva Lcl[a a ComplalnL for ueclaraLlon of Lhe lnexlsLence of ConLracL AnnulmenL of 1lLle
8econveyance and uamages agalnsL lrollan SanLos LusLre's oLher helrs flled a ComplalnL for
AnnulmenL of 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle and ueed of AbsoluLe Sale agalnsL spouses SanLos lrollan
SanLos 8 1ransporL Corp Cecllla Macaspac wlLh Lhe same 81C Macaspac was lmpleaded as
defendanL ln Lhe 2nd case because she refused Lo [oln Lhe oLher helrs as plalnLlffs

Alleglng LhaL Lhe plalnLlffs' rlghL of acLlon for annulmenL of Lhe ueed of Sale and 1C1 had long
prescrlbed and was
barred by laches peLlLloners flled a MoLlon Lo ulsmlss also on Lhe ground of llLls pendenLla 1he
81C denled Lhe MoLlon Lo ulsmlss 1hey Lhen flled a peLlLlon for cerLlorarl wlLh Lhe CourL of Appeals
(CA) whlch dlsmlssed Lhe peLlLlon for lack of merlL

lssue 1 Was Lhere forum shopplng?

ueclslon no
8aLlo
lorum shopplng exlsLs when Lhe elemenLs of llLls pendenLla are presenL or when a flnal [udgmenL
ln one case wlll
amounL Lo res [udlcaLa ln Lhe oLher lLs elemenLs are ldenLlLy of Lhe sub[ecL maLLer ldenLlLy of Lhe
causes of acLlon and ldenLlLy of Lhe parLles ln Lhe Lwo cases 1here ls subsLanLlal ldenLlLy of parLles
when Lhere ls a communlLy of lnLeresL beLween a parLy ln Lhe flrsL case and a parLy ln Lhe second
case

1here ls no forum shopplng because Lhere ls no ldenLlLy of parLles because Lhe plalnLlff ln Lhe 1sL
case (Macaspac) does noL ln facL share a common lnLeresL wlLh Lhe plalnLlffs ln Lhe 2nd case
lalnLlffs ln boLh cases are Lhe helrs of LusLre Lhey are Lherefore coowners of Lhe properLy
Powever Lhe facL of belng a coowner does noL necessarlly mean LhaL a plalnLlff ls acLlng for Lhe
beneflL of Lhe coownershlp when he flles an acLlon respecLlng Lhe coowned properLy Coowners
are noL parLles lnLer se ln relaLlon Lo Lhe properLy owned ln common 1he LesL ls wheLher Lhe
addlLlonal" parLy Lhe coowner ln Lhls case acLs ln Lhe same capaclLy or ls ln prlvlLy wlLh Lhe
parLles ln Lhe former acLlon 28

Macaspac flled Lhe 1sL case seeklng Lhe reconveyance of Lhe properLy Lo her and noL Lo LusLre or
her helrs 1hls ls a clear acL of repudlaLlon of Lhe coownershlp whlch would negaLe a concluslon
LhaL she acLed ln prlvlLy wlLh Lhe oLher helrs or LhaL she flled Lhe complalnL ln behalf of Lhe co
ownershlp ln conLrasL respondenLs were evldenLly acLlng for Lhe beneflL of Lhe coownershlp
when Lhey flled Lhe 2nd case whereln Lhey prayed LhaL 1C1 LusLre be relnsLaLed or a new
cerLlflcaLe of LlLle be lssued ln her name lssue #1 uoes prescrlpLlon or laches apply?

lssue 2 uoes prescrlpLlon or laches apply?

ueclslon no
8aLlo

1he acLlon for reconveyance on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle was obLalned by means of a
flcLlLlous deed
of sale ls vlrLually an acLlon for Lhe declaraLlon of lLs nulllLy whlch does noL prescrlbe Moreover a
person acqulrlng
properLy Lhrough fraud becomes by operaLlon of law a LrusLee of an lmplled LrusL for Lhe beneflL
of Lhe real owner of Lhe properLy An acLlon for reconveyance based on an lmplled LrusL prescrlbes
ln Len years And ln such case Lhe prescrlpLlve perlod applles only lf Lhere ls an acLual need Lo
reconvey Lhe properLy as when Lhe plalnLlff ls noL ln possesslon of Lhe properLy CLherwlse lf
plalnLlff ls ln possesslon of Lhe properLy prescrlpLlon does noL commence Lo run agalnsL hlm 1hus
when an acLlon for reconveyance ls noneLheless flled lL would be ln Lhe naLure of a sulL for
quleLlng of LlLle an acLlon LhaL ls lmprescrlpLlble

lL follows Lhen LhaL Lhe respondenLs' presenL acLlon should noL be barred by laches Laches ls a
docLrlne ln equlLy
whlch may be used only ln Lhe absence of and never agalnsL sLaLuLory law Cbvlously lL cannoL be
seL up Lo
reslsL Lhe enforcemenL of an lmprescrlpLlble legal rlghLx

M8@C v ascua|
Gk # 163744 Ieb 29 2008
S47 SCkA 246

lacLs

8espondenL nlcholson ascual and llorencla nevalga were marrled on !anuary 19 1983 uurlng
Lhe unlon llorencla boughL from spouses ClarlLo and 8elen Serlng a 230square meLer loL wlLh a
Lhreedoor aparLmenL sLandlng Lhereon locaLed ln MakaLl ClLy SubsequenLly 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe
of 1lLle (1C1) no S101473/1310 coverlng Lhe purchased loL was cancelled and ln lleu Lhereof 1C1

no 1362831 of Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds of MakaLl ClLy was lssued ln Lhe name of llorencla marrled
Lo nelson ascual" aka nlcholson ascual

ln 1994 llorencla flled a sulL for Lhe declaraLlon of nulllLy of marrlage under ArLlcle 36 of Lhe lamlly
Code dockeLed as Clvll Case no C9323333 AfLer Lrlal Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL (81C) 8ranch 94
ln Cuezon ClLy rendered on !uly 31 1993 a ueclslon2 declarlng Lhe marrlage of nlcholson and
llorencla null and vold on Lhe ground of psychologlcal lncapaclLy on Lhe parL of nlcholson ln Lhe
same declslon Lhe 81C lnLer alla ordered Lhe dlssoluLlon and llquldaLlon of Lhe exspouses'
con[ugal parLnershlp of galns SubsequenL evenLs saw Lhe couple golng Lhelr separaLe ways wlLhouL
llquldaLlng Lhelr con[ugal parLnershlp

Cn Aprll 30 1997 llorencla LogeLher wlLh spouses norberLo and Llvlra Cllveros obLalned a h 38
mllllon loan from peLlLloner MeLropollLan 8ank and 1rusL Co (MeLrobank) 1o secure Lhe
obllgaLlon llorencla and Lhe spouses Cllveros execuLed several real esLaLe morLgages (8LMs) on
Lhelr properLles lncludlng one lnvolvlng Lhe loL covered by 1C1 no 136283 Among Lhe documenLs
llorencla submlLLed Lo procure Lhe loan were a copy of 1C1 no 136283 a phoLocopy of Lhe
marrlagenulllfylng 81C declslon and a documenL denomlnaLed as Walver" LhaL nlcholson
purporLedly execuLed on Aprll 9 1993 1he walver made ln favor of llorencla covered Lhe
con[ugal properLles of Lhe exspouses llsLed Lhereln buL dld noL lncldenLally lnclude Lhe loL ln
quesLlon

uue Lo Lhe fallure of llorencla and Lhe spouses Cllveros Lo pay Lhelr loan obllgaLlon when lL fell
due MeLrobank on november 29 1999 lnlLlaLed foreclosure proceedlngs under AcL no 3133 as
amended before Lhe Cfflce of Lhe noLary ubllc of MakaLl ClLy SubsequenLly MeLrobank caused
Lhe publlcaLlon of Lhe noLlce of sale on Lhree lssues of 8emaLe3 AL Lhe aucLlon sale on !anuary
21 2000 MeLrobank emerged as Lhe hlghesL bldder

CeLLlng wlnd of Lhe foreclosure proceedlngs nlcholson flled on !une 28 2000 before Lhe 81C ln
MakaLl ClLy a ComplalnL Lo declare Lhe nulllLy of Lhe morLgage of Lhe dlspuLed properLy dockeLed
as Clvll Case no 00789 and evenLually raffled Lo 8ranch 63 of Lhe courL ln lL nlcholson alleged
LhaL Lhe properLy whlch ls sLlll con[ugal properLy was morLgaged wlLhouL hls consenL

MeLrobank ln lLs Answer wlLh CounLerclalm and CrossClalm alleged LhaL Lhe dlspuLed loL belng
reglsLered ln llorencla's name was paraphernal MeLrobank also asserLed havlng approved Lhe
morLgage ln good falLh

llorencla dld noL flle an answer wlLhln Lhe reglemenLary perlod and hence was subsequenLly
declared ln defaulL

1he 81C ueclared Lhe 8LM lnvalld




lssue

a WheLher or noL Lhe CA erred ln declarlng sub[ecL properLy as con[ugal by applylng
ArLlcle 116 of Lhe lamlly Code

b WheLher or noL Lhe CA erred ln noL holdlng LhaL Lhe declaraLlon of nulllLy of marrlage
beLween Lhe respondenL nlcholson ascual and llorencla nevalga lpso facLo dlssolved Lhe reglme
of communlLy of properLy of Lhe spouses

c WheLher or noL Lhe CA erred ln rullng LhaL Lhe peLlLloner ls an lnnocenL purchaser for
value

Peld

1he ulspuLed roperLy ls Con[ugal

lL ls MeLrobank's Lhreshold posLure LhaL ArL 160 of Lhe Clvll Code provldlng LhaL all properLy of
Lhe marrlage ls presumed Lo belong Lo Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp unless lL be proven LhaL lL
perLalns excluslvely Lo Lhe husband or Lo Lhe wlfe" applles 1o MeLrobank ArL 116 of Lhe lamlly
Code could noL be of governlng appllcaLlon lnasmuch as nlcholson and llorencla conLracLed
marrlage before Lhe effecLlvlLy of Lhe lamlly Code on AugusL 3 1988 ClLlng Manongsong v
LsLlmo8 MeLrobank asserLs LhaL Lhe presumpLlon of con[ugal ownershlp under ArL 160 of Lhe
Clvll Code applles when Lhere ls proof LhaL Lhe properLy was acqulred durlng Lhe marrlage
MeLrobank adds however LhaL for Lhe presumpLlon of con[ugal ownershlp Lo operaLe evldence
musL be adduced Lo prove LhaL noL only was Lhe properLy acqulred durlng Lhe marrlage buL LhaL
con[ugal funds were used for Lhe acqulslLlon a burden nlcholson allegedly falled Lo dlscharge

1o bolsLer lLs Lhesls on Lhe paraphernal naLure of Lhe dlspuLed properLy MeLrobank clLes lranclsco
v CourL of Appeals9 and !ocson v CourL of Appeals10 among oLher cases where Lhls CourL
held LhaL a properLy reglsLered ln Lhe name of a cerLaln person wlLh a descrlpLlon of belng marrled
ls no proof LhaL Lhe properLy was acqulred durlng Lhe spouses' marrlage

Cn Lhe oLher hand nlcholson banklng on ue Leon v 8ehablllLaLlon llnance CorporaLlon11 and
Wong v lAC12 conLends LhaL MeLrobank falled Lo overcome Lhe legal presumpLlon LhaL Lhe
dlspuLed properLy ls con[ugal Pe asserLs LhaL MeLrobank's argumenLs on Lhe maLLer of
presumpLlon are mlsleadlng as only one posLulaLe needs Lo be shown for Lhe presumpLlon ln favor
of con[ugal ownershlp Lo arlse LhaL ls Lhe facL of acqulslLlon durlng marrlage nlcholson dlsmlsses
as lnappllcable lranclsco and !ocson noLlng LhaL Lhey are relevanL only when Lhere ls no lndlcaLlon
as Lo Lhe exacL daLe of acqulslLlon of Lhe properLy alleged Lo be con[ugal

As a flnal polnL nlcholson lnvlLes aLLenLlon Lo Lhe facL LhaL MeLrobank had vlrLually recognlzed Lhe
con[ugal naLure of Lhe properLy ln aL leasL Lhree lnsLances 1he flrsL was when Lhe bank lumped hlm
wlLh llorencla ln Clvll Case no 00789 as comorLgagors and when Lhey were referred Lo as
spouses" ln Lhe peLlLlon for exLra[udlclal foreclosure of morLgage 1hen came Lhe publlshed noLlce
of foreclosure sale where nlcholson was agaln deslgnaLed as comorLgagor And Lhlrd ln lLs
demandleLLer13 Lo vacaLe Lhe dlspuLed loL MeLrobank addressed nlcholson and llorencla as
spouses" albelL Lhe flnallLy of Lhe decree of nulllLy of marrlage beLween Lhem had long seL ln

We flnd for nlcholson

llrsL whlle MeLrobank ls correcL ln saylng LhaL ArL 160 of Lhe Clvll Code noL ArL 116 of Lhe lamlly
Code ls Lhe appllcable legal provlslon slnce Lhe properLy was acqulred prlor Lo Lhe enacLmenL of
Lhe lamlly Code lL errs ln lLs Lheory LhaL before con[ugal ownershlp could be legally presumed
Lhere musL be a showlng LhaL Lhe properLy was acqulred durlng marrlage uslng con[ugal funds
ConLrary Lo MeLrobank's submlsslon Lhe CourL dld noL ln Manongsong14 add Lhe maLLer of Lhe
use of con[ugal funds as an essenLlal requlremenL for Lhe presumpLlon of con[ugal ownershlp Lo
arlse nlcholson ls correcL ln polnLlng ouL LhaL only proof of acqulslLlon durlng Lhe marrlage ls
needed Lo ralse Lhe presumpLlon LhaL Lhe properLy ls con[ugal lndeed lf proof on Lhe use of
con[ugal ls sLlll requlred as a necessary condlLlon before Lhe presumpLlon can arlse Lhen Lhe legal
presumpLlon seL forLh ln Lhe law would verlLably be a superflulLy As we sLressed ln CasLro v MlaL
eLlLloners also overlook ArLlcle 160 of Lhe new Clvll Code lL provldes LhaL all properLy of Lhe
marrlage ls presumed Lo be con[ugal parLnershlp unless lL be proven LhaL lL perLalns excluslvely Lo
Lhe husband or Lo Lhe wlfe" 1hls arLlcle does noL requlre proof LhaL Lhe properLy was acqulred
wlLh funds of Lhe parLnershlp 1he presumpLlon applles even when Lhe manner ln whlch Lhe
properLy was acqulred does noL appear13 (Lmphasls supplled)

Second lranclsco and !ocson do noL relnforce MeLrobank's Lheory MeLrobank would LhrusL on Lhe
CourL lnvoklng Lhe Lwo cases Lhe argumenL LhaL Lhe reglsLraLlon of Lhe properLy ln Lhe name of
llorencla nevalga marrled Lo nelson ascual" operaLes Lo descrlbe only Lhe marlLal sLaLus of Lhe
LlLle holder buL noL as proof LhaL Lhe properLy was acqulred durlng Lhe exlsLence of Lhe marrlage
MeLrobank ls wrong As nlcholson apLly polnLs ouL lf proof obLalns on Lhe acqulslLlon of Lhe
properLy durlng Lhe exlsLence of Lhe marrlage Lhen Lhe presumpLlon of con[ugal ownershlp
applles 1he correcL lesson of lranclsco and !ocson ls LhaL proof of acqulslLlon durlng Lhe marlLal
coverLure ls a condlLlon slne qua non for Lhe operaLlon of Lhe presumpLlon ln favor of con[ugal
ownershlp When Lhere ls no showlng as Lo when Lhe properLy was acqulred by Lhe spouse Lhe
facL LhaL a LlLle ls ln Lhe name of Lhe spouse ls an lndlcaLlon LhaL Lhe properLy belongs excluslvely Lo
sald spouse16

1he CourL Lo be sure has Laken sLock of nlcholson's argumenLs regardlng MeLrobank havlng
lmpllclLly acknowledged Lhus belng ln vlrLual esLoppel Lo quesLlon Lhe con[ugal ownershlp of Lhe
dlspuLed loL Lhe bank havlng named Lhe former ln Lhe foreclosure proceedlngs below as elLher Lhe
spouse of llorencla or her comorLgagor lL ls felL however LhaL Lhere ls no compelllng reason Lo
delve lnLo Lhe maLLer of esLoppel Lhe same havlng been ralsed only for Lhe flrsL Llme ln Lhls
peLlLlon 8esldes however nlcholson was deslgnaLed below does noL really change one way or
anoLher Lhe classlflcaLlon of Lhe loL ln quesLlon

1ermlnaLlon of Con[ugal roperLy 8eglme does noL lpso facLo Lnd Lhe naLure of Con[ugal
Cwnershlp
MeLrobank nexL malnLalns LhaL conLrary Lo Lhe CA's holdlng ArL 129 of Lhe lamlly Code ls
lnappllcable ArL 129 ln parL reads

ArL 129 upon Lhe dlssoluLlon of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp reglme Lhe followlng procedure shall
apply
(7) 1he neL remalnder of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp properLles shall consLlLuLe Lhe proflLs whlch
shall be dlvlded equally beLween husband and wlfe unless a dlfferenL proporLlon or dlvlslon was
agreed upon ln Lhe marrlage seLLlemenLs or unless Lhere has been a volunLary walver or forfelLure
of such share as provlded ln Lhls Code
Apropos Lhe aforequoLed provlslon MeLrobank asserLs LhaL Lhe walver execuLed by nlcholson
effecLed as lL were before Lhe dlssoluLlon of Lhe con[ugal properLy reglme vesLed on llorencla full
ownershlp of all Lhe properLles acqulred durlng Lhe marrlage

nlcholson counLers LhaL Lhe mere declaraLlon of nulllLy of marrlage wlLhouL more does noL
auLomaLlcally resulL ln a reglme of compleLe separaLlon when lL ls shown LhaL Lhere was no
llquldaLlon of Lhe con[ugal asseLs

We agaln flnd for nlcholson

Whlle Lhe declared nulllLy of marrlage of nlcholson and llorencla severed Lhelr marlLal bond and
dlssolved Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp Lhe characLer of Lhe properLles acqulred before such
declaraLlon conLlnues Lo subslsL as con[ugal properLles unLll and afLer Lhe llquldaLlon and parLlLlon
of Lhe parLnershlp 1hls concluslon holds Lrue wheLher we apply ArL 129 of Lhe lamlly Code on
llquldaLlon of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp's asseLs and llablllLles whlch ls generally prospecLlve ln
appllcaLlon or SecLlon 7 ChapLer 4 1lLle lv 8ook l (ArLs 179 Lo 183) of Lhe Clvll Code on Lhe
sub[ecL Con[ugal arLnershlp of Calns lor Lhe relevanL provlslons of boLh Codes flrsL requlre Lhe
llquldaLlon of Lhe con[ugal properLles before a reglme of separaLlon of properLy relgns

ln uael v lnLermedlaLe AppellaLe CourL we ruled LhaL pendlng lLs llquldaLlon followlng lLs
dlssoluLlon Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp of galns ls converLed lnLo an lmplled ordlnary coownershlp
among Lhe survlvlng spouse and Lhe oLher helrs of Lhe deceased17

ln Lhls prellquldaLlon scenarlo ArL 493 of Lhe Clvll Code shall govern Lhe properLy relaLlonshlp
beLween Lhe former spouses where

Lach coowner shall have Lhe full ownershlp of hls parL and of Lhe frulLs and beneflLs perLalnlng
LhereLo and he may Lherefore allenaLe asslgn or morLgage lL and even subsLlLuLe anoLher person
ln lLs en[oymenL excepL when personal rlghLs are lnvolved 8uL Lhe effecL of Lhe allenaLlon or Lhe
morLgage wlLh respecL Lo Lhe coowners shall be llmlLed Lo Lhe porLlon whlch may be alloLLed Lo
hlm ln Lhe dlvlslon upon Lhe LermlnaLlon of Lhe coownershlp (Lmphasls supplled)

ln Lhe case aL bar llorencla consLlLuLed Lhe morLgage on Lhe dlspuLed loL on Aprll 30 1997 or a
llLLle less Lhan Lwo years afLer Lhe dlssoluLlon of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp on !uly 31 1993 buL
before Lhe llquldaLlon of Lhe parLnershlp 8e LhaL as lL may whaL governed Lhe properLy relaLlons
of Lhe former spouses when Lhe morLgage was glven ls Lhe aforequoLed ArL 493 under lL
llorencla has Lhe rlghL Lo morLgage or even sell her onehalf (1/2) undlvlded lnLeresL ln Lhe
dlspuLed properLy even wlLhouL Lhe consenL of nlcholson Powever Lhe rlghLs of MeLrobank as
morLgagee are llmlLed only Lo Lhe 1/2 undlvlded porLlon LhaL llorencla owned Accordlngly Lhe
morLgage conLracL lnsofar as lL covered Lhe remalnlng 1/2 undlvlded porLlon of Lhe loL ls null and
vold nlcholson noL havlng consenLed Lo Lhe morLgage of hls undlvlded half

1he concluslon would have however been dlfferenL lf nlcholson lndeed duly walved hls share ln
Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp 8uL as found by Lhe courLs a quo Lhe Aprll 9 1993 deed of walver
allegedly execuLed by nlcholson Lhree monLhs prlor Lo Lhe dlssoluLlon of Lhe marrlage and Lhe

con[ugal parLnershlp of galns on !uly 31 1993 bore hls forged slgnaLure noL Lo menLlon LhaL of Lhe
noLarlzlng offlcer A spurlous deed of walver does noL Lransfer any rlghL aL all albelL lL may become
Lhe rooL of a valld LlLle ln Lhe hands of an lnnocenL buyer for value

upon Lhe foregolng perspecLlve MeLrobank's rlghL as morLgagee and as Lhe successful bldder aL
Lhe aucLlon of Lhe loL ls conflned only Lo Lhe 1/2 undlvlded porLlon Lhereof hereLofore perLalnlng
ln ownershlp Lo llorencla 1he oLher undlvlded half belongs Lo nlcholson As owner pro lndlvlso of
a porLlon of Lhe loL ln quesLlon MeLrobank may ask for Lhe parLlLlon of Lhe loL and lLs properLy
rlghLs shall be llmlLed Lo Lhe porLlon whlch may be alloLLed Lo Lhe bank ln Lhe dlvlslon upon Lhe
LermlnaLlon of Lhe coownershlp"18 1hls dlsposlLlon ls ln llne wlLh Lhe wellesLabllshed prlnclple
LhaL Lhe blndlng force of a conLracL musL be recognlzed as far as lL ls legally posslble Lo do so
quando res non valeL uL ago valeaL quanLum valere poLesL19

ln vlew of our resoluLlon on Lhe valldlLy of Lhe aucLlon of Lhe loL ln favor of MeLrobank Lhere ls
hardly a need Lo dlscuss aL lengLh wheLher or noL MeLrobank was a morLgagee ln good falLh Sufflce
lL Lo sLaLe for Lhe nonce LhaL where Lhe morLgagee ls a banklng lnsLlLuLlon Lhe general rule LhaL a
purchaser or morLgagee of Lhe land need noL look beyond Lhe four corners of Lhe LlLle ls
lnappllcable20 unllke prlvaLe lndlvlduals lL behooves banks Lo exerclse greaLer care and due
dlllgence before enLerlng lnLo a morLgage conLracL 1he ascerLalnmenL of Lhe sLaLus or condlLlon of
Lhe properLy offered as securlLy and Lhe valldlLy of Lhe morLgagor's LlLle musL be sLandard and
lndlspensable parL of Lhe bank's operaLlon21 A bank LhaL falled Lo observe due dlllgence cannoL
be accorded Lhe sLaLus of a bona flde morLgagee22 as here

8uL as found by Lhe CA however MeLrobank's fallure Lo comply wlLh Lhe due dlllgence
requlremenL was noL Lhe resulL of a dlshonesL purpose some moral obllqulLy or breach of a known
duLy for some lnLeresL or lllwlll LhaL parLakes of fraud LhaL would [usLlfy damages

WPL8LlC8L Lhe peLlLlon ls A81L? C8An1Lu 1he appealed ueclslon of Lhe CA daLed !anuary 28
2004 upholdlng wlLh modlflcaLlon Lhe ueclslon of Lhe 81C 8ranch 63 ln MakaLl ClLy ln Clvll Case
no 00789 ls Alll8MLu wlLh Lhe MCulllCA1lCn LhaL Lhe 8LM over Lhe loL covered by 1C1 no
136283 of Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds of MakaLl ClLy ls hereby declared valld only lnsofar as Lhe pro
lndlvlso share of llorencla Lhereon ls concerned

As modlfled Lhe ueclslon of Lhe 81C shall read

8LMlSLS CCnSluL8Lu Lhe real esLaLe morLgage on Lhe properLy covered by 1C1 no 136283
of Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds of MakaLl ClLy and all proceedlngs Lhereon are nuLL and vClu wlLh respecL
Lo Lhe undlvlded 1/2 porLlon of Lhe dlspuLed properLy owned by nlcholson buL vALlu wlLh respecL
Lo Lhe oLher undlvlded 1/2 porLlon belonglng Lo llorencla

1he clalms of nlcholson for moral damages and aLLorney's fees are uLnlLu for lack of merlL
no pronouncemenL as Lo cosLs SC C8uL8Lu

Arr|o|a v Arr|o|a
Gk # 177703 Ian 28 2008
S42 SCkA 666
lacLs

1hls ls a eLlLlon for 8evlew on CerLlorarl under 8ule 43 of Lhe 8ules of CourL assalllng Lhe ueclslon
and 8esoluLlon of Lhe CourL of Appeals

!ohn nabor C Arrlola flled Speclal Clvll AcLlon wlLh Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL 8ranch 234 Las lnas
ClLy (81C) agalnsL vllma C Arrlola and AnLhony 8onald C Arrlola for [udlclal parLlLlon of Lhe
properLles of decedenL lldel Arrlola 8espondenL ls Lhe son of decedenL lldel wlLh hls flrsL wlfe
vlcLorla C Calabla whlle peLlLloner AnLhony ls Lhe son of decedenL lldel wlLh hls second wlfe
peLlLloner vllma

Cn lebruary 16 2004 Lhe 81C rendered a ueclslon orderlng Lhe parLlLlon of Lhe parcel of land lefL
by Lhe decedenL lldel S Arrlola by and among hls helrs !ohn nabor C Arrlola vllma C Arrlola and
AnLhony 8onald C Arrlola ln equal shares of oneLhlrd (1/3) each wlLhouL pre[udlce Lo Lhe rlghLs of
credlLors or morLgagees Lhereon lf any

As Lhe parLles falled Lo agree how Lo parLlLlon among Lhem Lhe land !ohn nabor soughL Lhe sale
Lhrough publlc aucLlon and peLlLloners acceded Lo lL Sald aucLlon had Lo be reseL when peLlLloners
refused Lo lnclude Lhe house sLandlng on Lhe sub[ecL land

lssue

WheLher Lhe sub[ecL house ls covered ln Lhe [udgmenL of parLlLlon of Lhe loL and should be
lncluded ln Lhe sale Lhrough publlc aucLlon

Peld

1he sub[ecL house ls covered by Lhe [udgmenL of parLlLlon

llrsL as correcLly held by Lhe CA under Lhe provlslons of Lhe Clvll Code Lhe sub[ecL house ls
deemed parL of Lhe sub[ecL land

ln general Lhe rlghL Lo accesslon ls auLomaLlc (lpso [ure) requlrlng no prlor acL on Lhe parL of Lhe
owner or Lhe prlnclpal So LhaL even lf Lhe lmprovemenLs lncludlng Lhe house were noL alleged ln
Lhe complalnL for parLlLlon Lhey are deemed lncluded ln Lhe loL on whlch Lhey sLand followlng Lhe
prlnclple of accesslon ConsequenLly Lhe loL sub[ecL of [udlclal parLlLlon ln Lhls case lncludes Lhe
house whlch ls permanenLly aLLached LhereLo oLherwlse lL would be absurd Lo dlvlde Lhe prlnclpal
le Lhe loL wlLhouL dlvldlng Lhe house whlch ls permanenLly aLLached LhereLo

Second respondenL has repeaLedly clalmed LhaL Lhe sub[ecL house was bullL by Lhe deceased
eLlLloners never conLroverLed such clalm 1here ls Lhen no dlspuLe LhaL Lhe sub[ecL house ls parL
of Lhe esLaLe of Lhe deceased as such lL ls owned ln common by Lhe laLLers helrs Lhe parLles
hereln any one of whom under ArLlcle 494 of Lhe Clvll Code may aL any Llme demand Lhe
parLlLlon of Lhe sub[ecL house 1herefore respondenLs recourse Lo Lhe parLlLlon of Lhe sub[ecL
house cannoL be hlndered leasL of all by Lhe mere Lechnlcal omlsslon of sald common properLy
from Lhe complalnL for parLlLlon

1haL sald noLwlLhsLandlng we musL emphaslze LhaL whlle we LreaL Lhe sub[ecL house as parL of Lhe
coownershlp of Lhe parLles we sLop shorL of auLhorlzlng lLs acLual parLlLlon by publlc aucLlon aL
Lhls Llme lL bears emphasls LhaL an acLlon for parLlLlon lnvolves Lwo phases flrsL Lhe declaraLlon of
Lhe exlsLence of a sLaLe of coownershlp and second Lhe acLual LermlnaLlon of LhaL sLaLe of co
ownershlp Lhrough Lhe segregaLlon of Lhe common properLy WhaL ls seLLled Lhus far ls only Lhe
facL LhaL Lhe sub[ecL house ls under Lhe coownershlp of Lhe parLles and Lherefore suscepLlble of
parLlLlon among Lhem

WheLher Lhe sub[ecL house should be sold aL publlc aucLlon as ordered by Lhe 81C ls an enLlrely
dlfferenL maLLer
8espondenL clalms LhaL Lhe sub[ecL house was bullL by decedenL lldel on hls excluslve properLy
eLlLloners add LhaL sald house has been Lhelr resldence for 20 years 1aken LogeLher Lhese
avermenLs on record esLabllsh LhaL Lhe sub[ecL house ls a famlly home wlLhln Lhe conLemplaLlon of
Lhe provlslons of 1he lamlly Code parLlcularly

ArLlcle 132 1he famlly home consLlLuLed [olnLly by Lhe husband and Lhe wlfe or by an unmarrled
head of a famlly ls Lhe dwelllng house where Lhey and Lhelr famlly reslde and Lhe land on whlch lL
ls slLuaLed

ArLlcle 133 1he famlly home ls deemed consLlLuLed on a house and loL from Lhe Llme lL ls occupled
as a famlly resldence lrom Lhe Llme of lLs consLlLuLlon and so long as any of lLs beneflclarles
acLually resldes Lhereln Lhe famlly home conLlnues Lo be such and ls exempL from execuLlon
forced sale or aLLachmenL excepL as herelnafLer provlded and Lo Lhe exLenL of Lhe value allowed by
law

Cne slgnlflcanL lnnovaLlon lnLroduced by 1he lamlly Code ls Lhe auLomaLlc consLlLuLlon of Lhe
famlly home from Lhe Llme of lLs occupaLlon as a famlly resldence wlLhouL need anymore for Lhe
[udlclal or exLra[udlclal processes provlded under Lhe defuncL ArLlcles 224 Lo 231 of Lhe Clvll Code
and 8ule 106 of Lhe 8ules of CourL lurLhermore ArLlcles 132 and 133 speclflcally exLend Lhe scope
of Lhe famlly home noL [usL Lo Lhe dwelllng sLrucLure ln whlch Lhe famlly resldes buL also Lo Lhe loL
on whlch lL sLands 1hus applylng Lhese concepLs Lhe sub[ecL house as well as Lhe speclflc porLlon
of Lhe sub[ecL land on whlch lL sLands are deemed consLlLuLed as a famlly home by Lhe deceased
and peLlLloner vllma from Lhe momenL Lhey began occupylng Lhe same as a famlly resldence 20
years back

lL belng seLLled LhaL Lhe sub[ecL house (and Lhe sub[ecL loL on whlch lL sLands) ls Lhe famlly home of
Lhe deceased and hls helrs Lhe same ls shlelded from lmmedlaLe parLlLlon under ArLlcle 139 of 1he
lamlly Code vlz
ArLlcle 139 1he famlly home shall conLlnue desplLe Lhe deaLh of one or boLh spouses or of Lhe
unmarrled head of Lhe famlly for a perlod of Len years or for as long as Lhere ls a mlnor beneflclary
and Lhe helrs cannoL parLlLlon Lhe same unless Lhe courL flnds compelllng reasons Lherefor 1hls
rule shall apply regardless of whoever owns Lhe properLy or consLlLuLed Lhe famlly home

1he purpose of ArLlcle 139 ls Lo averL Lhe dlslnLegraLlon of Lhe famlly unlL followlng Lhe deaLh of lLs
head 1o Lhls end lL preserves Lhe famlly home as Lhe physlcal symbol of famlly love securlLy and
unlLy by lmposlng Lhe followlng resLrlcLlons on lLs parLlLlon flrsL LhaL Lhe helrs cannoL exLra
[udlclally parLlLlon lL for a perlod of 10 years from Lhe deaLh of one or boLh spouses or of Lhe
unmarrled head of Lhe famlly or for a longer perlod lf Lhere ls sLlll a mlnor beneflclary resldlng
Lhereln and second LhaL Lhe helrs cannoL [udlclally parLlLlon lL durlng Lhe aforesald perlods unless
Lhe courL flnds compelllng reasons Lherefor no compelllng reason has been alleged by Lhe parLles
nor has Lhe 81C found any compelllng reason Lo order Lhe parLlLlon of Lhe famlly home elLher by
physlcal segregaLlon or asslgnmenL Lo any of Lhe helrs or Lhrough aucLlon sale as suggesLed by Lhe
parLles

More lmporLanLly ArLlcle 139 lmposes Lhe proscrlpLlon agalnsL Lhe lmmedlaLe parLlLlon of Lhe
famlly home regardless of lLs ownershlp 1hls slgnlfles LhaL even lf Lhe famlly home has passed by
successlon Lo Lhe coownershlp of Lhe helrs or has been wllled Lo any one of Lhem Lhls facL alone
cannoL Lransform Lhe famlly home lnLo an ordlnary properLy much less dlspel Lhe proLecLlon casL
upon lL by Lhe law 1he rlghLs of Lhe lndlvldual coowner or owner of Lhe famlly home cannoL
sub[ugaLe Lhe rlghLs granLed under ArLlcle 139 Lo Lhe beneflclarles of Lhe famlly home

SeL agalnsL Lhe foregolng rules Lhe famlly home conslsLlng of Lhe sub[ecL house and loL on whlch
lL sLands cannoL be parLlLloned aL Lhls Llme even lf lL has passed Lo Lhe coownershlp of hls helrs
Lhe parLles hereln uecedenL lldel dled on March 10 2003 1hus for 10 years from sald daLe or
unLll March 10 2013 or for a longer perlod lf Lhere ls sLlll a mlnor beneflclary resldlng Lhereln Lhe
famlly home he consLlLuLed cannoL be parLlLloned much less when no compelllng reason exlsLs for
Lhe courL Lo oLherwlse seL aslde Lhe resLrlcLlon and order Lhe parLlLlon of Lhe properLy

1he CourL ruled ln Ponrado v CourL of Appeals LhaL a clalm for excepLlon from execuLlon or forced
sale under ArLlcle 133 should be seL up and proved Lo Lhe Sherlff before Lhe sale of Lhe properLy aL
publlc aucLlon Pereln peLlLloners Llmely ob[ecLed Lo Lhe lncluslon of Lhe sub[ecL house alLhough for
a dlfferenL reason

1o recaplLulaLe Lhe evldence of record susLaln Lhe CA rullng LhaL Lhe sub[ecL house ls parL of Lhe
[udgmenL of coownershlp and parLlLlon 1he same evldence also esLabllshes LhaL Lhe sub[ecL house
and Lhe porLlon of Lhe sub[ecL land on whlch lL ls sLandlng have been consLlLuLed as Lhe famlly
home of decedenL lldel and hls helrs ConsequenLly lLs acLual and lmmedlaLe parLlLlon cannoL be
sancLloned unLll Lhe lapse of a perlod of 10 years from Lhe deaLh of lldel Arrlola or unLll March 10
2013

lL bears emphasls however LhaL ln Lhe meanLlme Lhere ls no obsLacle Lo Lhe lmmedlaLe publlc
aucLlon of Lhe porLlon of Lhe sub[ecL land covered by 1C1 no 383714 whlch falls ouLslde Lhe
speclflc area of Lhe famlly home

WPL8LlC8L Lhe peLlLlon ls A81L? C8An1Lu and Lhe november 30 2006 ueclslon and Aprll 30
2007 8esoluLlon of Lhe CourL of Appeals are MCulllLu ln LhaL Lhe house sLandlng on Lhe land
covered by 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle no 383714 ls uLCLA8Lu parL of Lhe coownershlp of Lhe
parLles !ohn nabor C Arrlola vllma C Arrlola and AnLhony 8onald C Arrlola buL LxLM1Lu from
parLlLlon by publlc aucLlon wlLhln Lhe perlod provlded for ln ArLlcle 139 of Lhe lamlly Code

ad|||a vs Magdu|a
Gk# 1768S8] Sept 1S 2010
630 SCkA S73

lacLs

8efore Lhe CourL ls a peLlLlon for revlew on cerLlorarl1 assalllng Lhe Crders daLed 8 SepLember
20062 and 13 lebruary 20073 of Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL (81C) of 1acloban ClLy 8ranch 34 ln
Clvll Case no 200110161

!uanlLa adllla (!uanlLa) Lhe moLher of peLlLloners owned a plece of land locaLed ln San 8oque
1anauan LeyLe AfLer !uanlLa's deaLh on 23 March 1989 peLlLloners as legal helrs of !uanlLa
soughL Lo have Lhe land parLlLloned eLlLloners senL word Lo Lhelr eldesL broLher 8lcardo 8ahla
(8lcardo) regardlng Lhelr plans for Lhe parLlLlon of Lhe land ln a leLLer daLed 3 !une 1998 wrlLLen by
8lcardo addressed Lo Lhem peLlLloners were surprlsed Lo flnd ouL LhaL 8lcardo had declared Lhe
land for hlmself pre[udlclng Lhelr rlghLs as cohelrs lL was Lhen dlscovered LhaL !uanlLa had
allegedly execuLed a noLarlzed AffldavlL of 1ransfer of 8eal roperLy4 (AffldavlL) ln favor of
8lcardo on 4 !une 1966 maklng hlm Lhe sole owner of Lhe land 1he records do noL show LhaL Lhe
land was reglsLered under Lhe 1orrens sysLem

Cn 26 CcLober 2001 peLlLloners flled an acLlon wlLh Lhe 81C of 1acloban ClLy 8ranch 34 for
recovery of ownershlp possesslon parLlLlon and damages eLlLloners soughL Lo declare vold Lhe
sale of Lhe land by 8lcardo's daughLers !osephlne 8ahla and vlrglnla 8ahlaAbas Lo respondenL
uomlnador Magdua (uomlnador) 1he sale was made durlng Lhe llfeLlme of 8lcardo

eLlLloners alleged LhaL 8lcardo Lhrough mlsrepresenLaLlon had Lhe land Lransferred ln hls name
wlLhouL Lhe consenL and knowledge of hls cohelrs eLlLloners also sLaLed LhaL prlor Lo 1966
8lcardo had a house consLrucLed on Lhe land Powever when 8lcardo and hls wlfe Zoslma
separaLed 8lcardo lefL for lnasuyan kawayan 8lllran and Lhe house was leased Lo Lhlrd parLles

eLlLloners furLher alleged LhaL Lhe slgnaLure of !uanlLa ln Lhe AffldavlL ls hlghly quesLlonable
because on 13 May 1978 !uanlLa execuLed a wrlLLen lnsLrumenL sLaLlng LhaL she would be leavlng
behlnd Lo her chlldren Lhe land whlch she had lnherlLed from her parenLs

uomlnador flled a moLlon Lo dlsmlss on Lhe ground of lack of [urlsdlcLlon slnce Lhe assessed value
of Lhe land was wlLhln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe Munlclpal 1rlal CourL of 1anauan LeyLe

ln an Crder daLed 20 lebruary 20063 Lhe 81C dlsmlssed Lhe case for lack of [urlsdlcLlon 1he 81C
explalned LhaL Lhe assessed value of Lhe land ln Lhe amounL of 39000 was less Lhan Lhe amounL
cognlzable by Lhe 81C Lo acqulre [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe case6

eLlLloners flled a moLlon for reconslderaLlon eLlLloners argued LhaL Lhe acLlon was noL merely
for recovery of ownershlp and possesslon parLlLlon and damages buL also for annulmenL of deed of
sale Slnce acLlons Lo annul conLracLs are acLlons beyond pecunlary esLlmaLlon Lhe case was well
wlLhln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe 81C

uomlnador flled anoLher moLlon Lo dlsmlss on Lhe ground of prescrlpLlon

ln an Crder daLed 8 SepLember 2006 Lhe 81C reconsldered lLs prevlous sLand and Look cognlzance
of Lhe case noneLheless Lhe 81C denled Lhe moLlon for reconslderaLlon and dlsmlssed Lhe case on
Lhe ground of prescrlpLlon pursuanL Lo SecLlon 1 8ule 9 of Lhe 8ules of CourL 1he 81C ruled LhaL
Lhe case was flled only ln 2001 or more Lhan 30 years slnce Lhe AffldavlL was execuLed ln 1966 1he
81C explalned LhaL whlle Lhe rlghL of an helr Lo hls lnherlLance ls lmprescrlpLlble yeL when one of
Lhe cohelrs approprlaLes Lhe properLy as hls own Lo Lhe excluslon of all oLher helrs Lhen
prescrlpLlon can seL ln 1he 81C added LhaL slnce prescrlpLlon had seL ln Lo quesLlon Lhe Lransfer of
Lhe land under Lhe AffldavlL lL would seem loglcal LhaL no acLlon could also be Laken agalnsL Lhe
deed of sale execuLed by 8lcardo's daughLers ln favor of uomlnador 1he dlsposlLlve porLlon of Lhe
order sLaLes

WPL8LlC8L premlses consldered Lhe order of Lhe CourL ls reconsldered ln so far as Lhe
pronouncemenL of Lhe CourL LhaL lL has no [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe naLure of Lhe acLlon 1he dlsmlssal
of Lhe acLlon however ls malnLalned noL by reason of lack of [urlsdlcLlon buL by reason of
prescrlpLlon

lssue

1he maln lssue ls wheLher Lhe presenL acLlon ls already barred by prescrlpLlon

Peld

AL Lhe ouLseL only quesLlons of law may be ralsed ln a peLlLlon for revlew on cerLlorarl under 8ule
43 of Lhe 8ules of CourL 1he facLual flndlngs of Lhe lower courLs are flnal and concluslve and may
noL be revlewed on appeal excepL under any of Lhe followlng clrcumsLances (1) Lhe concluslon ls
grounded on speculaLlons surmlses or con[ecLures (2) Lhe lnference ls manlfesLly mlsLaken absurd
or lmposslble (3) Lhere ls grave abuse of dlscreLlon (4) Lhe [udgmenL ls based on a
mlsapprehenslon of facLs (3) Lhe flndlngs of facL are confllcLlng (6) Lhere ls no clLaLlon of speclflc
evldence on whlch Lhe facLual flndlngs are based (7) Lhe flndlng of absence of facLs ls conLradlcLed
by Lhe presence of evldence on record (8) Lhe flndlngs of Lhe CourL of Appeals are conLrary Lo
Lhose of Lhe Lrlal courL (9) Lhe CourL of Appeals manlfesLly overlooked cerLaln relevanL and
undlspuLed facLs LhaL lf properly consldered would [usLlfy a dlfferenL concluslon (10) Lhe flndlngs
of Lhe CourL of Appeals are beyond Lhe lssues of Lhe case and (11) such flndlngs are conLrary Lo Lhe
admlsslons of boLh parLles8

We flnd LhaL Lhe concluslon of Lhe 81C ln dlsmlsslng Lhe case on Lhe ground of prescrlpLlon based
solely on Lhe AffldavlL execuLed by !uanlLa ln favor of 8lcardo Lhe alleged seller of Lhe properLy
from whom uomlnador asserLs hls ownershlp ls speculaLlve 1hus a revlew of Lhe case ls
necessary

Pere Lhe 81C granLed Lhe moLlon Lo dlsmlss flled by uomlnador based on SecLlon 1 8ule 9 of Lhe
8ules of CourL whlch sLaLes

SecLlon 1 uefenses and ob[ecLlons noL pleaded uefenses and ob[ecLlons noL pleaded elLher ln a
moLlon Lo dlsmlss or ln Lhe answer are deemed walved Powever when lL appears from Lhe
pleadlngs or Lhe evldence on record LhaL Lhe courL has no [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe sub[ecL maLLer LhaL
Lhere ls anoLher acLlon pendlng beLween Lhe same parLles for Lhe same cause or LhaL Lhe acLlon ls
barred by a prlor [udgmenL or by sLaLuLe of llmlLaLlons Lhe courL shall dlsmlss Lhe case (Lmphasls
supplled)

1he 81C explalned LhaL prescrlpLlon had already seL ln slnce Lhe AffldavlL was execuLed on 31 May
1966 and peLlLloners flled Lhe presenL case only on 26 CcLober 2001 a lapse of more Lhan 30 years
no acLlon could be Laken agalnsL Lhe deed of sale made ln favor of uomlnador wlLhouL assalllng Lhe
AffldavlL and Lhe acLlon Lo quesLlon Lhe AffldavlL had already prescrlbed

AfLer a perusal of Lhe records we flnd LhaL Lhe 81C lncorrecLly relled on Lhe AffldavlL alone ln order
Lo dlsmlss Lhe case wlLhouL conslderlng peLlLloners' evldence 1he facLs show LhaL Lhe land was
sold Lo uomlnador by 8lcardo's daughLers namely !osephlne 8ahla and vlrglnla 8ahlaAbas durlng
Lhe llfeLlme of 8lcardo Powever Lhe alleged deed of sale was noL presenLed as evldence and
nelLher was lL shown LhaL 8lcardo's daughLers had any auLhorlLy from 8lcardo Lo dlspose of Lhe
land no cogenL evldence was ever presenLed LhaL 8lcardo gave hls consenL Lo acqulesced ln or
raLlfled Lhe sale made by hls daughLers Lo uomlnador ln lLs 8 SepLember 2006 Crder Lhe 81C
hasLlly concluded LhaL 8lcardo's daughLers had legal personallLy Lo sell Lhe properLy

Cn Lhe allegaLlon of Lhe plalnLlffs (peLlLloners) LhaL !osephlne 8ahla and vlrglnla 8ahlaAbas had no
legal personallLy or rlghL Lo sell Lhe sub[ecL properLy ls of no momenL ln Lhls case lL should be
8lcardo 8ahla who has a cause of acLlon agalnsL hls daughLers and noL Lhe hereln plalnLlffs AfLer
all 8lcardo 8ahla mlghL have already consenLed Lo or raLlfled Lhe alleged deed of sale9

Also aslde from Lhe AffldavlL uomlnador dld noL presenL any proof Lo show LhaL 8lcardo's
possesslon of Lhe land had been open conLlnuous and excluslve for more Lhan 30 years ln order Lo
esLabllsh exLraordlnary acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon10 uomlnador merely assumed LhaL 8lcardo had
been ln possesslon of Lhe land for 30 years based on Lhe AffldavlL submlLLed Lo Lhe 81C 1he
peLlLloners on Lhe oLher hand ln Lhelr pleadlng flled wlLh Lhe 81C for recovery of ownershlp
possesslon parLlLlon and damages alleged LhaL 8lcardo lefL Lhe land afLer he separaLed from hls
wlfe someLlme afLer 1966 and moved Lo anoLher place 1he records do noL menLlon however
wheLher 8lcardo had any lnLenLlon Lo go back Lo Lhe land or wheLher 8lcardo's famlly ever llved
Lhere

lurLher uomlnador falled Lo show LhaL 8lcardo had Lhe land declared ln hls name for LaxaLlon
purposes from 1966 afLer Lhe AffldavlL was execuLed unLll 2001 when Lhe case was flled AlLhough
a Lax declaraLlon does noL prove ownershlp lL ls evldence of clalm Lo possesslon of Lhe land

Moreover 8lcardo and peLlLloners are cohelrs or coowners of Lhe land Cohelrs or coowners
cannoL acqulre by acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon Lhe share of Lhe oLher cohelrs or coowners absenL a
clear repudlaLlon of Lhe coownershlp as expressed ln ArLlcle 494 of Lhe Clvll Code whlch sLaLes

ArL 494 x x x no prescrlpLlon shall run ln favor of a coowner or cohelr agalnsL hls coowners or
cohelrs as long as he expressly or lmplledly recognlzes Lhe coownershlp

Slnce possesslon of coowners ls llke LhaL of a LrusLee ln order LhaL a coowner's possesslon may be
deemed adverse Lo Lhe cesLul que LrusL or oLher coowners Lhe followlng requlslLes musL concur
(1) LhaL he has performed unequlvocal acLs of repudlaLlon amounLlng Lo an ousLer of Lhe cesLul que
LrusL or oLher coowners (2) LhaL such poslLlve acLs of repudlaLlon have been made known Lo Lhe
cesLul que LrusL or oLher coowners and (3) LhaL Lhe evldence Lhereon musL be clear and
convlnclng11

ln Lhe presenL case all Lhree requlslLes have been meL AfLer !uanlLa's deaLh ln 1989 peLlLloners
soughL for Lhe parLlLlon of Lhelr moLher's land 1he helrs lncludlng 8lcardo were noLlfled abouL
Lhe plan 8lcardo Lhrough a leLLer daLed 3 !une 1998 noLlfled peLlLloners as hls cohelrs LhaL he
ad[udlcaLed Lhe land solely for hlmself Accordlngly 8lcardo's lnLeresL ln Lhe land had now
become adverse Lo Lhe clalm of hls cohelrs afLer repudlaLlng Lhelr clalm of enLlLlemenL Lo Lhe land
ln Cenerosa v ranganvalera12 we held LhaL ln order LhaL LlLle may prescrlbe ln favor of one of
Lhe coowners lL musL be clearly shown LhaL he had repudlaLed Lhe clalms of Lhe oLhers and LhaL
Lhey were apprlsed of hls clalm of adverse and excluslve ownershlp before Lhe prescrlpLlve perlod
beglns Lo run

Powever ln Lhe presenL case Lhe prescrlpLlve perlod began Lo run only from 3 !une 1998 Lhe daLe
peLlLloners recelved noLlce of 8lcardo's repudlaLlon of Lhelr clalms Lo Lhe land Slnce peLlLloners
flled an acLlon for recovery of ownershlp and possesslon parLlLlon and damages wlLh Lhe 81C on 26
CcLober 2001 only a mere Lhree years had lapsed 1hls Lhreeyear perlod falls shorL of Lhe 10year
or 30year acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon perlod requlred by law ln order Lo be enLlLled Lo clalm legal
ownershlp over Lhe land 1hus uomlnador cannoL lnvoke acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon

lurLher uomlnador's argumenL LhaL prescrlpLlon began Lo commence ln 1966 afLer Lhe AffldavlL
was execuLed ls erroneous uomlnador merely relled on Lhe AffldavlL submlLLed Lo Lhe 81C LhaL
8lcardo had been ln possesslon of Lhe land for more Lhan 30 years uomlnador dld noL submlL any
oLher corroboraLlve evldence Lo esLabllsh 8lcardo's alleged possesslon slnce 1966 ln Pelrs of
Manlngdlng v CourL of Appeals13 we held LhaL Lhe evldence relaLlve Lo Lhe possesslon as a facL
upon whlch Lhe alleged prescrlpLlon ls based musL be clear compleLe and concluslve ln order Lo
esLabllsh Lhe prescrlpLlon Pere uomlnador falled Lo presenL any oLher compeLenL evldence Lo
prove Lhe alleged exLraordlnary acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon of 8lcardo over Lhe land Slnce Lhe
properLy ls an unreglsLered land uomlnador boughL Lhe land aL hls own rlsk belng aware as buyer
LhaL no LlLle had been lssued over Lhe land As a consequence uomlnador ls noL afforded
proLecLlon unless he can manlfesLly prove hls legal enLlLlemenL Lo hls clalm

WlLh regard Lo Lhe lssue of Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe 81C we hold LhaL Lhe 81C dld noL err ln Laklng
cognlzance of Lhe case

under SecLlon 1 of 8epubllc AcL no 7691 (8A 7691)14 amendlng 8aLas ambansa 8lg 129 Lhe
81C shall exerclse excluslve [urlsdlcLlon on Lhe followlng acLlons

SecLlon 1 SecLlon 19 of 8aLas ambansa 8lg 129 oLherwlse known as Lhe !udlclary
8eorganlzaLlon AcL of 1980" ls hereby amended Lo read as follows

Sec 19 !urlsdlcLlon ln clvll cases 8eglonal 1rlal CourLs shall exerclse excluslve orlglnal
[urlsdlcLlon

(1) ln all clvll acLlons ln whlch Lhe sub[ecL of Lhe llLlgaLlon ls lncapable of pecunlary esLlmaLlon

(2) ln all clvll acLlons whlch lnvolve Lhe LlLle Lo or possesslon of real properLy or any lnLeresL
Lhereln where Lhe assessed value of Lhe properLy lnvolved exceeds 1wenLy 1housand esos
(2000000) or for clvll acLlons ln MeLro Manlla where such value exceeds llfLy 1housand esos
(3000000) excepL acLlons for forclble enLry lnLo and unlawful deLalner of lands or bulldlngs

orlglnal [urlsdlcLlon over whlch ls conferred upon Lhe MeLropollLan 1rlal CourLs Munlclpal 1rlal
CourLs and Munlclpal ClrculL 1rlal CourLs x x x


Cn Lhe oLher hand SecLlon 3 of 8A 7691 expanded Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe MeLropollLan 1rlal CourLs
Munlclpal 1rlal CourLs and Munlclpal ClrculL 1rlal CourLs over all clvll acLlons whlch lnvolve LlLle Lo
or possesslon of real properLy or any lnLeresL ouLslde MeLro Manlla where Lhe assessed value
does noL exceed 1wenLy Lhousand pesos (2000000) 1he provlslon sLaLes

SecLlon 3 SecLlon 33 of Lhe same law ls hereby amended Lo read as follows

Sec 33 !urlsdlcLlon of MeLropollLan 1rlal CourLs Munlclpal 1rlal CourLs and Munlclpal ClrculL 1rlal
CourLs ln Clvll Cases MeLropollLan 1rlal CourLs Munlclpal 1rlal CourLs and Munlclpal 1rlal ClrculL
1rlal CourLs shall exerclse

x x x

(3) Lxcluslve orlglnal [urlsdlcLlon ln all clvll acLlons whlch lnvolve LlLle Lo or possesslon of real
properLy or any lnLeresL Lhereln where Lhe assessed value of Lhe properLy or lnLeresL Lhereln does
noL exceed 1wenLy Lhousand pesos (2000000) or ln clvll acLlons ln MeLro Manlla where such
assessed value does noL exceed llfLy Lhousand pesos (3000000) excluslve of lnLeresL damages of
whaLever klnd aLLorney's fees llLlgaLlon expenses and cosLs rovlded 1haL ln cases of land noL
declared for LaxaLlon purposes Lhe value of such properLy shall be deLermlned by Lhe assessed
value of Lhe ad[acenL loLs"

ln Lhe presenL case Lhe records show LhaL Lhe assessed value of Lhe land was 39000 accordlng Lo
Lhe ueclaraLlon of roperLy as of 23 March 2000 flled wlLh Lhe 81C 8ased on Lhe value alone
belng way below 2000000 Lhe M1C has [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe case Powever peLlLloners argued
LhaL Lhe acLlon was noL merely for recovery of ownershlp and possesslon parLlLlon and damages
buL also for annulmenL of deed of sale Slnce annulmenL of conLracLs are acLlons lncapable of
pecunlary esLlmaLlon Lhe 81C has [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe case13

eLlLloners are correcL ln Slngson v lsabela Sawmlll16 we held LhaL

ln deLermlnlng wheLher an acLlon ls one Lhe sub[ecL maLLer of whlch ls noL capable of pecunlary
esLlmaLlon Lhls CourL has adopLed Lhe crlLerlon of flrsL ascerLalnlng Lhe naLure of Lhe prlnclpal
acLlon or remedy soughL lf lL ls prlmarlly for Lhe recovery of a sum of money Lhe clalm ls
consldered capable of pecunlary esLlmaLlon and wheLher [urlsdlcLlon ls ln Lhe munlclpal courLs or
ln Lhe courLs of flrsL lnsLance would depend on Lhe amounL of Lhe clalm Powever where Lhe baslc
lssue ls someLhlng oLher Lhan Lhe rlghL Lo recover a sum of money where Lhe money clalm ls
purely lncldenLal Lo or a consequence of Lhe prlnclpal rellef soughL Lhls CourL has consldered such
acLlons as cases where Lhe sub[ecL of Lhe llLlgaLlon may noL be esLlmaLed ln Lerms of money and
are cognlzable by courLs of flrsL lnsLance (now 8eglonal 1rlal CourLs)

When peLlLloners flled Lhe acLlon wlLh Lhe 81C Lhey soughL Lo recover ownershlp and possesslon of
Lhe land by quesLlonlng (1) Lhe due execuLlon and auLhenLlclLy of Lhe AffldavlL execuLed by !uanlLa
ln favor of 8lcardo whlch caused 8lcardo Lo be Lhe sole owner of Lhe land Lo Lhe excluslon of
peLlLloners who also clalm Lo be legal helrs and enLlLled Lo Lhe land and (2) Lhe valldlLy of Lhe
deed of sale execuLed beLween 8lcardo's daughLers and uomlnador Slnce Lhe prlnclpal acLlon
soughL here ls someLhlng oLher Lhan Lhe recovery of a sum of money Lhe acLlon ls lncapable of
pecunlary esLlmaLlon and Lhus cognlzable by Lhe 81C WellenLrenched ls Lhe rule LhaL [urlsdlcLlon
over Lhe sub[ecL maLLer of a case ls conferred by law and ls deLermlned by Lhe allegaLlons ln Lhe
complalnL and Lhe characLer of Lhe rellef soughL lrrespecLlve of wheLher Lhe parLy ls enLlLled Lo all
or some of Lhe clalms asserLed17

ln sum we flnd LhaL Lhe AffldavlL as Lhe prlnclpal evldence relled upon by Lhe 81C Lo dlsmlss Lhe
case on Lhe ground of prescrlpLlon lnsufflclenLly esLabllshed uomlnador's rlghLful clalm of
ownershlp Lo Lhe land 1hus we dlrecL Lhe 81C Lo Lry Lhe case on Lhe merlLs Lo deLermlne who
among Lhe parLles are legally enLlLled Lo Lhe land

@aghoy vs @|go| Ir
Gk# 1S966S] Aug 3 2010
626 SCkA 341
lacLs

Spouses Leoncla de Cuzman and Cornello Aqulno dled lnLesLaLe someLlme ln 1943 and 1947
respecLlvely and were chlldless Leoncla de Cuzman was survlved by her slsLers AnaLalla de Cuzman
(moLher of Lhe plalnLlffs) and 1ranqulllna de Cuzman (grandmoLher of Lhe defendanLs) uurlng Lhe
exlsLence of Lhelr marrlage spouses Aqulno were able Lo acqulre several properLles

SomeLlme ln 1989 Lhe helrs of AnaLalla de Cuzman represenLed by SanLlago Andres lellcldad and
Apolonlo all surnamed Meneses flled a complalnL for annulmenL parLlLlon and damages agalnsL
Lhe helrs of Cesarlo velasquez (son of 1ranqulllna de Cuzman) for Lhe laLLers refusal Lo parLlLlon Lhe
abovemenLloned con[ugal properLles of Lhe Spouses Aqulno 1he complalnL alleged LhaL Leoncla
de Cuzman before her deaLh had a Lalk wlLh Lhe plalnLlffs moLher AnaLalla de Cuzman wlLh
plalnLlff SanLlago Meneses and 1ranqulllna de Cuzman and hls son Cesarlo velasquez ln
aLLendance LhaL ln Lhe conference Leoncla Lold AnaLalla de Cuzman 1ranqulllna de Cuzman and
Cesarlo velaquez LhaL Lhe documenLs of donaLlon and parLlLlon whlch she and her husband earller
execuLed were noL slgned by Lhem as lL was noL Lhelr lnLenLlon Lo glve away all Lhe properLles Lo
Cesarlo velasquez because AnaLalla de Cuzman who ls one of her slsLers had several chlldren Lo
supporL Cesarlo velasquez LogeLher wlLh hls moLher allegedly promlsed Lo dlvlde Lhe properLles
equally and Lo glve Lhe plalnLlffs onehalf (1/2) Lhereof LhaL Lhey are enLlLled Lo of each of all Lhe
properLles ln quesLlon belng Lhe chlldren of AnaLalla de Cuzman full blood slsLer of Leoncla de
Cuzman lalnLlffs furLher clalm LhaL afLer Lhe deaLh of Leoncla defendanLs forclbly Look
possesslon of all Lhe properLles and desplLe plalnLlffs repeaLed demands for parLlLlon defendanLs
refused lalnLlffs pray for Lhe nulllLy of any documenLs coverlng Lhe properLles ln quesLlon slnce
Lhey do noL bear Lhe genulne slgnaLures of Lhe Aqulno spouses Lo order Lhe parLlLlon of Lhe
properLles beLween plalnLlffs and defendanLs ln equal shares and Lo order Lhe defendanLs Lo
render an accounLlng of Lhe produce of Lhe land ln quesLlon from Lhe Llme defendanLs forclbly Look
possesslon unLll parLlLlon shall have been effecLed

uefendanLs flled Lhelr Amended Answer wlLh counLerclalm alleglng among oLhers LhaL durlng Lhe
llfeLlme of spouses Cornello Aqulno and Leoncla de Cuzman Lhey had already dlsposed of Lhelr

properLles ln favor of peLlLloners predecessorslnlnLeresL Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de

Cuzman and peLlLloners AnasLacla and !ose velasquez ln Lhe followlng manner

(1) 1he Lhlrd and slxLh parcels were conveyed Lo defendanLs laLe parenLs Cesarlo velasquez and
Camlla de Cuzman by vlrLue of a LscrlLura de uonaLlon ropLer nupLlas daLed lebruary 13 1919

(2) 1he second parcel was conveyed Lo defendanLs laLe parenLs Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de
Cuzman by vlrLue of a deed of conveyance daLed !uly 14 1939 for whlch 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of
1lLle no 13129 was lssued by Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds of angaslnan ln Lhe names of Cesarlo
velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman

(3) 1he flrsL parcel was llkewlse conveyed Lo defendanLs !ose velasquez and AnasLacla velasquez by
vlrLue of a deed of conveyance (uonaLlon lnLer vlvos) daLed Aprll 10 1939

(4) As Lo Lhe fourLh and flfLh parcels Lhe same were owned and possessed by Lhlrd parLles

uefendanLs denled LhaL a conference Look place beLween Leoncla de Cuzman and plalnLlff SanLlago
Meneses and hls moLher AnaLalla wlLh 1ranqulllna (defendanLs grandmoLher) and Cesarlo
velasquez (defendanLs faLher) nor dld Lhe laLLer promlse Lo dlvlde Lhe properLles equally wlLh Lhe
plalnLlffs or Lo execuLe a deed of parLlLlon LhaL Lhey dld noL forclbly Lake possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL
properLles slnce Lhelr possesslon Lhereof has been peaceful open conLlnuous and adverse ln
characLer Lo Lhe excluslon of all oLhers 8y way of afflrmaLlve defenses defendanLs clalm LhaL Lhe
lnsLanL case ls already barred by res [udlcaLa slnce Lhere had been Lhree prevlous cases lnvolvlng
Lhe same parLles sub[ecL maLLer and cause of acLlon whlch were all dlsmlssed Lhe lasL of whlch
was dlsmlssed for fallure Lo prosecuLe LhaL plalnLlffs acLlon Lo annul Lhe documenLs coverlng Lhe
dlsposlLlon of Lhe properLles ls also barred by Lhe sLaLuLe of llmlLaLlons LhaL Lhe acLlon for parLlLlon
presupposes Lhe exlsLence of a properLy held ln common as agreed upon or admlLLed by Lhe parLles
buL Lhe coownershlp ceases when one of Lhe parLles alleges excluslve ownershlp Lhus Lhe acLlon
becomes one for a LlLle and recovery of ownershlp and Lhe acLlon prescrlbes ln four years

AfLer Lrlal Lhe declslon was rendered on Aprll 8 1992 whlch ruled as follows8

lrom Lhe evldence Lhe CourL flnds LhaL Lhe plalnLlffs are broLhers and slsLers who are Lhe chlldren
of LsLanlslao Meneses and AnaLalla de Cuzman and Lhe defendanLs are Lhe chlldren of plalnLlffs
counsln Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman 1he defendanLs moLher 1ranqulllna de Cuzman
and plalnLlffs moLher AnaLalla de Cuzman and Leoncla de Cuzman are full blooded slsLers 1he
sub[ecL slx (6) parcels of land were con[ugal properLles of Leoncla de Cuzman and her husband
Cornello Aqulno were ln Lhelr possesslon unLll Lhelr deaLh ln 1943 and 1947 respecLlvely AfLer Lhe
deaLh of plalnLlffs moLher AnaLalla de Cuzman on SepLember 14 1978 plalnLlff SanLlago Meneses
came across an affldavlL of Cesarlo velasquez noLarlzed by ALLy Llpldlo 8arrozo sLaLlng LhaL he ls an
adopLed son of sald spouses Cornello Aqulno and Leoncla de Cuzman (LxhlblL A) whlch ls
however noL supporLed by evldence (a courL order) 1he sald affldavlL menLloned among oLher
Lhlngs a house and a parcel of land covered by 1ax ueclaraLlon no 699 locaLed aL Culgullonen
Mangaldan angaslnan (LxhlblL 8) 1he sugar cane and coconuL land slLuaLed aL oblaclon
Mangaldan angaslnan conLalnlng an area of 27849 square meLers covered by 1ax ueclaraLlon
no 978 (LxhlblL C) whlch was ln Lhe possesslon of spouses Cornello Aqulno and Leoncla de
Cuzman unLll Lhelr deaLh SomeLlme ln 1944 Leoncla de Cuzman called a conference among Lhe
plalnLlffs and spouses Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman and Lold Lhem LhaL all Lhelr
con[ugal properLles shall be dlvlded equally beLween AnaLalla de Cuzman and 1ranqulllna de
Cuzman and LhaL she dld noL slgn documenLs regardlng Lhe conveyance of Lhelr properLles and
LhaL Lhe properLy (parcel 8) ln Malabago Mangaldan angaslnan whlch yleldlng an annual
produce worLh 1300000 was dlvlded beLween AnaLalla de Cuzman and 1ranqulllna de Cuzman

Spouses Cornello Aqulno and Leoncla de Cuzman who were chlldless had AnaLalla de Cuzman and
1ranqulllna de Cuzman as Lhelr legal helrs 1he laLLer succeeded Lhe former over Lhe sub[ecL slx (6)
parcels of land ln equal shares belongs Lo AnaLalla de Cuzman and Lhe oLher half Lo 1ranqulllna
de Cuzman

1hls noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe clalm of defendanLs LhaL Lhe flrsL parcel was donaLed Lo !ose velasquez
and AnasLacla velasquez by way of uonaLlon lnLervlvos

1he second parcel sold Lo Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman

1he Lhlrd and 6Lh parcels donaLed Lo Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman and

1he 4Lh and 3Lh parcels sold Lo Lhlrd parLles

1he clalm of Cesarlo velasquez LhaL he was adopLed by Lhe Spouses Cornello Aqulno and Leoncla
de Cuzman ls noL supporLed by evldence

1he CourL flnds plalnLlff SanLlago Meneses credlble and hls LesLlmony credlble by lLself SanLlago
Meneses who ls 80 years old LesLlfled sponLaneously ln a clear sLralghL forward and convlnclng
manner

1he verslon of Lhe defendanLs Lo Lhe effecL LhaL spouses Cornello de Cuzman and Leoncla de
Cuzman lefL no properLles cannoL be glven serlous conslderaLlon lL ls lncredlble and unbellevable

Pow dld Lhe spouses Cornello Aqulno and Leoncla de Cuzman supporL and malnLaln Lhemselves lf
Lhey dlsposed of Lhelr valuable properLles Lhe slx (6) parcels of land ln quesLlon durlng Lhelr
llfeLlme? uld Lhey really leave no properLles? 1hese quesLlons remalned unanswered

1he defendanLs falled Lo prove Lhelr allegaLlons LhaL Lhe Spouses Cornello Aqulno and Leoncla de
Cuzman dlsposed of Lhelr properLles durlng Lhelr llfeLlme

uefendanL Lllseo velasquez ls a lawyer and hls codefendanL broLhers are reLlred governmenL
offlclals

Cn Lhe oLher hand Lhe plalnLlffs are slmple lnnocenL counLry folks who have noL obLalned
subsLanLlal level of educaLlon

1he CourL belleves and so holds LhaL Lhe defendanLs manlpulaLed Lhe Lransfer unLo Lhemselves all
Lhe properLles of Spouses Cornello Aqulno and Leoncla de Cuzman Lhus deprlvlng Lhe plalnLlffs
Lhelr shares ln Lhe lnherlLance Lo Lhelr pre[udlce and damage

lnsofar as Lhe lssue of wheLher or noL parLlLlon prescrlbes Lhe courL belleves and so rules LhaL lL
does noL

WPL8LlC8L [udgmenL ls hereby rendered ln favor of Lhe plalnLlffs

lssue

l WheLher or noL Lhe lnsLanL case ls barred by res [udlcaLa and by Lhe sLaLuLe of llmlLaLlons

ll WheLher or noL Lhe properLles menLloned ln Lhe complalnL form parL of Lhe esLaLe of Lhe
Spouses Cornello Aqulno and Leoncla ue Cuzman

lll WheLher or noL Lhe peLlLloners have acqulred absoluLe and excluslve ownershlp of Lhe
properLles ln quesLlon

lv WheLher or noL prlvaLe respondenL helrs of anaLalla de guzman are legal helrs of spouses
cornello aqulno and leoncla de guzman

v WheLher or noL parLlLlon ls Lhe proper acLlon ln Lhe lnsLanL case

Peld

eLlLloners conLend LhaL publlc respondenL erred when lL held LhaL Lhe lssue of res [udlcaLa was
never ralsed elLher ln Lhe Answer or aL Lhe reLrlal such LhaL lL was noL under conslderaLlon We
agree wlLh Lhe peLlLloner 1he records show LhaL Lhe defense of res [udlcaLa was ralsed ln Lhe
peLlLloners Amended Answer flled before Lhe Lrlal courL more parLlcularly under paragraph 18 Lo
wlL

18 b 1he case aL bar ls already barred by 8LS !uulCA1A Lhere havlng been Lhree (3) prevlous
cases lnvolvlng elLher Lhe predecessorslnlnLeresL of Lhe parLles hereln or of Lhe presenL parLles
Lhemselves Lhe same sub[ecL maLLer and Lhe same cause of acLlon whlch were all dlsmlssed Lhe
lasL dlsmlssal havlng been ordered by Lhls very same Ponorable CourL ln Clvll Case no u8811 on
CcLober 21 1988 for fallure Lo prosecuLe whlch dlsmlssal has Lhe effecL of an ad[udlcaLlon on Lhe
merlLs and Lherefore wlLh pre[udlce as Lhls Ponorable CourL dld noL provlde oLherwlse (Sec 3 8ule
17) and Lhe lalnLlffs ln sald case who are Lhe same plalnLlffs ln Lhe presenL case dld noL appeal
from sald order of dlsmlssal

Sald Amended Answer was admlLLed by Lhe Lrlal courL ln lLs Crder daLed March 2 199011 and was
one of Lhe lssues sLlpulaLed for resoluLlon ln lLs reLrlal Crder daLed May 18 1990 1hus lL was
clear error for respondenL courL Lo conclude LhaL res [udlcaLa was never ralsed ln Lhe lower courL

1he nexL quesLlon ls wheLher res [udlcaLa ls presenL ln Lhe lnsLanL case We rule ln Lhe afflrmaLlve
eLlLloners ln Lhelr Memorandum esLabllshed LhaL Lhere were Lhree (3) earller cases flled by prlvaLe
respondenLs agalnsL peLlLloners lnvolvlng Lhe same sub[ecL maLLer and lssues as ln Lhe lnsLanL case
whlch were all dlsmlssed Lo wlL

1he flrsL ComplalnL flled by AnaLalla de Cuzman moLher of prlvaLe respondenL SanLlago Meneses
agalnsL 1ranqulllna de Cuzman and hls son Cesarlo velasquez dockeLed as Clvll Case no 11378 of
Lhe Lhen CourL of llrsL lnsLance of angaslnan Sald acLlon was dlsmlssed on AugusL 18 1930

1hlrLy four (34) years afLer or on CcLober 9 1984 prlvaLe respondenL SanLlago Meneses flled a
second ComplalnL slmllar Lo Lhe ComplalnL of hls moLher (Clvll Case no 11378) whlch was
dockeLed as Clvll Case no u7384 enLlLled Pelrs of AnaLalla de Cuzman represenLed by SanLlago
Meneses vs Cesarlo velasquez defendanL ln Lhe order of Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL 8ranch 41
uagupan ClLy daLed May 28 1986 Lhls ComplalnL was dlsmlssed for fallure Lo prosecuLe wlLhouL
pre[udlce (Lxh 16)

rlvaLe respondenL SanLlago Meneses reflled Lhe ComplalnL allegedly [olned Lhls Llme by hls slbllngs
on CcLober 23 1987 whlch was dockeLed as Clvll Case no 8811 and enLlLled Pelrs of AnaLalla
de Cuzman namely SanLlago Meneses Apolonlo Meneses Andres Meneses Luls Meneses
lellcldad Meneses lalnLlffs versus Pelrs of Cesarlo velasquez namely AnasLacla velasquez Sofla
velasquez Lllseo velasquez !ose velasquez Leonora velasquez nleves velasquez uefendanLs
(Lxh 17) Cn CcLober 21 1988 Lhe CourL a quo dlsmlssed Lhls ComplalnL as follows lor fallure
Lo prosecuLe Lhe case ls hereby dlsmlssed wlLhouL cosLs (Lxh 18)

eLlLloners allegaLlons were never rebuLLed by prlvaLe respondenLs ln Lhelr CommenL as Lhe only
defense ralsed Lhereln was LhaL Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe prlnclple of res [udlcaLa should noL sacrlflce
[usLlce Lo LechnlcallLy and lL ls wlLhln Lhe power of Lhe courL Lo suspend lLs own rules or Lo excepL a
parLlcular case from lLs operaLlons whenever Lhe purpose of [usLlce requlres lL We have examlned
Lhe Lhlrd complalnL flled by prlvaLe respondenLs on CcLober 23 1987 and compared lL wlLh Lhe
lnsLanL case and we found LhaL Lhe allegaLlons conLalned ln boLh complalnLs are Lhe same and
LhaL Lhere ls ldenLlLy of parLles sub[ecL maLLer and cause of acLlon 1hus Lhe requlslLes of res
[udlcaLa are presenL namely (a) Lhe former [udgmenL or order musL be flnal (b) lL musL be a
[udgmenL or order on Lhe merlLs (c) lL musL have been rendered by a courL havlng [urlsdlcLlon over
Lhe sub[ecL maLLer and Lhe parLles and (d) Lhere musL be beLween Lhe flrsL and Lhe second acLlons
ldenLlLy of parLles of sub[ecL maLLer and of cause of acLlon Slnce Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe Lhlrd case dld
noL conLaln any condlLlon aL all lL has Lhe effecL of an ad[udlcaLlon on Lhe merlLs as lL ls undersLood
Lo be wlLh pre[udlce12 Cn Lhls ground alone Lhe Lrlal courL should have already dlsmlssed Lhls
case Powever conslderlng LhaL Lhls case had already reached Lhls CourL by way of a peLlLlon for
revlew on cerLlorarl lL would be more ln keeplng wlLh subsLanLlal [usLlce lf Lhe conLroversy
beLween Lhe parLles were Lo be resolved on Lhe merlLs raLher Lhan on a procedural LechnlcallLy ln
Lhe llghL of Lhe express mandaLe of Lhe rules LhaL Lhey be llberally consLrued ln order Lo promoLe
Lhelr ob[ecL and Lo asslsL Lhe parLles ln obLalnlng [usL speedy and lnexpenslve deLermlnaLlon of
every acLlon and proceedlng13

eLlLloners nexL conLend LhaL prlvaLe respondenL SanLlago Meneses falled Lo prove Lhe nulllLy of
Lhe ueeds of Conveyance execuLed by Lhe Aqulno spouses ln favor of peLlLloners !ose and
AnasLacla velasquez and Lhelr predecessorslnlnLeresL Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman
slnce he falled Lo adduce any evldence Lo supporL hls clalm oLher Lhan hls bare allegaLlons of lLs
nulllLy eLlLloners clalm LhaL Lhey were able Lo show by documenLary evldence LhaL Lhe Aqulno
spouses durlng Lhelr llfeLlme dlsposed of Lhe four parcels of land sub[ecL of Lhe complalnL Lo wlL
(a) LscrlLura de donaLlon propLer nupLlas daLed lebruary 13 1919 ln favor of Lhen fuLure spouses
Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman (peLlLloners parenLs) conveylng Lo Lhem a porLlon of Lhe

second parcel and Lhe enLlreLy of Lhe Lhlrd and slxLh parcels ln Lhe complalnL (b) ueed of donaLlon
lnLer vlvos daLed Aprll 10 1939 conveylng Lhe flrsL parcel ln favor of peLlLloners AnasLacla
velasquez and !ose velasquez (c) LscrlLura de CompravenLa daLed AugusL 23 1924 conveylng
anoLher porLlon of Lhe second parcel ln favor of Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman wlLh a
300 conslderaLlon (d) ueed of Conveyance daLed !uly 14 1939 ln favor of Cesarlo velasquez and
Camlla de Cuzman conveylng Lo Lhem Lhe remalnlng porLlon of Lhe second parcel for a
conslderaLlon of 600 and conflrmlng ln Lhe same ueed Lhe LscrlLura de donaLlon propLer nupLlas
and LscrlLura de compravenLa abovemenLloned eLlLloners clalm LhaL Lhe record ls berefL of any
evldence showlng Lhe lnflrmlLles ln Lhese formldable array of documenLary evldence buL Lhe courLs
below declared Lhelr nulllLy on Lhe basls of Lhe LellLale sLory of SanLlago Meneses 1hey conLend
LhaL ln glvlng credence Lo Lhe LesLlmony of SanLlago Meneses LhaL all Lhe deeds of conveyances
execuLed by Lhe Aqulno spouses ln favor of Lhe peLlLloners were a nulllLy SanLlago would wanL Lo
make lL appear LhaL Lhe spouses Aqulno ln glvlng dowry Lhru escrlLura de donaLlon propLer nupLlas
and donaLlon lnLer vlvos were only foollng Lhe lnnocenL youngsLers and Lhen fuLure spouses
Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman and Lhe lnnocenL mlnors donees !ose and AnaLascla
velasquez respecLlvely

eLlLloners submlsslon ls lmpressed wlLh merlL

AfLer an examlnaLlon of Lhe records we flnd LhaL Lhere ls no preponderance of evldence adduced
durlng Lhe Lrlal Lo supporL Lhe flndlngs and concluslons of Lhe courLs below whlch error [usLlfles a
revlew of sald evldence As a rule facLual flndlngs of Lhe lower courLs are flnal and blndlng upon
Lhls CourL 1hls CourL ls noL expecLed nor requlred Lo examlne or conLrasL Lhe oral and
documenLary evldence submlLLed by Lhe parLles14 Powever alLhough Lhls CourL ls noL a Lrler of
facLs lL has Lhe auLhorlLy Lo revlew and reverse Lhe facLual flndlngs of Lhe lower courLs lf lL flnds
LhaL Lhese do noL conform Lo Lhe evldence on record13 ln Lhe lnsLanL case we are noL bound Lo
adhere Lo Lhe general rule slnce boLh courLs clearly falled Lo conslder facLs and clrcumsLances
whlch should have drawn a dlfferenL concluslon16

ln acLlons for parLlLlon Lhe courL cannoL properly lssue an order Lo dlvlde Lhe properLy unless lL
flrsL makes a deLermlnaLlon as Lo Lhe exlsLence of coownershlp 1he courL musL lnlLlally seLLle Lhe
lssue of ownershlp Lhe flrsL sLage ln an acLlon for parLlLlon17 needless Lo sLaLe an acLlon for
parLlLlon wlll noL lle lf Lhe clalmanL has no rlghLful lnLeresL over Lhe sub[ecL properLy ln facL
SecLlon 1 of 8ule 69 requlres Lhe parLy flllng Lhe acLlon Lo sLaLe ln hls complalnL Lhe naLure and Lhe
exLenL of hls LlLle Lo Lhe real esLaLe unLll and unless Lhe lssue of ownershlp ls deflnlLely resolved
lL would be premaLure Lo effecL a parLlLlon of Lhe properLles18

We are unable Lo susLaln Lhe flndlngs of Lhe respondenL CourL LhaL lL has been adequaLely shown
LhaL Lhe alleged Lransfers of properLles Lo Lhe peLlLloners predecessorlnlnLeresL made by Lhe
Aqulno spouses were repudlaLed before Leonclas deaLh Lhus prlvaLe respondenLs are sLlll enLlLled
Lo share ln Lhe sub[ecL properLles 1here ls no preponderance of evldence Lo supporL Lhe flndlngs
and concluslons of boLh courLs 1he Lrlal courL declared Lhe nulllLy of Lhe donaLlon lnLer vlvos ln
favor of peLlLloners !ose and AnasLacla velasquez over Lhe flrsL parcel of land descrlbed ln Lhe
complalnL Lhe deed of sale Lo Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman over Lhe second parcel
and Lhe deed of donaLlon propLer nupLlas over Lhe Lhlrd and slxLh parcels and Lhe sale Lo Lhlrd
parLles of fourLh and flfLh parcels lnsofar as Lhe of Lhese parcels of land are concerned whlch
leglLlmaLely belong Lo plalnLlff lL would appear LhaL Lhe Lrlal courL relled solely on Lhe basls of
SanLlago Meneses LesLlmony LhaL ln 1944 when hls aunL Leoncla de Cuzman was sLlll allve she
called a conference among Lhem Lhe plalnLlffs and Lhelr moLher AnaLalla Cesarlo velasquez and
hls moLher 1ranqulllna Lelllng Lhem LhaL all Lhelr properLles whlch are con[ugal ln naLure shall be
dlvlded equally beLween AnaLalla and 1ranqulllna and noL Lo belleve Lhe documenLs purporLedly
slgned by her because she dld noL slgn Lhem19 rlvaLe respondenL SanLlago Meneses LesLlmony ls
Lo Lhe effecL LhaL Leoncla never slgned any deed of conveyance of Lhe sub[ecL properLles ln favor of
Lhe peLlLloners Powever SanLlago Meneses LesLlmony was never corroboraLed by any oLher
evldence desplLe hls LesLlmony LhaL Lhe alleged conference was also made ln Lhe presence of Lhlrd
parLles Moreover lf Lhe alleged conference really Look place ln 1944 a year before Leonclas deaLh
Leoncla could have execuLed anoLher seL of documenLs revoklng or repudlaLlng whaLever
dlsposlLlons she had earller made Lo show her alleged lnLenLlon of glvlng her properLles ln equal
shares Lo her slsLers AnaLalla and 1ranqulllna de Cuzman buL Lhere was none 1he Lrlal courL found
Lhe LesLlmony of SanLlago Meneses who ls elghLy years old Lo be credlble and Lhls was afflrmed by
Lhe respondenL courL whlch sLaLed LhaL Lhe maLLer of ascrlblng credlblllLy belongs Lo Lhe Lrlal courL
Powever Lhe facL LhaL a person has reached Lhe LwlllghL of hls llfe ls noL always a guaranLy LhaL
he would Lell Lhe LruLh lL ls also qulLe common LhaL advanced age makes a person menLally dull
and compleLely hazy abouL Lhlngs whlch has appeared Lo hlm and aL Llmes lL weakens hls
reslsLance Lo ouLslde lnfluence20

Cn Lhe oLher hand peLlLloners were able Lo adduce Lhe unconLroverLed and anclenL documenLary
evldence showlng LhaL durlng Lhe llfeLlme of Lhe Aqulno spouses Lhey had already dlsposed of four
of Lhe slx parcels of land sub[ecL of Lhe complalnL sLarLlng ln Lhe year 1919 and Lhe laLesL was ln
1939 as follows (a) LscrlLura de donaLlon propLer nupLlas daLed lebruary 13 1919 ln favor of Lhe
fuLure spouses Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman (peLlLloners parenLs) conveylng Lo Lhem a
porLlon of Lhe second parcel ln Lhe complalnL and Lhe enLlreLy of Lhe Lhlrd and slxLh parcels21 (b)
ueed of donaLlon lnLer vlvos daLed Aprll 10 1939 conveylng Lhe flrsL parcel ln favor of peLlLloners
AnasLacla velasquez and !ose velasquez22 (c) LscrlLura de CompravenLa daLed AugusL 23 1924
conveylng anoLher porLlon of Lhe second parcel ln favor of Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de
Cuzman wlLh a 300 conslderaLlon23 (d) ueed of Conveyance daLed !uly 14 1939 ln favor of
Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman conveylng Lo Lhem Lhe remalnlng porLlon of Lhe second
parcel for a conslderaLlon of 600 and conflrmlng ln Lhe same ueed Lhe LscrlLura de donaLlon
propLer nupLlas and LscrlLura de compravenLa abovemenLloned24 lL was reverslble error for Lhe
courL Lo overlook Lhe probaLlve value of Lhese noLarlzed documenLs

A donaLlon as a mode of acqulrlng ownershlp resulLs ln an effecLlve Lransfer of LlLle over Lhe
properLy from Lhe donor Lo Lhe donee23 and Lhe donaLlon ls perfecLed from Lhe momenL Lhe
donor knows of Lhe accepLance by Lhe donee26 And once a donaLlon ls accepLed Lhe donee
becomes Lhe absoluLe owner of Lhe properLy donaLed27 1he donaLlon of Lhe flrsL parcel made by
Lhe Aqulno spouses Lo peLlLloners !ose and AnasLacla velasquez who were Lhen nlneLeen (19) and
Len (10) years old respecLlvely was accepLed Lhrough Lhelr faLher Cesarlo velasquez and Lhe
accepLance was lncorporaLed ln Lhe body of Lhe same deed of donaLlon and made parL of lL and
was slgned by Lhe donor and Lhe accepLor Legally speaklng Lhere was dellvery and accepLance of
Lhe deed and Lhe donaLlon exlsLed perfecLly and lrrevocably 1he donaLlon lnLer vlvos may be
revoked only for Lhe reasons provlded ln ArLlcles 760 764 and 763 of Lhe Clvll Code28 1he
donaLlon propLer nupLlas ln favor of Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman over Lhe Lhlrd and
slxLh parcels lncludlng a porLlon of Lhe second parcel became Lhe properLles of Lhe spouses
velasquez slnce 1919 1he deed of donaLlon propLer nupLlas can be revoked by Lhe non

performance of Lhe marrlage and Lhe oLher causes menLloned ln arLlcle 86 of Lhe lamlly Code29
1he alleged reason for Lhe repudlaLlon of Lhe deed le LhaL Lhe Aqulno spouses dld noL lnLend Lo
glve away all Lhelr properLles slnce AnaLalla (Leonclas slsLer) had several chlldren Lo supporL ls noL
one of Lhe grounds for revocaLlon of donaLlon elLher lnLer vlvos or propLer nupLlas alLhough Lhe
donaLlon mlghL be lnofflclous

1he LscrlLura compravenLa over anoLher porLlon of Lhe second parcel and Lhe ueed of conveyance
daLed !uly 14 1939 ln favor of Cesarlo and Camlla velasquez over Lhe remalnlng porLlon of Lhe
second parcel ls also valld ln facL ln Lhe deed of sale daLed !uly 14 1939 Lhe Aqulno spouses
raLlfled and conflrmed Lhe rlghLs and lnLeresLs of Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman
lncludlng Lhe prevlous deeds of conveyance execuLed by Lhe Aqulno spouses over Lhe second
parcel ln Lhe complalnL and such deed of sale became Lhe basls for Lhe lssuance of 1C1 no 13129
ln Lhe names of Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman on !uly 23 1939 1he besL proof of Lhe
ownershlp of Lhe land ls Lhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle30 and lL requlres more Lhan a bare allegaLlon Lo
defeaL Lhe face value of 1C1 no 13129 whlch en[oys a legal presumpLlon of regularlLy of
lssuance31 noLably durlng Lhe llfeLlme of Cesarlo velasquez he enLered lnLo conLracLs of
morLgage and lease over Lhe properLy as annoLaLed aL Lhe back of Lhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle whlch
clearly esLabllshed LhaL he exerclsed full ownershlp and conLrol over Lhe properLy lL ls qulLe
surprlslng LhaL lL was only afLer more Lhan flfLy years LhaL prlvaLe respondenLs asserLed co
ownershlp clalm over Lhe sub[ecL properLy

1he Aqulno spouses had dlsposed Lhe four parcels of land durlng Lhelr llfeLlme and Lhe documenLs
were duly noLarlzed so LhaL Lhese documenLs en[oy Lhe presumpLlon of valldlLy32 Such
presumpLlon has noL been overcome by prlvaLe respondenL SanLlago Meneses wlLh clear and
convlnclng evldence ln clvll cases Lhe parLy havlng Lhe burden of proof musL esLabllsh hls case by a
preponderance of evldence33 eLlLloners were able Lo esLabllsh LhaL Lhese four parcels of land
were valldly conveyed Lo Lhem by Lhe Aqulno spouses hence Lhey no longer formed parL of Lhe
con[ugal properLles of Lhe spouses aL Lhe Llme of Lhelr deaLhs As regards Lhe fourLh and flfLh
parcels peLlLloners alleged LhaL Lhese were also conveyed Lo Lhlrd persons and Lhey do noL clalm
any rlghL LhereLo

ln vlew of Lhe foregolng we conclude LhaL Lhls acLlon of parLlLlon cannoL be malnLalned 1he
properLles soughL Lo be parLlLloned by prlvaLe respondenLs have already been dellvered Lo
peLlLloners and Lherefore no longer parL of Lhe heredlLary esLaLe whlch could be parLlLloned AfLer
flndlng LhaL no coownershlp exlsLs beLween prlvaLe respondenLs and peLlLloners we flnd no
reason Lo dlscuss Lhe oLher argumenLs ralsed by Lhe peLlLloners ln supporL of Lhelr peLlLlon

WPL8LlC8L Lhe peLlLlon ls C8An1Lu 1he quesLloned declslon and resoluLlon of respondenL CourL
of Appeals as well as Lhe declslon of Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL of uagupan ClLy are SL1 ASluL 1he
complalnL ln Lhe Lrlal courL agalnsL peLlLloner ls C8uL8Lu ulSMlSSLu

Monteroso v CA
Gk # 10S608 Apr 30 2008
SS3 SCkA 66
lacLs
When uon lablan dled ln 1948 he lefL behlnd as parL of hls esLaLe 12 parcels of land Sub[ecL
properLles under dlspuLe beLween Soledad Cagampang and her slbllngs lnvolved 6 loLs deslgnaLed
as l1l2l3l3l7 and l8 Soledad alleged LhaL she owned Lhese properLles by acqulslLlon Lhrough
deeds of absoluLe sale excuLed by her faLher (uon lablan) and her on 1939 Powever evldence are
presenLed by her slbllngs on Lhe lnvalldlLy of sald sale such as
uon lablan afLer Lhe execuLlon of Lhe ueed never rellnqulshed possesslon over Lhese properLles
1hereby parLles never lnLended Lo be bound
1haL Lhere ls no evldence Lo supporL LhaL uon lablan recelved valuable conslderaLlon ln exchange
of hls properLles
1C1s are amended [udlclally LhaL only Lhe name of Soledad appear ln Lhe 1C1's and form parL of
her paraphernal properLy (sarlllng wonder lang slguro nalslp nl uon lablan kung nakapangalan
lang sa anak nya yung properLy hlndl yun mahahabol ng manugang)
8ased from Lhe above 81C declded for Lhe lnvalldlLy of sald sale whlch Lhe CA afflrmed Pence Lhls
case

lssue

rovlded LhaL sald sale ls lnvalld does Lhls make 1lrso and hls slbllng coowners over Lhese
properLles

lf yes ls lL faLal Lo Lhe flled case of arLlLlon by 1lrso and hls slbllngs hls omlsslon Lo expressly
lndlcaLe Lhe facL LhaL Lhey are coowners

Peld
8elng a compulsory helr of uon lablan 1lrso has Lhe rlghL Lo compel parLlLlon of Lhe properLles
comprlslng Lhe lnLesLaLe esLaLe of uon lablan as a measure Lo geL hls heredlLary share Pls rlghL as
an helr Lo a share of Lhe lnherlLance covers all Lhe properLles comprlslng Lhe lnLesLaLe esLaLe of uon
lablan aL Lhe momenL of hls deaLh (1948) unLll Lhen before parLlLlon and evenLual dlsLrlbuLlon of
uon lablan's lnLesLaLe esLaLe a reglme of coownershlp among Lhe compulsory helrs exlsLed over
Lhe undlvlded esLaLe of uon lablan And as a coowner hls rlghL ls lmprescrlpLlble excepL when he
expressly repudlaLes hls share And Soledad by lnvoklng as defense of prescrlpLlon over 1lrso and
Lhelr oLher slbllngs Lherefore admlLLed LhaL coownershlp exlsLed

8esolvlng Lhe lssue regardlng Lhe exlsLence of coownershlp among Lhe helrs wlll 1lrso eL al can
avall Lhe remedy of arLlLlon when coownershlp ls noL properly alleged

SC held ?es Whlle 1lrso may noL have expressly pleaded Lhe Lheory of coownershlp hls demand
from and acL of lnlLlaLlng arLlLlon necessarlly lmplles LhaL he was asserLlng hls rlghL as coowner
of Lhe properLles un[usLly wlLhheld by Lhe Cagampang spouses and LhaL he ls a coowner of all sald
properLles Lo Lhe exLenL of hls legal share or leglLlme Lhereon An acLlon for parLlLlon ls aL once an
acLlon for declaraLlon of coownershlp and for segregaLlon and conveyance of a deLermlnaLe
porLlon of Lhe properLles lnvolved

Sor|ente vs Concepc|on
Gk# 160239] Nov 2S 2009
60S SCkA 31S
lacLs ln 1978 Arsenlo Concepclon husband of nenlLa acqulred Lhe sub[ecL loL and LoleraLed Lhe
occupancy of SorlenLe for free and on Lemporary basls AfLer Arsenlo dled ln 1989 hls famlly
lnlLlaLed Lo develop Lhe loL buL SorlenLe refused Lo vacaLe Lhe properLy ln 2000 afLer LllzabeLh

daughLer of nenlLa and SorlenLe falled Lo meeL seLLlemenL a ComplalnL for unlawful deLalner was
flled ln Me1C and prayed for monLhly renL and damages AfLer Lrlal sald lower courL declded ln
favor of Concepclon SorlenLe appealed Lo 81C on Lhe ground among oLhers LhaL Concepclon
have no legal capaclLy Lo sue belng noL Lhe reglsLered owner appearlng ln Lhe loL's 1C1 81C upheld
Me1C and so dld Lhe CA Pence Lhls case

lssue
WheLher or noL Lhe wlfe of Lhe reglsLered owner whose name dld noL appear ln Lhe sub[ecL loL's
1C1 have Lhe capaclLy Lo sue

Peld
8y all means of course nenlLa as Lhe successorlnlnLeresL of her husband Arsenlo Concepclon and
coowner of Lhe sub[ecL properLy ls enLlLled Lo prosecuLe Lhe e[ecLmenL case noL only ln a
represenLaLlve capaclLy buL as a real parLylnlnLeresL ArL 487 of CC sLaLes "Any one of Lhe co
owners may brlng an acLlon ln e[ecLmenL"

nu|st v k 8u||ders
Gk # 1S6364 Sept 2S 2008
S66 SCkA 333
lacLs
PulsL flled a MoLlon for arLlal 8econslderaLlon when he was ordered Lo reLurn Lo respondenL Lhe
212 M ln excess of Lhe proceeds of Lhe aucLlon sale dellvered Lo hlm Pe conLends LhaL Lhe
ConLracL Lo Sell beLween hlm and Lhe 8espondenL does noL lnvolve land buL merely shareholdlng
over Lhe Condomlnlum CorporaLlon LhaL acLually owned Lhe loLs 8y Lhls seL up Lhere ls no
vlolaLlon on ConsLlLuLlonal prohlblLlon of forelgners ownlng land over our CounLry

lssue
WheLher or noL a forelgner can acqulre condomlnlum unlL wlLh lLs undlvlded lnLeresL over Lhe
common properLles of Lhe Condomlnlum CorporaLlon wlLhouL vlolaLlng Lhe prohlblLlon of
lorelgners ownlng real properLles ln Lhe hlllpplnes

Peld
?es alLhough lL ls prohlblLed for forelgners Lo own real properLy ln Lhe hllllplnes Lhls ls noL
wlLhouL excepLlon Cne of whlch ls Lhe Condomlnlum AcL 8A 4726 where forelgners are allowed Lo
own a unlL and Lhereby havlng an undlvlded rlghL over Lhe common areas held by Lhe
Condomlnlum CorporaLlon
1he law provldes LhaL no condomlnlum unlL can be sold wlLhouL aL Lhe same Llme selllng Lhe
correspondlng amounL of rlghLs shares or oLher lnLeresLs ln Lhe condomlnlum corporaLlon and no
one can buy shares ln a condomlnlum corporaLlon wlLhouL aL Lhe same Llme buylng a condomlnlum
unlL lL expressly allows forelgners Lo acqulre condomlnlum unlLs and shares ln condomlnlum
corporaLlon up Lo noL more Lhan 40 of Lhe LoLal ouLsLandlng caplLal sLock of a llllplnoowned or
ConLrolled CorporaLlon under Lhls seL up Lhe ownershlp of Lhe land ls legally separaLed from Lhe
unlL lLself 1he land ls owned by a Condomlnlum CorporaLlon and Lhe unlL owner ls slmply a
member ln Lhls Condomlnlum CorporaLlon As long as 60 of Lhe members of Lhls Condo Corp are
llllplno

@|t|e V ossess|on


Chapter 1ossess|on and the k|nds @hereof (Arts S23S30)
Chapter2 Acqu|s|t|on of ossess|on (Arts
S31S38)


8uny| v Iactor
Gk # 172S47 Iun 30 2009
S91 SCkA 3S0
lacLs
ConsLanLlno and Maura lacLor husband and wlfe had been ln acLual conLlnuous peaceful publlc
adverse and excluslve possesslon and occupaLlon of Lhe sub[ecL 18 hecLare of land ln Las lnas
before 1906 ln 1973 upon peLlLlon Lhelr chlldren granLed Crlglnal 8eglsLraLlon and ConflrmaLlon
of lmperfecL 1lLle Lhus maklng Lhe 7 chllren coowners of Lhe sub[ecL land Lnrlque as one of Lhe 7
chlldren lnsLead of Laklng hls share over Lhe proceeds of Lhe land when lL was sold by agreemenL
wlLh hls slbllngs he lnsLead Lake Lhe lacLor Compound as hls share
Pe Lhen consLrucLed several houses over Lhe properLy lncludlng Lhe resL house under dlspuLe
recy 8unyl and Mlla 8unyl peLlLloners were LenanLs lnslde Lhe compound slnce 1999 When
Lnrlque dled admlnlsLraLlon on Lhe properLy was enLrusLed Lo Clorla hls eldesL chlld She and her
famlly (husband and son) llved ln 1agulg buL oversaw Lhe properLy and vlslL lL from Llme Lo Llme Lo
collecL renLal paymenLs When she dled her daughLer le lacLor Look over Lhe admlnlsLraLlon as a
coowner She also allowed 8uben Labao marrled Lo recy Lo sLay for free on Lhe properLy When
he dled she asserLed LhaL Lhe properLy was owned by 8uben Labao and quesLloned le's
ownershlp 81C ruled ln favor of le lacLor CA afflrmed Lhe declslon hence Lhls case

lssue
WheLher or noL le lacLor have beLLer rlghL over Lhe properLy who vlslLs lL from Llme Llme over
8unyl who acLually resldlng ln Lhe properLy

Peld
le lacLor have Lhe beLLer rlghL 1he facL of her resldence somewhere else by lLself does noL resulL
ln loss of possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy 1he law does noL requlre one ln possesslon of a house
Lo reslde ln Lhe house Lo malnLaln hls possesslon27 lor agaln possesslon ln Lhe eyes of Lhe law
does noL mean LhaL a man has Lo have hls feeL on every square meLer of Lhe ground before he ls
deemed ln possesslon28 1here ls no cogenL reason Lo devlaLe from Lhls docLrlne 8espondenL's
rlghL Lo Lhe properLy was vesLed ln her along wlLh her slbllngs from Lhe momenL of Lhelr faLher's
deaLh23 As helr respondenL had Lhe rlghL Lo Lhe possesslon of Lhe properLy whlch ls one of Lhe
aLLrlbuLes of ownershlp Such rlghLs are enforced and proLecLed from encroachmenLs made or
aLLempLed before Lhe [udlclal declaraLlon slnce respondenL acqulred heredlLary rlghLs even before
[udlclal declaraLlon ln LesLaLe or lnLesLaLe proceedlngs

Cng v kepub||c
Gk # 17S746 Mar12 2008
S48 SCkA 160

lacLs

8elow ls Lhe hlsLory of 1ransfer of Cwnershlp of Lhe 374 sqm loL slLuaLed ln 8rgy Anolld Mangaldan
angaslnan
1971 AgusLln Cacho and Lufroslnla 8auLlsLa owned sub[ecL land 1hey have duly pald 1ax
ueclaraLlon over Lhe properLles
1979 Sold Lo CynLhla AgusLln !r !asmln Cmlr and Lauro
1997 Sold Lo 1eofllo Abellera and Abella Sarmen
1998 Sold Lo 1ony 8auLlsLa and Allcla vlllamll
1999 Sold Lo Cng and hls broLhers As such Lhey flled an AppllcaLlon for 8eglsLraLlon of 1lLle over
sub[ecL loL 1hey alleged LhaL Lhey are Lhe coowners of Lhe sald loL and LhaL lL ls Lhelr Lhelr
excluslve properLy 1haL Lhe properLy ls unoccupled and LhaL Lhelr predecessorslnlnLeresL have
been ln open conLlnuous and peaceful possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL loL ln Lhe concepL of owners for
more Lhan 30 years

roved LhaL sub[ecL properLy ls allenable and dlsposable land of Lhe publlc domaln by
1927 8ureau of Lands lncluded sald land as wlLhln allenable and dlsposable zone
1999 uLn8 and naLural 8esources CommunlLy LnvlronmenL and naLural 8esources Cfflce
81C ruled ln favor of reglsLraLlon whlch Lhe CA reversed Pence Lhls case

lssue

WheLher or noL Cng and hls coowners can reglsLer sald properLy under Lhelr name desplLe lL belng
lncluded ln publlc domaln

Peld

no As a general rule properLles parL of publlc domaln cannoL be prlvaLely approprlaLed excepL
when Lhe appllcanLs or Lhelr predecessors lnlnLeresL have been ln open conLlnuous excluslve and
noLorlous possesslon and occupaLlon of Lhe sub[ecL log slnce !une 12 1943 or earller as requlred by
SecLlon 48(b) of CommonwealLh AcL no 141 as amended by u 1073 eLlLloners falled Lo prove
LhaL Lhey and Lhelr predecessor ln lnLeresL CCCu? sad properLles ossesslon alone ls noL
sufflclenL Lo acqulre LlLle Lo allenable lands of Lhe publlc domaln because Lhe law requlres
possesslon Anu occupaLlon 1he law speaks of possesslon and occupaLlon Slnce Lhese words are
separaLed by Lhe con[uncLlon and Lhe clear lnLenLlon of Lhe law ls noL Lo make one synonymous
wlLh Lhe oLher ossesslon ls broader Lhan occupaLlon because lL lncludes consLrucLlve possesslon
When Lherefore Lhe law adds Lhe word occupaLlon lL seeks Lo dellmlL Lhe all encompasslng effecL
of consLrucLlve possesslon 1aken LogeLher wlLh Lhe words open conLlnuous excluslve and
noLorlous Lhe word occupaLlon serves Lo hlghllghL Lhe facL LhaL for an appllcanL Lo quallfy hls
possesslon musL noL be a mere flcLlon AcLual possesslon of a land conslsLs ln Lhe manlfesLaLlon of
acLs of domlnlon over lL of such a naLure as a parLy would naLurally exerclse over hls own properLy

eop|e v eaf|or|da
Gk # 17S604 Apr 10 2008
SS1 SCkA 111

lAC1S
SC3 vlcenLe CompeLenLe narraLed LhaL ln hls capaclLy as chlef of Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon and
CperaLlon ulvlslon of Lhe hlllpplne naLlonal ollce (n) sLaLlon ln 1lgaon Camarlnes Sur LhaL he
recelved a Llp from an asseL LhaL a bundle of marl[uana was belng LransporLed by appellanL Lo
Puyonhuyon from anoLher barangay ln 1lgaon Camarlnes Sur Ma[or uomlngo AgravanLe
(AgravanLe) chlef of pollce of 1lgaon Lhen organlzed a Leam composed of CompeLenLe as Leam
leader Lhe Leam boarded Lhe pollce moblle car and proceeded Lo SlLlo nasulan ln 8arangay Puyon
huyon 1hey overLook appellanL who was on a blcycle 1he pollce offlcers flagged appellanL down
and found marl[uana wrapped ln a cellophane and newspaper LogeLher wlLh oLher grocery lLems
1he amounL of 133000 was also found ln appellanL's possesslon 1he pollce offlcers conflscaLed
Lhese lLems and Look phoLographs Lhereof
1he Lrlal courL found appellanL Salvador enaflorlda y Clldoro gullLy of LransporLlng marl[uana and
senLenced hlm Lo suffer Lhe penalLy of recluslon perpeLua and Lo pay a flne of one mllllon pesos
lSSuL WheLher or noL appellanL had freely and consclously possessed Lhe marl[uana?
PLLu ?esappelanL freely and consclously possessed Lhe marl[uana
ln crlmlnal cases lnvolvlng prohlblLed drugs Lhere can be no convlcLlon unless Lhe prosecuLlon
shows LhaL Lhe accused knowlngly possessed Lhe prohlblLed arLlcles ln hls person or LhaL anlmus
possldendl ls shown Lo be presenL LogeLher wlLh hls possesslon or conLrol of such arLlcle Anlmus
possldendl ls only prlma facle lL ls sub[ecL Lo conLrary proof and may be rebuLLed by evldence LhaL
Lhe accused dld noL ln facL exerclse power and conLrol over Lhe Lhlng ln quesLlon and dld noL
lnLend Lo do so 1he burden of evldence ls Lhus shlfLed Lo Lhe possessor Lo explaln absence of
anlmus possldendl
knowledge refers Lo a menLal sLaLe of awareness of a facL Slnce courLs cannoL peneLraLe Lhe mlnd
of an accused and LhereafLer sLaLe lLs percepLlons wlLh cerLalnLy resorL Lo oLher evldence ls
necessary Anlmus possldendl as a sLaLe of mlnd may be deLermlned on a caseLocase basls by
Laklng lnLo conslderaLlon Lhe prlor or conLemporaneous acLs of Lhe accused as well as Lhe
surroundlng clrcumsLances lLs exlsLence may and usually musL be lnferred from Lhe aLLendanL
evenLs ln each parLlcular case
AppellanL falled Lo saLlsfacLorlly esLabllsh hls lack of knowledge of possesslon ln Lhe lnsLanL case
llrsL Lhe marl[uana was found ln Lhe blcycle he hlmself was drlvlng Second Lhe pollce offlcers flrsL
readlly saw ln plaln vlew Lhe edges of Lhe marl[uana leaves [uLLlng ouL of Lhe package 1hlrd lL ls
lncredulous LhaL appellanL dld noL ask Cblas whaL Lhe package conLalned when Lhe laLLer requesLed
hlm Lo do Lhe dellvery errand slnce Lhe package was wrapped ln a newspaper and welghed almosL
one kllogram

Chua8ruce v CA
Gk # 109S9S Apr 27 2000
331 SCkA 1

lAC1S
Cn AugusL 16 1983 8amon 8ocamora Lhe Manager (of MeLropollLan 8ank and 1rusL
Company Calapan 8ranch CrlenLal Mlndoro) requesLed lrucLuoso enaflor AsslsLanL Cashler Lo
conducL a physlcal bundle counL of Lhe cash lnslde Lhe vaulL whlch should LoLal 400000000
more or less uurlng Lhls lnlLlal cash counL Lhey dlscovered a shorLage of flfLeen bundles of Cne
Pundred esos denomlnaLed bllls LoLalllng 13000000 1he Cne Pundred eso bllls acLually
counLed was 383000000 as agalnsL Lhe balance of 400000000 ln Lhe Cash ln vaulL (Clv)
Summary SheeL or a LoLal shorLage of 13000000 1he nexL day Lo deLermlne lf Lhere was

acLually a shorLage a reverlflcaLlon of Lhe records and documenLs of Lhe LransacLlons ln Lhe bank
was conducLed 1here was sLlll a shorLage of 13000000
1he bank lnlLlaLed lnvesLlgaLlons LoLalllng four (4) ln all 1he flrsL was by 8amon 8ocamora Lhe
Manager 1he second was by Lhe bank's lnLernal audlLors headed by AnLonlo 8aLungbakal 1hen
Lhe bank's ueparLmenL of lnLernal Affalrs conducLed an lndependenL lnvesLlgaLlon 1hereafLer Lhe
naLlonal 8ureau of lnvesLlgaLlon (n8l) came ln Lo lnvesLlgaLe All of Lhese lnvesLlgaLlons concluded
LhaL Lhere was a shorLage of 13000000 and Lhe person prlmarlly responslble was Lhe bank's
Cash CusLodlan CrlsLeLa Chua8urce Lhe hereln accused !ksmCn november 4 1983 unable Lo
saLlsfacLorlly explaln Lhe shorLage of 13000000 Lhe accused's servlce wlLh Lhe bank was
LermlnaLed
1o recover Lhe mlsslng amounL MeLropollLan 8ank and 1rusL Company (MeLrobank) flled a Clvll
Case for Sum of Money and uamages wlLh rellmlnary ALLachmenL and CarnlshmenL dockeLed as
Clvll Case no 83733 agalnsL peLlLloner and her husband AnLonlo 8urce Lsm
rlor Lo Lhe flllng of Lhe Answer Lhe followlng lnformaLlon for LsLafa was flled agalnsL peLlLloner
1he Lrlal courL found Lhe appelanL gullLy as charged applelannL seasonably flled hls appeal
lSSuL WheLher or noL Lhe appelanL was gullLy or noL
PLLu no yhe appalenL was noL gullLy
1he elemenLs of esLafa Lhrough converslon or mlsapproprlaLlon under ArL 313 (1) (b) of
Lhe 8evlsed enal Code are
(1) LhaL personal properLy ls recelved ln LrusL on commlsslon for admlnlsLraLlon or under any
oLher clrcumsLance lnvolvlng Lhe duLy Lo make dellvery of or Lo reLurn Lhe same even Lhough Lhe
obllgaLlon ls guaranLeed by a bond
(2) LhaL Lhere ls converslon or dlverslon of such properLy by Lhe person who has so recelved lL or a
denlal on hls parL LhaL he recelved lL
(3) LhaL such converslon dlverslon or denlal ls Lo Lhe ln[ury of anoLher and
(4) LhaL Lhere be demand for Lhe reLurn of Lhe properLy
Pave Lhe foregolng elemenLs been meL ln Lhe case aL bar? We flnd Lhe flrsL elemenL absenL When
Lhe money goods or any oLher personal properLy ls recelved by Lhe offender from Lhe offended
parLy (1) ln LrusL or (2) on commlsslon or (3) for admlnlsLraLlon Lhe offender acqulres boLh maLerlal
or physlcal possesslon and [urldlcal possesslon of Lhe Lhlng recelved !urldlcal possesslon means a
possesslon whlch glves Lhe Lransferee a rlghL over Lhe Lhlng whlch Lhe Lransferee may seL up even
agalnsL Lhe owner ln Lhls case peLlLloner was a cash cusLodlan who was prlmarlly responslble for
Lhe cashlnvaulL Per possesslon of Lhe cash belonglng Lo Lhe bank ls akln Lo LhaL of a bank Leller
boLh belng mere bank employees Calrky
eLlLloner hereln belng a mere cash cusLodlan had no [urldlcal possesslon over Lhe mlsslng funds
Pence Lhe elemenL of [urldlcal possesslon belng absenL peLlLloner cannoL be convlcLed of Lhe
crlme of esLafa under ArLlcle 313 no 1 (b) of Lhe 8evlsed enal Code

Dac|ag v De| kosar|o
Gk # 1S9S78 Ieb 18 2009
S79 SCkA SS6

lAC1S 1hls ls a MoLlon for 8econslderaLlon on Lhe ueclslon daLed !uly 28 2008 where Lhe
Supreme CourL afflrmed Lhe ueclslon daLed CcLober 17 2001 and Lhe 8esoluLlon daLed AugusL 7
2003 of Lhe CourL of Appeals (CA) ln CAC8 Cv no 484988ecords show LhaL whlle Lhe land was
reglsLered ln Lhe name of peLlLloner 8ogella ln 1984 respondenLs' complalnL for reconveyance was
flled ln 1991 whlch was wlLhln Lhe 10year prescrlpLlve perlod
he Supreme CourL ruled LhaL slnce peLlLloners boughL Lhe properLy when lL was sLlll an unreglsLered
land Lhe defense of havlng purchased Lhe properLy ln good falLh ls unavalllng lL afflrmed Lhe
8eglonal 1rlal CourL (81C) ln flndlng LhaL peLlLloners should pay respondenLs Lhelr correspondlng
share ln Lhe produce of Lhe sub[ecL land from Lhe Llme Lhey were deprlved Lhereof unLll Lhe
possesslon ls resLored Lo Lhem
ln Lhelr MoLlon for 8econslderaLlon peLlLloners conLend LhaL Lhe 10year perlod for reconveyance
ls appllcable lf Lhe acLlon ls based on an lmplled or a consLrucLlve LrusL LhaL slnce respondenLs
acLlon for reconveyance was based on fraud Lhe acLlon musL be flled wlLhln four years from Lhe
dlscovery of Lhe fraud
lSSuL WheLher or noL Lhe peLlLloners are possessor ln good falLh
PLLu ?es Lhe peLlLloners are possessor ln good falLh
ArLlcle 328 of Lhe Clvll Code provldes LhaL possesslon acqulred ln good falLh does noL
lose Lhls characLer excepL ln a case and from Lhe momenL facLs exlsL whlch show LhaL Lhe
possessor ls noL unaware LhaL he possesses Lhe Lhlng lmproperly or wrongfully ossesslon ln good
falLh ceases from Lhe momenL defecLs ln Lhe LlLle are made known Lo Lhe possessors by exLraneous
evldence or by sulL for recovery of Lhe properLy by Lhe Lrue owner WhaLever may be Lhe cause or
Lhe facL from whlch lL can be deduced LhaL Lhe possessor has knowledge of Lhe defecLs of hls LlLle
or mode of acqulslLlon lL musL be consldered sufflclenL Lo show bad falLh Such lnLerrupLlon Lakes
place upon servlce of summons
ArLlcle 344 of Lhe same Code provldes LhaL a possessor ln good falLh ls enLlLled Lo Lhe frulLs only so
long as hls possesslon ls noL legally lnLerrupLed 8ecords show LhaL peLlLloners recelved a
summons LogeLher wlLh respondenLs complalnL on AugusL 3 1991 Lhus peLlLloners good falLh
ceased on Lhe day Lhey recelved Lhe summons ConsequenLly peLlLloners should pay respondenLs
10 cavans of palay per annum beglnnlng AugusL 3 1991 lnsLead of 1984


Chapter 3Lffects of ossess|on (Arts S39S61)

Laurora v Ster||ng @echpark
Gk # 14681S Apr 9 2003
401 SCkA 181

lAC1S ln a ComplalnL for lorclble LnLry wlLh uamages flled on 27 SepLember 1997 before Lhe
llfLh Munlclpal ClrculL 1rlal CourL of Carmona and Cen Marlano Alvarez plalnLlffs Lhereln x x x
edro Laurora and Leonora Laurora hereln peLlLloners alleged LhaL Lhey were Lhe owners of LoL
1313C SWu40763 of Lhe ?apLlnchay LsLaLe wlLh an area of 39771 sq meLers and locaLed ln
Carmona CavlLe edro Laurora planLed Lrees and has possessed Lhe land up Lo Lhe presenL Cn
13 SepLember 1997 respondenLs SLerllng 1echnopark lll and S roperLles lnc x x x Lhrough
Lhelr Lngr 8ernle CaLchallan bulldozed and uprooLed Lhe Lrees and planLs and wlLh Lhe use of
armed men and by means of LhreaLs and lnLlmldaLlon succeeded ln forclbly e[ecLlng peLlLloners
As a resulL of Lhelr dlspossesslon peLlLloners suffered acLual damages ln Lhe amounL of
300000000 and 1000000 as aLLorney's fees
AfLer summary proceedlngs ln Lhe MC1C x x x a [udgmenL was rendered dlsmlsslng Lhe
complalnL 1he case was elevaLed Lo Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL ln due course Lhe sald courL
rendered a declslon reverslng Lhe MC1C [udgmenL x x x"
1he CA reversed Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL (81C) and relnsLaLed Lhe Crder of dlsmlssal lssued by Lhe
Munlclpal ClrculL 1rlal CourL (MC1C) lL held LhaL Lhere was no evldence Lo supporL Lhe clalm of

peLlLloners Lo Lhe prlor physlcal possesslon of Lhe properLy 1he evldence allegedly showed LhaL
Lhey had already sold Lhe land wlLh Lhe approval of Lhe ueparLmenL of Agrarlan 8eform (uA8)
Accordlngly Lhelr subsequenL enLry lnLo and possesslon of Lhe land consLlLuLed plaln usurpaLlon
whlch could noL be Lhe source of any rlghL Lo occupy lL 8elng planLers ln bad falLh Lhey had no
rlghL Lo be relmbursed for lmprovemenLs on Lhe land ln accordance wlLh ArLlcle 449 of Lhe new
Clvll Code
lSSuL
uoes Lhe respondenL have a valld and legal rlghL Lo forclbly e[ecL peLlLloners from Lhe premlses
desplLe Lhelr reslsLance and ob[ecLlon Lhrough Lhe use of armed men and by bulldozlng cuLLlng
and desLroylng Lrees and planLs planLed by peLlLloners wlLhouL courL order Lo Lhe damage and
pre[udlce of Lhe laLLer"
PLLu no Lhey do noL
1he only lssue ln forclble enLry cases ls Lhe physlcal or maLerlal possesslon of real properLy
possesslon de facLo noL possesslon de [ure Cnly prlor physlcal possesslon noL LlLle ls Lhe lssue lf
ownershlp ls ralsed ln Lhe pleadlngs Lhe courL may pass upon such quesLlon buL only Lo deLermlne
Lhe quesLlon of possesslon
We sLress LhaL Lhe lssue of ownershlp ln e[ecLmenL cases ls Lo be resolved only when lL ls lnLlmaLely
lnLerLwlned wlLh Lhe lssue of possesslon Lo such an exLenL LhaL Lhe quesLlon of who had prlor
possesslon cannoL be deLermlned wlLhouL rullng on Lhe quesLlon of who Lhe owner of Lhe land ls
no such lnLerLwlnemenL has been shown ln Lhe case before us Slnce respondenLs' clalm of
ownershlp ls noL belng made ln order Lo prove prlor possesslon Lhe e[ecLmenL courL cannoL
lnLrude or dwell upon Lhe lssue of ownershlpCranLlng arguendo LhaL peLlLloners lllegally enLered
lnLo and occupled Lhe properLy ln quesLlon respondenLs had no rlghL Lo Lake Lhe law lnLo Lhelr own
hands and summarlly or forclbly e[ecL Lhe occupanLs Lherefrom
verlly even lf peLlLloners were mere usurpers of Lhe land owned by respondenLs sLlll Lhey are
enLlLled Lo remaln on lL unLll Lhey are lawfully e[ecLed Lherefrom under approprlaLe
clrcumsLances respondenLs may flle oLher Lhan an e[ecLmenL sulL an acclon publlclana a plenary
acLlon lnLended Lo recover Lhe beLLer rlghL Lo possess or an acclon relvlndlcaLorla an acLlon Lo
recover ownershlp of real properLy

LDCA ub| v Santos
Gk # 80298 Apr 26 1990
184 SCkA 614
lAC1S
1hls case arose when on CcLober 3 1981 a person ldenLlfylng hlmself as rofessor !ose Cruz placed
an order by Lelephone wlLh Lhe peLlLloner company for 406 books payable on dellvery 4 LuCA
prepared Lhe correspondlng lnvolce and dellvered Lhe books as ordered for whlch Cruz lssued a
personal check coverlng Lhe purchase prlce 3 Cn CcLober 7 1981 Cruz sold 120 of Lhe books Lo
prlvaLe respondenL Leonor SanLos who afLer verlfylng Lhe sellers ownershlp from Lhe lnvolce he
showed her pald hlm
lL Lurned ouL Lhe Cruz was noL connecLed wlLh ue La sale College and Lhe accounL was already
closedollce arresLed Cruz and laLLer wenL Lo Lhe sLore of SanLos and selzed Lhe 120 books wlLhouL
a warranL
roLesLlng Lhls hlghhanded acLlon Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs sued for recovery of Lhe books afLer
demand for Lhelr reLurn was re[ecLed by LuCA A wrlL of prellmlnary aLLachmenL was lssued and
Lhe peLlLloner afLer lnlLlal refusal flnally surrendered Lhe books Lo Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs
lSSuL
WheLher or noL Lhe respondenL ls unlawfully deprlved of Lhe lawfull possesslon of Lhe
Lhe books
PLLu
?es 8espondenL ls unlawfully deprlved of her lawful possesslon of Lhe books
ArL 339 1he possesslon of movable properLy acqulred ln good falLh ls equlvalenL Lo a LlLle
neverLheless one who has losL any movable or has been unlawfully deprlved Lhereof may recover
lL from Lhe person ln possesslon of Lhe same
lf Lhe possessor of a movable losL or of whlch Lhe owner has been unlawfully deprlved has acqulred
lL ln good falLh aL a publlc sale Lhe owner cannoL obLaln lLs reLurn wlLhouL relmburslng Lhe prlce
pald Lherefor
AcLual dellvery of Lhe books havlng been made Cruz acqulred ownershlp over Lhe books
whlch he could Lhen valldly Lransfer Lo Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs 1he facL LhaL he had noL yeL pald
for Lhem Lo LuCA was a maLLer beLween hlm and LuCA and dld noL lmpalr Lhe LlLle acqulred by Lhe
prlvaLe respondenLs Lo Lhe books
Cne may well lmaglne Lhe adverse consequences lf Lhe phrase unlawfully deprlved were Lo be
lnLerpreLed ln Lhe manner suggesLed by Lhe peLlLloner A person relylng on Lhe sellers LlLle who
buys a movable properLy from hlm would have Lo surrender lL Lo anoLher person clalmlng Lo be Lhe
orlglnal owner who had noL yeL been pald Lhe purchase prlce Lherefor 1he buyer ln Lhe second sale
would be lefL holdlng Lhe bag so Lo speak and would be compelled Lo reLurn Lhe Lhlng boughL by
hlm ln good falLh wlLhouL even Lhe rlghL Lo relmbursemenL of Lhe amounL he had pald for lL
lL bears repeaLlng LhaL ln Lhe case before us Leonor SanLos Look care Lo ascerLaln flrsL LhaL Lhe
books belonged Lo Cruz before she agreed Lo purchase Lhem 1he LuCA lnvolce Cruz showed her
assured her LhaL Lhe books had been pald for on dellvery 8y conLrasL LuCA was less Lhan cauLlous
ln facL Loo LrusLlng ln deallng wlLh Lhe lmposLor AlLhough lL had never LransacLed wlLh hlm
before lL readlly dellvered Lhe books he had ordered (by Lelephone) and as readlly accepLed hls
personal check ln paymenL lL dld noL verlfy hls ldenLlLy alLhough lL was easy enough Lo do Lhls lL
dld noL walL Lo clear Lhe check of Lhls unknown drawer Worse lL lndlcaLed ln Lhe sales lnvolce
lssued Lo hlm by Lhe prlnLed Lerms Lhereon LhaL Lhe books had been pald for on dellvery Lhereby
vesLlng ownershlp ln Lhe buyer
Surely Lhe prlvaLe respondenL dld noL have Lo go beyond LhaL lnvolce Lo saLlsfy herself LhaL Lhe
books belng offered for sale by Cruz belonged Lo hlm yeL she dld AlLhough Lhe LlLle of Cruz was
presumed under ArLlcle 339 by hls mere possesslon of Lhe books Lhese belng movable properLy
Leonor SanLos neverLheless demanded more proof before decldlng Lo buy Lhem
lL would cerLalnly be unfalr now Lo make Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs bear Lhe pre[udlce susLalned by
LuCA as a resulL of lLs own negllgence We cannoL see Lhe [usLlce ln Lransferrlng LuCAs loss Lo Lhe
SanLoses who had acLed ln good falLh and wlLh proper care when Lhey boughL Lhe books from
Cruz
Whlle we sympaLhlze wlLh Lhe peLlLloner for lLs pllghL lL ls clear LhaL lLs remedy ls noL agalnsL Lhe
prlvaLe respondenLs buL agalnsL 1omas de la ena who has apparenLly caused all Lhls Lrouble 1he
prlvaLe respondenLs have Lhemselves been unduly lnconvenlenced and for merely LransacLlng a
cusLomary deal noL really unusual ln Lhelr klnd of buslness lL ls Lhey and noL LuCA who have a rlghL
Lo complaln


8I Iam||y v Iranco
Gk # 123498 Nov 23 2007
S38 SCkA 186

lacLs 1hls case has lLs genesls ln an osLenslble fraud perpeLraLed on Lhe peLlLloner 8l lamlly 8ank
(8ll8) allegedly by respondenL Amado lranco (lranco) ln consplracy wlLh oLher lndlvlduals some
of whom opened and malnLalned separaLe accounLs wlLh 8ll8 San lranclsco del MonLe (SluM)
branch ln a serles of LransacLlons Cn AugusL 13 1989 1evesLeco ArrasLreSLevedorlng Co lnc
(1evesLeco) opened a savlngs and currenL accounL wlLh 8ll8 Soon LhereafLer or on AugusL 23
1989 llrsL MeLro lnvesLmenL CorporaLlon (lMlC) also opened a Llme deposlL accounL wlLh Lhe
same branch of 8ll8 wlLh a deposlL of 10000000000 Lo maLure one year Lhence

SubsequenLly on AugusL 31 1989 lranco opened Lhree accounLs namely a currenL savlngs
and Llme deposlL wlLh 8ll8 1he LoLal amounL of 200000000 used Lo open Lhese accounLs ls
Lraceable Lo a check lssued by 1evesLeco allegedly ln conslderaLlon of lranco's lnLroducLlon of
Lladlo 1eves who was looklng for a condulL bank Lo faclllLaLe 1evesLeco's buslness LransacLlons Lo
!alme SebasLlan who was Lhen 8ll8 SluM's 8ranch Manager ln Lurn Lhe fundlng for Lhe
200000000 check was parL of Lhe 8000000000 deblLed by 8ll8 from lMlC's Llme deposlL
accounL and credlLed Lo 1evesLeco's currenL accounL pursuanL Lo an AuLhorlLy Lo ueblL purporLedly
slgned by lMlC's offlcers lL appears however LhaL Lhe slgnaLures of lMlC's offlcers on Lhe
AuLhorlLy Lo ueblL were forged Cn SepLember 4 1989 AnLonlo Cng upon belng shown Lhe
AuLhorlLy Lo ueblL personally declared hls slgnaLure Lhereln Lo be a forgery unforLunaLely
1evesLeco had already effecLed several wlLhdrawals from lLs currenL accounL (Lo whlch had been
credlLed Lhe 8000000000 covered by Lhe forged AuLhorlLy Lo ueblL) amounLlng Lo
3743341034 lncludlng Lhe 200000000 pald Lo lranco

Cn SepLember 8 1989 lmpelled by Lhe need Lo proLecL lLs lnLeresLs ln llghL of lMlC's forgery clalm
8ll8 Lhru lLs Senlor vlceresldenL Severlno Coronaclon lnsLrucLed !esus Arangorln Lo deblL
lranco's savlngs and currenL accounLs for Lhe amounLs remalnlng Lhereln ln Lhe meanLlme Lwo
checks drawn by lranco agalnsL hls 8ll8 currenL accounL were dlshonored upon presenLmenL for
paymenL and sLamped wlLh a noLaLlon accounL under garnlshmenL"


lssue WCn lranco had a beLLer rlghL Lo Lhe deposlLs ln Lhe sub[ecL accounLs whlch are parL of Lhe
proceeds of a forged AuLhorlLy Lo ueblL
Peld

ln Lhls case Lhe deposlL ln lranco's accounLs conslsLs of money whlch albelL characLerlzed as a
movable ls generlc and funglble 1he quallLy of belng funglble depends upon Lhe posslblllLy of Lhe
properLy because of lLs naLure or Lhe wlll of Lhe parLles belng subsLlLuLed by oLhers of Lhe same
klnd noL havlng a dlsLlncL lndlvlduallLy

SlgnlflcanLly whlle ArLlcle 339 permlLs an owner who has losL or has been unlawfully deprlved of a
movable Lo recover Lhe exacL same Lhlng from Lhe currenL possessor 8ll8 slmply clalms
ownershlp of Lhe equlvalenL amounL of money le Lhe value Lhereof whlch lL had mlsLakenly
deblLed from lMlC's accounL and credlLed Lo 1evesLeco's and subsequenLly Lraced Lo lranco's
accounL ln facL Lhls ls whaL 8ll8 dld ln flllng Lhe MakaLl Case agalnsL lranco eL al lL sLaked lLs
clalm on Lhe money lLself whlch passed from one accounL Lo anoLher commenclng wlLh Lhe forged
AuLhorlLy Lo ueblL

lL bears emphaslzlng LhaL money bears no earmarks of pecullar ownershlp and Lhls characLerlsLlc ls
all Lhe more manlfesL ln Lhe lnsLanL case whlch lnvolves money ln a banklng LransacLlon gone awry
lLs prlmary funcLlon ls Lo pass from hand Lo hand as a medlum of exchange wlLhouL oLher evldence
of lLs LlLle33 Money whlch had passed Lhrough varlous LransacLlons ln Lhe general course of
banklng buslness even lf of Lraceable orlgln ls no excepLlon

1hus lnasmuch as whaL ls lnvolved ls noL a speclflc or deLermlnaLe personal properLy 8ll8's
lllusLraLlve example osLenslbly based on ArLlcle 339 ls lnappllcable Lo Lhe lnsLanL case

1here ls no doubL LhaL 8ll8 owns Lhe deposlLed monles ln Lhe accounLs of lranco buL noL as a
legal consequence of lLs unauLhorlzed Lransfer of lMlC's deposlLs Lo 1evesLeco's accounL 8ll8
convenlenLly forgeLs LhaL Lhe deposlL of money ln banks ls governed by Lhe Clvll Code provlslons on
slmple loan or muLuum As Lhere ls a debLorcredlLor relaLlonshlp beLween a bank and lLs
deposlLor 8ll8 ulLlmaLely acqulred ownershlp of lranco's deposlLs buL such ownershlp ls
coupled wlLh a correspondlng obllgaLlon Lo pay hlm an equal amounL on demand37 AlLhough
8ll8 owns Lhe deposlLs ln lranco's accounLs lL cannoL prevenL hlm from demandlng paymenL of
8ll8's obllgaLlon by drawlng checks agalnsL hls currenL accounL or asklng for Lhe release of Lhe
funds ln hls savlngs accounL 1hus when lranco lssued checks drawn agalnsL hls currenL accounL
he had every rlghL as credlLor Lo expecL LhaL Lhose checks would be honored by 8ll8 as debLor

More lmporLanLly 8ll8 does noL have a unllaLeral rlghL Lo freeze Lhe accounLs of lranco based
on lLs mere susplclon LhaL Lhe funds Lhereln were proceeds of Lhe mulLlmllllon peso scam lranco
was allegedly lnvolved ln 1o granL 8ll8 or any bank for LhaL maLLer Lhe rlghL Lo Lake whaLever
acLlon lL pleases on deposlLs whlch lL supposes are derlved from shady LransacLlons would open
Lhe floodgaLes of publlc dlsLrusL ln Lhe banklng lndusLry

Cur pronouncemenL ln Slmex lnLernaLlonal (Manlla) lnc v CourL of Appeals38 conLlnues Lo
resonaLe Lhus

xxxx
1he bank musL record every slngle LransacLlon accuraLely down Lo Lhe lasL cenLavo and as
prompLly as posslble 1hls has Lo be done lf Lhe accounL ls Lo reflecL aL any glven Llme Lhe amounL
of money Lhe deposlLor can dlspose of as he sees flL confldenL LhaL Lhe bank wlll dellver lL as and Lo
whomever dlrecLs A blunder on Lhe parL of Lhe bank such as Lhe dlshonor of Lhe check wlLhouL
good reason can cause Lhe deposlLor noL a llLLle embarrassmenL lf noL also flnanclal loss and
perhaps even clvll and crlmlnal llLlgaLlon

1he polnL ls LhaL as a buslness affecLed wlLh publlc lnLeresL and because of Lhe naLure of lLs
funcLlons Lhe bank ls under obllgaLlon Lo LreaL Lhe accounLs of lLs deposlLors wlLh meLlculous care
always havlng ln mlnd Lhe flduclary naLure of Lhelr relaLlonshlp x x x


lnelucLably 8ll8 as Lhe LrusLee ln Lhe flduclary relaLlonshlp ls duLy bound Lo know Lhe
slgnaLures of lLs cusLomers Pavlng falled Lo deLecL Lhe forgery ln Lhe AuLhorlLy Lo ueblL and ln Lhe
process lnadverLenLly faclllLaLe Lhe lMlC1evesLeco Lransfer 8ll8 cannoL now shlfL llablllLy
Lhereon Lo lranco and Lhe oLher payees of checks lssued by 1evesLeco or prevenL wlLhdrawals
from Lhelr respecLlve accounLs wlLhouL Lhe approprlaLe courL wrlL or a favorable flnal [udgmenL

lurLher lL boggles Lhe mlnd why 8ll8 even wlLhouL delvlng lnLo Lhe auLhenLlclLy of Lhe slgnaLure
ln Lhe AuLhorlLy Lo ueblL effecLed Lhe Lransfer of 8000000000 from lMlC's Lo 1evesLeco's
accounL when lMlC's accounL was a Llme deposlL and lL had already pald advance lnLeresL Lo lMlC
Conslderlng LhaL Lhere ls as yeL no lndublLable evldence esLabllshlng lranco's parLlclpaLlon ln Lhe
forgery he remalns an lnnocenL parLy As beLween hlm and 8ll8 Lhe laLLer whlch made posslble
Lhe presenL predlcamenL musL bear Lhe resulLlng loss or lnconvenlence

@|t|e VI Usufruct

Chapter 1 Usufruct |n Genera| (Arts S62S6S)
Chapter 2 k|ghts of the Usufruct (Arts S66S82)
Chapter 3 Cb||gat|ons of the Usufruct (Arts S83602)
Chapter 4 Lxt|ngu|shment of Usufruct (Arts 603612)


@|t|e VII Lasements or Serv|tudes


Chapter 1 Lasements |n Genera| (Arts 613633)


Ia[ardo v Ireedom to 8u||d
Gk # 134692 Aug 1 2000
337 SCkA 11S

lacLs lreedom 1o 8ulld lncorporaLed an ownerdeveloper and seller of lowcosL houslng
sold Lo peLlLlonerspouses a house and loL ln ue la CosLa Pomes ln 8arangka Marlklna 1he
ConLracL Lo Sell execuLed beLween Lhe parLles conLalned a 8esLrlcLlve CovenanL provldlng
cerLaln prohlblLlons Lo wlL

1 LasemenLs lor Lhe homeowner musL observe a LwomeLer easemenL ln fronL no sLrucLure
of any klnd (sLore garage bodega eLc) may be bullL on Lhe fronL easemenL
2 upward expanslon Second sLorey expanslon musL be placed above Lhe back porLlon of Lhe
house and should noL exLend forward beyond Lhe apex of Lhe orlglnal bulldlng
3 lronL expanslon 2nd floor expanslon ln fronL ls 6 meLers back from Lhe fronL properLy llne
and 4 meLers back from Lhe fronL wall of Lhe house [usL as provlded ln Lhe 60 sq m unlLs

1he above resLrlcLlons were also conLalned ln 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle coverlng Lhe loL
lssued ln Lhe name of peLlLlonerspouses

uesplLe repeaLed warnlngs from respondenL exLended Lhe roof of Lhelr house Lo Lhe
properLy llne and expanded Lhe second floor of Lhelr house Lo a polnL dlrecLly above Lhe
orlglnal fronL wall 8espondenL flled before Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL of aslg ClLy an acLlon Lo
demollsh Lhe unauLhorlzed sLrucLures

1he 81C dlrecLed Lhe spouses la[ardo Lo lmmedlaLely demollsh and remove Lhe exLenslon of
Lhelr expanded houslng unlL LhaL exceeds Lhe llmlLaLlons lmposed by Lhe 8esLrlcLlve
CovenanL oLherwlse Lhe 8ranch Sherlff of Lhls CourL shall execuLe Lhls declslon aL Lhe expense
of Lhe defendanLs CA afflrmed Lhe declslon

lssue
WheLher or noL Lhe resLrlcLlve covenanL conLalned ln Lhe ConLracL Lo Sell and 1ransfer
CerLlflcaLe valld

Peld

8esLrlcLlve covenanLs are noL sLrlcLly speaklng synonymous wlLh easemenLs Whlle lL may be
correcL Lo sLaLe LhaL resLrlcLlve covenanLs on Lhe use of land or Lhe locaLlon or characLer of
bulldlngs or oLher sLrucLures Lhereon may broadly be sald Lo creaLe easemenLs or rlghLs lL
can also be conLended LhaL such covenanLs belng llmlLaLlons on Lhe manner ln whlch one
may use hls own properLy do noL resulL ln Lrue easemenLs buL a case of servlLudes (burden)
someLlmes characLerlzed Lo be negaLlve easemenLs or reclprocal negaLlve easemenLs
negaLlve easemenL ls Lhe mosL common easemenL creaLed by covenanL or agreemenL whose
effecL ls Lo preclude Lhe owner of Lhe land from dolng an acL whlch lf no easemenL exlsLed
he would be enLlLled Lo do

Courts wh|ch genera||y v|ew restr|ct|ve covenants w|th d|sfavor for be|ng a restr|ct|on on
the use of ones property have neverthe|ess susta|ned them where the covenants are
reasonab|e not contrary to pub||c po||cy or to |aw and not |n restra|nt of trade Sub[ecL Lo
Lhese llmlLaLlons courLs enforce resLrlcLlons Lo Lhe same exLenL LhaL wlll lend [udlclal sancLlon
Lo any oLher valld conLracLual relaLlonshlp ln general fronLllne resLrlcLlons on consLrucLlons
have been held Lo be valld sLlpulaLlons

1he provlslons ln a resLrlcLlve covenanL prescrlblng Lhe Lype of Lhe bulldlng Lo be erecLed are
crafLed noL solely for Lhe purpose of creaLlng easemenLs generally of llghL and vlew nor as a
resLrlcLlon as Lo Lhe Lype of consLrucLlon buL may also be almed as a check on Lhe
subsequenL uses of Lhe bulldlng conformably wlLh whaL Lhe developer orlglnally mlghL have
lnLended Lhe sLlpulaLlons Lo be ln lLs Memorandum respondenL sLaLes ln argulng for Lhe
valldlLy of Lhe resLrlcLlve covenanL LhaL Lhe

x x x resLrlcLlons are noL wlLhouL speclflc purpose ln a low cosLsoclallzed houslng lL ls of
publlc knowledge LhaL ownersdevelopers are consLralned Lo bulld as many number of houses
on a llmlLed land area preclsely Lo accommodaLe marglnallzed loL buyers provldlng as much
as posslble Lhe safeLy aesLheLlc and decenL llvlng condlLlon by conLrolllng overcrowdlng Such
pro[ecL has been deslgned Lo accommodaLe aL leasL 100 famllles per hecLare

1here appears Lo be no cogenL reasons for noL upholdlng resLrlcLlve covenanLs almed Lo
promoLe aesLheLlcs healLh and prlvacy or Lo prevenL overcrowdlng

1he sLaLemenL of peLlLloners LhaL Lhelr lmmedlaLe nelghbors have noL opposed Lhe
consLrucLlon ls unavalllng Lo Lhelr cause Lhe sub[ecL resLrlcLlve covenanL ls noL lnLended for
Lhe beneflL of ad[acenL owners buL Lo prescrlbe Lhe uses of Lhe bulldlng le Lo ensure
among oLher Lhlngs LhaL Lhe sLrucLures bullL on ue la CosLa Pomes Subdlvlslon would prevenL
overcrowdlng and promoLe prlvacy among subdlvlslon dwellers 1he argumenL Lhen of
peLlLloners LhaL expanslon ls necessary ln order Lo accommodaLe Lhe lndlvldual famllles of
Lhelr Lwo chlldren musL fall for llke reason nor can peLlLloners clalm good falLh Lhe
resLrlcLlve covenanLs are expllclLly wrlLLen ln Lhe ConLracL 1o Sell and annoLaLed aL Lhe back of
Lhe 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle

ln sum Lhe CourL holds LhaL

(1)1he provlslons of Lhe 8esLrlcLlve CovenanL are valld

(2)eLlLloners musL be held Lo be bound Lhereby and
(3)Slnce Lhe exLenslon consLrucLed exceeds Lhe floor area llmlLs of Lhe 8esLrlcLlve
CovenanL peLlLlonerspouses can be requlred Lo demollsh Lhe sLrucLure Lo Lhe exLenL LhaL lL
exceeds Lhe prescrlbed floor area llmlLs

Go|dcrest v Cypress
Gk # 171072 Apr 7 2009
S84 SCkA 43S

lacLs eLlLloner ColdcresL 8ealLy CorporaLlon (ColdcresL) ls Lhe developer of Cypress
Cardens a LensLorey bulldlng locaLed aL Perrera SLreeL Legaspl vlllage MakaLl ClLy Cn Aprll
26 1977 ColdcresL execuLed a MasLer ueed and ueclaraLlon of 8esLrlcLlons whlch
consLlLuLed Cypress Cardens lnLo a condomlnlum pro[ecL and lncorporaLed respondenL
Cypress Cardens Condomlnlum CorporaLlon (Cypress) Lo manage Lhe condomlnlum pro[ecL
and Lo hold LlLle Lo all Lhe common areas ColdcresL reLalned ownershlp of Lhe Lwolevel
penLhouse unlL on Lhe nlnLh and LenLh floors of Lhe condomlnlum lollowlng Lhe Lurnover of
Lhe admlnlsLraLlon and managemenL of Lhe Condomlnlum Lo Lhe board of dlrecLors of Cypress
ln 1993 lL was dlscovered LhaL cerLaln common areas perLalnlng Lo Cypress were belng
occupled and encroached upon by ColdcresL Cypress flled a complalnL wlLh damages agalnsL
ColdcresL before Lhe Pouslng and Land use 8egulaLory 8oard (PLu88) Cypress soughL Lo
remove Lhe door erecLed by ColdcresL along Lhe sLalrway beLween Lhe 8Lh and 9Lh floors as
well as Lhe door bullL ln fronL of Lhe 9Lh floor elevaLor lobby and Lhe removal of Lhe cyclone
wlre fence on Lhe roof deck ColdcresL averred LhaL lL was granLed Lhe excluslve use of Lhe
roof deck's llmlLed common area by SecLlon 4(c)
4
of Lhe condomlnlum's MasLer ueed lL
llkewlse argued LhaL lL consLrucLed Lhe conLesLed doors for prlvacy and securlLy purposes and
LhaL noneLheless Lhe common areas occupled by lL are unusable and lnaccesslble Lo oLher
condomlnlum unlL owners uurlng Lhe flrsL lnspecLlon of Lhe PLu88 lL was found LhaL
ColdcresL enclosed and used Lhe common area fronLlng Lhe Lwo elevaLors on Lhe nlnLh floor
as a sLorage room lL was llkewlse dlscovered LhaL ColdcresL consLrucLed a permanenL
sLrucLure whlch encroached 6801 square meLers of Lhe roof deck's common area uurlng Lhe
second lnspecLlon lL was noLed LhaL ColdcresL falled Lo secure an alLeraLlon approval for Lhe
sald permanenL sLrucLure ArblLer San vlcenLe ruled ln favor of Cypress PLu88 Speclal
ulvlslon modlfled Lhe declslon of ArblLer San vlcenLe deleLlng Lhe award for damages buL sLlll
dlrecLed ColdcresL Lo remove any or all Lhe sLrucLures whlch obsLrucL Lhe use of Lhe sLalrway
from Lhe elghLh Lo LenLh floor Lhe passage and use of Lhe lobbles aL Lhe nlnLh and LenLh
floors of Lhe Cypress Cardens Condomlnlum and Lo remove any or all sLrucLures LhaL lmpede
Lhe use of Lhe unllmlLed common areas Cypress appealed Lo Lhe Cfflce of Lhe resldenL for
Lhe lncluslon of acLual damages C denled Cn appeal Lo Lhe CA Cypress was parLlally
favored ColdcresL essenLlally conLends LhaL slnce Lhe roof deck's common llmlLed area ls for
lLs excluslve use bulldlng sLrucLures Lhereon and leaslng Lhe same Lo Lhlrd persons do noL
lmpalr Lhe sub[ecL easemenL
lssue WheLher or noL Lhe conLenLlon of Lhe Lhlrd persons do noL lmpalr Lhe sub[ecL
easemenL

Peld ColdcresL has no rlghL Lo erecL an offlce sLrucLure on Lhe llmlLed common area desplLe
lLs excluslve rlghL Lo use Lhe same We noLe LhaL noL only dld ColdcresL's acL lmpalr Lhe
easemenL lL also lllegally alLered Lhe condomlnlum plan ln vlolaLlon of SecLlon 22 of
resldenLlal uecree no 937

1he owner of Lhe domlnanL esLaLe cannoL vlolaLe any of Lhe followlng prescrlbed resLrlcLlons
on lLs rlghLs on Lhe servlenL esLaLe Lo wlL
(1) lL can only exerclse rlghLs necessary for Lhe use of Lhe easemenL

(2) lL cannoL use Lhe easemenL excepL for Lhe beneflL of Lhe lmmovable orlglnally
conLemplaLed
(3) lL cannoL exerclse Lhe easemenL ln any oLher manner Lhan LhaL prevlously esLabllshed
(4) lL cannoL consLrucL anyLhlng on lL whlch ls noL necessary for Lhe use and preservaLlon of
Lhe easemenL
(3) lL cannoL alLer or make Lhe easemenL more burdensome
(6) lL musL noLlfy Lhe servlenL esLaLe owner of lLs lnLenLlon Lo make necessary works on Lhe
servlenL esLaLe and
(7) lL should choose Lhe mosL convenlenL Llme and manner Lo bulld sald works so as Lo cause
Lhe leasL convenlence Lo Lhe owner of Lhe servlenL esLaLe

Any vlolaLlon of Lhe above consLlLuLes lmpalrmenL of Lhe easemenL

A careful scruLlny of ColdcresL's acLs shows LhaL lL breached a number of Lhe aforemenLloned
resLrlcLlons llrsL lL ls obvlous LhaL Lhe consLrucLlon and Lhe lease of Lhe offlce sLrucLure were
nelLher necessary for Lhe use or preservaLlon of Lhe roof deck's llmlLed area Second Lhe welghL of
Lhe offlce sLrucLure lncreased Lhe sLraln on Lhe condomlnlum's foundaLlon and on Lhe roof deck's
common llmlLed area maklng Lhe easemenL more burdensome and addlng unnecessary safeLy rlsk
Lo all Lhe condomlnlum unlL owners LasLly Lhe consLrucLlon of Lhe sald offlce sLrucLure clearly
wenL beyond Lhe lnLendmenL of Lhe easemenL slnce lL lllegally alLered Lhe approved condomlnlum
pro[ecL plan and vlolaLed SecLlon 4 of Lhe condomlnlum's ueclaraLlon of 8esLrlcLlons



Abe||ana v CA
Gk # 97039 Apr 24 1992
208 SCkA 316

lacLs 1he peLlLloners who llve on a parcel of land abuLLlng Lhe norLhwesLern slde of Lhe
nonoc Pomes Subdlvlslon sued Lo esLabllsh an easemenL of rlghL of way over a subdlvlslon
road whlch accordlng Lo Lhe peLlLloners used Lo be a mere fooLpaLh whlch Lhey and Lhelr
ancesLors had been uslng slnce Llme lmmemorlal and LhaL hence Lhey had acqulred
Lhrough prescrlpLlon an easemenL of rlghL of way Lhereln 1he consLrucLlon of a wall by Lhe
respondenLs around Lhe subdlvlslon deprlved Lhe peLlLloners of Lhe use of Lhe subdlvlslon
road whlch glves Lhe subdlvlslon resldenLs access Lo Lhe publlc hlghway 1hey asked LhaL Lhe
hlgh concreLe walls encloslng Lhe subdlvlslon and cuLLlng of Lhelr access Lo Lhe subdlvlslon
road be removed and LhaL Lhe road be opened Lo Lhem

1he prlvaLe respondenLs denled LhaL Lhere was a preexlsLlng fooLpaLh ln Lhe place before lL
was developed lnLo a subdlvlslon 1hey alleged furLhermore LhaL Lhe nonoc Subdlvlslon roads
are noL Lhe shorLesL way Lo a publlc road for Lhere ls a more dlrecL rouLe from Lhe peLlLloners
land Lo Lhe publlc hlghway
lssue WheLher or noL easemenL may be acqulred by prescrlpLlon

Peld
1he appellaLe courL dld noL err ln holdlng LhaL Lhe road loLs ln a prlvaLe subdlvlslon are prlvaLe
properLy hence Lhe local governmenL should flrsL acqulre Lhem by donaLlon purchase or
exproprlaLlon lf Lhey are Lo be uLlllzed as a publlc road
eLlLloners assumpLlon LhaL an easemenL of rlghL of way ls conLlnuous and apparenL and may
be acqulred by prescrlpLlon under ArLlcle 620 of Lhe Clvll Code ls erroneous 1he use of a
fooLpaLh or road may be apparenL buL lL ls oot o cootloooos eosemeot
(Jlscootloooos) because lLs use ls aL lnLervals and depends upon Lhe acLs of man lL can be
exerclsed only lf a man passes or puLs hls feeL over somebody elses land (4 Manresa 397
Paffman vs Shoemaker 71 SL 198 boLh clLed on p 434 vol 2 6Lh Ld aras Clvll Code of
Lhe hlllpplnes)
Pence a rlghL of way ls noL acqulrable by prescrlpLlon (Cuaycong eL al vs 8enedlcLo eL al 37
hll 781 8onqulllo eL al vs 8oco eL al 103 hll 84 Ayala de 8oxas vs Case 8 hll 197)
nelLher may peLlLloners lnvoke SecLlon 29 of u 937 whlch provldes
Sec 29 klqbt of woy to lobllc kooJ 1he owner or developer of a
subdlvlslon wlLhouL access Lo any exlsLlng publlc road or sLreeL musL
secure a rlghL of way Lo a publlc road or sLreeL and such rlghL of way
musL be developed and malnLalned accordlng Lo Lhe requlremenL of
Lhe governmenL auLhorlLles concerned
1he above provlslon applles Lo Lhe owner or developer of a subdlvlslon (whlch peLlLloners are
noL) wlLhouL access Lo a publlc hlghway

8|co| AgroInd v Cb|as
Gk # 172077 Cct 09 2009
603 SCkA 173

lacLs 8lcol Sugar uevelopmenL CorporaLlon (8lSuuLCC) consLrucLed a road (Lhe dlspuLed
road") measurlng approxlmaLely 7 meLers wlde and 29 kllomeLers long 1he dlspuLed road
was used by 8lSuuLCC ln haullng and LransporLlng sugarcane Lo and from lLs mlll slLe
(ensumll) and has Lhus become lndlspensable Lo lLs sugar mllllng operaLlons Cn CcLober 30
1992 peLlLloner 8lcol AgrolndusLrlal roducers CooperaLlve lnc acqulred Lhe asseLs of
8lSuuLCC peLlLloner flled a ComplalnL agalnsL respondenLs alleglng LhaL Lhey un[usLlflably
barrlcaded Lhe dlspuLed road by placlng bamboos woods placards and sLones across lL
prevenLlng peLlLloner's and Lhe oLher sugar planLer's vehlcles from passlng Lhrough Lhe
dlspuLed road Lhereby causlng serlous damage and pre[udlce Lo peLlLloner eLlLloner alleged
LhaL 8lSuuLCC consLrucLed Lhe dlspuLed road pursuanL Lo an agreemenL wlLh Lhe owners of
Lhe rlceflelds Lhe road Lraversed 1he agreemenL provldes LhaL 8lSuuLCC shall employ Lhe
chlldren and relaLlves of Lhe landowners ln exchange for Lhe consLrucLlon of Lhe road on Lhelr
properLles eLlLloner conLends LhaL Lhrough prolonged and conLlnuous use of Lhe dlspuLed
road 8lSuuLCC acqulred a rlghL of way over Lhe properLles of Lhe landowners whlch rlghL of
way ln Lurn was acqulred by lL when lL boughL 8lSuuLCC's asseLs respondenLs denled
havlng enLered lnLo an agreemenL wlLh 8lSuuLCC regardlng Lhe consLrucLlon and Lhe use
of Lhe dlspuLed road 1hey alleged LhaL 8lSuuLCC surrepLlLlously and wlLhouL Lhelr
knowledge and consenL consLrucLed Lhe dlspuLed road on Lhelr properLles and has slnce Lhen
lnLermlLLenLly and dlsconLlnuously used Lhe dlspuLed road for haullng sugarcane desplLe Lhelr
repeaLed proLesLs 8espondenLs clalmed Lhey LoleraLed 8lSuuLCC ln Lhe consLrucLlon and Lhe
use of Lhe road slnce 8lSuuLCC was a governmenLowned and conLrolled corporaLlon and
Lhe enLlre counLry was Lhen under MarLlal Law

1he CA afflrmed Lhe flndlng of Lhe 81C LhaL Lhere was no concluslve proof Lo sufflclenLly
esLabllsh Lhe exlsLence of an agreemenL beLween 8lSuuLCC and respondenLs regardlng Lhe
consLrucLlon of Lhe dlspuLed road Moreover Lhe CA also declared LhaL an easemenL of rlghL
of way ls dlsconLlnuous and as such cannoL be acqulred by prescrlpLlon 1he CA llkewlse
afflrmed Lhe flndlng of Lhe 81C LhaL peLlLloner was enLlLled Lo a compulsory easemenL of rlghL
of way upon paymenL of proper lndemnlLy Lo respondenLs

lssue WheLher or noL Lhe road ls a valld rlghL of way acqulred by 8lSuuLCC vlsvls 8lcol
AgrolndusLrlal

Peld

LasemenL or servlLude ls an encumbrance lmposed upon an lmmovable for Lhe beneflL of
anoLher lmmovable belonglng Lo a dlfferenL owner 8y lLs creaLlon easemenL ls esLabllshed
elLher by law (ln whlch case lL ls a legal easemenL) or by wlll of Lhe parLles (a volunLary
easemenL) ln Lerms of use easemenL may elLher be conLlnuous or dlsconLlnuous 1he
easemenL of rlghL of way Lhe prlvllege of persons or a parLlcular class of persons Lo pass
over anoLher's land usually Lhrough one parLlcular paLh or llnen ls characLerlzed as a
dlsconLlnuous easemenL because lLs use ls ln lnLervals and depends on Lhe acL of man
8ecause of Lhls characLer an easemenL of a rlghL of way may only be acqulred by vlrLue of a
LlLle

ArLlcle 622 of Lhe new Clvll Code ls Lhe appllcable law ln Lhe case aL bar vlz

ArL 622 ConLlnuous nonapparenL easemenLs and dlsconLlnuous ones wheLher apparenL or
noL may be acqulred only by vlrLue of a LlLle

ln CosLabella CorporaLlon v CourL of Appeals (CosLabella) Lhe CourL held LhaL lL ls already
wellesLabllshed LhaL a rlghL of way ls dlsconLlnuous and as such cannoL be acqulred
by prescrlpLlon"

ln 8ogoMedellln Lhls CourL dlscussed Lhe dlsconLlnuous naLure of an easemenL of
rlghL of way and Lhe rule LhaL Lhe same cannoL be acqulred by prescrlpLlon Lo wlL
ConLlnuous and apparenL easemenLs are acqulred elLher by vlrLue of a LlLle
or by prescrlpLlon of Len years

1he Lrlal courL and Lhe CourL of Appeals boLh upheld Lhls vlew for Lhe reason LhaL
Lhe rallroad rlghL of way was accordlng Lo Lhem conLlnuous and apparenL ln
naLure 1he more or less permanenL rallroad Lracks were vlsually apparenL and
Lhey conLlnuously occupled Lhe sub[ecL sLrlp of land from 1939 (Lhe year Lhe
easemenL granLed by lellclana SanLlllan Lo peLlLloner explred) 1hus wlLh Lhe
lapse of Lhe 10year prescrlpLlve perlod ln 1969 peLlLloner supposedly acqulred
Lhe easemenL of rlghL of way over Lhe sub[ecL land

lollowlng Lhe loglc of Lhe courLs a quo lf a road for Lhe use of vehlcles or Lhe
passage of persons ls permanenLly cemenLed or asphalLed Lhen Lhe rlghL of way
over lL becomes conLlnuous ln naLure 1he reasonlng ls erroneous

under clvll law and lLs [urlsprudence easemenLs are elLher conLlnuous or
dlsconLlnuous accordlng Lo Lhe manner Lhey are exerclsed noL accordlng Lo Lhe
presence of apparenL slgns or physlcal lndlcaLlons of Lhe exlsLence of such
easemenLs 1hus easemenL ls conLlnuous lf lLs use ls or may be lncessanL wlLhouL
Lhe lnLervenLlon of any acL of man llke Lhe easemenL of dralnage and lL ls
dlsconLlnuous lf lL ls used aL lnLervals and depends on Lhe acL of man llke Lhe
easemenL of rlghL of way

1he easemenL of rlghL of way ls consldered dlsconLlnuous because lL ls exerclsed
only lf a person passes or seLs fooL on somebody else's land Llke a road for Lhe
passage of vehlcles or persons an easemenL of rlghL of way of rallroad Lracks ls
dlsconLlnuous because Lhe rlghL ls exerclsed only lf and when a Lraln operaLed by a
person passes over anoLhers properLy ln oLher words Lhe very exerclse of Lhe
servlLude depends upon Lhe acL or lnLervenLlon of man whlch ls Lhe very essence
of dlsconLlnuous easemenLs

1he presence of more or less permanenL rallroad Lracks does noL ln any way
converL Lhe naLure of an easemenL of rlghL of way Lo one LhaL ls conLlnuous lL ls
noL Lhe presence of apparenL slgns or physlcal lndlcaLlons showlng Lhe exlsLence of
an easemenL buL raLher Lhe manner of exerclse Lhereof LhaL caLegorlzes such
easemenL lnLo conLlnuous or dlsconLlnuous 1he presence of physlcal or vlsual
slgns only classlfles an easemenL lnLo apparenL or nonapparenL 1hus a road
(whlch reveals a rlghL of way) and a wlndow (whlch evldences a rlghL Lo llghL and
vlew) are apparenL easemenLs whlle an easemenL of noL bulldlng beyond a cerLaln
helghL ls nonapparenL

App|y|ng 8ogoMede|||n to the case at bar Lhe concluslon ls lnevlLable LhaL Lhe road ln
dlspuLe ls a dlsconLlnuous easemenL noLwlLhsLandlng LhaL Lhe same may be apparenL 1o
relLeraLe easemenLs are elLher conLlnuous or dlsconLlnuous accordlng Lo Lhe manner Lhey
are exerclsed noL accordlng Lo Lhe presence of apparenL slgns or physlcal lndlcaLlons of Lhe
exlsLence of such easemenLs Pence even lf Lhe road ln dlspuLe has been lmproved and
malnLalned over a number of years lL wlll noL change lLs dlsconLlnuous naLure buL slmply
make Lhe same apparenL 1o sLress ArLlcle 622 of Lhe new Clvll Code sLaLes LhaL
dlsconLlnuous easemenLs wheLher apparenL or noL may be acqulred only by vlrLue of a LlLle

1he facL LhaL Lhe law ls caLegorlcal LhaL dlsconLlnuous easemenLs cannoL be acqulred by
prescrlpLlon mlllLaLes agalnsL peLlLloner's clalm of laches



Sa||mbangon v @an
Gk # 18S240 Ian 20 2010
610 SCkA 426

lAC1S
Culllermo Cenlza dled lnLesLaLe 1wenLy years laLer hls chlldren 8enedlcLa Culllermo !r vlcLorla
Lduardo and Carlos execuLed an exLra[udlclal declaraLlon of helrs and parLlLlon ad[udlcaLlng and
dlvldlng Lhe land among Lhemselves as follows
1 1o 8enedlcLa 1 Cabahug LoL A sub[ecL Lo a rlghL of way 130 m wlde along lLs nW boundary ln
favor of LoLs 8 L and u of Lhe subdlvlslon
2 1o Lduardo Cenlza LoL 8 sub[ecL Lo a rlghL of way 130 m wlde along lLs SW boundary ln favor
of LoLs A u L of Lhe subdlvlslon
3 1o Carlos Cenlza LoL C
4 1o Culllermo Cenlza !r LoL u sub[ecL Lo a perpeLual and graLulLous road rlghL of way 130 m
wlde along lLs nL boundary ln favor of LoL 8 and L of Lhe subdlvlslon and
3 1o vlcLorla Cenlza LoL L sub[ecL Lo a perpeLual and graLulLous road rlghL of way 130 m wlde
along lLs SW boundary ln favor of LoL u of Lhe subdlvlslon
LoLs A 8 and C were ad[acenL Lo a clLy sLreeL 8uL LoLs u and L were noL Lhey belng lnLerlor loLs
1o glve Lhese lnLerlor loLs access Lo Lhe sLreeL Lhe helrs esLabllshed ln Lhelr exLra[udlclal parLlLlon
an easemenL of rlghL of way conslsLlng of a 3meLer wlde alley beLween LoLs u and L LhaL
conLlnued on beLween LoLs A and 8 and on Lo Lhe sLreeL 1he parLlLlon LhaL embodled Lhls
easemenL of rlghL of way was annoLaLed on Lhe lndlvldual LlLles lssued Lo Lhe helrs
8uL reallzlng LhaL Lhe parLlLlon resulLed ln an unequal dlvlslon of Lhe properLy Lhe helrs modlfled
Lhelr agreemenL by ellmlnaLlng Lhe easemenL of rlghL of way along LoLs A u and L and ln lLs place
lmposed a 3meLer wlde alley an easemenL of rlghL of way LhaL ran excluslvely along Lhe
souLhwesL boundary of LoL 8 from LoLs u and L Lo Lhe sLreeL
vlcLorla (now peLlLloner vlcLorla Sallmbangon) laLer swapped loLs wlLh 8enedlcLa wlLh Lhe resulL
LhaL vlcLorla became Lhe owner of LoL A one of Lhe Lhree loLs ad[acenL Lo Lhe clLy sLreeL vlcLorla
and her husband (Lhe Sallmbangons) consLrucLed a resldenLlal house on Lhls loL and bullL Lwo
garages on lL
SubsequenLly however respondenL spouses SanLos and Lrllnda 1an (Lhe 1ans) boughL LoLs 8 C u
and L from all Lhelr owners 1he 1ans bullL lmprovemenLs on LoL 8 LhaL spllled lnLo Lhe easemenL
area Spouses Sallmbangon lnsLlLuLed an acLlon agalnsL Lhe 1ans 1he Lrlal courL ruled ln favor of

Lhe Sallmbangons by upholdlng Lhelr easemenL of rlghL of way over Lhe alley on LoL 8 Lhe loL LhaL
belonged Lo Lhe 1ans 1he courL polnLed ouL LhaL slnce Lhe easemenL ln Lhls case was esLabllshed
by agreemenL of Lhe parLles for Lhe beneflL of LoLs A u and L Lhen only by muLual agreemenL of
Lhe parLles could such easemenL be exLlngulshed
Cn Appeal Lhe CA reversed Lhe declslon rullng LhaL Lhe sale had exLlngulshed Lhe easemenL of
rlghL of way by operaLlon of law
lSSuL
WheLher or noL Lhe easemenL whlch was esLabllshed by Lhe parLlLlon agreemenL wlll also be
exLlngulshed Lhrough an agreemenL
PLLu
no
As orlglnally consLlLuLed ln LhaL agreemenL each of LoLs A and 8 was Lo conLrlbuLe a sLrlp of 13
meLers beLween Lhem LhaL when comblned formed a 3meLer wlde alley leadlng from LoLs u and L
Lo Lhe sLreeL 1o Lhe exLenL LhaL LoLs A and 8 reLalned Lhe rlghL Lo use Lhe 13meLer porLlon LhaL
Lhey conLrlbuLed Lo Lhe esLabllshmenL of Lhe easemenL Lhe agreemenL gave Lhelr owners Lhe rlghL
Lo use Lhe common alley as well As Lduardo LesLlfled however Lhe Lrue lnLenL of Lhe helrs was Lo
glve LoLs u and L access Lo Lhe sLreeL LoLs A and 8 dld noL need Lhls alley slnce Lhey were faclng
Lhe sLreeL1avvphl1
ConsequenLly when Lhe owner of LoLs u and L also became Lhe owner of LoL 8 Lhe easemenL of
rlghL of way on LoL 8 became exLlncL by operaLlon of law8 1he exlsLence of a domlnanL esLaLe and
a servlenL esLaLe ls lncompaLlble wlLh Lhe ldea LhaL boLh esLaLes belong Lo Lhe same person
Also Lhere ls no quesLlon LhaL when Lhe helrs reallzed LhaL lL was noL falr Lo Lake sLrlps of 13
meLers from each of LoLs A u and L for Lhe easemenL of rlghL of way when Lhese loLs were already
small Lhe helrs execuLed a CancellaLlon of AnnoLaLlon of 8lghL of Way eLc LhaL cancelled Lhe
easemenL of rlghL of way Lhey earller esLabllshed on LoLs A u and L and ln lLs place lmposed a 3
meLer wlde easemenL of rlghL of way solely on LoL 8
AlLhough Lhe cancellaLlon documenL dld noL say so lL was lmpllclL LhaL Lhe changed locaLlon of
Lhe easemenL cancelled noL only Lhe 13meLer sLrlp of easemenL lmposed on LoL A of Lhe
Sallmbangons buL also Lhelr rlghL Lo use Lhe new 3meLer easemenL alley LhaL lay enLlrely on LoL 8
SLrlcLly speaklng lf Lhe Sallmbangons lnslsL LhaL Lhelr rlghL as domlnanL esLaLe under Lhe orlglnal
parLlLlon agreemenL remalns Lhen LhaL would be parLly on a 13meLer sLrlp of Lhelr own LoL A and
parLly on Lhe equlvalenL 13meLer sLrlp on Lhe slde of LoL 8 noL on Lhe new 3meLer alley
esLabllshed enLlrely on LoL 8
1he polnL ls LhaL obvlously ln esLabllshlng Lhe new easemenL of rlghL of way Lhe helrs lnLended Lo
abandon Lhe old one Slnce Lhls 3meLer alley on LoL 8 dlrecLly connecLed LoLs u and L Lo Lhe
sLreeL lL ls also obvlous LhaL only Lhe laLLer loLs were lLs lnLended beneflclary And wlLh Lhe
ownershlp of LoLs 8 u and L now consolldaLed ln a common owner namely Lhe 1ans Lhen Lhe
easemenL of rlghL of way on LoL 8 may be sald Lo have been exLlngulshed by operaLlon of law


Chapter 2 Lega| Lasements (Arts 634687)

u|men v CA
Gk # 112331 May 29 1996
2S7 SCkA 163

lAC1S
eLlLloner AnasLacla Culmen LogeLher wlLh her broLhers SoLero Sulplclo AnLonlo and slsLer 8uflna
lnherlLed a plece of properLy slLuaLed ln andl 8ulacan 1hey agreed Lo subdlvlde Lhe properLy
equally among Lhemselves as Lhey dld wlLh Lhe shares of AnasLacla SoLero Sulplclo and 8uflna
abuLLlng Lhe munlclpal road
1he share of AnasLacla locaLed aL Lhe exLreme lefL was deslgnaLed as LoL no 144881 lL ls
bounded on Lhe rlghL by Lhe properLy of SoLero deslgnaLed as LoL no 1441382 Ad[olnlng
SoLeros properLy on Lhe rlghL are LoLs nos 144883 and 144884 orlglnally owned by 8uflna and
Sulplclo respecLlvely buL whlch were laLer acqulred by a cerLaln CaLallna SanLos LocaLed dlrecLly
behlnd Lhe loLs of AnasLacla and SoLero ls Lhe share of Lhelr broLher AnLonlo deslgnaLed as LoL no
14488C whlch Lhe laLLer dlvlded lnLo Lwo (2) equal parLs now LoLs nos 144886A and 144886
8 each wlLh an area of 92 square meLers LoL no 144886A ls locaLed behlnd AnasLaclas LoL no
144881 whlle LoL no 1448868 ls behlnd Lhe properLy of SoLero faLher of respondenL ?olanda
ln lebruary 1982 ?olanda purchased LoL no 144886A from her uncle AnLonlo Lhrough her aunL
AnasLacla who was Lhen acLlng as hls admlnlsLraLrlx 1he laLLer allegedly assured her LhaL she would
glve her a rlghL of way on her ad[olnlng properLy aL a cerLaln prlce
1hereafLer ?olanda consLrucLed a house on Lhe loL she boughL uslng as her passageway Lo Lhe
publlc hlghway a porLlon of AnasLaclas properLy 8uL when ?olanda flnally offered Lo pay for Lhe
use of Lhe paLhway AnasLacla refused Lo accepL Lhe paymenL ln facL she was LhereafLer barred by
AnasLacla from passlng Lhrough her properLy
ln Lhe meanLlme ?olanda purchased Lhe oLher loL of AnLonlo Culmen LoL no 1448868 locaLed
dlrecLly behlnd Lhe properLy of her parenLs who provlded her a paLhway graLls eL amore beLween
Lhelr house exLendlng abouL nlneLeen (19) meLers from Lhe loL of ?olanda behlnd Lhe sarl sarl
sLore of SoLero and AnasLaclas perlmeLer fence AlLhough Lhe paLhway leads Lo Lhe munlclpal road
lL ls noL adequaLe for lngress and egress 1he munlclpal road cannoL be reached wlLh faclllLy
because Lhe sLore lLself obsLrucLs Lhe paLh so LhaL one has Lo pass Lhrough Lhe back enLrance and
Lhe facade of Lhe sLore Lo reach Lhe road
lor Lhls reason ?olanda flled an acLlon wlLh Lhe proper courL praylng for a rlghL of way Lhrough
AnasLaclas properLy 1he courL dlsmlssed her peLlLlon Cn appeal by respondenL ?olanda Lhe CourL
of Appeals reversed Lhe lower courL and held LhaL she was enLlLled Lo a rlghL of way on peLlLloners
properLy and LhaL Lhe way proposed by ?olanda would cause Lhe leasL damage and deLrlmenL Lo
Lhe servlenL esLaLe
lSSuL WCn ?olanda may be glven a rlghL of way on Lhe properLy of peLlLloner
PLLu ?LS
We flnd no cogenL reason Lo dlsLurb Lhe rullng of respondenL appellaLe courL granLlng a rlghL of
way Lo prlvaLe respondenL Lhrough peLlLloners properLy ln facL as beLween peLlLloner AnasLacla
and respondenL ?olanda Lhelr agreemenL has already been rendered mooL lnsofar as lL concerns
Lhe deLermlnaLlon of Lhe prlnclpal lssue hereln presenLed 1he volunLary easemenL ln favor of
prlvaLe respondenL whlch peLlLloner now denles buL whlch Lhe courL ls lncllned Lo belleve has ln
facL become a legal easemenL or an easemenL by necesslLy consLlLuLed by law
As deflned an easemenL ls a real rlghL on anoLhers properLy corporeal and lmmovable whereby
Lhe owner of Lhe laLLer musL refraln from dolng or allowlng somebody else Lo do or someLhlng Lo
be done on hls properLy for Lhe beneflL of anoLher person or LenemenL lL ls [us ln re allena
lnseparable lndlvlslble and perpeLual unless exLlngulshed by causes provlded by law A rlghL of
way ln parLlcular ls a prlvllege consLlLuLed by covenanL or granLed by law Lo a person or class of
persons Lo pass over anoLhers properLy when hls LenemenL ls surrounded by realLles belonglng Lo
oLhers wlLhouL an adequaLe ouLleL Lo Lhe publlc hlghway 1he owner of Lhe domlnanL esLaLe can

demand a rlghL of way Lhrough Lhe servlenL esLaLe provlded he lndemnlfles Lhe owner Lhereof for
Lhe beneflclal use of hls properLy
1he condlLlons slne quo non for a valld granL of an easemenL of rlghL of way are (a) Lhe domlnanL
esLaLe ls surrounded by oLher lmmovables wlLhouL an adequaLe ouLleL Lo a publlc hlghway (b) Lhe
domlnanL esLaLe ls wllllng Lo pay Lhe proper lndemnlLy (c) Lhe lsolaLlon was noL due Lo Lhe acLs of
Lhe domlnanL esLaLe and (d) Lhe rlghL of way belng clalmed ls aL a polnL leasL pre[udlclal Lo Lhe
servlenL esLaLe
1he evldence clearly shows LhaL Lhe properLy of prlvaLe respondenL ls hemmed ln by Lhe esLaLes of
oLher persons lncludlng LhaL of peLlLloner LhaL she offered Lo pay 20000 per square meLer for her
rlghL of way as agreed beLween her and peLlLloner LhaL she dld noL cause Lhe lsolaLlon of her
properLy LhaL Lhe rlghL of way ls Lhe leasL pre[udlclal Lo Lhe servlenL esLaLe 14 1hese facLs are
conflrmed ln Lhe ocular lnspecLlon reporL of Lhe clerk of courL more so LhaL Lhe Lrlal courL lLself
declared LhaL Lhe sald properLles of AnLonlo Culmen whlch were purchased by plalnLlff ?olanda
Culmen Cllveros were LoLally lsolaLed from Lhe publlc hlghway and Lhere appears an lmperaLlve
need for an easemenL of rlghL of way Lo Lhe publlc hlghway
eLlLloner flnally lnslsLs LhaL respondenL courL erroneously concluded LhaL Lhe rlghL of way
proposed by prlvaLe respondenL ls Lhe leasL onerous Lo Lhe parLles We cannoL agree ArLlcle 630 of
Lhe new Clvll Code expllclLly sLaLes LhaL Lhe easemenL of rlghL of way shall be esLabllshed aL Lhe
polnL leasL pre[udlclal Lo Lhe servlenL esLaLe and lnsofar as conslsLenL wlLh Lhls rule where Lhe
dlsLance from Lhe domlnanL esLaLe Lo a publlc hlghway may be Lhe shorLesL 1he crlLerlon of leasL
pre[udlce Lo Lhe servlenL esLaLe musL prevall over Lhe crlLerlon of shorLesL dlsLance alLhough Lhls ls
a maLLer of [udlclal appreclaLlon Whlle shorLesL dlsLance may ordlnarlly lmply leasL pre[udlce lL ls
noL always so as when Lhere are permanenL sLrucLures obsLrucLlng Lhe shorLesL dlsLance whlle on
Lhe oLher hand Lhe longesL dlsLance may be free of obsLrucLlons and Lhe easlesL or mosL
convenlenL Lo pass Lhrough ln oLher words where Lhe easemenL may be esLabllshed on any of
several LenemenLs surroundlng Lhe domlnanL esLaLe Lhe one where Lhe way ls shorLesL and wlll
cause Lhe leasL damage should be chosen Powever as elsewhere sLaLed lf Lhese Lwo (2)
clrcumsLances do noL concur ln a slngle LenemenL Lhe way whlch wlll cause Lhe leasL damage
should be used even lf lL wlll noL be Lhe shorLesL 1hls ls Lhe LesL
ln applylng ArL 630 of Lhe new Clvll Code respondenL CourL of Appeals declared LhaL Lhe proposed
rlghL of way of ?olanda whlch ls one (1) meLer wlde and flve (3) meLers long aL Lhe exLreme rlghL of
peLlLloners properLy wlll cause Lhe leasL pre[udlce and/or damage as compared Lo Lhe suggesLed
passage Lhrough Lhe properLy of ?olandas faLher whlch would mean desLroylng Lhe sarl sarl sLore
made of sLrong maLerlals AbsenL any showlng LhaL Lhese flndlngs and concluslon are devold of
facLual supporL ln Lhe records or are so glarlngly erroneous Lhls CourL accepLs and adopLs Lhem

Sta Mar|a v CA
Gk # 127S49 Ian 28 1998
28S SCkA 3S1

lAC1S
lalnLlff spouses Arsenlo and 8oslynn la[ardo are Lhe reglsLered owners of a plece of land LoL no
124 Sald loL ls surrounded by LoL 1 a flshpond on Lhe norLheasL porLlon Lhereof by LoL 126
owned by llorenLlno Cruz on Lhe souLheasL porLlon by LoL 6a and a porLlon of LoL 6b owned
respecLlvely by Spouses Cesar and 8aquel SLa Marla and llorcerflda SLa Marla on Lhe souLhwesL
and by LoL 122 owned by Lhe !aclnLo famlly on Lhe norLhwesL
lalnLlff spouses la[ardo flled a complalnL agalnsL defendanLs Cesar and 8aquel SLa Marla or
llorcerflda SLa Marla for Lhe esLabllshmenL of an easemenL of rlghL of way lalnLlffs alleged LhaL
Lhelr loL LoL 124 ls surrounded by properLles belonglng Lo oLher persons lncludlng Lhose of Lhe
defendanLs LhaL slnce plalnLlffs have no adequaLe ouLleL Lo Lhe provlnclal road an easemenL of a
rlghL of way passlng Lhrough elLher of Lhe alLernaLlve defendanLs properLles whlch are dlrecLly
abuLLlng Lhe provlnclal road would be plalnLlffs only convenlenL dlrecL and shorLesL access Lo and
from Lhe provlnclal road LhaL plalnLlffs predecessorslnlnLeresL have been passlng Lhrough Lhe
properLles of defendanLs ln golng Lo and from Lhelr loL LhaL defendanLs moLher even promlsed
plalnLlffs predecessorslnlnLeresL Lo granL Lhe laLLer an easemenL of rlghL of way as she
acknowledged Lhe absence of an access from Lhelr properLy Lo Lhe road and LhaL alLernaLlve
defendanLs desplLe plalnLlffs requesL for a rlghL of way and referral of Lhe dlspuLe Lo Lhe barangay
offlclals refused Lo granL Lhem an easemenL 1hus plalnLlffs prayed LhaL an easemenL of rlghL of
way on Lhe loLs of defendanLs be esLabllshed ln Lhelr favor
1he Lrlal courL declded ln favor of respondenLs and found LhaL based on Lhe Ccular lnspecLlon
8eporL Lhere was no oLher way Lhrough whlch Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs could esLabllsh a rlghL of
way ln order Lo reach Lhe provlnclal road excepL by Lraverslng dlrecLly Lhe properLy of Lhe
peLlLloners Cn appeal Lhe CourL of Appeals agreed wlLh Lhe Lrlal courL LhaL Lhe prlvaLe
respondenLs had sufflclenLly esLabllshed Lhe exlsLence of Lhe four requlslLes for compulsory
easemenL of rlghL of way
lSSuL
WCn a compulsory rlghL of way can be granLed Lo prlvaLe respondenLs who have Lwo oLher
exlsLlng passage ways oLher Lhan LhaL of peLlLloners and an alLernaLlve vacanL loL fronLlng Lhe
provlnclal road also ad[acenL Lo prlvaLe respondenLs properLy whlch can be used ln golng Lo and
from prlvaLe respondenLs properLy
PLLu
?LS All Lold Lhe flndlngs of facL of boLh courLs saLlsfled Lhe followlng requlremenLs for an esLaLe Lo
be enLlLled Lo a compulsory servlLude of rlghL of way under Lhe Clvll Code Lo wlL
1 Lhe domlnanL esLaLe ls surrounded by oLher lmmovables and has no adequaLe ouLleL Lo
a publlc hlghway (ArL 649 par 1)
2 Lhere ls paymenL of proper lndemnlLy (ArL 649 par 1)
3 Lhe lsolaLlon ls noL due Lo Lhe acLs of Lhe proprleLor of Lhe domlnanL esLaLe (ArL 649
lasL par) and
4 Lhe rlghL of way clalmed ls aL Lhe polnL leasL pre[udlclal Lo Lhe servlenL esLaLe and
lnsofar as conslsLenL wlLh Lhls rule where Lhe dlsLance from Lhe domlnanL esLaLe Lo a publlc
hlghway may be Lhe shorLesL (ArL 630)
1he properLy of Lhe plalnLlffs spouses Arsenlo and 8oslynn la[ardo ls compleLely surrounded wlLh
adobe fence wlLhouL any polnL of egress and lngress Lo Lhe naLlonal road lL has been commenLed
upon LhaL where Lhere are several LenemenLs surroundlng Lhe domlnanL esLaLe and Lhe easemenL
may be esLabllshed on any of Lhem Lhe one where Lhe way ls shorLesL and wlll cause Lhe leasL
damage should be chosen 8uL lf Lhese Lwo clrcumsLances do noL concur ln a slngle LenemenL Lhe
way whlch wlll cause Lhe leasL damage should be used even lf lL wlll noL be Lhe shorLesL And lf Lhe
condlLlons of Lhe varlous LenemenLs are Lhe same all Lhe ad[olnlng owners should be clLed and
experLs uLlllzed Lo deLermlne where Lhe easemenL shall be esLabllshed
ln Lhe case aL bar Lhe ocular lnspecLlon dlsclosed LhaL Lhere are Lhree opLlons open Lo Lhe
plalnLlffsappellees as a rouLe Lo reach Lhe naLlonal road Lo wlL
(1) 1o Lraverse dlrecLly Lhrough defendanLs properLy whlch ls Lhe shorLesL rouLe of
approxlmaLely 20 Lo 23 meLers away from Lhe naLlonal road

(2) 1o purchase a rlghL of way from Lhe ad[olnlng properLy of llorenLlno Cruz on Lhe lefL
slde of Lhelr properLy and
(3) 1o negoLlaLe wlLh !aclnLo famlly on Lhe rlghL slde of Lhelr properLy
ln all lnsLances no slgnlflcanL sLrucLures would be adversely affecLed 1here ls sufflclenL vacanL
space beLween defendanLs houses of approxlmaLely 11 meLers 1he dlsLance of defendanL
llorcerfldas house wlLh Lhe ad[olnlng adobe wall separaLlng LhaL of Lhe properLy of defendanLs
Cesar and 8acquel SLa Marla ls abouL 4 meLers whlle Lhe space beLween Lhe adobe wall and LhaL
of Lhe laLLers house ls abouL 7 meLers or a LoLal of 11 meLers vacanL space for purposes of a rlghL
of way Cn Lhe oLher hand plalnLlffs may negoLlaLe wlLh a rlghL of way wlLh llorenLlno Cruz on Lhe
lefL slde of Lhelr properLy alLhough Lhe same ls qulLe clrculLous LasLly Lhe opLlon Lhrough Lhe
properLy of Lhe !aclnLo on Lhe rlghL slde ls very clrculLous and longer 1he rouLe lnvolves a LoLal of
abouL 30 yards as lL has Lo go sLralghL Lo Lhe rlghL of abouL 33 yards and Lurn lefL of abouL anoLher
13 yards before reachlng Lhe common rlghL of way
Among Lhe Lhree (3) posslble servlenL esLaLes lL ls clear LhaL defendanLsappellanLs properLy
would afford Lhe shorLesL dlsLance from plalnLlffsappellees properLy Lo Lhe provlnclal road
Moreover lL ls Lhe leasL pre[udlclal slnce as found by Lhe lower courL (l)L appears LhaL Lhere would
be no slgnlflcanL sLrucLures Lo be ln[ured ln Lhe defendanLs properLy and Lhe rlghLofway Lo be
consLrucLed Lhereon would be Lhe shorLesL of all Lhe alLernaLlve rouLes polnLed Lo by Lhe
defendanLs
u|ntan|||a v Abangan
Gk # 160613 Ieb 12 2008
S44 SCkA 494

lAC1S
erfecLa boughL LoL no 377181A (Lhe domlnanL esLaLe) from one ulonlslo Abasolo 1hereafLer
erfecLa donaLed Lhe domlnanL esLaLe Lo ApollnardlLo (peLlLloner) her son who ls now Lhe
reglsLered owner Lhereof eLlLloners own CC 8aLLan lnc a domesLlc corporaLlon engaged ln Lhe
manufacLure and exporL of raLLanmade furnlLure ln Lhe conducL of Lhelr buslness Lhey use vans
Lo haul and LransporL raw maLerlals and flnlshed producLs As Lhey wanLed Lo expand Lhelr buslness
and consLrucL a warehouse on Lhelr properLy (Lhe domlnanL esLaLe) Lhey flled an acLlon asklng for
a rlghL of way from respondenL edro
Powever lL appears LhaL edro who was Lhe owner of LoL no 3771A1 (Lhe servlenL esLaLe) and
a loL near Lhe domlnanL esLaLe had earller sold Lhe same Lo uA8?LS and LhereafLer uA8?LS
consLrucLed a warehouse over Lhe servlenL esLaLe encloslng Lhe same wlLh a concreLe fence
1he Lrlal courL dlsmlssed Lhe peLlLlon for lack of merlL rullng LhaL held LhaL peLlLloners falled Lo
esLabllsh LhaL Lhe lmposlLlon of Lhe rlghL of way was Lhe leasL pre[udlclal Lo Lhe servlenL esLaLe Cn
appeal Lhe CA afflrmed Lhe adverse declslon holdlng LhaL Lhe crlLerlon of leasL pre[udlce Lo Lhe
servlenL esLaLe musL prevall over Lhe shorLesL dlsLance
lSSuL
WCn compllance wlLh Lhe precondlLlons seL forLh ln arLlcles 649 and 630 of Lhe new clvll code ls
superlor Lo Lhe mere convenlence rule agalnsL Lhe owner of Lhe domlnanL esLaLe
PLLu
?LS
As provlded for under Lhe provlslons of ArLlcle 630 of Lhe new Clvll Code Lhe easemenL of rlghL of
way shall be esLabllshed aL Lhe polnL leasL pre[udlclal Lo Lhe servlenL esLaLe and lnsofar as
conslsLenL wlLh Lhls rule where Lhe dlsLance from Lhe domlnanL esLaLe Lo a publlc hlghway may be
Lhe shorLesL Where Lhere are several LenemenLs surroundlng Lhe domlnanL esLaLe and Lhe
easemenL may be esLabllshed on any of Lhem Lhe one where Lhe way ls shorLesL and wlll cause Lhe
leasL damage should be chosen 8uL lf Lhese Lwo clrcumsLances do noL concur ln a slngle LenemenL
as ln Lhe lnsLanL case Lhe way whlch wlll cause Lhe leasL damage should be used even lf lL wlll noL
be Lhe shorLesL 1he crlLerlon of leasL pre[udlce Lo Lhe servlenL esLaLe musL prevall over Lhe
crlLerlon of shorLesL dlsLance 1he courL ls noL bound Lo esLabllsh whaL ls Lhe shorLesL a longer way
may be esLabllshed Lo avold ln[ury Lo Lhe servlenL LenemenL such as when Lhere are consLrucLlons
or walls whlch can be avolded by a roundabouL way as ln Lhe case aL bar

As beLween a rlghL of way LhaL would demollsh a fence of sLrong maLerlals Lo provlde lngress and
egress Lo a publlc hlghway and anoLher rlghL of way whlch alLhough longer wlll only requlre a van
or vehlcle Lo make a Lurn Lhe second alLernaLlve should be preferred Mere convenlence for Lhe
domlnanL esLaLe ls noL whaL ls requlred by law as Lhe basls for seLLlng up a compulsory easemenL
Lven ln Lhe face of necesslLy lf lL can be saLlsfled wlLhouL lmposlng Lhe easemenL Lhe same should
noL be lmposed
llnally worLhy of noLe ls Lhe undlspuLed facL LhaL Lhere ls already a newly opened publlc road
barely flfLy (30) meLers away from Lhe properLy of appellanLs whlch only shows LhaL anoLher
requlremenL of Lhe law LhaL ls Lhere ls no adequaLe ouLleL has noL been meL Lo esLabllsh a
compulsory rlghL of way

Va|dez v @ab|su|a
Gk # 17SS10 Iu|y 28 2008
S60 SCkA 332
lAC1S
eLlLlonerspouses vlcLor and !ocelyn valdez purchased from respondenLspouses lranclsco
1ablsula and Carldad 1ablsula a parcel of land bounded on Lhe norLh by LoL no 23369 on Lhe
LasL by LoL no 247 231 on Lhe SouLh by a Creek and on Lhe WesL by LoL no 223A ln Lhelr
conLracL of sale Lhey have agreed LhaL peLlLloners shall be provlded a 2 1/2 meLers slc wlde road
rlghLofway on Lhe wesLern slde of Lhelr loL whlch ls noL lncluded ln Lhls sale"
8espondenLs subsequenLly bullL a concreLe wall on Lhe wesLern slde of Lhe sub[ecL properLy
8ellevlng LhaL LhaL slde ls Lhe lnLended road rlghL of way menLloned ln Lhe deed peLlLloners
Lhrough Lhelr represenLaLlve reporLed Lhe maLLer Lo Lhe barangay for medlaLlon and conclllaLlon
8espondenLs falled Lo aLLend Lhe conferences scheduled by Lhe barangay however drawlng
peLlLloners Lo flle a ComplalnL for Speclflc erformance wlLh uamages agalnsL respondenLs before
Lhe 81C
8espondenLs ln Lhelr Answer wlLh Compulsory CounLerclalm (for damages and aLLorney's fees)
averred LhaL Lhe 2 ZmeLer easemenL should be Laken from Lhe wesLern porLlon of Lhe sub[ecL
properLy and noL from Lhelrs6 and peLlLloners and Lhelr famlly are also Lhe owners of Lwo
properLles ad[olnlng Lhe sub[ecL properLy whlch ad[olnlng properLles have access Lo Lwo publlc
roads or hlghways Lhe blgger one whlch ad[olns 8urgos SL on Lhe norLh and Lhe smaller one
whlch abuLs an exlsLlng barangay road on Lhe norLh
1he 81C dlsmlssed peLlLloners' complalnL and granLed respondenLs' CounLerclalm Cn appeal Lhe
CA afflrmed Lhe Lrlal courL's declslon
1he appellaLe courL wenL on Lo hold LhaL peLlLloners are nelLher enLlLled Lo a legal or compulsory
easemenL of rlghL of way as Lhey falled Lo presenL clrcumsLances [usLlfylng Lhelr enLlLlemenL Lo lL
under ArLlcle 649 of Lhe Clvll Code
lSSuL WCn peLlLloners may demand for a rlghL of way based on Lhe clause ln Lhelr conLracL of
sale

PLLu
nC
eLlLloners are nelLher enLlLled Lo a legal or compulsory easemenL of rlghL of way lor Lo be enLlLled
Lo such klnd of easemenL Lhe precondlLlons under ArLlcles 649 and 630 of Lhe Clvll Code musL be
esLabllshed vlz
ArL 649 1he owner or any person who by vlrLue of a real rlghL may culLlvaLe or use any
lmmovable whlch ls surrounded by oLher lmmovables perLalnlng Lo oLher persons and wlLhouL
adequaLe ouLleL Lo a publlc hlghway ls enLlLled Lo demand a rlghL of way Lhrough Lhe nelghborlng
esLaLes afLer paymenL of Lhe proper lndemnlLy
x x x x

1hls easemenL ls noL compulsory lf Lhe lsolaLlon of Lhe lmmovable ls due Lo Lhe proprleLor's own
acLs (underscorlng supplled)
ArL 630 1he easemenL of rlghL of way shall be esLabllshed aL Lhe polnL leasL pre[udlclal Lo Lhe
servlenL esLaLe and lnsofar as conslsLenL wlLh Lhls rule where Lhe dlsLance from Lhe domlnanL
esLaLe Lo a publlc hlghway may be Lhe shorLesL (underscorlng supplled)
1hus Lo be conferred a legal easemenL of rlghL of way under ArLlcle 649 Lhe followlng requlslLes
musL be complled wlLh (1) Lhe properLy ls surrounded by oLher lmmovables and has no adequaLe
ouLleL Lo a publlc hlghway (2) proper lndemnlLy musL be pald (3) Lhe lsolaLlon ls noL Lhe resulL of
Lhe owner of Lhe domlnanL esLaLe's own acLs (4) Lhe rlghL of way clalmed ls aL Lhe polnL leasL
pre[udlclal Lo Lhe servlenL esLaLe and (3) Lo Lhe exLenL conslsLenL wlLh Lhe foregolng rule Lhe
dlsLance from Lhe domlnanL esLaLe Lo a publlc hlghway may be Lhe shorLesL 1he onus of provlng
Lhe exlsLence of Lhese prerequlslLes lles on Lhe owner of Lhe domlnanL esLaLe hereln peLlLloners
As found however by Lhe Lrlal courL peLlLloners and Lhelr famlly are also Lhe owners of Lwo
properLles ad[olnlng Lhe sub[ecL properLy whlch have access Lo Lwo publlc roads or hlghways
Slnce peLlLloners Lhen have more Lhan adequaLe passage Lo Lwo publlc roads Lhey have no rlghL Lo
demand Lhe granL by respondenLs of an easemenL on Lhe wesLern slde of respondenLs' loL


Chapter 3 Vo|untary Lasements (Arts 688 693)

La V|sta Assoc v CA
Gk # 9S2S2 Sept S 1997
278 SCkA 498
lacLs Mangyan 8oad ls Lhe boundary beLween Lhe La vlsLa Subdlvlslon on one slde and ALeneo
and Maryknoll (Mlrlam) on Lhe oLher 1he road exLends Lo Lhe enLrance gaLe of Loyola Crand vlllas
1he area comprlslng Lhe 13meLer wlde roadway was orlglnally parL of a vasL LracL of land owned
by Lhe 1uasons 1he 1uasons sold Lo hlllpplne 8ulldlng CorporaLlon a porLlon of Lhelr landholdlngs
1he hlllpplne 8ulldlng CorporaLlon Lransferred wlLh Lhe consenL of Lhe 1uasons Lhe sub[ecL parcel
of land Lo ALeneo 1he 1uasons developed a parL of Lhe esLaLe ad[olnlng Lhe porLlon sold Lo
hlllpplne 8ulldlng CorporaLlon lnLo La vlsLa Subdlvlslon

La vlsLa seeks Lhe lssuance of a wrlL of ln[uncLlon Lo flnally en[oln prlvaLe respondenLs Solld Pomes
lnc developers of Loyola Crand vlllas Subdlvlslon Lhe laLLer's predecessorlnlnLeresL ALeneo and
Lhe resldenLs of Lhe sald subdlvlslon from en[oylng an easemenL of rlghLofway over Mangyan
8oad

La vlsLa conLends LhaL mere convenlence for Lhe domlnanL esLaLe ls noL enough Lo serve as lLs (Lhe
easemenL of rlghLofway) basls 1o [usLlfy Lhe lmposlLlon of Lhls servlLude Lhere musL be a real
noL a flcLlLlous or arLlflclal necesslLy for lL"

lssue WheLher or noL La vlsLa may wlLhhold from Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs Lhe use of Lhe Mangyan
8oad

Peld 1he rule clLed by La vlsLa enunclaLed ln 8amos Sr v CaLchallan 8ealLy lnc concerns a legal
or compulsory easemenL of rlghLofway A legal or compulsory easemenL ls LhaL whlch ls
consLlLuLed by law for publlc use or for prlvaLe lnLeresL A volunLary easemenL on Lhe oLher hand ls
consLlLuLed slmply by wlll or agreemenL of Lhe parLles

lrom Lhe facLs of Lhe lnsLanL case lL ls very apparenL LhaL Lhe parLles and Lhelr respecLlve
predecessorslnlnLeresL lnLended Lo esLabllsh an easemenL of rlghLofway over Mangyan 8oad for
Lhelr muLual beneflL boLh as domlnanL and servlenL esLaLes 1hls ls qulLe evldenL when

(a) Lhe 1uasons and Lhe hlllpplne 8ulldlng CorporaLlon sLlpulaLed ln par 3 of Lhelr ueed of
Sale wlLh MorLgage LhaL Lhe boundary llne beLween Lhe properLy hereln sold and Lhe ad[olnlng
properLy of Lhe vLnuC8S shall be a road flfLeen (13)meLers wlde onehalf of whlch shall be Laken
from Lhe properLy hereln sold Lo LhevLnuLL and Lhe oLher half from Lhe porLlon ad[olnlng
belonglng Lo Lhe vendors

(b) Lhe 1uasons expressly agreed and consenLed Lo Lhe asslgnmenL of Lhe land Lo and Lhe
assumpLlon of all Lhe rlghLs and obllgaLlons by ALeneo lncludlng Lhe obllgaLlon Lo conLrlbuLe seven
and onehalf meLers of Lhe properLy sold Lo form parL of Lhe 13meLer wlde roadway

(c) Lhe 1uasons flled a complalnL agalnsL Maryknoll and ALeneo for breach of conLracL and
Lhe enforcemenL Lhe reclprocal easemenL on Mangyan 8oad and demanded LhaL Maryknoll seL
back lLs wall Lo resLore Mangyan 8oad Lo lLs orlglnal wldLh of 13 meLers afLer Maryknoll
consLrucLed a wall ln Lhe mlddle of Lhe 13meLer wlde roadway

(d) La vlsLa resldenL Manuel ! Conzales admlLLed and clarlfled ln a leLLer Lo ALeneo
resldenL lr !ose A Cruz S! LhaL Mangyan 8oad ls a road flfLeen meLers wlde onehalf of whlch
ls Laken from your properLy and Lhe oLher half from Lhe La vlsLa Subdlvlslon So LhaL Lhe easemenL
of a rlghLofway on your 7 1/2 m porLlon was creaLed ln our favor and llkewlse an easemenL of
rlghLofway was creaLed on our7 1/2 m porLlon of Lhe road ln your favor

(e) La vlsLa ln lLs offer Lo buy Lhe hlllslde porLlon of Lhe ALeneo properLy acknowledged
Lhe exlsLence of Lhe conLracLual rlghLofway as lL manlfesLed LhaL Lhe muLual rlghLofway beLween
Lhe ALeneo de Manlla unlverslLy and La vlsLa Pomeowners AssoclaLlon would be exLlngulshed lf lL
boughL Lhe ad[acenL A1LnLC properLy and would Lhus become Lhe owner of boLh Lhe domlnanL
and servlenL esLaLes and

(f) La vlsLa resldenL Luls C Culmson ln a leLLer addressed Lo Lhe Chlef !usLlce
acknowledged LhaL onehalf of Lhe whole lengLh of (Mangyan 8oad) belongs Lo LavlsLa Assn lnc
1he oLher half ls owned by Mlrlam (Maryknoll) and Lhe ALeneo lnequal porLlons

1hese cerLalnly are lndublLable proofs LhaL Lhe parLles concerned had lndeed consLlLuLed a
volunLary easemenL of rlghLofway over Mangyan 8oad and llke any oLher conLracL Lhe same
could be exLlngulshed only by muLual agreemenL or by renunclaLlon of Lhe owner of Lhe domlnanL
esLaLe

1he argumenL of peLlLloner LhaL Lhere are oLher rouLes Lo Loyola Crand vlllas from Mangyan 8oad
ls merlLless 1he openlng of an adequaLe ouLleL Lo a hlghway can exLlngulsh only legal or
compulsory easemenLs noL volunLary easemenLs

1haL Lhere ls no conLracL beLween La vlsLa and Solld Pomes lnc and Lhus Lhe courL could noL have
declared Lhe exlsLence of an easemenL creaLed by Lhe manlfesL wlll of Lhe parLles ls devold of
merlL 1he predecessorslnlnLeresL of boLh La vlsLa and Solld Pomeslncle Lhe 1uasons and Lhe
hlllpplne 8ulldlng CorporaLlon respecLlvely clearly esLabllshed a conLracLual easemenL of rlghLof
way over Mangyan 8oad

Un|source v Chung
Gk # 1732S2 Iu| 17 2009
S93 SCkA 230
lacLs eLlLloner unlsource Commerclal and uevelopmenL CorporaLlon ls Lhe reglsLered owner of a
parcel of land covered by 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle (1C1) no 176233 of Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds of
Manlla 1he LlLle conLalns a memorandum of encumbrance of a volunLary easemenL whlch has
been carrled over from Lhe Crlglnal CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle of Lncarnaclon S Sandlco
As Sandlco's properLy was Lransferred Lo several owners Lhe memorandum of encumbrance of a
volunLary easemenL ln favor of lranclsco M Pldalgo was conslsLenLly annoLaLed aL Lhe back of
every LlLle coverlng Sandlco's properLy unLll 1C1 no 176233 was lssued ln peLlLloner's favor Cn Lhe
oLher hand Pldalgo's properLy was evenLually Lransferred Lo respondenLs !oseph Chung klaL
Chung and CleLo Chung under 1C1 no 121488
Cn May 26 2000 peLlLloner flled a eLlLlon Lo Cancel Lhe Lncumbrance of volunLary LasemenL of
8lghL of Way on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe domlnanL esLaLe has an adequaLe access Lo a publlc road
whlch ls MaLlenza SLreeL 1he Lrlal courL dlsmlssed Lhe peLlLlon on Lhe ground LhaL lL ls a land
reglsLraLlon case eLlLloner moved for reconslderaLlon 1hereafLer Lhe Lrlal courL conducLed an
ocular lnspecLlon of Lhe properLy ln an Crder daLed november 24 2000 Lhe Lrlal courL granLed Lhe
moLlon ln Lhelr Answer respondenLs counLered LhaL Lhe exLlngulshmenL of Lhe easemenL wlll be of
greaL pre[udlce Lo Lhe locallLy and LhaL peLlLloner ls gullLy of laches slnce lL Look peLlLloner 13 years
from acqulslLlon of Lhe properLy Lo flle Lhe peLlLlon
1he Lrlal courL ordered Lhe cancellaLlon of Lhe encumbrance of volunLary easemenL of rlghL of way
ln favor of Lhe domlnanL esLaLe owned by respondenLs lL found LhaL Lhe domlnanL esLaLe has no
more use for Lhe easemenL slnce lL has anoLher adequaLe ouLleL Lo a publlc road whlch ls MaLlenza
SLreeL 8espondenLs appealed Lo Lhe CourL of Appeals Lhe laLLer however reversed Lhe declslon of
Lhe Lrlal courL and dlsmlssed Lhe peLlLlon Lo cancel Lhe encumbrance of volunLary easemenL of rlghL
of way
lssue WheLher or noL Lhe easemenL ls personal slnce Lhe annoLaLlon dld noL prove LhaL lL ls blndlng
on Lhe helrs or asslgns of Sandlco
Peld 1he peLlLlon lacks merlL
As deflned an easemenL ls a real rlghL on anoLher's properLy corporeal and lmmovable whereby
Lhe owner of Lhe laLLer musL refraln from dolng or allowlng somebody else Lo do or someLhlng Lo
be done on hls properLy for Lhe beneflL of anoLher person or LenemenL LasemenLs are esLabllshed
elLher by law or by Lhe wlll of Lhe owner 1he former are called legal and Lhe laLLer volunLary
easemenLs
ln Lhls case peLlLloner lLself admlLLed LhaL a volunLary easemenL of rlghL of way exlsLs ln favor of
respondenLs ln lLs peLlLlon Lo cancel Lhe encumbrance of volunLary easemenL of rlghL of way
peLlLloner alleged LhaL Lhe easemenL ls personal lL was volunLarlly consLlLuLed ln favor of a
cerLaln lranclsco Pldalgo y Magnlflco Lhe owner of Lhe loL descrlbed as LoL no 2 8lock 2630" lL
furLher sLaLed LhaL Lhe volunLary easemenL of Lhe rlghL of way ln favor of lranclsco Pldalgo y
Magnlflco was consLlLuLed slmply by wlll or agreemenL of Lhe parLles lL was noL a sLaLuLory
easemenL and deflnlLely noL an easemenL creaLed by such courL order because 'Lhe CourL merely
declares Lhe exlsLence of an easemenL creaLed by Lhe parLles" ln lLs Memorandum daLed
SepLember 27 2001 before Lhe Lrlal courL peLlLloner relLeraLed LhaL Lhe annoLaLlon found aL
Lhe back of Lhe 1C1 of unlsource ls a volunLary easemenL"
Pavlng made such an admlsslon peLlLloner cannoL now clalm LhaL whaL exlsLs ls a legal easemenL
and LhaL Lhe same should be cancelled slnce Lhe domlnanL esLaLe ls noL an enclosed esLaLe as lL has
an adequaLe access Lo a publlc road whlch ls Calle[on MaLlenza SLreeL As we have sald Lhe openlng
of an adequaLe ouLleL Lo a hlghway can exLlngulsh only legal or compulsory easemenLs noL
volunLary easemenLs llke ln Lhe case aL bar 1he facL LhaL an easemenL by granL may have also
quallfled as an easemenL of necesslLy does noL deLracL from lLs permanency as a properLy rlghL
whlch survlves Lhe LermlnaLlon of Lhe necesslLy A volunLary easemenL of rlghL of way llke any
oLher conLracL could be exLlngulshed only by muLual agreemenL or by renunclaLlon of Lhe owner of
Lhe domlnanL esLaLe
lL ls seLLled LhaL Lhe reglsLraLlon of Lhe domlnanL esLaLe under Lhe 1orrens sysLem wlLhouL Lhe
annoLaLlon of Lhe volunLary easemenL ln lLs favor does noL exLlngulsh Lhe easemenL Cn Lhe
conLrary lL ls Lhe reglsLraLlon of Lhe servlenL esLaLe as free LhaL ls wlLhouL Lhe annoLaLlon of Lhe
volunLary easemenL whlch exLlngulshes Lhe easemenL
1he mere facL LhaL respondenLs subdlvlded Lhe properLy does noL exLlngulsh Lhe easemenL ArLlcle
618 of Lhe Clvll Code provldes LhaL lf Lhe domlnanL esLaLe ls dlvlded beLween Lwo or more persons
each of Lhem may use Lhe easemenL ln lLs enLlreLy wlLhouL changlng Lhe place of lLs use or maklng
lL more burdensome ln any oLher way

@|t|e VIII Nu|sance (Arts 694707)

@e|mo v 8ustamante
Gk # 182S67 Iu| 13 2009
S92 SCkA SS2
lacLs 8espondenL ls a coowner of a real properLy of 616 square meLers ln 8rgy Palang nalc
CavlLe known as LoL 932A and covered by 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle no 1937643 of Lhe 8eglsLer
of ueeds of CavlLe eLlLloner and Lllzalde 1elmo (1elmos) are Lhe owners of Lhe Lwo (2) parcels of
land denomlnaLed as LoL 9328 and 932C respecLlvely locaLed aL Lhe back of respondenL's loL
When hls loL was Lransgressed by Lhe consLrucLlon of Lhe noveleLanalc1agayLay 8oad
respondenL offered for sale Lhe remalnlng loL Lo Lhe 1elmos 1he laLLer refused because Lhey sald
Lhey would have no use for lL Lhe remalnlng porLlon belng covered by Lhe road's 10meLer
easemenL

1he complalnL furLher alleged LhaL on May 8 2003 respondenL caused Lhe resurvey of LoL 932A ln
Lhe presence of Lhe 1elmos 1he resurvey showed LhaL Lhe 1elmos encroached upon respondenL's
loL eLlLloner Lhen uLLered Pangga'L ako ang munlclpal englneer ng nalc CavlLe hlndl kayo
makakapagLayo ng anuman sa lupa n'yo hlndl ko kayo blblgyan ng bulldlng permlL"

Cn May 10 2003 respondenL puL up concreLe poles on hls loL Powever around 700 pm of Lhe
same day Lhe 1elmos and Lhelr men allegedly desLroyed Lhe concreLe poles 1he followlng day
respondenL's relaLlves wenL Lo 8rgy Chalrman Consumo Lo reporL Lhe desLrucLlon of Lhe concreLe
poles Consumo Lold Lhem LhaL he would noL record Lhe same because he was presenL when Lhe
lncldenL occurred Consumo never recorded Lhe lncldenL ln Lhe barangay bloLLer

8espondenL complalned LhaL he and hls coowners dld noL recelve any [usL compensaLlon from Lhe
governmenL when lL Look a porLlon of Lhelr properLy for Lhe consLrucLlon of Lhe noveleLanalc
1agayLay 8oad Worse Lhey could noL en[oy Lhe use of Lhe remalnlng parL of Lhelr loL due Lo Lhe
abuslve lllegal and un[usL acLs of Lhe 1elmos and Consumo 8espondenL charged Lhe laLLer
crlmlnallyfor vlolaLlon of ArLlcle 312 of Lhe 8evlsed enal Code and SecLlon 3(e) of 8epubllc AcL
no 3019 and admlnlsLraLlvelyfor vlolaLlon of SecLlon 4 (a) (b) (c) and (e) of 8epubllc AcL no
6713

AfLer submlLLlng Lhelr own counLeraffldavlLs Lhe Cfflce of Lhe uepuLy Cmbudsman for Luzon
found peLlLloner and uanllo Consumo admlnlsLraLlvely llable buL dlsmlssed Lhe charge agalnsL
Lllzalde 1elmo for lack of [urlsdlcLlon over hls person he belng a prlvaLe lndlvldual eLlLloner flled
a MoLlon for 8econslderaLlon buL was denled Pence Lhls peLlLlon

lssue
(1) WheLher or noL Lhe Ponorable uepuLy Cmbudsman for Luzon serlously erred when he
declared LhaL Lhere was no valld Laklng of respondenL's loL by means of exproprlaLlon

(2) WheLher or noL respondenL's concreLe posLs were ln Lhe naLure of a nulsance per se

Peld
(1) nC

Sec 213 AbaLemenL of uangerous 8ulldlngsWhen any bulldlng or sLrucLure ls found or declared
Lo be dangerous or rulnous Lhe 8ulldlng Cfflclal shall order lLs repalr vacaLlon or demollLlon
dependlng upon Lhe decree of danger Lo llfe healLh or safeLy 1hls ls wlLhouL pre[udlce Lo furLher
acLlon LhaL may be Laken under Lhe provlslons of ArLlcles 482 and 694 Lo 707 of Lhe Clvll Code of
Lhe hlllpplnes
Sec 214 uangerous and 8ulnous 8ulldlngs or SLrucLures uangerous bulldlngs are Lhose whlch are
hereln declared as such or are sLrucLurally unsafe or noL provlded wlLh safe egress or whlch
consLlLuLe a flre hazard or are oLherwlse dangerous Lo human llfe or whlch ln relaLlon Lo exlsLlng
use consLlLuLe a hazard Lo safeLy or healLh or publlc welfare because of lnadequaLe malnLenance
dllapldaLlon obsolescence or abandonmenL or whlch oLherwlse conLrlbuLe Lo Lhe polluLlon of Lhe
slLe or Lhe communlLy Lo an lnLolerable degree

A careful readlng of Lhe foregolng provlslons would readlly show LhaL Lhey do noL apply Lo Lhe
respondenL's slLuaLlon nowhere was lL shown LhaL Lhe concreLe posLs puL up by respondenL ln
whaL he belleved was hls and hls coowners' properLy were ever declared dangerous or rulnous
such LhaL Lhey can be summarlly demollshed by peLlLloner

WhaL ls more lL appears LhaL Lhe concreLe posLs do noL even fall wlLhln Lhe scope of Lhe provlslons
of Lhe naLlonal 8ulldlng Code 1he Code does noL expressly deflne Lhe word bulldlng" Powever
we flnd helpful Lhe dlcLlonary deflnlLlon of Lhe word bulldlng" vlz A consLrucLed edlflce
deslgned usually covered by a roof and more or less compleLely enclosed by walls and servlng as a
dwelllng sLorehouse facLory shelLer for anlmals or oLher useful sLrucLure dlsLlngulshed from
sLrucLures noL deslgned for occupancy (as fences or monumenLs) and from sLrucLures noL lnLended
for use ln one place (as boaLs or Lrallers) even Lhough sub[ecL Lo occupancy

(2) nC

A nulsance per se ls LhaL whlch affecLs Lhe lmmedlaLe safeLy of persons and properLy and may be
summarlly abaLed under Lhe undeflned law of necesslLy LvldenLly Lhe concreLe posLs summarlly
removed by peLlLloner dld noL aL all pose a hazard Lo Lhe safeLy of persons and properLles whlch
would have necesslLaLed lmmedlaLe and summary abaLemenL WhaL Lhey dld aL mosL was Lo pose
an lnconvenlence Lo Lhe publlc by blocklng Lhe free passage of people Lo and from Lhe naLlonal
road


8CCk III DIIILkLN@ MCDLS CI ACUIkING CWNLkSnI

kLLIMINAk kCVISICN (Art 712)


@|t|e I CCCUA@ICN (Arts 713720)

Acap v CA
Gk # 118114 Dec 7 199S
2S1 SCkA 30

lacLs lellxberLo Cruma sold hls lnherlLed land Lo Cosme ldo whlch land ls renLed by peLlLloner
1eodoro Acap When Cosme dled lnLesLaLe hls helrs execuLed a ueclaraLlon of Pelrshlp and
Walver of 8lghLs" ln favor of prlvaLe respondenL Ldy delos 8eyes 8espondenL lnformed peLlLloner
of hls clalm over Lhe land and peLlLloner pald Lhe renLal Lo hlm ln 1982 Powever ln subsequenL
years peLlLloner refused Lo pay Lhe renLal whlch prompLed respondenL Lo flle a complalnL for Lhe
recovery of possesslon and damages eLlLloner averred LhaL he conLlnues Lo recognlze ldo as Lhe
owner of Lhe land and LhaL he wlll pay Lhe accumulaLed renLals Lo ldo's wldow upon her reLurn
from abroad 1he lower courL ruled ln favor of prlvaLe respondenL
lssues
(1) WheLher Lhe ueclaraLlon of Pelrshlp and Walver of 8lghLs" ls a recognlzed mode of acqulrlng
ownershlp by prlvaLe respondenL
(2) WheLher Lhe sald documenL can be consldered a deed of sale ln favor of prlvaLe respondenL
Peld An asserLed rlghL or clalm Lo ownershlp or a real rlghL over a Lhlng arlslng from a [urldlcal
acL however [usLlfled ls noL per se sufflclenL Lo glve rlse Lo ownershlp over Lhe res 1haL rlghL or
LlLle musL be compleLed by fulfllllng cerLaln condlLlons lmposed by law Pence ownershlp and real
rlghLs are acqulred only pursuanL Lo a legal mode or process Whlle LlLle ls Lhe [urldlcal [usLlflcaLlon
mode ls Lhe acLual process of acqulslLlon or Lransfer of ownershlp over a Lhlng ln quesLlon
ln a ConLracL of Sale one of Lhe conLracLlng parLles obllgaLes hlmself Lo Lransfer Lhe ownershlp of
and Lo dellver a deLermlnaLe Lhlng and Lhe oLher parLy Lo pay a prlce cerLaln ln money or lLs
equlvalenL upon Lhe oLher hand a declaraLlon of helrshlp and walver of rlghLs operaLes as a publlc
lnsLrumenL when flled wlLh Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds whereby Lhe lnLesLaLe helrs ad[udlcaLe and dlvlde
Lhe esLaLe lefL by Lhe decedenL among Lhemselves as Lhey see flL lL ls ln effecL an exLra[udlclal
seLLlemenL beLween Lhe helrs under 8ule 74 of Lhe 8ules of CourL Pence Lhere ls a marked
dlfference beLween a sale of heredlLary rlghLs and a walver of heredlLary rlghLs 1he flrsL presumes
Lhe exlsLence of a conLracL or deed of sale beLween Lhe parLles 1he second ls Lechnlcally speaklng
a mode of exLlncLlon of ownershlp where Lhere ls an abdlcaLlon or lnLenLlonal rellnqulshmenL of a
known rlghL wlLh knowledge of lLs exlsLence and lnLenLlon Lo rellnqulsh lL ln favor of oLher persons
who are cohelrs ln Lhe successlon rlvaLe respondenL belng Lhen a sLranger Lo Lhe successlon of
Cosme ldo cannoL concluslvely clalm ownershlp over Lhe sub[ecL loL on Lhe sole basls of Lhe
walver documenL whlch nelLher reclLes Lhe elemenLs of elLher a sale or a donaLlon or any oLher
derlvaLlve mode of acqulrlng ownershlp

A noLlce of adverse clalm ls noLhlng buL a noLlce of a clalm adverse Lo Lhe reglsLered owner Lhe
valldlLy of whlch ls yeL Lo be esLabllshed ln courL aL some fuLure daLe and ls no beLLer Lhan a noLlce
of lls pendens whlch ls a noLlce of a case already pendlng ln courL lL ls Lo be noLed LhaL whlle Lhe
exlsLence of sald adverse clalm was duly proven Lhere ls no evldence whaLsoever LhaL a deed of
sale was execuLed beLween Cosme ldos helrs and prlvaLe respondenL Lransferrlng Lhe rlghLs of
ldos helrs Lo Lhe land ln favor of prlvaLe respondenL rlvaLe respondenLs rlghL or lnLeresL
Lherefore ln Lhe LenanLed loL remalns an adverse clalm whlch cannoL by lLself be sufflclenL Lo cancel
Lhe CC1 Lo Lhe land and LlLle Lhe same ln prlvaLe respondenLs name ConsequenLly whlle Lhe
LransacLlon beLween ldos helrs and prlvaLe respondenL may be blndlng on boLh parLles Lhe rlghL
of peLlLloner as a reglsLered LenanL Lo Lhe land cannoL be perfuncLorlly forfelLed on a mere
allegaLlon of prlvaLe respondenLs ownershlp wlLhouL Lhe correspondlng proof Lhereof

ne|rs of Serasp| v CA
Gk # 13S602 Apr 28 2000
331SCkA 293

lacLs Marcellno 8ecasa was Lhe owner of Lwo parcels of land uurlng hls llfeLlme Marcellno
conLracLed Lhree (3) marrlages AL Lhe Llme of hls deaLh ln 1943 he had flfLeen (13) chlldren from
hls Lhree marrlages ln 1948 hls lnLesLaLe esLaLe was parLlLloned lnLo Lhree parLs by hls helrs each
parL correspondlng Lo Lhe share of Lhe helrs ln each marrlage
ln Lhe same year aLronlclo 8ecasa represenLlng Lhe helrs of Lhe flrsL marrlage sold Lhe share of
Lhe helrs ln Lhe esLaLe Lo uomlnador 8ecasa an helr of Lhe second marrlage Cn !une 13 1930
uomlnador represenLlng Lhe helrs of Lhe second marrlage ln Lurn sold Lhe share of Lhe helrs Lo
Culrlco and urlflcaclon Seraspl whose helrs are Lhe presenL peLlLloners lncluded ln Lhls sale was
Lhe properLy sold by aLronlclo Lo uomlnador Sdaad
ln 1938 Lhe Seraspls obLalned a loan from Lhe kallbo 8ural 8ank lnc (k88l) on Lhe securlLy of Lhe
lands ln quesLlon Lo flnance lmprovemenLs on Lhe lands Powever Lhey falled Lo pay Lhe loan for
whlch reason Lhe morLgage was foreclosed and Lhe lands were sold Lo k88l as Lhe hlghesL bldder
SubsequenLly Lhe lands were sold by k88l Lo Manuel 8aLa broLherlnlaw of Culrlco Seraspl lL
appears LhaL 8aLa as owner of Lhe properLy allowed Culrlco Seraspl Lo admlnlsLer Lhe properLy
ln 1974 prlvaLe respondenL Slmeon 8ecasa Marcellno's chlld by hls Lhlrd wlfe Laklng advanLage of
Lhe lllness of Culrlco Seraspl who had been paralyzed due Lo a sLroke forclbly enLered Lhe lands ln
quesLlon and Look possesslon Lhereof
ln 1983 Lhe Seraspls purchased Lhe lands from Manuel 8aLa and afLerwards flled a complalnL
agalnsL Slmeon 8ecasa for recovery of possesslon of Lhe lands
1he Lrlal courL ruled ln favor of Lhe Seraspls sLaLlng LhaL Lhey had acqulred Lhe properLy Lhrough a
sale and acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon Powever on appeal Lhe CourL of Appeals reversed on Lhe ground
LhaL Lhe acLlon of Lhe Seraspls was barred by Lhe sLaLuLe of llmlLaLlons Pence Lhls peLlLlon flled by
Culrlco Seraspl who ln Lhe meanLlme had passed away and was Lhus subsLlLuLed by hls helrs
lssues
(1) WheLher or noL peLlLloners' acLlon ls barred by exLlncLlve prescrlpLlon and
(2) WheLher or noL prlvaLe respondenL Slmeon 8ecasa acqulred ownershlp of Lhe properLles ln
quesLlon Lhrough acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon
Peld SC ruled for peLlLloners
(1)ClLlng Arradaza v CourL of Appeals lL held LhaL an acLlon for recovery of LlLle or possesslon of
real properLy or an lnLeresL Lhereln can only be broughL wlLhln Len (10) years afLer Lhe cause of
acLlon has accrued Slnce Lhe acLlon for recovery of possesslon and ownershlp was flled by
peLlLloners only on Aprll 12 1987 le LhlrLeen (13) years afLer Lhelr predecessorlnlnLeresL had
been allegedly deprlved of Lhe possesslon of Lhe properLy by prlvaLe respondenL lL was held LhaL
Lhe acLlon had prescrlbed 1hls case lnvolves acqulslLlve noL exLlncLlve prescrlpLlon WhaL ls more
Lhe facLs ln LhaL case arose before Lhe effecLlvlLy of Lhe Clvll Code Accordlngly whaL was applled
was 41 of Lhe Code of Clvll rocedure whlch provldes LhaL LlLle by prescrlpLlon ls acqulred afLer
Len (10) years ln whaLever manner possesslon may have been commenced or conLlnued and
regardless of good falLh or wlLh [usL LlLle
Cn Lhe oLher hand whaL ls lnvolved here ls exLlncLlve prescrlpLlon and Lhe appllcable law ls ArL
1141 of Lhe Clvll Code whlch provldes 8eal acLlons over lmmovables prescrlbe afLer LhlrLy years
1hls provlslon ls wlLhouL pre[udlce Lo whaL ls esLabllshed for Lhe acqulslLlon of ownershlp and oLher
real rlghLs by prescrlpLlon
ArL 1117 AcqulslLlve prescrlpLlon of domlnlon and oLher real rlghLs may be ordlnary or
exLraordlnary Crdlnary acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon requlres possesslon of Lhlngs ln good falLh and wlLh
[usL LlLle for Lhe Llme flxed by law

ArL 1134 Cwnershlp and oLher real rlghLs over lmmovable properLy are acqulred by ordlnary
prescrlpLlon Lhrough possesslon of Len years
ArL 1137 Cwnershlp and oLher real rlghLs over lmmovables also prescrlbe Lhrough unlnLerrupLed
adverse possesslon Lhereof for LhlrLy years wlLhouL need of LlLle or of good falLh
1hus acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon of domlnlon and oLher real rlghLs may be ordlnary or exLraordlnary
dependlng on wheLher Lhe properLy ls possessed ln good falLh and wlLh [usL LlLle for Lhe Llme flxed
by law rlvaLe respondenL conLends LhaL he acqulred Lhe ownershlp of Lhe quesLloned properLy by
ordlnary prescrlpLlon Lhrough adverse possesslon for Len (10) years
(2) 8espondenL Slmeon 8ecasa has nelLher [usL LlLle nor good falLh As ArL 1129 provldes lor Lhe
purposes of prescrlpLlon Lhere ls [usL LlLle when Lhe adverse clalmanL came lnLo possesslon of Lhe
properLy Lhrough one of Lhe modes recognlzed by law for Lhe acqulslLlon of ownershlp or oLher real
rlghLs buL Lhe granLor was noL Lhe owner or could noL LransmlL any rlghL
ln Lhe case aL bar prlvaLe respondenL dld noL acqulre possesslon of Lhe properLy Lhrough any of
Lhe modes recognlzed by Lhe Clvll Code Lo wlL (1) occupaLlon (2) lnLellecLual creaLlon (3) law (4)
donaLlon (3) successlon (6) LradlLlon ln consequence of cerLaln conLracLs and (7) prescrlpLlon
rlvaLe respondenL could noL have acqulred ownershlp over Lhe properLy Lhrough occupaLlon
slnce under ArL 714 of Lhe Clvll Code Lhe ownershlp of a plece of land cannoL be acqulred by
occupaLlon nor can he base hls ownershlp on successlon for Lhe properLy was noL parL of Lhose
dlsLrlbuLed Lo Lhe helrs of Lhe Lhlrd marrlage Lo whlch prlvaLe respondenL belongs
nelLher can prlvaLe respondenL clalm good falLh ln hls favor Cood falLh conslsLs ln Lhe reasonable
bellef LhaL Lhe person from whom Lhe possessor recelved Lhe Lhlng was lLs owner buL could noL
LransmlL Lhe ownershlp Lhereof rlvaLe respondenL enLered Lhe properLy wlLhouL Lhe consenL of
Lhe prevlous owner lor all lnLenLs and purposes he ls a mere usurper
Llke prlvaLe respondenL peLlLloners have noL acqulred Lhe properLy Lhrough any of Lhe modes
recognlzed by law for Lhe acqulslLlon of ownershlp 1he basls of peLlLloners' clalm of ownershlp ls
Lhe conLracL of sale Lhey had wlLh 8aLa buL Lhls by lLself ls lnsufflclenL Lo make Lhem owners of Lhe
properLy lor whlle a conLracL of sale ls perfecLed by Lhe meeLlng of mlnds upon Lhe Lhlng whlch ls
Lhe ob[ecL of Lhe conLracL and upon Lhe prlce Lhe ownershlp of Lhe Lhlng sold ls noL Lransferred Lo
Lhe vendee unLll acLual or consLrucLlve dellvery of Lhe properLy Pence Lhe maxlm non nudls
pacLls sed LradlLlone domlnla domlnlca rerum LransferunLur (noL mere agreemenLs buL LradlLlon
Lransfers Lhe ownershlp of Lhlngs)
ConsequenLly peLlLloners are noL Lhe owners of Lhe properLy slnce lL has noL been dellvered Lo
Lhem AL Lhe Llme Lhey boughL Lhe properLy from 8aLa ln 1983 Lhe properLy was ln Lhe possesslon
of prlvaLe respondenL
Powever Lhls does noL glve prlvaLe respondenL a rlghL Lo remaln ln possesslon of Lhe properLy
eLlLloners' LlLle Lo Lhe properLy prevalls over prlvaLe respondenLs' possesslon ln facL buL wlLhouL
basls ln law As held ln WalLe v eLerson when Lhe properLy belonglng Lo a person ls unlawfully
Laken by anoLher Lhe former has Lhe rlghL of acLlon agalnsL Lhe laLLer for Lhe recovery of Lhe
properLy Such rlghL may be Lransferred by Lhe sale or asslgnmenL of Lhe properLy and Lhe
Lransferee can malnLaln such acLlon agalnsL Lhe wrongdoer

a|ero@an v Urdaneta
AM # 072399 Iun 18 2008
SSS SCkA 28
lacLs
Ldna alero1an a CourL SLenographer charged Clrlaco l urdaneLa !r a uLlllLy Worker of Lhe
same courL wlLh ConducL unbecomlng a CourL ersonnel for sLeallng her rlng and braceleL
Ldna clalmed LhaL lL has been her pracLlce Lo keep her and her slsLer's pleces of [ewelry ln Lhe
locked drawer of her Lable aL her 81C offlce because she fears LhaL Lhey mlghL be losL aL Lhe
boardlng house she ls renLlng And LhaL Lhe only person who was presenL and saw her Lake
ouL Lhe [ewelry from her Lable drawer was respondenL whose Lable ls ad[acenL Lo hers
Cn 28 !uly 2003 an offlcemaLe AneclLo u AlLone (AlLone) conflded Lo her LhaL he heard
from hls landlady AnasLacla 8 nable (nable) LhaL respondenL and hls wlfe Mllagros had a
quarrel because Lhe laLLer dlscovered a rlng and a braceleL ln respondenL's coln purse
urdaneLa denled LhaL he sLole complalnanL's [ewelry Pe clalmed LhaL he found a small plasLlc
sacheL conLalnlng a rlng and a braceleL under hls Lable aL Lhe slde nearesL Lhe ad[acenL Lable
of Lhe complalnanL and Lhlnklng LhaL Lhe [ewelry belonged Lo one of Lhe llLlganLs who
approached hlm LhaL mornlng he Look Lhem for safekeeplng wlLh Lhe lnLenLlon of reLurnlng
Lhem Lo whoever was Lhe owner Pe LhoughL LhaL Lhe rlng and braceleL were fancy [ewelry
as Lhey were merely placed ln an ordlnary plasLlc sacheL When nobody clalmed Lhe [ewelry
he placed Lhem lnslde hls coln purse and Look Lhem home Powever hls wlfe on 30 !une
2003 found Lhem and accused hlm of buylng Lhe pleces of [ewelry for hls mlsLress and Lo
sLop hls wlfe's nagglng he Lhrew Lhe pleces of [ewelry aL a grassy loL beslde Lhelr house

lssue
W/n flndlng a losL properLy" charges Lhe flnder Lhe duLy Lo resLore Lhe same Lo
lLs owner

Peld
?es When a person who flnds a Lhlng LhaL has been losL or mlslald by Lhe owner
Lakes Lhe Lhlng lnLo hls hands he acqulres physlcal cusLody only and does noL become vesLed
wlLh legal possesslon ln assumlng such cusLody Lhe flnder ls charged wlLh Lhe obllgaLlon of
resLorlng Lhe Lhlng Lo lLs owner lL ls Lhus respondenL's duLy Lo reporL Lo hls superlor or hls
offlcemaLes LhaL he found someLhlng 1he Clvll Code ln ArLlcle 719 expllclLly requlres Lhe
flnder of a losL properLy Lo reporL lL Lo Lhe proper auLhorlLles Lhus

ArLlcle 719 Whoever flnds a movable whlch ls noL Lreasure musL reLurn lL Lo lLs prevlous
possessor lf Lhe laLLer ls unknown Lhe flnder shall lmmedlaLely deposlL lL wlLh Lhe mayor of
Lhe clLy or munlclpallLy where Lhe flndlng has Laken place
1he flndlng shall be publlcly announced by Lhe mayor for Lwo consecuLlve weeks ln Lhe way
he deems besL
lf Lhe movables cannoL be kepL wlLhouL deLerloraLlon or wlLhouL Lhe expenses whlch
conslderably dlmlnlsh lLs value lL shall be sold aL publlc aucLlon elghL days afLer Lhe
publlcaLlon
Slx monLhs from Lhe publlcaLlon havlng elapsed wlLhouL Lhe owner havlng appeared Lhe
Lhlng found or lLs value shall be awarded Lo Lhe flnder 1he flnder and Lhe owner shall be
obllged as Lhe case may be Lo relmburse Lhe expenses

ConLrary Lo respondenL's clalm Lhls CourL ls convlnced LhaL respondenL had Lhe lnLenLlon Lo
approprlaLe Lhe [ewelry Lo hlmself had Lhese noL been dlscovered by hls wlfe Pls clalm LhaL
Lhe rlng and braceleL were worLhless fancy [ewelry ls lmmaLerlal because Lhe basls for hls
llablllLy ls hls acL of Laklng someLhlng whlch does noL belong Lo hlm

@|t|e III DCNA@ICN (Arts 72S773)

Chapter 1 Nature of Donat|ons (Arts 72S734)

kep vs Guzman
Gk# 132964] Ieb 18 2000
326 SCkA 90

lacLs
Slmeon Cuzman a naLurallzed Amerlcan ClLlzen dled lnLesLaLe leavlng an Amerlcan Wlfe Pelen
and an Amerlcan Son uavld Lhe hereln respondenL uavld and Pelen execuLed an LxLra[udlclal
SeLLlemenL of Lhe LsLaLe of Slmeon ln Lhe hlllpplnes SubsequenLly Pelen execuLed a CulLclalm
leavlng everyLhlng Lo Lhe dlsposal of uavld uavld Lhen owned everyLhlng
A concerned Lawyer wroLe Lhe Cfflce of Lhe SollclLor Ceneral LhaL Lhe ownershlp of uavld Lo Lhe
exLenL of Z of Lhe esLaLe of Slmeon was defecLlve 1he reason ls LhaL belng a ClLlzen of Amerlca he
was prohlblLed Lo be a donee of properLles ln Lhe hlllpplnes 1he deed of CulLclalm was
lnLerpreLed Lo be LhaL of Lhe uonaLlon 1he governmenL flled for LscheaL roceedlng ln so far as Lhe
Z porLlon was concerned under ArLlcle 12 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon a forelgner ls dlsquallfled Lo have a
properLy save ln cases of heredlLary successlon 8elng a donee of Lhe Z Lhe same ls vold and would
necessarlly perLaln Lo Lhe republlc of Lhe hlllpplnes

lssue
WheLher or noL Lhe Z ownershlp of Lhe properLles be escheaLed ln favor of Lhe governmenL?

Peld
no ln order LhaL a uonaLlon ls valld Lhe followlng requlslLes musL concur Lhere musL be a
decrease ln Lhe properLy lf Lhe donor Lhere musL be an lncrease ln Lhe properLy of Lhe donee and
Lhere musL be lnLenL Lo donaLe 1he CulLclalm made by Pelen negaLed Lhe lnLenL Lo donaLe LhaL
musL be saLlsfled Pelen meanL LhaL Lhe qulLclalm was noL a donaLlon because she was prohlblLed
Lo donaLe under LhaL hlllpplne Laws and she sad LhaL lL was absurd for he Lo do LhaL 1here was no
donaLlon lL was merely a walver of rlghL ln favor of Lhe donee Lhe son Lven lf Lhere has been LhaL
lnLenL Lhe same should noL be a valld donaLlon slnce Lhe accepLance requlred for ln ArLlcle 748 was
absenL 1he escheaL proceedlng ls noL proper

k v S|||m
Gk # 140487 Apr 2 2001
3S6 SCkA 1

lacLs
Spouses Slllm and MangubaL donaLed a 3600 sq m parcel of land ln favour of Lhe 8ureau of ubllc
Schools Malangas Zamboanga del Sur ln Lhe ueed of uonaLlon respondenLs lmposed Lhe
condlLlon LhaL Lhe sald properLy should be used excluslvely and forever for school purposes only
1hls donaLlon was accepLed by Cregorlo 8uendla Lhe ulsLrlcL Supervlsor of 8S Lhrough an
AffldavlL of AccepLance and/or ConflrmaLlon of uonaLlon
A school bulldlng was consLrucLed on Lhe donaLed land Powever Lhe 8agong Llpunan school
bulldlng LhaL was supposed Lo be allocaLed for Lhe donaLed parcel of land could noL be released
slnce Lhe governmenL requlred LhaL lL be bullL upon a one (1) hecLare parcel of land 1o remedy Lhls
predlcamenL 8uendla was auLhorlzed Lo offlclally LransacL for Lhe exchange of Lhe old school slLe Lo
a new and sulLable locaLlon whlch would flL Lhe speclflcaLlons of Lhe governmenL ursuanL Lo Lhls
8uendla and 1ereslLa alma enLered lnLo a ueed of Lxchange whereby Lhe donaLed loL was
exchanged wlLh Lhe blgger loL owned by Lhe laLLer 1he 8agong Llpunan school bulldlngs were
consLrucLed on Lhe new school slLe and Lhe school bulldlng prevlously erecLed on Lhe donaLed loL
was dlsmanLled and Lransferred Lo Lhe new locaLlon
1he Slllm spouses learned of Lhe ueed of Lxchange when Lhay learned LhaL vlceMayor Wllfredo
alma was consLrucLlng a house on Lhe donaLed properLy 1hey flled a complalnL Lo annul Lhe
donaLlon clalmlng LhaL Lhere was no valld accepLance made by Lhe donee and LhaL Lhere was a
vlolaLlon of Lhe condlLlon ln Lhe donaLlon

lssues
1 Was Lhere a valld accepLance based on ArLs 743 and 749 of Lhe nCC?
2 Was Lhe condlLlon ln Lhe donaLlon vlolaLed?

Peld
1 ?es 1here was a valld accepLance
1he lasL paragraph of ArL 749 reads lf Lhe accepLance ls made ln a separaLe lnsLrumenL Lhe
donor shall be noLlfled Lhereof ln an auLhenLlc form and Lhls sLep shall be noLed ln boLh
lnsLrumenLs" 1he purpose of Lhe formal requlremenL for accepLance of a donaLlon ls Lo ensure
LhaL such accepLance ls duly communlcaLed Lo Lhe donor
Pere a school bulldlng was lmmedlaLely consLrucLed afLer Lhe donaLlon was execuLed
8espondenLs had knowledge of Lhe exlsLence of Lhe school bulldlng lL was when Lhe school
bulldlng was belng dlsmanLled and Lransferred Lo Lhe new slLe and when vlceMayor Wllfredo
alma was consLrucLlng a house on Lhe donaLed properLy LhaL respondenLs came Lo know of Lhe
ueed of Lxchange 1he acLual knowledge by respondenLs of Lhe consLrucLlon and exlsLence of Lhe
school bulldlng fulfllled Lhe legal requlremenL LhaL Lhe accepLance of Lhe donaLlon by Lhe donee be
communlcaLed Lo Lhe donor
under ArL 743 Lhe law requlres Lhe donee Lo accepL Lhe donaLlon personally or Lhrough an
auLhorlzed person wlLh a speclal power for Lhe purpose or wlLh a general and sufflclenL power
oLherwlse Lhe donaLlon shall be vold"
1he respondenLs clalm LhaL Lhe accepLance by 8uendla of Lhe donaLlon was lneffecLlve because of
Lhe absence of a speclal power of aLLorney from Lhe 8epubllc of Lhe hlllpplnes 1he donaLlon was
made ln favor of Lhe 8ureau of ubllc Schools Such belng Lhe case 8uendla's accepLance was
auLhorlzed under SecLlon 47 of Lhe 1987 AdmlnlsLraLlve Code whlch sLaLes
SLC 47 ConLracLs and Conveyances ConLracLs or conveyances may be execuLed for and ln behalf
of Lhe CovernmenL or of any of lLs branches subdlvlslons agencles or lnsLrumenLallLles whenever
demanded by Lhe exlgency or exlgencles of Lhe servlce and as long as Lhe same are noL prohlblLed
by law

2 no 1he condlLlon was noL vlolaLed
1he excluslvlLy of Lhe purpose of Lhe donaLlon was noL alLered or affecLed when 8uendla
exchanged Lhe loL for a much blgger one lL was ln furLherance and enhancemenL of Lhe purpose of
Lhe donaLlon 1he acqulslLlon of Lhe blgger loL paved Lhe way for Lhe release of funds for Lhe
consLrucLlon of 8agong Llpunan school bulldlng whlch could noL be accommodaLed by Lhe llmlLed
area of Lhe donaLed loL

u|[ada vs CA
Gk# 126444] Dec 4 1998
299 SCkA 6

lacLs
1rlnldad Cul[ada wlLh her slbllngs lnherlLed a 2hecLare land ln Agusan uel Sur Cn 1936
Lhey execuLed a condlLlonal deed of donaLlon ln favor of Lhe MunlclpallLy of 1alacogon for Lhe
sub[ecL land 1he donaLlon was sub[ecL Lo Lhe condlLlon LhaL Lhe donaLed properLy shall be used
solely and excluslvely as parL of Lhe campus of Lhe proposed rovlnclal Plgh School lf such
proposal be dlsconLlnued Lhe properLy shall auLomaLlcally reverL Lo Lhe donor uesplLe Lhls
donaLlon 1rlnldad Cul[ada possessed Lhe land Cn 1962 she sold 1hecLare of Lhe land Lo 8egalado
Monde[ar Lhrough a deed of sale 1he remalnlng area was sold Lo Lhe same person verbally
evldenced by recelpLs of paymenL ln 1987 Lhe rovlnclal Plgh School falled Lo maLerlallze 1he
Sanggunlang 8ayan of Lhe munlclpallLy enacLed a resoluLlon reverLlng Lhe land back Lo Lhe donors
uurlng LhaL Llme Monde[ar subsequenLly sold porLlons of Lhe properLy Lo buyersupon Lhe deaLh
of 1rlnldad Cul[ada her helrs now seeks Lo recover possesslon and ownershlp of Lhe sub[ecL land
by flllng a peLlLlon for quleLlng Lhe LlLle eLlLloners conLend LhaL Lhere was no valld sale slnce Lhe
land was sold when ownershlp was already Lransferred Lo Lhe MunlclpallLy by Lhe deed of
donaLlon 8espondenLs conLend oLherwlse

lssue
W/n Lhere ls a valld sale by Lhe donor Cul[ada Lo a Lhlrd person Monde[ar even lf lL was
condlLlonally donaLed Lo a donee Lhe MunlclpallLy of 1alacogan

Peld
1here ls a valld sale by Lhe donor
When Lhe MunlclpallLy's accepLance of Lhe donaLlon was made known Lo Lhe donor Lhe
MunlclpallLy became Lhe new owner of Lhe properLy desplLe Lhe condlLlons ln Lhe deed of
donaLlon Cwnershlp ls lmmedlaLely Lransferred and wlll only reverL lf Lhe resoluLory condlLlon ls
noL fulfllled
When a person donaLes a land Lo anoLher on Lhe condlLlon LhaL Lhe laLLer would bulld upon Lhe
land a school Lhe condlLlon lmposed ls a resoluLory one
uesplLe Lhese and as provlded for by Lhe Law on Sales ownershlp by Lhe seller of Lhe Lhlng sold aL
Lhe Llme of Lhe perfecLlon of Lhe conLracL ls noL necessary Cwnershlp ls only relevanL durlng lLs
consummaLlon where Lhe Lhlng sold wlll be dellvered Such dellvery ln Lhls case happened when
Lhe donor became Lhe owner upon Lhe reverslon of Lhe properLy Such LlLle ln accordance Lo
ArLlcle 1434 of Lhe new Clvll Code passes by operaLlon of law Lo Lhe buyer
noLe Lands whlch were prevlously donaLed may sLlll be sold Lo a Lhlrd person Such sale ls sLlll valld
even lf aL Lhe Llme Lhe sale was perfecLed Lhe donorseller dld noL own Lhe land lL ls upon Lhe
consummaLlon of a perfecLed sale where Lhe donorseller ls obllged Lo dellver Lhe Lhlng sold
Lagazo vs CA
Gk# 112796] Mar S 1998
287 SCkA 18

lacLs
CaLallna !acob vda de 8eyes a wldow and grandmoLher of 1lLo Lagazo was Lhe granLee of Lhe
MonserraL esLaLe She had Lo leave for Canada Lo become a permanenL resldenL Lhereln and she
appolnLed one Lduardo Lspanol Lo be her aLLorneylnfacL on CcLober 3 1977 Lo flx Lhe
requlremenLs needed
lalllng Lo accompllsh whaL he oughL Lo do CaLallna appolnLed Lagazo as her new aLLorneylnfacL ln
Aprll 16 1984 1he granL was subsequenLly glven and laLer Lhe land was donaLed Lo Lagazo on
!anuary 30 1983
Lagazo Lhen soughL Lo remove CabanllL from Lhe properLy 1he laLLer clalms ownershlp over Lhe
land by vlrLue of a deed of sale execuLed ln favor of hlm by Lspanol Pe clalmed LhaL Lhe house and
loL ln conLroversy were hls by vlrLue of Lhe followlng documenLs

1 ueed of AbsoluLe Sale execuLed by CaLallna !acob daLed CcLober 7 1977 ln favor of Lduardo 8
Lspanol coverlng Lhe resldenLlal house locaLed aL Lhe premlses
2 ueed of AsslgnmenL over LoL 8W execuLed by CaLallna !acob ln favor of Lduardo Lspanol daLed
SepLember 30 1980 and
3 ueed of AsslgnmenL execuLed by Lduardo 8 Lspanol over LoL 8W and a resldenLlal house
Lhereon ln favor of defendanLappellanL daLed CcLober 2 1982

1he 81C ruled ln favor of Lagazo whlle Lhe CA reversed sLaLlng LhaL Lagazo's fallure Lo accepL Lhe
donaLlon wheLher ln Lhe same deed of donaLlon or ln a separaLe lnsLrumenL renders Lhe donaLlon
null and vold Lagazo conLends LhaL Lhe formallLles for a donaLlon of real properLy should noL apply
Lo hls case slnce lL was an onerous one because he pald for Lhe amorLlzaLlons due on Lhe land
before and afLer Lhe execuLlon of Lhe deed of donaLlon

lssue
W/n Lhe donaLlon was slmple or onerous

Peld
1he donaLlon was a slmple noL onerous A slmple or pure donaLlon ls one whose cause ls pure
llberallLy (no sLrlngs aLLached) whlle an onerous donaLlon ls one whlch ls sub[ecL Lo burdens
charges or fuLure servlces equal Lo or more ln value Lhan Lhe Lhlng donaLed under ArLlcle 733 of
Lhe Clvll Code donaLlons wlLh an onerous cause shall be governed by Lhe rules on conLracLs hence
Lhe formallLles requlred for a valld slmple donaLlon are noL appllcable
Lven concedlng LhaL peLlLloners full paymenL of Lhe purchase prlce of Lhe loL mlghL have been a
burden Lo hlm such paymenL was noL however lmposed by Lhe donor as a condlLlon for Lhe
donaLlon 8aLher Lhe deed expllclLly sLaLed
1haL for and ln conslderaLlon of Lhe love and affecLlon whlch Lhe uCnLL lnsplres ln Lhe uCnC8
and as an acL of llberallLy and generoslLy and conslderlng furLher LhaL Lhe uCnLL ls a grandson of
Lhe uCnC8 Lhe uCnC8 hereby volunLarlly and freely glves Lransfers and conveys by way of
donaLlon unLo sald uCnLL hls helrs execuLors admlnlsLraLors and asslgns all Lhe rlghL LlLle and
lnLeresL whlch Lhe sald uCnC8 has ln Lhe above descrlbed real properLy LogeLher wlLh all Lhe
bulldlngs and lmprovemenLs found Lhereln free from all llnes slc and encumbrances and charges
whaLsoever"
lL ls clear LhaL Lhe donor dld noL have any lnLenLlon Lo burden or charge peLlLloner as Lhe donee
1he words ln Lhe deed are ln facL Lyplcal of a pure donaLlon We agree wlLh 8espondenL CourL LhaL
Lhe paymenLs made by peLlLloner were merely hls volunLary acLs
Llke any oLher conLracL an agreemenL of Lhe parLles ls essenLlal 1he donaLlon followlng Lhe Lheory
of cognlLlon (ArLlcle 1319 Clvll Code) ls perfecLed only upon Lhe momenL Lhe donor knows of Lhe
accepLance by Lhe donee lurLhermore lf Lhe accepLance ls made ln a separaLe lnsLrumenL Lhe

donor shall be noLlfled Lhereof ln an auLhenLlc form and Lhls sLep shall be noLed ln boLh
lnsLrumenLs

AccepLance of Lhe donaLlon by Lhe donee ls Lherefore lndlspensable lLs absence makes Lhe
donaLlon null and vold


I|orenc|o v De Leon
Gk# 149S70] Mar 12 2004
42S SCkA 447

lAC1S eLlLloner 1eresa Sevllla de Leon owned a resldenLlal loL wlLh an area of 828 square meLers
locaLed ln San Mlguel 8ulacan ln Lhe 1960s ue Leon allowed Lhe spouses 8espondenL 8osendo
and Consuelo llorenclo Lo consLrucL a house on Lhe sald properLy and sLay Lhereln wlLhouL any
renLals Lherefore
ln november 1978 eL ue Leon dled lnLesLaLe Per helrs allowed 8osendo llorenclo Lo conLlnue
sLaylng ln Lhe properLy ln March 1993 llorenclo dled lnLesLaLe Cn Aprll 26 1993 Lhe helrs of ue
Leon Lhrough counsel senL a leLLer Lo Lhe helrs of llorenclo demandlng LhaL Lhey vacaLe Lhe
properLy wlLhln nlneLy (90) days from recelpL Lhereof 1he laLLer refused and falled Lo vacaLe Lhe
properLy 1hey flled a complalnL for e[ecLmenL agalnsL Lhe helrs of llorenclo before Lhe M1C
1he helrs of llorenclo ln Lhelr answer alleged LhaL Lhe plalnLlffs had no cause of acLlon agalnsL
Lhem as 1eresa de Leon had execuLed a ueed of uonaLlon on CcLober 1 1976 over Lhe sald parcel
of land ln favor of Lhelr predecessor 8osendo llorenclo 1he laLLer accepLed Lhe donaLlon as
shown by hls slgnaLure above hls LypewrlLLen name on page one of Lhe deed Powever Lhe orlglnal
ueed cannoL be produced by Lhe laLLer 1he lower and Lhe appellaLe courL ruled ln favor or
8espondenLs
lSSuL1) WCn Lhere ls donaLlon? 2)WCn eLlLloners who appears Lo be Lhe donee under Lhe
unreglsLered ueed of uonaLlon have a beLLer rlghL Lo Lhe physlcal or maLerlal possesslon of Lhe
properLy over Lhe respondenLs who ls Lhe reglsLered owner of Lhe properLy?

PLLu 1here ls no donaLlon under Lhe new Clvll Code donaLlon ls one of Lhe modes of acqulrlng
ownershlp Among Lhe aLLrlbuLes of ownershlp ls Lhe rlghL Lo possess Lhe properLy
1he essenLlal elemenLs of donaLlon are as follows
(a) Lhe essenLlal reducLlon of Lhe paLrlmony of Lhe donor
(b) Lhe lncrease ln Lhe paLrlmony of Lhe donee and
(c) Lhe lnLenL Lo do an acL of llberallLy or anlmus donandl
When applled Lo a donaLlon of an lmmovable properLy Lhe law furLher requlres LhaL Lhe donaLlon
be made ln a publlc documenL and LhaL Lhe accepLance Lhereof be made ln Lhe same deed or ln a
separaLe publlc lnsLrumenL ln cases where Lhe accepLance ls made ln a separaLe lnsLrumenL lL ls
mandaLed LhaL Lhe donor be noLlfled Lhereof ln an auLhenLlc form Lo be noLed ln boLh lnsLrumenLs
As a mode of acqulrlng ownershlp donaLlon resulLs ln an effecLlve Lransfer of LlLle over Lhe
properLy from Lhe donor Lo Lhe donee and ls perfecLed from Lhe momenL Lhe donor ls made aware
of Lhe accepLance by Lhe donee provlded LhaL Lhe donee ls noL dlsquallfled or prohlblLed by law
from accepLlng Lhe donaLlon Cnce Lhe donaLlon ls accepLed lL ls generally consldered lrrevocable
and Lhe donee becomes Lhe absoluLe owner of Lhe properLy excepL on accounL of offlclousness
fallure by Lhe donee Lo comply wlLh Lhe charge lmposed ln Lhe donaLlon or lngraLlLude 1he
accepLance Lo be valld musL be made durlng Lhe llfeLlme of boLh Lhe donor and Lhe donee lL
musL be made ln Lhe same deed or ln a separaLe publlc documenL and Lhe donee's accepLance
musL come Lo Lhe knowledge of Lhe donor
ln order LhaL Lhe donaLlon of an lmmovable properLy may be valld lL musL be made ln a publlc
documenL 8eglsLraLlon of Lhe deed ln Lhe Cfflce of Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds or ln Lhe Assessor's Cfflce
ls noL necessary for lL Lo be consldered valld and offlclal 8eglsLraLlon does noL vesL LlLle lL ls
merely evldence of such LlLle over a parLlcular parcel of land 1he necesslLy of reglsLraLlon comes
lnLo play only when Lhe rlghLs of Lhlrd persons are affecLed lurLhermore Lhe helrs are bound by
Lhe deed of conLracLs execuLed by Lhelr predecessorslnlnLeresL
Powever as polnLed ouL by Lhe 81C and Lhe CourL of Appeals Lhere are cogenL facLs and
clrcumsLances of subsLance whlch engender verlLable doubLs as Lo wheLher Lhe peLlLloners have a
beLLer rlghL of possesslon over Lhe properLy oLher Lhan Lhe respondenLs Lhe lawful helrs of Lhe
deceased reglsLered owner of Lhe properLy 1eresa de Leon based on Lhe ueed of uonaLlon
llrsL 1eresa de Leon dld noL Lurned over Lhe owner's dupllcaLe of 1C1 Lo llorenclo Lo faclllLaLe
Lhe lssuance of a new LlLle over Lhe properLy ln hls favor AL Lhe very leasL he should have caused
Lhe annoLaLlon of Lhe deed lmmedlaLely afLer Lhe donaLlon or shorLly LhereafLer aL Lhe dorsal
porLlon of 1C1
Second llorenclo falled Lo lnform Lhe helrs of ue Leon LhaL Lhe laLLer before her deaLh had
execuLed a deed of donaLlon on CcLober 1 1976 over Lhe properLy ln hls favor lL was only ln 1996
or elghLeen years afLer Lhe deaLh of ue Leon when Lhe respondenLs sued Lhe peLlLloners for
e[ecLmenL
1hlrd ln Lhe meanLlme Lhe respondenLs conslsLenLly pald Lhe realLy Laxes for Lhe properLy from
1978 up Lo 1996
lourLh 1he peLlLloners never adduced ln evldence Lhe owner's dupllcaLe of 1C1
llfLh 1he respondenLs adduced ln evldence Lhe affldavlLcomplalnL of valerlana MorenLe daLed
May 8 1996 one of Lhe wlLnesses Lo Lhe deed for falslflcaLlon and per[ury agalnsL llorenclo and
ALLy 1lrso MangulaL
SlxLh A readlng of Lhe deed wlll show LhaL aL Lhe boLLom of page one Lhereof llorenclo was Lo
subscrlbe and swear Lo Lhe LruLh of hls accepLance of Lhe donaLlon before Munlclpal Mayor
Marcelo C Aure of San Mlguel 8ulacan Powever Lhe mayor dld noL afflx hls slgnaLure above hls
LypewrlLLen name
Sev|||a vs Sev|||a
Gk# 1S0179] Apr 30 2003
402 SCkA S01

lacLs Cn uecember 10 1973 lllomena Almlrol de Sevllla dled lnLesLaLe leavlng 8 chlldren namely
Wllllam eLer Leopoldo lellpe 8osa Marla Luzvllla and !lmmy all surnamed Sevllla Wllllam
!lmmy and Marla are now deceased and are survlved by Lhelr respecLlve spouses and chlldren
hereln peLlLloners lllomena lefL properLles one of whlch a parcel of land whlch she coowned wlLh
her 2 slsLers PonoraLa Almlrol and lellsa Almlrol who were boLh slngle and wlLhouL lssue
When PonoraLa dled ln 1982 her 1/3 undlvlded share ln LoL 633 was LransmlLLed Lo her
helrs lellsa Almlrol and lllomena
uurlng Lhe llfeLlme of lellsa and PonoraLa Almlrol Lhey llved ln Lhe house of lllomena
Almlrol de Sevllla LogeLher wlLh Lhelr nephew respondenL Leopoldo Sevllla and hls famlly
Leopoldo aLLended Lo Lhe needs of hls moLher lllomena and hls Lwo aunLs PonoraLa and lellsa
Cn !uly 6 1988 lellsa dled 8uL prlor LhereLo on november 23 1983 she execuLed a
lasL wlll and LesLamenL devlslng her 1/2 share ln LoL no 633 Lo 8espondenL Leopoldo and hls wlfe
Cn AugusL 8 1986 lellsa execuLed anoLher documenL denomlnaLed as uonaLlon lnLer vlvos"

cedlng Lo Leopoldo Sevllla her 1/2 undlvlded share ln LoL no 633 whlch was accepLed by Leopoldo
ln Lhe same documenL
eLlLloners flled a case agalnsL respondenLs Leopoldo for annulmenL of Lhe ueed of uonaLlon and
Lhe ueed of LxLra[udlclal arLlLlon alleglng LhaL Lhe ueed of uonaLlon ls LalnLed wlLh fraud because
lellsa Almlrol who was Lhen 81 years of age was serlously lll and of unsound mlnd aL Lhe Llme of
Lhe execuLlon Lhereof

81C uphold Lhe valldlLy of Lhe ueed of uonaLlon and declarlng Lhe ueed of LxLra[udlclal arLlLlon
unenforceable
lssue WheLher Lhe deed of donaLlon ls valld?
Peld ?es
uonaLlon ls an acL of llberallLy whereby a person dlsposes graLulLously of a Lhlng or rlghL ln favor of
anoLher who accepLs lL under ArLlcle 737 of Lhe Clvll Code Lhe donor's capaclLy shall be
deLermlned as of Lhe Llme of Lhe maklng of Lhe donaLlon Llke any oLher conLracL an agreemenL of
Lhe parLles ls essenLlal and Lhe aLLendance of a vlce of consenL renders Lhe donaLlon voldable
ln Lhe case aL bar Lhere ls no quesLlon LhaL aL Lhe Llme lellsa Almlrol execuLed Lhe deed of
donaLlon she was already Lhe owner of 1/2 undlvlded porLlon of LoL no 633 Per 1/3 undlvlded
share Lhereln was lncreased by 1/2 when she and lllomena lnherlLed Lhe 1/3 share of Lhelr slsLer
PonoraLa afLer Lhe laLLer's deaLh Pence Lhe 1/2 undlvlded share of lellsa ln LoL no 633 ls
consldered a presenL properLy whlch she can valldly dlspose of aL Lhe Llme of Lhe execuLlon of Lhe
deed of donaLlon
1he lnslsLence LhaL respondenL Leopoldo Sevllla employed fraud and undue lnfluence on
Lhe person of Lhe donor ls noL presenL ln Lhe case aL bar Pe who asserLs noL he who denles musL
prove
eLlLloners falled Lo show proof why lellsa should be held lncapable of exerclslng sufflclenL
[udgmenL ln cedlng her share Lo respondenL Leopoldo As LesLlfled by Lhe noLary publlc who
noLarlzed Lhe ueed of uonaLlon lellsa conflrmed Lo hlm her lnLenLlon Lo donaLe her share ln LoL
no 633 Lo Leopoldo Pe sLressed LhaL Lhough Lhe donor was old she was of sound mlnd and could
Lalk senslbly SlgnlflcanLly Lhere ls noLhlng ln Lhe record LhaL dlscloses even an aLLempL by
peLlLloners Lo rebuL sald declaraLlon of Lhe noLary publlc

Cata|an vs 8asa
Gk# 1S9667] Iu|y 31 2007
S28 SCkA 64S

lacLs Cn !une 16 1931 lLLlClAnC CA1ALAn (lellclano) donaLed Lo hls slsLer ML8CLuLS CA1ALAn
(Mercedes) onehalf of Lhe sub[ecL parcel of land
Cn March 26 1979 Mercedes sold Lhe same properLy ln favor of her chlldren uella and !esus 8asa
1he ueed of AbsoluLe Sale was reglsLered wlLh Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds on lebruary 20 1992 and 1ax
ueclaraLlon no 12911 was lssued ln Lhe name of respondenLs
Cn Aprll 1 1997 8l acLlng as lellclanos guardlan flled a case for ueclaraLlon of nulllLy of
uocumenLs 8ecovery of ossesslon and Cwnershlp as well as damages agalnsL Lhe hereln
respondenLs 8l alleged LhaL Lhe ueed of AbsoluLe uonaLlon Lo Mercedes was vold as lellclano
was noL of sound mlnd and was Lherefore lncapable of glvlng valld consenL 1hus lL clalmed LhaL lf
Lhe ueed of AbsoluLe uonaLlon was vold ab lnlLlo Lhe subsequenL ueed of AbsoluLe Sale Lo uella
and !esus 8asa should llkewlse be nulllfled for Mercedes CaLalan had no rlghL Lo sell Lhe properLy Lo
anyone
Cn AugusL 14 1997 lellclano passed away 1he orlglnal complalnL was amended Lo subsLlLuLe hls
helrs ln lleu of 8l as complalnanLs
1he Lrlal courL found LhaL Lhe evldence presenLed by Lhe complalnanLs was lnsufflclenL Lo
overcome Lhe presumpLlon LhaL lellclano was sane and compeLenL aL Lhe Llme he execuLed Lhe
deed of donaLlon ln favor of Mercedes CaLalan 1hus Lhe courL declared Lhe presumpLlon of sanlLy
or compeLency noL havlng been duly lmpugned Lhe presumpLlon of due execuLlon of Lhe donaLlon
ln quesLlon musL be upheld CA afflrmed Lhe [udgmenL of Lhe Lrlal courL and held LhaL all Lhe
elemenLs for valldlLy of conLracLs havlng been presenL ln Lhe 1931 donaLlon Mercedes acqulred
valld LlLle of ownershlp over Lhe properLy ln dlspuLe and Lhe subsequenL sale of Lhe properLy musL
be upheld
lssue WheLher Lhe Lrlal courL and Lhe CA were correcL ln flndlng LhaL Lhe deed of donaLlon
execuLed by lellclano ln favor of Mercedes was valld
Peld ?es A donaLlon ls an acL of llberallLy whereby a person dlsposes graLulLously a Lhlng or rlghL
ln favor of anoLher who accepLs lL Llke any oLher conLracL an agreemenL of Lhe parLles ls
essenLlal ConsenL ln conLracLs presupposes Lhe followlng requlslLes (1) lL should be lnLelllgenL or
wlLh an exacL noLlon of Lhe maLLer Lo whlch lL refers (2) lL should be free and (3) lL should be
sponLaneous 1he parLles lnLenLlon musL be clear and Lhe aLLendance of a vlce of consenL llke any
conLracL renders Lhe donaLlon voldable
ln order for donaLlon of properLy Lo be valld whaL ls cruclal ls Lhe donors capaclLy Lo glve consenL
aL Lhe Llme of Lhe donaLlon CerLalnly Lhere lles no doubL ln Lhe facL LhaL lnsanlLy lmplnges on
consenL freely glven Powever Lhe burden of provlng such lncapaclLy resLs upon Lhe person who
alleges lL lf no sufflclenL proof Lo Lhls effecL ls presenLed capaclLy wlll be presumed
A Lhorough perusal of Lhe records of Lhe case aL bar lndublLably shows LhaL Lhe evldence presenLed
by Lhe peLlLloners was lnsufflclenL Lo overcome Lhe presumpLlon LhaL lellclano was compeLenL
when he donaLed Lhe properLy ln quesLlon Lo Mercedes eLlLloners make much ado of Lhe facL
LhaL as early as 1948 lellclano had been found Lo be sufferlng from schlzophrenla by Lhe 8oard of
Medlcal Cfflcers of Lhe ueparLmenL of veLeran Affalrs 8y lLself however Lhe allegaLlon cannoL
prove Lhe lncompeLence of lellclano A sLudy of Lhe naLure of schlzophrenla wlll show LhaL
lellclano could sLlll be presumed capable of aLLendlng Lo hls properLy rlghLs
lrom Lhe sclenLlflc sLudles lL can be deduced LhaL a person sufferlng from schlzophrenla does noL
necessarlly lose hls compeLence Lo lnLelllgenLly dlspose hls properLy 8y merely alleglng Lhe
exlsLence of schlzophrenla peLlLloners falled Lo show subsLanLlal proof LhaL aL Lhe daLe of Lhe
donaLlon !une 16 1931 lellclano CaLalan had losL LoLal conLrol of hls menLal faculLles 1hus Lhe
lower courLs correcLly held LhaL lellclano was of sound mlnd aL LhaL Llme and LhaL Lhls condlLlon
conLlnued Lo exlsL unLll proof Lo Lhe conLrary was adduced

Gestopa v ||ap||
Gk# 111904 Cct S 2000
342 SCkA 10S

lacLs Spouses ulego and CaLallna uanlag were Lhe owners of slx parcels of unreglsLered lands
1hey execuLed Lhree deeds of donaLlon morLls causa Lwo of whlch are daLed March 4 1963 and
anoLher daLed CcLober 13 1966 ln favor of prlvaLe respondenL Mercedes uanlagllapll 1he flrsL
deed perLalned Lo parcels 1 2 1he second deed perLalned Lo parcel 3 1he lasL deed perLalned Lo
parcel 4 All deeds conLalned Lhe reservaLlon of Lhe rlghLs of Lhe donors (1) Lo amend cancel or
revoke Lhe donaLlon durlng Lhelr llfeLlme and (2) Lo sell morLgage or encumber Lhe properLles
donaLed durlng Lhe donors llfeLlme lf deemed necessary Cn !anuary 16 1973 ulego uanlag wlLh

Lhe consenL of hls wlfe CaLallna uanlag execuLed a deed of donaLlon lnLer vlvos coverlng Lhe
aforemenLloned parcels of land plus Lwo oLher parcels (6 parcels ln all) agaln ln favor of prlvaLe
respondenL Mercedes 1hls conLalned Lwo condlLlons LhaL (1) Lhe uanlag spouses shall conLlnue Lo
en[oy Lhe frulLs of Lhe land durlng Lhelr llfeLlme and LhaL (2) Lhe donee cannoL sell or dlspose of Lhe
land durlng Lhe llfeLlme of Lhe sald spouses wlLhouL Lhelr prlor consenL and approval Mercedes
caused Lhe Lransfer of Lhe parcels Lax declaraLlon Lo her name and pald Lhe Laxes on Lhem

Cn !une 28 1979 and AugusL 21 1979 ulego and CaLallna uanlag sold parcels 3 and 4 Lo hereln
peLlLloners Sps CesLopa Cn SepLember 29 1979 Lhe uanlags execuLed a deed of revocaLlon
recoverlng Lhe slx parcels of land sub[ecL of Lhe aforeclLed deed of donaLlon lnLer vlvos Cn March
1 1983 Mercedes llapll flled wlLh Lhe 81C a peLlLlon agalnsL Lhe CesLopas and Lhe uanlags for
quleLlng of LlLle over Lhe above parcels of land ln Lhelr opposlLlon Lhe CesLopas and Lhe uanlags
averred LhaL Lhe deed of donaLlon daLed !anuary 16 1973 was null and vold because lL was
obLalned by Mercedes Lhrough machlnaLlons and undue lnfluence Lven assumlng lL was valldly
execuLed Lhe lnLenLlon was for Lhe donaLlon Lo Lake effecL upon Lhe deaLh of Lhe donor lurLher
Lhe donaLlon was vold for lL lefL Lhe donor ulego uanlag wlLhouL any properLy aL all Cn uecember
27 1991 Lhe Lrlal courL rendered a declslon ln favor of Lhe CesLopas and Lhe uanlags Mercedes
appealed Lo Lhe CourL of Appeals Cn AugusL 31 1993 Lhe appellaLe courL reversed Lhe Lrlal courL

lssue WheLher Lhe donaLlon was lnLer vlvos or morLls causa

Peld 1he donaLlon was lnLer vlvos for Lhe followlng reasons
(1) 1he granLlng clause shows LhaL ulego donaLed Lhe properLles ouL of love and affecLlon for Lhe
donee 1hls ls a mark of a donaLlon lnLer vlvos
(2) 1he reservaLlon of llfeLlme usufrucL lndlcaLes LhaL Lhe donor lnLended Lo Lransfer Lhe naked
ownershlp over Lhe properLles As correcLly posed by Lhe CourL of Appeals whaL was Lhe need for
such reservaLlon lf Lhe donor and hls spouse remalned Lhe owners of Lhe properLles?
(3) 1he donor reserved sufflclenL properLles for hls malnLenance ln accordance wlLh hls sLandlng ln
socleLy lndlcaLlng LhaL Lhe donor lnLended Lo parL wlLh Lhe slx parcels of land (4) 1he donee
accepLed Lhe donaLlon ln Lhe case of Ale[andro vs Ceraldez 78 SC8A 243 (1977) we sald LhaL an
accepLance clause ls a mark LhaL Lhe donaLlon ls lnLer vlvos AccepLance ls a requlremenL for
donaLlons lnLer vlvos uonaLlons morLls causa belng ln Lhe form of a wlll are noL requlred Lo be
accepLed by Lhe donees durlng Lhe donors llfeLlme

ConsequenLly Lhe CourL of Appeals dld noL err ln concludlng LhaL Lhe rlghL Lo dlspose of Lhe
properLles belonged Lo Lhe donee 1he donors rlghL Lo glve consenL was merely lnLended Lo
proLecL hls usufrucLuary lnLeresLs ln Ale[andro we ruled LhaL a llmlLaLlon on Lhe rlghL Lo sell durlng
Lhe donors llfeLlme lmplled LhaL ownershlp had passed Lo Lhe donees and donaLlon was already
effecLlve durlng Lhe donors llfeLlme 1he aLLendlng clrcumsLances ln Lhe execuLlon of Lhe sub[ecL
donaLlon also demonsLraLed Lhe real lnLenL of Lhe donor Lo Lransfer Lhe ownershlp over Lhe sub[ecL
properLles upon lLs execuLlon rlor Lo Lhe execuLlon of donaLlon lnLer vlvos Lhe uanlag spouses
already execuLed Lhree donaLlons morLls causa As correcLly observed by Lhe CourL of Appeals Lhe
uanlag spouses were aware of Lhe dlfference beLween Lhe Lwo donaLlons lf Lhey dld noL lnLend Lo
donaLe lnLer vlvos Lhey would noL agaln donaLe Lhe four loLs already donaLed morLls causa

Was Lhe revocaLlon valld? A valld donaLlon once accepLed becomes lrrevocable excepL on
accounL of offlclousness fallure by Lhe donee Lo comply wlLh Lhe charges lmposed ln Lhe donaLlon
or lngraLlLude 1he donorspouses dld noL lnvoke any of Lhese reasons ln Lhe deed of revocaLlon
Pence Lhe revocaLlon made was noL valld llnally Lhe records do noL show LhaL Lhe donorspouses
lnsLlLuLed any acLlon Lo revoke Lhe donaLlon ln accordance wlLh ArLlcle 769 of Lhe Clvll Code
ConsequenLly Lhe supposed revocaLlon on SepLember 29 1979 had no legal effecL

Magat v CA
Gk # 1067SS Ieb 1 2002
37S SCkA SS6

lacLs 8aslllsa ComerclanLe ls a moLher of 3 chlldren namely 8osarlo AusLrla Consolaclon AusLrla
peLlLloner Apollnarla AusLrlaMagaL Leonardo and one of respondenLs llorenLlno Lumubos
Leonardo dled ln a !apanese concenLraLlon camp aL 1arlac durlng World War ll
ln 1933 8aslllsa boughL a parcel of resldenLlal land LogeLher wlLh Lhe lmprovemenL Lhereon
covered ln 1C1 no 814036 (13268) and known as LoL 1 8lock 1 CavlLe 8each Subd wlLh an area
of 130 sq m locaLed ln 8agong ook San AnLonlo CavlLe ClLy Cn uecember 17 1973 8aslllsa
execuLed a documenL deslgnaLed as kasulaLan sa kaloobpala (uonaLlon)"
Cn lebruary 6 1979 8aslllsa execuLed a ueed of AbsoluLe Sale of Lhe sub[ecL house and loL ln favor
of hereln peLlLloner Apollnarla AusLrlaMagaL for 300000 1he 1C1 no 814036 ln Lhe name of
Lhe donor was cancelled and ln lleu Lhereof 1C1 no 110434 was lssued by Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds of
CavlLe ClLy ln favor of peLlLloner Apollnarla AusLrlaMagaL
Cn SepLember 21 1983 respondenLs 1eodora CarampoL uomlngo Comla and LrnesLo Apolo
(represenLlng Lhelr deceased moLher Consolaclon AusLrla) 8lcardo MamerLo and Segunda all
surnamed Sumpelo (represenLlng Lhelr deceased moLher 8osarlo AusLrla) and llorenLlno Lumubos
flled before Lhe 81C CavlLe an acLlon agalnsL Lhe peLlLloner for annulmenL of 1C1 no 110434 and
oLher relevanL documenLs and for reconveyance and damages
81C dlsmlssed Lhe case CA reversed Lhe 81C
lssue WCn 1PL CA CnC8Lu 1PL 8uLLS Cl ln1L88L1A1lCn Cl CCn18AC1S WPLn l1
CCnSluL8Lu 1PL uCnA1lCn ln CuLS1lCn AS ln1L8 vlvCS
Peld CA ls afflrmed 1he provlslons ln Lhe sub[ecL deed of donaLlon LhaL are cruclal for Lhe
deLermlnaLlon of Lhe class Lo whlch Lhe donaLlon belongs are as follows
xxx xxx
xxx(l)blnlblgay ko aL lplnagkakaloob ng ganap aL hlndl mababawl sa naullL na apaL na anak ko aL sa
kanllang mga Lagapagmana ang aklng lupang resldenLlal o Llrahan sampu ng aklng bahay nakaLlrlk
doon na nasa 8agong ook dln San AnLonlo Lungsod ng kablLe
xxx xxx
na ang kaloob palang lLo ay magkakablsa lamang slmula sa araw na ako'y pumanaw sa mundo xxx
xxx xxx
na ang LlLulo numero 1C112260 (814036) ng Lungsod ng kablLe bahay sa loLeng Llrahan ng
8agong ook na nababangglL sa nasablng kasulaLan ay mananaLlll sa poder o posseslon ng lna na
sl 8aslllsa ComerclanLe habang slya ay nabubuhay aL
Cayon dln ang nasablng 1lLulo ay hlndl mapapasangla o malpagblblll ang lupa habang maybuhay
ang nasablng 8aslllsa ComerclanLe xxx

lL has been held LhaL wheLher Lhe donaLlon ls lnLer vlvos or morLls causa depends on wheLher Lhe
donor lnLended Lo Lransfer ownershlp over Lhe properLles upon Lhe execuLlon of Lhe deed ln
8onsaLo v CourL of Appeals Lhe characLerlsLlcs of a donaLlon morLls causa was enumeraLed Lo
wlL

(1) lL conveys no LlLle or ownershlp Lo Lhe Lransferee before Lhe deaLh of Lhe Lransferor or
whaL amounLs Lo Lhe same Lhlng LhaL Lhe Lransferor should reLaln Lhe ownershlp (full or naked)
and conLrol of Lhe properLy whlle allve
(2) 1haL before hls deaLh Lhe Lransfer should be revocable by Lhe Lransferor aL wlll ad
nuLum buL revocablllLy may be provlded for lndlrecLly by means of a reserved power ln Lhe donor
Lo dlspose of Lhe properLles conveyed
(3) 1haL Lhe Lransfer should be vold lf Lhe Lransferor should survlve Lhe Lransferee
1hus Lhe peLlLloner's clLed provlslons are only necessary assurances LhaL durlng Lhe donor's
llfeLlme Lhe laLLer would sLlll en[oy Lhe rlghL of possesslon over Lhe properLy buL hls naked LlLle of
ownershlp has been passed on Lo Lhe donees and LhaL upon Lhe donor's deaLh Lhe donees would
geL all Lhe rlghLs of ownershlp over Lhe same lncludlng Lhe rlghL Lo use and possess Lhe same
lurLhermore lL also appeared LhaL Lhe provlslon ln Lhe deed of donaLlon regardlng Lhe prohlblLlon
Lo allenaLe Lhe sub[ecL properLy ls couched ln general Lerms such LhaL even Lhe donor ls deemed
lncluded ln Lhe sald prohlblLlon lf Lhe donor lnLended Lo malnLaln full ownershlp over Lhe sald
properLy unLll her deaLh she could have expressly sLaLed Lhereln a reservaLlon of her rlghL Lo
dlspose of Lhe same 1he prohlblLlon on Lhe donor Lo allenaLe Lhe sald properLy durlng her llfeLlme
ls proof LhaL naked ownershlp over Lhe properLy has been Lransferred Lo Lhe donees
AnoLher lndlcaLlon ln Lhe deed of donaLlon LhaL Lhe donaLlon ls lnLer vlvos ls Lhe accepLance clause
Lhereln of Lhe donees We have ruled LhaL an accepLance clause ls a mark LhaL Lhe donaLlon ls
lnLer vlvos AccepLance ls a requlremenL for donaLlons lnLer vlvos

Mag|asang v Cabat|ngan
Gk # 1319S3 Iun S 2002
383 SCkA 6

noL submlLLed
x
x
x
x
x

A|uad v A|uad
Gk # 176943 Cct 17 2008
S69 SCkA 697
lAC1S
Spouses MaLllde and Crlspln Aluad were chlldless buL durlng Lhelr llfeLlme ralsed peLlLloners'
moLher Marla (Aluad) and respondenL Zenaldo (Aluad) When Crlspln dled MaLllde lnherlLed from
hlm 6 parcels of land all of whlch she donaLed Lo Marla 1he ueed provlded
1haL for and ln conslderaLlon of Lhe love and affecLlon of Lhe uCnC8 MaLllde for Lhe uCnLL
Marla Lhe laLLer belng adopLed and havlng been broughL up by Lhe former Lhe uCnC8 by Lhese
presenLs Lransfer and convey 8? WA? Cl uCnA1lCn unLo Lhe uCnLL Lhe properLy above
descrlbed Lo become effecLlve upon Lhe deaLh of Lhe uCnC8 buL ln Lhe evenL LhaL Lhe uCnLL
should dle before Lhe uCnC8 Lhe presenL donaLlon shall be deemed resclnded and of no furLher
force and effecL rovlded however LhaL anyLlme durlng Lhe llfeLlme of Lhe uCnC8 or anyone of
Lhem who should survlve Lhey could use encumber or even dlspose of any or even all of Lhe
parcels of land hereln donaLed
8ecause of Lhe agreemenL ln Lhe deed of donaLlon MaLllde was sLlll able Lo Lransfer ln her name Lhe
LlLles over 2 parcels of land (LoL 674 and LoL 676) ouL of Lhe 6 donaLed Lo Marla 1 (LoL 676) of
Lhose Lwo was laLer on sold by her Lo respondenL
A year afLer LhaL MaLllde execuLed a lasL wlll and LesLamenL devlslng Lhe remalnlng four parcels of
land Lo Marla whlle her remalnlng properLles lncludlng Lhe land Lhe LlLle of whlch was ln her name
(LoL 674) Lo respondenL
MaLllde dled Marla followed her durlng Lhe same year Marla's helrs hereln peLlLloners LhereafLer
lnsLlLuLed a case before Lhe 81C for Lhe recovery of Lhe Lwo loLs ln respondenL's possesslon lor hls
defense respondenL alleged LhaL Lhe flrsL loL was obLalned by hlm Lhrough sale whlle Lhe second
loL Lhrough lnherlLance based on Lhe wlll execuLed by MaLllde
1he Lrlal courL ruled ln favor of Lhe peLlLloners explalnlng LhaL lL was lmposslble for respondenL Lo
have a valld clalm over Lhe Lwo loLs as Lhose were prevlously donaLed ln favor of Lhe moLher of
peLlLloners
1he CA on appeal reversed Lhe Lrlal courL's declslon rullng LhaL Lhe donaLlon made Lo Lhe moLher of
peLlLloners was noL lnLer vlvos buL a morLls causa hence lnvalld for falllng Lo comply wlLh Lhe
requlslLes for lLs valldlLy as provlded under ArL 803 of Lhe Clvll Code
Pence Lhe presenL appeal

lSSuL WCn Lhe donaLlon made Lo peLlLloners was lnLer vlvos

PLLu
nC

As dld Lhe appellaLe courL Lhe CourL flnds Lhe donaLlon Lo peLlLloners' moLher one of morLls causa
lL havlng Lhe followlng characLerlsLlcs

(1) lL conveys no LlLle or ownershlp Lo Lhe Lransferee before Lhe deaLh of Lhe Lransferor or whaL
amounLs Lo Lhe same Lhlng LhaL Lhe Lransferor should reLaln Lhe ownershlp (full or naked) and
conLrol of Lhe properLy whlle allve

(2) 1haL before Lhe deaLh of Lhe Lransferor Lhe Lransfer should be revocable by Lhe Lransferor aL
wlll ad nuLum buL revocablllLy may be provlded for lndlrecLly by means of a reserved power ln Lhe
donor Lo dlspose of Lhe properLles conveyed and

(3) 1haL Lhe Lransfer should be vold lf Lhe Lransferor should survlve Lhe Lransferee
1he phrase ln Lhe earllerquoLed ueed of uonaLlon Lo become effecLlve upon Lhe deaLh of Lhe
uCnC8 admlLs of no oLher lnLerpreLaLlon Lhan Lo mean LhaL MaLllde dld noL lnLend Lo Lransfer Lhe
ownershlp of Lhe slx loLs Lo peLlLloners' moLher durlng her (MaLllde's) llfeLlme

1he sLaLemenL ln Lhe ueed of uonaLlon readlng anyLlme durlng Lhe llfeLlme of Lhe uCnC8 or
anyone of Lhem who should survlve Lhey could use encumber or even dlspose of any or even all
Lhe parcels of land hereln donaLed means LhaL MaLllde reLalned ownershlp of Lhe loLs and
reserved ln her Lhe rlghL Lo dlspose Lhem lor Lhe rlghL Lo dlspose of a Lhlng wlLhouL oLher
llmlLaLlons Lhan Lhose esLabllshed by law ls an aLLrlbuLe of ownershlp1he phrase ln Lhe ueed of
uonaLlon or anyone of Lhem who should survlve ls of course ouL of sync lor Lhe ueed of
uonaLlon clearly sLaLed LhaL lL would Lake effecL upon Lhe deaLh of Lhe donor hence sald phrase

could only have referred Lo Lhe donor MaLllde eLlLloners Lhemselves concede LhaL such phrase
does noL refer Lo Lhe donee Lhus

x x x lL ls well Lo polnL ouL LhaL Lhe lasL provlslon (senLence) ln Lhe dlspuLed paragraph should only
refer Lo MaLllde Aluad Lhe donor because she was Lhe only survlvlng spouse aL Lhe Llme Lhe
donaLlon was execuLed on 14 november 1981 as her husband Crlspln Aluad had long been
dead as early as 1973

1he Lrlal courL ln holdlng LhaL Lhe donaLlon was lnLer vlvos reasoned

x x x 1he donaLlon ln quesLlon ls sub[ecL Lo a resoluLory Lerm or perlod when Lhe donor provldes ln
Lhe aforequoLed provlslons buL ln Lhe evenL LhaL Lhe uCnLL should dle before Lhe uCnC8 Lhe
presenL donaLlon shall be deemed resclnded and of no furLher force and effecL When Lhe donor
provldes LhaL should Lhe uCnLL xxx dle before Lhe uCnC8 Lhe presenL donaLlon shall be
deemed resclnded and of no furLher force and effecL Lhe loglcal consLrucLlon Lhereof ls LhaL afLer
Lhe execuLlon of Lhe sub[ecL donaLlon Lhe same became effecLlve lmmedlaLely and shall be
deemed resclnded and of no furLher force and effecL upon Lhe arrlval of a resoluLory Lerm or
perlod le Lhe deaLh of Lhe donee whlch shall occur before LhaL of Lhe donor undersLandably Lhe
arrlval of Lhls resoluLory Lerm or perlod cannoL resclnd and render of no furLher force and effecL a
donaLlon whlch has never become effecLlve because cerLalnly whaL donaLlon ls Lhere Lo be
resclnded and rendered of no furLher force and effecL upon Lhe arrlval of sald resoluLory Lerm or
perlod lf Lhere was no donaLlon whlch was already effecLlve aL Lhe Llme when Lhe donee dled?

1he ueed of uonaLlon whlch ls as already dlscussed one of morLls causa noL havlng followed Lhe
formallLles of a wlll lL ls vold and LransmlLLed no rlghL Lo peLlLloners' moLher 8uL even assumlng
arguendo LhaL Lhe formallLles were observed slnce lL was noL probaLed no rlghL Lo LoL nos 674
and 676 was LransmlLLed Lo Marla MaLllde Lhus valldly dlsposed of LoL no 674 Lo respondenL by
her lasL wlll and LesLamenL sub[ecL of course Lo Lhe quallflcaLlon LhaL her (MaLllde's) wlll musL be
probaLed WlLh respecL Lo LoL no 676 Lhe same had as menLloned earller been sold by MaLllde Lo
respondenL on AugusL 26 1991

eLlLloners neverLheless argue LhaL assumlng LhaL Lhe donaLlon of LoL no 674 ln favor of Lhelr
moLher ls lndeed morLls causa hence MaLllde could devlse lL Lo respondenL Lhe loL should
neverLheless have been awarded Lo Lhem because Lhey had acqulred lL by acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon
Lhey havlng been ln conLlnuous unlnLerrupLed adverse open and publlc possesslon of lL ln good
falLh and ln Lhe concepL of an owner slnce 1978

eLlLloners falled Lo ralse Lhe lssue of acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon before Lhe lower courLs however
Lhey havlng lald Lhelr clalm on Lhe basls of lnherlLance from Lhelr moLher As a general rule polnLs
of law Lheorles and lssues noL broughL Lo Lhe aLLenLlon of Lhe Lrlal courL cannoL be ralsed for Lhe
flrsL Llme on appeal lor a conLrary rule would be unfalr Lo Lhe adverse parLy who would have no
opporLunlLy Lo presenL furLher evldence maLerlal Lo Lhe new Lheory whlch lL could have done had
lL been aware of lL aL Lhe Llme of Lhe hearlng before Lhe Lrlal courL

S|cad vs CA
Gk# 12S888] Aug 13 1998
294 SCkA 183

lAC1S
A documenL denomlnaLed as uLLu Cl uCnA1lCn ln1L8 vlvCS was execuLed by MonLlnola
namlng as donees her grandchlldren namely CaLallno valderrama !udy CrlsLlna valderrama and
!esus AnLonlo valderrama and LreaLed of a parcel of land locaLed aL Caplz covered by 1ransfer
CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle no 116103 ln Lhe name of MonLlnola 1he deed also conLalned Lhe slgnaLures
of Lhe donees ln acknowledgmenL of Lhelr accepLance of Lhe donaLlon Sald deed was reglsLered
MonLlnola however reLalned Lhe owners dupllcaLe copy of Lhe new LlLle (no 116622) as well as
Lhe properLy lLself unLll she Lransferred Lhe same Len (10) years laLer on !uly 10 1990 Lo Lhe
spouses LrnesLo and Lvelyn Slcad

1hen on AugusL 24 1990 she flled a peLlLlon wlLh Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL ln 8oxas ClLy for Lhe
cancellaLlon of sald 1C1 no 116622 and Lhe relnsLaLemenL of 1C1 no 1 16103 (ln her name) Lhe
case belng dockeLed as Speclal roceedlng Per peLlLlon was founded on Lhe Lheory LhaL Lhe
donaLlon Lo her Lhree (3) grandchlldren was one morLls causa whlch Lhus had Lo comply wlLh Lhe
formallLles of a wlll and slnce lL had noL Lhe donaLlon was vold and could noL effecLlvely serve as
basls for Lhe cancellaLlon of 1C1 no 116103 and Lhe lssuance ln lLs place of 1C1 no 116622

Per peLlLlon was opposed by her grandchlldren (donees) alleglng LhaL lL was an lnLer vlvos
donaLlon havlng fully complled wlLh Lhe requlremenLs Lherefor seL ouL ln ArLlcle 729 of Lhe Clvll
Code 1he case was subsequenLly changed lnLo an ordlnary clvll acLlon 1he courL held LhaL Lhe
donaLlon was lndeed one lnLer vlvos and dlsmlsslng Aurora MonLlnolas peLlLlon for lack of merlL

ln Lhe meanLlme MonLlnola dled An appeal was made by hereln peLlLlonerspouses Slcad who
subsLlLuLed MonLlnola afLer her legal helrs had expressed Lhelr dlslnLeresL over Lhe case 1he CA
however afflrmed Lhe Lrlal courL's declslon hence Lhe presenL peLlLlon

lSSuL WCn Lhe deed of donaLlon ls ln Lhe characLer of lnLer vlvos


PLLu

nC lL ls ln Lhe characLer of a morLls causa dlsposlLlon

1he evldence esLabllshes LhaL on uecember 11 1979 when Lhe deed of donaLlon prepared by
MonLlnolas lawyer (ALLy 1renas) was read and explalned by Lhe laLLer Lo Lhe parLles MonLlnola
expressed her wlsh LhaL Lhe donaLlon Lake effecL only afLer Len (10) years from her deaLh and LhaL
Lhe deed lnclude a prohlblLlon on Lhe sale of Lhe properLy for such perlod Accordlngly a new
provlso was lnserLed ln Lhe deed readlng however Lhe donees shall noL sell or encumber Lhe
properLles hereln donaLed wlLhln 10 years afLer Lhe deaLh of Lhe donor 1he acLuallLy of Lhe
subsequenL lnserLlon of Lhls new provlso ls apparenL on Lhe face of Lhe lnsLrumenL Lhe
lnLercalaLlon ls easlly percelved and ldenLlfled lL was clearly Lyped on a dlfferenL machlne and ls
crammed lnLo Lhe space beLween Lhe penulLlmaLe paragraph of Lhe deed and LhaL lmmedlaLely
precedlng lL

A donaLlon whlch purporLs Lo be one lnLer vlvos buL wlLhholds from Lhe donee Lhe rlghL Lo dlspose
of Lhe donaLed properLy durlng Lhe donors llfeLlme ls ln LruLh one morLls causa ln a donaLlon
morLls causa Lhe rlghL of dlsposlLlon ls noL Lransferred Lo Lhe donee whlle Lhe donor ls sLlll allve

ln Lhe lnsLanL case noLhlng of any consequence was Lransferred by Lhe deed of donaLlon ln
quesLlon Lo MonLlnolas grandchlldren Lhe osLenslble donees 1hey dld noL geL possesslon of Lhe
properLy donaLed 1hey dld noL acqulre Lhe rlghL Lo Lhe frulLs Lhereof or any oLher rlghL of
domlnlon over Lhe properLy More lmporLanLly Lhey dld noL acqulre Lhe rlghL Lo dlspose of Lhe
properLy Lhls would accrue Lo Lhem only afLer Len (10) years from MonLlnolas deaLh lndeed
Lhey never even lald hands on Lhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle Lo Lhe same 1hey were Lherefore slmply
paper owners of Lhe donaLed properLy All Lhese clrcumsLances lncludlng Lo repeaL Lhe expllclL
provlslons of Lhe deed of donaLlon reservlng Lhe exerclse of rlghLs of ownershlp Lo Lhe donee
and prohlblLlng Lhe sale or encumbrance of Lhe properLy unLll Len (10) years afLer her deaLh
lnelucLably lead Lo Lhe concluslon LhaL Lhe donaLlon ln quesLlon was a donaLlon morLls causa
conLemplaLlng a Lransfer of ownershlp Lo Lhe donees only afLer Lhe donors demlse

1he valderramas argumenL LhaL Lhe donaLlon ls lnLer vlvos ln characLer and LhaL Lhe prohlblLlon
agalnsL Lhelr dlsposlLlon of Lhe donaLed properLy ls merely a condlLlon whlch lf vlolaLed would
glve cause for lLs revocaLlon begs Lhe quesLlon lL assumes LhaL Lhey have Lhe rlghL Lo make a
dlsposlLlon of Lhe properLy whlch Lhey do noL 1he argumenL also makes no sense because lf Lhey
had Lhe rlghL Lo dlspose of Lhe properLy and dld ln facL dlspose of lL Lo a Lhlrd person Lhe
revocaLlon of Lhe donaLlon Lhey speak of would be of no uLlllLy or beneflL Lo Lhe donor slnce such a
revocaLlon would noL necessarlly resulL ln Lhe resLoraLlon of Lhe donors ownershlp and en[oymenL
of Lhe properLy

lL ls also error Lo suppose LhaL Lhe donaLlon under revlew should be deemed one lnLer vlvos slmply
because founded on conslderaLlons of love and affecLlon ln Ale[andro v Ceraldez supra Lhls CourL
also observed LhaL Lhe facL LhaL Lhe donaLlon ls glven ln conslderaLlon of love and affecLlon ** ls
noL a characLerlsLlc of donaLlons lnLer vlvos (solely) because Lransfers morLls causa may also be
made for Lhe same reason Slmllarly ln 8onsaLo v CourL of Appeals supra Lhls CourL oplned LhaL
Lhe facL LhaL Lhe conveyance was due Lo Lhe affecLlon of Lhe donor for Lhe donees and Lhe servlces
rendered by Lhe laLLer ls of no parLlcular slgnlflcance ln deLermlnlng wheLher Lhe deeds Lxhs 1
and 2 consLlLuLe Lransfers lnLer vlvos or noL because a legacy may have ldenLlcal moLlvaLlon

llnally lL ls germane Lo adverL Lo Lhe legal prlnclple ln ArLlcle 1378 of Lhe Clvll Code Lo Lhe effecL
LhaL ln case of doubL relaLlve Lo a graLulLous conLracL Lhe consLrucLlon musL be LhaL enLalllng Lhe
leasL Lransmlsslon of rlghLs and
lnLeresLs

1he donaLlon ln quesLlon Lhough denomlnaLed lnLer vlvos ls ln LruLh one morLls causa lL ls vold
because Lhe essenLlal requlslLes for lLs valldlLy have noL been complled wlLh

De| kosar|o vs Ierrer
Gk# 1870S6] Sept 202010
630 SCkA 683

noL submlLLed
x
x
x
x
x


Ganue|as v Cawed
Gk # 123968 Apr 24 2003
401 SCkA 447

noL submlLLed
x
x
x
x
x

Centra| h|| Un|v v CA
Gk #112127 Iu| 17 199S
246 SCkA S11

noL submlLLed
x
x
x
x
x


Chapter 2 ersons Who May G|ve or kece|ve a Donat|on (Arts 73S749)
Chapter 3 Lffect of Donat|ons and L|m|tat|ons @hereof (Arts 7S07S9)


ne|rs of Maramag v Maramag
Gk # 181132 Iun S 2009
S88 SCkA 774

noL submlLLed
x
x
x
x
x

Insu|ar L|fe v Lbrado
Gk # 440S9 Cct 28 1977

80 SCkA 181

noL submlLLed
x
x
x
x
x


Arangote v Mag|unob
Gk # 178906 Ieb 18 2009
S79 SCkA 620

noL submlLLed
x
x
x
x
x

u||a|a v A|cantara
Gk # 132681 Dec 3 2001
371 SCkA 311

noL submlLLed
x
x
x
x
x

Arcaba v 8atocae|
Gk # 146683 Nov 22 2001
370 SCkA 414

lacLs
eLlLloner Clrlla Arcaba seeks revlew on cerLlorarl of Lhe declslon of Lhe CA whlch afflrmed wlLh
modlflcaLlon Lhe declslon of Lhe 81C declarlng as vold a deed of donaLlon lnLer vlvos execuLed by
Lhe laLe lranclsco 1 Comllle ln her favor and lLs subsequenL resoluLlon denylng reconslderaLlon

lranclsco Comllle and hls wlfe Zoslma MonLallana became Lhe reglsLered owners of LoL no 437A
ln ulpolog ClLy Zamboanga del norLe wlLh a LoLal loL area of 418 sq m AfLer Lhe deaLh of Zoslma
lranclsco and hls moLherlnlaw !ullana 8usLallno MonLallana execuLed a deed of exLra[udlclal
parLlLlon wlLh walver of rlghLs ln whlch Lhe laLLer walved her share of onefourLh (1/4) of Lhe
properLy Lo lranclsco lranclsco reglsLered Lhe loL ln hls name wlLh Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds

Pavlng no chlldren Lo Lake care of hlm afLer hls reLlremenL lranclsco asked hls nlece LeLlcla
8elloslllo Lhe laLLers cousln Luzvlmlnda aghaclan and peLlLloner Clrlla Arcaba Lhen a wldow Lo
Lake care of hls house as well as Lhe sLore lnslde

ConfllcLlng LesLlmonles were offered as Lo Lhe naLure of Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween Clrlla and
lranclsco She denled Lhey ever had sexual lnLercourse lL appears LhaL when LeLlcla and
Luzvlmlnda were marrled only Clrlla was lefL Lo Lake care of lranclsco Clrlla LesLlfled LhaL she was
a 34year old wldow whlle lranclsco was a 73year old wldower when she began worklng for Lhe
laLLer LhaL he could sLlll walk wlLh her asslsLance aL LhaL Llme and LhaL hls healLh evenLually
deLerloraLed and he became bedrldden Lrllnda 1abancura LesLlfled LhaL lranclscos sole source of
lncome conslsLed of renLals from hls loL near Lhe publlc sLreeLs Pe dld noL pay Clrlla a regular cash
wage as a househelper Lhough he provlded her famlly wlLh food and lodglng

A few monLhs before hls deaLh lranclsco execuLed an lnsLrumenL denomlnaLed ueed of uonaLlon
lnLer vlvos glvlng 130 sq m of hls loL LogeLher wlLh hls house Lo Clrlla who accepLed Lhe
donaLlon ln Lhe same lnsLrumenL lranclsco lefL Lhe larger porLlon of 268 square meLers ln hls
name 1he deed sLaLed LhaL Lhe donaLlon was belng made ln conslderaLlon of Lhe falLhful servlces
Clrlla Arcaba had rendered over Lhe pasL Len (10) years 1he deed was noLarlzed by ALLy vlc 1
Lacaya Sr and laLer reglsLered by Clrlla as lLs absoluLe owner

lranclsco dled wlLhouL any chlldren Cn lebruary 18 1993 respondenLs flled a complalnL agalnsL
peLlLloner for declaraLlon of nulllLy of a deed of donaLlon lnLer vlvos recovery of possesslon and
damages 8espondenLs who are Lhe decedenLs nephews and nleces and hls helrs by lnLesLaLe
successlon alleged LhaL Clrlla was Lhe commonlaw wlfe of lranclsco and Lhe donaLlon lnLer vlvos
made by lranclsco ln her favor ls vold under ArLlcle 87 of Lhe lamlly Code

Cn lebruary 23 1999 Lhe Lrlal courL rendered [udgmenL ln favor of respondenLs holdlng Lhe
donaLlon vold under Lhls provlslon of Lhe lamlly Code based on LesLlmonles and cerLaln documenLs
bearlng Lhe slgnaLure of one Clrlla Comllle

eLlLloner appealed Lo Lhe CourL of Appeals As already sLaLed Lhe appeals courL denled
reconslderaLlon lLs concluslon was based on (1) Lhe LesLlmonles of LeLlcla Lrllnda and Clrlla (2)
Lhe coples of documenLs purporLedly showlng Clrllas use of lranclscos surname (3) a pleadlng ln
anoLher clvll case menLlonlng paymenL of renLals Lo Clrlla as lranclscos commonlaw wlfe and (4)
Lhe facL LhaL Clrlla dld noL recelve a regular cash wage

lssue
WheLher Lhe CourL of Appeals correcLly applled ArL 87 of Lhe lamlly Code Lo Lhe clrcumsLances of
Lhls case

Peld
ln 8lLangcor v 1an we held LhaL Lhe Lerm cohablLaLlon or llvlng LogeLher as husband and wlfe
means noL only resldlng under one roof buL also havlng repeaLed sexual lnLercourse CohablLaLlon
of course means more Lhan sexual lnLercourse especlally when one of Lhe parLles ls already old
and may no longer be lnLeresLed ln sex AL Lhe very leasL cohablLaLlon ls publlc assumpLlon by a
man and a woman of Lhe marlLal relaLlon and dwelllng LogeLher as man and wlfe Lhereby holdlng
Lhemselves ouL Lo Lhe publlc as such SecreL meeLlngs or nlghLs clandesLlnely spenL LogeLher even

lf ofLen repeaLed do noL consLlLuLe such klnd of cohablLaLlon Lhey are merely mereLrlclous ln Lhls
[urlsdlcLlon Lhls CourL has consldered as sufflclenL proof of commonlaw relaLlonshlp Lhe
sLlpulaLlons beLween Lhe parLles a convlcLlon of concublnage or Lhe exlsLence of leglLlmaLe
chlldren

Clrlla admlLLed LhaL she and lranclsco reslded under one roof for a long Llme lL ls very posslble LhaL
Lhe Lwo consummaLed Lhelr relaLlonshlp slnce Clrlla gave lranclsco LherapeuLlc massage and
LeLlcla sald Lhey slepL ln Lhe same bedroom AL Lhe very leasL Lhelr publlc conducL lndlcaLed LhaL
Lhelrs was noL [usL a relaLlonshlp of careglver and paLlenL buL LhaL of excluslve parLners akln Lo
husband and wlfe

llnally Lhe facL LhaL Clrlla dld noL demand from lranclsco a regular cash wage ls an lndlcaLlon LhaL
she was noL slmply a careglveremployee buL lranclscos common law spouse She was afLer all
enLlLled Lo a regular cash wage under Lhe law lL ls dlfflculL Lo belleve LhaL she sLayed wlLh lranclsco
and served hlm ouL of pure beneflcence Puman reason would Lhus lead Lo Lhe concluslon LhaL she
was lranclscos commonlaw spouse

8espondenLs havlng proven by a preponderance of evldence LhaL Clrlla and lranclsco llved LogeLher
as husband and wlfe wlLhouL a valld marrlage Lhe lnescapable concluslon ls LhaL Lhe donaLlon
made by lranclsco ln favor of Clrlla ls vold under ArL 87 of Lhe lamlly Code


Chapter 4 kevocat|on and keduct|on of Donat|ons (Arts 760773)

2amboanga v |agata
Gk # 148433 Sept 30 2008
S67 SCkA 163
lacLs
1hls ls a eLlLlon for 8evlew on CerLlorarl under 8ule 43 of Lhe 1997 8ules of Clvll rocedure whlch
seeks Lo seL aslde Lhe declslon of Lhe CA and lLs 8esoluLlon denylng peLlLloner's moLlon for
reconslderaLlon lL llkewlse asked LhaL Lhe second allas wrlL of execuLlon lssued by Pon !ullus 8heLL
! lagaLa LxecuLlve Labor ArblLer of nL8C8A8 lx be annulled and declared wlLhouL any legal
effecL as well as Lhe ensulng levy sale on execuLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy

Cn 9 !anuary 1973 resldenL lerdlnand L Marcos lssued u no 93 whlch legallzed barLer Lradlng
ln Lhe Sulu Archlpelago and ad[acenL areas and empowered Lhe Commander of Lhe SouLhwesL
Command of Lhe Al Lo coordlnaLe all acLlvlLles and Lo underLake all measures for Lhe
lmplemenLaLlon of sald decree

Cn 17 !une 1981 Z81k8l Lhru lLs resldenL ALLy Passan C Alam donaLed Lo Lhe 8epubllc of Lhe
hlllpplnes represenLed by Ma[ Cen uelfln C CasLro Commander SouLhern Command of Lhe
Al and Chalrman LxecuLlve CommlLLee for 8arLer 1rade a parcel of land covered by C1C no 1
61628 of Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds of Zamboanga ClLy ldenLlfled as LoL no 6 of consolldaLlon
subdlvlslon plan cs09000184 slLuaLed ln Lhe 8arrlo of Canelar ClLy of Zamboanga conLalnlng an
area of 13643 sq m 1he 8epubllc accepLed Lhe donaLlon wlLh condlLlons conLalned ln Lhe ueed of
uonaLlon

WlLh Lhe accepLance of Lhe donaLlon 1C1 no 161628 ln Lhe name of Z81k8l was cancelled and ln
lleu Lhereof 1C1 no 166696 coverlng Lhe same properLy was lssued ln Lhe name of Lhe 8epubllc
of Lhe hlllpplnes

ursuanL Lo condlLlon no 1 of Lhe ueed of uonaLlon Lhe CovernmenL and Lhe uWP 8C lx
consLrucLed a 8arLer 1rade MarkeL 8ulldlng worLh 300000000 aL Lhe sald LoL no 6 1he bulldlng
was compleLed on 30 March 1983 and was occupled by members of Z81k8l as well as by oLher
persons engaged ln barLer Lrade

rlor Lo sald donaLlon on 16 March 1977 prlvaLe respondenL 1eoplsLo Mendoza was hlred by
Z81k8l as clerk SubsequenLly ln a leLLer daLed 1 Aprll 1981 Z81k8l Lhrough lLs resldenL ALLy
Pasan C Alam lnformed Mendoza LhaL hls servlces were belng LermlnaLed on Lhe ground of
abandonmenL of work

Mendoza flled a ComplalnL for lllegal ulsmlssal wlLh paymenL of backwages and separaLlon pay aL
Lhe uCLL 8Clx on !uly 29 1981 1he case was asslgned Lo LxecuLlve Labor ArblLer Paklm S
Abdulwahld

Cn 31 May 1983 LxecuLlve Labor ArblLer Abdulwahld rendered hls declslon flndlng Lhe dlsmlssal
of Mendoza lllegal and ordered Z81k8l Lo relnsLaLe Mendoza Lo hls former poslLlon or any
equlvalenL poslLlon and Lo pay hlm backwages

Cn 17 !une 1983 Z81k8l flled a noLlce of Appeal wlLh Lhe nL8C Cn 13 !uly 1983 Mendoza flled
wlLh Lhe nL8C a ManlfesLaLlon wlLh MoLlon for LxecuLlon praylng LhaL peLlLloner's appeal noL be
glven due course and LhaL a wrlL of execuLlon enforclng Lhe declslon of Lhe Labor ArblLer be lssued

Cn 17 !une 1988 Lhe Cfflce of Lhe resldenL lssued Memorandum Clrcular no 1 whlch LoLally
phased ouL Lhe Zamboanga ClLy barLer Lrade area effecLlve 1 CcLober 1988

Cn 18 uecember 1989 Mendoza flled a MoLlon for lssuance of (Second) Allas WrlL of LxecuLlon
whlch publlc respondenL LxecuLlve Labor ArblLer !ullus 8heLL ! lagaLa lssued on 2 !anuary 1990
Sherlff AnLhony 8 Cavlola levled whaLever lnLeresL share rlghL clalm and/or parLlclpaLlon of
Z81k8l had over a parcel of land LogeLher wlLh all Lhe bulldlngs and lmprovemenLs exlsLlng
Lhereon covered by 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle (1C1) no 66696 (formerly 1C1 no 61628) ln
compllance of sald wrlL

Cn 13 !une 1990 Lhe aforedescrlbed properLy was sold aL publlc aucLlon for 9644333 wlLh
Mendoza as Lhe sole hlghesL bldder 1he properLy was noL redeemed As a consequence Sherlff
Cavlola lssued on 23 !une 1991 a Sherlff's llnal CerLlflcaLe of Sale ln favor of Mendoza over
whaLever lnLeresL share rlghL clalm and/or parLlclpaLlon Z81k8l had over Lhe parcel of land

Pavlng falled Lo Lake possesslon of Lhe land ln quesLlon Mendoza flled a eLlLlon (for lssuance of
WrlL of ossesslon) on 14 lebruary 2000 whlch was granLed on 3 May 2000 by LxecuLlve Labor
ArblLer lagaLa 1he wrlL was lssued Lo place Lhe complalnanL ln possesslon (of) Lhe rlghLs
lnLeresLs shares clalms and parLlclpaLlons of Zamboanga 8arLer 1raders kllusan 8ayan lnc ln LhaL
parcel of land covered by 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle no 166696 of Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds for
Zamboanga ClLy whlch were sold on execuLlon Lo Lhe complalnanL on 13 !une 1990 and ln whose

favor a flnal cerLlflcaLe of sale for such rlghLs lnLeresLs shares clalms and/or parLlclpaLlon was
execuLed and lssued on 23 !une 1991

Sherlff 1e[ada submlLLed a Sherlff's Servlce 8eporL daLed 22 !une 2000 lnformlng LxecuLlve Labor
ArblLer lagaLa LhaL Lhe wrlL of possesslon was reLurned duly served and fully saLlsfled Cn Lhe
same daLe Mendoza Lhru a leLLer acknowledged LhaL Lhe wrlL of possesslon had been saLlsfled
and lmplemenLed

A peLlLlon for revlew on cerLlorarl flled on 27 !une 2001 whlch was denled by Lhls CourL on 13
AugusL 2001 for fallure Lo show LhaL a reverslble error had been commlLLed by Lhe CourL of
Appeals eLlLloner flled a moLlon for reconslderaLlon on 8 SepLember 2001 whlch Mendoza
opposed

lssue/s
WheLher Lhe CA erred LhaL Lhe donaLed properLy has already reverLed Lo peLlLlonerdonor

Peld
Cn Lhe lssue of ownershlp over Lhe 13643 square meLers of land locaLed aL 8arrlo Canelar ClLy of
Zamboanga

eLlLloner argues LhaL Lhe CourL of Appeals erred ln rullng LhaL Lhe donaLed properLy was no longer
owned by Lhe 8epubllc of Lhe hlllpplnes because ownershlp Lhereof had already reverLed Lo lL
(peLlLloner)

lrom Lhe records Lhe sub[ecL properLy was donaLed by peLlLloner (donor) Lo Lhe 8epubllc (donee)
wlLh Lhe followlng condlLlons already adverLed hereLofore buL are belng relLeraLed for emphasls
1 1haL upon Lhe effecLlvlLy or accepLance hereof Lhe uCnLL shall Lhru Lhe auLhorlzed
agency/mlnlsLry consLrucL a 3 Mllllon 8arLer 1rade markeL bulldlng aL Lhe aforedescrlbed parcel
of land
2 1haL Lhe aforesald 8arLer 1rade MarkeL bulldlng shall accommodaLe aL leasL 1000 sLalls Lhe
allocaLlon of whlch shall be deLermlned by Lhe LxecuLlve CommlLLee for 8arLer 1rade ln
coordlnaLlon wlLh Lhe Cfflcers and 8oard of ulrecLors Lhe Zamboanga 8arLer 1raders' kllusang
8ayan lnc provlded however LhaL each member of Lhe uCnC8 shall be glven prlorlLy
3 1haL Lhe sald 8arLer 1rade MarkeL bulldlng Lo be consLrucLed as abovesLaLed shall be Lo Lhe
sLrlcL excluslon of any oLher bulldlng for barLer Lradlng ln Zamboanga ClLy hlllpplnes
4 1haL ln Lhe evenL barLer Lradlng shall be phased ouL prohlblLed or suspended for more Lhan one
(1) year ln Zamboanga ClLy hlllpplnes Lhe aforedescrlbed parcel of land shall reverL back Lo Lhe
uCnC8 wlLhouL need of any furLher formallLy or documenLaLlon and Lhe uCnC8 shall have Lhe
flrsL opLlon Lo purchase Lhe bulldlng and lmprovemenLs Lhereon
3 1haL Lhe uCnLL hereby accepLs Lhls donaLlon made ln lLs favor by Lhe uCnC8 LogeLher wlLh Lhe
condlLlons Lhereln provlded (underscorlng supplled)

1hus when Lhe properLy was levled and sold on 1 March 1990 and 13 !une 1990 respecLlvely lL
was already peLlLloner LhaL owned Lhe same lL should be clear LhaL reverslon applled only Lo Lhe
land and noL Lo Lhe bulldlng and lmprovemenLs made by Lhe 8epubllc on Lhe land worLh
300000000

eLlLloner furLher clalms LhaL Lhe CourL of Appeals erred ln rullng LhaL Lhere was auLomaLlc
reverslon of Lhe land because lL puL Lhe 8epubllc ln a dlsadvanLageous slLuaLlon when lL had a 3
mllllon bulldlng on a land owned by anoLher

1hls clalm ls unLenable 1he CourL of Appeals merely enforced or applled Lhe condlLlons conLalned
ln Lhe deed of donaLlon 1he 8epubllc accepLed Lhe donaLlon sub[ecL Lo condlLlons lmposed by Lhe
donor ln condlLlon number 4 Lhe 8epubllc ls glven Lhe rlghL Lo sell Lhe bulldlng lL consLrucLed on
Lhe land and Lhe lmprovemenLs Lhereon lf ever such condlLlon ls dlsadvanLageous Lo Lhe 8epubllc
Lhere ls noLhlng LhaL can be done abouL lL slnce lL ls one of Lhe condlLlons LhaL are conLalned ln Lhe
donaLlon whlch lL accepLed 1here belng noLhlng amblguous ln Lhe conLenLs of Lhe documenL Lhere
ls no room for lnLerpreLaLlon buL only slmple appllcaLlon Lhereof

We llkewlse flnd Lo be wlLhouL basls peLlLloner's clalm LhaL Lhe 8epubllc should be relmbursed of
Lhe cosL of Lhe consLrucLlon of Lhe barLer Lrade bulldlng pursuanL Lo condlLlon number 4 1here ls
noLhlng Lhere LhaL shows LhaL Lhe 8epubllc wlll be relmbursed WhaL ls sLaLed Lhere ls LhaL
peLlLloner has Lhe flrsL opLlon Lo purchase Lhe bulldlngs and lmprovemenLs Lhereon ln oLher
words Lhe 8epubllc can sell Lhe bulldlngs and lmprovemenLs LhaL lL made or bullL

eLlLloner's sLaLemenL LhaL nelLher parLy Lo Lhe donaLlon has expressly resclnded Lhe conLracL ls
flawed As above ruled Lhe deed of donaLlon conLalns a sLlpulaLlon LhaL allows auLomaLlc
reverslon Such sLlpulaLlon noL belng conLrary Lo law morals good cusLoms publlc order or publlc
pollcy ls valld and blndlng on Lhe parLles Lo Lhe donaLlon As held ln uolar v 8arangay Lublub (now
u MonforL norLh) MunlclpallLy of uumangas clLlng

8oman CaLhollc Archblshop of Manlla v CourL of Appeals
1he raLlonale for Lhe foregolng ls LhaL ln conLracLs provldlng for auLomaLlc revocaLlon [udlclal
lnLervenLlon ls necessary noL for purposes of obLalnlng a [udlclal declaraLlon resclndlng a conLracL
already deemed resclnded by vlrLue of an agreemenL provldlng for resclsslon even wlLhouL [udlclal
lnLervenLlon buL ln order Lo deLermlne wheLher or noL Lhe resclsslon was proper

1he auLomaLlc reverslon of Lhe sub[ecL land Lo Lhe donor upon phase ouL of barLer Lradlng ln
Zamboanga ClLy cannoL be doubLed Sald auLomaLlc reverslon cannoL be averLed merely because
peLlLlonerdonor has noL yeL exerclsed lLs opLlon Lo purchase Lhe bulldlngs and lmprovemenLs
made and lnLroduced on Lhe land by Lhe 8epubllc or because Lhe 8epubllc has noL yeL sold Lhe
same Lo oLher lnLeresLed buyers CLherwlse Lhere would be gross vlolaLlon of Lhe clear lmporL of
Lhe condlLlons seL forLh ln Lhe deed of donaLlon

eLlLlon ls uLnlLu and Lhe declslon of Lhe CA ls Alll8MLu

Archb|shop of M|a v CA
Gk # 7742S Iun 19 1991
198 SCkA 300

lacLs
1hese Lwo peLlLlons for revlew on cerLlorarl seek Lo overLurn Lhe declslon of Lhe CA whlch reversed
and seL aslde Lhe order of Lhe 81C as well as Lhe order of sald respondenL courL denylng
peLlLloners moLlons for Lhe reconslderaLlon of lLs aforesald declslon

Cn november 29 1984 prlvaLe respondenLs as plalnLlffs flled a complalnL for nulllflcaLlon of deed
of donaLlon resclsslon of conLracL and reconveyance of real properLy wlLh damages agalnsL
peLlLloners llorenclo and Soledad C lgnao and Lhe 8oman CaLhollc 8lshop of lmus CavlLe LogeLher
wlLh Lhe 8oman CaLhollc Archblshop of Manlla before Lhe 81C of lmus CavlLe

rlvaLe respondenLs alleged LhaL Lhe spouses Luseblo de CasLro and MarLlna 8leLa now boLh
deceased execuLed a deed of donaLlon ln favor of defendanL 8oman CaLhollc Archblshop of Manlla
coverlng a parcel of land locaLed aL kawlL CavlLe wlLh an area of approx 964 sq m 1he deed of
donaLlon allegedly provldes LhaL Lhe donee shall noL dlspose or sell Lhe properLy wlLhln a perlod of
one hundred (100) years from Lhe execuLlon of Lhe deed of donaLlon oLherwlse a vlolaLlon of such
condlLlon would render lpso facLo null and vold Lhe deed of donaLlon and Lhe properLy would
reverL Lo Lhe esLaLe of Lhe donors

lL ls furLher alleged LhaL on or abouL !une 30 1980 and whlle sLlll wlLhln Lhe prohlblLlve perlod Lo
dlspose of Lhe properLy peLlLloner 8oman CaLhollc 8lshop of lmus ln whose admlnlsLraLlon all
properLles wlLhln Lhe provlnce of CavlLe owned by Lhe Archdlocese of Manlla was allegedly
Lransferred on Aprll 26 1962 execuLed a deed of absoluLe sale of Lhe properLy sub[ecL of Lhe
donaLlon ln favor of peLlLloners llorenclo and Soledad C lgnao ln conslderaLlon of Lhe sum of
11400000 As a consequence of Lhe sale 1C1 no 113990 was lssued by Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds of
CavlLe on november 13 1980 ln Lhe name of sald peLlLloner spouses
WhaL Lransplred LhereafLer ls narraLed by respondenL courL ln lLs assalled declslon Cn uecember
17 1984 peLlLloners llorenclo lgnao and Soledad C lgnao flled a moLlon Lo dlsmlss based on Lhe
grounds LhaL (1) hereln prlvaLe respondenLs as plalnLlffs Lhereln have no legal capaclLy Lo sue and
(2) Lhe complalnL sLaLes no cause of acLlon

Cn uecember 19 1984 peLlLloner 8oman CaLhollc 8lshop of lmus also flled a moLlon Lo dlsmlss on
Lhree (3) grounds Lhe flrsL Lwo (2) grounds of whlch were ldenLlcal Lo LhaL of Lhe moLlon Lo dlsmlss
flled by Lhe lgnao spouses and Lhe Lhlrd ground belng LhaL Lhe cause of acLlon has prescrlbed

Cn !anuary 9 1983 Lhe 8oman CaLhollc Archblshop of Manlla llkewlse flled a moLlon Lo dlsmlss on
Lhe ground LhaL he ls noL a real parLy ln lnLeresL and Lherefore Lhe complalnL does noL sLaLe a
cause of acLlon agalnsL hlm
AfLer prlvaLe respondenLs had flled Lhelr opposlLlons Lo Lhe sald moLlons Lo dlsmlss and Lhe
peLlLloners had counLered wlLh Lhelr respecLlve replles wlLh re[olnders LhereLo by prlvaLe
respondenLs Lhe Lrlal courL lssued an order daLed !anuary 31 1983 dlsmlsslng Lhe complalnL on
Lhe ground LhaL Lhe cause of acLlon has prescrlbed

rlvaLe respondenLs appealed Lo Lhe CA ralslng Lhe lssues on (a) wheLher or noL Lhe acLlon for
resclsslon of conLracLs (deed of donaLlon and deed of sale) has prescrlbed and (b) wheLher or noL
Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe acLlon for resclsslon of conLracLs (deed of donaLlon and deed of sale) on Lhe
ground of prescrlpLlon carrles wlLh lL Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe maln acLlon for reconveyance of real
properLy

CA held LhaL Lhe acLlon has noL yeL prescrlbed relnsLaLed and remanded Lhe clvll case Lo Lhe lower
courL for furLher proceedlngs

CA denled Lhe separaLe moLlons for reconslderaLlon of peLlLloners hence Lhe flllng of Lhese
appeals by cerLlorarl

lssue wheLher or noL Lhe cause of acLlon has already prescrlbed

Peld 1he CourL does noL agree

AlLhough lL ls Lrue LhaL under ArLlcle 764 of Lhe Clvll Code an acLlon for Lhe revocaLlon of a
donaLlon musL be broughL wlLhln four (4) years from Lhe noncompllance of Lhe condlLlons of Lhe
donaLlon Lhe same ls noL appllcable ln Lhe case aL bar 1he deed of donaLlon lnvolved hereln
expressly provldes for auLomaLlc reverslon of Lhe properLy donaLed ln case of vlolaLlon of Lhe
condlLlon Lhereln hence a [udlclal declaraLlon revoklng Lhe same ls noL necessary As apLly sLaLed
by Lhe CourL of Appeals

8y Lhe very express provlslon ln Lhe deed of donaLlon lLself LhaL Lhe vlolaLlon of Lhe condlLlon
Lhereof would render lpso facLo null and vold Lhe deed of donaLlon WL are of Lhe oplnlon LhaL
Lhere would be no legal necesslLy anymore Lo have Lhe donaLlon [udlclally declared null and vold
for Lhe reason LhaL Lhe very deed of donaLlon lLself declares lL so lor where (slc) lL oLherwlse and
LhaL Lhe donors and Lhe donee conLemplaLed a courL acLlon durlng Lhe execuLlon of Lhe deed of
donaLlon Lo have Lhe donaLlon [udlclally resclnded or declared null and vold should Lhe condlLlon
be vlolaLed Lhen Lhe phrase readlng would render lpso facLo null and vold would noL appear ln
Lhe deed of donaLlon

ln supporL of lLs aforesald poslLlon respondenL courL relled on Lhe rule LhaL a [udlclal acLlon for
resclsslon of a conLracL ls noL necessary where Lhe conLracL provldes LhaL lL may be revoked and
cancelled for vlolaLlon of any of lLs Lerms and condlLlons lL called aLLenLlon Lo Lhe holdlng LhaL
Lhere ls noLhlng ln Lhe law LhaL prohlblLs Lhe parLles from enLerlng lnLo an agreemenL LhaL a
vlolaLlon of Lhe Lerms of Lhe conLracL would cause lLs cancellaLlon even wlLhouL courL lnLervenLlon
and LhaL lL ls noL always necessary for Lhe ln[ured parLy Lo resorL Lo courL for resclsslon of Lhe
conLracL lL relLeraLed Lhe docLrlne LhaL a [udlclal acLlon ls proper only when Lhere ls absence of a
speclal provlslon granLlng Lhe power of cancellaLlon

lL ls Lrue LhaL Lhe aforesald rules were applled Lo Lhe conLracLs lnvolved Lhereln buL we see no
reason why Lhe same should noL apply Lo Lhe donaLlon ln Lhe presenL case ArLlcle 732 of Lhe Clvll
Code provldes LhaL donaLlons lnLer vlvos shall be governed by Lhe general provlslons on conLracLs
and obllgaLlons ln all LhaL ls noL deLermlned ln 1lLle lll 8ook lll on donaLlons now sald 1lLle lll does
noL have an expllclL provlslon on Lhe maLLer of a donaLlon wlLh a resoluLory condlLlon and whlch ls
sub[ecL Lo an express provlslon LhaL Lhe same shall be consldered lpso facLo revoked upon Lhe
breach of sald resoluLory condlLlon lmposed ln Lhe deed Lherefor as ls Lhe case of Lhe deed
presenLly ln quesLlon 1he suppleLory appllcaLlon of Lhe foregolng docLrlnal rullngs Lo Lhe presenL
conLroversy ls consequenLly [usLlfled

1he valldlLy of such a sLlpulaLlon ln Lhe deed of donaLlon provldlng for Lhe auLomaLlc reverslon of
Lhe donaLed properLy Lo Lhe donor upon noncompllance of Lhe condlLlon was upheld ln Lhe recenL
case of ue Luna eL al vs Abrlgo eL al

1he raLlonale for Lhe foregolng ls LhaL ln conLracLs provldlng for auLomaLlc revocaLlon [udlclal
lnLervenLlon ls necessary noL for purposes of obLalnlng a [udlclal declaraLlon resclndlng a conLracL
already deemed resclnded by vlrLue of an agreemenL provldlng for resclsslon even wlLhouL [udlclal
lnLervenLlon buL ln order Lo deLermlne wheLher or noL Lhe resclsslon was proper

When a deed of donaLlon as ln Lhls case expressly provldes for auLomaLlc revocaLlon and
reverslon of Lhe properLy donaLed Lhe rules on conLracL and Lhe general rules on prescrlpLlon
should apply and noL ArLlcle 764 of Lhe Clvll Code Slnce ArLlcle 1306 of sald Code auLhorlzes Lhe
parLles Lo a conLracL Lo esLabllsh such sLlpulaLlons clauses Lerms and condlLlons noL conLrary Lo
law morals good cusLoms publlc order or publlc pollcy we are of Lhe oplnlon LhaL aL Lhe very
leasL LhaL sLlpulaLlon of Lhe parLles provldlng for auLomaLlc revocaLlon of Lhe deed of donaLlon
wlLhouL prlor [udlclal acLlon for LhaL purpose ls valld sub[ecL Lo Lhe deLermlnaLlon of Lhe proprleLy
of Lhe resclsslon soughL Where such proprleLy ls susLalned Lhe declslon of Lhe courL wlll be merely
declaraLory of Lhe revocaLlon buL lL ls noL ln lLself Lhe revocaLory acL

Cn Lhe foregolng raLloclnaLlons Lhe CA commlLLed no error ln holdlng LhaL Lhe cause of acLlon of
hereln prlvaLe respondenLs has noL yeL prescrlbed slnce an acLlon Lo enforce a wrlLLen conLracL
prescrlbes ln Len (10) years lL ls our vlew LhaL ArLlcle 764 was lnLended Lo provlde a [udlclal
remedy ln case of nonfulflllmenL or conLravenLlon of condlLlons speclfled ln Lhe deed of donaLlon lf
and when Lhe parLles have noL agreed on Lhe auLomaLlc revocaLlon of such donaLlon upon Lhe
occurrence of Lhe conLlngency conLemplaLed Lhereln 1haL ls noL Lhe slLuaLlon ln Lhe case aL bar

noneLheless we flnd LhaL alLhough Lhe acLlon flled by prlvaLe respondenLs may noL be dlsmlssed by
reason of prescrlpLlon Lhe same should be dlsmlssed on Lhe ground LhaL prlvaLe respondenLs have
no cause of acLlon agalnsL peLlLloners

1he cause of acLlon of prlvaLe respondenLs ls based on Lhe alleged breach by peLlLloners of Lhe
resoluLory condlLlon ln Lhe deed of donaLlon LhaL Lhe properLy donaLed should noL be sold wlLhln a
perlod of one hundred (100) years from Lhe daLe of execuLlon of Lhe deed of donaLlon Sald
condlLlon ln our oplnlon consLlLuLes an undue resLrlcLlon on Lhe rlghLs arlslng from ownershlp of
peLlLloners and ls Lherefore conLrary Lo publlc pollcy

uonaLlon as a mode of acqulrlng ownershlp resulLs ln an effecLlve Lransfer of LlLle over Lhe
properLy from Lhe donor Lo Lhe donee Cnce a donaLlon ls accepLed Lhe donee becomes Lhe
absoluLe owner of Lhe properLy donaLed AlLhough Lhe donor may lmpose cerLaln condlLlons ln Lhe
deed of donaLlon Lhe same musL noL be conLrary Lo law morals good cusLoms publlc order and
publlc pollcy 1he condlLlon lmposed ln Lhe deed of donaLlon ln Lhe case before us consLlLuLes a
paLenLly unreasonable and undue resLrlcLlon on Lhe rlghL of Lhe donee Lo dlspose of Lhe properLy
donaLed whlch rlghL ls an lndlspensable aLLrlbuLe of ownershlp Such a prohlblLlon agalnsL
allenaLlon ln order Lo be valld musL noL be perpeLual or for an unreasonable perlod of Llme
CerLaln provlslons of Lhe Clvll Code lllusLraLlve of Lhe aforesald pollcy may be consldered appllcable
by analogy under Lhe Lhlrd paragraph of ArLlcle 494 a donor or LesLaLor may prohlblL parLlLlon for
a perlod whlch shall noL exceed LwenLy (20) years ArLlcle 870 on lLs parL declares LhaL Lhe
dlsposlLlons of Lhe LesLaLor declarlng all or parL of Lhe esLaLe lnallenable for more Lhan LwenLy (20)
years are vold

ln Lhe case aL bar we hold LhaL Lhe prohlblLlon ln Lhe deed of donaLlon agalnsL Lhe allenaLlon of Lhe
properLy for an enLlre cenLury belng an unreasonable emasculaLlon and denlal of an lnLegral
aLLrlbuLe of ownershlp should be declared as an lllegal or lmposslble condlLlon wlLhln Lhe
conLemplaLlon of ArLlcle 727 of Lhe Clvll Code ConsequenLly as speclflcally sLaLed ln sald sLaLuLory
provlslon such condlLlon shall be consldered as noL lmposed no rellance may accordlngly be
placed on sald prohlblLory paragraph ln Lhe deed of donaLlon 1he neL resulL ls LhaL absenL sald
proscrlpLlon Lhe deed of sale supposedly consLlLuLlve of Lhe cause of acLlon for Lhe nulllflcaLlon of
Lhe deed of donaLlon ls noL ln LruLh vlolaLlve of Lhe laLLer hence for lack of cause of acLlon Lhe case
for prlvaLe respondenLs musL fall

lL may be argued LhaL Lhe valldlLy of such prohlblLory provlslon ln Lhe deed of donaLlon was noL
speclflcally puL ln lssue ln Lhe pleadlngs of Lhe parLles 1haL may be Lrue buL such overslghL or
lnacLlon does noL prevenL Lhls CourL from passlng upon and resolvlng Lhe same

lL wlll readlly be noLed LhaL Lhe provlslon ln Lhe deed of donaLlon agalnsL allenaLlon of Lhe land for
one hundred (100) years was Lhe very basls for Lhe acLlon Lo nulllfy Lhe deed of donaLlon AL Lhe
same Llme lL was llkewlse Lhe conLroverLed fundamenL of Lhe moLlon Lo dlsmlss Lhe case a quo
whlch moLlon was susLalned by Lhe Lrlal courL and seL aslde by respondenL courL boLh on Lhe lssue
of prescrlpLlon 1haL rullng of respondenL courL lnLerpreLlng sald provlslon was asslgned as an error
ln Lhe presenL peLlLlon Whlle Lhe lssue of Lhe valldlLy of Lhe same provlslon was noL squarely
ralsed lL ls lnelucLably relaLed Lo peLlLloners aforesald asslgnmenL of error slnce boLh lssues are
grounded on and refer Lo Lhe very same provlslon

1hls CourL ls cloLhed wlLh ample auLhorlLy Lo revlew maLLers even lf Lhey are noL asslgned as errors
on appeal lf lL flnds LhaL Lhelr conslderaLlon ls necessary ln arrlvlng aL a [usL declslon of Lhe case
1hus we have held LhaL an unasslgned error closely relaLed Lo an error properly asslgned or upon
whlch Lhe deLermlnaLlon of Lhe quesLlon properly asslgned ls dependenL wlll be consldered by Lhe
appellaLe courL noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe fallure Lo asslgn lL as error

AddlLlonally we have lald down Lhe rule LhaL Lhe remand of Lhe case Lo Lhe lower courL for furLher
recepLlon of evldence ls noL necessary where Lhe CourL ls ln a poslLlon Lo resolve Lhe dlspuLe based
on Lhe records before lL Cn many occaslons Lhe CourL ln Lhe publlc lnLeresL and for Lhe
expedlLlous admlnlsLraLlon of [usLlce has resolved acLlons on Lhe merlLs lnsLead of remandlng Lhem
Lo Lhe Lrlal courL for furLher proceedlngs such as where Lhe ends of [usLlce would noL be
subserved by Lhe remand of Lhe case 1he aforesLaLed conslderaLlons obLaln ln and apply Lo Lhe
presenL case wlLh respecL Lo Lhe maLLer of Lhe valldlLy of Lhe resoluLory condlLlon ln quesLlon

Case ls dlsmlssed


De Luna v Abr|go
Gk # S74SS Ian 18 1990
181 SCkA 1S0

lacLs
1hls ls a peLlLlon for revlew on cerLlorarl of Lhe Crder of respondenL [udge Sofronlo l Abrlgo of Lhe
Cll of Cuezon dlsmlsslng Lhe complalnL of peLlLloners on Lhe ground of prescrlpLlon of acLlon

Cn !anuary 24 1963 rudenclo de Luna donaLed a porLlon of 7300 square meLers of LoL of Lhe
CadasLral Survey of Lucena covered by 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle no 13773 Lo Lhe Luzonlan
Colleges lnc (now Luzonlan unlverslLy loundaLlon lnc hereln referred Lo as Lhe foundaLlon) 1he
donaLlon embodled ln a ueed of uonaLlon lnLervlvos was sub[ecL Lo cerLaln Lerms and condlLlons
and provlded for Lhe auLomaLlc reverslon Lo Lhe donor of Lhe donaLed properLy ln case of vlolaLlon
or noncompllance 1he foundaLlon falled Lo comply wlLh Lhe condlLlons of Lhe donaLlon Cn Aprll
9 1971 rudenclo de Luna revlved Lhe sald donaLlon ln favor of Lhe foundaLlon ln a documenL
enLlLled 8evlval of uonaLlon lnLervlvos sub[ecL Lo Lerms and condlLlons whlch among oLhers
requlred
xxx xxx xxx
3 1haL Lhe uCnLL shall consLrucL aL lLs own expense a Chapel a nursery and klndergarLen School
Lo be named afLer SL veronlca and oLher consLrucLlons and Accessorles shall be consLrucLed on
Lhe land hereln belng donaLed sLrlcLly ln accordance wlLh Lhe plans and speclflcaLlons prepared by
Lhe C8 CulnLo AssoclaLes and made parL of Lhls donaLlon provlded LhaL Lhe floorlng of Lhe AlLar
and parLs of Lhe Chapel shall be of granoleLlc marble
4 1haL Lhe consLrucLlon of Lhe Chapel nursery and klndergarLen School shall sLarL lmmedlaLely
and musL be aL leasL SLvLn1? (70) L8 CLn1uM flnlshed by Lhe end of 1P8LL (3) ?LA8S from Lhe
daLe hereof however Lhe whole pro[ecL as drawn ln Lhe plans and speclflcaLlons made parLs of Lhls
donaLlon musL be compleLed wlLhln llvL (3) ?LA8S from Lhe daLe hereon unless exLenslons are
granLed by Lhe uCnC8 ln wrlLlng

As ln Lhe orlglnal deed of donaLlon Lhe 8evlval of uonaLlon lnLervlvos also provlded for Lhe
auLomaLlc reverslon Lo Lhe donor of Lhe donaLed area ln case of vlolaLlon of Lhe condlLlons Lhereof
couched ln Lhe followlng Lerms
xxx xxx xxx
11 1haL vlolaLlon of any of Lhe condlLlons hereln provlded shall cause Lhe auLomaLlc reverslon of
Lhe donaLed area Lo Lhe donor hls helrs asslgns and represenLaLlves wlLhouL Lhe need of
execuLlng any oLher documenL for LhaL purpose and wlLhouL obllgaLlon whaLever on Lhe parL of Lhe
uCnC8

1he foundaLlon Lhrough lLs presldenL accepLed Lhe donaLlon ln Lhe same documenL sub[ecL Lo all
Lhe Lerms and condlLlons sLaLed ln Lhe donaLlon 1he donaLlon was reglsLered and annoLaLed on
Aprll 13 1971 ln Lhe memorandum of encumbrances as LnLry no 17939 of 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of
1lLle no 13773

Cn AugusL 3 1971 rudenclo de Luna and Lhe foundaLlon execuLed a ueed of SegregaLlon
whereby Lhe area donaLed whlch ls now known as LoL no 37078 of Subdlvlslon lan sd40392
was ad[udlcaLed Lo Lhe foundaLlon As a resulL Lransfer cerLlflcaLe of LlLle no 116132 was lssued ln
Lhe name of Lhe foundaLlon 1he remalnlng porLlon known as LoL no 3707A was reLalned by Lhe
donor

Cn SepLember 23 1980 hereln peLlLloners Lvelyn 8osallna rudenclo !r Wlllard AnLonlo and
!osellLo all surnamed de Luna who clalm Lo be Lhe chlldren and only helrs of Lhe laLe rudenclo de
Luna who dled on AugusL 18 1980 flled a complalnL wlLh Lhe 81C of Cuezon alleglng LhaL Lhe
Lerms and condlLlons of Lhe donaLlon were noL complled wlLh by Lhe foundaLlon Among oLhers lL
prayed for Lhe cancellaLlon of Lhe donaLlon and Lhe reverslon of Lhe donaLed land Lo Lhe helrs

1he assalled order of Lhe Lrlal courL sLaLed LhaL revocaLlon (of a donaLlon) wlll be effecLlve only
elLher upon courL [udgmenL or upon consenL of Lhe donee as held ln Lhe case of arks v rovlnce
of 1arlac no 24190 !uly 13 1926 49 hll 143 1he Lrlal courL dlsmlssed Lhe clalm of peLlLloners
LhaL Lhe sLlpulaLlon ln Lhe donaLlon provldlng for revocaLlon ln case of noncompllance of
condlLlons ln Lhe donaLlon ls LanLamounL Lo Lhe consenL of Lhe donee oplnlng LhaL Lhe consenL
conLemplaLed by law should be such consenL glven by Lhe donee subsequenL Lo Lhe effecLlvlLy of
Lhe donaLlon or vlolaLlon of Lhe condlLlons lmposed Lhereln 1he Lrlal courL furLher held LhaL far
from consenLlng Lo Lhe revocaLlon Lhe donee clalmed LhaL lL had already subsLanLlally complled
wlLh Lhe condlLlons of Lhe donaLlon by lnLroduclng lmprovemenLs ln Lhe properLy donaLed valued
aL more Lhan Lhe amounL of Lhe donaLed land ln vlew Lhereof a [udlclal decree revoklng Lhe
sub[ecL donaLlon ls necessary Accordlngly under ArLlcle 764 of Lhe new Clvll Code acLlons Lo
revoke a donaLlon on Lhe ground of noncompllance wlLh any of Lhe condlLlons of Lhe donaLlon
shall prescrlbe ln four years counLed from such noncompllance ln Lhe lnsLanL case Lhe fouryear
perlod for flllng Lhe complalnL for revocaLlon commenced on Aprll 9 1976 and explred on Aprll 9
1980 Slnce Lhe complalnL was broughL on SepLember 23 1980 or more Lhan flve (3) monLhs
beyond Lhe prescrlpLlve perlod lL was already barred by prescrlpLlon

Cn Lhe oLher hand peLlLloners argue LhaL ArLlcle 764 of Lhe new Clvll Code was adopLed Lo provlde
a [udlclal remedy ln case of nonfulflllmenL of condlLlons when revocaLlon of Lhe donaLlon has noL
been agreed upon by Lhe parLles 8y way of conLrasL when Lhere ls a sLlpulaLlon agreed upon by
Lhe parLles provldlng for revocaLlon ln case of noncompllance no [udlclal acLlon ls necessary lL ls
Lhen peLlLloners clalm LhaL Lhe acLlon flled before Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of Cuezon ls noL one
for revocaLlon of Lhe donaLlon under ArLlcle 764 of Lhe new Clvll Code whlch prescrlbes ln four (4)
years buL one Lo enforce a wrlLLen conLracL whlch prescrlbes ln Len (10) years

lssue
WheLher Lhe acLlon ls Lo enforce a wrlLLen conLracL lnsLead of ArL 764

Peld
1he peLlLlon ls lmpressed wlLh merlL
lrom Lhe vlewpolnL of moLlve purpose or cause donaLlons may be 1) slmple 2) remuneraLory or
3) onerous A slmple donaLlon ls one Lhe cause of whlch ls pure llberallLy (no sLrlngs aLLached) A
remuneraLory donaLlon ls one where Lhe donee glves someLhlng Lo reward pasL or fuLure servlces
or because of fuLure charges or burdens when Lhe value of sald servlces burdens or charges ls less
Lhan Lhe value of Lhe donaLlon An onerous donaLlon ls one whlch ls sub[ecL Lo burdens charges or
fuLure servlces equal (or more) ln value Lhan LhaL of Lhe Lhlng donaLed

lL ls Lhe flndlng of Lhe Lrlal courL whlch ls noL dlspuLed by Lhe parLles LhaL Lhe donaLlon sub[ecL of
Lhls case ls one wlLh an onerous cause lL was made sub[ecL Lo Lhe burden requlrlng Lhe donee Lo
consLrucL a chapel a nursery and a klndergarLen school ln Lhe donaLed properLy wlLhln flve years
from execuLlon of Lhe deed of donaLlon

under Lhe old Clvll Code lL ls a seLLled rule LhaL donaLlons wlLh an onerous cause are governed noL
by Lhe law on donaLlons buL by Lhe rules on conLracLs as held ln cases declded by Lhe SC Cn Lhe
maLLer of prescrlpLlon of acLlons for Lhe revocaLlon of onerous donaLlon lL was held LhaL Lhe
general rules on prescrlpLlon applles

lL ls Lrue LhaL under ArLlcle 764 of Lhe new Clvll Code acLlons for Lhe revocaLlon of a donaLlon musL
be broughL wlLhln four (4) years from Lhe noncompllance of Lhe condlLlons of Lhe donaLlon
Powever lL ls Cur oplnlon LhaL sald arLlcle does noL apply Lo onerous donaLlons ln vlew of Lhe
speclflc provlslon of ArLlcle 733 provldlng LhaL onerous donaLlons are governed by Lhe rules on
conLracLs

ln Lhe llghL of Lhe above Lhe rules on conLracLs and Lhe general rules on prescrlpLlon and noL Lhe
rules on donaLlons are appllcable ln Lhe case aL bar

under ArLlcle 1306 of Lhe new Clvll Code Lhe parLles Lo a conLracL have Lhe rlghL Lo esLabllsh such
sLlpulaLlons clauses Lerms and condlLlons as Lhey may deem convenlenL provlded Lhey are noL
conLrary Lo law morals good cusLoms publlc order or publlc pollcy aragraph 11 of Lhe 8evlval
of uonaLlon lnLervlvos has provlded LhaL vlolaLlon of any of Lhe condlLlons (hereln) shall cause Lhe
auLomaLlc reverslon of Lhe donaLed area Lo Lhe donor hls helrs wlLhouL Lhe need of execuLlng
any oLher documenL for LhaL purpose and wlLhouL obllgaLlon on Lhe parL of Lhe uCnC8 Sald
sLlpulaLlon noL belng conLrary Lo law morals good cusLoms publlc order or publlc pollcy ls valld
and blndlng upon Lhe foundaLlon who volunLarlly consenLed LhereLo

1he valldlLy of Lhe sLlpulaLlon ln Lhe conLracL provldlng for Lhe auLomaLlc reverslon of Lhe donaLed
properLy Lo Lhe donor upon noncompllance cannoL be doubLed lL ls ln Lhe naLure of an agreemenL
granLlng a parLy Lhe rlghL Lo resclnd a conLracL unllaLerally ln case of breach wlLhouL need of golng
Lo courL upon Lhe happenlng of Lhe resoluLory condlLlon of noncompllance wlLh Lhe condlLlons of
Lhe conLracL Lhe donaLlon ls auLomaLlcally revoked wlLhouL need of a [udlclal declaraLlon Lo LhaL
effecL

lL ls clear however LhaL [udlclal lnLervenLlon ls necessary noL for purposes of obLalnlng a [udlclal
declaraLlon resclndlng a conLracL already deemed resclnded by vlrLue of an agreemenL provldlng
for resclsslon even wlLhouL [udlclal lnLervenLlon buL ln order Lo deLermlne wheLher or noL Lhe
recesslon was proper

1he Lrlal courL was noL correcL ln holdlng LhaL Lhe complalnL ln Lhe case aL bar ls barred by
prescrlpLlon under ArLlcle 764 of Lhe new Clvll Code because ArLlcle 764 does noL apply Lo onerous
donaLlons

As provlded ln Lhe donaLlon execuLed on Aprll 9 1971 complalnce wlLh Lhe Lerms and condlLlons
of Lhe conLracL of donaLlon shall be made wlLhln flve (3) years from lLs execuLlon 1he complalnL
whlch was flled on SepLember 23 1980 was Lhen well wlLhln Lhe Len (10) year prescrlpLlve perlod
Lo enforce a wrlLLen conLracL (ArLlcle 11441 new Clvll Code) counLed from Aprll 9 1976

llnally conslderlng LhaL Lhe allegaLlons ln Lhe complalnL on Lhe maLLer of Lhe donees non
compllance wlLh Lhe condlLlons of Lhe donaLlon have been conLesLed by prlvaLe respondenLs who
clalmed LhaL lmprovemenLs more valuable Lhan Lhe donaLed properLy had been lnLroduced a
[udgmenL on Lhe pleadlngs ls noL proper Moreover ln Lhe absence of a moLlon for [udgmenL on
Lhe pleadlngs Lhe courL cannoL moLu proprlo render such [udgmenL SecLlon 1 of 8ule 19 provldes
Where an answer falls Lo Lender an lssue or oLherwlse admlLs Lhe maLerlal allegaLlons of Lhe
adverse parLys pleadlng Lhe courL may on moLlon of LhaL parLy dlrecL [udgmenL on such
pleadlng (Lmphasls supplled)

eLlLlon ls C8An1Lu case ls hereby ordered relnsLaLed and respondenL [udge ls ordered Lo conducL
a Lrlal on Lhe merlLs Lo deLermlne Lhe proprleLy of Lhe revocaLlon of Lhe sub[ecL donaLlon


@y v @y
Gk # 16S696 Apr 30 2008
SS3 SCkA 306
lacLs
1hls ls a peLlLlon for revlew on cerLlorarl under 8ule 43 of Lhe 8ules of CourL agalnsL Lhe ueclslon of
Lhe CA and Lhe 8esoluLlon Lhereln daLed CcLober 18 2004

Cn May 19 1988 Alexander 1y son of Ale[andro 8 1y and 8ella 1orres dled of cancer aL Lhe age of
34 Pe was survlved by hls wlfe Sylvla 1y and hls only daughLer krlzla kaLrlna 1y A few monLhs
afLer hls deaLh a peLlLlon for Lhe seLLlemenL of hls lnLesLaLe esLaLe was flled by Sylvla 1y ln Lhe 81C
of Cuezon ClLy

upon peLlLlon of Sylvla 1y as AdmlnlsLraLrlx for seLLlemenL and dlsLrlbuLlon of Lhe lnLesLaLe esLaLe
of Alexander ln Lhe CounLy of Los Angeles Lhe Superlor CourL of Callfornla ordered Lhe dlsLrlbuLlon
of Lhe Pollywood condomlnlum unlL Lhe MonLebello loL and Lhe 1986 1oyoLa plckup Lruck Lo
Sylvla 1y and krlzla kaLrlna 1y

Cn november 23 1990 Sylvla 1y submlLLed Lo Lhe lnLesLaLe CourL ln Cuezon ClLy an lnvenLory of
Lhe asseLs of Alexander's esLaLe conslsLlng of shares of sLocks and a schedule of real esLaLe
properLles whlch lncluded Lhe followlng

1 LuSA roperLy a parcel of land wlLh an area of 1728 square meLers slLuaLed ln LuSA
Creenhllls Mandaluyong MeLro Manlla reglsLered ln Lhe name of Alexander 1y when he was sLlll
slngle and covered by 1C1 no 0006383
2 Merldlen Condomlnlum A resldenLlal condomlnlum wlLh an area of 1673 square meLers
slLuaLed ln 29 Annapolls SLreeL Creenhllls Mandaluyong MeLro Manlla reglsLered ln Lhe name of
Lhe spouses Alexander 1y and Sylvla 1y and covered by Condomlnlum CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle no 3393
3 WackWack roperLy A resldenLlal land wlLh an area of 1384 square meLers slLuaLed ln noLre
uame WackWack Mandaluyong MeLro Manlla reglsLered ln Lhe name of Lhe spouses Alexander
1y and Sylvla 1y and covered by 1C1 no 62670

Cn november 4 1992 Sylvla 1y asked Lhe lnLesLaLe CourL Lo sell or morLgage Lhe properLles of Lhe
esLaLe ln order Lo pay Lhe addlLlonal esLaLe Lax of 471436002 assessed by Lhe 8l8

ApparenLly Lhls acLlon dld noL slL well wlLh her faLherlnlaw Lhe plalnLlffappellee for on
uecember 16 1992 Ale[andro 1y faLher of Lhe deceased Alexander 1y flled a complalnL for
recovery of properLles wlLh prayer for prellmlnary ln[uncLlon and/or Lemporary resLralnlng order
agalnsL Sylvla 1y as defendanL ln her capaclLy as AdmlnlsLraLrlx of Lhe lnLesLaLe LsLaLe of
Alexander 1y

Cn lebruary 26 1993 Lhe 81C granLed Lhe appllcaLlon for a wrlL of prellmlnary ln[uncLlon

lalnLlff added LhaL defendanL acLed ln bad falLh ln lncludlng Lhe sub[ecL properLles ln Lhe lnvenLory
of Alexander 1y's esLaLe for she was well aware LhaL Alexander was slmply holdlng Lhe sald
properLles ln LrusL for hls slbllngs

Cn !anuary 7 2000 Lhe 81C rendered lLs declslon ln favor of plalnLlff

8espondenL Sylvla S 1y appealed from Lhe 81C ueclslon Lo Lhe CA

1he CA Lackled Lhe crlLlcal cruclal and plvoLal lssue of wheLher a LrusL express or lmplled was
esLabllshed by Lhe plalnLlffappellee ln favor of hls laLe son and namesake Alexander 1y

1he CA proceeded Lo dlsLlngulsh express from lmplled LrusL Lhen found LhaL no express LrusL can
be lnvolved here slnce noLhlng ln wrlLlng was presenLed Lo prove lL and Lhe case lnvolves real
properLy lL Lhen sLaLed LhaL lL dlsagrees wlLh Lhe courL a quo's appllcaLlon of ArL 1448 of Lhe Clvll
Code on lmplled LrusL Lhe socalled purchase money resulLlng LrusL sLaLlng LhaL Lhe very ArLlcle
provldes Lhe excepLlon LhaL obLalns when Lhe person Lo whom Lhe LlLle ls conveyed ls Lhe chlld
leglLlmaLe or llleglLlmaLe of Lhe one paylng Lhe prlce of Lhe sale ln whlch case no LrusL ls lmplled
by law lL belng dlspuLably presumed LhaL Lhere ls a glfL ln favor of Lhe chlld

1he CA Lherefore reasoned LhaL even assumlng LhaL plalnLlffappellee pald aL leasL parL of Lhe prlce
of Lhe LuSA properLy Lhe law sLlll presumes LhaL Lhe conveyance was a dlscreLlon (a glfL of devlse)
ln favor of Alexander

As Lo plalnLlffappellee's argumenL LhaL Lhere was no donaLlon as shown by hls exerclse of
domlnlon over Lhe properLy Lhe CA held LhaL no credlble evldence was presenLed Lo subsLanLlaLe
Lhe clalm

8egardlng Lhe resldence condomlnlum and Lhe WackWack properLy Lhe CA sLaLed LhaL lL dld noL
agree elLher wlLh Lhe flndlngs of Lhe Lrlal courL LhaL an lmplled LrusL was creaLed over Lhese
properLles

As a flnal polnL Lhe CourL found LhaL Lhe plalnLlffappellee ls noL enLlLled Lo moral damages
aLLorney's fees and cosLs of llLlgaLlon conslderlng LhaL Lhe lnsLanL case ls clearly a vexaLlous and
unfounded sulL by hlm flled agalnsL Lhe esLaLe of Lhe laLe Ale[andro 1y Pence all Lhese awards ln
Lhe [udgmenL a quo are hereby uLLL1Lu

1he CA Lherefore reversed and seL aslde Lhe [udgmenL appealed from and enLered anoLher one
dlsmlsslng Lhe complalnL

Cn CcLober 18 2004 Lhe CA resolved Lo deny Lhereln plalnLlffappellee's moLlon for
reconslderaLlon
Pence Lhls peLlLlon

lssue
WheLher an lmplled LrusL under ArL 1448 was consLlLuLed over Lhe sub[ecL properLles

Peld
1he CourL dlsposes of Lhe peLlLlon as follows

1he LuSA roperLy
eLlLloner conLends LhaL Lhe LuSA properLy whlle reglsLered ln Lhe name of hls son Alexander 1y ls
covered by an lmplled LrusL ln hls favor under ArLlcle 1448 of Lhe Clvll Code 1hls peLlLloner argues
ls because he pald Lhe prlce when Lhe properLy was purchased and dld so for Lhe purpose of havlng
Lhe beneflclal lnLeresL of Lhe properLy
ArLlcle 1448 of Lhe Clvll Code provldes
ArL 1448 1here ls an lmplled LrusL when properLy ls sold and Lhe legal esLaLe ls granLed Lo one
parLy buL Lhe prlce ls pald by anoLher for Lhe purpose of havlng Lhe beneflclal lnLeresL of Lhe
properLy 1he former ls Lhe LrusLee whlle Lhe laLLer ls Lhe beneflclary Powever lf Lhe person Lo
whom Lhe LlLle ls conveyed ls a chlld leglLlmaLe or llleglLlmaLe of one paylng Lhe prlce of Lhe sale
no LrusL ls lmplled by law lL belng dlspuLably presumed LhaL Lhere ls a glfL ln favor of Lhe chlld

1he CA conceded LhaL aL leasL parL of Lhe purchase prlce of Lhe LuSA properLy came from
peLlLloner Powever lL ruled ouL Lhe exlsLence of an lmplled LrusL because of Lhe lasL senLence of
ArLlcle 1448 x x x Powever lf Lhe person Lo whom Lhe LlLle ls conveyed ls a chlld leglLlmaLe or
llleglLlmaLe of Lhe one paylng Lhe prlce of Lhe sale no LrusL ls lmplled by law lL belng dlspuLably
presumed LhaL Lhere ls a glfL ln favor of Lhe chlld

eLlLloner now clalms LhaL ln so rullng Lhe CA deparLed from [urlsprudence ln LhaL such was noL
Lhe Lheory of Lhe parLles

eLlLloner however forgeLs LhaL lL was he who lnvoked ArLlcle 1448 of Lhe Clvll Code Lo clalm Lhe
exlsLence of an lmplled LrusL 8uL ArLlcle 1448 lLself ln provldlng for Lhe socalled purchase money
resulLlng LrusL also provldes Lhe parameLers of such LrusL and adds ln Lhe same breaLh Lhe
provlso Powever lf Lhe person Lo whom Lhe LlLle ls conveyed ls a chlld leglLlmaLe or llleglLlmaLe
of Lhe one paylng Lhe prlce of Lhe sale nC 18uS1 lS lMLlLu 8? LAW lL belng dlspuLably presumed
LhaL Lhere ls a glfL ln favor of Lhe chlld (Lmphasls supplled)

SLaLed oLherwlse Lhe ouLcome ls Lhe necessary consequence of peLlLloner's Lheory and argumenL
and ls lnexLrlcably llnked Lo lL by Lhe law lLself
1he CA Lherefore dld noL err ln slmply applylng Lhe law

ArLlcle 1448 of Lhe Clvll Code ls clear lf Lhe person Lo whom Lhe LlLle ls conveyed ls Lhe chlld of Lhe
one paylng Lhe prlce of Lhe sale and ln Lhls case Lhls ls undlspuLed nC 18uS1 lS lMLlLu 8? LAW
1he law lnsLead dlspuLably presumes a donaLlon ln favor of Lhe chlld

Cn Lhe quesLlon of wheLher or noL peLlLloner lnLended a donaLlon Lhe CA found LhaL peLlLloner
falled Lo prove Lhe conLrary 1hls ls a facLual flndlng whlch Lhls CourL sees no reason Lhe record Lo
reverse

1he neL effecL of all Lhe foregolng ls LhaL respondenL ls obllged Lo collaLe lnLo Lhe mass of Lhe
esLaLe of peLlLloner ln Lhe evenL of hls deaLh Lhe LuSA properLy as an advance of Alexander's
share ln Lhe esLaLe of hls faLher Lo Lhe exLenL LhaL peLlLloner provlded a parL of lLs purchase prlce

1he Merldlen Condomlnlum and Lhe WackWack properLy
eLlLloner would have Lhls CourL overLurn Lhe flndlng of Lhe CA LhaL as regards Lhe Merldlen
Condomlnlum and Lhe WackWack properLy peLlLloner falled Lo show LhaL Lhe money used Lo
purchase Lhe same came from hlm
Agaln Lhls ls clearly a facLual flndlng and peLlLloner has advanced no convlnclng argumenL for Lhls
CourL Lo alLer Lhe flndlngs reached by Lhe CA

Among Lhe facLs clLed by Lhe CA are Lhe sources of lncome of Alexander 1y who had been worklng
for nlne years when he purchased Lhese Lwo properLles who had a car care buslness and was
acLlvely engaged ln Lhe buslness deallngs of several famlly corporaLlons from whlch he recelved
emolumenLs and oLher beneflLs

1he CA Lherefore ruled LhaL wlLh respecL Lo Lhe Merldlen Condomlnlum and Lhe WackWack
properLy no lmplled LrusL was creaLed because Lhere was no showlng LhaL parL of Lhe purchase
prlce was pald by peLlLloner and on Lhe conLrary Lhe evldence showed LhaL Alexander 1y had Lhe
means Lo pay for Lhe same

eLlLlon ls A81L? C8An1Lu Lhe ueclslon of Lhe CA ls Alll8MLu wlLh Lhe MCulllCA1lCn LhaL
respondenL ls obllged Lo collaLe lnLo Lhe mass of Lhe esLaLe of peLlLloner ln Lhe evenL of hls deaLh
Lhe LuSA properLy as an advance of Alexander 1y's share ln Lhe esLaLe of hls faLher Lo Lhe exLenL
LhaL peLlLloner provlded a parL of lLs purchase prlce

Lduarte vs CA
Gk# 10S944] Ieb 9 1996
2S3 SCkA 391
lacLs

A peLlLlon for cerLlorarl assalllng Lhe declslon of Lhe CAlacLs uomlngo 8elda and LsLellLa Ana were
Lhe reglsLered owners of a parcel of land denomlnaLed as LoL 118 locaLed aL Sorsogon and covered
by Crlglnal CerLlflcaLe of 1lLleno 4991 lssued on CcLober 3 1962Cn March 1 1963 a leLLer was
senL by Lhe Land lnvesLlgaLor Serafln valcarcel of Lhe8ureau of Lands Lo uomlngo and Clprlano
8ulan calllng Lhem Lo a conference Lo seLLle Lhe wrongful lssuance of LlLle Lo Lhe properLy Lhey boLh
occupy AL Lhls conference nelLher uomlngo nor 8ulan appeared buL 1eoLlmo LduarLe dld Cn
AugusL 9 1963 LduarLe wroLe a leLLer Lo Lhe ulrecLor of Lands requesLlng hlm noL Lo glve due
course Lo uomlngo and LsLellLa's appllcaLlon for a free paLenL LlLle over loL 118slnce whaL uomlngo
and LsLellLa are occupylng ls LoL 138 whlch was LlLled ln Lhe name of 8ulan who refused Lo accepL
sald LlLle AfLer Lhe Cfflce of Lhe ulrecLor of lands Look noLe of LduarLe's proLesL an lnvesLlgaLlon
was conducLed whlch revealed LhaL LduarLe ls ln acLual possesslon of loL 118 whlle uomlngo and
LsLellLa occupy loL 138

1he ulsLrlcL Land Cfflcer recommended LhaL Lhe free paLenL appllcaLlon of respondenLs should
refer Lo loL 138 and Lhe homesLead appllcaLlon of peLlLloner should refer Lo loL 118 LduarLe
remalned and conLlnuously occupled loL 118 unLll on uecember 10 1986uomlngo and LsLellLa flled
wlLh Lhe 81C of lrosln a complalnL for recovery of possesslon and damages agalnsL LduarLe
averrlng LhaL someLlme ln AugusL 1983 LduarLe by means of force LhreaLs and lnLlmldaLlon
enLered Lhe sub[ecL Lo loL wlLhouL Lhelr consenL Lhereby deprlvlng Lhem of Lhelr possesslon of Lhe
premlses 1raverslng Lhe complalnL LduarLe asserLs LhaL he ls Lhe rlghLful owner of Lhe properLy ln
quesLlon LhaL he has been ln possesslon of Lhe same slnce 1942 LhaL Lhe LlLle relled upon by
uomlngo and LsLellLa was erroneously lssued ln Lhelr name whlch was acknowledged by Lhe
8ureau of Lands LhaL uomlngo and LsLellLa fully know LhaL Lhey are noL Lhe owners of Lhe loL ln
dlspuLe1he lower courL also ruled LhaL peLlLloner can aLLack Lhe valldlLy of respondenLs LlLle
onlyLhrough a dlrecL and noL by a collaLeral proceedlng ueclslon afflrmed by CA wlLh
modlflcaLlons

lssue

WheLher or noL LduarLe can ln an ordlnary clvll acLlon for recovery of possesslon flled by uomlngo
and LsLellLa Lhe reglsLered owners assall Lhe valldlLy of Lhelr LlLle

Peld
lL musL be sLressed LhaL a cerLlflcaLe of LlLle serves as evldence of an lndefeaslble LlLle Lo Lhe
properLy ln favor of Lhe person whose name appears Lhereln AfLer Lhe explraLlon of Lhe one year
perlod from Lhe lssuance of Lhe decree of reglsLraLlon upon whlch lL based lL becomes
lnconLroverLlble 1he decree of reglsLraLlon and Lhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle lssued pursuanL LhereLo may
be aLLacked on Lhe ground of fraud wlLhln one year from Lhe daLe of lLs enLry and such an aLLack
musL be dlrecL and noL by a collaLeral proceedlng ln Lhe case aL bench peLlLloner ralsed Lhe
followlng afflrmaLlve defense ln hls answer3 1haL Lhe defendanL ls Lhe Lrue and lawful owner and
ln acLual possesslon of LhaL cerLaln parcel of land whlch ls more parLlcularly descrlbed as follows
xxx xxx xxx3 1haL Lhe sole basls of Lhe plalnLlff ln adversely clalmlng Lhe aforesald properLy ls due
Lo Lhe erroneous lssuance of CC1 no 4991 ln hls name whlch covers sald LoL no 118 and Lhls
mlsLaken and erroneous lssuance has been duly acknowledged and lnvesLlgaLed no less by Lhe
8ureau of Lands6 1haL plalnLlff has never been ln acLual possesslon of sald LoL no 118and
Lherefore he ls noL lawfully enLlLled Lo such cerLlflcaLe of LlLle no 4991 whlch under Lhe
clrcumsLances he ls obllged Lo reconvey Lhe same Lo Lhe defendanL 1he foregolng allegaLlons
aLLack Lhe valldlLy of Lhe orlglnal cerLlflcaLe of LlLle lssued ln favor of prlvaLe respondenLs by Lhe
8eglsLry of ueeds of Sorsogon 1hls ls noL permlLLed under Lhe prlnclple of lndefeaslblllLy of a
1orrens LlLle 1he lssue of Lhe valldlLy of LlLle lewheLher or noL lL was fraudulenLly lssued can be
ralsed ln an acLlon expressly lnsLlLuLed for LhaL purposes WheLher or noL respondenLs have Lhe
rlghL Lo clalm ownershlp of Lhe sub[ecL land ls beyond Lhe provlnce of Lhe lnsLanL peLlLlon

Ve|asquez vs CA
Gk# 126996] Ieb 1S 2000
32S SCkA SS2

lacLs

Spouses Leoncla de Cuzman and Cornello Aqulno dled lnLesLaLe someLlme ln 1943 and 1947
respecLlvely and were chlldless Leoncla de Cuzman was survlved by her slsLers AnaLalla de Cuzman
(moLher of Lhe plalnLlffs) and 1ranqulllna de Cuzman (grandmoLher of Lhe defendanLs) uurlng Lhe
exlsLence of Lhelr marrlage spouses Aqulno were able Lo acqulre several properLles

SomeLlme ln 1989 Lhe helrs of AnaLalla de Cuzman represenLed by SanLlago Andres lellcldad and
Apolonlo all surnamed Meneses flled a complalnL for annulmenL parLlLlon and damages agalnsL

Lhe helrs of Cesarlo velasquez (son of 1ranqulllna de Cuzman) for Lhe laLLers refusal Lo parLlLlon Lhe
abovemenLloned con[ugal properLles of Lhe Spouses Aqulno 1he complalnL alleged LhaL Leoncla
de Cuzman before her deaLh had a Lalk wlLh Lhe plalnLlffs moLher AnaLalla de Cuzman wlLh
plalnLlff SanLlago Meneses and 1ranqulllna de Cuzman and hls son Cesarlo velasquez ln
aLLendance LhaL ln Lhe conference Leoncla Lold AnaLalla de Cuzman 1ranqulllna de Cuzman and
Cesarlo velaquez LhaL Lhe documenLs of donaLlon and parLlLlon whlch she and her husband earller
execuLed were noL slgned by Lhem as lL was noL Lhelr lnLenLlon Lo glve away all Lhe properLles Lo
Cesarlo velasquez because AnaLalla de Cuzman who ls one of her slsLers had several chlldren Lo
supporL Cesarlo velasquez LogeLher wlLh hls moLher allegedly promlsed Lo dlvlde Lhe properLles
equally and Lo glve Lhe plalnLlffs onehalf (1/2) Lhereof LhaL Lhey are enLlLled Lo of each of all Lhe
properLles ln quesLlon belng Lhe chlldren of AnaLalla de Cuzman full blood slsLer of Leoncla de
Cuzman lalnLlffs furLher clalm LhaL afLer Lhe deaLh of Leoncla defendanLs forclbly Look
possesslon of all Lhe properLles and desplLe plalnLlffs repeaLed demands for parLlLlon defendanLs
refused lalnLlffs pray for Lhe nulllLy of any documenLs coverlng Lhe properLles ln quesLlon slnce
Lhey do noL bear Lhe genulne slgnaLures of Lhe Aqulno spouses Lo order Lhe parLlLlon of Lhe
properLles beLween plalnLlffs and defendanLs ln equal shares and Lo order Lhe defendanLs Lo
render an accounLlng of Lhe produce of Lhe land ln quesLlon from Lhe Llme defendanLs forclbly Look
possesslon unLll parLlLlon shall have been effecLed

uefendanLs flled Lhelr Amended Answer wlLh counLerclalm alleglng among oLhers LhaL durlng Lhe
llfeLlme of spouses Cornello Aqulno and Leoncla de Cuzman Lhey had already dlsposed of Lhelr
properLles ln favor of peLlLloners predecessorslnlnLeresL Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de
Cuzman and peLlLloners AnasLacla and !ose velasquez

uefendanLs denled LhaL a conference Look place beLween Leoncla de Cuzman and plalnLlff SanLlago
Meneses and hls moLher AnaLalla wlLh 1ranqulllna (defendanLs grandmoLher) and Cesarlo
velasquez (defendanLs faLher) nor dld Lhe laLLer promlse Lo dlvlde Lhe properLles equally wlLh Lhe
plalnLlffs or Lo execuLe a deed of parLlLlon LhaL Lhey dld noL forclbly Lake possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL
properLles slnce Lhelr possesslon Lhereof has been peaceful open conLlnuous and adverse ln
characLer Lo Lhe excluslon of all oLhers 8y way of afflrmaLlve defenses defendanLs clalm LhaL Lhe
lnsLanL case ls already barred by res [udlcaLa slnce Lhere had been Lhree prevlous cases lnvolvlng
Lhe same parLles sub[ecL maLLer and cause of acLlon whlch were all dlsmlssed Lhe lasL of whlch
was dlsmlssed for fallure Lo prosecuLe LhaL plalnLlffs acLlon Lo annul Lhe documenLs coverlng Lhe
dlsposlLlon of Lhe properLles ls also barred by Lhe sLaLuLe of llmlLaLlons LhaL Lhe acLlon for parLlLlon
presupposes Lhe exlsLence of a properLy held ln common as agreed upon or admlLLed by Lhe parLles
buL Lhe coownershlp ceases when one of Lhe parLles alleges excluslve ownershlp Lhus Lhe acLlon
becomes one for a LlLle and recovery of ownershlp and Lhe acLlon prescrlbes ln four years
lssue

l WheLher or noL Lhe lnsLanL case ls barred by res [udlcaLa and by Lhe sLaLuLe of llmlLaLlons

ll WheLher or noL Lhe properLles menLloned ln Lhe complalnL form parL of Lhe esLaLe of Lhe
Spouses Cornello Aqulno and Leoncla ue Cuzman

lll WheLher or noL Lhe peLlLloners have acqulred absoluLe and excluslve ownershlp of Lhe
properLles ln quesLlon

lv WheLher or noL prlvaLe respondenL helrs of anaLalla de guzman are legal helrs of spouses
cornello aqulno and leoncla de guzman

v WheLher or noL parLlLlon ls Lhe proper acLlon ln Lhe lnsLanL case

Peld

eLlLloners allegaLlons were never rebuLLed by prlvaLe respondenLs ln Lhelr CommenL as Lhe only
defense ralsed Lhereln was LhaL Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe prlnclple of res [udlcaLa should noL sacrlflce
[usLlce Lo LechnlcallLy and lL ls wlLhln Lhe power of Lhe courL Lo suspend lLs own rules or Lo excepL a
parLlcular case from lLs operaLlons whenever Lhe purpose of [usLlce requlres lL We have examlned
Lhe Lhlrd complalnL flled by prlvaLe respondenLs on CcLober 23 1987 and compared lL wlLh Lhe
lnsLanL case and we found LhaL Lhe allegaLlons conLalned ln boLh complalnLs are Lhe same and
LhaL Lhere ls ldenLlLy of parLles sub[ecL maLLer and cause of acLlon 1hus Lhe requlslLes of res
[udlcaLa are presenL namely (a) Lhe former [udgmenL or order musL be flnal (b) lL musL be a
[udgmenL or order on Lhe merlLs (c) lL musL have been rendered by a courL havlng [urlsdlcLlon over
Lhe sub[ecL maLLer and Lhe parLles and (d) Lhere musL be beLween Lhe flrsL and Lhe second acLlons
ldenLlLy of parLles of sub[ecL maLLer and of cause of acLlon Slnce Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe Lhlrd case dld
noL conLaln any condlLlon aL all lL has Lhe effecL of an ad[udlcaLlon on Lhe merlLs as lL ls undersLood
Lo be wlLh pre[udlce12 Cn Lhls ground alone Lhe Lrlal courL should have already dlsmlssed Lhls
case Powever conslderlng LhaL Lhls case had already reached Lhls CourL by way of a peLlLlon for
revlew on cerLlorarl lL would be more ln keeplng wlLh subsLanLlal [usLlce lf Lhe conLroversy
beLween Lhe parLles were Lo be resolved on Lhe merlLs raLher Lhan on a procedural LechnlcallLy ln
Lhe llghL of Lhe express mandaLe of Lhe rules LhaL Lhey be llberally consLrued ln order Lo promoLe
Lhelr ob[ecL and Lo asslsL Lhe parLles ln obLalnlng [usL speedy and lnexpenslve deLermlnaLlon of
every acLlon and proceedlng13

AfLer an examlnaLlon of Lhe records we flnd LhaL Lhere ls no preponderance of evldence adduced
durlng Lhe Lrlal Lo supporL Lhe flndlngs and concluslons of Lhe courLs below whlch error [usLlfles a
revlew of sald evldence As a rule facLual flndlngs of Lhe lower courLs are flnal and blndlng upon
Lhls CourL 1hls CourL ls noL expecLed nor requlred Lo examlne or conLrasL Lhe oral and
documenLary evldence submlLLed by Lhe parLles14 Powever alLhough Lhls CourL ls noL a Lrler of
facLs lL has Lhe auLhorlLy Lo revlew and reverse Lhe facLual flndlngs of Lhe lower courLs lf lL flnds
LhaL Lhese do noL conform Lo Lhe evldence on record13 ln Lhe lnsLanL case we are noL bound Lo
adhere Lo Lhe general rule slnce boLh courLs clearly falled Lo conslder facLs and clrcumsLances
whlch should have drawn a dlfferenL concluslon16

ln acLlons for parLlLlon Lhe courL cannoL properly lssue an order Lo dlvlde Lhe properLy unless lL
flrsL makes a deLermlnaLlon as Lo Lhe exlsLence of coownershlp 1he courL musL lnlLlally seLLle Lhe
lssue of ownershlp Lhe flrsL sLage ln an acLlon for parLlLlon17 needless Lo sLaLe an acLlon for
parLlLlon wlll noL lle lf Lhe clalmanL has no rlghLful lnLeresL over Lhe sub[ecL properLy ln facL
SecLlon 1 of 8ule 69 requlres Lhe parLy flllng Lhe acLlon Lo sLaLe ln hls complalnL Lhe naLure and Lhe
exLenL of hls LlLle Lo Lhe real esLaLe unLll and unless Lhe lssue of ownershlp ls deflnlLely resolved
lL would be premaLure Lo effecL a parLlLlon of Lhe properLles18

We are unable Lo susLaln Lhe flndlngs of Lhe respondenL CourL LhaL lL has been adequaLely shown
LhaL Lhe alleged Lransfers of properLles Lo Lhe peLlLloners predecessorlnlnLeresL made by Lhe

Aqulno spouses were repudlaLed before Leonclas deaLh Lhus prlvaLe respondenLs are sLlll enLlLled
Lo share ln Lhe sub[ecL properLles 1here ls no preponderance of evldence Lo supporL Lhe flndlngs
and concluslons of boLh courLs 1he Lrlal courL declared Lhe nulllLy of Lhe donaLlon lnLer vlvos ln
favor of peLlLloners !ose and AnasLacla velasquez over Lhe flrsL parcel of land descrlbed ln Lhe
complalnL Lhe deed of sale Lo Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman over Lhe second parcel
and Lhe deed of donaLlon propLer nupLlas over Lhe Lhlrd and slxLh parcels and Lhe sale Lo Lhlrd
parLles of fourLh and flfLh parcels lnsofar as Lhe of Lhese parcels of land are concerned whlch
leglLlmaLely belong Lo plalnLlff lL would appear LhaL Lhe Lrlal courL relled solely on Lhe basls of
SanLlago Meneses LesLlmony LhaL ln 1944 when hls aunL Leoncla de Cuzman was sLlll allve she
called a conference among Lhem Lhe plalnLlffs and Lhelr moLher AnaLalla Cesarlo velasquez and
hls moLher 1ranqulllna Lelllng Lhem LhaL all Lhelr properLles whlch are con[ugal ln naLure shall be
dlvlded equally beLween AnaLalla and 1ranqulllna and noL Lo belleve Lhe documenLs purporLedly
slgned by her because she dld noL slgn Lhem19 rlvaLe respondenL SanLlago Meneses LesLlmony ls
Lo Lhe effecL LhaL Leoncla never slgned any deed of conveyance of Lhe sub[ecL properLles ln favor of
Lhe peLlLloners Powever SanLlago Meneses LesLlmony was never corroboraLed by any oLher
evldence desplLe hls LesLlmony LhaL Lhe alleged conference was also made ln Lhe presence of Lhlrd
parLles Moreover lf Lhe alleged conference really Look place ln 1944 a year before Leonclas deaLh
Leoncla could have execuLed anoLher seL of documenLs revoklng or repudlaLlng whaLever
dlsposlLlons she had earller made Lo show her alleged lnLenLlon of glvlng her properLles ln equal
shares Lo her slsLers AnaLalla and 1ranqulllna de Cuzman buL Lhere was none 1he Lrlal courL found
Lhe LesLlmony of SanLlago Meneses who ls elghLy years old Lo be credlble and Lhls was afflrmed by
Lhe respondenL courL whlch sLaLed LhaL Lhe maLLer of ascrlblng credlblllLy belongs Lo Lhe Lrlal courL
Powever Lhe facL LhaL a person has reached Lhe LwlllghL of hls llfe ls noL always a guaranLy LhaL
he would Lell Lhe LruLh lL ls also qulLe common LhaL advanced age makes a person menLally dull
and compleLely hazy abouL Lhlngs whlch has appeared Lo hlm and aL Llmes lL weakens hls
reslsLance Lo ouLslde lnfluence20

Cn Lhe oLher hand peLlLloners were able Lo adduce Lhe unconLroverLed and anclenL documenLary
evldence showlng LhaL durlng Lhe llfeLlme of Lhe Aqulno spouses Lhey had already dlsposed of four
of Lhe slx parcels of land sub[ecL of Lhe complalnL sLarLlng ln Lhe year 1919 and Lhe laLesL was ln
1939 as follows (a) LscrlLura de donaLlon propLer nupLlas daLed lebruary 13 1919 ln favor of Lhe
fuLure spouses Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman (peLlLloners parenLs) conveylng Lo Lhem a
porLlon of Lhe second parcel ln Lhe complalnL and Lhe enLlreLy of Lhe Lhlrd and slxLh parcels21 (b)
ueed of donaLlon lnLer vlvos daLed Aprll 10 1939 conveylng Lhe flrsL parcel ln favor of peLlLloners
AnasLacla velasquez and !ose velasquez22 (c) LscrlLura de CompravenLa daLed AugusL 23 1924
conveylng anoLher porLlon of Lhe second parcel ln favor of Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de
Cuzman wlLh a 300 conslderaLlon23 (d) ueed of Conveyance daLed !uly 14 1939 ln favor of
Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman conveylng Lo Lhem Lhe remalnlng porLlon of Lhe second
parcel for a conslderaLlon of 600 and conflrmlng ln Lhe same ueed Lhe LscrlLura de donaLlon
propLer nupLlas and LscrlLura de compravenLa abovemenLloned24 lL was reverslble error for Lhe
courL Lo overlook Lhe probaLlve value of Lhese noLarlzed documenLs

A donaLlon as a mode of acqulrlng ownershlp resulLs ln an effecLlve Lransfer of LlLle over Lhe
properLy from Lhe donor Lo Lhe donee23 and Lhe donaLlon ls perfecLed from Lhe momenL Lhe
donor knows of Lhe accepLance by Lhe donee26 And once a donaLlon ls accepLed Lhe donee
becomes Lhe absoluLe owner of Lhe properLy donaLed27 1he donaLlon of Lhe flrsL parcel made by
Lhe Aqulno spouses Lo peLlLloners !ose and AnasLacla velasquez who were Lhen nlneLeen (19) and
Len (10) years old respecLlvely was accepLed Lhrough Lhelr faLher Cesarlo velasquez and Lhe
accepLance was lncorporaLed ln Lhe body of Lhe same deed of donaLlon and made parL of lL and
was slgned by Lhe donor and Lhe accepLor Legally speaklng Lhere was dellvery and accepLance of
Lhe deed and Lhe donaLlon exlsLed perfecLly and lrrevocably 1he donaLlon lnLer vlvos may be
revoked only for Lhe reasons provlded ln ArLlcles 760 764 and 763 of Lhe Clvll Code28 1he
donaLlon propLer nupLlas ln favor of Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman over Lhe Lhlrd and
slxLh parcels lncludlng a porLlon of Lhe second parcel became Lhe properLles of Lhe spouses
velasquez slnce 1919 1he deed of donaLlon propLer nupLlas can be revoked by Lhe non
performance of Lhe marrlage and Lhe oLher causes menLloned ln arLlcle 86 of Lhe lamlly Code29
1he alleged reason for Lhe repudlaLlon of Lhe deed le LhaL Lhe Aqulno spouses dld noL lnLend Lo
glve away all Lhelr properLles slnce AnaLalla (Leonclas slsLer) had several chlldren Lo supporL ls noL
one of Lhe grounds for revocaLlon of donaLlon elLher lnLer vlvos or propLer nupLlas alLhough Lhe
donaLlon mlghL be lnofflclous

1he LscrlLura compravenLa over anoLher porLlon of Lhe second parcel and Lhe ueed of conveyance
daLed !uly 14 1939 ln favor of Cesarlo and Camlla velasquez over Lhe remalnlng porLlon of Lhe
second parcel ls also valld ln facL ln Lhe deed of sale daLed !uly 14 1939 Lhe Aqulno spouses
raLlfled and conflrmed Lhe rlghLs and lnLeresLs of Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman
lncludlng Lhe prevlous deeds of conveyance execuLed by Lhe Aqulno spouses over Lhe second
parcel ln Lhe complalnL and such deed of sale became Lhe basls for Lhe lssuance of 1C1 no 13129
ln Lhe names of Cesarlo velasquez and Camlla de Cuzman on !uly 23 1939 1he besL proof of Lhe
ownershlp of Lhe land ls Lhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle30 and lL requlres more Lhan a bare allegaLlon Lo
defeaL Lhe face value of 1C1 no 13129 whlch en[oys a legal presumpLlon of regularlLy of
lssuance31 noLably durlng Lhe llfeLlme of Cesarlo velasquez he enLered lnLo conLracLs of
morLgage and lease over Lhe properLy as annoLaLed aL Lhe back of Lhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle whlch
clearly esLabllshed LhaL he exerclsed full ownershlp and conLrol over Lhe properLy lL ls qulLe
surprlslng LhaL lL was only afLer more Lhan flfLy years LhaL prlvaLe respondenLs asserLed co
ownershlp clalm over Lhe sub[ecL properLy

1he Aqulno spouses had dlsposed Lhe four parcels of land durlng Lhelr llfeLlme and Lhe documenLs
were duly noLarlzed so LhaL Lhese documenLs en[oy Lhe presumpLlon of valldlLy32 Such
presumpLlon has noL been overcome by prlvaLe respondenL SanLlago Meneses wlLh clear and
convlnclng evldence ln clvll cases Lhe parLy havlng Lhe burden of proof musL esLabllsh hls case by a
preponderance of evldence33 eLlLloners were able Lo esLabllsh LhaL Lhese four parcels of land
were valldly conveyed Lo Lhem by Lhe Aqulno spouses hence Lhey no longer formed parL of Lhe
con[ugal properLles of Lhe spouses aL Lhe Llme of Lhelr deaLhs As regards Lhe fourLh and flfLh
parcels peLlLloners alleged LhaL Lhese were also conveyed Lo Lhlrd persons and Lhey do noL clalm
any rlghL LhereLo

SUCCLSSICN


Genera| rov|s|ons Arts 774782


A|varez v IAC
Gk# 680S3 May 7 1990
18S SCkA 8

lacLs

AnlceLo ?anes was survlved by hls chlldren 8uflno lellpe and 1eodora Pereln prlvaLe
respondenLs LsLellLa llumlnado and !esus are Lhe chlldren of 8uflno who dled ln 1962 whlle Lhe
oLher prlvaLe respondenLs AnLonlo and 8osarlo ?anes are chlldren of lellpe 1eodora was survlved
by her chlld !ovlLa (!ovlLo) Allb lL ls noL clear why Lhe laLLer ls noL lncluded as a parLy ln Lhls case

AnlceLo lefL hls chlldren LoLs 773 and 823 1eodora culLlvaLed only Lhree hecLares of LoL 823 as she
could noL aLLend Lo Lhe oLher porLlons of Lhe Lwo loLs whlch had a LoLal area of around LwenLyfour
hecLares 1he record does noL show wheLher Lhe chlldren of lellpe also culLlvaLed some porLlons of
Lhe loLs buL lL ls esLabllshed LhaL 8uflno and hls chlldren lefL Lhe provlnce Lo seLLle ln oLher places as
a resulL of Lhe ouLbreak of World War ll Accordlng Lo LsLellLa from Lhe !apanese Llme up Lo peace
Llme Lhey dld noL vlslL Lhe parcels of land ln quesLlon buL afLer llberaLlon when her broLher
wenL Lhere Lo geL Lhelr share of Lhe sugar produced Lhereln he was lnformed LhaL lorLunaLo
SanLlago luenLebella (uenLevella) and Alvarez were ln possesslon of LoL 773

lL ls on record LhaL on May 19 1938 lorLunaLo u SanLlago was lssued 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle
no 8l 2694 (29797) coverlng LoL 773A wlLh an area of 37818 square meLers 3 1C1 no 8l 2694
descrlbes LoL 773A as a porLlon of LoL 773 of Lhe cadasLral survey of Murcla and as orlglnally
reglsLered under CC1 no 8804
1he blgger porLlon of LoL 773 wlLh an area of 118831 square meLers was also reglsLered ln Lhe
name of lorLunaLo u SanLlago on SepLember 6 1938 under 1C1 no 812693 (28192 ) 4 Sald
Lransfer cerLlflcaLe of LlLle also conLalns a cerLlflcaLlon Lo Lhe effecL LhaL LoL 7738 was orlglnally
reglsLered under CC1 no 8804

Cn May 30 1933 SanLlago sold LoLs 773A and 7738 Lo Monlco 8 luenLebella !r ln conslderaLlon
of Lhe sum of 700000 3 ConsequenLly on lebruary 20 1936 1C1 nos 119291 and 119292
were lssued ln luenLebellas name 6

AfLer luenLebellas deaLh and durlng Lhe seLLlemenL of hls esLaLe Lhe admlnlsLraLrlx Lhereof
(Arsenla 8 vda de luenLebella hls wlfe) flled ln Speclal roceedlngs no 4373 ln Lhe CourL of llrsL
lnsLance of negros CccldenLal a moLlon requesLlng auLhorlLy Lo sell LoLs 773A and 7738 8y
vlrLue of a courL order granLlng sald moLlon 8 on March 24 1938 Arsenla vda de luenLebella sold
sald loLs for 600000 Lo 8osendo Alvarez 9 Pence on Aprll 1 1938 1C1 nos 123163 and 123166
coverlng LoLs 773A and 7738 were respecLlvely lssued Lo 8osendo Alvarez 10

1wo years laLer or on May 26 1960 1eodora ?anes and Lhe chlldren of her broLher 8uflno namely
LsLellLa llumlnado and !esus flled ln Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of negros CccldenLal a complalnL
agalnsL lorLunaLo SanLlago Arsenla vda de luenLebella Alvarez and Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds of
negros CccldenLal for Lhe reLurn of Lhe ownershlp and possesslon of LoLs 773 and 823 1hey also
prayed LhaL an accounLlng of Lhe produce of Lhe land from 1944 up Lo Lhe flllng of Lhe complalnL be
made by Lhe defendanLs LhaL afLer courL approval of sald accounLlng Lhe share or money
equlvalenL due Lhe plalnLlffs be dellvered Lo Lhem and LhaL defendanLs be ordered Lo pay plalnLlffs
30000 as damages ln Lhe form of aLLorneys fees 11

uurlng Lhe pendency ln courL of sald case or on november 13 1961 Alvarez sold LoLs 773A 7738
and anoLher loL for 2300000 Lo ur 8odolfo Slason 12 Accordlngly 1C1 nos 30919 and 30920
were lssued Lo Slason 13 who LhereafLer declared Lhe Lwo loLs ln hls name for assessmenL
purposes 14

Meanwhlle on november 6 1962 !esus ?anes ln hls own behalf and ln behalf of Lhe oLher
plalnLlffs and asslsLed by Lhelr counsel flled a manlfesLaLlon ln Clvll Case no 3022 sLaLlng LhaL Lhe
Lhereln plalnLlffs renounce forfelL and qulLclalms (slc) any clalm moneLary or oLherwlse agalnsL
Lhe defendanL Arsenla vda de luenLebella ln connecLlon wlLh Lhe aboveenLlLled case 13

Cn CcLober 11 1963 a declslon was rendered by Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of negros CccldenLal ln
Clvll Case no 3022 Lhe dlsposlLlve porLlon of whlch reads

WPL8LlC8L [udgmenL ls rendered orderlng Lhe defendanL 8osendo Alvarez Lo reconvey Lo Lhe
plalnLlffs loLs nos 773 and 823 of Lhe CadasLral Survey of Murcla negros CccldenLal now covered
by 1ransfer CerLlflcaLes of 1lLle nos 123163 and 123166 ln Lhe name of sald defendanL and
LhereafLer Lo dellver Lhe possesslon of sald loLs Lo Lhe plalnLlffs no speclal pronouncemenL as Lo
cosLs

lL wlll be noLed LhaL Lhe abovemenLloned manlfesLaLlon of !esus ?anes was noL menLloned ln Lhe
aforesald declslon

Powever execuLlon of sald declslon proved unsuccessful wlLh respecL Lo LoL 773 ln hls reLurn of
servlce daLed CcLober 20 1963 Lhe sherlff sLaLed LhaL he dlscovered LhaL LoL 773 had been
subdlvlded lnLo LoLs 773A and 7738 LhaL Lhey were ln Lhe name of 8odolfo Slason who had
purchased Lhem from Alvarez and LhaL LoL 773 could noL be dellvered Lo Lhe plalnLlffs as Slason
was noL a parLy per wrlL of execuLlon 17

1he execuLlon of Lhe declslon ln Clvll Case no 3022 havlng meL a hlndrance hereln prlvaLe
respondenLs (Lhe ?aneses) flled on !uly 31 1963 ln Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of negros CccldenLal
a peLlLlon for Lhe lssuance of a new cerLlflcaLe of LlLle and for a declaraLlon of nulllLy of 1C1 nos 1
23163 and 123166 lssued Lo 8osendo Alvarez 18 1hereafLer Lhe courL requlred 8odolfo Slason Lo
produce Lhe cerLlflcaLes of LlLle coverlng LoLs 773 and 823

LxpecLedly Slason flled a manlfesLaLlon sLaLlng LhaL he purchased LoLs 773A 7738 and 638 noL
LoLs 773 and 823 ln good falLh and for a valuable conslderaLlon wlLhouL any knowledge of any llen
or encumbrances agalnsL sald properLles LhaL Lhe declslon ln Lhe cadasLral proceedlng 19 could
noL be enforced agalnsL hlm as he was noL a parLy LhereLo and LhaL Lhe declslon ln Clvll Case no

3022 could nelLher be enforced agalnsL hlm noL only because he was noL a parLyllLlganL Lhereln
buL also because lL had long become flnal and execuLory 20 llndlng sald manlfesLaLlon Lo be well
founded Lhe cadasLral courL ln lLs order of SepLember 4 1963 nulllfled lLs prevlous order
requlrlng Slason Lo surrender Lhe cerLlflcaLes of LlLle menLloned Lhereln 21

ln 1968 Lhe ?aneses flled an exparLe moLlon for Lhe lssuance of an allas wrlL of execuLlon ln Clvll
Case no 3022 Slason opposed lL 22 ln lLs order of SepLember 28 1968 ln Clvll Case no 3022 Lhe
lower courL noLlng LhaL Lhe ?aneses had lnsLlLuLed anoLher acLlon for Lhe recovery of Lhe land ln
quesLlon ruled LhaL aL Lhe [udgmenL Lhereln could noL be enforced agalnsL Slason as he was noL a
parLy ln Lhe case 23

1he acLlon flled by Lhe ?aneses on lebruary 21 1968 was for recovery of real properLy wlLh
damages 24

named defendanLs Lhereln were ur 8odolfo Slason Laura Alvarez llora Alvarez 8aymundo
Alvarez and Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds of negros CccldenLal 1he ?aneses prayed for Lhe cancellaLlon of
1C1 nos 119291 and 19292 lssued Lo Slason (slc) for belng null and vold Lhe lssuance of a new
cerLlflcaLe of LlLle ln Lhe name of Lhe ?aneses ln accordance wlLh Lhe sherlffs reLurn of servlce
daLed CcLober 20 1963 Slasons dellvery of possesslon of LoL 773 Lo Lhe ?aneses and lf dellvery
Lhereof could noL be effecLed or lf Lhe lssuance of a new LlLle could noL be made LhaL Lhe Alvarez
and Slason [olnLly and severally pay Lhe ?aneses Lhe sum of 4300000 1hey also prayed LhaL
Slason render an accounLlng of Lhe frulLs of LoL 773 from november 13 1961 unLll Lhe flllng of Lhe
complalnL and LhaL Lhe defendanLs [olnLly and severally pay Lhe ?aneses moral damages of
2000000 and exemplary damages of 1000000 plus aLLorneys fees of 4 00000 23

ln hls answer Lo Lhe complalnL Slason alleged LhaL Lhe valldlLy of hls LlLles Lo LoLs 773A and 7738
havlng been passed upon by Lhe courL ln lLs order of SepLember 4 1963 had become res [udlcaLa
and Lhe ?aneses were esLopped from quesLlonlng sald order 26 Cn Lhelr parL Lhe Alvarez sLaLed ln
Lhelr answer LhaL Lhe ?aneses cause of acLlon had been barred by res [udlcaLa sLaLuLe of
llmlLaLlon and esLoppel 27

ln lLs declslon of !uly 8 1974 Lhe lower courL found LhaL 8odolfo Slason who purchased Lhe
properLles ln quesLlon Lhru an agenL as he was Lhen ln Mexlco pursulng furLher medlcal sLudles
was a buyer ln good falLh for a valuable conslderaLlon AlLhough Lhe ?aneses were negllgenL ln Lhelr
fallure Lo place a noLlce of lls pendens before Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds of negros CccldenLal ln order
Lo proLecL Lhelr rlghLs over Lhe properLy ln quesLlon ln Clvll Case no 3022 equlLy demanded LhaL
Lhey recover Lhe acLual value of Lhe land because Lhe sale Lhereof execuLed beLween Alvarez and
Slason was wlLhouL courL approval

lssues

1 WheLhere or noL Lhe defense of prescrlpLlon and esLoppel had been Llmely and properly
lnvoked and ralsed by Lhe peLlLloners ln Lhe lower courL

2 WheLher or noL Lhe cause and/or causes of acLlon of Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs lf ever
Lhere are any as alleged ln Lhelr complalnL daLed lebruary 21 1968 whlch has been dockeLed ln
Lhe Lrlal courL as Clvll Case no 8474 supra are forever barred by sLaLuLe of llmlLaLlon and/or
prescrlpLlon of acLlon and esLoppel

3 WheLher or noL Lhe laLe 8osendo Alvarez a defendanL ln Clvll Case no 3022 supra and
faLher of Lhe peLlLloners become a prlvy and/or parLy Lo Lhe walver (LxhlblL 4defendanL Slason) ln
Clvll Case no 8474 supra where Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs had unquallfledly and absoluLely walved
renounced and qulLclalmed all Lhelr alleged rlghLs and lnLeresLs lf ever Lhere ls any on LoLs nos
773A and 7738 of Murcla CadasLre as appearlng ln Lhelr wrlLLen manlfesLaLlon daLed november 6
1962 (LxhlblLs 4 Slason) whlch had noL been conLroverLed or even lmplledly or lndlrecLly denled
by Lhem

4 WheLher or noL Lhe llablllLy or llablllLles of 8osendo Alvarez arlslng from Lhe sale of LoLs
nos 773A and 7738 of Murcla CadasLre Lo ur 8odolfo Slason lf ever Lhere ls any could be legally
passed or LransmlLLed by operaLlons (slc) of law Lo Lhe peLlLloners wlLhouL vlolaLlon of law and due
process 33

Peld

1he peLlLlon ls devold of merlL

As correcLly ruled by Lhe CourL of Appeals lL ls powerless and for LhaL maLLer so ls Lhe Supreme
CourL Lo revlew Lhe declslon ln Clvll Case no 3022 orderlng Alvarez Lo reconvey Lhe loLs ln dlspuLe
Lo hereln prlvaLe respondenLs Sald declslon had long become flnal and execuLory and wlLh Lhe
posslble excepLlon of ur Slason who was noL a parLy Lo sald case Lhe declslon ln Clvll Case no
3022 ls Lhe law of Lhe case beLween Lhe parLles LhereLo lL ended when Alvarez or hls helrs falled Lo
appeal Lhe declslon agalnsL Lhem 34

1hus lL ls axlomaLlc LhaL when a rlghL or facL has been [udlclally Lrled and deLermlned by a courL of
compeLenL [urlsdlcLlon so long as lL remalns unreversed lL should be concluslve upon Lhe parLles
and Lhose ln prlvlLy wlLh Lhem ln law or esLaLe 33 As conslsLenLly ruled by Lhls CourL every
llLlgaLlon musL come Lo an end Access Lo Lhe courL ls guaranLeed 8uL Lhere musL be a llmlL Lo lL
Cnce a llLlganLs rlghL has been ad[udlcaLed ln a valld flnal [udgmenL of a compeLenL courL he
should noL be granLed an unbrldled llcense Lo reLurn for anoLher Lry 1he prevalllng parLy should
noL be harassed by subsequenL sulLs lor lf endless llLlgaLlon were Lo be allowed unscrupulous
llLlgaLlons wlll mulLlply ln number Lo Lhe deLrlmenL of Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of [usLlce 36

1here ls no dlspuLe LhaL Lhe rlghLs of Lhe ?aneses Lo Lhe properLles ln quesLlon have been flnally
ad[udlcaLed ln Clvll Case no 3022 As found by Lhe lower courL from Lhe unconLroverLed evldence
presenLed Lhe ?aneses have been lllegally deprlved of ownershlp and possesslon of Lhe loLs ln
quesLlon

ln facL Clvll Case no 8474 now under revlew arose from Lhe fallure Lo execuLe Clvll Case no 3022
as sub[ecL loLs can no longer be reconveyed Lo prlvaLe respondenLs ?aneses Lhe same havlng been
sold durlng Lhe pendency of Lhe case by Lhe peLlLloners faLher Lo ur Slason who dld noL know
abouL Lhe conLroversy Lhere belng no lls pendens annoLaLed on Lhe LlLles Pence lL was also
seLLled beyond quesLlon LhaL ur Slason ls a purchaser ln good falLh

under Lhe clrcumsLances Lhe Lrlal courL dld noL annul Lhe sale execuLed by Alvarez ln favor of ur
Slason on november 11 1961 buL ln facL susLalned lL 1he Lrlal courL ordered Lhe helrs of 8osendo
Alvarez who losL ln Clvll Case no 3022 Lo pay Lhe plalnLlffs (prlvaLe respondenLs hereln) Lhe
amounL of 2000000 represenLlng Lhe acLual value of Lhe subdlvlded loLs ln dlspuLe lL dld noL
order defendanL Slason Lo pay sald amounL 38

As Lo Lhe proprleLy of Lhe presenL case lL has long been esLabllshed LhaL Lhe sole remedy of Lhe
landowner whose properLy has been wrongfully or erroneously reglsLered ln anoLhers name ls Lo
brlng an ordlnary acLlon ln Lhe ordlnary courL of [usLlce for reconveyance or lf Lhe properLy has
passed lnLo Lhe hands of an lnnocenL purchaser for value for damages 39 lL ls one Lhlng Lo
proLecL an lnnocenL Lhlrd parLy lL ls enLlrely a dlfferenL maLLer and one devold of [usLlflcaLlon lf
decelL would be rewarded by allowlng Lhe perpeLraLor Lo en[oy Lhe frulLs of hls nefarlous declded
As clearly revealed by Lhe undevlaLlng llne of declslons comlng from Lhls CourL such an undeslrable
evenLuallLy ls preclsely soughL Lo be guarded agalnsL 40

1he lssue on Lhe rlghL Lo Lhe properLles ln llLlgaLlon havlng been flnally ad[udlcaLed ln Clvll Case no
3022 ln favor of prlvaLe respondenLs lL cannoL now be reopened ln Lhe lnsLanL case on Lhe preLexL
LhaL Lhe defenses of prescrlpLlon and esLoppel have noL been properly consldered by Lhe lower
courL eLlLloners could have appealed ln Lhe former case buL Lhey dld noL 1hey have Lherefore
foreclosed Lhelr rlghLs lf any and Lhey cannoL now be heard Lo complaln ln anoLher case ln order
Lo defeaL Lhe enforcemenL of a [udgmenL whlch has longlng become flnal and execuLory

eLlLloners furLher conLend LhaL Lhe llablllLy arlslng from Lhe sale of LoLs no 773A and 7738 made
by 8osendo Alvarez Lo ur 8odolfo Slason should be Lhe sole llablllLy of Lhe laLe 8osendo Alvarez or
of hls esLaLe afLer hls deaLh

Such conLenLlon ls unLenable for lL overlooks Lhe docLrlne obLalnlng ln Lhls [urlsdlcLlon on Lhe
general LransmlsslblllLy of Lhe rlghLs and obllgaLlons of Lhe deceased Lo hls leglLlmaLe chlldren and
helrs 1hus Lhe perLlnenL provlslons of Lhe Clvll Code sLaLe

ArL 774 Successlon ls a mode of acqulslLlon by vlrLue of whlch Lhe properLy rlghLs and obllgaLlons
Lo Lhe exLenL of Lhe value of Lhe lnherlLance of a person are LransmlLLed Lhrough hls deaLh Lo
anoLher or oLhers elLher by hls wlll or by operaLlon of law

ArL 776 1he lnherlLance lncludes all Lhe properLy rlghLs and obllgaLlons of a person whlch are noL
exLlngulshed by hls deaLh

ArL 1311 ConLracL sLake effecL only beLween Lhe parLles Lhelr asslgns and helrs excepL ln case
where Lhe rlghLs and obllgaLlons arlslng from Lhe conLracL are noL Lransmlsslble by Lhelr naLure or
by sLlpulaLlon or by provlslon of law 1he helr ls noL llable beyond Lhe value of Lhe properLy
recelved from Lhe decedenL

As explalned by Lhls CourL Lhrough AssoclaLe !usLlce !8L 8eyes ln Lhe case of LsLaLe of Pemady vs
Luzon SureLy Co lnc 41

1he blndlng effecL of conLracLs upon Lhe helrs of Lhe deceased parLy ls noL alLered by Lhe provlslon
of our 8ules of CourL LhaL money debLs of a deceased musL be llquldaLed and pald from hls esLaLe
before Lhe resldue ls dlsLrlbuLed among sald helrs (8ule 89) 1he reason ls LhaL whaLever paymenL
ls Lhus made from Lhe sLaLe ls ulLlmaLely a paymenL by Lhe helrs or dlsLrlbuLees slnce Lhe amounL
of Lhe pald clalm ln facL dlmlnlshes or reduces Lhe shares LhaL Lhe helrs would have been enLlLled Lo
recelve

under our law Lherefore Lhe general rule ls LhaL a parLys conLracLual rlghLs and obllgaLlons are
Lransmlsslble Lo Lhe successors

1he rule ls a consequence of Lhe progresslve depersonallzaLlon of paLrlmonlal rlghLs and duLles
LhaL as observed by vlcLorlo olacco has characLerlzed Lhe hlsLory of Lhese lnsLlLuLlons lrom Lhe
8oman concepL of a relaLlon from person Lo person Lhe obllgaLlon has evolved lnLo a relaLlon from
paLrlmony Lo paLrlmony wlLh Lhe persons occupylng only a represenLaLlve poslLlon barrlng Lhose
rare cases where Lhe obllgaLlon ls sLrlcLly personal le ls conLracLed lnLulLu personae ln
conslderaLlon of lLs performance by a speclflc person and by no oLher
eLlLloners belng Lhe helrs of Lhe laLe 8osendo Alvarez Lhey cannoL escape Lhe legal consequences
of Lhelr faLhers LransacLlon whlch gave rlse Lo Lhe presenL clalm for damages 1haL peLlLloners dld
noL lnherlL Lhe properLy lnvolved hereln ls of no momenL because by legal flcLlon Lhe moneLary
equlvalenL Lhereof devolved lnLo Lhe mass of Lhelr faLhers heredlLary esLaLe and we have ruled
LhaL Lhe heredlLary asseLs are always llable ln Lhelr LoLallLy for Lhe paymenL of Lhe debLs of Lhe
esLaLe 42

lL musL however be made clear LhaL peLlLloners are llable only Lo Lhe exLenL of Lhe value of Lhelr
lnherlLance WlLh Lhls clarlflcaLlon and conslderlng peLlLloners admlsslon LhaL Lhere are oLher
properLles lefL by Lhe deceased whlch are sufflclenL Lo cover Lhe amounL ad[udged ln favor of
prlvaLe respondenLs we see no cogenL reason Lo dlsLurb Lhe flndlngs and concluslons of Lhe CourL
of Appeals

Ventura vs M|||tante
Gk# 6314S Cct S 1999
316 SCkA 226

lacLs

1here ls no dlspuLe as Lo Lhe followlng relevanL facLs

rlvaLe respondenL flled a ComplalnL for a Sum of Money and uamages agalnsL peLlLloner whlch
reads

LAln1lll Lhru counsel unLo Lhls Ponorable CourL mosL respecLfully sLaLes LhaL

Pe ls of legal age llllplno and proprleLor of Cebu 1exLar AuLo Supply whose posLal address ls aL 177
Leon kllaL SL Cebu ClLy whlle Lhe defendanL ls Lhe esLaLe of Carlos ngo as represenLed by
survlvlng spouse Ms Sulplcla venLura wlLh resldence and posLal address aL 8ack of Chong Pua
PosplLal Cebu ClLy where summons and oLher processes of Lhe CourL could be effecLed

uurlng Lhe llfeLlme of Carlos ngo he was lndebLed wlLh Lhe plalnLlff ln Lhe amounL of 4888970 as
evldenced by Lhe hereLo aLLached sLaLemenL marked as Annexes A and A1 whlch accounL was
obLalned by hlm for Lhe beneflL of hls famlly

Sald obllgaLlon ls already due and demandable and Lhe defendanL Lhru Ms venLura who ls
osLenslbly Laklng care of Lhe properLles/esLaLe of deceased Carlos ngo refused falled and
neglecLed and sLlll conLlnues Lo refuse fall and neglecL Lo pay desplLe repeaLed demands

As a consequence of Lhe refusal Lo pay Lhe plalnLlff was compelled Lo reLaln Lhe servlces of counsel
wlLh whom he conLracLed Lo pay 1000000 as aLLorneys fees upon lnsLlLuLlon of Lhls complalnL
he has furLher lncurred lnlLlal llLlgaLlon expendlLures ln Lhe sum of 400000

eLlLloner moved Lo dlsmlss Lhe foregolng complalnL on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe esLaLe of Carlos ngo
has no legal personallLy Lhe same belng nelLher a naLural nor legal person ln conLemplaLlon of
law 4

eLlLloner flled a MoLlon for 8econslderaLlon 8 of Lhe order of publlc respondenL permlLLlng prlvaLe
respondenL Lo amend hls complalnL llrsL she argued LhaL Lhe acLlon lnsLlLuLed by Lhe prlvaLe
respondenL Lo recover 4888970 represenLlng Lhe unpald prlce of Lhe auLomoLlve spare parLs
purchased by her deceased husband durlng hls llfeLlme ls a money clalm whlch under SecLlon 21
8ule 3 of Lhe 8evlsed 8ules of CourL does noL survlve Lhe same havlng been flled afLer Carlos ngo
had already dled Second she clalmed LhaL Lhe publlc respondenL never acqulred [urlsdlcLlon over
Lhe sub[ecL maLLer of Lhe case whlch belng an acLlon Lo recover a sum of money from a deceased
person may only be heard by a probaLe courL

rlvaLe respondenL opposed Lhe foregolng moLlon 9 Pe lnslsLed LhaL peLlLloner belng Lhe wlfe of
Lhe deceased Carlos ngo ls llable Lo pay Lhe obllgaLlon whlch beneflLed Lhelr famlly

ubllc respondenL lssued an Crder glvlng prlvaLe respondenL LwenLy four (24) hours Lo flle hls
amended complalnL so LhaL Lhe CourL can deLermlne for lLself wheLher Lhere ls really a cause of
acLlon agalnsL Lhe defendanL who would be subsLlLuLed Lo Lhe LsLaLe of Carlos ngo conslderlng
LhaL lL would seem from Lhe argumenLs of counsel for plalnLlff LhaL Lhe debL lncurred by Lhe
deceased Carlos slc ngo was ln behalf of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp so LhaL Lhe wlfe of Carlos ngo
mlghL be llable Lo pay Lhe obllgaLlon 10

rlvaLe respondenL Lhen flled hls Amended ComplalnL 11 wlLh Lhe new allegaLlons

eLlLloner flled a CommenL Lo lalnLlffs Amended ComplalnL 13 She relLeraLed LhaL wheLher Lhe
unsecured debL was conLracLed by her husband alone or as a charge agalnsL Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp of galns lL cannoL be denled LhaL her husband was now deceased Lhe sald debL does
noL survlve hlm Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp of galns ls LermlnaLed upon Lhe deaLh of one of Lhe
spouses and Lhe debLs and charges agalnsL Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp of galns may only be pald
afLer an lnvenLory ls made ln Lhe approprlaLe LesLaLe or lnLesLaLe proceedlng

rlvaLe respondenL flled a 8e[olnder Lo uefendanLs CommenL 14 Pe counLered LhaL Lhe defendanL
ln hls amended complalnL was now peLlLloner and LhaL she was noL deceased hence Lhe
lnappllcablllLy of Lhe legal rules on Lhe abaLemenL of money clalms ln case Lhe defendanL dles
pendlng Lhelr prosecuLlon

ln lLs order of november 16 1982 Lhe CourL ln Lhe lnLeresL of [usLlce advlsed Lhe plalnLlff Lo make
Lhe proper amendmenL so LhaL Lhe proper parLy defendanL may be lmpleaded conslderlng LhaL Lhe
moLlon Lo dlsmlss Lhen was anchored on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe esLaLe of Carlos ngo was noL a naLural
nor [urldlcal person hence lL could noL be sued Cn uecember 23 1982 Lhe plalnLlff amended lLs
complalnL and Lhls Llme Lhe defendanL ls already Sulplcla venLura 1he defendanL now argues LhaL
even Lhe amended complalnL would show LhaL Lhls ls really a collecLlon of a debL of Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp of deceased Carlong slc ngo and hls wlfe

eruslng Lhe amended complalnL Lhe CourL flnds LhaL ln aragraph 2 Lhe allegaLlon sLaLes uurlng
Lhe llfeLlme of Carlos ngo he and hls wlfe Lhe defendanL are lndebLed wlLh Lhe plalnLlff ln Lhe
amounL of 4868970 (slc) eLc so LhaL Lhe lndebLedness was lncurred by Carlos ngo and
defendanL Sulplcla venLura and slnce Carlos ngo ls now dead LhaL wlll noL preclude Lhe plalnLlff
from flllng a case agalnsL Lhe llvlng defendanL Sulplcla venLura

lssue
WheLher Lhere ls really a cause of acLlon agalnsL Lhe defendanL who would be subsLlLuLed Lo Lhe
LsLaLe of Carlos ngo conslderlng LhaL LhaL Lhe debL lncurred by Lhe deceased Carlos slc ngo
was ln behalf of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp so LhaL Lhe wlfe of Carlos ngo mlghL be llable Lo pay Lhe
obllgaLlon

Peld

llrsL Sec 1 8ule 3 of Lhe 8evlsed 8ules of CourL provlded LhaL only naLural or [udlclal persons or
enLlLles auLhorlzed by law may be parLles ln a clvll acLlon 1hls was Lhe rule ln 1982 aL Lhe Llme
LhaL prlvaLe respondenL flled hls complalnL agalnsL peLlLloner ln 1997 Lhe rules on clvll procedure
were revlsed buL Sec 1 8ule 3 remalned largely unalLered excepL for Lhe change of Lhe word
[udlclal Lo [urldlcal

arLles may be elLher plalnLlffs or defendanLs 1he plalnLlff ln an acLlon ls Lhe parLy complalnlng
and a proper parLy plalnLlff ls essenLlal Lo confer [urlsdlcLlon on Lhe courL 17 ln order Lo malnLaln
an acLlon ln a courL of [usLlce Lhe plalnLlff musL have an acLual legal exlsLence LhaL ls he she or lL
musL be a person ln law and possessed of a legal enLlLy as elLher a naLural or an arLlflclal person
and no sulL can be lawfully prosecuLed save ln Lhe name of such a person 18

1he rule ls no dlfferenL as regards parLy defendanLs lL ls lncumbenL upon a plalnLlff when he
lnsLlLuLes a [udlclal proceedlng Lo name Lhe proper parLy defendanL Lo hls cause of acLlon 19 ln a
sulL or proceedlng ln personam of an adversary characLer Lhe courL can acqulre no [urlsdlcLlon for
Lhe purpose of Lrlal or [udgmenL unLll a parLy defendanL who acLually or legally exlsLs and ls legally
capable of belng sued ls broughL before lL 20 lL has even been held LhaL Lhe quesLlon of Lhe legal
personallLy of a parLy defendanL ls a quesLlon of subsLance golng Lo Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe courL and
noL one of procedure 21

1he orlglnal complalnL of peLlLloner named Lhe esLaLe of Carlos ngo as represenLed by survlvlng
spouse Ms Sulplcla venLura as Lhe defendanL eLlLloner moved Lo dlsmlss Lhe same on Lhe
ground LhaL Lhe defendanL as named ln Lhe complalnL had no legal personallLy We agree

nelLher a dead person nor hls esLaLe may be a parLy plalnLlff ln a courL acLlon A deceased person
does noL have such legal enLlLy as ls necessary Lo brlng acLlon so much so LhaL a moLlon Lo
subsLlLuLe cannoL lle and should be denled by Lhe courL 22 An acLlon begun by a decedenLs esLaLe
cannoL be sald Lo have been begun by a legal person slnce an esLaLe ls noL a legal enLlLy such an
acLlon ls a nulllLy and a moLlon Lo amend Lhe parLy plalnLlff wlll noL llkewlse lle Lhere belng noLhlng
before Lhe courL Lo amend 23 Conslderlng LhaL capaclLy Lo be sued ls a correlaLlve of Lhe capaclLy
Lo sue Lo Lhe same exLenL a decedenL does noL have Lhe capaclLy Lo be sued and may noL be
named a parLy defendanL ln a courL acLlon 24

Second lL ls clear LhaL Lhe orlglnal complalnL of prlvaLe respondenL agalnsL Lhe esLaLe of Carlos ngo
was a sulL agalnsL Carlos ngo hlmself who was already dead aL Lhe Llme of Lhe flllng of sald
complalnL AL LhaL Llme and Lhls prlvaLe respondenL admlLLed no speclal proceedlng Lo seLLle hls
esLaLe had been flled ln courL As such Lhe Lrlal courL dld noL acqulre [urlsdlcLlon over elLher Lhe
deceased Carlos ngo or hls esLaLe

1o cure Lhls faLal defecL prlvaLe respondenL amended hls orlglnal complalnL ln hls amended
complalnL prlvaLe respondenL deleLed Lhe esLaLe of Carlos ngo and named peLlLloner as Lhe
defendanL When peLlLloner ln her commenL Lo Lhe amended complalnL reasoned LhaL Lhe
con[ugal parLnershlp of galns beLween her and Carlos ngo was LermlnaLed upon Lhe laLLers deaLh
and LhaL Lhe debL whlch he conLracLed assumlng lL was a charge agalnsL Lhe con[ugal properLy
could only be pald afLer an lnvenLory ls made ln Lhe approprlaLe LesLaLe or lnLesLaLe proceedlng
prlvaLe respondenL slmply relLeraLed hls demand LhaL peLlLloner pay her husbands debL whlch he
lnslsLed redounded Lo Lhe beneflL of everyone ln her famlly

lL ls Lrue LhaL amendmenLs Lo pleadlngs are llberally allowed ln furLherance of [usLlce ln order LhaL
every case may so far as posslble be deLermlned on lLs real facLs and ln order Lo speed Lhe Lrlal of
causes or prevenL Lhe clrculLry of acLlon and unnecessary expense 23 8uL amendmenLs cannoL be
allowed so as Lo confer [urlsdlcLlon upon a courL LhaL never acqulred lL ln Lhe flrsL place 26 When lL
ls evldenL LhaL Lhe courL has no [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe person and Lhe sub[ecL maLLer and LhaL Lhe
pleadlng ls so faLally defecLlve as noL Lo be suscepLlble of amendmenL or LhaL Lo permlL such
amendmenL would radlcally alLer Lhe Lheory and Lhe naLure of Lhe acLlon Lhen Lhe courL should
refuse Lhe amendmenL of Lhe defecLlve pleadlng and order Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe case 27

Moreover as correcLly argued by peLlLloner Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp LermlnaLes upon Lhe deaLh of
elLher spouse 28 AfLer Lhe deaLh of one of Lhe spouses ln case lL ls necessary Lo sell any porLlon of
Lhe con[ugal properLy ln order Lo pay ouLsLandlng obllgaLlons of Lhe parLnershlp such sale musL be
made ln Lhe manner and wlLh Lhe formallLles esLabllshed by Lhe 8ules of CourL for Lhe sale of Lhe
properLy of deceased persons 29 Where a complalnL ls broughL agalnsL Lhe survlvlng spouse for
Lhe recovery of an lndebLedness chargeable agalnsL sald con[ugal properLy any [udgmenL obLalned
Lhereby ls vold 30 1he proper acLlon should be ln Lhe form of a clalm Lo be flled ln Lhe LesLaLe or
lnLesLaLe proceedlngs of Lhe deceased spouse 31

ln many cases as ln Lhe lnsLanL one even afLer Lhe deaLh of one of Lhe spouses Lhere ls no
llquldaLlon of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp 1hls does noL mean however LhaL Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp
conLlnues 32 And prlvaLe respondenL cannoL be sald Lo have no remedy under Sec 6 8ule 78 of
Lhe 8evlsed 8ules of CourL he may apply ln courL for leLLers of admlnlsLraLlon ln hls capaclLy as a
prlnclpal credlLor of Lhe deceased Carlos ngo lf afLer LhlrLy (30) days from hls deaLh peLlLloner
falled Lo apply for admlnlsLraLlon or requesL LhaL admlnlsLraLlon be granLed Lo some oLher person

Suma|[ag v L|terato
Gk# 149787 Iune 18 2008
SSS SCkA S3

lacLs

Cn november 16 1993 !osefa u Maglasang (!osefa) flled wlLh Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL (81C)
8ranch 14 8aybay LeyLe a complalnL3 (dockeLed as Clvll Case no 81239) for Lhe nulllLy of Lhe
deed of sale of real properLy purporLedly execuLed beLween her as vendor and Lhe spouses
ulosdldlL and Menendez LlLeraLo (Lhe respondenL spouses) as vendees 1he complalnL alleged
LhaL Lhls deed of sale daLed CcLober 13 1971 of LoL 1220u ls spurlous !osefa was Lhe slsLer of
Menendez Maglasang LlLeraLo (Menendez) 1hey were Lwo (2) of Lhe slx (6) helrs who lnherlLed
equal parLs of a 63906hecLare properLy (LoL 1220) passed on Lo Lhem by Lhelr parenLs CrlsLlLo and
lneclLa ulano Maglasang4 LoL 1220u was parLlLloned Lo !osefa whlle LoL 1220L was glven Lo
Menendez

1he respondenL spouses response Lo Lhe complalnL was an amended answer wlLh counLerclalm3
denylng LhaL Lhe deed of sale was falslfled 1hey lmpleaded Lhe peLlLloner wlLh !osefa as
counLerclalm defendanL on Lhe allegaLlon LhaL Lhe peLlLloner aL Lhe lnsLance of !osefa occupled
LoL 1220u and LoL 1220L wlLhouL Lhelr (Lhe respondenL spouses) auLhorlLy LoL 1220L ls Lhelrs
by lnherlLance whlle 1220u had been sold Lo Lhem by !osefa 1hey also alleged LhaL Lhe peLlLloner
acLed ln bad falLh ln acqulrlng Lhe Lwo (2) loLs because he prepared and noLarlzed on SepLember
26 1986 Lhe conLracL of lease over Lhe whole of LoL 1220 beLween all Lhe Maglasang helrs (buL
excludlng !osefa) and vlcenLe 1olo wlLh Lhe lease runnlng from 1986 Lo 1991 Lhus Lhe peLlLloner
Lhen knew LhaL !osefa no longer owned LoL 1220u

Clvll Case no 12816 ls a complalnL LhaL Menendez flled on Aprll 4 1996 wlLh Lhe 81C for Lhe
declaraLlon of Lhe lnexlsLence of lease conLracL recovery of possesslon of land and damages
agalnsL Lhe peLlLloner and !osefa afLer Lhe 81C dlsmlssed Lhe respondenL spouses counLerclalm ln
Clvll Case no 1239 1he complalnL alleged LhaL !osefa who had prevlously sold LoL 1220u Lo
Menendez leased lL LogeLher wlLh LoL 1220L Lo Lhe peLlLloner Menendez furLher averred LhaL
Lhe peLlLloner and !osefa were ln bad falLh ln enLerlng Lhelr conLracL of lease as Lhey boLh knew
LhaL !osefa dld noL own Lhe leased loLs Menendez prayed among oLhers LhaL Lhls lease conLracL
beLween !osefa and Lhe peLlLloner be declared null and vold

!osefa dled on May 3 1999 durlng Lhe pendency of Clvll Case nos 81239 and 81281

Cn AugusL 13 1999 ALLy Zenen A uray (ALLy uray) Lhe peLlLloners and !osefas common
counsel asked Lhe 81C ln Clvll Case no 1239 LhaL he be glven an exLended perlod or up Lo
SepLember 10 1999 wlLhln whlch Lo flle a formal noLlce of deaLh and subsLlLuLlon of parLy

1he submlsslon alleged LhaL prlor Lo !osefas deaLh she execuLed a CulLclalm ueed9 over LoL 1220
u ln favor of 8emlsmundo u Maglasang10 who ln Lurn sold Lhls properLy Lo Lhe peLlLloner

Menendez Lhrough counsel ob[ecLed Lo Lhe proposed subsLlLuLlon alleglng LhaL ALLy uray flled
Lhe noLlce of deaLh and subsLlLuLlon of parLy beyond Lhe LhlrLyday perlod provlded under SecLlon
16 8ule 3 of Lhe 1997 8ules of Clvll rocedure as amended She recommended lnsLead LhaL !osefa
be subsLlLuLed by Lhe laLLers fullblood slsLer Mlchaeles Maglasang 8odrlgo (Mlchaeles)

1he 81C denled ALLy urays moLlon for subsLlLuLlon and lnsLead ordered Lhe appearance of
Mlchaeles as represenLaLlve of Lhe deceased !osefa

lssues

WheLher or noL (a) Lhe properLy under llLlgaLlon was no longer parL of !osefas esLaLe slnce she was
no longer lLs owner aL Lhe Llme of her deaLh (b) Lhe peLlLloner had effecLlvely been subrogaLed Lo
Lhe rlghLs of !osefa over Lhe properLy under llLlgaLlon aL Lhe Llme she dled (c) wlLhouL an esLaLe
Lhe helr who was appolnLed by Lhe lower courL no longer had any lnLeresL Lo represenL (d) Lhe
noLlce of deaLh was seasonably submlLLed by Lhe counsel of !osefa Lo Lhe 81C wlLhln Lhe exLended
perlod granLed and (e) Lhe peLlLloner ls a Lransferee pendenLe llLe who Lhe courLs should recognlze
pursuanL Lo 8ule 3 SecLlon 20 of Lhe 8ules of CourL

Peld

1he rule on subsLlLuLlon ln case of deaLh of a parLy ls governed by SecLlon 16 8ule 3 of Lhe 1997
8ules of Clvll rocedure as amended whlch provldes

SecLlon 16 ueaLh of a parLy duLy of counsel Whenever a parLy Lo a pendlng acLlon dles and Lhe
clalm ls noL Lhereby exLlngulshed lL shall be Lhe duLy of hls counsel Lo lnform Lhe courL wlLhln LhlrLy
(30) days afLer such deaLh of Lhe facL Lhereof and Lo glve Lhe name and address of hls legal
represenLaLlve or represenLaLlves lallure of counsel Lo comply wlLh Lhls duLy shall be a ground for
dlsclpllnary acLlon

1he helrs of Lhe deceased may be allowed Lo be subsLlLuLed for Lhe deceased wlLhouL requlrlng Lhe
appolnLmenL of an execuLor or admlnlsLraLor and Lhe courL may appolnL a guardlan ad llLem for Lhe
mlnor helrs

1he courL shall forLhwlLh order sald legal represenLaLlve or represenLaLlves Lo appear and be
subsLlLuLed wlLhln a perlod of LhlrLy (30) days from noLlce

lf no legal represenLaLlve ls named by Lhe counsel for Lhe deceased parLy or lf Lhe one so named
shall fall Lo appear wlLhln Lhe speclfled perlod Lhe courL may order Lhe opposlng parLy wlLhln a
speclfled Llme Lo procure Lhe appolnLmenL of an execuLor or admlnlsLraLor for Lhe esLaLe of Lhe
deceased and Lhe laLLer shall lmmedlaLely appear for and on behalf of Lhe deceased 1he courL
charges ln procurlng such appolnLmenL lf defrayed by Lhe opposlng parLy may be recovered as
cosLs (Lmphasls ours)

1he purpose behlnd Lhls rule ls Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe rlghL Lo due process of every parLy Lo Lhe
llLlgaLlon who may be affecLed by Lhe lnLervenlng deaLh 1he deceased llLlganL ls herself or hlmself
proLecLed as he/she conLlnues Lo be properly represenLed ln Lhe sulL Lhrough Lhe duly appolnLed
legal represenLaLlve of hls esLaLe13

AppllcaLlon of Lhe Covernlng 8ule

a Survlval of Lhe pendlng acLlon

A quesLlon prellmlnary Lo Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe above provlslon ls wheLher Clvll Case nos 81239
and 81281 are acLlons LhaL survlve Lhe deaLh of !osefa We sald ln Conzalez v agcor16

1he crlLerla for deLermlnlng wheLher an acLlon survlves Lhe deaLh of a plalnLlff or peLlLloner was
elucldaLed upon ln 8onllla v 8arcena (71 SC8A 491 (1976) as follows

1he quesLlon as Lo wheLher an acLlon survlves or noL depends on Lhe naLure of Lhe acLlon and
Lhe damage sued for ln Lhe causes of acLlon whlch survlve Lhe wrong complalned of affecLs
prlmarlly and prlnclpally properLy and properLy rlghLs Lhe ln[urles Lo Lhe person belng merely
lncldenLal whlle ln Lhe causes of acLlon whlch do noL survlve Lhe ln[ury complalned of ls Lo Lhe
person Lhe properLy and rlghLs of properLy affecLed belng lncldenLal

Slnce Lhe quesLlon lnvolved ln Lhese cases relaLe Lo properLy and properLy rlghLs Lhen we are
deallng wlLh acLlons LhaL survlve so LhaL SecLlon 16 8ule 3 musL necessarlly apply

b uuLy of Counsel under Lhe 8ule

1he duLy of counsel under Lhe aforeclLed provlslon ls Lo lnform Lhe courL wlLhln LhlrLy (30) days
afLer Lhe deaLh of hls cllenL of Lhe facL of deaLh and Lo glve Lhe name and address of Lhe
deceaseds legal represenLaLlve or represenLaLlves lncldenLally Lhls ls Lhe only represenLaLlon LhaL
counsel can underLake afLer Lhe deaLh of a cllenL as Lhe facL of deaLh LermlnaLed any furLher
lawyercllenL relaLlonshlp17

ln Lhe presenL case lL ls undlspuLed LhaL Lhe counsel for !osefa dld ln facL noLlfy Lhe lower courL
alLhough belaLedly of Lhe facL of her deaLh18

1hls noLlflcaLlon alLhough flled laLe effecLlvely lnformed Lhe lower courL of Lhe deaLh of llLlganL
!osefa Maglasang so as Lo free her counsel of any llablllLy for fallure Lo make a reporL of deaLh
under SecLlon 16 8ule 3 of Lhe 8ules of CourL ln our vlew counsel saLlsfacLorlly explalned Lo Lhe
lower courL Lhe clrcumsLances of Lhe laLe reporLlng and Lhe laLLer ln facL granLed counsel an
exLended perlod 1he Llmellness of Lhe reporL ls Lherefore a nonlssue

1he reporLlng lssue LhaL goes lnLo Lhe core of Lhls case ls wheLher counsel properly gave Lhe courL
Lhe name and address of Lhe legal represenLaLlve of Lhe deceased LhaL SecLlon 16 8ule 3 speclfles
We rule LhaL he dld noL 1he legal represenLaLlves LhaL Lhe provlslon speaks of refer Lo Lhose
auLhorlzed by law Lhe admlnlsLraLor execuLor or guardlan19 who under Lhe rule on seLLlemenL of
esLaLe of deceased persons20 ls consLlLuLed Lo Lake over Lhe esLaLe of Lhe deceased SecLlon 16
8ule 3 llkewlse expressly provldes LhaL Lhe helrs of Lhe deceased may be allowed Lo be subsLlLuLed

for Lhe deceased wlLhouL requlrlng Lhe appolnLmenL of an execuLor or admlnlsLraLor

SlgnlflcanLly Lhe person now Lhe presenL peLlLloner LhaL counsel gave as subsLlLuLe was noL one
of Lhose menLloned under SecLlon 16 8ule 3 8aLher he ls a counLerclalm codefendanL of Lhe
deceased whose proferred [usLlflcaLlon for Lhe requesLed subsLlLuLlon ls Lhe Lransfer Lo hlm of Lhe
lnLeresLs of Lhe deceased ln Lhe llLlgaLlon prlor Lo her deaLh

under Lhe clrcumsLances boLh Lhe lower courL and Lhe CA were legally correcL ln noL glvlng effecL
Lo counsels suggesLed subsLlLuLe

llrsL Lhe peLlLloner ls noL one of Lhose allowed by Lhe 8ules Lo be a subsLlLuLe SecLlon 16 8ule 3
speaks for lLself ln Lhls respecL

Second as already menLloned above Lhe reason for Lhe 8ule ls Lo proLecL all concerned who may
be affecLed by Lhe lnLervenlng deaLh parLlcularly Lhe deceased and her esLaLe We noLe ln Lhls
respecL LhaL Lhe noLlce LhaL counsel flled ln facL reflecLs a clalm agalnsL Lhe lnLeresL of Lhe
deceased Lhrough Lhe Lransfer of her remalnlng lnLeresL ln Lhe llLlgaLlon Lo anoLher parLy
lnLeresLlngly Lhe Lransfer ls ln favor of Lhe very same person who ls suggesLed Lo Lhe courL as Lhe
subsLlLuLe 1o sLaLe Lhe obvlous Lhe suggesLed subsLlLuLlon effecLlvely brlngs Lo naughL Lhe
proLecLlon LhaL Lhe 8ules lnLend plaln common sense Lells us LhaL Lhe Lransferee who has hls own
lnLeresL Lo proLecL cannoL aL Lhe same Llme represenL and fully proLecL Lhe lnLeresL of Lhe
deceased Lransferor

1hlrd counsel has every auLhorlLy Lo manlfesL Lo Lhe courL changes ln lnLeresL LhaL Lransplre ln Lhe
course of llLlgaLlon 1hus counsel could have valldly manlfesLed Lo Lhe courL Lhe Lransfer of !osefas
lnLeresLs ln Lhe sub[ecL maLLer of llLlgaLlon pursuanL Lo SecLlon 19 8ule 321 8uL Lhls can happen
only whlle Lhe cllenLLransferor was allve and whlle Lhe manlfesLlng counsel was sLlll Lhe effecLlve
and auLhorlzed counsel for Lhe cllenLLransferor noL afLer Lhe deaLh of Lhe cllenL when Lhe lawyer
cllenL relaLlonshlp has LermlnaLed 1he facL LhaL Lhe alleged Lransfer may have acLually Laken place
ls lmmaLerlal Lo Lhls concluslon lf only for Lhe reason LhaL lL ls noL for counsel afLer Lhe deaLh of
hls cllenL Lo make such manlfesLaLlon because he Lhen has losL Lhe auLhorlLy Lo speak for and blnd
hls cllenL 1hus aL mosL Lhe peLlLloner can be sald Lo be a Lransferee pendenLe llLe whose sLaLus ls
pendlng wlLh Lhe lower courL

LasLly a close examlnaLlon of Lhe documenLs aLLached Lo Lhe records dlsclose LhaL Lhe sub[ecL
maLLer of Lhe CulLclalm allegedly execuLed by !osefa ln favor of 8emlsmundo ls LoL 1220L whlle
Lhe sub[ecL maLLer of Lhe deed of sale execuLed by 8emlsmundo ln Lhe peLlLloners favor ls LoL
1220u 1hls clrcumsLance alone ralses Lhe posslblllLy LhaL Lhere ls more Lhan meeLs Lhe eye ln Lhe
LransacLlons relaLed Lo Lhls case

c 1he Pelrs as Legal 8epresenLaLlves

1he CA correcLly harked back Lo Lhe plaln Lerms of SecLlon 16 8ule 3 ln deLermlnlng who Lhe
approprlaLe legal represenLaLlve/s should be ln Lhe absence of an execuLor or admlnlsLraLor 1he
second paragraph of Lhe SecLlon 16 8ule 3 of Lhe 1997 8ules of CourL as amended ls clear Lhe
helrs of Lhe deceased may be allowed Lo be subsLlLuLed for Lhe deceased wlLhouL requlrlng Lhe
appolnLmenL of an execuLor or admlnlsLraLor Cur declslons on Lhls maLLer have been clear and
unequlvocal ln San !uan !r v Cruz Lhls CourL held

1he pronouncemenL of Lhls CourL ln Lawas v CourL of Appeals x x x LhaL prlorlLy ls glven Lo Lhe legal
represenLaLlve of Lhe deceased (Lhe execuLor or admlnlsLraLor) and LhaL lL ls only ln case of
unreasonable delay ln Lhe appolnLmenL of an execuLor or admlnlsLraLor or ln cases where Lhe helrs
resorL Lo an exLra[udlclal seLLlemenL of Lhe esLaLe LhaL Lhe courL may adopL Lhe alLernaLlve of
allowlng Lhe helrs of Lhe deceased Lo be subsLlLuLed for Lhe deceased ls no longer Lrue22
(Lmphasls ours)

We llkewlse sald ln Cochan v ?oung 23

lor Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe lnLeresLs of Lhe decedenL Lhls CourL has ln prevlous lnsLances recognlzed
Lhe helrs as proper represenLaLlves of Lhe decedenL even when Lhere ls already an admlnlsLraLor
appolnLed by Lhe courL When no admlnlsLraLor has been appolnLed as ln Lhls case Lhere ls all Lhe
more reason Lo recognlze Lhe helrs as Lhe proper represenLaLlves of Lhe deceased

!osefas deaLh cerLlflcaLe24 shows LhaL she was slngle aL Lhe Llme of her deaLh 1he records do noL
show LhaL she lefL a wlll 1herefore as correcLly held by Lhe CA ln applylng SecLlon 16 8ule 3 her
helrs are her survlvlng slsLers (Mlchaells Marla Zoslma and Consolaclon) and Lhe chlldren of her
deceased slsLer Lourdes (Manuel Cesar Puros and 8egulo) who should be her legal
represenLaLlves Menendez alLhough also a slsLer should be excluded for belng one of Lhe adverse
parLles ln Lhe cases before Lhe 81C

D8 v Gagaran|
Gk# 172248 Sept 17 2008
S6S SCkA S4
lacLs
Spouses uloneslo and MaLea S Asok are husband and wlfe who owned several parcels of land
upon Lhelr deaLh Lhelr 11 chlldren lnherlLed Lhelr properLles whlch were subsequenLly seLLled
exLra[udlclally Sub[ecL properLy acqulred Lhrough free paLenL ls a parcel of land locaLed aL
agawan ManLlcao Mlsamls CrlenLal 1hls was ad[udlcaLed Lo uenlson belng 1 of Lhe 11 helrs Pe
was marrled Lo Llla 1hereafLer Lhe land's CC1 was cancelled and 1C1 ln hls name was lssued
uenlson and Llla upon borrowlng 100k from u8 sub[ecLed sald land as colaLLeral upon fallure lf
Lhe spouses Lo repay Lhe loan Lhe morLgage was exLra[udlclally foreclosed lL was sold Lo u8
belng Lhe hlghesL bldder and an evenLual 1C1 was lssued ln lLs name When uenlson dled he was
survlved by Llla and Lhelr chlldren 1hey flled a complalnL for repurchase of Lhe sald loL ln 81C
lnvoklng Lhelr rlghL Lo repurchase as provlded ln Sec 119 of CA 141 whlch reads Lvery conveyance
of land acqulred under Lhe free paLenL or homesLead provlslons when proper shall be sub[ecL Lo
repurchase by Lhe appllcanL hls wldow or legal helrs wlLhln a perlod of 3 years from daLe of Lhe
conveyance 81C dlsmlssed Lhe complalnL and denled Lhe M8 flled on Lhe ground LhaL flllng of Lhe
complalnL was beyond Lhe 3 year perlod (nov 28 1992 and May 131998 as Lhe perlods used)
upon appeal Lo CA 81C declslon was reversed on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe 3 year perlod should be
counLed from Lhe reglsLraLlon of Lhe cerLlflcaLe of sale (uec 24 1992) and noL from nov 28 1992
llllng of Lhe complalnL on May 1998 ls sLlll wlLhln Lhe redempLlon perlod

lssue
WheLher or noL Lhe daughLer ln law and grandchlldren of Lhe paLenLees have Lhe rlghL Lo redeem
Lhe properLles

Peld
?es 1he plaln lnLenL of Sec 119 ls Lo glve Lhe homesLeader or paLenLee every chance Lo preserve
and keep ln Lhe famlly Lhe land LhaL Lhe SLaLe has graLulLously glven hlm as a reward for hls labor ln
cleanlng developlng and culLlvaLlng lL17 Pence Lhe facL LhaL Lhe land had been lnherlLed by Lhe
paLenLees' son (and a new LlLle ln hls name lssued) does noL brlng lL ouLslde Lhe purvlew of Sec
119 ln facL Lhe pollcy behlnd Lhe law ls fulfllled because Lhe land remalns ln Lhe famlly of Lhe
paLenLee As we explalned lnlerrer v MangenLe lL was held LhaL 1he Lerm legal helrs ls used ln
SecLlon 119 ln a generlc sense lL ls broad enough Lo cover any person who ls called Lo Lhe
successlon elLher by provlslon of a wlll or by operaLlon of law 1hus legal helrs lnclude boLh LesLaLe
and lnLesLaLe helrs dependlng upon wheLher successlon ls by Lhe wlll of Lhe LesLaLor or by law
Legal helrs are noL necessarlly compulsory helrs buL Lhey may be so lf Lhe law reserves a leglLlme
for Lhem verlly peLlLloners are legal helrs Pavlng been decreed under Lhe rules on lnLesLacy as
enLlLled Lo succeed Lo Lhe esLaLe of Lhe CaLaln spouses due Lo Lhe absence of compulsory helrs
Lhey now sLep lnLo Lhe shoes of Lhe decedenLs 1hey should be consldered as among Lhe legal helrs
conLemplaLed by SecLlon 119 as enLlLled Lo redeem Lhe homesLead
1he above lnLerpreLaLlon of legal helrs as conLradlsLlngulshed from Lhe resLrlcLlve consLrucLlon
glven lL by Lhe lower courL ls more ln keeplng wlLh Lhe saluLary purpose behlnd Lhe enacLmenL of
SecLlon 119 and Lhe [urlsprudence lald down on Lhe maLLer lndeed lL ls noL farfeLched Lo arrlve aL
a more llberal concluslon lf Lhe secLlon ls analyzed ln accordance wlLh lLs purpose xxxx22
8espondenLs lnherlLed Lhe properLy from Asok Lhelr husband and faLher who ln Lurn lnherlLed lL
from hls parenLs 8espondenL Llla Cagaranl Asok as daughLerlnlaw of Lhe paLenLees can be
consldered as among Lhe legal helrs who can repurchase Lhe land ln accordance wlLh Salenlllas v
CA23 ln LhaL case we allowed Lhe daughLer and sonlnlaw of Lhe paLenLees Lo repurchase Lhe
properLy because Lhls would be more ln keeplng wlLh Lhe splrlL of Lhe law We have Llme and
agaln sald LhaL beLween Lwo sLaLuLory lnLerpreLaLlons LhaL whlch beLLer serves Lhe purpose of Lhe
law should prevall24 lurLhermore Lhe law musL be llberally consLrued ln order Lo carry ouL lLs
purpose

8on|||a vs 8arcena
NC L4171S Iune 18 1976
71 SCkA 491

lacLs
Cn March 31 1973 lorLunaLa 8arcena moLher of mlnors 8osallo 8onllla and Salvaclon 8onllla and
wlfe of onclano 8onllla lnsLlLuLed a clvll acLlon ln Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance Lo quleL LlLle over
cerLaln parcels of land locaLed ln Abra Powever she dled durlng Lhe pendency of Lhe case and 81C
dlsmlssed Lhe peLlLlon on Lhe ground LhaL a dead person cannoL be a real parLy ln lnLeresL and has
no legal capaclLy Lo sue SubsLlLuLlon of Lhe chlldren as legal helrs for lorLunaLa was flled buL
denled and so wlLh Lhe M8s Pence Lhls peLlLlon for revlew

lssue
WheLher or noL Lhe complalnanL who dled durlng Lhe pendency of a case can be subsLlLuLed by
hls/ her helrs

Peld
?es 8efore Lhe deaLh of Lhe deceased Lhe courL already acqulred [urlsdlcLlon upon her person as
such Lhe case may proceed subsLlLuLlng Lhe helrs as a real parLy ln lnLeresL (8ules of CourL
prescrlbes such Lhe procedure ln 8ule 3 SecLlon 16) 1hls ls ln compllance wlLh ArLlcle 777 of Lhe CC
whlch provldes LhaL LhaL Lhe rlghLs Lo Lhe successlon are LransmlLLed from Lhe momenL of Lhe
deaLh of Lhe decedenL lrom Lhe momenL of Lhe deaLh of Lhe decedenL Lhe helrs become Lhe
absoluLe owners of hls properLy sub[ecL Lo Lhe rlghLs and obllgaLlons of Lhe decedenL and Lhey
cannoL be deprlved of Lhelr rlghLs LhereLo excepL by Lhe meLhods provlded for by law 3 1he
momenL of deaLh ls Lhe deLermlnlng facLor when Lhe helrs acqulre a deflnlLe rlghL Lo Lhe
lnherlLance wheLher such rlghL be pure or conLlngenL 4 1he rlghL of Lhe helrs Lo Lhe properLy of Lhe
deceased vesLs ln Lhem even before [udlclal declaraLlon of Lhelr belng helrs ln Lhe LesLaLe or
lnLesLaLe proceedlngs 1he deceased's clalm upon hls/her deaLh does noL exLlngulshed by hls/her
deaLh buL was LransmlLLed Lo her helrs upon her deaLh Per helrs have Lhus acqulred lnLeresL ln
Lhe properLles ln llLlgaLlon and became parLles ln lnLeresL ln Lhe case

Cruz vs Cruz
Gk# 173292]Sept 1 2010
629 SCkA 60S

lacLs
uurlng Lhe llfeLlme of Memoraclon Cruz she flled wlLh 81C a complalnL agalnsL her son Cswaldo
Cruz an AnnulmenL of Sale 8econveyance and uamages" She clalmed LhaL she acqulred Lhe
sub[ecL land locaLed ln 1abora 1ondo Mla Lhrough purchase and lLs 1C1 was duly reglsLered under
her name Powever lL was Lransferred Lo her son Cswaldo and wlfe by vlrLue of a fraudulenL ueed
of Sale endlng sald case Memoraclon dled Cswaldo moved for a MoLlon Lo ulsmlss and was
granLed by 81C AnoLher sonhelr of Memoraclon Ldgardo Cruz flled an M8 represenLlng hls
deceased moLher buL was denled CA afflrmed 81C upon appeal Pence Lhls case
lssue
WheLher or noL Lhe complalnL flled can survlve complalnanL's deaLh
lf yes wheLher or noL an helr can subsLlLuLe Lhe deceased ln pursulng Lhe case

Peld
?es Lo boLh quesLlons Slnce Lhe complalnL affecLs properLy and properLy rlghLs and Lhe ln[urles Lo
a person ls only lncldenLal Lhe causes of acLlon wlll survlve deaLh As such complalnanL can be
subsLlLuLed by her helrs And alLhough Cswaldo was an helr he ls dlsquallfled Lo represenL Lhe
deceased belng Lhe adverse parLy Lo Lhe complalnL Ldgardo Cruz also a sonhelr wlLhouL Lhe
dlsquallflcaLlons provlded by law by all means could represenL Memoraclon As provlded ln
ArLlcle 777 of Lhe Clvll Code provldes LhaL Lhe rlghLs Lo Lhe successlon are LransmlLLed from Lhe
momenL of Lhe deaLh of Lhe decedenL lrom Lhe momenL of Lhe deaLh of Lhe decedenL Lhe helrs
become Lhe absoluLe owners of hls properLy sub[ecL Lo Lhe rlghLs and obllgaLlons of Lhe decedenL
and Lhey cannoL be deprlved of Lhelr rlghLs LhereLo excepL by Lhe meLhods provlded for by law 1he
momenL of deaLh ls Lhe deLermlnlng facLor when Lhe helrs acqulre a deflnlLe rlghL Lo Lhe
lnherlLance wheLher such rlghL be pure or conLlngenL 1he rlghL of Lhe helrs Lo Lhe properLy of Lhe
deceased vesLs ln Lhem even before [udlclal declaraLlon of Lhelr belng helrs ln Lhe LesLaLe or
lnLesLaLe proceedlngs When plalnLlff Lherefore dled her clalm or rlghL Lo Lhe parcels of land x
x x was noL exLlngulshed by her deaLh buL was LransmlLLed Lo her helrs upon her deaLh Per helrs
have Lhus acqulred lnLeresL ln Lhe properLles ln llLlgaLlon and became parLles ln lnLeresL ln Lhe case
1here ls Lherefore no reason for Lhe respondenL CourL noL Lo allow Lhelr subsLlLuLlon as parLles ln

lnLeresL for Lhe deceased plalnLlff 1he MoLlon Lo dlsmlss by 81C and as afflrmed by CA was
reversed by SC and Lhe case was remanded Lo 81C for furLher proceedlngs


ne|rs of Sande[as vs L|na
Gk # 141634 Ieb S 2001
3S1 SCkA 183

lacLs
Lllodoro Sande[as Sr husband of Lhe deceased 8emedlos Sande[as was appolnLed admlnlsLraLor of
her esLaLe As such he bound and obllgaLed hlmself hls helrs admlnlsLraLors and asslgns Lo sell
forever and absoluLely and ln Lhelr enLlreLy 4 parcels of land of whlch half of each as 8emedlos'
con[ugal share belonged Lo Lhe her esLaLe Powever Lllodoro dled before a ueed of AbsoluLe Sale
was enLered lnLo by hlm and Llna Llna moved LhaL he be appolnLed as Lllodoro's subsLlLuLe Lo
represenL esLaLe of 8emedlos slnce Lhelr chlldrenhelrs have noL yeL appolnLed one Lower CourL
granLed Lhe moLlon SlxLo belng sonhelr evenLually replaced Llna upon courL approval as
admlnlsLraLor Llna moved LhaL a deed of absoluLe sale now be execuLed ln hls favor 81C granLed
Lhe peLlLlon whlch Lhe CA overLurned holdlng LhaL slnce Lhe naLure of Lhe conLracL beLween
Sande[as and Llna ls noL a perfecLed ConLacL of Sale As such sald 4 loLs musL sLlll form parL of Lhe
deceased's esLaLe Pence Lhls case

lssue
WheLher or noL Lllodoro Sande[as spouse of Lhe deceased could sell Lhe properLles of Lhe esLaLe
sLlll undergolng probaLe proceedlngs
Peld
Whlle lL may noL render Lhe conLracL lnvalld lL sLlll needed a courL approval ls requlred ln any
dlsposlLlon of Lhe decedenLs esLaLe per 8ule 89 of Lhe 8ules of CourL 8eference Lo [udlclal
approval however cannoL adversely affecL Lhe subsLanLlve rlghLs of helrs Lo dlspose of Lhelr own
pro lndlvlso shares ln Lhe cohelrshlp or coownershlp12 ln oLher words Lhey can sell Lhelr rlghLs
lnLeresLs or parLlclpaLlon ln Lhe properLy under admlnlsLraLlon A sLlpulaLlon requlrlng courL
approval does noL affecL Lhe valldlLy and Lhe effecLlvlLy of Lhe sale as regards Lhe selllng helrs lL
merely lmplles LhaL Lhe properLy may be Laken ouL ofcusLodla legls buL only wlLh Lhe courLs
permlsslon13 lL would seem LhaL Lhe suspenslve condlLlon ln Lhe presenL condlLlonal sale was
lmposed only for Lhls reason

8a|us v 8a|us
Gk# 168970 Ian 1S 2010
610 SCkA 178

lacLs
1he peLlLloner and respondenLs of Lhls case are Lhe chlldren of 8ufo and SebasLlance husband and
wlfe uurlng Lhe llfeLlme of 8ufo he morLgaged hls own parcel of land as securlLy for a loan
obLalned from Lhe 8ural 8ank of Malgo Lanao del norLe ln hls fallure Lo pay Lhe loan Lhe
morLgaged properLy was foreclosed and sold subsequenLly aL publlc aucLlon where lL was sold Lo
8ural 8ank as Lhe sole bldder CerLlflcaLe of Sale was warded Lo Lhe 8ank and 1C1 was lssued under
lLs name upon fallure of Lhe helrs of 8ufo Lo repurchase Lhe properLy wlLhln Lhe redempLlon
perlod Powever ln Lhe exLra[udlclal seLLlemenL of Lhe esLaLe of 8ufo sald land was ad[ucaLed Lo
Lhe helrs who remalned ln possesslon of Lhe loLs and refused Lo surrender Lo respondenLs 81C
hold LhaL Lhe peLlLloner have Lhe rlghL Lo purchase sald properLy Lo respondenLs as provlded ln Lhe
LxLra[udlclal SeLLlemenL of LsLaLe Cn appeal Lo CA Lhe declslon was reversed and ruled LhaL
coownershlp was exLlngulshed when peLlLloner and respondenLs dld noL redeem Lhe sub[ecL
properLy wlLhln Lhe redempLlon perlod and allowed Lhe consolldaLlon of ownershlp and Lhe
lssuance of a new LlLle ln Lhe name of Lhe 8ank Pence Lhls case

lssue
WheLher or noL peLlLloners sLlll have Lhe rlghL of redempLlon afLer sub[ecL properLy was already
sold and Lransferred Lo Lhe buyer (8ank)
Peld
no more 1he rlghLs Lo a persons successlon are LransmlLLed from Lhe momenL of hls deaLh14 ln
addlLlon Lhe lnherlLance of a person conslsLs of Lhe properLy and Lransmlsslble rlghLs and
obllgaLlons exlsLlng aL Lhe Llme of hls deaLh as well as Lhose whlch have accrued LhereLo slnce Lhe
openlng of Lhe successlon13 ln Lhe presenL case slnce 8ufo losL ownershlp of Lhe sub[ecL properLy
durlng hls llfeLlme lL only follows LhaL aL Lhe Llme of hls deaLh Lhe dlspuLed parcel of land no
longer formed parL of hls esLaLe Lo whlch hls helrs may lay clalm SLaLed dlfferenLly peLlLloner and
respondenLs never lnherlLed Lhe sub[ecL loL from Lhelr faLher
eLlLloner and respondenLs Lherefore were wrong ln assumlng LhaL Lhey became coowners of Lhe
sub[ecL loL 1hus any lssue arlslng from Lhe supposed rlghL of peLlLloner as coowner of Lhe
conLesLed parcel of land ls negaLed by Lhe facL LhaL ln Lhe eyes of Lhe law Lhe dlspuLed loL dld noL
pass lnLo Lhe hands of peLlLloner and respondenLs as compulsory helrs of 8ufo aL any glven polnL ln
Llme

Are||ano vs ascua|
Gk# 189776] Dec 1S 2010
638 SCkA 826

lAC1S Angel n ascual !r dled lnLesLaLe on !anuary 2 1999 leavlng as helrs hls slbllngs
namely peLlLloner Amella Arellano who ls represenLed by her daughLers Agnes Arellano
(Agnes) and nona Arellano and respondenLs lranclsco ascual and Mlguel n ascual
ln a peLlLlon for !udlclal SeLLlemenL of lnLesLaLe LsLaLe and lssuance of LeLLers of
AdmlnlsLraLlon" dockeLed as Speclal roceedlng Case no M3034 flled by respondenLs on Aprll
28 2000 before Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL (81C) of MakaLl respondenLs alleged lnLer alla LhaL a
parcel of land (Lhe donaLed properLy) locaLed ln 1eresa vlllage MakaLl whlch was by ueed of
uonaLlon Lransferred by Lhe decedenL Lo peLlLloner Lhe valldlLy of whlch donaLlon respondenLs
assalled may be consldered as an advance leglLlme" of peLlLloner
8especLlng Lhe donaLed properLy now covered ln Lhe name of peLlLloner by 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of
1lLle no 181889 of Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds of MakaLl whlch respondenLs assalled buL whlch Lhey ln
any evenL poslLed LhaL lL may be consldered as an advance leglLlme" Lo peLlLloner Lhe Lrlal courL
acLlng as probaLe courL held LhaL lL was precluded from deLermlnlng Lhe valldlLy of Lhe donaLlon
rovlslonally passlng however upon Lhe quesLlon of LlLle Lo Lhe donaLed properLy only for Lhe
purpose of deLermlnlng wheLher lL formed parL of Lhe decedenL's esLaLe Lhe probaLe courL found
Lhe ueed of uonaLlon valld ln llghL of Lhe presumpLlon of valldlLy of noLarlzed documenLs lL Lhus
wenL on Lo hold LhaL lL ls sub[ecL Lo collaLlon followlng ArLlcle 1061 of Lhe new Clvll Code whlch
reads

Lvery compulsory helr who succeeds wlLh oLher compulsory helrs musL brlng lnLo Lhe mass of Lhe
esLaLe any properLy or rlghL whlch he may have recelved from Lhe decedenL durlng Lhe llfeLlme of
Lhe laLLer by way of donaLlon or any oLher graLulLous LlLle ln order LhaL lL may be compuLed ln Lhe
deLermlnaLlon of Lhe leglLlme of each helr and ln Lhe accounL of Lhe parLlLlon

Appealed Lo Lhe CourL of Appeals Lhe case was remanded Lo Lhe lower courL moLlon
for reconslderaLlon was denled Pence Lhe peLlLloner flled a peLlLlon for cerLlorarl
lSSuL WheLher Lhe honorable CourL of Appeals ls CorrecL ln declarlng
1PA1 1PL 8CL81? uCnA1Lu 1C L1l1lCnL8 lS Su8!LC1 1C CCLLA1lCn unuL8 A81lCLL 1061 Cl
1PL nLW ClvlL CCuL
1PA1 8LSCnuLn1S A8L CCMuLSC8? PLl8S Cl 1PLl8 uLCLASLu 88C1PL8 AnCLL n ASCuAL
!8 Anu A8L Ln1l1LLu 1C LLCl1lMLS

ln nC1 A81l1lCnlnC 1PL LS1A1L Cl AnCLL n ASCuAL !8 LCuALL? AMCnC L1l1lCnL8 Anu
8LSCnuLn1S AS PlS LLCAL C8 ln1LS1A1L PLl8S

PLLu eLlon granLed 1he declslon orderlng Lhe collaLlon of properLy donaLed Lo Amella Arellano
ls seL aslde Case was remanded Lo lower courL for furLher proceedlngs 1he Lerm collaLlon has Lwo
dlsLlncL concepLs flrsL lL ls a mere maLhemaLlcal operaLlon by Lhe addlLlon of Lhe value of
donaLlons made by Lhe LesLaLor Lo Lhe value of Lhe heredlLary esLaLe and second lL ls Lhe reLurn
Lo Lhe heredlLary esLaLe of properLy dlsposed of by lucraLlve LlLle by Lhe LesLaLor durlng hls
llfeLlme1he purposes of collaLlon are Lo secure equallLy among Lhe compulsory helrs ln so far as ls
posslble and Lo deLermlne Lhe free porLlon afLer flndlng Lhe leglLlme so LhaL lnofflclous donaLlons
may be reduced CollaLlon Lakes place when Lhere are compulsory helrs one of lLs purposes belng
Lo deLermlne Lhe leglLlme and Lhe free porLlon lf Lhere ls no compulsory helr Lhere ls no leglLlme
Lo be safeguarded
1he records do noL show LhaL Lhe decedenL lefL any prlmary secondary or concurrlng compulsory
helrs Pe was only survlved by hls slbllngs who are hls collaLeral relaLlves and Lherefore are noL
enLlLled Lo any leglLlme LhaL parL of Lhe LesLaLor's properLy whlch he cannoL dlspose of because
Lhe law has reserved lL for compulsory helrs
1he compulsory helrs may be classlfled lnLo (1) prlmary (2) secondary and (3) concurrlng 1he
prlmary compulsory helrs are Lhose who have precedence over and exclude oLher compulsory
helrs leglLlmaLe chlldren and descendanLs are prlmary compulsory helrs 1he secondary
compulsory helrs are Lhose who succeed only ln Lhe absence of Lhe prlmary helrs Lhe leglLlmaLe
parenLs and ascendanLs are secondary compulsory helrs 1he concurrlng compulsory helrs are
Lhose who succeed LogeLher wlLh Lhe prlmary or Lhe secondary compulsory helrs Lhe llleglLlmaLe
chlldren and Lhe survlvlng spouse are concurrlng compulsory helrs1he decedenL noL havlng lefL
any compulsory helr who ls enLlLled Lo any leglLlme he was aL llberLy Lo donaLe all hls properLles
even lf noLhlng was lefL for hls slbllngscollaLeral relaLlves Lo lnherlL Pls donaLlon Lo peLlLloner
assumlng LhaL lL was valld ls deemed as donaLlon made Lo a sLranger" chargeable agalnsL Lhe free
porLlon of Lhe esLaLe 1here belng no compulsory helr however Lhe donaLed properLy ls noL
sub[ecL Lo collaLlon 1he decedenL's remalnlng esLaLe should Lhus be parLlLloned equally among hls
helrsslbllngscollaLeral relaLlves hereln peLlLloner and respondenLs pursuanL Lo Lhe provlslons of
Lhe Clvll Code vlzArL 1003 lf Lhere are no descendanLs ascendanLs llleglLlmaLe chlldren or a
survlvlng spouse Lhe collaLeral relaLlves shall succeed Lo Lhe enLlre esLaLe of Lhe deceased ln
accordance wlLh Lhe followlng arLlcles ArL 1004 Should Lhe only survlvors be broLhers and slsLers
of Lhe full blood Lhey shall lnherlL ln equal shares

keyes vs Lnr|quez
Gk# 1629S6]Apr|| 10 2008
SS1 SCkA 86
lacLs
eLlLloners are Lhe lawful helrs of ulonlsla 8eyes who coowned Lhe sub[ecL parcel of land wlLh
AnacleLo Cabrera 1hey execuLed an LxLra[udlclal SeLLlemenL wlLh Sale of Lhe LsLaLe of ulonlsla
8eyes lnvolvlng a porLlon of Lhe sub[ecL parcel of land SubsequenLly peLlLloners and Lhe known
helrs of AnacleLo Cabrera execuLed a SegregaLlon of 8eal LsLaLe and ConflrmaLlon of Sale over Lhe
same properLy
8espondenLs on Lhe oLher hand allege LhaL Lhelr predecessorlnlnLeresL AnacleLo Cabrera and hls
wlfe aLrlcla Seguera Cabrera (collecLlvely Lhe Spouses Cabrera) owned Z prolndlvlso share ln Lhe
sub[ecL parcel of land 1hey laLer flled a complalnL for annulmenL or nulllflcaLlon of Lhe affldavlLs of
AnacleLo Cabrera and ulonlsla 8eyes Lhe LxLra!udlclal SeLLlemenL wlLh Lhe Sale of LsLaLe of
ulonlsla 8eyes and Lhe ueed of SegregaLlon of 8eal LsLaLe and ConflrmaLlon of Sale execuLed by
Lhe helrs of ulonlsla 8eyes and Lhe helrs of AnacleLo Cabrera as well as Lo cancel Lhe new Lransfer
cerLlflcaLes of LlLle lssued by vlrLue of Lhe abovequesLloned documenLs
1he 81C dlsmlssed Lhe case on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe respondenLsplalnLlffs were acLually seeklng
flrsL and foremosL Lo be declared helrs of AnacleLo Cabrera slnce Lhey cannoL demand Lhe parLlLlon
of Lhe real properLy wlLhouL flrsL belng declared as legal helrs and such may noL be done ln an
ordlnary clvll acLlon as ln Lhls case buL Lhrough a speclal proceedlng speclflcally lnsLlLuLed for Lhe
purpose
Cn appeal CA reversed Lhe 81C and dlrecLed Lhe Lrlal courL Lo proceed wlLh Lhe hearlng of Lhe
case

lssue
WheLher Lhe respondenLs have Lo lnsLlLuLe a speclal proceedlng Lo deLermlne Lhelr sLaLus as helrs
of AnacleLo Cabrera before Lhey can flle an ordlnary clvll acLlon Lo nulllfy Lhe aforemenLloned
documenLs
Peld
?es
ln cases whereln alleged helrs of a decedenL ln whose name a properLy was reglsLered sue Lo
recover Lhe sald properLy Lhrough Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of an ordlnary clvll acLlon such as a complalnL for
reconveyance and parLlLlon or nulllflcaLlon of Lransfer cerLlflcaLe of LlLles and oLher deeds or
documenLs relaLed LhereLo Lhls CourL has conslsLenLly ruled LhaL a declaraLlon of helrshlp ls
lmproper ln an ordlnary clvll acLlon slnce Lhe maLLer ls wlLhln Lhe excluslve compeLence of Lhe
courL ln a speclal proceedlng
ln Lhe same manner Lhe respondenLs hereln excepL for Lhelr allegaLlons have yeL Lo subsLanLlaLe
Lhelr clalm as Lhe legal helrs of AnacleLo Cabrera who are Lhus enLlLled Lo Lhe sub[ecL properLy
nelLher ls Lhere anyLhlng ln Lhe records of Lhls case whlch would show LhaL a speclal proceedlng Lo
have Lhemselves declared as helrs of AnacleLo Cabrera had been lnsLlLuLed As such Lhe Lrlal courL
correcLly dlsmlssed Lhe case for Lhere ls a lack of cause of acLlon when a case ls lnsLlLuLed by parLles
who are noL real parLles ln lnLeresL Whlle a declaraLlon of helrshlp was noL prayed for ln Lhe
complalnL lL ls clear from Lhe allegaLlons Lhereln LhaL Lhe rlghL Lhe respondenLs soughL Lo proLecL
or enforce ls LhaL of an helr of one of Lhe reglsLered coowners of Lhe properLy prlor Lo Lhe lssuance
of Lhe new Lransfer cerLlflcaLes of LlLle LhaL Lhey seek Lo cancel 1hus Lhere ls a need Lo esLabllsh
Lhelr sLaLus as such helrs ln Lhe proper forum

apt|nchay vs De| kosar|o
Gk# 124320] Mar 2 1999
304 SCkA 18

lAC1S eLlLloners clalm LhaL Lhey are Lhe legal helrs of Lhe laLe Culdo and lsabel ?apLlnchay Lhe
ownersclalmanLs of LoL no 1131 wlLh an area of 320638 and LoL no 1132 wlLh an area of 96233
square meLers more or less slLuaLed ln 8ancal Carmona CavlLeCn March 17 1994 peLlLloners
execuLed an LxLra!udlclal SeLLlemenL of Lhe esLaLe of Lhe deceased Culdo and lsabel ?apLlnchay
Cn AugusL 26 1994 peLlLloners dlscovered LhaL a porLlon lf noL all of Lhe aforesald properLles
were LlLled ln Lhe name of respondenL Colden 8ay 8ealLy and uevelopmenL CorporaLlon (Colden
8ay") under 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle nos (1C1") 223234 and 223233 WlLh Lhe dlscovery of
whaL happened Lo sub[ecL parcels of land peLlLloners flled a complalnL for AnnuLMLn1 and/or
uLCLA8A1lCn Cl nuLLl1? Cl 1C1 nC 493363 493364 493663 493366 493367 and lLs
uerlvaLlves As AlLernaLlve 8econveyance of 8ealLy Wl1P A 8A?L8 lC8 A W8l1 Cl 8LLlMlnA8?
ln!unC1lCn and/or 8LS18AlnlnC C8uL8 Wl1P uAMACLS dockeLed as 81C 8Cv94127 before
8ranch 21 of Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL ln lmus CavlLeupon learnlng LhaL Colden 8ay" sold porLlons
of Lhe parcels of land ln quesLlon peLlLloners flled wlLh Lhe 81C" an Amended ComplalnL Lo
lmplead new and addlLlonal defendanLs and Lo menLlon Lhe 1C1s Lo be annulled 8uL Lhe
respondenL courL dlsmlssed Lhe Amended ComplalnLCn AugusL 12 1993 Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs
presenLed a MoLlon Lo ulsmlss on Lhe grounds LhaL Lhe complalnL falled Lo sLaLe a cause of acLlon
LhaL plalnLlffs dld noL have a rlghL of acLlon LhaL Lhey have noL esLabllshed Lhelr sLaLus as helrs
LhaL Lhe land belng clalmed ls dlfferenL from LhaL of Lhe defendanLs and LhaL plalnLlffs' clalm was
barred by laches 1he sald MoLlon Lo ulsmlss was granLed by Lhe respondenL courL ln lLs Crder
daLed CcLober 23 1993 holdlng LhaL peLlLloners have noL shown any proof or even a semblance
of lL excepL Lhe allegaLlons LhaL Lhey are Lhe legal helrs of Lhe abovenamed ?apLlnchays LhaL
Lhey have been declared Lhe legal helrs of Lhe deceased couple"
lSSuL WheLher Lhe respondenL courL acLed wlLh grave abuse of dlscreLlon ln rullng LhaL Lhe lssue
of helrshlp should flrsL be deLermlned before Lrlal of Lhe case could proceed
PLLu 1o begln wlLh peLlLloners' eLlLlon for CerLlorarl before Lhls CourL ls an lmproper recourse
1helr proper remedy should have been an appeal An order of dlsmlssal be lL rlghL or wrong ls a
flnal order whlch ls sub[ecL Lo appeal and noL a proper sub[ecL of cerLlorarl Where appeal ls
avallable as a remedy cerLlorarl wlll noL lle
nelLher dld Lhe respondenL courL commlL grave abuse of dlscreLlon ln lssulng Lhe quesLloned Crder
dlsmlsslng Lhe Second Amended ComplalnL of peLlLloners as lL apLly raLloclnaLed and ruled
8uL Lhe plalnLlffs who clalmed Lo be Lhe legal helrs of Lhe sald Culdo and lsabel ?apLlnchay have
noL shown any proof or even a semblance of lL excepL Lhe allegaLlons LhaL Lhey are Lhe legal helrs
of Lhe aforemenLloned ?apLlnchays LhaL Lhey have been declared Lhe legal helrs of Lhe deceased
couple now Lhe deLermlnaLlon of who are Lhe legal helrs of Lhe deceased couple musL be made ln
Lhe proper speclal proceedlngs ln courL and noL ln an ordlnary sulL for reconveyance of properLy
he Lrlal courL cannoL make a declaraLlon of helrshlp ln Lhe clvll acLlon for Lhe reason LhaL such a
declaraLlon can only be made ln a speclal proceedlng under SecLlon 3 8ule 1 of Lhe 1997 8evlsed
8ules of CourL a clvll acLlon ls deflned as one by whlch a parLy sues anoLher for Lhe enforcemenL
or proLecLlon of a rlghL or Lhe prevenLlon or redress of a wrong" whlle a speclal proceedlng ls a
remedy by whlch a parLy seeks Lo esLabllsh a sLaLus a rlghL or a parLlcular facL" lL ls Lhen
declslvely clear LhaL Lhe declaraLlon of helrshlp can be made only ln a speclal proceedlng lnasmuch
as Lhe peLlLloners here are seeklng Lhe esLabllshmenL of a sLaLus or rlghL

L|mos vs Cdones
Gk# 186979] Aug 11 2010
628 SCkA 288
lAC1S Cn !une 17 2003 prlvaLe respondenLsspouses lranclsco Cdones and Arwenla Cdones
flled a complalnL for AnnulmenL of ueed 1lLle and uamages agalnsL peLlLloners Socorro Llmos
8osa uelos 8eyes and Spouses 8olando uelos 8eyes and Lugene uelos 8eyes dockeLed as Clvll Case
no 0333 before Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL (81C) of Camlllng 1arlac 8ranch 68
1he complalnL alleged LhaL spouses Cdones are Lhe owners of a 940 square meLer parcel of land
locaLed aL ao 1sL Camlllng 1arlac by vlrLue of an LxLra[udlclal Successlon of LsLaLe and Sale daLed
!anuary 29 2004 execuLed by Lhe survlvlng grandchlldren and helrs of uonaLa Lardlzabal ln whom
Lhe orlglnal LlLle Lo Lhe land was reglsLered 1hese helrs were Soledad 8azalan Lagasca Ceferlna
8azalan CaLlvo 8ogello Lagasca 8azalan and uomlnador 8azalan
lL Look a whlle before respondenLs declded Lo reglsLer Lhe documenL of conveyance and when
Lhey dld Lhey found ouL LhaL Lhe land's Crlglnal CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle (CC1) was cancelled on Aprll 27
2003 and replaced by 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle (1C1) no 329427 ln Lhe name of hereln
peLlLlonerseLlLloners were able Lo secure 1C1 no 329427 by vlrLue of a ueed of AbsoluLe Sale
allegedly execuLed by uonaLa Lardlzabal and her husband lranclsco 8azalan on Aprll 18 1972
eLlLloners Lhen subdlvlded Lhe loL among Lhemselves and had 1C1 no 329427 cancelled ln lleu
Lhereof Lhree new 1C1s were lssued 1C1 no 392428 ln Lhe names of Socorro Llmos and spouses
8olando uelos 8eyes and Lugene uelos 8eyes 1C1 no 392429 ln Lhe names of Spouses delos
8eyes and 1C1 no 392430 ln Lhe name of 8osa uelos 8eyes8espondenLs soughL Lhe cancellaLlon
of Lhese new 1C1s on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe slgnaLures of uonaLa Lardlzabal and lranclsco 8azalan ln
Lhe 1972 ueed of AbsoluLe Sale were forgerles because Lhey dled on !une 30 1926 and !une 3
1971 respecLlvely
ln Lhelr answer peLlLloners pleaded afflrmaLlve defenses whlch also consLlLuLe grounds for
dlsmlssal of Lhe complalnL 1hese grounds were (1) fallure Lo sLaLe a cause of acLlon lnasmuch as
Lhe basls of respondenLs' alleged LlLle ls vold slnce Lhe LxLra[udlclal Successlon of LsLaLe and Sale
was noL publlshed and lL conLalned formal defecLs Lhe vendors are noL Lhe legal helrs of uonaLa
Lardlzabal and respondenLs are noL Lhe real parLleslnlnLeresL Lo quesLlon Lhe LlLle of peLlLloners
because no LransacLlon ever occurred beLween Lhem (2) non[olnder of Lhe oLher helrs of uonaLa
Lardlzabal as lndlspensable 1rlal courL parLles and (3) respondenLs' clalm ls barred by laches ln lLs
8esoluLlon daLed november 16 2006 Lhe 81C denled Lhe MoLlon and held LhaL lLem nos 1 Lo 4 ln
Lhe 8equesL for Admlsslon were earller pleaded as afflrmaLlve defenses ln peLlLloners' Answer Lo
whlch respondenLs already replled on !uly 17 2006 Pence lL would be redundanL for respondenLs
Lo make anoLher denlal 1he Lrlal courL furLher observed LhaL lLem nos 3 6 and 7 ln Lhe 8equesL
for Admlsslon were already effecLlvely denled by Lhe LxLra[udlclal Successlon of LsLaLe and Sale
appended Lo Lhe complalnL Cn AugusL 14 2008 Lhe CA dlsmlssed Lhe peLlLlon rullng LhaL Lhe
afflrmaLlve defenses ralsed by peLlLloners were noL lndublLable and could be besL proven ln a full
blown hearlng1helr moLlon for reconslderaLlon havlng been denled peLlLloners are now before
Lhls CourL seeklng a revlew of Lhe CA's pronouncemenLs
lSSuL WheLher Lhe afflrmaLlve defenses ralsed ln Lhelr MoLlon are lndublLable as Lhey were
lmplledly admlLLed by respondenLs when Lhey falled Lo respond Lo Lhe 8equesL for Admlsslon
PLLu eLlLlon denled As correcLly observed by Lhe Lrlal courL Lhe maLLers seL forLh ln peLlLloners'
8equesL for Admlsslon were Lhe same afflrmaLlve defenses pleaded ln Lhelr Answer whlch
respondenLs already Lraversed ln Lhelr 8eply 1he sald defenses were llkewlse sufflclenLly
conLroverLed ln Lhe complalnL and lLs annexes ln effecL peLlLloners soughL Lo compel respondenLs

Lo deny once agaln Lhe very maLLers Lhey had already denled a redundancy whlch lf abeLLed wlll
serve no purpose buL Lo delay Lhe proceedlngs and Lhus defeaL Lhe purpose of Lhe rule on
admlsslon as a mode of dlscovery whlch ls Lo expedlLe Lrlal and relleve parLles of Lhe cosLs of
provlng facLs whlch wlll noL be dlspuLed on Lrlal and Lhe LruLh of whlch can be ascerLalned by
reasonable lnqulry"
A requesL for admlsslon ls noL lnLended Lo merely reproduce or relLeraLe Lhe allegaLlons of Lhe
requesLlng parLy's pleadlng buL should seL forLh relevanL evldenLlary maLLers of facL descrlbed ln
Lhe requesL whose purpose ls Lo esLabllsh sald parLy's cause of acLlon or defense unless lL serves
LhaL purpose lL ls polnLless useless and a mere redundancy
verlly Lhen lf Lhe Lrlal courL flnds LhaL Lhe maLLers ln a 8equesL for Admlsslon were already
admlLLed or denled ln prevlous pleadlngs by Lhe requesLed parLy Lhe laLLer cannoL be compelled Lo
admlL or deny Lhem anew ln Lurn Lhe requesLlng parLy cannoL reasonably expecL a response Lo Lhe
requesL and LhereafLer assume or even demand Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe lmplled admlsslon rule ln
SecLlon 2 8ule 26
ln an acLlon for annulmenL of LlLle Lhe complalnL musL conLaln Lhe followlng allegaLlons (1) LhaL
Lhe conLesLed land was prlvaLely owned by Lhe plalnLlff prlor Lo Lhe lssuance of Lhe assalled
cerLlflcaLe of LlLle Lo Lhe defendanL and (2) LhaL Lhe defendanL perpeLuaLed a fraud or commlLLed a
mlsLake ln obLalnlng a documenL of LlLle over Lhe parcel of land clalmed by Lhe plalnLlff As Lo Lhe
valldlLy of Lhe LxLra[udlclal Successlon of LsLaLe and Sale and Lhe sLaLus of peLlLloners'
predecessorslnlnLeresL as Lhe only helrs of uonaLa Lardlzabal Lhese lssues go lnLo Lhe merlLs of
Lhe parLles' respecLlve clalms and defenses LhaL can be besL deLermlned on Lhe basls of
preponderance of Lhe evldence Lhey wlll adduce ln a fullblown Lrlal A prellmlnary hearlng Lhe
ob[ecLlve of whlch ls for Lhe courL Lo deLermlne wheLher or noL Lhe case should proceed Lo Lrlal
wlll noL sufflclenLly address such lssues
AnenL Lhe alleged non[olnder of lndlspensable parLles lL ls seLLled LhaL Lhe non[olnder of
lndlspensable parLles ls noL a ground for Lhe dlsmlssal of an acLlon 1he remedy ls Lo lmplead Lhe
nonparLy clalmed Lo be lndlspensable arLles may be added by order of Lhe courL on moLlon of
Lhe parLy or on lLs own lnlLlaLlve aL any sLage of Lhe acLlon and/or such Llmes as are [usL lL ls only
when Lhe plalnLlff refuses Lo lmplead an lndlspensable parLy desplLe Lhe order of Lhe courL LhaL Lhe
laLLer may dlsmlss Lhe complalnL ln Lhls case no such order was lssued by Lhe Lrlal courLLqually
seLLled ls Lhe facL LhaL laches ls evldenLlary ln naLure and lL may noL be esLabllshed by mere
allegaLlons ln Lhe pleadlngs and can noL be resolved ln a moLlon Lo dlsmlss

A|fonso vs Andres
Gk# 166236] Iu|y 29 2010
626 SCkA 149

lAC1S 1he presenL case sLemmed from a complalnL for acclon publlclana wlLh damages flled by
respondenL spouses Penry and Llwanag Andres agalnsL noll Alfonso and spouses 8eynaldo and
Lrllnda lundlalan before Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL (81C) 8ranch 77 San MaLeo 8lzal eLlLloners
conLend LhaL Lhelr fallure Lo flle Lhelr appellanLs brlef wlLhln Lhe requlred perlod was due Lo Lhelr
lndlgency and poverLy 1hey submlL LhaL Lhere ls no [usLlflcaLlon for Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhelr appeal
speclally slnce Lhe AC had [usL enLered lLs appearance as new counsel for peLlLloners as dlrecLed
by Lhe CA and had as yeL no opporLunlLy Lo prepare Lhe brlef 1hey conLend LhaL appeal should be
allowed slnce Lhe brlef had anyway already been prepared and flled by Lhe AC before lL soughL
reconslderaLlon of Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe appeal and ls already parL of Lhe records 1hey conLend LhaL
Lhe laLe flllng of Lhe brlef should be excused under Lhe clrcumsLances so LhaL Lhe case may be
declded on Lhe merlLs and noL merely on LechnlcallLles Cn Lhe oLher hand respondenLs conLend
LhaL fallure Lo flle appellanLs brlef on Llme ls one lnsLance where Lhe CA may dlsmlss an appeal ln
Lhe presenL case Lhey conLend LhaL Lhe CA exerclsed sound dlscreLlon when lL dlsmlssed Lhe appeal
upon peLlLloners' fallure Lo flle Lhelr appellanLs brlef wlLhln Lhe exLended perlod of 73 days afLer
Lhe orlglnal 43day perlod explred
lSSuL WheLher Lhe appeal should be allowed beyond Lhe perlod prescrlbed on ground of poverLy
PLLu overLy cannoL be used as an excuse Lo [usLlfy peLlLloners complacency ln allowlng
monLhs Lo pass by before exerLlng Lhe requlred efforL Lo flnd a replacemenL lawyer overLy ls noL
a [usLlflcaLlon for delaylng a case 8oLh parLles have a rlghL Lo a speedy resoluLlon of Lhelr case
noL only peLlLloners buL also Lhe respondenLs have a rlghL Lo have Lhe case flnally seLLled wlLhouL
delay lurLhermore Lhe fallure Lo flle a brlef on Llme was due prlmarlly Lo peLlLloners unwlse
cholces and noL really due Lo poverLy eLlLloners were able Lo geL a lawyer Lo represenL Lhem
desplLe Lhelr poverLy 1hey were able Lo geL Lwo oLher lawyers afLer Lhey consenLed Lo Lhe
wlLhdrawal of Lhelr flrsL lawyer 8uL Lhey hlred Lhelr subsequenL lawyers Loo laLe
lL musL be polnLed ouL LhaL peLlLloners had a cholce of wheLher Lo conLlnue Lhe servlces of Lhelr
orlglnal lawyer or consenL Lo leL hlm go 1hey could also have requesLed Lhe sald lawyer Lo flle Lhe
requlred appellanLs brlef before consenLlng Lo hls wlLhdrawal from Lhe case 8uL Lhey dld nelLher
of Lhese 1hen noL havlng done so Lhey delayed ln engaglng Lhelr replacemenL lawyer 1helr poor
cholces and lack of sufflclenL dlllgence noL poverLy are Lhe maln culprlLs for Lhe slLuaLlon Lhey now
flnd Lhemselves ln lL would noL be falr Lo pass on Lhe bad consequences of Lhelr cholces Lo
respondenLs eLlLloners low regard for Lhe rules or nonchalance Loward procedural
requlremenLs whlch Lhey camouflage wlLh Lhe cloak of poverLy has ln facL conLrlbuLed much Lo
Lhe delay and hence frusLraLlon of [usLlce ln Lhe presenL case
1he sale Lo respondenLs was made afLer Lhe execuLlon of Lhe deed of exLra[udlclal seLLlemenL of
Lhe esLaLe 1he exLra[udlclal seLLlemenL of esLaLe even Lhough noL publlshed belng deemed a
parLlLlon of Lhe lnherlLed properLy !ose could valldly Lransfer ownershlp over Lhe speclflc porLlon
of Lhe properLy LhaL was asslgned Lo hlm 1he records show LhaL !ose dld ln facL sell Lo respondenLs
Lhe sub[ecL properLy 1he deed of sale execuLed by !ose ln favor of Lhe respondenLs belng a publlc
documenL ls enLlLled Lo full falLh and credlL ln Lhe absence of compeLenL evldence LhaL lLs
execuLlon was LalnLed wlLh defecLs and lrregularlLles LhaL would warranL a declaraLlon of nulllLy As
found by Lhe 81C peLlLloners falled Lo prove any defecL or lrregularlLles ln Lhe execuLlon of Lhe
deed of sale 1hey falled Lo prove by sLrong evldence Lhe alleged lack of consenL of !ose Lo Lhe sale
of Lhe sub[ecL real properLy As found by Lhe 81C alLhough !ose was sufferlng from parLlal
paralysls and could no longer slgn hls name Lhere ls no showlng LhaL hls menLal faculLles were
affecLed ln such a way as Lo negaLe Lhe exlsLence of hls valld consenL Lo Lhe sale as manlfesLed by
hls Lhumbmark on Lhe deed of sale 1he records sufflclenLly show LhaL he was capable of boardlng
a Lrlcycle Lo go on Lrlps by hlmself SufflclenL LesLlmonlal evldence ln facL shows LhaL !ose asked
respondenLs Lo buy Lhe sub[ecL properLy so LhaL lL could be Laken ouL from Lhe bank Lo whlch lL was
morLgaged 1hls facL evlnces LhaL !ose's menLal faculLles funcLloned lnLelllgenLly

Acap vs CA
Gk# 118114 Dec 7 199S
2S1 SCkA 30


lacLs Spouses SanLlago vasquez and Lorenza Cruma owns a loL ln Plnlgaran negros CccldenLal
AfLer boLh spouses dled Lhelr only son lellxberLo lnherlLed Lhe loL ln 1973 lellxberLo execuLed a

duly noLarlzed documenL enLlLled ueclaraLlon of Pelrshlp and ueed of AbsoluLe Sale ln favor of
Cosme ldo eLlLloner 1eodoro Acap had been Lhe LenanL of a porLlon of Lhe sald land coverlng an
area of nlne Lhousand flve hundred (9300) meLers When ownershlp was Lransferred ln 1973 by
lellxberLo Lo Cosme ldo Acap conLlnued Lo be Lhe reglsLered LenanL Lhereof and rellglously pald
hls leasehold renLals Lo ldo and LhereafLer upon ldos deaLh Lo hls wldow Laurenclana 1he
conLroversy began when ldo dled lnLesLaLe and on 27 november 1981 hls survlvlng helrs
execuLed a noLarlzed ueclaraLlon of Pelrshlp and Walver of 8lghLs of Lhe loL WlLh a provlslon do
hereby walve qulLclalm all our rlghLs lnLeresLs and parLlclpaLlon over Lhe sald parcel of land ln
favor of Ldy delos 8eyes noL a leglLlmaLe helr
upon obLalnlng Lhe ueclaraLlon of Pelrshlp wlLh Walver of 8lghLs ln hls favor prlvaLe respondenL
Ldy de los 8eyes flled Lhe same wlLh Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds as parL of a noLlce of an adverse clalm
agalnsL Lhe orlglnal cerLlflcaLe of LlLle 1hereafLer prlvaLe respondenL soughL for peLlLloner (Acap)
Lo personally lnform hlm LhaL he (Ldy) had become Lhe new owner of Lhe land and LhaL Lhe lease
renLals Lhereon should be pald Lo hlm rlvaLe respondenL furLher alleged LhaL he and peLlLloner
enLered lnLo an oral lease agreemenL whereln peLlLloner agreed Lo pay Len (10) cavans of palay per
annum as lease renLal ln 1982 peLlLloner allegedly complled wlLh sald obllgaLlon ln 1983
however peLlLloner refused Lo pay any furLher lease renLals on Lhe land prompLlng prlvaLe
respondenL Lo seek Lhe asslsLance of Lhe Lhen MlnlsLry of Agrarlan 8eform (MA8) ln Plnlgaran
negros CccldenLal uurlng Lhe meeLlng an offlcer of Lhe MlnlsLry lnformed Acaps wlfe abouL
prlvaLe respondenLs ownershlp of Lhe sald land buL she sLaLed LhaL she and her husband (1eodoro)
dld noL recognlze prlvaLe respondenLs clalm of ownershlp over Lhe land Cn 28 Aprll 1988 afLer
Lhe lapse of four (4) years prlvaLe respondenL flled a complalnL for recovery of possesslon and
damages agalnsL peLlLloner alleglng ln Lhe maln LhaL as hls leasehold LenanL peLlLloner refused
and falled Lo pay Lhe agreed annual renLal of Len (10) cavans of palay desplLe repeaLed demands
lssues WheLher or noL Lhe eLlLloner ls correcL refuslng Lo recognlze Ldy 8eyes as Lhe owner of Lhe
land
Peld
We flnd Lhe peLlLlon lmpressed wlLh merlL
ln Lhe flrsL place an asserLed rlghL or clalm Lo ownershlp or a real rlghL over a Lhlng arlslng from a
[urldlcal acL however [usLlfled ls noL per se sufflclenL Lo glve rlse Lo ownershlp over Lhe res 1haL
rlghL or LlLle musL be compleLed by fulfllllng cerLaln condlLlons lmposed by law Pence ownershlp
and real rlghLs are acqulred only pursuanL Lo a legal mode or process Whlle LlLle ls Lhe [urldlcal
[usLlflcaLlon mode ls Lhe acLual process of acqulslLlon or Lransfer of ownershlp over a Lhlng ln
quesLlon
1here ls a marked dlfference beLween a sale of heredlLary rlghLs and a walver of heredlLary rlghLs
1he flrsL presumes Lhe exlsLence of a conLracL or deed of sale beLween Lhe parLles 1he second ls
Lechnlcally speaklng a mode of exLlncLlon of ownershlp where Lhere ls an abdlcaLlon or lnLenLlonal
rellnqulshmenL of a known rlghL wlLh knowledge of lLs exlsLence and lnLenLlon Lo rellnqulsh lL ln
favor of oLher persons who are cohelrs ln Lhe successlon rlvaLe respondenL belng Lhen a
sLranger Lo Lhe successlon of Cosme ldo cannoL concluslvely clalm ownershlp over Lhe sub[ecL loL
on Lhe sole basls of Lhe walver documenL whlch nelLher reclLes Lhe elemenLs of elLher a sale or a
donaLlon or any oLher derlvaLlve mode of acqulrlng ownershlp

Arr|o|a v Arr|o|a
Gk# 177703 Ian 28 2008
S42 SCkA 666

lacLs

1hls ls a eLlLlon for 8evlew on CerLlorarl under 8ule 43 of Lhe 8ules of CourL assalllng Lhe ueclslon
and 8esoluLlon of Lhe CourL of Appeals

!ohn nabor C Arrlola flled Speclal Clvll AcLlon wlLh Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL 8ranch 234 Las lnas
ClLy (81C) agalnsL vllma C Arrlola and AnLhony 8onald C Arrlola for [udlclal parLlLlon of Lhe
properLles of decedenL lldel Arrlola 8espondenL ls Lhe son of decedenL lldel wlLh hls flrsL wlfe
vlcLorla C Calabla whlle peLlLloner AnLhony ls Lhe son of decedenL lldel wlLh hls second wlfe
peLlLloner vllma

Cn lebruary 16 2004 Lhe 81C rendered a ueclslon orderlng Lhe parLlLlon of Lhe parcel of land lefL
by Lhe decedenL lldel S Arrlola by and among hls helrs !ohn nabor C Arrlola vllma C Arrlola and
AnLhony 8onald C Arrlola ln equal shares of oneLhlrd (1/3) each wlLhouL pre[udlce Lo Lhe rlghLs of
credlLors or morLgagees Lhereon lf any

As Lhe parLles falled Lo agree how Lo parLlLlon among Lhem Lhe land !ohn nabor soughL Lhe sale
Lhrough publlc aucLlon and peLlLloners acceded Lo lL Sald aucLlon had Lo be reseL when peLlLloners
refused Lo lnclude Lhe house sLandlng on Lhe sub[ecL land

lssue

WheLher Lhe sub[ecL house ls covered ln Lhe [udgmenL of parLlLlon of Lhe loL and should be
lncluded ln Lhe sale Lhrough publlc aucLlon

Peld

1he sub[ecL house ls covered by Lhe [udgmenL of parLlLlon

llrsL as correcLly held by Lhe CA under Lhe provlslons of Lhe Clvll Code Lhe sub[ecL house ls
deemed parL of Lhe sub[ecL land

ln general Lhe rlghL Lo accesslon ls auLomaLlc (lpso [ure) requlrlng no prlor acL on Lhe parL of Lhe
owner or Lhe prlnclpal So LhaL even lf Lhe lmprovemenLs lncludlng Lhe house were noL alleged ln
Lhe complalnL for parLlLlon Lhey are deemed lncluded ln Lhe loL on whlch Lhey sLand followlng Lhe
prlnclple of accesslon ConsequenLly Lhe loL sub[ecL of [udlclal parLlLlon ln Lhls case lncludes Lhe
house whlch ls permanenLly aLLached LhereLo oLherwlse lL would be absurd Lo dlvlde Lhe prlnclpal
le Lhe loL wlLhouL dlvldlng Lhe house whlch ls permanenLly aLLached LhereLo

Second respondenL has repeaLedly clalmed LhaL Lhe sub[ecL house was bullL by Lhe deceased
eLlLloners never conLroverLed such clalm 1here ls Lhen no dlspuLe LhaL Lhe sub[ecL house ls parL
of Lhe esLaLe of Lhe deceased as such lL ls owned ln common by Lhe laLLers helrs Lhe parLles
hereln any one of whom under ArLlcle 494 of Lhe Clvll Code may aL any Llme demand Lhe
parLlLlon of Lhe sub[ecL house 1herefore respondenLs recourse Lo Lhe parLlLlon of Lhe sub[ecL
house cannoL be hlndered leasL of all by Lhe mere Lechnlcal omlsslon of sald common properLy
from Lhe complalnL for parLlLlon

1haL sald noLwlLhsLandlng we musL emphaslze LhaL whlle we LreaL Lhe sub[ecL house as parL of Lhe
coownershlp of Lhe parLles we sLop shorL of auLhorlzlng lLs acLual parLlLlon by publlc aucLlon aL
Lhls Llme lL bears emphasls LhaL an acLlon for parLlLlon lnvolves Lwo phases flrsL Lhe declaraLlon of
Lhe exlsLence of a sLaLe of coownershlp and second Lhe acLual LermlnaLlon of LhaL sLaLe of co
ownershlp Lhrough Lhe segregaLlon of Lhe common properLy WhaL ls seLLled Lhus far ls only Lhe
facL LhaL Lhe sub[ecL house ls under Lhe coownershlp of Lhe parLles and Lherefore suscepLlble of
parLlLlon among Lhem

WheLher Lhe sub[ecL house should be sold aL publlc aucLlon as ordered by Lhe 81C ls an enLlrely
dlfferenL maLLer
8espondenL clalms LhaL Lhe sub[ecL house was bullL by decedenL lldel on hls excluslve properLy
eLlLloners add LhaL sald house has been Lhelr resldence for 20 years 1aken LogeLher Lhese
avermenLs on record esLabllsh LhaL Lhe sub[ecL house ls a famlly home wlLhln Lhe conLemplaLlon of
Lhe provlslons of 1he lamlly Code parLlcularly

ArLlcle 132 1he famlly home consLlLuLed [olnLly by Lhe husband and Lhe wlfe or by an unmarrled
head of a famlly ls Lhe dwelllng house where Lhey and Lhelr famlly reslde and Lhe land on whlch lL
ls slLuaLed

ArLlcle 133 1he famlly home ls deemed consLlLuLed on a house and loL from Lhe Llme lL ls occupled
as a famlly resldence lrom Lhe Llme of lLs consLlLuLlon and so long as any of lLs beneflclarles
acLually resldes Lhereln Lhe famlly home conLlnues Lo be such and ls exempL from execuLlon
forced sale or aLLachmenL excepL as herelnafLer provlded and Lo Lhe exLenL of Lhe value allowed by
law

Cne slgnlflcanL lnnovaLlon lnLroduced by 1he lamlly Code ls Lhe auLomaLlc consLlLuLlon of Lhe
famlly home from Lhe Llme of lLs occupaLlon as a famlly resldence wlLhouL need anymore for Lhe
[udlclal or exLra[udlclal processes provlded under Lhe defuncL ArLlcles 224 Lo 231 of Lhe Clvll Code
and 8ule 106 of Lhe 8ules of CourL lurLhermore ArLlcles 132 and 133 speclflcally exLend Lhe scope
of Lhe famlly home noL [usL Lo Lhe dwelllng sLrucLure ln whlch Lhe famlly resldes buL also Lo Lhe loL
on whlch lL sLands 1hus applylng Lhese concepLs Lhe sub[ecL house as well as Lhe speclflc porLlon
of Lhe sub[ecL land on whlch lL sLands are deemed consLlLuLed as a famlly home by Lhe deceased
and peLlLloner vllma from Lhe momenL Lhey began occupylng Lhe same as a famlly resldence 20
years back

lL belng seLLled LhaL Lhe sub[ecL house (and Lhe sub[ecL loL on whlch lL sLands) ls Lhe famlly home of
Lhe deceased and hls helrs Lhe same ls shlelded from lmmedlaLe parLlLlon under ArLlcle 139 of 1he
lamlly Code vlz
ArLlcle 139 1he famlly home shall conLlnue desplLe Lhe deaLh of one or boLh spouses or of Lhe
unmarrled head of Lhe famlly for a perlod of Len years or for as long as Lhere ls a mlnor beneflclary
and Lhe helrs cannoL parLlLlon Lhe same unless Lhe courL flnds compelllng reasons Lherefor 1hls
rule shall apply regardless of whoever owns Lhe properLy or consLlLuLed Lhe famlly home

1he purpose of ArLlcle 139 ls Lo averL Lhe dlslnLegraLlon of Lhe famlly unlL followlng Lhe deaLh of lLs
head 1o Lhls end lL preserves Lhe famlly home as Lhe physlcal symbol of famlly love securlLy and
unlLy by lmposlng Lhe followlng resLrlcLlons on lLs parLlLlon flrsL LhaL Lhe helrs cannoL exLra
[udlclally parLlLlon lL for a perlod of 10 years from Lhe deaLh of one or boLh spouses or of Lhe
unmarrled head of Lhe famlly or for a longer perlod lf Lhere ls sLlll a mlnor beneflclary resldlng
Lhereln and second LhaL Lhe helrs cannoL [udlclally parLlLlon lL durlng Lhe aforesald perlods unless
Lhe courL flnds compelllng reasons Lherefor no compelllng reason has been alleged by Lhe parLles
nor has Lhe 81C found any compelllng reason Lo order Lhe parLlLlon of Lhe famlly home elLher by
physlcal segregaLlon or asslgnmenL Lo any of Lhe helrs or Lhrough aucLlon sale as suggesLed by Lhe
parLles

More lmporLanLly ArLlcle 139 lmposes Lhe proscrlpLlon agalnsL Lhe lmmedlaLe parLlLlon of Lhe
famlly home regardless of lLs ownershlp 1hls slgnlfles LhaL even lf Lhe famlly home has passed by
successlon Lo Lhe coownershlp of Lhe helrs or has been wllled Lo any one of Lhem Lhls facL alone
cannoL Lransform Lhe famlly home lnLo an ordlnary properLy much less dlspel Lhe proLecLlon casL
upon lL by Lhe law 1he rlghLs of Lhe lndlvldual coowner or owner of Lhe famlly home cannoL
sub[ugaLe Lhe rlghLs granLed under ArLlcle 139 Lo Lhe beneflclarles of Lhe famlly home

SeL agalnsL Lhe foregolng rules Lhe famlly home conslsLlng of Lhe sub[ecL house and loL on whlch
lL sLands cannoL be parLlLloned aL Lhls Llme even lf lL has passed Lo Lhe coownershlp of hls helrs
Lhe parLles hereln uecedenL lldel dled on March 10 2003 1hus for 10 years from sald daLe or
unLll March 10 2013 or for a longer perlod lf Lhere ls sLlll a mlnor beneflclary resldlng Lhereln Lhe
famlly home he consLlLuLed cannoL be parLlLloned much less when no compelllng reason exlsLs for
Lhe courL Lo oLherwlse seL aslde Lhe resLrlcLlon and order Lhe parLlLlon of Lhe properLy

1he CourL ruled ln Ponrado v CourL of Appeals LhaL a clalm for excepLlon from execuLlon or forced
sale under ArLlcle 133 should be seL up and proved Lo Lhe Sherlff before Lhe sale of Lhe properLy aL
publlc aucLlon Pereln peLlLloners Llmely ob[ecLed Lo Lhe lncluslon of Lhe sub[ecL house alLhough for
a dlfferenL reason

1o recaplLulaLe Lhe evldence of record susLaln Lhe CA rullng LhaL Lhe sub[ecL house ls parL of Lhe
[udgmenL of coownershlp and parLlLlon 1he same evldence also esLabllshes LhaL Lhe sub[ecL house
and Lhe porLlon of Lhe sub[ecL land on whlch lL ls sLandlng have been consLlLuLed as Lhe famlly
home of decedenL lldel and hls helrs ConsequenLly lLs acLual and lmmedlaLe parLlLlon cannoL be
sancLloned unLll Lhe lapse of a perlod of 10 years from Lhe deaLh of lldel Arrlola or unLll March 10
2013

lL bears emphasls however LhaL ln Lhe meanLlme Lhere ls no obsLacle Lo Lhe lmmedlaLe publlc
aucLlon of Lhe porLlon of Lhe sub[ecL land covered by 1C1 no 383714 whlch falls ouLslde Lhe
speclflc area of Lhe famlly home

WPL8LlC8L Lhe peLlLlon ls A81L? C8An1Lu and Lhe november 30 2006 ueclslon and Aprll 30
2007 8esoluLlon of Lhe CourL of Appeals are MCulllLu ln LhaL Lhe house sLandlng on Lhe land
covered by 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle no 383714 ls uLCLA8Lu parL of Lhe coownershlp of Lhe
parLles !ohn nabor C Arrlola vllma C Arrlola and AnLhony 8onald C Arrlola buL LxLM1Lu from
parLlLlon by publlc aucLlon wlLhln Lhe perlod provlded for ln ArLlcle 139 of Lhe lamlly Code

keyes v k@C Makat|
Gk# 16S744 Aug 11 2008
S61 SCkA S93

lacLs Cscar and prlvaLe respondenL 8odrlgo C 8eyes (8odrlgo) are Lwo of Lhe four chlldren of Lhe
spouses edro and AnasLacla 8eyes edro AnasLacla Cscar and 8odrlgo each owned shares of
sLock of ZenlLh lnsurance CorporaLlon (ZenlLh) a domesLlc corporaLlon esLabllshed by Lhelr famlly
edro dled ln 1964 whlle AnasLacla dled ln 1993 AlLhough edros esLaLe was [udlclally parLlLloned
among hls helrs someLlme ln Lhe 1970s no slmllar seLLlemenL and parLlLlon appear Lo have been
made wlLh AnasLaclas esLaLe whlch lncluded her shareholdlngs ln ZenlLh As of !une 30 1990
AnasLacla owned 136398 shares of ZenlLh Cscar and 8odrlgo owned 8713637 and 4230 shares
respecLlvely ZenlLh and 8odrlgo flled a complalnL wlLh SLC Lo obLaln an accounLlng of Lhe funds
and asseLs of ZLnl1P and Lo eLermlne Lhe shares of sLock of deceased spouses edro and AnasLacla
8eyes LhaL were arblLrarlly and fraudulenLly approprlaLed by Cscar for hlmself
lssue WheLher or noL 8odrlgo shall auLomaLlcally become Lhe owner of Lhe shares ln proporLlon Lo
hls successlon share
Peld no We polnL ouL aL Lhe ouLseL LhaL whlle 8odrlgo holds shares of sLock ln ZenlLh he holds
Lhem ln Lwo capaclLles ln hls own rlghL wlLh respecL Lo Lhe 4230 shares reglsLered ln hls name and
as one of Lhe helrs of AnasLacla 8eyes wlLh respecL Lo Lhe 136398 shares reglsLered ln her name
WhaL ls maLerlal ln resolvlng Lhe lssues of Lhls case under Lhe allegaLlons of Lhe complalnL ls
8odrlgos lnLeresL as an helr slnce Lhe sub[ecL maLLer of Lhe presenL conLroversy cenLers on Lhe
shares of sLocks belonglng Lo AnasLacla noL on 8odrlgos personallyowned shares nor on hls
personallLy as shareholder ownlng Lhese shares ln Lhls llghL all reference Lo shares of sLocks ln Lhls
case shall perLaln Lo Lhe shareholdlngs of Lhe deceased AnasLacla and Lhe parLles lnLeresL Lhereln
as her helrs

ArLlcle 777 of Lhe Clvll Code declares LhaL Lhe successlonal rlghLs are LransmlLLed from Lhe momenL
of deaLh of Lhe decedenL Accordlngly upon AnasLaclas deaLh her chlldren acqulred legal LlLle Lo
her esLaLe (whlch LlLle lncludes her shareholdlngs ln ZenlLh) and Lhey are prlor Lo Lhe esLaLes
parLlLlon deemed coowners Lhereof231hls sLaLus as coowners however does noL lmmedlaLely
and necessarlly make Lhem sLockholders of Lhe corporaLlon unless and unLll Lhere ls compllance
wlLh SecLlon 63 of Lhe CorporaLlon Code on Lhe manner of Lransferrlng shares Lhe helrs do noL
become reglsLered sLockholders of Lhe corporaLlon
8odrlgo musL Lherefore hurdle Lwo obsLacles before he can be consldered a sLockholder of ZenlLh
wlLh respecL Lo Lhe shareholdlngs orlglnally belonglng Lo AnasLacla llrsL he musL prove LhaL Lhere
are shareholdlngs LhaL wlll be lefL Lo hlm and hls cohelrs and Lhls can be deLermlned only ln a
seLLlemenL of Lhe decedenLs esLaLe no such proceedlng has been commenced Lo daLe Second he
musL reglsLer Lhe Lransfer of Lhe shares alloLLed Lo hlm Lo make lL blndlng agalnsL Lhe corporaLlon
Pe cannoL demand LhaL Lhls be done unless and unLll he has esLabllshed hls speclflc alloLmenL (and
prlma facle ownershlp) of Lhe shares WlLhouL Lhe seLLlemenL of AnasLaclas esLaLe Lhere can be no
deflnlLe parLlLlon and dlsLrlbuLlon of Lhe esLaLe Lo Lhe helrs WlLhouL Lhe parLlLlon and dlsLrlbuLlon
Lhere can be no reglsLraLlon of Lhe Lransfer And wlLhouL Lhe reglsLraLlon we cannoL conslder Lhe
Lransfereehelr a sLockholder who may lnvoke Lhe exlsLence of an lnLracorporaLe relaLlonshlp as
premlse for an lnLracorporaLe conLroversy wlLhln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of a speclal commerclal courL

uno v uno Lnterpr|ses
Gk# 177066 Sept 11 2009
S99 SCkA S8S

lacLs Carlos L uno who dled on !une 23 1963 was an lncorporaLor of respondenL uno
LnLerprlses lnc Cn March 14 2003 peLlLloner !osellLo Musnl uno clalmlng Lo be an helr of Carlos
L uno lnlLlaLed a complalnL for speclflc performance agalnsL respondenL eLlLloner averred LhaL
he ls Lhe son of Lhe deceased wlLh Lhe laLLer's commonlaw wlfe Amella uno As survlvlng helr he
clalmed enLlLlemenL Lo Lhe rlghLs and prlvlleges of hls laLe faLher as sLockholder of respondenL
8espondenL flled a moLlon Lo dlsmlss on Lhe ground LhaL peLlLloner dld noL have Lhe legal
personallLy Lo sue because hls blrLh cerLlflcaLe names hlm as !osellLo Musnl Muno" Apropos
Lhere was yeL a need for a [udlclal declaraLlon LhaL !osellLo Musnl uno" and !osellLo Musnl
Muno" were one and Lhe same
lssue WCn eLlLloner has Lhe rlghL on Lhe sLockholder of Lhe decedenL
Peld eLlLloner falled Lo esLabllsh Lhe rlghL Lo lnspecL respondenL corporaLlon's books and recelve
dlvldends on Lhe sLocks owned by Carlos L uno eLlLloner anchors hls clalm on hls belng an helr
of Lhe deceased sLockholder Powever we agree wlLh Lhe appellaLe courL LhaL peLlLloner was noL
able Lo prove saLlsfacLorlly hls flllaLlon Lo Lhe deceased sLockholder Lhus Lhe former cannoL clalm
Lo be an helr of Lhe laLLer A cerLlflcaLe of llve blrLh purporLedly ldenLlfylng Lhe puLaLlve faLher ls
noL compeLenL evldence of paLernlLy when Lhere ls no showlng LhaL Lhe puLaLlve faLher had a hand
ln Lhe preparaLlon of Lhe cerLlflcaLe 1he local clvll reglsLrar has no auLhorlLy Lo record Lhe paLernlLy
of an llleglLlmaLe chlld on Lhe lnformaLlon of a Lhlrd person10 As correcLly observed by Lhe CA
only peLlLloner's moLher supplled Lhe daLa ln Lhe blrLh cerLlflcaLe and slgned Lhe same 1here was
no evldence LhaL Carlos L uno acknowledged peLlLloner as hls son
upon Lhe deaLh of a shareholder Lhe helrs do noL auLomaLlcally become sLockholders of Lhe
corporaLlon and acqulre Lhe rlghLs and prlvlleges of Lhe deceased as shareholder of Lhe
corporaLlon 1he sLocks musL be dlsLrlbuLed flrsL Lo Lhe helrs ln esLaLe proceedlngs and Lhe Lransfer
of Lhe sLocks musL be recorded ln Lhe books of Lhe corporaLlon SecLlon 63 of Lhe CorporaLlon
Code provldes LhaL no Lransfer shall be valld excepL as beLween Lhe parLles unLll Lhe Lransfer ls
recorded ln Lhe books of Lhe corporaLlon16 uurlng such lnLerlm perlod Lhe helrs sLand as Lhe
equlLable owners of Lhe sLocks Lhe execuLor or admlnlsLraLor duly appolnLed by Lhe courL belng
vesLed wlLh Lhe legal LlLle Lo Lhe sLock17 unLll a seLLlemenL and dlvlslon of Lhe esLaLe ls effecLed
Lhe sLocks of Lhe decedenL are held by Lhe admlnlsLraLor or execuLor18 ConsequenLly durlng
such Llme lL ls Lhe admlnlsLraLor or execuLor who ls enLlLled Lo exerclse Lhe rlghLs of Lhe deceased
as sLockholder

1hus even lf peLlLloner presenLs sufflclenL evldence ln Lhls case Lo esLabllsh LhaL he ls Lhe son of
Carlos L uno he would sLlll noL be allowed Lo lnspecL respondenL's books and be enLlLled Lo
recelve dlvldends from respondenL absenL any showlng ln lLs Lransfer book LhaL some of Lhe shares
owned by Carlos L uno were Lransferred Lo hlm 1hls would only be posslble lf peLlLloner has been
recognlzed as an helr and has parLlclpaLed ln Lhe seLLlemenL of Lhe esLaLe of Lhe deceased


DkC no|d|ngs Corp vs CA
Gk# 118248 Apr|| S 2000
329 SCkA 666

lacLs 1he sub[ecL of Lhe conLroversy ls a 14021 square meLer parcel of land locaLed ln MallnLa
valenzuela MeLro Manlla whlch was orlglnally owned by prlvaLe respondenL vlcLor u 8arLolomes
deceased moLher Lncarnaclon 8arLolome 1hls loL was ln fronL of one of Lhe LexLlle planLs of
peLlLloner and as such was seen by Lhe laLLer as a poLenLlal warehouse slLe eLlLloner enLered

lnLo a ConLracL of Lease wlLh CpLlon Lo 8uy wlLh Lncarnaclon 8arLolome whereby peLlLloner was
glven Lhe opLlon Lo lease or lease wlLh purchase Lhe sub[ecL land whlch opLlon musL be exerclsed
wlLhln a perlod of Lwo years counLed from Lhe slgnlng of Lhe ConLracL ln Lurn peLlLloner underLook
Lo pay 300000 a monLh as conslderaLlon for Lhe reservaLlon of lLs opLlon WlLhln Lhe Lwoyear
perlod peLlLloner shall serve formal wrlLLen noLlce upon Lhe lessor Lncarnaclon 8arLolome of lLs
deslre Lo exerclse lLs opLlon eLlLloner regularly pald Lhe monLhly 300000 provlded for by Lhe
ConLracL Lo Lncarnaclon unLll her deaLh ln !anuary 1990 1hereafLer peLlLloner coursed lLs paymenL
Lo prlvaLe respondenL vlcLor 8arLolome belng Lhe sole helr of Lncarnaclon vlcLor however
refused Lo accepL Lhese paymenLs
eLlLloner flled a complalnL for speclflc performance and damages agalnsL vlcLor and Lhe 8eglsLer
of ueeds3 dockeLed as Clvll Case no 3337v90 whlch was raffled off Lo 8ranch 171 of Lhe
8eglonal 1rlal CourL of valenzuela eLlLloner prayed for Lhe surrender and dellvery of possesslon of
Lhe sub[ecL land ln accordance wlLh Lhe ConLracL Lerms Lhe surrender of LlLle for reglsLraLlon and
annoLaLlon Lhereon of Lhe ConLracL and Lhe paymenL of 30000000 as acLual damages
30000000 as moral damages 30000000 as exemplary damages and 30000000 as aLLorneys
fees

lssue WCn ukC holdlngs can compel vlcLor Lo accepL Lhe conLracL enLered lnLo beLween hls
moLher and ukC Poldlngs
Peld 1he general rule ls LhaL helrs are bound by conLracLs enLered lnLo by Lhelr predecessorsln
lnLeresL excepL when Lhe rlghLs and obllgaLlons arlslng Lherefrom are noL Lransmlsslble by (1) Lhelr
naLure (2) sLlpulaLlon or (3) provlslon of law
ln Lhe case aL bar Lhere ls nelLher conLracLual sLlpulaLlon nor legal provlslon maklng Lhe rlghLs and
obllgaLlons under Lhe conLracL lnLransmlsslble More lmporLanLly Lhe naLure of Lhe rlghLs and
obllgaLlons Lhereln are by Lhelr naLure Lransmlsslble
1he naLure of lnLransmlsslble rlghLs as explalned by ArLuro 1olenLlno an emlnenL clvlllsL ls as
follows
Among conLracLs whlch are lnLransmlsslble are Lhose whlch are purely personal elLher by provlslon
of law such as ln cases of parLnershlps and agency or by Lhe very naLure of Lhe obllgaLlons arlslng
Lherefrom such as Lhose requlrlng speclal personal quallflcaLlons of Lhe obllgor lL may also be
sLaLed LhaL conLracLs for Lhe paymenL of money debLs are noL LransmlLLed Lo Lhe helrs of a parLy
buL consLlLuLe a charge agalnsL hls esLaLe 1hus where Lhe cllenL ln a conLracL for professlonal
servlces of a lawyer dled leavlng mlnor helrs and Lhe lawyer lnsLead of presenLlng hls clalm for
professlonal servlces under Lhe conLracL Lo Lhe probaLe courL subsLlLuLed Lhe mlnors as parLles for
hls cllenL lL was held LhaL Lhe conLracL could noL be enforced agalnsL Lhe mlnors Lhe lawyer was
llmlLed Lo a recovery on Lhe basls of quanLum merulL9
ln Amerlcan [urlsprudence (W)here acLs sLlpulaLed ln a conLracL requlre Lhe exerclse of speclal
knowledge genlus sklll LasLe ablllLy experlence [udgmenL dlscreLlon lnLegrlLy or oLher personal
quallflcaLlon of one or boLh parLles Lhe agreemenL ls of a personal naLure and LermlnaLes on Lhe
deaLh of Lhe parLy who ls requlred Lo render such servlce 10
lL has also been held LhaL a good measure for deLermlnlng wheLher a conLracL LermlnaLes upon Lhe
deaLh of one of Lhe parLles ls wheLher lL ls of such a characLer LhaL lL may be performed by Lhe
promlssors personal represenLaLlve ConLracLs Lo perform personal acLs whlch cannoL be as well
performed by oLhers are dlscharged by Lhe deaLh of Lhe promlssor Conversely where Lhe servlce
or acL ls of such a characLer LhaL lL may as well be performed by anoLher or where Lhe conLracL by
lLs Lerms shows LhaL performance by oLhers was conLemplaLed deaLh does noL LermlnaLe Lhe
conLracL or excuse nonperformance 11
ln Lhe case aL bar Lhere ls no personal acL requlred from Lhe laLe Lncarnaclon 8arLolome 8aLher
Lhe obllgaLlon of Lncarnaclon ln Lhe conLracL Lo dellver possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy Lo
peLlLloner upon Lhe exerclse by Lhe laLLer of lLs opLlon Lo lease Lhe same may very well be
performed by her helr vlcLor
As early as 1903 lL was held LhaL (P)e who conLracLs does so for hlmself and hls helrs 12 ln 1932
lL was ruled LhaL lf Lhe predecessor was duLybound Lo reconvey land Lo anoLher and aL hls deaLh
Lhe reconveyance had noL been made Lhe helrs can be compelled Lo execuLe Lhe proper deed for
reconveyance 1hls was grounded upon Lhe prlnclple LhaL helrs cannoL escape Lhe legal
consequence of a LransacLlon enLered lnLo by Lhelr predecessorlnlnLeresL because Lhey have
lnherlLed Lhe properLy sub[ecL Lo Lhe llablllLy affecLlng Lhelr common ancesLor 13
lL ls fuLlle for vlcLor Lo lnslsL LhaL he ls noL a parLy Lo Lhe conLracL because of Lhe clear provlslon of
ArLlcle 1311 of Lhe Clvll Code lndeed belng an helr of Lncarnaclon Lhere ls prlvlLy of lnLeresL
beLween hlm and hls deceased moLher Pe only succeeds Lo whaL rlghLs hls moLher had and whaL ls
valld and blndlng agalnsL her ls also valld and blndlng as agalnsL hlm 14 1hls ls clear from
aranaque klngs LnLerprlses vs CourL of Appeals 13 where Lhls CourL re[ecLed a slmllar defense
WlLh respecL Lo Lhe conLenLlon of respondenL 8aymundo LhaL he ls noL prlvy Lo Lhe lease conLracL
noL belng Lhe lessor nor Lhe lessee referred Lo Lhereln he could Lhus noL have vlolaLed lLs
provlslons buL he ls neverLheless a proper parLy Clearly he sLepped lnLo Lhe shoes of Lhe owner
lessor of Lhe land as by vlrLue of hls purchase he assumed all Lhe obllgaLlons of Lhe lessor under
Lhe lease conLracL Moreover he recelved beneflLs ln Lhe form of renLal paymenLs lurLhermore
Lhe complalnL as well as Lhe peLlLlon prayed for Lhe annulmenL of Lhe sale of Lhe properLles Lo
hlm 8oLh pleadlngs also alleged colluslon beLween hlm and respondenL SanLos whlch defeaLed Lhe
exerclse by peLlLloner of lLs rlghL of flrsL refusal
ln order Lhen Lo accord compleLe rellef Lo peLlLloner respondenL 8aymundo was a necessary lf noL
lndlspensable parLy Lo Lhe case A favorable [udgmenL for Lhe peLlLloner wlll necessarlly affecL Lhe
rlghLs of respondenL 8aymundo as Lhe buyer of Lhe properLy over whlch peLlLloner would llke Lo
asserL lLs rlghL of flrsL opLlon Lo buy
ln Lhe case aL bar Lhe sub[ecL maLLer of Lhe conLracL ls llkewlse a lease whlch ls a properLy rlghL
1he deaLh of a parLy does noL excuse nonperformance of a conLracL whlch lnvolves a properLy
rlghL and Lhe rlghLs and obllgaLlons Lhereunder pass Lo Lhe personal represenLaLlves of Lhe
deceased Slmllarly nonperformance ls noL excused by Lhe deaLh of Lhe parLy when Lhe oLher parLy
has a properLy lnLeresL ln Lhe sub[ecL maLLer of Lhe conLracL 16
under boLh ArLlcle 1311 of Lhe Clvll Code and [urlsprudence Lherefore vlcLor ls bound by Lhe
sub[ecL ConLracL of Lease wlLh CpLlon Lo 8uy

keyes v Lnr|quez
Gk# 1629S6 Apr|| 10 2008
SS1 SCkA 86

lAC1S
AnacleLo Cabrera and ulonlsla 8eyes coowned a parcel of land evldenced by (1C1) no 813331 (1
8070) AnacleLo was survlved by hls Lwo daughLers LLLa (eLerrespondenLs wlfe) and Craclana
who dled slngle wlLhouL any lssue and who durlng her llfeLlme had sold her lnLeresL over Lhe land
Lo LLLa ulonlsla 8eyes on Lhe oLher hand was survlved by hereln peLlLloners
rlor Lo Lhe presenL conLroversy peLlLloners execuLed an LxLra[udlclal SeLLlemenL wlLh Sale of Lhe
LsLaLe of ulonlsla 8eyes (Lhe LxLra !udlclal SeLLlemenL) lnvolvlng a porLlon of Lhe sub[ecL parcel of
land Also LogeLher wlLh helrs of AnacleLo peLlLloners execuLed a SegregaLlon of 8eal LsLaLe and

ConflrmaLlon of Sale (Lhe SegregaLlon and ConflrmaLlon) over Lhe same properLy 8y vlrLue of Lhe
aforesLaLed documenLs 1C1 no 8133331 (18070) was cancelled and new 1C1s were lssued ln Lhe
names of AnacleLo Cabrera peLlLloner LuLlqulo ulco !r peLlLloner lausLlno 8eyes peLlLloner
Lsperldlon 8eyes peLlLloner !ulleLa C 8lvera lellpe ulco and Archlmedes C vlllaluz
Meanwhlle LLLa dled leavlng eLer and Lhelr daughLer ueborah as her helrs eLer and ueborah
bellevlng LhaL Lhey own Z of Lhe coowned land of AnacleLo sold a porLlon of sald land Lo Spouses
lernandez When Spouses lernandez was abouL Lo reglsLer Lhelr share ln Lhe sub[ecL land Lhey
dlscovered LhaL cerLaln documenLs prevenL Lhem from dolng so (1) AffldavlL by AnacleLo Cabrera
daLed March 16 1937 sLaLlng LhaL hls share ln LoL no 1831 Lhe sub[ecL properLy ls approxlmaLely
369 sq m (2) AffldavlL by ulonlsla 8eyes daLed !uly 13 1929 sLaLlng LhaL AnacleLo only owned x of
LoL no 1831 whlle 30233 sq m belongs Lo ulonlsla and Lhe resL of Lhe properLy ls coowned by
nlcolasa 8acalso !uan 8eyes llorenLlno 8eyes and Maxlmlano ulco (3) LxLra!udlclal SeLLlemenL
wlLh Sale of Lhe LsLaLe of ulonlsla 8eyes daLed Aprll 17 1996 (4) cerLlflcaLes of LlLle ln Lhe name of
Lhe hereln peLlLloners and (3) ueed of SegregaLlon of 8eal LsLaLe and ConflrmaLlon of Sale daLed
March 21 1997 execuLed by Lhe alleged helrs of ulonlsla 8eyes and AnacleLo Cabrera Alleglng LhaL
Lhe foregolng documenLs are fraudulenL and flcLlLlous Lhe respondenLs flled a complalnL before
Lhe 81C for annulmenL or nulllflcaLlon of Lhe aforemenLloned documenLs and for damages 1hey
llkewlse prayed for Lhe reparLlLlon and resubdlvlslon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy
1he 81C denled dlsmlssed Lhelr complalnL alleglng LhaL slnce Lhey are noL Lhe helrs of AnacleLo
Lhey cannoL demand for Lhe parLlLlon of Lhe properLy wlLhouL flrsL belng declared as helrs of
AnacleLo ln a speclal proceedlngs
Cn appeal Lhe CA reversed Lhe 81C's declslon Pence Lhls peLlLlon
lSSuL
WheLher or noL Lhe respondenLs have Lo lnsLlLuLe a speclal proceedlng Lo deLermlne
Lhelr sLaLus as helrs of AnacleLo Cabrera before Lhey can flle an ordlnary clvll acLlon Lo nulllfy Lhe
affldavlLs of AnacleLo Cabrera and ulonlsla 8eyes Lhe LxLra!udlclal SeLLlemenL wlLh Lhe Sale of
LsLaLe of ulonlsla 8eyes and Lhe ueed of SegregaLlon of 8eal LsLaLe and ConflrmaLlon of Sale
execuLed by Lhe helrs of ulonlsla 8eyes and Lhe helrs of AnacleLo Cabrera as well as Lo cancel Lhe
new Lransfer cerLlflcaLes of LlLle lssued by vlrLue of Lhe abovequesLloned documenLs
PLLu
?LS
ln cases whereln alleged helrs of a decedenL ln whose name a properLy was reglsLered sue Lo
recover Lhe sald properLy Lhrough Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of an ordlnary clvll acLlon such as a complalnL for
reconveyance and parLlLlon18 or nulllflcaLlon of Lransfer cerLlflcaLe of LlLles and oLher deeds or
documenLs relaLed LhereLo19 Lhls CourL has conslsLenLly ruled LhaL a declaraLlon of helrshlp ls
lmproper ln an ordlnary clvll acLlon slnce Lhe maLLer ls wlLhln Lhe excluslve compeLence of Lhe
courL ln a speclal proceedlng 20 ln Lhe recenL case of orLugal v orLugal8elLran21 Lhe CourL
had Lhe occaslon Lo clarlfy lLs rullng on Lhe lssue aL hand Lo wlL

1he common docLrlne ln LlLam Sollvlo and Cullas ln whlch Lhe adverse parLles are puLaLlve helrs Lo
Lhe esLaLe of a decedenL or parLles Lo Lhe speclal proceedlngs for lLs seLLlemenL ls LhaL lf Lhe speclal
proceedlngs are pendlng or lf Lhere are no speclal proceedlngs flled buL Lhere ls under Lhe
clrcumsLances of Lhe case a need Lo flle one Lhen Lhe deLermlnaLlon of among oLher lssues
helrshlp should be ralsed and seLLled ln sald speclal proceedlngs Where speclal proceedlngs had
been lnsLlLuLed buL had been flnally closed and LermlnaLed however or lf a puLaLlve helr has losL
Lhe rlghL Lo have hlmself declared ln Lhe speclal proceedlngs as cohelr and he can no longer ask for
lLs reopenlng Lhen an ordlnary clvll acLlon can be flled for hls declaraLlon as helr ln order Lo brlng
abouL Lhe annulmenL of Lhe parLlLlon or dlsLrlbuLlon or ad[udlcaLlon of a properLy or properLles
belonglng Lo Lhe esLaLe of Lhe deceased22

ln Lhe lnsLanL case whlle Lhe complalnL was denomlnaLed as an acLlon for Lhe ueclaraLlon of non
LxlsLencyslc nulllLy of ueeds and CancellaLlon of CerLlflcaLes of 1lLle eLc a revlew of Lhe
allegaLlons Lhereln reveals LhaL Lhe rlghL belng asserLed by Lhe respondenLs are Lhelr rlghL as helrs
of AnacleLo Cabrera who Lhey clalm coowned onehalf of Lhe sub[ecL properLy and noL merely one
fourLh as sLaLed ln Lhe documenLs Lhe respondenLs soughL Lo annul
ln Lhe same manner Lhe respondenLs hereln excepL for Lhelr allegaLlons have yeL Lo subsLanLlaLe
Lhelr clalm as Lhe legal helrs of AnacleLo Cabrera who are Lhus enLlLled Lo Lhe sub[ecL properLy
nelLher ls Lhere anyLhlng ln Lhe records of Lhls case whlch would show LhaL a speclal proceedlng Lo
have Lhemselves declared as helrs of AnacleLo Cabrera had been lnsLlLuLed As such Lhe Lrlal courL
correcLly dlsmlssed Lhe case for Lhere ls a lack of cause of acLlon when a case ls lnsLlLuLed by parLles
who are noL real parLles ln lnLeresL Whlle a declaraLlon of helrshlp was noL prayed for ln Lhe
complalnL lL ls clear from Lhe allegaLlons Lhereln LhaL Lhe rlghL Lhe respondenLs soughL Lo proLecL
or enforce ls LhaL of an helr of one of Lhe reglsLered coowners of Lhe properLy prlor Lo Lhe lssuance
of Lhe new Lransfer cerLlflcaLes of LlLle LhaL Lhey seek Lo cancel 1hus Lhere ls a need Lo esLabllsh
Lhelr sLaLus as such helrs ln Lhe proper forum


@estamentary Success|on Arts 7839S9
W|||s In Genera|


V|tug vs Court of Appea|s
Gk# 82027 Mar 29 1990
183 SCkA 7SS

lAC1S
uolores Luchangco vlLug dled ln ln new ?ork u SA and was survlved by wldower peLlLloner
8omarlco C vlLug She lefL a wlll and deslgnaLed 8owena lausLlnoCorona as execuLrlx as well as
nenlLa AlonLe as cospeclal admlnlsLraLor uurlng Lhe pendency of Lhe probaLe of her Lwo wllls
8omarlco C vlLug flled a moLlon asklng for auLhorlLy from Lhe probaLe courL Lo sell cerLaln shares
of sLock and real properLles belonglng Lo Lhe esLaLe Lo cover allegedly hls advances Lo Lhe esLaLe ln
Lhe sum of 66773166 plus lnLeresLs whlch he clalmed were personal funds As found by Lhe
CourL of Appeals Lhe alleged advances conslsLed of 3814740 spenL for Lhe paymenL of esLaLe
Lax 31883427 as deflclency esLaLe Lax and 9074999 as lncremenL LhereLo Accordlng Lo Mr
vlLug he wlLhdrew Lhe sums of 31883427 and 9074999 from savlngs accounL no 33342038
of Lhe 8ank of Amerlca MakaLl MeLro Manlla
8owena opposed Lhe moLlon Lo sell on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe same funds wlLhdrawn from savlngs
accounL no 33342038 were con[ugal parLnershlp properLles and parL of Lhe esLaLe and hence
Lhere was allegedly no ground for relmbursemenL 8omarlco [usLlfled hls acL by lnslsLlng LhaL Lhe
sald funds are hls excluslve properLy havlng acqulred Lhe same Lhrough a survlvorshlp agreemenL
execuLed wlLh hls laLe wlfe and Lhe bank on !une 19 1970 1he agreemenL provldes
We hereby agree wlLh each oLher and wlLh Lhe 8Ank Cl AML8lCAn nA1lCnAL 18uS1 Anu
SAvlnCS ASSCClA1lCn (herelnafLer referred Lo as Lhe 8Ank) LhaL all money now or hereafLer
deposlLed by us or any or elLher of us wlLh Lhe 8Ank ln our [olnL savlngs currenL accounL shall be

Lhe properLy of all or boLh of us and shall be payable Lo and collecLlble or wlLhdrawable by elLher or
any of us durlng our llfeLlme and afLer Lhe deaLh of elLher or any of us shall belong Lo and be Lhe
sole properLy of Lhe survlvor or survlvors and shall be payable Lo and collecLlble or wlLhdrawable
by such survlvor or survlvors
We furLher agree wlLh each oLher and Lhe 8Ank LhaL Lhe recelpL or check of elLher any or all of us
durlng our llfeLlme or Lhe recelpL or check of Lhe survlvor or survlvors for any paymenL or
wlLhdrawal made for our abovemenLloned accounL shall be valld and sufflclenL release and
dlscharge of Lhe 8Ank for such paymenL or wlLhdrawal
1he Lrlal courL upheld Lhe valldlLy of Lhe agreemenL buL Lhe CourL of Appeals ln Lhe peLlLlon for
cerLlorarl flled by Lhe hereln prlvaLe respondenL held LhaL Lhe abovequoLed survlvorshlp
agreemenL consLlLuLes a conveyance morLls causa whlch dld noL comply wlLh Lhe formallLles of a
valld wlll as prescrlbed by ArLlcle 803 of Lhe Clvll Code" and secondly assumlng LhaL lL ls a mere
donaLlon lnLer vlvos lL ls a prohlblLed donaLlon under Lhe provlslons of ArLlcle 133 of Lhe Clvll Code

lSSuL WCn Lhe survlvorshlp agreemenL consLlLuLes a conveyance morLls causa whlch needs Lo
comply wlLh Lhe formallLles of a valld wlll
PLLu nC
under ArLlcle 2010 of Lhe Code

A81 2010 8y an aleaLory conLracL one of Lhe parLles or boLh reclprocally blnd Lhemselves Lo glve
or Lo do someLhlng ln conslderaLlon of whaL Lhe oLher shall glve or do upon Lhe happenlng of an
evenL whlch ls uncerLaln or whlch ls Lo occur aL an lndeLermlnaLe Llme

under Lhe aforequoLed provlslon Lhe fulflllmenL of an aleaLory conLracL depends on elLher Lhe
happenlng of an evenL whlch ls (1) uncerLaln (2) whlch ls Lo occur aL an lndeLermlnaLe Llme A
survlvorshlp agreemenL Lhe sale of a sweepsLake LlckeL a LransacLlon sLlpulaLlng on Lhe value of
currency and lnsurance have been held Lo fall under Lhe flrsL caLegory whlle a conLracL for llfe
annulLy or penslon under ArLlcle 2021 eL sequenLla has been caLegorlzed under Lhe second 23 ln
elLher case Lhe elemenL of rlsk ls presenL ln Lhe case aL bar Lhe rlsk was Lhe deaLh of one parLy
and survlvorshlp of Lhe oLher
Powever as we have warned
xxx xxx xxx
8uL alLhough Lhe survlvorshlp agreemenL ls per se noL conLrary Lo law lLs operaLlon or effecL may
be vlolaLlve of Lhe law lor lnsLance lf lL be shown ln a glven case LhaL such agreemenL ls a mere
cloak Lo hlde an lnofflclous donaLlon Lo Lransfer properLy ln fraud of credlLors or Lo defeaL Lhe
leglLlme of a forced helr lL may be assalled and annulled upon such grounds no such vlce has been
lmpuLed and esLabllshed agalnsL Lhe agreemenL lnvolved ln Lhls case 26
xxx xxx xxx
1here ls no demonsLraLlon here LhaL Lhe survlvorshlp agreemenL had been execuLed for such
unlawful purposes or as held by Lhe respondenL courL ln order Lo frusLraLe our laws on wllls
donaLlons and con[ugal parLnershlp
1he concluslon ls accordlngly unavoldable LhaL Mrs vlLug havlng predeceased her husband Lhe
laLLer has acqulred upon her deaLh a vesLed rlghL over Lhe amounLs under savlngs accounL no
33342038 of Lhe 8ank of Amerlca lnsofar as Lhe respondenL courL ordered Lhelr lncluslon ln Lhe
lnvenLory of asseLs lefL by Mrs vlLug we hold LhaL Lhe courL was ln error 8elng Lhe separaLe
properLy of peLlLloner lL forms no more parL of Lhe esLaLe of Lhe deceased

S|cad vs CA
Gk# 12S888 Aug 13 1998
294 SCkA 183

lAC1S
A documenL denomlnaLed as uLLu Cl uCnA1lCn ln1L8 vlvCS was execuLed by MonLlnola
namlng as donees her grandchlldren namely CaLallno valderrama !udy CrlsLlna valderrama and
!esus AnLonlo valderrama and LreaLed of a parcel of land locaLed aL Caplz covered by 1ransfer
CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle no 116103 ln Lhe name of MonLlnola 1he deed also conLalned Lhe slgnaLures
of Lhe donees ln acknowledgmenL of Lhelr accepLance of Lhe donaLlon Sald deed was reglsLered
MonLlnola however reLalned Lhe owners dupllcaLe copy of Lhe new LlLle (no 116622) as well as
Lhe properLy lLself unLll she Lransferred Lhe same Len (10) years laLer on !uly 10 1990 Lo Lhe
spouses LrnesLo and Lvelyn Slcad

1hen on AugusL 24 1990 she flled a peLlLlon wlLh Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL ln 8oxas ClLy for Lhe
cancellaLlon of sald 1C1 no 116622 and Lhe relnsLaLemenL of 1C1 no 1 16103 (ln her name) Lhe
case belng dockeLed as Speclal roceedlng Per peLlLlon was founded on Lhe Lheory LhaL Lhe
donaLlon Lo her Lhree (3) grandchlldren was one morLls causa whlch Lhus had Lo comply wlLh Lhe
formallLles of a wlll and slnce lL had noL Lhe donaLlon was vold and could noL effecLlvely serve as
basls for Lhe cancellaLlon of 1C1 no 116103 and Lhe lssuance ln lLs place of 1C1 no 116622

Per peLlLlon was opposed by her grandchlldren (donees) alleglng LhaL lL was an lnLer vlvos
donaLlon havlng fully complled wlLh Lhe requlremenLs Lherefor seL ouL ln ArLlcle 729 of Lhe Clvll
Code 1he case was subsequenLly changed lnLo an ordlnary clvll acLlon 1he courL held LhaL Lhe
donaLlon was lndeed one lnLer vlvos and dlsmlsslng Aurora MonLlnolas peLlLlon for lack of merlL

ln Lhe meanLlme MonLlnola dled An appeal was made by hereln peLlLlonerspouses Slcad who
subsLlLuLed MonLlnola afLer her legal helrs had expressed Lhelr dlslnLeresL over Lhe case 1he CA
however afflrmed Lhe Lrlal courL's declslon hence Lhe presenL peLlLlon

lSSuL WCn Lhe deed of donaLlon ls ln Lhe characLer of lnLer vlvos


PLLu

nC lL ls ln Lhe characLer of a morLls causa dlsposlLlon

1he evldence esLabllshes LhaL on uecember 11 1979 when Lhe deed of donaLlon prepared by
MonLlnolas lawyer (ALLy 1renas) was read and explalned by Lhe laLLer Lo Lhe parLles MonLlnola
expressed her wlsh LhaL Lhe donaLlon Lake effecL only afLer Len (10) years from her deaLh and LhaL
Lhe deed lnclude a prohlblLlon on Lhe sale of Lhe properLy for such perlod Accordlngly a new
provlso was lnserLed ln Lhe deed readlng however Lhe donees shall noL sell or encumber Lhe
properLles hereln donaLed wlLhln 10 years afLer Lhe deaLh of Lhe donor 1he acLuallLy of Lhe
subsequenL lnserLlon of Lhls new provlso ls apparenL on Lhe face of Lhe lnsLrumenL Lhe
lnLercalaLlon ls easlly percelved and ldenLlfled lL was clearly Lyped on a dlfferenL machlne and ls
crammed lnLo Lhe space beLween Lhe penulLlmaLe paragraph of Lhe deed and LhaL lmmedlaLely
precedlng lL

A donaLlon whlch purporLs Lo be one lnLer vlvos buL wlLhholds from Lhe donee Lhe rlghL Lo dlspose
of Lhe donaLed properLy durlng Lhe donors llfeLlme ls ln LruLh one morLls causa ln a donaLlon
morLls causa Lhe rlghL of dlsposlLlon ls noL Lransferred Lo Lhe donee whlle Lhe donor ls sLlll allve

ln Lhe lnsLanL case noLhlng of any consequence was Lransferred by Lhe deed of donaLlon ln
quesLlon Lo MonLlnolas grandchlldren Lhe osLenslble donees 1hey dld noL geL possesslon of Lhe
properLy donaLed 1hey dld noL acqulre Lhe rlghL Lo Lhe frulLs Lhereof or any oLher rlghL of
domlnlon over Lhe properLy More lmporLanLly Lhey dld noL acqulre Lhe rlghL Lo dlspose of Lhe
properLy Lhls would accrue Lo Lhem only afLer Len (10) years from MonLlnolas deaLh lndeed
Lhey never even lald hands on Lhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle Lo Lhe same 1hey were Lherefore slmply
paper owners of Lhe donaLed properLy All Lhese clrcumsLances lncludlng Lo repeaL Lhe expllclL
provlslons of Lhe deed of donaLlon reservlng Lhe exerclse of rlghLs of ownershlp Lo Lhe donee
and prohlblLlng Lhe sale or encumbrance of Lhe properLy unLll Len (10) years afLer her deaLh
lnelucLably lead Lo Lhe concluslon LhaL Lhe donaLlon ln quesLlon was a donaLlon morLls causa
conLemplaLlng a Lransfer of ownershlp Lo Lhe donees only afLer Lhe donors demlse

1he valderramas argumenL LhaL Lhe donaLlon ls lnLer vlvos ln characLer and LhaL Lhe prohlblLlon
agalnsL Lhelr dlsposlLlon of Lhe donaLed properLy ls merely a condlLlon whlch lf vlolaLed would
glve cause for lLs revocaLlon begs Lhe quesLlon lL assumes LhaL Lhey have Lhe rlghL Lo make a
dlsposlLlon of Lhe properLy whlch Lhey do noL 1he argumenL also makes no sense because lf Lhey
had Lhe rlghL Lo dlspose of Lhe properLy and dld ln facL dlspose of lL Lo a Lhlrd person Lhe
revocaLlon of Lhe donaLlon Lhey speak of would be of no uLlllLy or beneflL Lo Lhe donor slnce such a
revocaLlon would noL necessarlly resulL ln Lhe resLoraLlon of Lhe donors ownershlp and en[oymenL
of Lhe properLy

lL ls also error Lo suppose LhaL Lhe donaLlon under revlew should be deemed one lnLer vlvos slmply
because founded on conslderaLlons of love and affecLlon ln Ale[andro v Ceraldez supra Lhls CourL
also observed LhaL Lhe facL LhaL Lhe donaLlon ls glven ln conslderaLlon of love and affecLlon ** ls
noL a characLerlsLlc of donaLlons lnLer vlvos (solely) because Lransfers morLls causa may also be
made for Lhe same reason Slmllarly ln 8onsaLo v CourL of Appeals supra Lhls CourL oplned LhaL
Lhe facL LhaL Lhe conveyance was due Lo Lhe affecLlon of Lhe donor for Lhe donees and Lhe servlces
rendered by Lhe laLLer ls of no parLlcular slgnlflcance ln deLermlnlng wheLher Lhe deeds Lxhs 1
and 2 consLlLuLe Lransfers lnLer vlvos or noL because a legacy may have ldenLlcal moLlvaLlon

llnally lL ls germane Lo adverL Lo Lhe legal prlnclple ln ArLlcle 1378 of Lhe Clvll Code Lo Lhe effecL
LhaL ln case of doubL relaLlve Lo a graLulLous conLracL Lhe consLrucLlon musL be LhaL enLalllng Lhe
leasL Lransmlsslon of rlghLs and
lnLeresLs

1he donaLlon ln quesLlon Lhough denomlnaLed lnLer vlvos ls ln LruLh one morLls causa lL ls vold
because Lhe essenLlal requlslLes for lLs valldlLy have noL been complled wlLh


A|uad v A|uad
Gk# 176943 Cct 17 2008
S69 SCkA 697

lAC1S
Spouses MaLllde and Crlspln Aluad were chlldless buL durlng Lhelr llfeLlme ralsed peLlLloners'
moLher Marla (Aluad) and respondenL Zenaldo (Aluad) When Crlspln dled MaLllde lnherlLed from
hlm 6 parcels of land all of whlch she donaLed Lo Marla 1he ueed provlded
1haL for and ln conslderaLlon of Lhe love and affecLlon of Lhe uCnC8 MaLllde for Lhe uCnLL
Marla Lhe laLLer belng adopLed and havlng been broughL up by Lhe former Lhe uCnC8 by Lhese
presenLs Lransfer and convey 8? WA? Cl uCnA1lCn unLo Lhe uCnLL Lhe properLy above
descrlbed Lo become effecLlve upon Lhe deaLh of Lhe uCnC8 buL ln Lhe evenL LhaL Lhe uCnLL
should dle before Lhe uCnC8 Lhe presenL donaLlon shall be deemed resclnded and of no furLher
force and effecL rovlded however LhaL anyLlme durlng Lhe llfeLlme of Lhe uCnC8 or anyone of
Lhem who should survlve Lhey could use encumber or even dlspose of any or even all of Lhe
parcels of land hereln donaLed
8ecause of Lhe agreemenL ln Lhe deed of donaLlon MaLllde was sLlll able Lo Lransfer ln her name Lhe
LlLles over 2 parcels of land (LoL 674 and LoL 676) ouL of Lhe 6 donaLed Lo Marla 1 (LoL 676) of
Lhose Lwo was laLer on sold by her Lo respondenL
A year afLer LhaL MaLllde execuLed a lasL wlll and LesLamenL devlslng Lhe remalnlng four parcels of
land Lo Marla whlle her remalnlng properLles lncludlng Lhe land Lhe LlLle of whlch was ln her name
(LoL 674) Lo respondenL
MaLllde dled Marla followed her durlng Lhe same year Marla's helrs hereln peLlLloners LhereafLer
lnsLlLuLed a case before Lhe 81C for Lhe recovery of Lhe Lwo loLs ln respondenL's possesslon lor hls
defense respondenL alleged LhaL Lhe flrsL loL was obLalned by hlm Lhrough sale whlle Lhe second
loL Lhrough lnherlLance based on Lhe wlll execuLed by MaLllde
1he Lrlal courL ruled ln favor of Lhe peLlLloners explalnlng LhaL lL was lmposslble for respondenL Lo
have a valld clalm over Lhe Lwo loLs as Lhose were prevlously donaLed ln favor of Lhe moLher of
peLlLloners
1he CA on appeal reversed Lhe Lrlal courL's declslon rullng LhaL Lhe donaLlon made Lo Lhe moLher of
peLlLloners was noL lnLer vlvos buL a morLls causa hence lnvalld for falllng Lo comply wlLh Lhe
requlslLes for lLs valldlLy as provlded under ArL 803 of Lhe Clvll Code
Pence Lhe presenL appeal

lSSuL WCn Lhe donaLlon made Lo peLlLloners was lnLer vlvos

PLLu
nC

As dld Lhe appellaLe courL Lhe CourL flnds Lhe donaLlon Lo peLlLloners' moLher one of morLls causa
lL havlng Lhe followlng characLerlsLlcs

(1) lL conveys no LlLle or ownershlp Lo Lhe Lransferee before Lhe deaLh of Lhe Lransferor or whaL
amounLs Lo Lhe same Lhlng LhaL Lhe Lransferor should reLaln Lhe ownershlp (full or naked) and
conLrol of Lhe properLy whlle allve

(2) 1haL before Lhe deaLh of Lhe Lransferor Lhe Lransfer should be revocable by Lhe Lransferor aL
wlll ad nuLum buL revocablllLy may be provlded for lndlrecLly by means of a reserved power ln Lhe
donor Lo dlspose of Lhe properLles conveyed and

(3) 1haL Lhe Lransfer should be vold lf Lhe Lransferor should survlve Lhe Lransferee
1he phrase ln Lhe earllerquoLed ueed of uonaLlon Lo become effecLlve upon Lhe deaLh of Lhe
uCnC8 admlLs of no oLher lnLerpreLaLlon Lhan Lo mean LhaL MaLllde dld noL lnLend Lo Lransfer Lhe
ownershlp of Lhe slx loLs Lo peLlLloners' moLher durlng her (MaLllde's) llfeLlme

1he sLaLemenL ln Lhe ueed of uonaLlon readlng anyLlme durlng Lhe llfeLlme of Lhe uCnC8 or
anyone of Lhem who should survlve Lhey could use encumber or even dlspose of any or even all
Lhe parcels of land hereln donaLed means LhaL MaLllde reLalned ownershlp of Lhe loLs and
reserved ln her Lhe rlghL Lo dlspose Lhem lor Lhe rlghL Lo dlspose of a Lhlng wlLhouL oLher
llmlLaLlons Lhan Lhose esLabllshed by law ls an aLLrlbuLe of ownershlp1he phrase ln Lhe ueed of
uonaLlon or anyone of Lhem who should survlve ls of course ouL of sync lor Lhe ueed of
uonaLlon clearly sLaLed LhaL lL would Lake effecL upon Lhe deaLh of Lhe donor hence sald phrase
could only have referred Lo Lhe donor MaLllde eLlLloners Lhemselves concede LhaL such phrase
does noL refer Lo Lhe donee Lhus

x x x lL ls well Lo polnL ouL LhaL Lhe lasL provlslon (senLence) ln Lhe dlspuLed paragraph should only
refer Lo MaLllde Aluad Lhe donor because she was Lhe only survlvlng spouse aL Lhe Llme Lhe
donaLlon was execuLed on 14 november 1981 as her husband Crlspln Aluad had long been
dead as early as 1973

1he Lrlal courL ln holdlng LhaL Lhe donaLlon was lnLer vlvos reasoned

x x x 1he donaLlon ln quesLlon ls sub[ecL Lo a resoluLory Lerm or perlod when Lhe donor provldes ln
Lhe aforequoLed provlslons buL ln Lhe evenL LhaL Lhe uCnLL should dle before Lhe uCnC8 Lhe
presenL donaLlon shall be deemed resclnded and of no furLher force and effecL When Lhe donor
provldes LhaL should Lhe uCnLL xxx dle before Lhe uCnC8 Lhe presenL donaLlon shall be
deemed resclnded and of no furLher force and effecL Lhe loglcal consLrucLlon Lhereof ls LhaL afLer
Lhe execuLlon of Lhe sub[ecL donaLlon Lhe same became effecLlve lmmedlaLely and shall be
deemed resclnded and of no furLher force and effecL upon Lhe arrlval of a resoluLory Lerm or
perlod le Lhe deaLh of Lhe donee whlch shall occur before LhaL of Lhe donor undersLandably Lhe
arrlval of Lhls resoluLory Lerm or perlod cannoL resclnd and render of no furLher force and effecL a
donaLlon whlch has never become effecLlve because cerLalnly whaL donaLlon ls Lhere Lo be
resclnded and rendered of no furLher force and effecL upon Lhe arrlval of sald resoluLory Lerm or
perlod lf Lhere was no donaLlon whlch was already effecLlve aL Lhe Llme when Lhe donee dled?

1he ueed of uonaLlon whlch ls as already dlscussed one of morLls causa noL havlng followed Lhe
formallLles of a wlll lL ls vold and LransmlLLed no rlghL Lo peLlLloners' moLher 8uL even assumlng
arguendo LhaL Lhe formallLles were observed slnce lL was noL probaLed no rlghL Lo LoL nos 674
and 676 was LransmlLLed Lo Marla MaLllde Lhus valldly dlsposed of LoL no 674 Lo respondenL by
her lasL wlll and LesLamenL sub[ecL of course Lo Lhe quallflcaLlon LhaL her (MaLllde's) wlll musL be
probaLed WlLh respecL Lo LoL no 676 Lhe same had as menLloned earller been sold by MaLllde Lo
respondenL on AugusL 26 1991

eLlLloners neverLheless argue LhaL assumlng LhaL Lhe donaLlon of LoL no 674 ln favor of Lhelr
moLher ls lndeed morLls causa hence MaLllde could devlse lL Lo respondenL Lhe loL should
neverLheless have been awarded Lo Lhem because Lhey had acqulred lL by acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon
Lhey havlng been ln conLlnuous unlnLerrupLed adverse open and publlc possesslon of lL ln good
falLh and ln Lhe concepL of an owner slnce 1978

eLlLloners falled Lo ralse Lhe lssue of acqulslLlve prescrlpLlon before Lhe lower courLs however
Lhey havlng lald Lhelr clalm on Lhe basls of lnherlLance from Lhelr moLher As a general rule polnLs
of law Lheorles and lssues noL broughL Lo Lhe aLLenLlon of Lhe Lrlal courL cannoL be ralsed for Lhe
flrsL Llme on appeal lor a conLrary rule would be unfalr Lo Lhe adverse parLy who would have no
opporLunlLy Lo presenL furLher evldence maLerlal Lo Lhe new Lheory whlch lL could have done had
lL been aware of lL aL Lhe Llme of Lhe hearlng before Lhe Lrlal courL



Iorms of W|||


Suroza vs nonrado
AM No 2026CII Dec 19 1981
110 SCkA 388

lAC1S

Mauro Suroza was marrled Lo Marcellna Salvador 1hey dld noL have a chlld buL Lhey reared one ln
Lhe name of AgaplLo also surnamed as Suroza AgaplLo marrled nenlLa and Lhey had a chlld ln Lhe
name of Lllla Mauro Suroza dled AgaplLo who was a soldler became dlsabled and was declared
lncompeLenL ln a speclal proceedlng where hls wlfe was appolnLed as hls guardlan
Meanwhlle Arsenla Lhe alleged glrlfrlend of AgaplLo had reared a chlld named Marllyn who was
laLer dellvered Lo Marcellna who broughL her up as a supposed daughLer of AgaplLo and as her
granddaughLer Marllyn used Lhe surname Suroza She sLayed wlLh Marcellna buL was noL legally
adopLed by AgaplLo
lL appeared LhaL durlng Lhe llfeLlme of Marcellna she allegedly execuLed a noLarlal wlll when she
was 73 years old 1haL wlll whlch ls ln Lngllsh was Lhumbmarked by her She was llllLeraLe Per
leLLers ln Lngllsh Lo Lhe veLerans AdmlnlsLraLlon were also Lhumbmarked by her ln LhaL wlg
Marcellna bequeaLhed all her esLaLe Lo her supposed granddaughLer Marllyn

SubsequenLly however Marcellna dled 1hereafLer Marlna a[e alleged Lo be a laundrywoman of
Marcellna and Lhe execuLrlx ln her wlll (Lhe alLernaLe execuLrlx was !uanlLa Macaraeg moLher of
Cscar Marllyns husband) flled wlLh Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance a peLlLlon for Lhe probaLe of
Marcellnas alleged wlll 1he case was asslgned Lo !udge 8eynaldo Ponrado

As Lhere was no opposlLlon and afLer hearlng !udge Ponrado lssued several orders among whlch
lnsLrucLed a depuLy sherlff Lo e[ecL Lhe occupanLs of Lhe LesLaLrlxs house among whom was nenlLa
v Suroza and Lo place Marlna ln possesslon Lhereof

1haL order alerLed nenlLa Lo Lhe exlsLence of Lhe LesLamenLary proceedlng for Lhe seLLlemenL of
Marcellnas esLaLe She opposed sald proceedlng by fllln ln Lhe LesLaLe case an omnlbus peLlLlon Lo
seL aslde proceedlngs admlL opposlLlon wlLh counLerpeLlLlon for admlnlsLraLlon and prellmlnary
ln[uncLlon nenlLa ln LhaL moLlon relLeraLed her allegaLlon LhaL Marllyn was a sLranger Lo

Marcellna LhaL Lhe wlll was noL duly execuLed and aLLesLed LhaL lL was procured by means of
undue lnfluence employed by Marlna and Marllyn and LhaL Lhe Lhumbmarks of Lhe LesLaLrlx were
procured by fraud or Lrlck
uesplLe her opposlLlon respondenL [udge allowed Lhe probaLe of Lhe wlll !udge Ponrado ln hls
order daLed uecember 22 1977 afLer noLlng LhaL Lhe execuLrlx had dellvered Lhe esLaLe Lo
Marllyn and LhaL Lhe esLaLe Lax had been pald closed Lhe LesLamenLary proceedlng

AbouL Len monLhs laLer ln a verlfled complalnL daLed CcLober 12 1978 flled ln Lhls CourL nenlLa
charged !udge Ponrado wlLh havlng probaLed Lhe fraudulenL wlll of Marcellna

lSSuL WCn Lhe wlll was vold for Lhe reasons LhaL lL was wrlLLen ln Lngllsh a language noL know Lo
Lhe llllLeraLe LesLaLrlx and LhaL Lhe aLLesLlng wlLnesses dld noL appear before Lhe noLary as
admlLLed by Lhe noLary hlmself

PLLu
?LS ln Lhls case respondenL [udge on peruslng Lhe wlll and noLlng LhaL lL was wrlLLen ln Lngllsh
and was Lhumbmarked by an obvlously llllLeraLe LesLaLrlx could have readlly percelved LhaL Lhe wlll
ls vold

ln Lhe openlng paragraph of Lhe wlll lL was sLaLed LhaL Lngllsh was a language undersLood and
known Lo Lhe LesLaLrlx 8uL ln lLs concludlng paragraph lL was sLaLed LhaL Lhe wlll was read Lo Lhe
LesLaLrlx and LranslaLed lnLo llllplno language (p 16 8ecord of LesLaLe case) 1haL could only
mean LhaL Lhe wlll was wrlLLen ln a language noL known Lo Lhe llllLeraLe LesLaLrlx and Lherefore lL
ls vold because of Lhe mandaLory provlslon of arLlcle 804 of Lhe Clvll Code LhaL every wlll musL be
execuLed ln a language or dlalecL known Lo Lhe LesLaLor 1hus a wlll wrlLLen ln Lngllsh whlch was
noL known Lo Lhe lgoroL LesLaLor ls vold and was dlsallowed (Acop vs lraso 32 hll 660)

1he hasLy preparaLlon of Lhe wlll ls shown ln Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause and noLarlal acknowledgmenL
where Marcellna Salvador Suroza ls repeaLedly referred Lo as Lhe LesLaLor lnsLead of LesLaLrlx

Pad respondenL [udge been careful and observanL he could have noLed noL only Lhe anomaly as Lo
Lhe language of Lhe wlll buL also LhaL Lhere was someLhlng wrong ln lnsLlLuLlng Lhe supposed
granddaughLer as sole helress and glvlng noLhlng aL all Lo her supposed faLher who was sLlll allve

lurLhermore afLer Lhe hearlng conducLed by respondenL depuLy clerk of courL respondenL [udge
could have noLlced LhaL Lhe noLary was noL presenLed as a wlLness

ln splLe of Lhe absence of an opposlLlon respondenL [udge should have personally conducLed Lhe
hearlng on Lhe probaLe of Lhe wlll so LhaL he could have ascerLalned wheLher Lhe wlll was valldly
execuLed

under Lhe clrcumsLances we flnd hls negllgence and derellcLlon of duLy Lo be lnexcusable


Lee v @ambago
AC No S281 Ieb 12 2008
S44 SCkA 393


lacLs ComplalnanL Manuel L Lee charged respondenL ALLy 8eglno 8 1ambago wlLh vlolaLlon of
noLarlal Law and Lhe LLhlcs of Lhe legal professlon for noLarlzlng a wlll LhaL ls alleged Lo be spurlous
ln naLure ln conLalnlng forged slgnaLures of hls faLher Lhe decedenL vlcenLe Lee Sr and Lwo oLher
wlLnesses whlch were also quesLloned for Lhe unnoLaLed 8esldence CerLlflcaLes LhaL are known Lo
be a copy of Lhelr respecLlve voLers affldavlL ln addlLlon Lo such Lhe conLesLed wlll was execuLed
and acknowledged before respondenL on !une 30 1963 buL bears a 8esldence CerLlflcaLe by Lhe
1esLaLor daLed !anuary 3 1962 whlch was never submlLLed for flllng Lo Lhe Archlves ulvlslon of Lhe
8ecords ManagemenL and Archlves Cfflce of Lhe naLlonal Commlsslon for CulLure and ArLs (nCAA)
8espondenL on Lhe oLher hand clalmed LhaL all allegaLlons are falsely glven because he allegedly
exerclsed hls duLles as noLary ubllc wlLh due care and wlLh due regards Lo Lhe provlslon of exlsLlng
law and had complled wlLh elemenLary formallLles ln Lhe performance of hls duLles and LhaL Lhe
complalnL was flled slmply Lo harass hlm based on Lhe resulL of a crlmlnal case agalnsL hlm ln Lhe
Cmbudsman LhaL dld noL prosper Powever he dld noL deny Lhe conLenLlon of nonflllng a copy Lo
Lhe Archlves ulvlslon of nCAA ln resoluLlon Lhe courL referred Lhe case Lo Lhe l8 and Lhe declslon
of whlch was afflrmed wlLh modlflcaLlon agalnsL Lhe respondenL and ln favor of Lhe complalnanL
lssue uld ALLy 8eglno 8 1ambago commlLLed a vlolaLlon ln noLarlal Law and Lhe LLhlcs of Legal
rofesslon for noLarlzlng a spurlous lasL wlll and LesLamenL
Peld ?es As per Supreme CourL ALLy 8eglno 8 1ambago ls gullLy of professlonal mlsconducL as he
vlolaLed Lhe Lawyers CaLh 8ule 138 of Lhe 8ules of CourL Canon 1 and 8ule 101nof Lhe Code of
rofesslonal 8esponslblllLy ArLlcle 806 of Lhe Clvll Code and provlslon of Lhe noLarlal Law 1hus
ALLy 1ambago ls suspended from Lhe pracLlce of law for one year and hls noLarlal commlsslon
revoked ln addlLlon because he has noL llved up Lo Lhe LrusLworLhlness expecLed of hlm as a
noLary publlc and as an offlcer of Lhe courL he ls perpeLually dlsquallfled from reappolnLmenLs as a
noLary ubllc


Guerrero v 8|h|s
Gk#174144 Apr|| 17 2007
S21 SCkA 394

1he wlll was acknowledged by Lhe LesLaLrlx and Lhe wlLnesses aL Lhe LesLaLrlx's wlLnesses ln CC
before a noLary publlc who was commlssloned for and ln Caloocan ClLy

Peld lnvalld noLary publlc was acLlng ouLslde Lhe place of hls commlsslon and Lhls dld noL saLlsfy
ArL 806 no noLary shall possess auLhorlLy Lo do any noLarlal acL beyond Lhe llmlLs of hls
[urlsdlcLlon
Caneda vs CA
Gk# 103SS4 May 28 1993
222 SCkA 781

lacLs Cn uecember 3 1978 MaLeo Caballero a wldower wlLhouL any chlldren and already ln
Lhe LwlllghL years of hls llfe execuLed a lasL wlll and LesLamenL aL hls resldence ln 1allsay Cebu
before Lhree aLLesLlng wlLnesses namely Clprlano Labuca Cregorlo Cabando and llavlano
1oregosa 1he sald LesLaLor was duly asslsLed by hls lawyer ALLy Lmlllo LumonLad and a noLary
publlc ALLy llloLeo Manlgos ln Lhe preparaLlon of LhaL lasL wlll lL was declared Lhereln among

oLher Lhlngs LhaL Lhe LesLaLor was leavlng by way of legacles and devlses hls real and personal
properLles Lo resenLaclon Cavlola Angel AbaLayo 8ogello AbaLayo lsabellLo AbaLayo 8enonl C
Cabrera and Marcosa AlcanLara all of whom do noL appear Lo be relaLed Lo Lhe LesLaLor
lour monLhs laLer or on Aprll 4 1979 MaLeo Caballero hlmself flled a peLlLlon dockeLed as Speclal
roceedlng no 38998 before 8ranch ll of Lhe Lhen CourL of llrsL lnsLance of Cebu seeklng Lhe
probaLe of hls lasL wlll and LesLamenL 1he probaLe courL seL Lhe peLlLlon for hearlng on AugusL 20
1979 buL Lhe same and subsequenL scheduled hearlngs were posLponed for one reason Lo anoLher
Cn May 29 1980 Lhe LesLaLor passed away before hls peLlLlon could flnally be heard by Lhe
probaLe courL Cn lebruary 23 1981 8enonl Cabrera one of Lhe legaLees named ln Lhe wlll sough
hls appolnLmenL as speclal admlnlsLraLor of Lhe LesLaLors esLaLe Lhe esLlmaLed value of whlch was
2400000 and he was so appolnLed by Lhe probaLe courL ln lLs order of March 6 1981
1hereafLer hereln peLlLloners clalmlng Lo be nephews and nleces of Lhe LesLaLor lnsLlLuLed a
second peLlLlon enLlLled ln Lhe MaLLer of Lhe lnLesLaLe LsLaLe of MaLeo Caballero and dockeLed
as Speclal roceedlng no 39638 before 8ranch lx of Lhe aforesald CourL of llrsL lnsLance of Cebu
Cn CcLober 18 1982 hereln peLlLloners had Lhelr sald peLlLlon lnLesLaLe proceedlng consolldaLed
wlLh Speclal roceedlng no 38998 ln 8ranch ll of Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of Cebu and opposed
LhereaL Lhe probaLe of Lhe 1esLaLors wlll and Lhe appolnLmenL of a speclal admlnlsLraLor for hls
esLaLe
8enonl Cabrera dled on lebruary 8 1982 hence Lhe probaLe courL now known as 8ranch xv of Lhe
8eglonal 1rlal CourL of Cebu appolnLed Wllllam Cabrera as speclal admlnlsLraLor on !une 21 1983
1hereafLer on !uly 20 1983 lL lssued an order for Lhe reLurn of Lhe records of Speclal roceedlng
no 39638 Lo Lhe archlves slnce Lhe LesLaLe proceedlng for Lhe probaLe of Lhe wlll had Lo be heard
and resolved flrsL Cn March 26 1984 Lhe case was reraffled and evenLually asslgned Lo 8ranch xll
of Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL of Cebu where lL remalned unLll Lhe concluslon of Lhe probaLe
proceedlngs
ln Lhe course of Lhe hearlng ln Speclal roceedlng no 38998 hereln peLlLloners appeared as
opposlLors and ob[ecLed Lo Lhe allowance of Lhe LesLaLors wlll on Lhe ground LhaL on Lhe alleged
daLe of lLs execuLlon Lhe LesLaLor was already ln Lhe poor sLaLe of healLh such LhaL he could noL
have posslbly execuLed Lhe same eLlLloners llkewlse relLeraLed Lhe lssue as Lo Lhe genulneness of
Lhe slgnaLure of Lhe LesLaLor Lhereln
Cn Lhe oLher hand one of Lhe aLLesLlng wlLnesses Clprlano Labuca and Lhe noLary publlc ALLy
llloLeo Manlgos LesLlfled LhaL Lhe LesLaLor execuLed Lhe wlll ln quesLlon ln Lhelr presence whlle he
was of sound and dlsposlng mlnd and LhaL conLrary Lo Lhe asserLlons of Lhe opposlLors MaLeo
Caballero was ln good healLh and was noL unduly lnfluenced ln any way ln Lhe execuLlon of hls wlll
Labuca also LesLlfled LhaL he and Lhe oLher wlLnesses aLLesLed and slgned Lhe wlll ln Lhe presence of
Lhe LesLaLor and of each oLher 1he oLher Lwo aLLesLlng wlLnesses were noL presenLed ln Lhe
probaLe hearlng as Lhe had dled by Lhen
Cn Aprll 3 1988 Lhe probaLe courL rendered a declslon declarlng Lhe wlll ln quesLlon as Lhe lasL wlll
and LesLamenL of Lhe laLe MaLeo Caballero 1hus peLlLloners elevaLed Lhe case ln Lhe CourL of
Appeals buL Lhe laLLer afflrmed LhaL of Lhe Lrlal courL's rullng on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe aLLesLaLlon
clause ln Lhe lasL wlll of MaLeo Caballero subsLanLlally complles wlLh ArLlcle 803 of Lhe Clvll Code
lssue WCn Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause may be consldered as havlng subsLanLlally complled wlLh Lhe
requlremenLs of ArL 803 of Lhe Clvll Code
Peld no
WhaL appears ln Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause whlch Lhe opposlLors clalm Lo be defecLlve ls We Lhe
underslgned aLLesLlng WlLnesses whose 8esldences and posLal addresses appear on Lhe CpposlLe
of our respecLlve names we do cerLlfy LhaL Lhe LesLamenL was read by hlm and Lhe aLLesLaLor
MaLeo Caballero has publlshed unLo us Lhe foregolng wlll conslsLlng of 1P8LL ACLS lncludlng Lhe
acknowledgmenL each page numbered correlaLlvely ln leLLers of Lhe upper parL of each page as
hls LasL Wlll and 1esLamenL and he has slgned Lhe same and every page Lhereof on Lhe spaces
provlded for hls slgnaLure and on Lhe lefL hand margln ln Lhe presence of Lhe sald LesLaLor and ln
Lhe presence of each and all of us"
SC argued LhaL Lhe presenL peLlLlon ls merlLorlous
An aLLesLaLlon clause refers Lo LhaL parL of an ordlnary wlll whereby Lhe aLLesLlng wlLnesses cerLlfy
LhaL Lhe lnsLrumenL has been execuLed before Lhem and Lo Lhe manner of Lhe execuLlon Lhe same
lL ls a separaLe memorandum or record of Lhe facLs surroundlng Lhe conducL of execuLlon and once
slgned by Lhe wlLnesses lL glves afflrmaLlon Lo Lhe facL LhaL compllance wlLh Lhe essenLlal
formallLles requlred by law has been observed lL ls made for Lhe purpose of preservlng ln a
permanenL form a record of Lhe facLs LhaL aLLended Lhe execuLlon of a parLlcular wlll so LhaL ln
case of fallure of Lhe memory of Lhe aLLesLlng wlLnesses or oLher casualLy such facLs may sLlll be
proved
under Lhe Lhlrd paragraph of ArLlcle 803 such a clause Lhe compleLe lack of whlch would resulL ln
Lhe lnvalldlLy of Lhe wlll should sLaLe (1) Lhe number of Lhe pages used upon whlch Lhe wlll ls
wrlLLen (2) LhaL Lhe LesLaLor slgned or expressly caused anoLher Lo slgn Lhe wlll and every page
Lhereof ln Lhe presence of Lhe aLLesLlng wlLnesses and (3) LhaL Lhe aLLesLlng wlLnesses wlLnessed
Lhe slgnlng by Lhe LesLaLor of Lhe wlll and all lLs pages and LhaL sald wlLnesses also slgned Lhe wlll
and every page Lhereof ln Lhe presence of Lhe LesLaLor and of one anoLher
1he purpose of Lhe law ln requlrlng Lhe clause Lo sLaLe Lhe number of pages on whlch Lhe wlll ls
wrlLLen ls Lo safeguard agalnsL posslble lnLerpolaLlon or omlsslon of one or some of lLs pages and Lo
prevenL any lncrease or decrease ln Lhe pages whereas Lhe subscrlpLlon of Lhe slgnaLure of Lhe
LesLaLor and Lhe aLLesLlng wlLnesses ls made for Lhe purpose of auLhenLlcaLlon and ldenLlflcaLlon
and Lhus lndlcaLes LhaL Lhe wlll ls Lhe very same lnsLrumenL execuLed by Lhe LesLaLor and aLLesLed
Lo by Lhe wlLnesses
lurLher by aLLesLlng and subscrlblng Lo Lhe wlll Lhe wlLnesses Lhereby declare Lhe due execuLlon of
Lhe wlll as embodled ln Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause 1he aLLesLaLlon clause Lherefore provlde sLrong
legal guaranLles for Lhe due execuLlon of a wlll and Lo lnsure Lhe auLhenLlclLy Lhereof As lL
apperLalns only Lo Lhe wlLnesses and noL Lo Lhe LesLaLor lL need be slgned only by Lhem Where lL
ls lefL unslgned lL would resulL ln Lhe lnvalldaLlon of Lhe wlll as lL would be posslble and easy Lo add
Lhe clause on a subsequenL occaslon ln Lhe absence of Lhe LesLaLor and lLs wlLnesses
ln Lhls case an examlnaLlon of Lhe lasL wlll and LesLamenL of MaLeo Caballero shows LhaL lL ls
comprlsed of Lhree sheeLs all of whlch have been numbered correlaLlvely wlLh Lhe lefL margln of
each page Lhereof bearlng Lhe respecLlve slgnaLures of Lhe LesLaLor and Lhe Lhree aLLesLlng
wlLnesses 1he parL of Lhe wlll conLalnlng Lhe LesLamenLary dlsposlLlons ls expressed ln Lhe
Cebuanovlsayan dlalecL and ls slgned aL Lhe fooL Lhereof by Lhe LesLaLor 1he aLLesLaLlon clause ln
quesLlon on Lhe oLher hand ls reclLed ln Lhe Lngllsh language and ls llkewlse slgned aL Lhe end
Lhereof by Lhe Lhree aLLesLlng wlLnesses hereLo
lL wlll be noLed LhaL ArLlcle 803 requlres LhaL Lhe wlLness should boLh aLLesL and subscrlbe Lo Lhe
wlll ln Lhe presence of Lhe LesLaLor and of one anoLher ALLesLaLlon and subscrlpLlon dlffer ln
meanlng ALLesLaLlon ls Lhe acL of senses whlle subscrlpLlon ls Lhe acL of Lhe hand 1he former ls
menLal Lhe laLLer mechanlcal and Lo aLLesL a wlll ls Lo know LhaL lL was publlshed as such and Lo
cerLlfy Lhe facLs requlred Lo consLlLuLe an acLual and legal publlcaLlon buL Lo subscrlbe a paper
publlshed as a wlll ls only Lo wrlLe on Lhe same paper Lhe names of Lhe wlLnesses for Lhe sole
purpose of ldenLlflcaLlon

Whlle lL may be Lrue LhaL Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause ls lndeed subscrlbed aL Lhe end Lhereof and aL Lhe
lefL margln of each page by Lhe Lhree aLLesLlng wlLnesses lL cerLalnly cannoL be concluslvely
lnferred Lherefrom LhaL Lhe sald wlLness afflxed Lhelr respecLlve slgnaLures ln Lhe presence of Lhe
LesLaLor and of each oLher slnce as peLlLloners correcLly observed Lhe presence of sald slgnaLures
only esLabllshes Lhe facL LhaL lL was lndeed slgned buL lL does noL prove LhaL Lhe aLLesLlng
wlLnesses dld subscrlbe Lo Lhe wlll ln Lhe presence of Lhe LesLaLor and of each oLher 1he execuLlon
of a wlll ls supposed Lo be one acL so LhaL where Lhe LesLaLor and Lhe wlLnesses slgn on varlous
days or occaslons and ln varlous comblnaLlons Lhe wlll cannoL be sLamped wlLh Lhe lmprlmaLur of
effecLlvlLy
ln Lhe case aL bar conLrarlly proof of Lhe acLs requlred Lo have been performed by Lhe aLLesLlng
wlLnesses can be supplled by only exLrlnslc evldence Lhereof slnce an overall appreclaLlon of Lhe
conLenLs of Lhe wlll ylelds no basls whaLsoever from wlLh such facLs may be plauslbly deduced
WhaL prlvaLe respondenL lnslsLs on are Lhe LesLlmonles of hls wlLnesses alleglng LhaL Lhey saw Lhe
compllance wlLh such requlremenLs by Lhe lnsLrumenLal wlLnesses obllvlous of Lhe facL LhaL he ls
Lhereby resorLlng Lo exLrlnslc evldence Lo prove Lhe same and would accordlngly be dolng by Lhe
lndlrecLlon whaL ln law he cannoL do dlrecLly

Abangan vs Abangan
Gr # 13431 Nov 12 1919
40 h|| 476

Cn SepLember 19 1917 Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of Cebu admlLLed Lo probaLe Ana Abangans wlll
execuLed !uly 1916 lrom Lhls declslon Lhe opponenLs appealed
Sald documenL duly probaLed as Ana Abangans wlll conslsLs of Lwo sheeLs Lhe flrsL of whlch
conLalns all of Lhe dlsposlLlon of Lhe LesLaLrlx duly slgned aL Lhe boLLom by MarLln MonLalban (ln
Lhe name and under Lhe dlrecLlon of Lhe LesLaLrlx) and by Lhree wlLnesses 1he followlng sheeL
conLalns only Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause duly slgned aL Lhe boLLom by Lhe Lhree lnsLrumenLal wlLnesses
nelLher of Lhese sheeLs ls slgned on Lhe lefL margln by Lhe LesLaLrlx and Lhe Lhree wlLnesses nor
numbered by leLLers and Lhese omlsslons accordlng Lo appellanLs conLenLlon are defecLs
whereby Lhe probaLe of Lhe wlll should have been denled We are of Lhe oplnlon LhaL Lhe wlll was
duly admlLLed Lo probaLe
ln requlrlng LhaL each and every sheeL of Lhe wlll should also be slgned on Lhe lefL margln by Lhe
LesLaLor and Lhree wlLnesses ln Lhe presence of each oLher AcL no 2643 (whlch ls Lhe one
appllcable ln Lhe case) evldenLly has for lLs ob[ecL (referrlng Lo Lhe body of Lhe wlll lLself) Lo avold
Lhe subsLlLuLlon of any of sald sheeLs Lhereby changlng Lhe LesLaLors dlsposlLlons 8uL when Lhese
dlsposlLlons are wholly wrlLLen on only one sheeL slgned aL Lhe boLLom by Lhe LesLaLor and Lhree
wlLnesses (as Lhe lnsLanL case) Lhelr slgnaLures on Lhe lefL margln of sald sheeL would be
compleLely purposeless ln requlrlng Lhls slgnaLure on Lhe margln Lhe sLaLuLe Look lnLo
conslderaLlon undoubLedly Lhe case of a wlll wrlLLen on several sheeLs and musL have referred Lo
Lhe sheeLs whlch Lhe LesLaLor and Lhe wlLnesses do noL have Lo slgn aL Lhe boLLom A dlfferenL
lnLerpreLaLlon would assume LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe requlres LhaL Lhls sheeL already slgned aL Lhe
boLLom be slgned Lwlce We cannoL aLLrlbuLe Lo Lhe sLaLuLe such an lnLenLlon As Lhese slgnaLures
musL be wrlLLen by Lhe LesLaLor and Lhe wlLnesses ln Lhe presence of each oLher lL appears LhaL lf
Lhe slgnaLures aL Lhe boLLom of Lhe sheeL guaranLles lLs auLhenLlclLy anoLher slgnaLure on lLs lefL
margln would be unneccessary and lf Lhey do noL guaranLy same slgnaLures afflxed on anoLher
parL of same sheeL would add noLhlng We cannoL assume LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe regards of such
lmporLance Lhe place where Lhe LesLaLor and Lhe wlLnesses musL slgn on Lhe sheeL LhaL lL would
conslder LhaL Lhelr slgnaLures wrlLLen on Lhe boLLom do noL guaranLy Lhe auLhenLlclLy of Lhe sheeL
buL lf repeaLed on Lhe margln glve sufflclenL securlLy
ln requlrlng LhaL each and every page of a wlll musL be numbered correlaLlvely ln leLLers placed on
Lhe upper parL of Lhe sheeL lL ls llkewlse clear LhaL Lhe ob[ecL of AcL no 2643 ls Lo know wheLher
any sheeL of Lhe wlll has been removed 8uL when all Lhe dlsposlLlve parLs of a wlll are wrlLLen on
one sheeL only Lhe ob[ecL of Lhe sLaLuLe dlsappears because Lhe removal of Lhls slngle sheeL
alLhough unnumbered cannoL be hldden
WhaL has been sald ls also appllcable Lo Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause Wherefore wlLhouL conslderlng
wheLher or noL Lhls clause ls an essenLlal parL of Lhe wlll we hold LhaL ln Lhe one accompanylng Lhe
wlll ln quesLlon Lhe slgnaLures of Lhe LesLaLrlx and of Lhe Lhree wlLnesses on Lhe margln and Lhe
numberlng of Lhe pages of Lhe sheeL are formallLles noL requlred by Lhe sLaLuLe Moreover
referrlng speclally Lo Lhe slgnaLure of Lhe LesLaLrlx we can add LhaL same ls noL necessary ln Lhe
aLLesLaLlon clause because Lhls as lLs name lmplles apperLalns only Lo Lhe wlLnesses and noL Lo Lhe
LesLaLor slnce Lhe laLLer does noL aLLesL buL execuLes Lhe wlll
SynLheslzlng our oplnlon we hold LhaL ln a wlll conslsLlng of Lwo sheeLs Lhe flrsL of whlch conLalns
all Lhe LesLamenLary dlsposlLlons and ls slgned aL Lhe boLLom by Lhe LesLaLor and Lhree wlLnesses
and Lhe second conLalns only Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause and ls slgned also aL Lhe boLLom by Lhe Lhree
wlLnesses lL ls noL necessary LhaL boLh sheeLs be furLher slgned on Lhelr marglns by Lhe LesLaLor
and Lhe wlLnesses or be paged
1he ob[ecL of Lhe solemnlLles surroundlng Lhe execuLlon of wllls ls Lo close Lhe door agalnsL bad
falLh and fraud Lo avold subsLlLuLlon of wllls and LesLamenLs and Lo guaranLy Lhelr LruLh and
auLhenLlclLy 1herefore Lhe laws on Lhls sub[ecL should be lnLerpreLed ln such a way as Lo aLLaln
Lhese prlmordal ends 8uL on Lhe oLher hand also one musL noL lose slghL of Lhe facL LhaL lL ls noL
Lhe ob[ecL of Lhe law Lo resLraln and curLall Lhe exerclse of Lhe rlghL Lo make a wlll So when an
lnLerpreLaLlon already glven assures such ends any oLher lnLerpreLaLlon whaLsoever LhaL adds
noLhlng buL demands more requlslLes enLlrely unnecessary useless and frusLaLlve of Lhe LesLaLors
lasL wlll musL be dlsregarded
As anoLher ground for Lhls appeal lL ls alleged Lhe records do noL show LhaL Lhe LesLarlx knew Lhe
dlalecL ln whlch Lhe wlll ls wrlLLen 8uL Lhe clrcumsLance appearlng ln Lhe wlll lLself LhaL same was
execuLed ln Lhe clLy of Cebu and ln Lhe dlalecL of Lhls locallLy where Lhe LesLaLrlx was a nelghbor ls
enough ln Lhe absence of any proof Lo Lhe conLrary Lo presume LhaL she knew Lhls dlalecL ln whlch
Lhls wlll ls wrlLLen
lor Lhe foregolng conslderaLlons Lhe [udgmenL appealed from ls hereby afflrmed wlLh cosLs agalnsL
Lhe appellanLs
Ce|ada v Abena
Gk# 14SS4S Iune 30 2008
SS6 SCkA S69

lacLs eLlLloner az SamanlegoCelada was Lhe flrsL cousln of decedenL MargarlLa S Mayores
(MargarlLa) whlle respondenL was Lhe decedenL's llfelong companlon slnce 1929
Cn Aprll 27 1987 MargarlLa dled slngle and wlLhouL any ascendlng nor descendlng helrs as her
parenLs grandparenLs and slbllngs predeceased her She was survlved by her flrsL couslns CaLallna
Samanlego8ombay ManuellLa Samanlego Sa[onla lellza Samanlego and peLlLloner
8efore her deaLh MargarlLa execuLed a LasL Wlll and 1esLamenL on lebruary 2 1987 where she
bequeaLhed onehalf of her undlvlded share of a real properLy Lo respondenL norma A ahlngalo
and llorenLlno M Abena ln equal shares or oneLhlrd porLlon each She llkewlse bequeaLhed one
half of her undlvlded share of a real Lo respondenL lsabelo M Abena and Amanda M Abena ln

equal shares or oneLhlrd porLlon each MargarlLa also lefL all her personal properLles Lo
respondenL whom she llkewlse deslgnaLed as sole execuLor of her wlll
Cn AugusL 11 1987 peLlLloner flled a peLlLlon for leLLers of admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe esLaLe of
MargarlLa before Lhe 81C of MakaLl 1he case was dockeLed as S roc no M1331
Cn CcLober 27 1987 respondenL flled a peLlLlon for probaLe of Lhe wlll of MargarlLa before Lhe
81C of MakaLl and Lhe laLLer consequenLly rendered a declslon declarlng Lhe lasL wlll and LesLamenL
of MargarlLa probaLed and respondenL as Lhe execuLor of Lhe wlll eLlLloner appealed Lo CA buL
Lhe laLLer only afflrmed ln LoLo Lhe 81C rullng Pence Lhe lnsLanL peLlLlon
lssues
(1) WCn CA erred ln noL declarlng Lhe wlll lnvalld for fallure Lo comply wlLh Lhe formallLles
requlred by law
(2) WCn CA erred ln noL declarlng Lhe wlll lnvalld because lL was procured Lhrough undue
lnfluence and pressure and
(3) WCn CA erred ln noL declarlng peLlLloner and her slbllngs as Lhe legal helrs of MargarlLa and ln
noL lssulng leLLers of admlnlsLraLlon Lo peLlLloner
Peld SC ruled ln favor of respondenL Slnce SC ls noL a Lrler of facLs Lhey found no reason Lo
dlsLurb Lhe flndlngs of 81C Lo wlL
(1)WlLh regard Lo Lhe conLenLlon of Lhe opposlLors az SamanlegoCelada eL al LhaL Lhe
LesLaLor MargarlLa Mayores was noL menLally capable of maklng a wlll aL Lhe Llme of Lhe
execuLlon Lhereof Lhe same ls wlLhouL merlL 1he opposlLors falled Lo esLabllsh by preponderance
of evldence sald allegaLlon and conLradlcL Lhe presumpLlon LhaL Lhe LesLaLor was of sound mlnd
(See ArLlcle 800 of Lhe Clvll Code) ln facL wlLness for Lhe opposlLors ur 8amon LamberLe who ln
some occaslons aLLended Lo Lhe LesLaLor monLhs before her deaLh LesLlfled LhaL MargarlLa
Mayores could engage ln a normal conversaLlon and he even sLaLed LhaL Lhe lllness of Lhe LesLaLor
does noL warranL hosplLallzaLlon noL one of Lhe opposlLor's wlLnesses has menLloned any
lnsLance LhaL Lhey observed acL/s of Lhe LesLaLor durlng her llfeLlme LhaL could be consLrued as a
manlfesLaLlon of menLal lncapaclLy 1he LesLaLor may be admlLLed Lo be physlcally weak buL lL does
noL necessarlly follow LhaL she was noL of sound mlnd 1he LesLlmonles of conLesLanL wlLnesses
are pure aforeLhoughL
(2) AnenL Lhe conLesLanLs' submlsslon LhaL Lhe wlll ls faLally defecLlve for Lhe reason LhaL lLs
aLLesLaLlon clause sLaLes LhaL Lhe wlll ls composed of Lhree pages whlle ln LruLh and ln facL Lhe wlll
conslsLs of Lwo pages only because Lhe aLLesLaLlon ls noL a parL of Lhe noLarlal wlll Lhe same ls noL
accuraLe Whlle lL ls Lrue LhaL Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause ls noL a parL of Lhe wlll Lhe courL afLer
examlnlng Lhe LoLallLy of Lhe wlll ls of Lhe consldered oplnlon LhaL error ln Lhe number of pages of
Lhe wlll as sLaLed ln Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause ls noL maLerlal Lo lnvalldaLe Lhe sub[ecL wlll lL musL be
noLed LhaL Lhe sub[ecL lnsLrumenL ls consecuLlvely leLLered wlLh pages A 8 and C whlch ls a
sufflclenL safeguard from Lhe posslblllLy of an omlsslon of some of Lhe pages 1he error musL have
been broughL abouL by Lhe honesL bellef LhaL Lhe wlll ls Lhe whole lnsLrumenL conslsLlng of Lhree
pages lncluslve of Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause and Lhe acknowledgemenL 1he poslLlon of Lhe courL ls ln
consonance wlLh Lhe docLrlne of llberal lnLerpreLaLlon enunclaLed ln ArLlcle 809 of Lhe Clvll Code
whlch reads ln Lhe absence of bad falLh forgery or fraud or undue and lmproper pressure and
lnfluence defecLs and lmperfecLlons ln Lhe form of aLLesLaLlon or ln Lhe language used Lhereln shall
noL render Lhe wlll lnvalld lf lL ls proved LhaL Lhe wlll was ln facL execuLed and aLLesLed ln
subsLanLlal compllance wlLh all Lhe requlremenLs of ArLlcle 803
(3) 1he courL also re[ecLs Lhe conLenLlon of Lhe opposlLors LhaL Lhe slgnaLures of Lhe LesLaLor were
afflxed on dlfferenL occaslons based on Lhelr observaLlon LhaL Lhe slgnaLure on Lhe flrsL page ls
allegedly dlfferenL ln slze LexLure and appearance as compared wlLh Lhe slgnaLures ln Lhe
succeedlng pages AfLer examlnaLlon of Lhe slgnaLures Lhe courL does noL share Lhe same
observaLlon as Lhe opposlLors 1he plcLure shows LhaL Lhe LesLaLor was afflxlng her slgnaLure ln Lhe
presence of Lhe lnsLrumenLal wlLnesses and Lhe noLary 1here ls no evldence Lo show LhaL Lhe flrsL
slgnaLure was procured earller Lhan lebruary 2 1987
(4) llnally Lhe courL flnds LhaL nelLher pressure nor undue lnfluence was exerLed on Lhe LesLaLor Lo
execuLe Lhe sub[ecL wlll ln facL Lhe plcLure reveals LhaL Lhe LesLaLor was ln a good mood and
smlllng wlLh Lhe oLher wlLnesses whlle execuLlng Lhe sub[ecL wlll ln flne Lhe courL flnds LhaL Lhe
LesLaLor was menLally capable of maklng Lhe wlll aL Lhe Llme of lLs execuLlon LhaL Lhe noLarlal wlll
presenLed Lo Lhe courL ls Lhe same noLarlal wlll LhaL was execuLed and LhaL all Lhe formal
requlremenLs (See ArLlcle 803 of Lhe Clvll Code) ln Lhe execuLlon of a wlll have been subsLanLlally
complled wlLh ln Lhe sub[ecL noLarlal wlll

Iave||ana vs Ledesma
Gk# L7179 Iune 30 19SS
97 h|| 2S8

lacLs
1he CourL of llrsL lnsLance of llollo admlLLed Lo probaLe Lhe documenLs ln Lhe vlsayan
dlalecL as Lhe LesLamenL and codlcll duly execuLed by Lhe deceased Ma Apollnarla Ledesma vda de
!avellana on March 30 1930 and May 29 1932 respecLlvely wlLh 8amon 1ablana Clorla
MonLlnola de 1ablana and vlcenLe ?ap as wlLnesses
1he conLesLanL MaLea Ledesma slsLer and nearesL survlvlng relaLlve of sald deceased
appealed from Lhe declslon lnslsLlng LhaL Lhe sald exhlblLs were noL execuLed ln conformlLy wlLh
law Ledesma ls quesLlonlng Lhe valldlLy of Lhe codlcll conLendlng LhaL Lhe facL LhaL Lhe noLary dld
noL slgn Lhe lnsLrumenL ln Lhe presence of Lhe LesLaLor and Lhe wlLness made Lhe codlcll was noL
execuLed ln conformlLy wlLh Lhe law

lSSuL
W/n Lhe codlcll was valldly execuLed

PLLu
1he lnsLrumenLal wlLnesses (who happen Lo be Lhe same ones who aLLesLed Lhe wlll of
1930) asserLed LhaL afLer Lhe codlcll had been slgned by Lhe LesLaLrlx and Lhe wlLnesses aL Lhe San
ablo PosplLal Lhe same was slgned and sealed by noLary publlc ClmoLea on Lhe same occaslon
Cn Lhe oLher hand ClmoLea
afflrmed LhaL he dld noL do so buL broughL Lhe codlcll Lo hls offlce and slgned and sealed lL Lhere
1he varlance does noL necessarlly lmply consclous perverslon of LruLh on Lhe parL of Lhe wlLnesses
buL appears raLher due Lo a wellesLabllshed phenomenon Lhe Lendency of Lhe mlnd ln recalllng
pasL evenLs Lo subsLlLuLe Lhe usual and hablLual for whaL dlffers sllghLly from lL
WheLher or noL Lhe noLary slgned Lhe cerLlflcaLlon of acknowledgmenL ln Lhe presence
of Lhe LesLaLrlx and Lhe wlLnesses does noL affecL Lhe valldlLy of Lhe codlcll
1he new Clvll Code does noL requlre LhaL Lhe slgnlng of Lhe LesLaLor wlLnesses and
noLary should be accompllshed ln one slngle acL A comparlson of ArLlcles 803 and 806 of Lhe new
Clvll Code reveals LhaL whlle LesLaLor and wlLnesses slgn ln Lhe presence of each oLher all LhaL ls
LhereafLer requlred ls LhaL every wlll musL be acknowledged before a noLary publlc by Lhe LesLaLor
and Lhe wlLnesses (ArL 806) le LhaL Lhe laLLer should avow Lo Lhe cerLlfylng offlcer Lhe

auLhenLlclLy of Lhelr slgnaLures and Lhe volunLarlness of Lhelr acLlons ln execuLlng Lhe LesLamenLary
dlsposlLlon 1hls was done ln Lhls case
1he subsequenL slgnlng and seallng by Lhe noLary of hls cerLlflcaLlon LhaL Lhe LesLamenL
was duly acknowledged by Lhe parLlclpanLs Lhereln ls no parL of Lhe acknowledgmenL lLself nor of
Lhe LesLamenLary acL Pence Lhelr separaLe execuLlon ouL of Lhe presence of Lhe LesLaLrlx and her
wlLnesses cannoL be sald Lo
vlolaLe Lhe rule LhaL LesLamenLs should be compleLed wlLhouL lnLerrupLlon lL ls noLeworLhy LhaL
ArLlcle 806 of Lhe new Clvll Code does noL conLaln words requlrlng LhaL Lhe LesLaLor and Lhe
wlLnesses should acknowledge Lhe LesLamenL on Lhe same day or occaslon LhaL lL was execuLed

Cruz vs V|||asor
Gk# L32213 Nov 26 1973
S4 SCkA 31

lacLs
1he Cll of Cebu allowed Lhe probaLe of valenLe Z Cruz's lasL wlll and LesLamenL Pls survlvlng
spouse AgaplLa Cruz opposed Lhe allowance of Lhe wlll alleglng lL was execuLed Lhrough fraud
decelL mlsrepresenLaLlon and undue lnfluence LhaL Lhe sald lnsLrumenL was execuLe wlLhouL Lhe
LesLaLor havlng been fully lnformed of Lhe conLenL Lhereof parLlcularly as Lo whaL properLles he
was dlsposlng and LhaL Lhe supposed lasL wlll and LesLamenL was noL execuLed ln accordance wlLh
law AgaplLa appealed Lhe allowance of Lhe wlll by cerLlorarl

lssue
W/n Lhe wlll was execuLed ln accordance wlLh law (parLlcularly ArLlcles 803 and 806 of
Lhe nCC Lhe flrsL requlrlng aL leasL Lhree credlble wlLnesses Lo aLLesL and subscrlbe Lo Lhe wlll and
Lhe second requlrlng Lhe LesLaLor and Lhe wlLnesses Lo acknowledge Lhe wlll before a noLary
publlc)

Peld
nC Cf Lhe Lhree lnsLrumenLal wlLnesses Lo Lhe wlll one of Lhem (ALLy 1eves) ls aL Lhe
same Llme Lhe noLary ubllc before whom Lhe wlll was supposed Lo have been acknowledged 1he
noLary publlc before whom Lhe wlll was acknowledged cannoL be consldered as Lhe Lhlrd
lnsLrumenLal wlLness slnce he cannoL acknowledge before hlmself hls havlng slgned Lhe wlll
1o acknowledge before means Lo avow (!avellana v Ledesma CasLro v CasLro) Lo own as genulne
Lo assenL Lo admlL and before means ln fronL or precedlng ln space or ahead of ConsequenLly lf
Lhe Lhlrd wlLness were Lhe noLary publlc hlmself he would have Lo avow assenL or admlL hls havlng
slgned Lhe wlll ln fronL of hlmself 1hls cannoL be done because he cannoL spllL hls personallLy lnLo
Lwo so LhaL one wlll appear before Lhe oLher Lo acknowledge hls parLlclpaLlon ln Lhe maklng of Lhe
wlll 1o permlL such a slLuaLlon Lo obLaln would be sancLlonlng a sheer absurdlLy lurLhermore Lhe
funcLlon of a noLary publlc ls among oLhers Lo guard agalnsL any lllegal or lmmoral arrangemenL
(8allnon v ue Leon) 1haL funcLlon would defeaLed lf Lhe noLary publlc were one of Lhe aLLesLlng
lnsLrumenLal wlLnesses lL would place hlm ln lnconslsLenL poslLlon and Lhe very purpose of
acknowledgmenL whlch ls Lo mlnlmlze fraud would be LhwarLed
AdmlLLedly Lhere are Amerlcan precedenLs holdlng LhaL noLary publlc may ln addlLlon
acL as a wlLness Lo Lhe execuLlve of Lhe documenL he has noLarlzed 1here are oLhers holdlng LhaL
hls slgnlng merely as noLary ln a wlll noneLheless makes hlm a wlLness Lhereon 8uL Lhese
auLhorlLles do noL serve Lhe purpose of Lhe law ln Lhls [urlsdlcLlon or are noL declslve of Lhe lssue
hereln because Lhe noLarles publlc and wlLnesses referred Lo ln Lhese cases merely acLed as
lnsLrumenLal subscrlblng aLLesLlng wlLnesses and noL as acknowledglng wlLnesses Pere Lhe
noLary publlc acLed noL only as aLLesLlng wlLness buL also acknowledglng wlLness a slLuaLlon noL
envlsaged by ArLlcle 80306 robaLe of wlll seL aslde

Azue|a v CA
Gk# 122880 Apr|| 12 2006
487 SCkA 119

lacLs
lellx Azuela flled a peLlLlon wlLh Lhe Lrlal courL for Lhe probaLe of a noLarlal wlll purporLedly
execuLed by Lugenla L lgsolo on !une 10 1981 and noLarlzed on Lhe same day 1he wlll conslsLed
of Lwo (2) pages and was wrlLLen ln llllplno 1he aLLesLaLlon clause dld noL sLaLe Lhe number of
pages and lL was noL slgned by Lhe aLLesLlng wlLnesses aL Lhe boLLom Lhereof 1he sald wlLnesses
afflxed Lhelr slgnaLures on Lhe lefLhand margln of boLh pages of Lhe wlll Lhough
Ceralda CasLlllo opposed Lhe peLlLlon clalmlng LhaL Lhe wlll was a forgery She also argued LhaL Lhe
wlll was noL execuLed and aLLesLed Lo ln accordance wlLh law She polnLed ouL LhaL Lhe decedenLs
slgnaLure dld noL appear on Lhe second page of Lhe wlll and Lhe wlll was noL properly
acknowledged
1he Lrlal courL held Lhe wlll Lo be auLhenLlc and Lo have been execuLed ln accordance wlLh law and
Lhus admlLLed lL Lo probaLe Accordlng Lo Lhe Lrlal courL Lhe declaraLlon aL Lhe end of Lhe wlll
under Lhe subLlLle aLunay ng Mga Saksl comprlsed Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause and Lhe
acknowledgemenL and was a subsLanLlal compllance wlLh Lhe requlremenLs of Lhe law lL also held
LhaL Lhe slgnlng by Lhe subscrlblng wlLnesses on Lhe lefL margln of Lhe second page of Lhe wlll
conLalnlng Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause and acknowledgmenL lnsLead of aL Lhe boLLom Lhereof
subsLanLlally saLlsfled Lhe purpose of ldenLlflcaLlon and aLLesLaLlon of Lhe wlll
1he CourL of Appeals however reversed Lhe Lrlal courLs declslon and ordered Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe
peLlLlon for probaLe lL noLed LhaL Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause falled Lo sLaLe Lhe number of pages used ln
Lhe wlll Lhus renderlng Lhe wlll vold and undeservlng of probaLe
Azuela argues LhaL Lhe requlremenL under ArLlcle 803 of Lhe Clvll Code LhaL Lhe number of pages
used ln a noLarlal wlll be sLaLed ln Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause ls merely dlrecLory raLher Lhan
mandaLory and Lhus suscepLlble Lo whaL he Lermed as Lhe subsLanLlal compllance rule

lssue
WheLher or noL Lhe sub[ecL wlll complled wlLh Lhe requlremenLs of Lhe law and hence should be
admlLLed Lo probaLe

Peld
no A wlll whose aLLesLaLlon clause does noL conLaln Lhe number of pages on whlch Lhe wlll ls
wrlLLen ls faLally defecLlve A wlll whose aLLesLaLlon clause ls noL slgned by Lhe lnsLrumenLal
wlLnesses ls faLally defecLlve And perhaps mosL lmporLanLly a wlll whlch does noL conLaln an
acknowledgmenL buL a mere [uraL ls faLally defecLlve Any one of Lhese defecLs ls sufflclenL Lo
deny probaLe A noLarlal wlll wlLh all Lhree defecLs ls [usL achlng for [udlclal re[ecLlon
rlor Lo Lhe new Clvll Code Lhe sLaLuLory provlslon governlng Lhe formal requlremenLs of wllls was
SecLlon 618 of Lhe Code of Clvll rocedure LxLanL Lherefrom ls Lhe requlremenL LhaL Lhe
aLLesLaLlon sLaLe Lhe number of pages of Lhe wlll 1he enacLmenL of Lhe new Clvll Code puL ln force
a rule of lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe requlremenLs of wllls aL leasL lnsofar as Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause ls

concerned LhaL may vary from Lhe phllosophy LhaL governed Lhe sald SecLlon 618 ArLlcle 809 of
Lhe Clvll Code Lhe Code Commlsslon opLed Lo recommend a more llberal consLrucLlon Lhrough Lhe
subsLanLlal compllance rule
Powever !usLlce !8L 8eyes cauLloned LhaL Lhe rule musL be llmlLed Lo dlsregardlng Lhose defecLs
LhaL can be supplled by an examlnaLlon of Lhe wlll lLself wheLher all Lhe pages are consecuLlvely
numbered wheLher Lhe slgnaLures appear ln each and every page wheLher Lhe subscrlblng
wlLnesses are Lhree or Lhe wlll was noLarlzed8uL Lhe LoLal number of pages and wheLher all
persons requlred Lo slgn dld so ln Lhe presence of each oLher musL subsLanLlally appear ln Lhe
aLLesLaLlon clause belng Lhe only check agalnsL per[ury ln Lhe probaLe proceedlngs
1he CourL suggesLed ln Caneda v CourL of Appeals (C8 no 103334 May 28 1993 222 SC8A 781)
LhaL Lhere ls subsLanLlal compllance wlLh Lhls requlremenL lf Lhe wlll sLaLes elsewhere ln lL how
many pages lL ls comprlsed of as was Lhe slLuaLlon ln Slngson and 1aboada ln Lhls case however
Lhere could have been no subsLanLlal compllance wlLh Lhe requlremenLs under ArL 803 of Lhe Clvll
Code slnce Lhere ls no sLaLemenL ln Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause or anywhere ln Lhe wlll lLself as Lo Lhe
number of pages whlch comprlse Lhe wlll 1here was an lncompleLe aLLempL Lo comply wlLh Lhls
requlslLe a space havlng been alloLLed for Lhe lnserLlon of Lhe number of pages ln Lhe aLLesLaLlon
clause ?eL Lhe blank was never fllled ln
1he sub[ecL wlll cannoL be consldered Lo have been valldly aLLesLed Lo by Lhe lnsLrumenLal
wlLnesses Whlle Lhe slgnaLures of Lhe lnsLrumenLal wlLnesses appear on Lhe lefLhand margln of
Lhe wlll Lhey do noL appear aL Lhe boLLom of Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause ArL 803 parLlcularly segregaLes
Lhe requlremenL LhaL Lhe lnsLrumenLal wlLnesses slgn each page of Lhe wlll from Lhe requlslLe LhaL
Lhe wlll be aLLesLed and subscrlbed by Lhem 1he slgnaLures on Lhe lefLhand corner of every page
slgnlfy among oLhers LhaL Lhe wlLnesses are aware LhaL Lhe page Lhey are slgnlng forms parL of Lhe
wlll Cn Lhe oLher hand Lhe slgnaLures Lo Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause esLabllsh LhaL Lhe wlLnesses are
referrlng Lo Lhe sLaLemenLs conLalned ln Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause lLself An unslgned aLLesLaLlon
clause resulLs ln an unaLLesLed wlll Lven lf Lhe lnsLrumenLal wlLnesses slgned Lhe lefLhand margln
of Lhe page conLalnlng Lhe unslgned aLLesLaLlon clause such slgnaLures cannoL demonsLraLe Lhese
wlLnesses underLaklngs ln Lhe clause slnce Lhe slgnaLures LhaL do appear on Lhe page were
dlrecLed Lowards a wholly dlfferenL avowal
1he noLary publlc who noLarlzed Lhe sub[ecL wlll wroLe nllagdaan ko aL nlnoLarlo ko ngayong 10
ng Punyo 10 (slc) 1981 dlLo sa Lungsod ng Maynlla 8y no manner of conLemplaLlon can Lhese
words be consLrued as an acknowledgmenL An acknowledgmenL ls Lhe acL of one who has
execuLed a deed ln golng before some compeLenL offlcer or courL and declarlng lL Lo be hls acL or
deed lL mlghL be posslble Lo consLrue Lhe avermenL as a [uraL even Lhough lL does noL follow Lo
Lhe usual language Lhereof A [uraL ls LhaL parL of an affldavlL where Lhe noLary cerLlfles LhaL before
hlm/her Lhe documenL was subscrlbed and sworn Lo by Lhe execuLor lL may noL have been sald
before buL a noLarlal wlll LhaL ls noL acknowledged before a noLary publlc by Lhe LesLaLor and Lhe
wlLnesses ls faLally defecLlve even lf lL ls subscrlbed and sworn Lo before a noLary publlc
1he lmporLance of Lhe requlremenL of acknowledgmenL ls hlghllghLed by Lhe facL LhaL lL had been
segregaLed from Lhe oLher requlremenLs under ArL 803 and enLrusLed lnLo a separaLe provlslon
ArL 806 1he express requlremenL of ArL 806 ls LhaL Lhe wlll be acknowledged and noL merely
subscrlbed and sworn Lo 1he acknowledgmenL coerces Lhe LesLaLor and Lhe lnsLrumenLal
wlLnesses Lo declare before an offlcer of Lhe law LhaL Lhey had execuLed and subscrlbed Lo Lhe wlll
as Lhelr own free acL or deed Such declaraLlon ls under oaLh and under paln of per[ury Lhus
allowlng for Lhe crlmlnal prosecuLlon of persons who parLlclpaLe ln Lhe execuLlon of spurlous wllls
or Lhose execuLed wlLhouL Lhe free consenL of Lhe LesLaLor lL also provldes a furLher degree of
assurance LhaL Lhe LesLaLor ls of cerLaln mlndseL ln maklng Lhe LesLamenLary dlsposlLlons Lo Lhose
persons he/she had deslgnaLed ln Lhe wlll


Garc|a vs Vasquez
Gk# L2661S Apr|| 30 1970
32 SCkA 489

lacLs
1hls ls a peLlLlon for appeal from Lhe Cll of Manlla admlLLlng Lo probaLe Lhe wlll of
Cllcerla Avellno del 8osarlo (Cllcerla") execuLed ln 1960 Llkewlse Lhls ls also an appeal Lo remove
Lhe
currenL admlnlsLraLor Consuelo Conzalesrecllla( Consuelo") as speclal admlnlsLraLrlx of Lhe
esLaLe on Lhe ground of Consuelo possesses lnLeresL adverse Lo Lhe esLaLe and Lo order Lhe 8u of
Manlla Lo annoLaLe on Lhe reglsLered lands a noLlce of Lls endens
When Cllcerla dled she had no descendanLs ascendanLs bros or slsses and 90 yrs old
AfLer whlch her nlece Consuelo peLlLloned Lhe courL Lo be Lhe admlnlsLraLrlx of Lhe properLles
1he courL approved Lhls because Consuelo has been was already managlng Lhe properLles of Lhe
deceased durlng her llfeLlme WhaL Lhe respondenLs allege ls LhaL ln Lhe lasL years of Lhe deceased
Consuelo soughL Lhe Lransfer of cerLaln parcels of land valued aL 300k for a sale prlce of 30k Lo her
husband Alfonso Lhrough fraud and lnLlmldaLlon ln addlLlon Lhe opposlLors presenLed evldence
LhaL Consuelo asked Lhe courL Lo lssue new CerLlflcaLes of 1lLles Lo cerLaln parcels of land for Lhe
purpose of preparlng Lhe lnvenLory Lo be used ln Lhe probaLe Also shown was LhaL nLW 1C1s were
lssued by Lhe 8u for cerLaln lands of Lhe deceased afLer Consuelo asked for Lhe old 1C1s
AL Lhe end of Lhe probaLe proceedlngs Lhe courL ruled LhaL Counsuelo should be made
Lhe admlnlsLraLor and LhaL Lhe wlll was duly execuLed because of Lhese reasons nC LvluLnCL PAS
8LLn 8LSLn1Lu Lo esLabllsh LhaL Lhe deceased was noL of sound mlnd
LhaL evenLough Lhe allegaLlons sLaLe LhaL Lhe deceased prepared anoLher wlll ln 1936 (12pages)
Lhe laLLer ls noL prevenLed from execuLlng anoLher wlll ln 1960 (1page) and LhaL lnconslsLencles ln
Lhe LesLlmonles of Lhe wlLnesses prove Lhelr LruLhfulness

lssue
Was Lhe wlll ln 1960 (1 page) duly/properly execuLed?

Peld
nC rovlslon of ArLlcle 808 mandaLory 1herefore lor all lnLenLs and purposes of Lhe
rules on probaLe Lhe LesLaLrlx was llke a bllnd LesLaLor and Lhe due execuLlon of her wlll would
have
requlred observance of ArLlcle 808 1he raLlonale behlnd Lhe requlremenL of readlng Lhe wlll Lo Lhe
LesLaLor lf he ls bllnd or lncapable of readlng Lhe wlll hlmself (as when he ls llllLeraLe) ls Lo make
Lhe provlslons Lhereof known Lo hlm so LhaL he may be able Lo ob[ecL lf Lhey are noL ln accordance
wlLh hls wlshes Llkewlse Lhe 1970 wlll was done ln 1agalog whlch Lhe deceased ls noL well versed
buL ln Spanlsh 1hls creaLes doubL as Lo Lhe due execuLlon of Lhe wlll and as well as Lhe
Lypographlcal errors conLaln Lhereln whlch show Lhe hasLe ln preparlng Lhe 1 page wlll as
compared Lo Lhe 12 page wlll creaLed ln 1936 wrlLLen ln Spanlsh ALSC as Lo Lhe bllndness Lhere
was proof glven by Lhe LesLlmony of Lhe docLor LhaL Lhe deceased could noL read aL near dlsLances
because of caLaracLs (1esLaLrlx's vlslon was malnly for vlewlng dlsLanL ob[ecLs and noL for readlng

prlnL) Slnce Lhere ls no proof LhaL lL was read Lo Lhe deceased Lwlce Lhe wlll was nC1 duly
execuLed
ALSC Consuelo should be removed as admlnlsLraLor because she ls noL expecLed Lo sue
her own husband Lo reconvey Lhe lands Lo Lhe esLaLe alleged Lo have been Lransferred by Lhe
deceased Lo her own husband
1he noLlce of lls pendens ls also noL proper where Lhe lssue ls noL an acLlon ln rem
affecLlng real properLy or Lhe LlLle LhereLo

A|varado vs Gav|o|a Ir
Gk # 7469S Sept 14 1993
226 SCkA 348

lacLs
Cn 3 november 1977 79year old 8rlgldo Alvarado execuLed a noLarlal wlll enLlLled
Pullng Pabllln" whereln he dlslnherlLed an llleglLlmaLe son peLlLloner Cesar Alvarado and
expressly revoked a prevlously execuLed holographlc wlll aL Lhe Llme awalLlng probaLe before Lhe
81C of Laguna Accordlng Lo 8ayanl Ma 8lno prlvaLe respondenL he was presenL when Lhe sald
noLarlal wlll was execuLed LogeLher wlLh Lhree lnsLrumenLal wlLnesses and Lhe noLary publlc
where Lhe LesLaLor dld noL read Lhe wlll hlmself sufferlng as he dld from glaucoma
8lno a lawyer drafLed Lhe elghLpage documenL and read Lhe same aloud before Lhe
LesLaLor Lhe Lhree lnsLrumenLal wlLnesses and Lhe noLary publlc Lhe laLLer four followlng Lhe
readlng wlLh Lhelr own respecLlve coples prevlously furnlshed Lhem
1hereafLer a codlcll enLlLled kasulaLan ng agbabago ng llang agpapaslya na
nasasaad sa Pullng Pabllln na May eLsa noblembre 3 1977 nl 8rlgldo Alvarado" was execuLed
changlng
some dlsposlLlons ln Lhe noLarlal wlll Lo generaLe cash for Lhe LesLaLor's eye operaLlon Sald codlcll
was llkewlse noL read by 8rlgldo Alvarado and was read ln Lhe same manner as wlLh Lhe prevlously
execuLed wlll
When Lhe noLarlal wlll was submlLLed Lo Lhe courL for probaLe Cesar Alvarado flled hls
opposlLlon as he sald LhaL Lhe wlll was noL execuLed and aLLesLed as requlred by law LhaL Lhe
LesLaLor was lnsane or menLally lncapaclLaLed due Lo senlllLy and old age LhaL Lhe wlll was
execuLed under duress or lnfluence of fear or LhreaLs LhaL lL was procured by undue pressure and
lnfluence on Lhe parL of Lhe beneflclary and LhaL Lhe slgnaLure of Lhe LesLaLor was procured by
fraud or Lrlck

lssue
W/n noLarlal wlll of 8rlgldo Alvarado should be admlLLed Lo probaLe desplLe allegaLlons
of defecLs ln Lhe execuLlon and aLLesLaLlon Lhereof as LesLaLor was allegedly bllnd aL Lhe Llme of
execuLlon and Lhe doublereadlng requlremenL under ArL 808 of Lhe nCC was noL complled wlLh

Peld
?LS 1he splrlL behlnd Lhe law was served Lhough Lhe leLLer was noL AlLhough Lhere
should be sLrlcL compllance wlLh Lhe subsLanLlal requlremenLs of law ln order Lo lnsure Lhe
auLhenLlclLy of Lhe wlll Lhe formal lmperfecLlons should be brushed aslde when Lhey do noL affecL
lLs purpose and whlch when Laken lnLo accounL may only defeaL Lhe LesLaLor's wlll
Cesar Alvardo was correcL ln asserLlng LhaL hls faLher was noL LoLally bllnd (of counLlng
flngers aL 3 feeL) when Lhe wlll and codlcll were execuLed buL he can be so consldered for purposes
of ArL 808
1haL ArL 808 was noL followed sLrlcLly ls beyond cavll Powever ln Lhe case aL bar
Lhere was subsLanLlal compllance where Lhe purpose of Lhe law has been saLlsfled LhaL of maklng
Lhe provlslons known Lo Lhe LesLaLor who ls bllnd or lncapable of readlng Lhe wlll hlmself (as when
he ls llllLeraLe) and enabllng hlm Lo ob[ecL lf Lhey do noL accord wlLh hls wlshes
8lno read Lhe LesLaLor's wlll and codlcll aloud ln Lhe presence of Lhe LesLaLor hls Lhree
lnsLrumenLal wlLnesses and Lhe noLary publlc rlor and subsequenL LhereLo Lhe LesLaLor afflrmed
upon belng asked LhaL Lhe conLenLs read corresponded wlLh hls lnsLrucLlons Cnly Lhen dld Lhe
slgnlng and acknowledgmenL Lake place
1here ls no evldence LhaL Lhe conLenLs of Lhe wlll and Lhe codlcll were noL sufflclenLly
made known and communlcaLed Lo Lhe LesLaLor WlLh four persons mosLly known Lo Lhe LesLaLor
followlng Lhe readlng word for word wlLh Lhelr own coples lL can be safely concluded LhaL Lhe
LesLaLor was reasonably assured LhaL whaL was read Lo hlm were Lhe Lerms acLually appearlng on
Lhe LypewrlLLen documenLs
1he raLlonale behlnd Lhe requlremenL of readlng Lhe wlll Lo Lhe LesLaLor lf he ls bllnd or
lncapable of readlng Lhe wlll Lo hlmself (as when he ls llllLeraLe) ls Lo make Lhe provlslons Lhereof
known Lo hlm so LhaL he may be able Lo ob[ecL lf Lhey are noL ln accordance wlLh hls wlshes
AlLhough Lhere should be sLrlcL compllance wlLh Lhe subsLanLlal requlremenLs of law ln
order Lo lnsure Lhe auLhenLlclLy of Lhe wlll Lhe formal lmperfecLlons should be brushed aslde when
Lhey do noL affecL lLs purpose and whlch when Laken lnLo accounL may only defeaL Lhe LesLaLor's
wlll

koxas vs De Iesus
Gk # L38338 Ian 28 198S
134 SCkA 24S

lacLs A speclalproceedlng for Lhe seLLlemenL of Lhe esLaLe of Andres de !esus and 8lblana 8oxas de
!esus was flleds by Slmon 8oxas uurlng such proceedlng he dellvered Lo Lhe courL a noLebook
purporLlng Lo be Lhe holographlc wlll of deceased 8lblana Sald wlll was daLed leb 61 Lo whlch Lhe
courL admlLLed Lo probaLe Luz 8oxas Lhen quesLloned Lhlsa acL of Lhe courL conLendlng LhaL sald
wlll should noL be probaLed because lL ls noL properly daLed as requlred by law

lssue WheLher Lhe sald wlll lndlcaLlng only Lhe monLh and year (leb 61) ls properly daLed and
hence musL be probaLed

Peld?es Lhe sald wlll musL be probaLed as Lhere ls subsLanLlal compllance wlLh Lhe requlremenL of
Lhe law As a general rule Lhe daLe' ln a holographlc wlll should lnclude Lhe day monLh and year
of lLs execuLlon Powever when ln Lhe case aL bar Lhere ls no appearance of fraud bad falLh
undue lnfluence and pressure and Lhe auLhenLlclLy of Lhe wlll ls esLabllshed and Lhe only lssue ls
Lhe daLe lL8/61" appearlng ln Lhe sald holographlc wlll probaLe of sald wlll should Lherefore be
allowed under Lhe prlnclple of subsLanLlal compllance

Labrador vs CA
C8# 8384344 Aprll 3 1990
184 SC8A 170

lAC1S Cn !une 10 1972 Meleclo Labrador dled leavlng behlnd a parcel of land and Lhe followlng
helrs namely Sagrado Lnrlca CrlsLobal !esus Caudenclo !oseflna !ullana Pllarla and !ovlLa all
surnamed Labrador and a holographlc wlll

Cn !uly 28 1973 Sagrado Labrador (now deceased buL subsLlLuLed by hls helrs) Lnrlca Labrador
and CrlsLobal Labrador flled a peLlLlon for Lhe probaLe Lhe alleged holographlc wlll of Lhe laLe
Meleclo Labrador

SubsequenLly on SepLember 30 1973 !esus Labrador (now deceased buL subsLlLuLed by hls helrs)
and Caudenclo Labrador flled an opposlLlon Lo Lhe peLlLlon on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe wlll has been
exLlngulshed or revoked by lmpllcaLlon of law alleglng Lhereln LhaL on SepLember 30 1971 before
Meleclos deaLh LesLaLor Meleclo execuLed a ueed of AbsoluLe Sale selllng ln favor of opposlLors
!esus and Caudenclo Lhe parcel of land Larller however ln 1973 !esus Labrador sold sald parcel of
land Lo navaL for only llve 1housand (3000) esos

Sagrado flled on november 28 1973 agalnsL hls broLhers Caudenclo and !esus for Lhe annulmenL
of sald purporLed ueed of AbsoluLe Sale over a parcel of land whlch Sagrado allegedly had already
acqulred by devlse from Lhelr faLher Meleclo Labrador under a holographlc wlll execuLed on March
17 1968

1he Lrlal courL allowed Lhe probaLe of Lhe holographlc wlll and declared null and vold Lhe ueed of
AbsoluLe sale Cn appeal Lhe CAmodlfled sald declslon of Lhe courL a quo by denylng Lhe allowance
of Lhe probaLe of Lhe wlll for belng undaLed

lSSuL WheLher or noL Lhe alleged holographlc wlll of one Meleclo Labrador ls daLed as provlded
for ln ArLlcle 810 of Lhe new Clvll Code

PLLu 1he alleged undaLed holographlc wlll wrlLLen ln llocano LranslaLed lnLo Lngllsh
l llrsL age
xxxxx
ll Second age
And Lhls ls Lhe day ln whlch we agreed LhaL we are maklng Lhe parLlLlonlng and asslgnlng Lhe
respecLlve asslgnmenL of Lhe sald flshpond and Lhls belng ln Lhe monLh of March 17Lh day ln Lhe
year 1968 and Lhls declslon and or lnsLrucLlon of mlne ls Lhe maLLer Lo be followed And Lhe one
who made Lhls wrlLlng ls no oLher Lhan MLLLClC LA88AuC8 Lhelr faLher
xxxxx
lll 1Pl8u ACL
xxxx

1he peLlLlon whlch prlnclpally alleges LhaL Lhe holographlc wlll ls really daLed alLhough Lhe daLe ls
noL ln lLs usual place ls lmpressed wlLh merlL

1he wlll has been daLed ln Lhe hand of Lhe LesLaLor hlmself ln perfecL compllance wlLh ArLlcle 810
lL ls worLhy of noLe Lo quoLe Lhe flrsL paragraph of Lhe second page of Lhe holographlc wlll vlz
And Lhls ls Lhe day ln whlch we agreed LhaL we are maklng Lhe parLlLlonlng and asslgnlng Lhe
respecLlve asslgnmenL of Lhe sald flshpond and Lhls belng ln Lhe monLh of March 17Lh day ln Lhe
year 1968 and Lhls declslon and or lnsLrucLlon of mlne ls Lhe maLLer Lo be followed And Lhe one
who made Lhls wrlLlng ls no oLher Lhan MLLLClC LA88AuC8 Lhelr faLher (emphasls supplled)

1he law does noL speclfy a parLlcular locaLlon where Lhe daLe should be placed ln Lhe wlll 1he only
requlremenLs are LhaL Lhe daLe be ln Lhe wlll lLself and execuLed ln Lhe hand of Lhe LesLaLor 1hese
requlremenLs are presenL ln Lhe sub[ecL wlll

8espondenLs clalm LhaL Lhe daLe 17 March 1968 ln Lhe wlll was when Lhe LesLaLor and hls
beneflclarles enLered lnLo an agreemenL among Lhemselves abouL Lhe parLlLlonlng and asslgnlng
Lhe respecLlve asslgnmenLs of Lhe sald flshpond and was noL Lhe daLe of execuLlon of Lhe
holographlc wlll hence Lhe wlll ls more of an agreemenL beLween Lhe LesLaLor and Lhe
beneflclarles Lhereof Lo Lhe pre[udlce of oLher compulsory helrs llke Lhe respondenLs 1hls was Lhus
a fallure Lo comply wlLh ArLlcle 783 whlch deflnes a wlll as an acL whereby a person ls permlLLed
wlLh Lhe formallLles prescrlbed by law Lo conLrol Lo a cerLaln degree Lhe dlsposlLlon of hls esLaLe
Lo Lake effecL afLer hls deaLh

8espondenLs are ln error 1he lnLenLlon Lo show 17 March 1968 as Lhe daLe of Lhe execuLlon of Lhe
wlll ls plaln from Lhe Lenor of Lhe succeedlng words of Lhe paragraph As apLly puL by peLlLloner Lhe
wlll was noL an agreemenL buL a unllaLeral acL of Meleclo Labrador who plalnly knew LhaL whaL he
was execuLlng was a wlll 1he acL of parLlLlonlng and Lhe declaraLlon LhaL such parLlLlonlng as Lhe
LesLaLors lnsLrucLlon or declslon Lo be followed reveal LhaL Meleclo Labrador was fully aware of Lhe
naLure of Lhe esLaLe properLy Lo be dlsposed of and of Lhe characLer of Lhe LesLamenLary acL as a
means Lo conLrol Lhe dlsposlLlon of hls esLaLe

ka|aw vs ke|ova
Gk # L40207 Sept 28 1984
132 SCkA 237

lacLs naLlvldad k kalaw dled wlLh a holographlc Wlll whlch as flrsL wrlLLen named her slsLer 8osa
k kalaw as her sole helr Powever Lhere ls an alLeraLlon (crosslng ouL slsLer 8osa k kalaw and
lnserLlng broLher Cregorlo kalaw as sole helr) wlLhouL Lhe proper auLhenLlcaLlon by Lhe full
slgnaLure of Lhe LesLaLrlx as requlred by ArLlcle 814 of Lhe Clvll Code Cregorlo flled for Lhe probaLe
of Lhe Wlll buL lL was opposed by 8osa 1he Lrlal courL denled Lhe probaLe of Lhe Wlll 8osa on
Lhe oLher hand flled a peLlLlon for revlew clalmlng LhaL Lhe Wlll ln lLs orlglnal form musL be
probaLed and LhaL she be declared as Lhe sole helr

lssue/s WheLher Lhe Wlll be admlLLed Lo probaLe alLhough Lhe alLeraLlons and/or lnserLlons or
addlLlons were noL auLhenLlcaLed by Lhe full slgnaLure of Lhe LesLaLrlx pursuanL Lo ArL 814 of Lhe
Clvll Code or wheLher Lhe Wlll ln lLs orlglnal unalLered form declarlng 8osa kalaw as sole helr be
probaLed

Peld Crdlnarlly when a number of erasures correcLlons and lnLerllneaLlons made by Lhe LesLaLor
ln a holographlc Wlll have noL been noLed under hls slgnaLure Lhe Wlll ls noL Lhereby
lnvalldaLed as a whole buL aL mosL only as respecLs Lhe parLlcular words erased correcLed or
lnLerllned Powever when as ln Lhls case Lhe holographlc Wlll ln dlspuLe had only one subsLanLlal
provlslon whlch was alLered by subsLlLuLlng Lhe orlglnal helr wlLh anoLher buL whlch alLeraLlon dld
noL carry Lhe requlslLe of full auLhenLlcaLlon by Lhe full slgnaLure of Lhe LesLaLor Lhe effecL musL be

LhaL Lhe enLlre Wlll ls volded or revoked for Lhe slmple reason LhaL noLhlng remalns ln Lhe Wlll afLer
LhaL whlch could remaln valld 1o sLaLe LhaL Lhe Wlll as flrsL wrlLLen should be glven efflcacy ls Lo
dlsregard Lhe seemlng change of mlnd of Lhe LesLaLrlx 8uL LhaL change of mlnd can nelLher be
glven effecL because she falled Lo auLhenLlcaLe lL ln Lhe manner requlred by law by afflxlng her full
slgnaLure

1LLPAnkLL ! concurrlng
robaLe of Lhe radlcally alLered wlll replaclng Cregorlo for 8osa as sole helr ls properly denled slnce
Lhe same was noL duly auLhenLlcaLed by Lhe full slgnaLure of Lhe execuLrlx as mandaLory requlred
by ArLlcle 814 of Lhe Clvll Code 1he orlglnal unalLered wlll namlng 8osa as sole helr cannoL
however be glven effecL ln vlew of Lhe Lrlal courLs facLual flndlng LhaL Lhe LesLaLrlx had by her own
handwrlLlng subsLlLuLed Cregorlo for 8osa so LhaL Lhere ls no longer any wlll namlng 8osa as sole
helr 1he neL resulL ls LhaL Lhe LesLaLrlx lefL no valld wlll and boLh 8osa and Cregorlo as her nexL of
kln succeed Lo her lnLesLaLe esLaLe


Lchavez vs Dozen cons
Gk# 192916] Cct 11 2010
632 SCkA S94

lacLs vlcenLe Lchavez (vlcenLe) was Lhe absoluLe owner of sub[ecL loLs ln Cebu ClLy Cn SepLember
7 1983 he donaLed Lhe sub[ecL loLs Lo peLlLloner Manuel Lchavez (Manuel) Lhrough a ueed of
uonaLlon MorLls Causa Manuel accepLed Lhe donaLlon
ln March 1986 vlcenLe execuLed a ConLracL Lo Sell over Lhe same loLs ln favor of uozen
ConsLrucLlon and uevelopmenL CorporaLlon (uozen CorporaLlon) A ueeds of AbsoluLe Sale was
execuLed over Lhe same properLles covered by Lhe prevlous ConLracL Lo Sell
Cn november 6 1986 vlcenLe dled Lmlllano Cabanlg vlcenLe's nephew flled a peLlLlon for Lhe
seLLlemenL of vlcenLe's lnLesLaLe esLaLe Cn Lhe oLher hand Manuel flled a peLlLlon Lo approve
vlcenLe's donaLlon morLls causa ln hls favor and an acLlon Lo annul Lhe conLracLs of sale vlcenLe
execuLed ln favor of uozen CorporaLlon
1he 81C dlsmlssed Manuel's peLlLlon Lo approve Lhe donaLlon and hls acLlon for annulmenL of Lhe
conLracLs of sale 1he 81C found LhaL Lhe execuLlon of a ConLracL Lo Sell ln favor of uozen
CorporaLlon afLer vlcenLe had donaLed Lhe loLs Lo Manuel was an equlvocal acL LhaL revoked Lhe
donaLlon 1he CA afflrmed Lhe 81C's declslon 1he CA held LhaL slnce Lhe donaLlon ln favor of
Manuel was a donaLlon morLls causa compllance wlLh Lhe formallLles for Lhe valldlLy of wllls should
have been observed 1he CA found LhaL Lhe deed of donaLlon dld noL conLaln an aLLesLaLlon clause
and was Lherefore vold
Cn Appeal Lo SC he argues LhaL CA erred lgnorlng Lhe AcknowledgmenL porLlon of Lhe
deed of donaLlon whlch conLalns Lhe lmporL and purpose" of Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause requlred ln
Lhe execuLlon of wllls 1he AcknowledgmenL reads
8LlC8L ML noLary ubllc Lhls 7Lh day of SepLember 1983 aL 1allsay Cebu personally
appeared vlCLn1L S Lchavez wlLh 8es CerL no 16866094 lssued on Aprll 10 1983 aL slc 1allsay
Cebu known Lo me Lo be Lhe same person who execuLed Lhe foregolng lnsLrumenL of ueed of
uonaLlon MorLls Causa before Lhe noLary ubllc and ln Lhe presence of Lhe foregolng Lhree (3)
wlLnesses who slgned Lhls lnsLrumenL before and ln Lhe presence of each oLher and of Lhe noLary
ubllc and all of Lhem acknowledge Lo me LhaL Lhe same ls Lhelr volunLary acL and deed

lssue WCn Lhe AcknowledgemenL ln Lhe ueed of donaLlon be consldered as an ALLesLaLlon clause
ln a wlll?

Peld no 1he purporLed aLLesLaLlon clause embodled ln Lhe AcknowledgmenL porLlon does noL
conLaln Lhe number of pages on whlch Lhe deed was wrlLLen 1he excepLlon Lo Lhls rule ln Slngson
v llorenLlno and 1aboada v Pon 8osal cannoL be applled Lo Lhe presenL case as Lhe facLs of Lhls
case are noL slmllar wlLh Lhose of Slngson and 1aboada ln Lhose cases Lhe CourL found LhaL
alLhough Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause falled Lo sLaLe Lhe number of pages upon whlch Lhe wlll was
wrlLLen Lhe number of pages was sLaLed ln one porLlon of Lhe wlll 1hls ls noL Lhe facLual slLuaLlon
ln Lhe presenL case
1he SC ruled LhaL even granLlng LhaL Lhe AcknowledgmenL embodles whaL Lhe aLLesLaLlon clause
requlres we are noL prepared Lo hold LhaL an aLLesLaLlon clause and an acknowledgmenL can be
merged ln one sLaLemenL
1haL Lhe requlremenLs of aLLesLaLlon and acknowledgmenL are embodled ln Lwo separaLe
provlslons of Lhe Clvll Code (ArLlcles 803 and 806 respecLlvely) lndlcaLes LhaL Lhe law conLemplaLes
Lwo dlsLlncL acLs LhaL serve dlfferenL purposes An acknowledgmenL ls made by one execuLlng a
deed declarlng before a compeLenL offlcer or courL LhaL Lhe deed or acL ls hls own Cn Lhe oLher
hand Lhe aLLesLaLlon of a wlll refers Lo Lhe acL of Lhe lnsLrumenLal wlLnesses Lhemselves who
cerLlfy Lo Lhe execuLlon of Lhe lnsLrumenL before Lhem and Lo Lhe manner of lLs execuLlon
An aLLesLaLlon musL sLaLe all Lhe deLalls Lhe Lhlrd paragraph of ArLlcle 803 requlres ln Lhe absence
of Lhe requlred avowal by Lhe wlLnesses Lhemselves no aLLesLaLlon clause can be deemed
embodled ln Lhe AcknowledgemenL of Lhe ueed of uonaLlon MorLls Causa

A[ero vs CA
Gk# 106720 Sept 1S 1994
236 SCkA 488

lAC1S 1he laLe Annle Sand who dled on november 23 1982 execuLed a holographlc wlll
before her deaLh ln Lhe wlll decedenL named as devlsees among oLhers Lhe peLlLloners 8oberLo
and 1helma A[ero and prlvaLe respondenL ClemenLe Sand Cn !anuary 20 1983 peLlLloners
lnsLlLuLed Sp roc no C37171 ln Lhe CC 81C for allowance of decedenLs holographlc wlll
rlvaLe respondenL opposed Lhe peLlLlon on Lhe grounds LhaL nelLher Lhe LesLamenLs body nor Lhe
slgnaLure Lhereln was ln decedenLs handwrlLlng lL conLalned alLeraLlons and correcLlons whlch
were noL duly slgned by decedenL and Lhe wlll was procured by peLlLloners Lhrough lmproper
pressure and undue lnfluence noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe opposlLlons Lhe Lrlal courL admlLLed Lhe
decedenLs holographlc wlll Lo probaLe Cn appeal sald ueclslon was reversed and Lhe peLlLlon for
probaLe of decedenLs wlll was dlsmlssed 1he CourL of Appeals found LhaL Lhe holographlc wlll
falls Lo meeL Lhe requlremenLs for lLs valldlLy 4 lL held LhaL Lhe decedenL dld noL comply wlLh
ArLlcles 813 and 814 of Lhe new Clvll Code lL alluded Lo cerLaln dlsposlLlons ln Lhe wlll whlch were
elLher unslgned and undaLed or slgned buL noL daLed lL also found LhaL Lhe erasures alLeraLlons
and cancellaLlons made Lhereon had noL been auLhenLlcaLed by decedenL
lSSuL WCn Lhe holographlc wlll ls valld
8uLlnC 1hus Lhls appeal whlch ls lmpressed wlLh merlL
ArLlcle 839 of Lhe new Clvll Code reads
ArL 839 1he wlll shall be dlsallowed ln any of Lhe followlng cases
(1) lf Lhe formallLles requlred by law have noL been complled wlLh

(2) lf Lhe LesLaLor was lnsane or oLherwlse menLally lncapable of maklng a wlll aL Lhe Llme of lLs
execuLlon
(3) lf lL was execuLed Lhrough force or under duress or Lhe lnfluence of fear or LhreaLs
(4) lf lL was procured by undue and lmproper pressure and lnfluence on Lhe parL of Lhe beneflclary
or of some oLher person
(3) lf Lhe slgnaLure of Lhe LesLaLor was procured by fraud
(6) lf Lhe LesLaLor acLed by mlsLake or dld noL lnLend LhaL Lhe lnsLrumenL he slgned should be hls
wlll aL Lhe Llme of afflxlng hls slgnaLure LhereLo
1hese llsLs are excluslve no oLher grounds can serve Lo dlsallow a wlll 3 1hus ln a peLlLlon Lo admlL
a holographlc wlll Lo probaLe Lhe only lssues Lo be resolved are (1) wheLher Lhe lnsLrumenL
submlLLed ls lndeed Lhe decedenLs lasL wlll and LesLamenL (2) wheLher sald wlll was execuLed ln
accordance wlLh Lhe formallLles prescrlbed by law (3) wheLher Lhe decedenL had Lhe necessary
LesLamenLary capaclLy aL Lhe Llme Lhe wlll was execuLed and (4) wheLher Lhe execuLlon of Lhe wlll
and lLs slgnlng were Lhe volunLary acLs of Lhe decedenL 6
lor purposes of probaLlng nonholographlc wllls Lhese formal solemnlLles lnclude Lhe subscrlpLlon
aLLesLaLlon and acknowledgmenL requlremenLs under ArLlcles 803 and 806 of Lhe new Clvll Code
ln Lhe case of holographlc wllls on Lhe oLher hand whaL assures auLhenLlclLy ls Lhe requlremenL
LhaL Lhey be LoLally auLographlc or handwrlLLen by Lhe LesLaLor hlmself 7 as provlded under ArLlcle
810 of Lhe new Clvll Code Lhus
A person may execuLe a holographlc wlll whlch musL be enLlrely wrlLLen daLed and slgned by Lhe
hand of Lhe LesLaLor hlmself lL ls sub[ecL Lo no oLher form and may be made ln or ouL of Lhe
hlllpplnes and need noL be wlLnessed (Lmphasls supplled)
lallure Lo sLrlcLly observe oLher formallLles wlll noL resulL ln Lhe dlsallowance of a holographlc wlll
LhaL ls unquesLlonably handwrlLLen by Lhe LesLaLor A readlng of ArLlcle 813 of Lhe new Clvll Code
shows LhaL lLs requlremenL affecLs Lhe valldlLy of Lhe dlsposlLlons conLalned ln Lhe holographlc wlll
buL noL lLs probaLe lf Lhe LesLaLor falls Lo slgn and daLe some of Lhe dlsposlLlons Lhe resulL ls LhaL
Lhese dlsposlLlons cannoL be effecLuaLed Such fallure however does noL render Lhe whole
LesLamenL vold Llkewlse a holographlc wlll can sLlll be admlLLed Lo probaLe noLwlLhsLandlng non
compllance wlLh Lhe provlslons of ArLlcle 814 1hus unless Lhe unauLhenLlcaLed alLeraLlons
cancellaLlons or lnserLlons were made on Lhe daLe of Lhe holographlc wlll or on LesLaLors slgnaLure
9 Lhelr presence does noL lnvalldaLe Lhe wlll lLself 10 1he lack of auLhenLlcaLlon wlll only resulL ln
dlsallowance of such changes
As a general rule courLs ln probaLe proceedlngs are llmlLed Lo pass only upon Lhe exLrlnslc valldlLy
of Lhe wlll soughL Lo be probaLed Powever ln excepLlonal lnsLances courLs are noL powerless Lo
do whaL Lhe slLuaLlon consLralns Lhem Lo do and pass upon cerLaln provlslons of Lhe wlll 11 ln Lhe
case aL bench decedenL herself lndublLably sLaLed ln her holographlc wlll LhaL Lhe Cabadbaran
properLy ls ln Lhe name of her laLe faLher !ohn P Sand (whlch led opposlLor ur !ose A[ero Lo
quesLlon her conveyance of Lhe same ln lLs enLlreLy) 1hus as correcLly held by respondenL courL
she cannoL valldly dlspose of Lhe whole properLy whlch she shares wlLh her faLhers oLher helrs


Codoy vs Ca|ugay
Gk# 123486 Aug 12 1999
312 SCkA 333

lacLs

Cn Aprll 6 1990 Lvangellne Calugay !osephlne Salcedo and Lufemla aLlgas devlsees and legaLees
of Lhe holographlc wlll of Lhe deceased MaLllde Seno vda de 8amonal flled wlLh Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal
CourL Mlsamls CrlenLal 8ranch 18 a peLlLlon 3 for probaLe of Lhe holographlc wlll of Lhe deceased
who dled on !anuary 16 1990

ln Lhe peLlLlon respondenLs clalmed LhaL Lhe deceased MaLllde Seno vda de 8amonal was of
sound and dlsposlng mlnd when she execuLed Lhe wlll on AugusL 30 1978 LhaL Lhere was no fraud
undue lnfluence and duress employed ln Lhe person of Lhe LesLaLor and Lhe wlll was wrlLLen
volunLarlly 1he assessed value of Lhe decedenL's properLy lncludlng all real and personal properLy
was abouL 40000000 aL Lhe Llme of her deaLh

Cn !une 28 1990 Lugenla 8amonal Codoy and Manuel 8amonal flled an opposlLlon 3 Lo Lhe
peLlLlon for probaLe alleglng LhaL Lhe holographlc wlll was a forgery and LhaL Lhe same ls even
llleglble 1hls glves an lmpresslon LhaL a Lhlrd hand of an lnLeresLed parLy oLher Lhan Lhe Lrue
hand of MaLllde Seno vda de 8amonal execuLed Lhe holographlc wlll

eLlLloners argued LhaL Lhe repeaLed daLes lncorporaLed or appearlng on Lhe wlll afLer every
dlsposlLlon ls ouL of Lhe ordlnary lf Lhe deceased was Lhe one who execuLed Lhe wlll and was noL
forced Lhe daLes and Lhe slgnaLure should appear aL Lhe boLLom afLer Lhe dlsposlLlons as regularly
done and noL afLer every dlsposlLlon And assumlng LhaL Lhe holographlc wlll ls ln Lhe handwrlLlng
of Lhe deceased lL was procured by undue and lmproper pressure and lnfluence on Lhe parL of Lhe
beneflclarles or Lhrough fraud and Lrlckery

Cn uecember 12 1990 respondenLs flled a noLlce of appeal 8 and ln supporL of Lhelr appeal Lhe
respondenLs once agaln relLeraLed Lhe LesLlmony of Lhe followlng wlLnesses namely (1) AugusLo
nerl (2) Cenerosa Senon (3) MaLllde 8amonal 8lnanay (4) 1ereslLa vedad (3) llscal 8odolfo
Waga and (6) Lvangellne Calugay

Accordlng Lo Lhe CourL of Appeals Lvangellne Calugay MaLllde 8amonal 8lnanay and oLher
wlLnesses deflnlLely and ln no uncerLaln Lerms LesLlfled LhaL Lhe handwrlLlng and slgnaLure ln Lhe
holographlc wlll were Lhose of Lhe LesLaLor herself1hus upon Lhe unrebuLLed LesLlmony of
appellanL Lvangellne Calugay and wlLness MaLllde 8amonal 8lnanay Lhe CourL of Appeals
susLalned Lhe auLhenLlclLy of Lhe holographlc wlll and Lhe handwrlLlng and slgnaLure Lhereln and
allowed Lhe wlll Lo probaLe ln Lhls peLlLlon Lhe peLlLloners ask wheLher Lhe provlslons of ArLlcle
811 of Lhe Clvll Code are permlsslve or mandaLory 1he arLlcle provldes as a requlremenL for Lhe
probaLe of a conLesLed holographlc wlll LhaL aL leasL Lhree wlLnesses expllclLly declare LhaL Lhe
slgnaLure ln Lhe wlll ls Lhe genulne slgnaLure of Lhe LesLaLor

lssue

WheLher or noL Lhe provlslon of ArLlcle 811 ls permlsslve or mandaLory

Peld

We are convlnced based on Lhe language used LhaL ArLlcle 811 of Lhe Clvll Code ls mandaLory 1he
word shall connoLes a mandaLory order We have ruled LhaL shall ln a sLaLuLe commonly

denoLes an lmperaLlve obllgaLlon and ls lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhe ldea of dlscreLlon and LhaL Lhe
presumpLlon ls LhaL Lhe word shall when used ln a sLaLuLe ls mandaLory

Laws are enacLed Lo achleve a goal lnLended and Lo gulde agalnsL an evll or mlschlef LhaL alms Lo
prevenL ln Lhe case aL bar Lhe goal Lo achleve ls Lo glve effecL Lo Lhe wlshes of Lhe deceased and
Lhe evll Lo be prevenLed ls Lhe posslblllLy LhaL unscrupulous lndlvlduals who for Lhelr beneflL wlll
employ means Lo defeaL Lhe wlshes of Lhe LesLaLor
WhaL Ms 8lnanay saw were preprepared recelpLs and leLLers of Lhe deceased whlch she elLher
malled or gave Lo her LenanLs She dld noL declare LhaL she saw Lhe deceased slgn a documenL or
wrlLe a noLe ln her LesLlmony lL was also evldenL LhaL Ms 8lnanay kepL Lhe facL abouL Lhe wlll
from peLlLloners Lhe legally adopLed chlldren of Lhe deceased Such acLlons puL ln lssue her moLlve
of keeplng Lhe wlll a secreL Lo peLlLloners and reveallng lL only afLer Lhe deaLh of MaLllde Seno vda
de 8amonal So Lhe only reason LhaL Lvangellne can glve as Lo why she was famlllar wlLh Lhe
handwrlLlng of Lhe deceased was because she llved wlLh her slnce blrLh She never declared LhaL
she saw Lhe deceased wrlLe a noLe or slgn a documenL

lrom Lhe LesLlmonles of Lhese wlLnesses Lhe CourL of Appeals allowed Lhe wlll Lo be probaLed and
dlsregard Lhe requlremenL of Lhree wlLnesses ln case of conLesLed holographlc wlll clLlng Lhe
declslon ln Azaola vs Slngson rullng LhaL Lhe requlremenL ls merely dlrecLory and noL mandaLory

ln Lhe case of A[ero vs CourL of Appeals we sald LhaL Lhe ob[ecL of Lhe solemnlLles surroundlng
Lhe execuLlon of wllls ls Lo close Lhe door agalnsL bad falLh and fraud Lo avold subsLlLuLlon of wllls
and LesLamenLs and Lo guaranLy Lhelr LruLh and auLhenLlclLy 1herefore Lhe laws on Lhls sub[ecL
should be lnLerpreLed ln such a way as Lo aLLaln Lhese prlmordlal ends 8uL on Lhe oLher hand also
one musL noL lose slghL of Lhe facL LhaL lL ls noL Lhe ob[ecL of Lhe law Lo resLraln and curLall Lhe
exerclse of Lhe rlghL Lo make a wlll

Powever we cannoL ellmlnaLe Lhe posslblllLy of a false documenL belng ad[udged as Lhe wlll of Lhe
LesLaLor whlch ls why lf Lhe holographlc wlll ls conLesLed LhaL law requlres Lhree wlLnesses Lo
declare LhaL Lhe wlll was ln Lhe handwrlLlng of Lhe deceased 1he wlll was found noL ln Lhe personal
belonglngs of Lhe deceased buL wlLh one of Lhe respondenLs who kepL lL even before Lhe deaLh of
Lhe deceased ln Lhe LesLlmony of Ms 8lnanay she revealed LhaL Lhe wlll was ln her possesslon as
early as 1983 or flve years before Lhe deaLh of Lhe deceased

1here was no opporLunlLy for an experL Lo compare Lhe slgnaLure and Lhe handwrlLlng of Lhe
deceased wlLh oLher documenLs slgned and execuLed by her durlng her llfeLlme 1he only chance aL
comparlson was durlng Lhe crossexamlnaLlon of Ms 8lnanay when Lhe lawyer of peLlLloners asked
Ms 8lnanay Lo compare Lhe documenLs whlch conLalned Lhe slgnaLure of Lhe deceased wlLh LhaL of
Lhe holographlc wlll and she ls noL a handwrlLlng experL Lven Lhe former lawyer of Lhe deceased
expressed doubLs as Lo Lhe auLhenLlclLy of Lhe slgnaLure ln Lhe holographlc wlll

A vlsual examlnaLlon of Lhe holographlc wlll convlnce us LhaL Lhe sLrokes are dlfferenL when
compared wlLh oLher documenLs wrlLLen by Lhe LesLaLor 1he slgnaLure of Lhe LesLaLor ln some of
Lhe dlsposlLlon ls noL readable 1here were uneven sLrokes reLraclng and erasures on Lhe wlll

Comparlng Lhe slgnaLure ln Lhe holographlc wlll daLed AugusL 30 1978 33 and Lhe slgnaLures ln
several documenLs such as Lhe appllcaLlon leLLer for pasLure permlL daLed uecember 30 1980 34
and a leLLer daLed !une 16 1978 33 Lhe sLrokes are dlfferenL ln Lhe leLLers Lhere are conLlnuous
flows of Lhe sLrokes evldenclng LhaL Lhere ls no heslLaLlon ln wrlLlng unllke LhaL of Lhe holographlc
wlll We Lherefore cannoL be cerLaln LhaL Lhe holographlc wlll was ln Lhe handwrlLlng by Lhe
deceased


kode|as vs Aranza
No LS8S09 Dec 7 1982
119 SCkA 16

Wlll may be allowed 1he only quesLlon here ls wheLher a holographlc wlll whlch was
losL or cannoL be found can be proved by means of a phoLosLaLlc copy ursuanL Lo ArLlcle 811 of
Lhe Clvll Code probaLe of holographlc wllls ls Lhe allowance of Lhe wlll by Lhe courL afLer lLs due
execuLlon has been proved 1he probaLe may be unconLesLed or noL lf unconLesLed aL leasL one
ldenLlfylng wlLness ls requlred and lf no wlLness ls avallable experLs may be resorLed Lo lf
conLesLed aL leasL Lhree ldenLlfylng wlLnesses are requlred nowever |f the ho|ograph|c w||| has
been |ost or destroyed and no other copy |s ava||ab|e the w||| can not be probated because the
best and on|y ev|dence |s the handwr|t|ng of the testator |n sa|d w||| It |s necessary that there be
a compar|son between samp|e handwr|tten statements of the testator and the handwr|tten w|||
8ut a photostat|c copy or xerox copy of the ho|ograph|c w||| may be a||owed because
compar|son can be made w|th the standard wr|t|ngs of the testator ln Lhe case of Cam vs ?ap
104 PlL 309 Lhe CourL ruled LhaL Lhe execuLlon and Lhe conLenLs of a losL or desLroyed
holographlc wlll may noL be proved by Lhe bare LesLlmony of wlLnesses who have seen and/or read
such wlll 1he wlll lLself musL be presenLed oLherwlse lL shall produce no effecL 1he law regards
Lhe documenL lLself as maLerlal proof of auLhenLlclLy 8uL ln looLnoLe 8 of sald declslon lL says
LhaL erhaps lL may be proved by a phoLographlc or phoLosLaLlc copy Lven a m|meographed or
carbon copy or by other s|m||ar means |f any whereby the authent|c|ty of the handwr|t|ng of
the deceased may be exh|b|ted and tested before the probate court Lv|dent|y the photostat|c
or xerox copy of the |ost or destroyed ho|ograph|c w||| may be adm|tted because then the
authent|c|ty of the handwr|t|ng of the deceased can be determ|ned by the probate court

Vda De erez vs @o|ete
Gk# 76714 Iune 2 1994
232 SCkA 722

lAC1S

ur !ose Cunanan and hls wlfe ur Lvelyn erezCunanan who became Amerlcan clLlzens and
resldenLs of new ?ork each execuLed a wlll also ln new ?ork conLalnlng provlslons on presumpLlon
of survlvorshlp (ln Lhe evenL LhaL lL ls noL known whlch one of Lhe spouses dled flrsL Lhe husband
shall be presumed Lo have predeceased hls wlfe) LaLer Lhe enLlre famlly perlshed ln a flre LhaL
guLLed Lhelr home 1hus 8afael who was named LrusLee ln !ose's wlll flled for separaLe probaLe
proceedlngs of Lhe wllls


LaLer Lvelyn's moLher Salud erez flled a peLlLlon for reprobaLe ln 8ulacan 8afael opposed
argulng LhaL Salud was noL an helr accordlng Lo new ?ork law Pe conLended LhaL slnce Lhe wllls

were execuLed ln new ?ork new ?ork law should govern Pe furLher argued LhaL by new ?ork law
he and hls broLhers and slsLers were !ose's helrs and as such enLlLled Lo noLlce of Lhe reprobaLe
proceedlngs whlch Salud falled Lo glve

lor her parL Salud sald she was Lhe sole helr of her daughLer Lvelyn and LhaL Lhe Lwo wllls were ln
accordance wlLh new ?ork law 8uL before she could presenL evldence Lo prove Lhe law of new
?ork Lhe reprobaLe courL already lssued an order dlsallowlng Lhe wllls

lSSuL WheLher or noL Lhe reprobaLe of Lhe wllls should be allowed



PLLu

LxLrlnslc valldlLy of Wllls of non8esldenL Allens

1he respecLlve wllls of Lhe Cunanan spouses who were Amerlcan clLlzens wlll only be effecLlve ln
Lhls counLry upon compllance wlLh Lhe followlng provlslon of Lhe Clvll Code of Lhe hlllpplnes

ArL 816 1he wlll of an allen who ls abroad produces effecL ln Lhe hlllpplnes lf made wlLh Lhe
formallLles prescrlbed by Lhe law of Lhe place ln whlch he resldes or accordlng Lo Lhe formallLles
observed ln hls counLry or ln conformlLy wlLh Lhose whlch Lhls Code prescrlbes

1hus proof LhaL boLh wllls conform wlLh Lhe formallLles prescrlbed by new ?ork laws or by
hlllpplne laws ls lmperaLlve

Lvldence for 8eprobaLe of Wllls robaLed ouLslde Lhe hlllpplnes

1he evldence necessary for Lhe reprobaLe or allowance of wllls whlch have been probaLed ouLslde
of Lhe hlllpplnes are as follows (1) Lhe due execuLlon of Lhe wlll ln accordance wlLh Lhe forelgn
laws (2) Lhe LesLaLor has hls domlclle ln Lhe forelgn counLry and noL ln Lhe hlllpplnes (3) Lhe wlll
has been admlLLed Lo probaLe ln such counLry (4) Lhe facL LhaL Lhe forelgn Lrlbunal ls a probaLe
courL and (3) Lhe laws of a forelgn counLry on procedure and allowance of wllls (lll Moran
CommenLarles on Lhe 8ules of CourL 1970 ed pp 419429 SunLay v SunLay 93 hll 300 1934
lluemer v Plx 34 hll 610 1930) LxcepL for Lhe flrsL and lasL requlremenLs Lhe peLlLloner
submlLLed all Lhe needed evldence

1he necesslLy of presenLlng evldence on Lhe forelgn laws upon whlch Lhe probaLe ln Lhe forelgn
counLry ls based ls lmpelled by Lhe facL LhaL our courLs cannoL Lake [udlclal noLlce of Lhem

Cn Lack of noLlce Lo !ose's Pelrs

1hls peLlLlon cannoL be compleLely resolved wlLhouL Louchlng on a very glarlng facL peLlLloner has
always consldered herself Lhe sole helr of ur Lvelyn erez Cunanan and because she does noL
conslder herself an helr of ur !ose l Cunanan she noLlceably falled Lo noLlfy hls helrs of Lhe flllng
of Lhe proceedlngs 1hus even ln Lhe lnsLanL peLlLlon she only lmpleaded respondenL !udge
forgeLLlng LhaL a [udge whose order ls belng assalled ls merely a nomlnal or formal parLy (Calderon
v SollclLor Ceneral 213 SC8A 876 1992)

1he rule LhaL Lhe courL havlng [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe reprobaLe of a wlll shall cause noLlce Lhereof Lo
be glven as ln case of an orlglnal wlll presenLed for allowance (8evlsed 8ules of CourL 8ule 27
SecLlon 2) means LhaL wlLh regard Lo noLlces Lhe wlll probaLed abroad should be LreaLed as lf lL
were an orlglnal wlll or a wlll LhaL ls presenLed for probaLe for Lhe flrsL Llme Accordlngly
compllance wlLh SecLlons 3 and 4 of 8ule 76 whlch requlre publlcaLlon and noLlce by mall or
personally Lo Lhe known helrs legaLees and devlsees of Lhe LesLaLor resldenL ln Lhe hlllpplnes
and Lo Lhe execuLor lf he ls noL Lhe peLlLloner are requlred

1he broLhers and slsLers of ur !ose l Cunanan conLrary Lo peLlLloners clalm are enLlLled Lo
noLlces of Lhe Llme and place for provlng Lhe wllls under SecLlon 4 of 8ule 76 of Lhe 8evlsed 8ules
of CourL Lhe courL shall also cause coples of Lhe noLlce of Lhe Llme and place flxed for provlng Lhe
wlll Lo be addressed Lo Lhe deslgnaLed or oLher known helrs legaLees and devlsees of Lhe LesLaLor


WPL8LlC8L Lhe quesLloned Crder ls SL1 ASluL 8espondenL !udge shall allow peLlLloner
reasonable Llme wlLhln whlch Lo submlL evldence needed for Lhe [olnL probaLe of Lhe wllls of Lhe
Cunanan spouses and see Lo lL LhaL Lhe broLhers and slsLers of ur !ose l Cunanan are glven all
noLlces and coples of all pleadlngs perLlnenL Lo Lhe probaLe proceedlngs

SC C8uL8Lu
W|tnesses to W|||s


Cod|c||s and Incorporat|on by keference
kevocat|on of W|||s and @estamentary D|spos|t|on



Adr|ana Ma|oto vs CA
No L76464 Ieb 29 1988
1S8 SCkA 4S1



Gago vs Mamuyac
No L26317 Ian 29 1927
49 h|| 902

lacLs

Cn Lhe 21sL day of lebruary 1923 Lhe presenL acLlon was commenced 1he purpose of Lhls acLlon
was Lo obLaln Lhe probaLlon of a lasL wlll and LesLamenL of Mlguel Mamuyac who dled on Lhe 2d
day of !anuary 1922 ln Lhe munlclpallLy of Agoo of Lhe rovlnce of La unlon lL appears from Lhe
record LhaL on or abouL Lhe 27Lh day of !uly 1918 Lhe sald Mlguel Mamuyac execuLed a lasL wlll

and LesLamenL (LxhlblL A) ln Lhe monLh of !anuary 1922 Lhe sald lranclsco Cago presenLed a
peLlLlon ln Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of Lhe rovlnce of La unlon for Lhe probaLlon of LhaL wlll 1he
probaLlon of Lhe same was opposed by Cornello Mamuyac Ambroslo Larlosa lellclana 8auzon and
CaLallna Mamuyac (clvll cause no 1144 rovlnce of La unlon) AfLer hearlng all of Lhe parLles Lhe
peLlLlon for Lhe probaLlon of sald wlll was denled by Lhe Ponorable C M vlllareal on Lhe 2d day of
november 1923 upon Lhe ground LhaL Lhe deceased had on Lhe 16Lh day of Aprll 1919 execuLed
a new wlll and LesLamenL sLaLlng

1haL LxhlblL A ls a mere carbon copy of lLs orlglnal whlch remalned ln Lhe possesslon of Lhe
deceased LesLaLor Mlguel Mamuyac who revoked lL before hls deaLh as per LesLlmony of wlLnesses
!ose lenoy who Lyped Lhe wlll of Lhe LesLaLor on Aprll 16 1919 and Carlos 8e[ar who saw on
uecember 30 1920 Lhe orlglnal of LxhlblL A (wlll of 1919) acLually cancelled by Lhe LesLaLor Mlguel
Mamuyac who assured Carlos 8e[ar LhaL lnasmuch as he had sold hlm a house and Lhe land where
Lhe house was bullL he had Lo cancel lL Lhe wlll of 1919) execuLlng Lhereby a new LesLamenL
narclsa Cago ln a way corroboraLes Lhe LesLlmony of !ose lenoy admlLLlng LhaL Lhe wlll execuLed
by Lhe deceased (Mlguel Mamuyac) ln 1919 was found ln Lhe possesslon of faLher Mlguel
Mamuyac 1he opponenLs have successfully esLabllshed Lhe facL LhaL faLher Mlguel Mamuyac had
execuLed ln 1920 anoLher wlll 1he same narclsa Cago Lhe slsLer of Lhe deceased who was llvlng ln
Lhe house wlLh hlm when crossexamlned by aLLorney for Lhe opponenLs LesLlfled LhaL Lhe orlglnal
of LxhlblL A could noL be found lor Lhe foregolng conslderaLlon and for Lhe reason LhaL Lhe orlglnal
of LxhlblL A has been cancelled by Lhe deceased faLher Mlguel Mamuyac Lhe courL dlsallows Lhe
probaLe of LxhlblL A for Lhe appllcanL lrom LhaL order Lhe peLlLloner appealed

lssue

WheLher or noL Lhe probaLe of Lhe old wlll shall be allowed

Peld

WlLh reference Lo Lhe sald cancellaLlon lL may be sLaLed LhaL Lhere ls poslLlve proof noL denled
whlch was accepLed by Lhe lower courL LhaL Lhe wlll ln quesLlon had been cancelled ln 1920 1he
law does noL requlre any evldence of Lhe revocaLlon or cancellaLlon of a wlll Lo be preserved lL
Lherefore becomes dlfflculL aL Llmes Lo prove Lhe revocaLlon or cancellaLlon of wllls 1he facL LhaL
such cancellaLlon or revocaLlon has Laken place musL elLher remaln unproved or be lnferred from
evldence showlng LhaL afLer due search Lhe orlglnal wlll cannoL be found Where a wlll whlch
cannoL be found ls shown Lo have been ln Lhe possesslon of Lhe LesLaLor when lasL seen Lhe
presumpLlon ls ln Lhe absence of oLher compeLenL evldence LhaL Lhe same was cancelled or
desLroyed 1he same presumpLlon arlses where lL ls shown LhaL Lhe LesLaLor had ready access Lo
Lhe wlll and lL cannoL be found afLer hls deaLh lL wlll noL be presumed LhaL such wlll has been
desLroyed by any oLher person wlLhouL Lhe knowledge or auLhorlLy of Lhe LesLaLor 1he force of Lhe
presumpLlon of cancellaLlon or revocaLlon by Lhe LesLaLor whlle varylng greaLly belng weak or
sLrong accordlng Lo Lhe clrcumsLances ls never concluslve buL may be overcome by proof LhaL Lhe
wlll was noL desLroyed by Lhe LesLaLor wlLh lnLenL Lo revoke lL

ln vlew of Lhe facL LhaL Lhe orlglnal wlll of 1919 could noL be found afLer Lhe deaLh of Lhe LesLaLor
Mlguel Mamuyac and ln vlew of Lhe poslLlve proof LhaL Lhe same had been cancelled we are forced
Lo Lhe concluslon LhaL Lhe concluslons of Lhe lower courL are ln accordance wlLh Lhe welghL of Lhe
evldence


Mo|o vs Mo|o
No L 2S38 Sept 21 19S1
90 h|| 37

lacLs Marlano Molo dled on !anuary 24 1941 wlLhouL any compulsory helr ln Lhe dlrecL llne Pe
was survlved by hereln peLlLloner !uana Molo and by hls nleces and nephew who are Lhe
opposlLors Marlano lefL Lwo wllls one execuLed on AugusL 17 1918 and anoLher execuLed on !une
20 1939 1he second wlll conLalns a clause whlch expressly revokes Lhe flrsL wlll !uana Molo flled
for Lhe probaLe of Lhe second wlll whlch was denled by Lhe courL on Lhe ground LhaL lL was noL
execuLed accordlng Lo Lhe requlremenLs prescrlbed by law She Lhen also flled for Lhe probaLe of
Lhe flrsL wlll whlch was granLed by Lhe courL hence Lhls appeal by Lhe opposlLors on Lhe ground
LhaL Lhe second wlll had expressly revoked Lhe flrsL wlll Lherefore Lhe flrsL wlll should have noL
been probaLed

lssue WheLher Lhe second wlll conLalnlng an express revocaLlon of Lhe flrsL wlll can be glven effecL

Peld no Lhe second wlll cannoL be glven effecL and Lhe flrsL wlll can be admlLLed Lo probaLe A
subsequenL wlll conLalnlng a clause revoklng a prevlous wlll havlng been dlsallowed for Lhe reason
LhaL lL was noL execuLed ln conformlLy wlLh Lhe provlslons of Lhe law as Lo Lhe maklng of wllls
cannoL produce Lhe effecL of annulllng Lhe prevlous wlll ln as much as Lhe revocaLory clause ls vold
1he earller wlll can sLlll be admlLLed Lo probaLe under Lhe prlnclple of dependenL relaLlve
revocaLlon" predlcaLed on Lhe LesLaLor lnLenLlon noL Lo dle lnLesLaLe 1haL ls why he execuLed Lwo
wllls on Lwo dlfferenL occaslons and lnsLlLuLed hls wlfe as hls unlversal helr

nC1L uLLnuLn1 8LLA1lvL 8LvCCA1lCn 1he docLrlne LhaL regards as muLually lnLerrelaLed Lhe
acLs of a LesLaLor desLroylng a wlll and execuLlng a second wlll ln such cases lf Lhe second wlll ls
elLher never made or lmproperly execuLed Lhere ls a rebuLLable presumpLlon LhaL Lhe LesLaLor
would have preferred Lhe former wlll Lo no wlll aL all whlch allows Lhe posslblllLy of probaLe of Lhe
desLroyed wlll
Some [urlsdlcLlons decllne Lo apply Lhe docLrlne of dependenL relaLlve revocaLlon Lo cases Lo
ellmlnaLe a wrlLLen revocaLlon of a wlll buL apply lL Lo declare Lhe lneffecLlveness of a physlcal acL
of revocaLlon 1he [usLlflcaLlon for Lhe dlsLlncLlon ls LhaL Lhe physlcal acL ls lnherenLly equlvocal
1he courL has Lhe power Lo lnLerpreL Lhe amblguous acL Lo ascerLaln whaL Lhe LesLaLor dld buL noL
Lo dlsregard an express sLaLemenL of Lhe LesLaLor and subsLlLuLe lLs own concepLlon of whaL Lhe
LesLaLor should have done
1he docLrlne of dependenL relaLlve revocaLlon conLravenes Lhe sLrlcL lnLerpreLaLlon of and demand
for rlgld adherence Lo Lhe speclflc language of Lhe sLaLuLes concernlng Lhe execuLlon and
revocaLlon of wllls and Lhe Lheory of Lhe parol evldence


D|az vs De Leon
No L 17714 May 31 1922
43 h|| 413

lAC1S 1he peLlLloner denles Lhere was revocaLlon of Lhe wlll whlle Lhe conLesLanL afflrms Lhe
same by alleglng LhaL Lhe LesLaLor revoked hls wlll by desLroylng lL and by execuLlng anoLher wlll
expressly revoklng Lhe former

lSSuL WheLher or noL Lhe wlll execuLed by !esus de Leon was revoked by hlm?

PLLu ?es 1he CourL held LhaL Lhe second wlll LxhlblL 1 execuLed by Lhe deceased ls noL cloLh wlLh
all Lhe necessary requlslLes Lo consLlLuLe a sufflclenL revocaLlon

8uL accordlng Lo Lhe sLaLuLe governlng Lhe sub[ecL ln Lhls [urlsdlcLlon Lhe desLrucLlon of a wlll
anlmo revocandl consLlLuLes ln lLself a sufflclenL revocaLlon (Sec 623 Code of Clvll
rocedure)lavvphl1-ne+

lrom Lhe evldence submlLLed ln Lhls case lL appears LhaL Lhe LesLaLor shorLly afLer Lhe execuLlon of
Lhe flrsL wlll ln quesLlon asked LhaL Lhe same be reLurned Lo hlm 1he lnsLrumenL was reLurned Lo
Lhe LesLaLor who ordered hls servanL Lo Lear Lhe documenL 1hls was done ln hls presence and
before a nurse who LesLlfled Lo Lhls effecL AfLer some Llme Lhe LesLaLor belng asked by ur
Cornello Mapa abouL Lhe wlll sald LhaL lL had been desLroyed

1he lnLenLlon of revoklng Lhe wlll ls manlfesL from Lhe esLabllshed facL LhaL Lhe LesLaLor was
anxlous Lo wlLhdraw or change Lhe provlslons he had made ln hls flrsL wlll 1hls facL ls dlsclosed by
Lhe LesLaLors own sLaLemenLs Lo Lhe wlLnesses CanLo and Lhe MoLher Superlor of Lhe PosplLal
where he was conflned

1he orlglnal wlll hereln presenLed for probaLe havlng been desLroyed wlLh anlmo revocandl cannoL
now be probaLed as Lhe wlll and lasL LesLamenL of !esus de Leon


kepub||cat|on and kev|va| of W|||s
D|sa||owance of W|||s

Dorotheo vs CA
Gk# 108S81 Dec 8 1999
320 SCkA 12


lacLs SomeLlme ln 1977 afLer Ale[andro uoroLheo's deaLh peLlLloner flled a speclal proceedlng
for Lhe probaLe of Lhe laLLer's lasL wlll and LesLamenL ln 1981 Lhe courL lssued an order admlLLlng
Ale[andro's wlll Lo probaLe rlvaLe respondenLs dld noL appeal from sald order Powever ln 1983
Lhey flled a MoLlon 1o ueclare 1he Wlll lnLrlnslcally vold"
1he Lrlal courL granLed Lhe moLlon and lssued an order declarlng Lourdes noL Lhe wlfe of Lhe laLe
Ale[andro uoroLheo Lhe provlslons of Lhe lasL wlll and LesLamenL of Ale[andro uoroLheo as
lnLrlnslcally vold and declarlng Lhe opposlLors (hereln prlvaLe respondenLs) as Lhe only helrs of Lhe
Ale[andro uoroLheo
eLlLloner moved for reconslderaLlon argulng LhaL she ls enLlLled Lo some compensaLlon slnce she
Look care of Ale[andro prlor Lo hls deaLh alLhough she admlLLed LhaL Lhey were noL marrled Lo each
oLher upon denlal of her moLlon for reconslderaLlon peLlLloner appealed Lo Lhe CourL of Appeals
buL Lhe same was dlsmlssed 1hls dlsmlssal became flnal and execuLory A wrlL of execuLlon was
LhereafLer lssued
ConsequenLly when peLlLloner refused Lo surrender Lhe 1C1's (coverlng Lhe properLles of Lhe laLe
Ale[andro) prlvaLe respondenLs flled a moLlon for cancellaLlon of sald LlLles and for lssuance of new
LlLles ln Lhelr names eLlLloner opposed Lhe moLlon 1he lower courL ruled for peLlLloner buL Lhe
same was reversed by Lhe CA
Pence Lhe presenL peLlLlon where peLlLloner assalls Lhe Crder of Lhe CourL of Appeals whlch
declared Lhe lnLrlnslc lnvalldlLy of Ale[andro's wlll LhaL was earller admlLLed Lo probaLe

lssue WheLher a lasL wlll and LesLamenL admlLLed Lo probaLe buL declared lnLrlnslcally vold ln an
order LhaL has become flnal and execuLory sLlll be glven effecL

Peld A flnal and execuLory declslon or order can no longer be dlsLurbed or reopened no maLLer
how erroneous lL may be lL has been conslsLenLly held LhaL lf no appeal ls Laken ln due Llme from a
[udgmenL or order of Lhe Lrlal courL Lhe same aLLalns flnallLy by mere lapse of Llme 1hus Lhe
order allowlng Lhe wlll became flnal and Lhe quesLlon deLermlned by Lhe courL ln such order can no
longer be ralsed anew elLher ln Lhe same proceedlngs or ln a dlfferenL moLlon 1he maLLers of due
execuLlon of Lhe wlll and Lhe capaclLy of Lhe LesLaLor acqulred Lhe characLer of res [udlcaLa and
cannoL agaln be broughL lnLo quesLlon all [urldlcal quesLlons ln connecLlon LherewlLh belng for
once and forever closed
Powever Lhe lnLrlnslc valldlLy ls anoLher maLLer and quesLlons regardlng Lhe same may sLlll be
ralsed even afLer Lhe wlll has been auLhenLlcaLed 1hus lL does noL necessarlly follow LhaL an
exLrlnslcally valld lasL wlll and LesLamenL ls always lnLrlnslcally valld Lven lf Lhe wlll was valldly
execuLed lf Lhe LesLaLor provldes for dlsposlLlons LhaL deprlves or lmpalrs Lhe lawful helrs of Lhelr
leglLlme or rlghLful lnherlLance accordlng Lo Lhe laws on successlon Lhe unlawful
provlslons/dlsposlLlons Lhereof cannoL be glven effecL
1hls ls speclally so when Lhe courLs had already deLermlned ln a flnal and execuLory declslon LhaL
Lhe wlll ls lnLrlnslcally vold Such deLermlnaLlon havlng aLLalned LhaL characLer of flnallLy ls blndlng
on Lhls CourL whlch wlll no longer be dlsLurbed noL LhaL Lhls CourL flnds Lhe wlll Lo be lnLrlnslcally
valld buL LhaL a flnal and execuLory declslon of whlch Lhe parLy had Lhe opporLunlLy Lo challenge
before Lhe hlgher Lrlbunals musL sLand and should no longer be reevaluaLed
ln Lhls case Lhe courL had ruled LhaL Lhe wlll of Ale[andro was exLrlnslcally valld buL Lhe lnLrlnslc
provlslons Lhereof were vold 1hus Lhe rules of lnLesLacy apply as correcLly held by Lhe Lrlal courL


Santos vs 8uenaventura
Gk No L22797 Sept 22 1966
18 SCkA 47

lAC1S Pereln peLlLloner 8osallna SanLos one of Lhe nleces of Lhe deceased Maxlma SanLos vda
de 8las flled on CcLober 22 1936 wlLh Lhe Cll of 8lzal for Lhe probaLe of Lhe lasL wlll allegedly
execuLed on SepLember 22 1936 by Lhe deceased Among Lhe devlsees menLloned ln Lhe wlll ls
llora 8las de 8uenavenLura hereln respondenL ls noL relaLed by blood Lo Lhe deceased
Cn november 28 1936 llora 8las de 8uenavenLura and !usLo Carcla flled an opposlLlon Lo Lhe
probaLe of sald wlll Powever afLer Lhe probaLe courL had recelved Lhe evldence for boLh
peLlLloner and opposlLors buL before Lhe laLLer could close Lhe evldence llora 8las wlLhdrew her

opposlLlon Lo Lhe probaLe of Lhe wlll and [olned Lhe proponenL of Lhe sald wlll for Lhe legallzaLlon of
Lhe same 1he proceedlngs conLlnued however as Lo Lhe opposlLlon of !usLo Carcla
Cn uecember 24 1937 Lhe probaLe of Lhe wlll was allowed llora LhereafLer flled a peLlLlon
praylng for Lhe dellvery Lo her of a flshpond as speclflc devlse ln her favor under lLem no 3 Clause
no 6 of Lhe wlll 8osallna opposed Lhe sald peLlLlon on Lhe ground LhaL sald speclflc devlse ln favor
of llora was forfelLed ln favor of Lhe oLher reslduary helrs pursuanL Lo a provlslon of Lhe wlll LhaL
should any of Lhe helrs devlsees or legaLees conLesL or oppose lLs probaLe Lhe laLLer shall lose hls
or her rlghL Lo recelve any lnherlLance or beneflL under lL whlch shall be forfelLed ln favor of Lhe
oLher helrs devlsees and legaLees
1he courL susLalned LhaL Lhe noconLesL and forfelLure" clause of Lhe wlll was valld and had Lhe
effecL of deprlvlng llora of her devlse ln vlew of her prevlous opposlLlon Lo lLs probaLe whlch lL
held noL [usLlfled under Lhe clrcumsLances
lSSuL WCn llora's flllng of her opposlLlon was [usLlfled whlch precluded vlolaLlon of Lhe no
conLesL and forfelLure clause"
PLLu 1he facLor LhaL preponderaLes ln favor of llor ls LhaL afLer reallzlng her mlsLake ln
conLesLlng Lhe wlll a mlsLake commlLLed ln good falLh because grounded on sLrong doubLs she
wlLhdrew her opposlLlon and [olned Lhe SanLos ln Lhe laLLers peLlLlon for Lhe probaLe of Lhe wlll
She musL noL now be penallzed for recLlfylng her error AfLer all Lhe lnLenLlons of Lhe LesLaLrlx had
been fulfllled her wlll had been admlLLed and allowed probaLe wlLhln a reasonably shorL perlod
and Lhe dlsposlLlon of her properLy can now be effecLed
lL should be polnLed ouL LhaL conLrary Lo Lhe LranslaLlon accorded Lo aragraph lourLeen of Lhe
wlll Lhe LesLaLrlx en[olns noL a mere conLesL or opposlLlon Lo lLs probaLe buL a conLesL or
opposlLlon Lo Lhe probaLe of Lhe wlll and Lhe carrylng ouL of lLs provlslons 1hls ls so because Lhe
quesLloned clause speaks of pagpapaLlbay aL pagblblgayblsa lnsLead of pagpapaLlbay o pag
blblgayblsa"1hls furnlshes a slgnlflcanL lndex lnLo Lhe lnLenLlon of Lhe LesLaLrlx namely LhaL she
was more concerned ln lnsurlng Lhe carrylng ouL of her LesLamenLary provlslons Lhan ln precludlng
any conLesL or opposlLlon Lo lL 8y Lhe wlLhdrawal of Lhe conLesL whlch llor broughL ln good falLh
no pre[udlce has been done lnLo Lhe lnLenLlon of Lhe LesLaLrlx 1he dlsposlLlons of her wlll can now
be safely carrled ouL
1he mosL LhaL can be sald lf aL all ls LhaL llora 8las acLuaLlons were also lmpelled by some deslre
Lo galn 8uL who among Lhe helrs can assume a posLure of lnnocence and casL Lhe flrsL sLone? none
of Lhem can safely clalm LhaL he ls noL Lhus slmllarly moLlvaLed
lrom Lhe foregolng premlses lL cannoL be sald LhaL lloras acLuaLlons lmpalred Lhe Lrue lnLenLlon
of Lhe LesLaLrlx ln regard Lo Lhe noconLesL and forfelLure clause of Lhe wlll lloras acL of
wlLhdrawlng her opposlLlon before she had resLed her case conLrlbuLed Lo Lhe speedy probaLlon of
Lhe wlll Slnce Lhe wlLhdrawal came before llora had resLed her case lL precluded Lhe defeaL of Lhe
probaLe upon Lhe sLrengLh of lloras evldence 1hrough sald wlLhdrawal llora conformed Lo Lhe
LesLaLrlxs wlsh LhaL her dlsposlLlons of her properLles under Lhe wlll be carrled ouL lL follows LhaL
Laken as a whole lloras acLuaLlons subserved raLher Lhan vlolaLed Lhe LesLaLrlxs lnLenLlon
lnsLlLuLlon of Pelrs


keyes vs 8arettoDatu
Gk # L17818 Ian 2S 1967
19 SCkA 8S

lacLs 8lblano 8arreLLo was marrled Lo Marla Cerardo uurlng Lhelr llfeLlme Lhey acqulred a vasL
esLaLe conslsLlng of real properLles ln Manlla ampanga and 8ulacan When 8lblano dled he lefL
hls share of Lhese properLles ln a wlll Lo Salud 8arreLLo moLher of 1lrso's wards and Lucla Mllagros
(Mllagros) 8arreLLo 1he usufrucL of a flshpond however was reserved for hls wldow Marla Marla
was appolnLed admlnlsLraLrlx 8y vlrLue Lhereof she prepared a pro[ecL of parLlLlon whlch was
approved by Lhe Cll of Manlla 1he dlsLrlbuLlon of Lhe esLaLe and Lhe dellvery of Lhe shares of Lhe
helrs followed As a consequence Salud Look lmmedlaLe possesslon of her share and secured Lhe
cancellaLlon of Lhe CC1s and Lhe lssuance of new LlLles ln her own name
LveryLhlng wenL well unLll Marla dled upon her deaLh lL was dlscovered LhaL she had execuLed
Lwo wllls ln Lhe flrsL of whlch she lnsLlLuLed Salud and Mllagros as her helrs and ln Lhe second
she revoked Lhe same and lefL all her properLles ln favor of Mllagros alone 1hus Lhe laLer wlll was
allowed and Lhe flrsL re[ecLed ln re[ecLlng Lhe flrsL wlll presenLed by 1lrso Lhe lower courL held LhaL
Salud was noL Lhe daughLer of Lhe decedenL Marla by her husband 8lblano Pavlng Lhus losL Lhls
flghL for a share ln Lhe esLaLe of Marla 1lrso now falls back upon Lhe remnanL of Lhe esLaLe of Lhe
deceased 8lblano whlch was glven ln usufrucL Lo hls wldow Marla Pence Lhe acLlon for Lhe
recovery of onehalf porLlon Lhereof 1hls acLlon afforded Mllagros an opporLunlLy Lo seL up her
rlghL of ownershlp noL only of Lhe flshpond under llLlgaLlon buL of all Lhe oLher properLles wllled
and dellvered Lo Salud for belng a spurlous helr and noL enLlLled Lo any share ln Lhe esLaLe of
8lblano Lhereby dlrecLly aLLacklng Lhe valldlLy noL only of Lhe pro[ecL of parLlLlon buL of Lhe
declslon of Lhe courL based Lhereon as well Mllagros conLends LhaL Lhe ro[ecL of arLlLlon from
whlch Salud acqulred Lhe flshpond ln quesLlon ls vold ab lnlLlo and Salud dld noL acqulre any valld
LlLle LhereLo
llndlng for Lhe defendanL (now appellee) Mllagros Lhe lower courL declared Lhe pro[ecL of
parLlLlon submlLLed ln Lhe proceedlngs for Lhe seLLlemenL of Lhe esLaLe of 8lblano Lo be null and
vold ab lnlLlo because Lhe dlsLrlbuLee Salud predecessor of plalnLlffs (now appellanLs) was noL a
daughLer of Lhe spouses 8lblano and Marla 1he nulllLy of Lhe pro[ecL of parLlLlon was decreed on
Lhe basls of ArLlcle 1081 of Lhe Clvll Code of 1889 (Lhen ln force) provldlng as follows A parLlLlon ln
whlch a person was belleved Lo be an helr wlLhouL belng so has been lncluded shall be null and
vold
lssue WheLher ArL 1081 of Lhe Cld Clvll Code was correcLly applled by Lhe lower courL
Peld lalnLlffsappellanLs correcLly polnL ouL LhaL ArLlcle 1081 of Lhe old Clvll Code has been
mlsapplled Lo Lhe presenL case by Lhe courL below 1he reason ls obvlous Salud admlLLedly had
been lnsLlLuLed helr ln Lhe laLe 8lblanos lasL wlll and LesLamenL LogeLher wlLh defendanL Mllagros
hence Lhe parLlLlon had beLween Lhem could noL be one such had wlLh a parLy who was belleved
Lo be an helr wlLhouL really belng one and was noL null and vold under sald arLlcle 1he legal
precepL (ArLlcle 1081) does noL speak of chlldren or descendanLs buL of helrs (wlLhouL dlsLlncLlon
beLween forced volunLary or lnLesLaLe ones) and Lhe facL LhaL Salud happened noL Lo be a
daughLer of Lhe LesLaLor does noL preclude her belng one of Lhe helrs expressly named ln hls
LesLamenL for 8lblano was aL llberLy Lo asslgn Lhe free porLlon of hls esLaLe Lo whomsoever he
chose Whlle Lhe share (Z) asslgned Lo Salud lmplnged on Lhe leglLlme of Mllagros Salud dld noL for
LhaL reason cease Lo be a LesLamenLary helr of 8lblano 8arreLLo nor does Lhe facL LhaL Mllagros
was alloLLed ln her faLhers wlll a share smaller Lhan her leglLlme lnvalldaLe Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of Salud
as helr slnce Lhere was here no preLerlLlon or LoLal ommlsslon of a forced helr

Aznar vs Duncan
Gk # L 2436S Iune 30 1966
17 SCkA S90

Ldward L ChrlsLensen who aL hls deaLh was a uS clLlzen buL domlclled ln Lhe hlllpplnes lefL a wlll
devlslng unLo Marla Pelen (ChrlsLensen Carcla) Lhe amounL of 3 60000 and leavlng Lhe resL of
hls esLaLe Lo hls daughLer Marla Lucy (ChrlsLensen uaney) uurlng parLlLlon Pelen opposed saylng
LhaL she ls deprlved of her leglLlme as acknowledged naLural chlld of Lhe LesLaLor She furLher
argued LhaL SecLlon 946 of Lhe Callfornla Clvll Code provldes LhaL Lhe laws of Lhe domlclle of Lhe
decedenL should be applled

1he Lrlal courL ruled LhaL slnce Ldward L ChrlsLensen was a uS clLlzen aL Lhe Llme of hls deaLh Lhe
successlonal rlghLs and lnLrlnslc valldlLy of Lhe provlslons of hls wlll are Lo be governed by Lhe law of
Callfornla

lSSuL

WheLher or noL Lhe 8envol uocLrlne should be applled



PLLu

1here ls no quesLlon LhaL Ldward L ChrlsLensen was a clLlzen of Lhe unlLed SLaLes and of Lhe SLaLe
of Callfornla aL Lhe Llme of hls deaLh 8uL Lhere ls also no quesLlon LhaL aL Lhe Llme of hls deaLh he
was domlclled ln Lhe hlllpplnes

Meanlng of uomlclle" and 8esldence"

Coodrlch 1he Lerms 'resldence' and 'domlclle' mlghL well be Laken Lo mean Lhe same Lhlng a
place of permanenL abode 8uL domlclle as has been shown has acqulred a Lechnlcal meanlng
1hus one may be domlclled ln a place where he has never been And he may reslde ln a place
where he has no domlclle 1he man wlLh Lwo homes beLween whlch he dlvldes hls Llme cerLalnly
resldes ln each one whlle llvlng ln lL 8uL lf he wenL on buslness whlch would requlre hls presence
for several weeks or monLhs he mlghL properly be sald Lo have sufflclenL connecLlon wlLh Lhe place
Lo be called a resldenL lL ls clear however LhaL lf he LreaLed hls seLLlemenL as conLlnulng only for
Lhe parLlcular buslness ln hand noL glvlng up hls former home" he could noL be a domlclled new
?orker AcqulslLlon of a domlclle of cholce requlres Lhe exerclse of lnLenLlon as well as physlcal
presence 8esldence slmply requlres bodlly presence of an lnhablLanL ln a glven place whlle
domlclle requlres bodlly presence ln LhaL place and also an lnLenLlon Lo make lL one's domlclle"
8esldence however ls a Lerm used wlLh shades of meanlng from Lhe meresL Lemporary presence
Lo Lhe mosL permanenL abode and lL ls noL safe Lo lnslsL LhaL any one use ls Lhe only proper one"

naLlonallLy rlnclple

1he law LhaL governs Lhe valldlLy of hls LesLamenLary dlsposlLlons ls deflned ln ArLlcle 16 of Lhe Clvll
Code of Lhe hlllpplnes

1he appllcaLlon of Lhls arLlcle ln Lhe case aL bar requlres Lhe deLermlnaLlon of Lhe meanlng of Lhe
Lerm naLlonal law" as used Lhereln

1here ls no slngle Amerlcan law governlng Lhe valldlLy of LesLamenLary provlslons ln Lhe unlLed
SLaLes each sLaLe of Lhe unlon havlng lLs own prlvaLe law appllcable Lo lLs clLlzens only and ln force
only wlLhln Lhe sLaLe 1he naLlonal law" lndlcaLed ln ArLlcle 16 of Lhe Clvll CodecannoL Lherefore
posslbly mean or apply Lo any general Amerlcan law So lL can refer Lo no oLher Lhan Lhe prlvaLe
law of Lhe SLaLe of Callfornla

1he nexL quesLlon ls WhaL ls Lhe law ln Callfornla governlng Lhe dlsposlLlon of personal properLy?

appellanL lnvokes Lhe provlslons of ArLlcle 946 lf Lhe Clvll Code of Callfornla lf Lhere ls no law Lo
Lhe conLrary ln Lhe place where personal properLy ls slLuaLed lL ls deemed Lo follow Lhe person of
lLs owner and ls governed by Lhe law of hls domlclle"

lL ls argued on execuLor's behalf LhaL as Lhe deceased ChrlsLensen was a clLlzen of Lhe SLaLe of
Callfornla Lhe lnLernal law Lhereof should govern Lhe deLermlnaLlon of Lhe valldlLy of Lhe
LesLamenLary provlslons of ChrlsLensen's wlll such law belng ln force ln Lhe SLaLe of Callfornla of
whlch ChrlsLensen was a clLlzen AppellanL on Lhe oLher hand lnslsLs LhaL ArLlcle 946 should be
appllcable and ln accordance LherewlLh and followlng Lhe docLrlne of renvol Lhe quesLlon of Lhe
valldlLy of Lhe LesLamenLary provlslon ln quesLlon should be referred back Lo Lhe law of Lhe
decedenL's domlclle whlch ls Lhe hlllpplnes

8envol uocLrlne

Cne Lype of renvol A [ural maLLer ls presenLed whlch Lhe confllcLoflaws rule of Lhe forum refers
Lo a forelgn law Lhe confllcLoflaws rule of whlch ln Lurn refers back Lhe maLLer back agaln Lo Lhe
law of Lhe forum 1hls ls renvol ln Lhe narrower sense 1he Cerman Lerm for Lhls [udlclal process ls
'8uckverwelsung' (8envoyer" Lo send back or WelLerverwelsung")

AnoLher Lheory known as Lhe docLrlne of renvol" has been advanced 1he Lheory of Lhe docLrlne
of renvol ls LhaL Lhe courL of Lhe forum ln deLermlnlng Lhe quesLlon before lL musL Lake lnLo
accounL Lhe whole law of Lhe oLher [urlsdlcLlon buL also lLs rules as Lo confllcL of laws and Lhen
apply Lhe law Lo Lhe acLual quesLlon whlch Lhe rules of Lhe oLher [urlsdlcLlon prescrlbe 1hls may be
Lhe law of Lhe forum 1he docLrlne of Lhe renvol has generally been repudlaLed by Lhe Amerlcan
auLhorlLles

8envol uocLrlne as Applled by Lhe CourL ln Lhls case

We noLe LhaL ArLlcle 946 of Lhe Callfornla Clvll Code ls lLs confllcL of laws rule whlle Lhe rule applled
ln ln 8e kaufman supra lLs lnLernal law lf Lhe law on successlon and Lhe confllcL of laws rules of
Callfornla are Lo be enforced [olnLly each ln lLs own lnLended and approprlaLe sphere Lhe prlnclple
clLed ln 8e kaufman should apply Lo clLlzens llvlng ln Lhe SLaLe buL ArLlcle 946 should apply Lo such
of lLs clLlzens as are noL domlclled ln Callfornla buL ln oLher [urlsdlcLlons 1he rule lald down of
resorLlng Lo Lhe law of Lhe domlclle ln Lhe deLermlnaLlon of maLLers wlLh forelgn elemenL lnvolved
ls ln accord wlLh Lhe general prlnclple of Amerlcan law LhaL Lhe domlclllary law should govern ln
mosL maLLers or rlghLs whlch follow Lhe person of Lhe owner

Appellees argue LhaL whaL ArLlcle 16 of Lhe Clvll Code of Lhe hlllpplnes polnLed ouL as Lhe naLlonal
law ls Lhe lnLernal law of Callfornla 8uL as above explalned Lhe laws of Callfornla have prescrlbed

Lwo seLs of laws for lLs clLlzens one for resldenLs Lhereln and anoLher for Lhose domlclled ln oLher
[urlsdlcLlons 8eason demands LhaL We should enforce Lhe Callfornla lnLernal law prescrlbed for lLs
clLlzens resldlng Lhereln and enforce Lhe confllcL of laws rules for Lhe clLlzens domlclled abroad lf
we musL enforce Lhe law of Callfornla as ln comlLy we are bound Lo do as so declared ln ArLlcle 16
of our Clvll Code Lhen we musL enforce Lhe law of Callfornla ln accordance wlLh Lhe express
mandaLe Lhereof and as above explalned le apply Lhe lnLernal law for resldenLs Lhereln and lLs
confllcLoflaws rule for Lhose domlclled abroad

lL ls argued on appellees behalf LhaL Lhe clause lf Lhere ls no law Lo Lhe conLrary ln Lhe place
where Lhe properLy ls slLuaLed ln Sec 946 of Lhe Callfornla Clvll Code refers Lo ArLlcle 16 of Lhe
Clvll Code of Lhe hlllpplnes and LhaL Lhe law Lo Lhe conLrary ln Lhe hlllpplnes ls Lhe provlslon ln
sald ArLlcle 16 LhaL Lhe naLlonal law of Lhe deceased should govern 1hls conLenLlon can noL be
susLalned As explalned ln Lhe varlous auLhorlLles clLed above Lhe naLlonal law menLloned ln ArLlcle
16 of our Clvll Code ls Lhe law on confllcL of laws ln Lhe Callfornla Clvll Code le ArLlcle 946 whlch
auLhorlzes Lhe reference or reLurn of Lhe quesLlon Lo Lhe law of Lhe LesLaLors domlclle 1he confllcL
of laws rule ln Callfornla ArLlcle 946 Clvll Code preclsely refers back Lhe case when a decedenL ls
noL domlclled ln Callfornla Lo Lhe law of hls domlclle Lhe hlllpplnes ln Lhe case aL bar 1he courL of
Lhe domlclle can noL and should noL refer Lhe case back Lo Callfornla such acLlon would leave Lhe
lssue lncapable of deLermlnaLlon because Lhe case wlll Lhen be llke a fooLball Lossed back and forLh
beLween Lhe Lwo sLaLes beLween Lhe counLry of whlch Lhe decedenL was a clLlzen and Lhe counLry
of hls domlclle 1he hlllpplne courL musL apply lLs own law as dlrecLed ln Lhe confllcL of laws rule
of Lhe sLaLe of Lhe decedenL lf Lhe quesLlon has Lo be declded especlally as Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe
lnLernal law of Callfornla provldes no leglLlme for chlldren whlle Lhe hlllpplne law ArLs 887(4) and
894 Clvll Code of Lhe hlllpplnes makes naLural chlldren legally acknowledged forced helrs of Lhe
parenL recognlzlng Lhem



Aca|n vs IAC
Gk #L 72706 Cct 27 1987
1SS SCkA 100

1hls ls a peLlLlon for revlew on cerLlorarl of Lhe declslon of Lhe CA

8espondenL 8eglonal 1rlal CourL granLed Lhe peLlLlon and ordered lLs dlsmlssal

Cn May 29 1984 peLlLloner ConsLanLlno Acaln flled on Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL of Cebu ClLy a
peLlLlon for Lhe probaLe of Lhe wlll of Lhe laLe nemeslo Acaln and for Lhe lssuance Lo Lhe same
peLlLloner of leLLers LesLamenLary on Lhe premlse LhaL nemeslo Acaln dled leavlng a wlll ln whlch
peLlLloner and hls broLhers AnLonlo llores and !ose and hls slsLers AnlLa Concepclon Culrlna and
Laura were lnsLlLuLed as helrs

1he wlll allegedly execuLed by nemeslo Acaln on lebruary 17 1960 was wrlLLen ln 8lsaya wlLh a
LranslaLlon ln Lngllsh submlLLed by peLlLloner wlLhouL ob[ecLlon ralsed by prlvaLe respondenLs 1he
wlll conLalned provlslons on burlal rlLes paymenL of debLs and Lhe appolnLmenL of a cerLaln ALLy
lgnaclo C vlllagonzalo as Lhe execuLor of Lhe LesLamenL Cn Lhe dlsposlLlon of Lhe LesLaLors
properLy Lhe wlll provlded

1Pl8u All my shares LhaL l may recelve from our properLles house lands and money whlch l
earned [olnLly wlLh my wlfe 8osa ulongson shall all be glven by me Lo my broLher SLCunuC ACAln
llllplno wldower of legal age and presenLly resldlng aL 337C Sanclangko SLreeL Cebu ClLy ln case
my broLher Segundo Acaln predeceased me all Lhe money properLles lands houses Lhere ln
8anLayan and here ln Cebu ClLy whlch consLlLuLe my share shall be glven Lo me Lo hls chlldren
namely AnlLa ConsLanLlno Concepclon Culrlna laura llores AnLonlo and !ose all surnamed
Acaln

Cbvlously Segundo predeceased nemeslo 1hus lL ls Lhe chlldren of Segundo who are clalmlng Lo
be helrs wlLh ConsLanLlno as Lhe peLlLloner

AfLer Lhe peLlLlon was seL for hearlng ln Lhe lower courL on !une 23 1984 Lhe opposlLors
(respondenLs hereln vlrglnla A lernandez a legally adopLed daughLer of Lhe deceased and Lhe
laLLers wldow 8osa ulongson vda de Acaln flled a moLlon Lo dlsmlss on Lhe followlng grounds for
Lhe peLlLloner has no legal capaclLy Lo lnsLlLuLe Lhese proceedlngs (2) he ls merely a unlversal helr
and (3) Lhe wldow and Lhe adopLed daughLer have been preLlrlLed Sald moLlon was denled by Lhe
Lrlal [udge

AfLer Lhe denlal of Lhelr subsequenL moLlon for reconslderaLlon ln Lhe lower courL respondenLs
flled wlLh Lhe Supreme CourL a peLlLlon for cerLlorarl and prohlblLlon wlLh prellmlnary ln[uncLlon
whlch was subsequenLly referred Lo Lhe lnLermedlaLe AppellaLe CourL by 8esoluLlon of Lhe CourL
daLed March 11 1983

lAC granLed prlvaLe respondenLs peLlLlon and ordered Lhe Lrlal courL Lo dlsmlss Lhe peLlLlon for Lhe
probaLe of Lhe wlll of nemeslo Acaln eLlLloner flled Lhls presenL peLlLlon for Lhe revlew of
respondenL CourLs declslon

1he plvoLal lssue ln Lhls case ls wheLher or noL prlvaLe respondenLs have been preLlrlLed

ArLlcle 834 of Lhe Clvll Code provldes 1he preLerlLlon or omlsslon of one some or all of Lhe
compulsory helrs ln Lhe dlrecL llne wheLher llvlng aL Lhe Llme of Lhe execuLlon of Lhe wlll or born
afLer Lhe deaLh of Lhe LesLaLor shall annul Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of helr buL Lhe devlsees and legacles shall
be valld lnsofar as Lhey are noL lnofflclous
lf Lhe omlLLed compulsory helrs should dle before Lhe LesLaLor Lhe lnsLlLuLlon shall be effecLual
wlLhouL pre[udlce Lo Lhe rlghL of represenLaLlon

reLerlLlon conslsLs ln Lhe omlsslon ln Lhe LesLaLors wlll of Lhe forced helrs or anyone of Lhem
elLher because Lhey are noL menLloned Lhereln or Lhough menLloned Lhey are nelLher lnsLlLuLed
as helrs nor are expressly dlslnherlLed lnsofar as Lhe wldow ls concerned ArLlcle 834 of Lhe Clvll
Code may noL apply as she does noL ascend or descend from Lhe LesLaLor alLhough she ls a
compulsory helr SLaLed oLherwlse even lf Lhe survlvlng spouse ls a compulsory helr Lhere ls no
preLerlLlon even lf she ls omlLLed from Lhe lnherlLance for she ls noL ln Lhe dlrecL llne Powever
Lhe same Lhlng cannoL be sald of Lhe oLher respondenL vlrglnla A lernandez whose legal adopLlon
by Lhe LesLaLor has noL been quesLloned by peLlLloner under ArLlcle 39 of u no 603 known as
Lhe Chlld and ?ouLh Welfare Code adopLlon glves Lo Lhe adopLed person Lhe same rlghLs and
duLles as lf he were a leglLlmaLe chlld of Lhe adopLer and makes Lhe adopLed person a legal helr of

Lhe adopLer lL cannoL be denled LhaL she was LoLally omlLLed and preLerlLed ln Lhe wlll of Lhe
LesLaLor and LhaL boLh adopLed chlld and Lhe wldow were deprlved of aL leasL Lhelr leglLlme
nelLher can lL be denled LhaL Lhey were noL expressly dlslnherlLed Pence Lhls ls a clear case of
preLerlLlon of Lhe legally adopLed chlld

reLenLlon annuls Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of an helr and annulmenL Lhrows open Lo lnLesLaLe successlon Lhe
enLlre lnherlLance lncludlng la porclon llbre (que) no hublese dlspuesLo en vlrLual de legado
me[ora o donaclon) 1he only provlslons whlch do noL resulL ln lnLesLacy are Lhe legacles and
devlses made ln Lhe wlll for Lhey should sLand valld and respecLed excepL lnsofar as Lhe leglLlmes
are concerned

1he unlversal lnsLlLuLlon of peLlLloner LogeLher wlLh hls broLhers and slsLers Lo Lhe enLlre
lnherlLance of Lhe LesLaLor resulLs ln LoLally abrogaLlng Lhe wlll because Lhe nulllflcaLlon of such
lnsLlLuLlon of unlversal helrswlLhouL any oLher LesLamenLary dlsposlLlon ln Lhe wlllamounLs Lo a
declaraLlon LhaL noLhlng aL all was wrlLLen Carefully worded and ln clear Lerms ArLlcle 834 of Lhe
Clvll Code offers no leeway for lnferenLlal lnLerpreLaLlon no legacles or devlses havlng been
provlded ln Lhe wlll Lhe whole properLy of Lhe deceased has been lefL by unlversal LlLle Lo peLlLloner
and hls broLhers and slsLers 1he effecL of annulllng Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of helrs wlll be necessarlly Lhe
openlng of a LoLal lnLesLacy excepL LhaL proper legacles and devlses musL as already sLaLed above
be respecLed

We now deal wlLh anoLher maLLer ln order LhaL a person may be allowed Lo lnLervene ln a probaLe
proceedlng he musL have an lnLeresL ln Lhe esLaLe or ln Lhe wlll or ln Lhe properLy Lo be affecLed
by lL elLher as execuLor or as a clalmanL of Lhe esLaLe and an lnLeresLed parLy ls one who would be
beneflLed by Lhe esLaLe such as an helr or one who has a clalm agalnsL Lhe esLaLe llke a credlLor
eLlLloner ls noL Lhe appolnLed execuLor nelLher a devlsee nor a legaLee Lhere belng no menLlon ln
Lhe LesLamenLary dlsposlLlon of any glfL of an lndlvldual lLem of personal or real properLy he ls
called upon Lo recelve (ArLlcle 782 Clvll Code)

AL Lhe ouLseL he appears Lo have an lnLeresL ln Lhe wlll as an helr deflned under ArLlcle 782 of Lhe
Clvll Code as a person called Lo Lhe successlon elLher by Lhe provlslon of a wlll or by operaLlon of
law Powever lnLesLacy havlng resulLed from Lhe preLerlLlon of respondenL adopLed chlld and Lhe
unlversal lnsLlLuLlon of helrs peLlLloner ls ln effecL noL an helr of Lhe LesLaLor Pe has no legal
sLandlng Lo peLlLlon for Lhe probaLe of Lhe wlll lefL by Lhe deceased and Speclal roceedlngs musL
be dlsmlssed

As a general rule cerLlorarl cannoL be a subsLlLuLe for appeal excepL when Lhe quesLloned order ls
an oppresslve exerclse of [udlclal auLhorlLy lL ls axlomaLlc LhaL Lhe remedles of cerLlorarl and
prohlblLlon are noL avallable where Lhe peLlLloner has Lhe remedy of appeal or some oLher plaln
speedy and adequaLe remedy ln Lhe course of law 1hey are however proper remedles Lo correcL
a grave abuse of dlscreLlon of Lhe Lrlal courL ln noL dlsmlsslng a case where Lhe dlsmlssal ls founded
on valld grounds

Speclal roceedlngs ls for Lhe probaLe of a wlll As sLaLed by respondenL CourL Lhe general rule ls
LhaL Lhe probaLe courLs auLhorlLy ls llmlLed only Lo Lhe exLrlnslc valldlLy of Lhe wlll Lhe due
execuLlon Lhereof Lhe LesLaLors LesLamenLary capaclLy and Lhe compllance wlLh Lhe requlslLes or
solemnlLles prescrlbed by law

1he lnLrlnslc valldlLy of Lhe wlll normally comes only afLer Lhe CourL has declared LhaL Lhe wlll has
been duly auLhenLlcaLed Sald courL aL Lhls sLage of Lhe proceedlngs ls noL called upon Lo rule on
Lhe lnLrlnslc valldlLy or efflcacy of Lhe provlslons of Lhe wlll

1he rule however ls noL lnflexlble and absoluLe under excepLlonal clrcumsLances Lhe probaLe
courL ls noL powerless Lo do whaL Lhe slLuaLlon consLralns lL Lo do and pass upon cerLaln provlslons
of Lhe wlll

ln Lhe lnsLanL case prlvaLe respondenLs flled a moLlon Lo dlsmlss Lhe peLlLlon on Lhe followlng
grounds (1) peLlLloner has no legal capaclLy Lo lnsLlLuLe Lhe proceedlngs (2) he ls merely a
unlversal helr and (3) Lhe wldow and Lhe adopLed daughLer have been preLerlLed lL was denled by
Lhe Lrlal courL ln an order daLed !anuary 21 1983 for Lhe reason LhaL Lhe grounds for Lhe moLlon
Lo dlsmlss are maLLers properly Lo be resolved afLer a hearlng on Lhe lssues ln Lhe course of Lhe Lrlal
on Lhe merlLs of Lhe case A subsequenL moLlon for reconslderaLlon was denled by Lhe Lrlal courL on
lebruary 13 1983

lor prlvaLe respondenLs Lo have LoleraLed Lhe probaLe of Lhe wlll and allowed Lhe case Lo progress
when on lLs face Lhe wlll appears Lo be lnLrlnslcally vold as peLlLloner and hls broLhers and slsLers
were lnsLlLuLed as unlversal helrs coupled wlLh Lhe obvlous facL LhaL one of Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs
had been preLerlLed would have been an exerclse ln fuLlllLy lL would have meanL a wasLe of Llme
efforL expense plus added fuLlllLy 1he Lrlal courL could have denled lLs probaLe ouLrlghL or could
have passed upon Lhe lnLrlnslc valldlLy of Lhe LesLamenLary provlslons before Lhe exLrlnslc valldlLy
of Lhe wlll was resolved 1he remedles of cerLlorarl and prohlblLlon were properly avalled of by
prlvaLe respondenLs

1hus Lhls CourL ruled LhaL where Lhe grounds for dlsmlssal are lndublLable Lhe defendanLs had Lhe
rlghL Lo resorL Lo Lhe more speedy and adequaLe remedles of cerLlorarl and prohlblLlon Lo correcL a
grave abuse of dlscreLlon amounLlng Lo lack of [urlsdlcLlon commlLLed by Lhe Lrlal courL ln noL
dlsmlsslng Lhe case and even assumlng Lhe exlsLence of Lhe remedy of appeal Lhe CourL harkens
Lo Lhe rule LhaL ln Lhe broader lnLeresLs of [usLlce a peLlLlon for cerLlorarl may be enLerLalned
parLlcularly where appeal would noL afford speedy and adequaLe rellef

eLlLlon was uLnlLu for lack of merlL and Lhe quesLloned declslon of respondenL CourL of Appeals
and lLs 8esoluLlon are hereby Alll8MLu
SeparaLe Cplnlons

MLLLnClCPL88L8A ! concurrlng
l concur ln Lhe resulL on Lhe baslc proposlLlon LhaL preLerlLlon ln Lhls case was by mlsLake or
lnadverLence
1o my mlnd an lmporLanL dlsLlncLlon has Lo be made as Lo wheLher Lhe omlsslon of a forced helr ln
Lhe wlll of a LesLaLor ls by mlsLake or lnadverLence or volunLary or lnLenLlonal lf by mlsLake or
lnadverLence Lhere ls Lrue preLerlrLon and LoLal lnLesLacy resulLs 1he reason for Lhls ls Lhe
lnablllLy Lo deLermlne how Lhe LesLaLor would have dlsLrlbuLed hls esLaLe lf none of Lhe helrs had
been omlLLed or forgoLLen

reLenLlon ls presumed Lo be only an lnvolunLary omlsslon LhaL ls LhaL lf Lhe LesLaLor had known
of Lhe exlsLence of Lhe compulsory helr aL Lhe Llme of Lhe execuLlon of Lhe wlll he would have
lnsLlLuLed such helr Cn Lhe oLher hand lf Lhe LesLaLor aLLempLs Lo dlslnherlL a compulsory helr Lhe
presumpLlon of Lhe law ls LhaL he wanLs such helr Lo recelve as llLLle as posslble from hls esLaLe

ln Lhe case aL bar Lhere seems Lo have been mlsLake or lnadverLence ln Lhe omlsslon of Lhe
adopLed daughLer hence my concurrence ln Lhe resulL LhaL LoLal lnLesLacy ensued


Nugu|d vs Nugu|d
Gk # L 2344S Iune 23 1966
17 SCkA 449

8osarlo nuguld a resldenL of Cuezon ClLy dled on uecember 30 1962 slngle wlLhouL
descendanLs leglLlmaLe or llleglLlmaLe Survlvlng her were her leglLlmaLe parenLs lellx nuguld and
az Salonga nuguld and slx (6) broLhers and slsLers namely Alfredo lederlco 8emedlos Conrado
Lourdes and AlberLo all surnamed nuguld

Cn May 18 1963 peLlLloner 8emedlos nuguld flled ln Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of 8lzal a
holographlc wlll allegedly execuLed by 8osarlo nuguld on november 17 1931 some 11 years
before her demlse eLlLloner prayed LhaL sald wlll be admlLLed Lo probaLe and LhaL leLLers of
admlnlsLraLlon wlLh Lhe wlll annexed be lssued Lo her

Cn !une 23 1963 lellx nuguld and az Salonga nuguld concededly Lhe leglLlmaLe faLher and
moLher of Lhe deceased 8osarlo nuguld enLered Lhelr opposlLlon Lo Lhe probaLe of her wlll
Cround Lherefor lnLer alla ls LhaL by Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of peLlLloner 8emedlos nuguld as unlversal helr
of Lhe deceased opposlLors who are compulsory helrs of Lhe deceased ln Lhe dlrecL ascendlng llne
were lllegally preLerlLed and LhaL ln consequence Lhe lnsLlLuLlon ls vold

8efore a hearlng was had on Lhe peLlLlon for probaLe and ob[ecLlon LhereLo opposlLors moved Lo
dlsmlss on Lhe ground of absoluLe preLerlLlon

1he courL held LhaL Lhe wlll ln quesLlon ls a compleLe nulllLy and wlll perforce creaLe lnLesLacy of
Lhe esLaLe of Lhe deceased 8osarlo nuguld and dlsmlssed Lhe peLlLlon wlLhouL cosLs

A moLlon Lo reconslder havlng been LhwarLed below peLlLloner came Lo Lhls CourL on appeal

1 1he case ls for Lhe probaLe of a wlll 1he courLs area of lnqulry ls llmlLed Lo an examlnaLlon of
and resoluLlon on Lhe exLrlnslc valldlLy of Lhe wlll Sald courL aL Lhls sLage of Lhe proceedlngs ls
noL called upon Lo rule on Lhe lnLrlnslc valldlLy or efflcacy of Lhe provlslons of Lhe wlll Lhe legallLy of
any devlse or legacy Lhereln

uue Lo pracLlcal conslderaLlons (wasLe of Llme efforL expense plus added anxleLy) LhaL lnduce us
Lo a bellef LhaL we mlghL as well meeL headon Lhe lssue of Lhe valldlLy of Lhe provlslons of Lhe wlll
ln quesLlon AfLer all Lhere exlsLs a [usLlclable conLroversy crylng for soluLlon

2 eLlLloners sole asslgnmenL of error challenges Lhe correcLness of Lhe concluslon below LhaL Lhe
wlll ls a compleLe nulllLy 1hls exacLs from us a sLudy of Lhe dlspuLed wlll and Lhe appllcable sLaLuLe
8eproduced hereunder ls Lhe wlll

nov 17 1931
l 8CSA8lC nuCulu belng of sound and dlsposlng mlnd and memory havlng amassed a cerLaln
amounL of properLy do hereby glve devlse and bequeaLh all of Lhe properLy whlch l may have
when l dle Lo my beloved slsLer 8emedlos nuguld age 34 resldlng wlLh me aL 388 lrlga CC ln
wlLness whereof l have slgned my name Lhls sevenLh day of november nlneLeen hundred and
flfLyone
(Sgd) llleglble
1/ 8CSA8lC nuCulu

1he sLaLuLe we are called upon Lo apply ln ArLlcle 834 of Lhe Clvll Code whlch ln parL provldes
A81 834 1he preLerlLlon or omlsslon of one some or all of Lhe compulsory helrs ln Lhe dlrecL llne
wheLher llvlng aL Lhe Llme of Lhe execuLlon of Lhe wlll or born afLer Lhe deaLh of Lhe LesLaLor shall
annul Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of helr buL Lhe devlses and legacles shall be valld lnsofar as Lhey are noL
lnofflclous

ArLlcle 814 of Lhe Clvll Code of Spaln of 1889 whlch ls slmllarly hereln copled Lhus
ArL 814 1he preLerlLlon of one or all of Lhe forced helrs ln Lhe dlrecL llne wheLher llvlng aL Lhe
Llme of Lhe execuLlon of Lhe wlll or born afLer Lhe deaLh of Lhe LesLaLor shall vold Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of
helr buL Lhe legacles and beLLermenLs shall be valld ln so far as Lhey are noL lnofflclous

1he word annul as used ln sLaLuLe requlrlng courL Lo annul allmony provlslons of dlvorce decree
upon wlfes remarrlage means Lo reduce Lo noLhlng Lo annlhllaLe obllLeraLe bloL ouL Lo make
vold or of no effecL Lo nulllfy Lo abollsh

1he deceased 8osarlo nuguld lefL no descendanLs leglLlmaLe or llleglLlmaLe 8uL she lefL forced
helrs ln Lhe dlrecL ascendlng llne her parenLs now opposlLors lellx nuguld and az Salonga
nuguld And Lhe wlll compleLely omlLs boLh of Lhem 1hey Lhus recelved noLhlng by Lhe LesLamenL
LaclLly Lhey were deprlved of Lhelr leglLlme nelLher were Lhey expressly dlslnherlLed 1hls ls a clear
case of preLerlLlon
1he onesenLence wlll lnsLlLuLes peLlLloner as Lhe sole unlversal helr noLhlng more no speclflc
legacles or bequesLs are Lhereln provlded for lL ls ln Lhls posLure LhaL we say LhaL Lhe nulllLy ls
compleLe erforce 8osarlo nuguld dled lnLesLaLe

8eally as we analyze Lhe word annul employed ln Lhe sLaLuLe Lhere ls no escaplng Lhe concluslon
LhaL Lhe unlversal lnsLlLuLlon of peLlLloner Lo Lhe enLlre lnherlLance resulLs ln LoLally abrogaLlng Lhe
wlll 8ecause Lhe nulllflcaLlon of such lnsLlLuLlon of unlversal helr wlLhouL any oLher LesLamenLary
dlsposlLlon ln Lhe wlll amounLs Lo a declaraLlon LhaL noLhlng aL all was wrlLLen Carefully worded
and ln clear Lerms ArLlcle 834 offers no leeway for lnferenLlal lnLerpreLaLlon Clvlng lL an expanslve
meanlng wlll Lear up by Lhe rooLs Lhe fabrlc of Lhe sLaLuLe

3 We should noL be led asLray by Lhe sLaLemenL ln ArLlcle 834 LhaL annullmenL noLwlLhsLandlng
Lhe devlses and legacles shall be valld lnsofar as Lhey are noL lnofflclous Legacles and devlses
merlL conslderaLlon only when Lhey are so expressly glven as such ln a wlll noLhlng ln ArLlcle 834

suggesLs LhaL Lhe mere lnsLlLuLlon of a unlversal helr ln a wlll vold because of preLerlLlon would
glve Lhe helr so lnsLlLuLed a share ln Lhe lnherlLance As Lo hlm Lhe wlll ls lnexlsLenL 1here musL be
ln addlLlon Lo such lnsLlLuLlon a LesLamenLary dlsposlLlon granLlng hlm bequesLs or legacles aparL
and separaLe from Lhe nulllfled lnsLlLuLlon of helr

As aforesald Lhere ls no oLher provlslon ln Lhe wlll before us excepL Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of peLlLloner as
unlversal helr 1haL lnsLlLuLlon by lLself ls null and vold And lnLesLaLe successlon ensues

4 eLlLloners malnsLay ls LhaL Lhe presenL ls a case of lneffecLlve dlslnherlLance raLher Lhan one of
preLerlLlon lrom Lhls peLlLloner draws Lhe concluslon LhaL ArLlcle 834 does noL apply Lo Lhe case
aL bar

1hls argumenL falls Lo appreclaLe Lhe dlsLlncLlon beLween preLenLlon and dlslnherlLance
reLerlLlon conslsLs ln Lhe omlsslon ln Lhe LesLaLors wlll of Lhe forced helrs or anyone of Lhem
elLher because Lhey are noL menLloned Lhereln or Lhough menLloned Lhey are nelLher lnsLlLuLed
as helrs nor are expressly dlslnherlLed ulslnherlLance ln Lurn ls a LesLamenLary dlsposlLlon
deprlvlng any compulsory helr of hls share ln Lhe leglLlme for a cause auLhorlzed by law

1he wlll here does noL expllclLly dlslnherlL Lhe LesLaLrlxs parenLs Lhe forced helrs lL slmply omlLs
Lhelr names alLogeLher Sald wlll raLher Lhan be labeled lneffecLlve dlslnherlLance ls clearly one ln
whlch Lhe sald forced helrs suffer from preLerlLlon

1he effecLs flowlng from preLerlLlon are LoLally dlfferenL from Lhose of dlslnherlLance reLerlLlon
under ArLlcle 834 of Lhe Clvll Code we repeaL shall annul Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of helr 1hls annulmenL
ls ln LoLo unless ln Lhe wlll Lhere are ln addlLlon LesLamenLary dlsposlLlons ln Lhe form of devlses
or legacles ln lneffecLlve dlslnherlLance under ArLlcle 918 of Lhe same Code such dlslnherlLance
shall also annul Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of helrs puL only lnsofar as lL may pre[udlce Lhe person
dlslnherlLed whlch lasL phrase was omlLLed ln Lhe case of preLerlLlon 8eLLer sLaLed yeL ln
dlslnherlLance Lhe nulllLy ls llmlLed Lo LhaL porLlon of Lhe esLaLe of whlch Lhe dlslnherlLed helrs have
been lllegally deprlved

3 eLlLloner lnslsLs LhaL Lhe compulsory helrs lneffecLlvely dlslnherlLed are enLlLled Lo recelve Lhelr
leglLlmes buL LhaL Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of helr ls noL lnvalldaLed alLhough Lhe lnherlLance of Lhe helr so
lnsLlLuLed ls reduced Lo Lhe exLenL of sald leglLlmes

WlLh reference Lo arLlcle 814 whlch ls Lhe only provlslon maLerlal Lo Lhe dlsposlLlon of Lhls case lL
musL be observed LhaL Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of helrs ls Lhereln dealL wlLh as a Lhlng separaLe and dlsLlncL
from legacles or beLLermenLs And Lhey are separaLe and dlsLlncL noL only because Lhey are
dlsLlncLly and separaLely LreaLed ln sald arLlcle buL because Lhey are ln Lhemselves dlfferenL
r lnsLlLuLlon of helrs ls a bequesL by unlversal LlLle of properLy LhaL ls undeLermlned
r Legacy refers Lo speclflc properLy bequeaLhed by a parLlcular or speclal LlLle
8uL agaln an lnsLlLuLlon of helrs cannoL be Laken as a legacy

1he dlspuLed order we observe declares Lhe wlll ln quesLlon a compleLe nulllLy ArLlcle 834 of
Lhe Clvll Code ln Lurn merely nulllfles Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of helr Conslderlng however LhaL Lhe wlll
before us solely provldes for Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of peLlLloner as unlversal helr and noLhlng more Lhe
resulL ls Lhe same 1he enLlre wlll ls null

Seang|o v keyes
Gk # 14037172 Nov 27 2006
S08 SCkA 172
1hls ls a peLlLlon for cerLlorarl wlLh appllcaLlon for Lhe lssuance of a wrlL of prellmlnary ln[uncLlon
and/or Lemporary resLralnlng order seeklng Lhe nulllflcaLlon of Lhe orders of Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal
CourL of Manlla dlsmlsslng Lhe peLlLlon for probaLe on Lhe ground of preLerlLlon ln Lhe MaLLer of
Lhe lnLesLaLe LsLaLe of Segundo C Seanglo v Alfredo u Seanglo eL al and ln Lhe MaLLer of Lhe
robaLe of Lhe Wlll of Segundo C Seanglo v uy ?leng Seanglo 8arbara u Seanglo and vlrglnla
Seanglo

rlvaLe respondenLs flled a peLlLlon for Lhe seLLlemenL of Lhe lnLesLaLe esLaLe of Lhe laLe Segundo
Seanglo and praylng for Lhe appolnLmenL of prlvaLe respondenL Lllsa u SeangloSanLos as speclal
admlnlsLraLor and guardlan ad llLem of peLlLloner uy ?leng Seanglo

eLlLloners uy ?leng 8arbara and vlrglnla all surnamed Seanglo opposed Lhe peLlLlon 1hey
conLended LhaL 1) uy ?leng ls sLlll very healLhy and ln full command of her faculLles 2) Lhe
deceased Segundo execuLed a general power of aLLorney ln favor of vlrglnla glvlng her Lhe power
Lo manage and exerclse conLrol and supervlslon over hls buslness ln Lhe hlllpplnes 3) vlrglnla ls
Lhe mosL compeLenL and quallfled Lo serve as Lhe admlnlsLraLor of Lhe esLaLe of Segundo because
she ls a cerLlfled publlc accounLanL and 4) Segundo lefL a holographlc wlll daLed SepLember 20
1993 dlslnherlLlng one of Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs Alfredo Seanglo for cause ln vlew of Lhe
purporLed holographlc wlll peLlLloners averred LhaL ln Lhe evenL Lhe decedenL ls found Lo have lefL
a wlll Lhe lnLesLaLe proceedlngs are Lo be auLomaLlcally suspended and replaced by Lhe
proceedlngs for Lhe probaLe of Lhe wlll

A peLlLlon for Lhe probaLe of Lhe holographlc wlll of Segundo was flled by peLlLloners before Lhe
81C 1hey llkewlse relLeraLed LhaL Lhe probaLe proceedlngs should Lake precedence because
LesLaLe proceedlngs Lake precedence and en[oy prlorlLy over lnLesLaLe proceedlngs

Cn !uly 1 1999 prlvaLe respondenLs moved for Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe probaLe proceedlngs prlmarlly
on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe documenL purporLlng Lo be Lhe holographlc wlll of Segundo does noL
conLaln any dlsposlLlon of Lhe esLaLe of Lhe deceased and Lhus does noL meeL Lhe deflnlLlon of a
wlll under ArLlcle 783 of Lhe Clvll Code Accordlng Lo prlvaLe respondenLs Lhe wlll only shows an
alleged acL of dlslnherlLance by Lhe decedenL of hls eldesL son Alfredo and noLhlng else LhaL all
oLher compulsory helrs were noL named nor lnsLlLuLed as helr devlsee or legaLee hence Lhere ls
preLerlLlon whlch would resulL Lo lnLesLacy Such belng Lhe case prlvaLe respondenLs malnLalned
LhaL whlle procedurally Lhe courL ls called upon Lo rule only on Lhe exLrlnslc valldlLy of Lhe wlll lL ls
noL barred from delvlng lnLo Lhe lnLrlnslc valldlLy of Lhe same and orderlng Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe
peLlLlon for probaLe when on Lhe face of Lhe wlll lL ls clear LhaL lL conLalns no LesLamenLary
dlsposlLlon of Lhe properLy of Lhe decedenL




PLLu

1he purporLed holographlc wlll of Segundo LhaL was presenLed by peLlLloners was daLed slgned
and wrlLLen by hlm ln hls own handwrlLlng LxcepL on Lhe ground of preLerlLlon prlvaLe
respondenLs dld noL ralse any lssue as regards Lhe auLhenLlclLy of Lhe documenL

1he documenL enLlLled kasulaLan ng agAalls ng Mana unmlsLakably showed Segundos lnLenLlon
of excludlng hls eldesL son Alfredo as an helr Lo hls esLaLe for Lhe reasons LhaL he clLed Lhereln ln
effecL Alfredo was dlslnherlLed by Segundo

lor dlslnherlLance Lo be valld ArLlcle 916 of Lhe Clvll Code requlres LhaL Lhe same musL be effecLed
Lhrough a wlll whereln Lhe legal cause Lherefor shall be speclfled WlLh regard Lo Lhe reasons for
Lhe dlslnherlLance LhaL were sLaLed by Segundo ln hls documenL Lhe CourL belleves LhaL Lhe
lncldenLs Laken as a whole can be consldered a form of malLreaLmenL of Segundo by hls son
Alfredo and LhaL Lhe maLLer presenLs a sufflclenL cause for Lhe dlslnherlLance of a chlld or
descendanL under ArLlcle 919 of Lhe Clvll Code

now Lhe crlLlcal lssue Lo be deLermlned ls wheLher Lhe documenL execuLed by Segundo can be
consldered as a holographlc wlll

A holographlc wlll as provlded under ArLlcle 810 of Lhe Clvll Code musL be enLlrely wrlLLen daLed
and slgned by Lhe hand of Lhe LesLaLor hlmself lL ls sub[ecL Lo no oLher form and may be made ln
or ouL of Lhe hlllpplnes and need noL be wlLnessed

Segundos documenL alLhough lL may lnlLlally come across as a mere dlslnherlLance lnsLrumenL
conforms Lo Lhe formallLles of a holographlc wlll prescrlbed by law lL ls wrlLLen daLed and slgned
by Lhe hand of Segundo hlmself lnLenL Lo dlspose morLls causa can be clearly deduced from Lhe
Lerms of Lhe lnsLrumenL and whlle lL does noL make an afflrmaLlve dlsposlLlon of Lhe laLLers
properLy Lhe dlslnherlLance of Alfredo noneLheless ls an acL of dlsposlLlon ln lLself ln oLher
words Lhe dlslnherlLance resulLs ln Lhe dlsposlLlon of Lhe properLy of Lhe LesLaLor Segundo ln favor
of Lhose who would succeed ln Lhe absence of Alfredo

Moreover lL ls a fundamenLal prlnclple LhaL Lhe lnLenL or Lhe wlll of Lhe LesLaLor expressed ln Lhe
form and wlLhln Lhe llmlLs prescrlbed by law musL be recognlzed as Lhe supreme law ln successlon
All rules of consLrucLlon are deslgned Lo ascerLaln and glve effecL Lo LhaL lnLenLlon lL ls only when
Lhe lnLenLlon of Lhe LesLaLor ls conLrary Lo law morals or publlc pollcy LhaL lL cannoL be glven
effecL

WlLh regard Lo Lhe lssue on preLerlLlon Lhe CourL belleves LhaL Lhe compulsory helrs ln Lhe dlrecL
llne were noL preLerlLed ln Lhe wlll lL was ln Lhe CourLs oplnlon Segundos lasL expresslon Lo
bequeaLh hls esLaLe Lo all hls compulsory helrs wlLh Lhe sole excepLlon of Alfredo Also Segundo
dld noL lnsLlLuLe an helr Lo Lhe excluslon of hls oLher compulsory helrs 1he mere menLlon of Lhe
name of one of Lhe peLlLloners vlrglnla ln Lhe documenL dld noL operaLe Lo lnsLlLuLe her as Lhe
unlversal helr Per name was lncluded plalnly as a wlLness Lo Lhe alLercaLlon beLween Segundo and
hls son Alfredo

Conslderlng LhaL Lhe quesLloned documenL ls Segundos holographlc wlll and LhaL Lhe law favors
LesLacy over lnLesLacy Lhe probaLe of Lhe wlll cannoL be dlspensed wlLh ArLlcle 838 of Lhe Clvll
Code provldes LhaL no wlll shall pass elLher real or personal properLy unless lL ls proved and allowed
ln accordance wlLh Lhe 8ules of CourL 1hus unless Lhe wlll ls probaLed Lhe rlghL of a person Lo
dlspose of hls properLy may be rendered nugaLory

ln vlew of Lhe foregolng Lhe Lrlal courL Lherefore should have allowed Lhe holographlc wlll Lo be
probaLed lL ls seLLled LhaL LesLaLe proceedlngs for Lhe seLLlemenL of Lhe esLaLe of Lhe decedenL
Lake precedence over lnLesLaLe proceedlngs for Lhe same purpose

eLlLlon ls C8An1Lu 1he Crders of Lhe 81C of Manlla are seL aslde 8espondenL [udge ls dlrecLed
Lo relnsLaLe and hear Lhe Speclal roceedlng for Lhe allowance of Lhe holographlc wlll of Segundo
Seanglo 1he lnLesLaLe case ls hereby suspended unLll Lhe LermlnaLlon of Lhe aforesald LesLaLe
proceedlngs
SC C8uL8Lu

Subst|tut|on of ne|rs


a|ac|os vs kam|rez
Gk # L 279S2 Ieb 1S 1982
111 SCkA 704

1he maln lssue ln Lhls appeal ls Lhe manner of parLlLlonlng Lhe LesLaLe esLaLe of !ose Lugenlo
8amlrez among Lhe prlnclpal beneflclarles namely hls wldow Marcelle uemoron de 8amlrez hls
Lwo grandnephews 8oberLo and !orge 8amlrez and hls companlon Wanda de Wrobleskl

1he Lask ls noL Lroublefree because Lhe wldow Marcelle ls a lrench who llves ln arls whlle Lhe
companlon Wanda ls an AusLrlan who llves ln Spaln Moreover Lhe LesLaLor provlded for
subsLlLuLlons

!ose Lugenlo 8amlrez a llllplno naLlonal dled ln Spaln on uecember 11 1964 wlLh only hls wldow
as compulsory helr Pls wlll was admlLLed Lo probaLe by Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of Manlla on
!uly 27 1963 Marla Lulsa alaclos was appolnLed admlnlsLraLrlx of Lhe esLaLe ln due Llme she
submlLLed an lnvenLory of Lhe esLaLe

Cn !une 23 1966 Lhe admlnlsLraLrlx submlLLed a pro[ecL of parLlLlon as follows Lhe properLy of Lhe
deceased ls Lo be dlvlded lnLo Lwo parLs Cne parL shall go Lo Lhe wldow en pleno domlnlo ln
saLlsfacLlon of her leglLlme Lhe oLher parL or free porLlon shall go Lo !orge and 8oberLo 8amlrez
en nuda proprledad lurLhermore one Lhlrd (1/3) of Lhe free porLlon ls charged wlLh Lhe wldows
usufrucL and Lhe remalnlng LwoLhlrds (2/3) wlLh a usufrucL ln favor of Wanda

!orge and 8oberLo opposed Lhe pro[ecL of parLlLlon on Lhe grounds (a) LhaL Lhe provlslons for
vulgar subsLlLuLlon ln favor of Wanda de Wrobleskl wlLh respecL Lo Lhe wldows usufrucL and ln
favor of !uan ablo !ankowskl and Poraclo v 8amlrez wlLh respecL Lo Wandas usufrucL are lnvalld
because Lhe flrsL helrs Marcelle and Wanda survlved Lhe LesLaLor (b) LhaL Lhe provlslons for
fldelcommlssary subsLlLuLlons are also lnvalld because Lhe flrsL helrs are noL relaLed Lo Lhe second
helrs or subsLlLuLes wlLhln Lhe flrsL degree as provlded ln ArLlcle 863 of Lhe Clvll Code (c) LhaL Lhe
granL of a usufrucL over real properLy ln Lhe hlllpplnes ln favor of Wanda Wrobleskl who ls an
allen vlolaLes SecLlon 3 ArLlcle lll of Lhe hlllpplne ConsLlLuLlon and LhaL (d) Lhe proposed

parLlLlon of Lhe LesLaLors lnLeresL ln Lhe SanLa Cruz (LscolLa) 8ulldlng beLween Lhe wldow Marcelle
and Lhe appellanLs vlolaLes Lhe LesLaLors express wlll Lo glve Lhls properLy Lo Lhem noneLheless
Lhe lower courL approved Lhe pro[ecL of parLlLlon ln lLs order daLed May 3 1967 lL ls Lhls order
whlch !orge and 8oberLo have appealed Lo Lhls CourL

1 1he wldows leglLlme
1he appellanLs do noL quesLlon Lhe legallLy of glvlng Marcelle onehalf of Lhe esLaLe ln full
ownershlp 1hey admlL LhaL Lhe LesLaLors dlsposlLlons lmpalred hls wldows leglLlme lndeed under
ArL 900 of Lhe Clvll Code lf Lhe only survlvor ls Lhe wldow or wldower she or he shall be enLlLled
Lo onehalf of Lhe heredlLary esLaLe And slnce Marcelle alone survlved Lhe deceased she ls
enLlLled Lo onehalf of hls esLaLe over whlch he could lmpose no burden encumbrance condlLlon
or subsLlLuLlon of any klnd whaLsoever (ArL 904 par 2 Clvll Code)

lL ls Lhe oneLhlrd usufrucL over Lhe free porLlon whlch Lhe appellanLs quesLlon and [usLlflably so lL
appears LhaL Lhe courL a quo approved Lhe usufrucL ln favor of Marcelle because Lhe LesLamenL
provldes for a usufrucL ln her favor of oneLhlrd of Lhe esLaLe 1he courL a quo erred for Marcelle
who ls enLlLled Lo onehalf of Lhe esLaLe en pleno domlnlo as her leglLlme and whlch ls more Lhan
whaL she ls glven under Lhe wlll ls noL enLlLled Lo have any addlLlonal share ln Lhe esLaLe 1o glve
Marcelle more Lhan her leglLlme wlll run counLer Lo Lhe LesLaLors lnLenLlon for as sLaLed above hls
dlsposlLlons even lmpalred her leglLlme and Lended Lo favor Wanda

2 1he subsLlLuLlons
lL may be useful Lo recall LhaL SubsLlLuLlon ls Lhe appolnL [udgmenL of anoLher helr so LhaL he may
enLer lnLo Lhe lnherlLance ln defaulL of Lhe helr orlglnally lnsLlLuLed (ArL 837 Clvll Code And LhaL
Lhere are several klnds of subsLlLuLlons namely slmple or common brlef or compendlous
reclprocal and fldelcommlssary (ArL 838 Clvll Code) Accordlng Lo 1olenLlno AlLhough Lhe Code
enumeraLes four classes Lhere are really only Lwo prlnclpal classes of subsLlLuLlons Lhe slmple and
Lhe fldelcommlssary 1he oLhers are merely varlaLlons of Lhese Lwo

1he slmple or vulgar ls LhaL provlded ln ArL 839 of Lhe Clvll Code whlch reads
A81 839 1he LesLaLor may deslgnaLe one or more persons Lo subsLlLuLe Lhe helr or helrs lnsLlLuLed
ln case such helr or helrs should dle before hlm or should noL wlsh or should be lncapaclLaLed Lo
accepL Lhe lnherlLance

A slmple subsLlLuLlon wlLhouL a sLaLemenL of Lhe cases Lo whlch lL refers shall comprlse Lhe Lhree
menLloned ln Lhe precedlng paragraph unless Lhe LesLaLor has oLherwlse provlded

lL wlll be noLed LhaL Lhe LesLaLor provlded for a vulgar subsLlLuLlon ln respecL of Lhe legacles of
8oberLo and !orge 8amlrez Lhe appellanLs Lhus con susLlLuclon vulgar a favor de sus respecLlvos
descendlenLes y en su defecLo con subsLlLuLlon vulgar reclprocal enLre ambos

1he appellanLs do noL quesLlon Lhe legallLy of Lhe subsLlLuLlon so provlded 1he appellanLs quesLlon
Lhe susLlLuclon vulgar y fldelcomlsarla a favor de ua Wanda de Wrobleskl ln connecLlon wlLh Lhe
oneLhlrd usufrucL over Lhe esLaLe glven Lo Lhe wldow Marcelle Powever Lhls quesLlon has
become mooL because as we have ruled above Lhe wldow ls noL enLlLled Lo any usufrucL

1he appellanLs also quesLlon Lhe susLlLuclon vulgar y fldelcomlsarla ln connecLlon wlLh Wandas
usufrucL over Lwo Lhlrds of Lhe esLaLe ln favor of !uan ablo !ankowskl and Porace v 8amlrez

1hey allege LhaL Lhe subsLlLuLlon ln lLs vulgar aspecL as vold because Wanda survlved Lhe LesLaLor
or sLaLed dlfferenLly because she dld noL predecease Lhe LesLaLor 8uL dylng before Lhe LesLaLor ls
noL Lhe only case for vulgar subsLlLuLlon for lL also lncludes refusal or lncapaclLy Lo accepL Lhe
lnherlLance as provlded ln ArL 839 of Lhe Clvll Code supra Pence Lhe vulgar subsLlLuLlon ls valld

As regards Lhe subsLlLuLlon ln lLs fldelcommlssary aspecL Lhe appellanLs are correcL ln Lhelr clalm
LhaL lL ls vold for Lhe followlng reasons
(a) 1he subsLlLuLes (!uan ablo !ankowskl and Porace v 8amlrez) are noL relaLed Lo Wanda Lhe
helr orlglnally lnsLlLuLed ArL 863 of Lhe Clvll Code valldaLes a fldelcommlssary subsLlLuLlon
provlded such subsLlLuLlon does noL go beyond one degree from Lhe helr orlglnally lnsLlLuLed

WhaL ls meanL by one degree from Lhe flrsL helr ls explalned by 1olenLlno as follows
Scaevola Maura and 1ravlesas consLrue degree as deslgnaLlon subsLlLuLlon or Lransmlsslon 1he
Supreme CourL of Spaln has decldedly adopLed Lhls consLrucLlon lrom Lhls polnL of vlew Lhere can
be only one Lranmlsslon or subsLlLuLlon and Lhe subsLlLuLe need noL be relaLed Lo Lhe flrsL helr
Manresa Morell and Sanchez 8oman however consLrue Lhe word degree as generaLlon and Lhe
presenL Code has obvlously followed Lhls lnLerpreLaLlon by provldlng LhaL Lhe subsLlLuLlon shall noL
go beyond one degree from Lhe helr orlglnally lnsLlLuLed 1he Code Lhus clearly lndlcaLes LhaL Lhe
second helr musL be relaLed Lo and be one generaLlon from Lhe flrsL helr

lrom Lhls lL follows LhaL Lhe fldelcommlssary can only be elLher a chlld or a parenL of Lhe flrsL helr
1hese are Lhe only relaLlves who are one generaLlon or degree from Lhe flduclary

(b) 1here ls no absoluLe duLy lmposed on Wanda Lo LransmlL Lhe usufrucL Lo Lhe subsLlLuLes as
requlred by ArLs 863 and 867 of Lhe Clvll Code ln facL Lhe appellee admlLs LhaL Lhe LesLaLor
conLradlcLs Lhe esLabllshmenL of a fldelcommlssary subsLlLuLlon when he permlLs Lhe properLles
sub[ecL of Lhe usufrucL Lo be sold upon muLual agreemenL of Lhe usufrucLuarles and Lhe naked
owners

3 1he usufrucL of Wanda
1he appellanLs clalm LhaL Lhe usufrucL over real properLles of Lhe esLaLe ln favor of Wanda ls vold
because lL vlolaLes Lhe consLlLuLlonal prohlblLlon agalnsL Lhe acqulslLlon of lands by allens

1he courL a quo upheld Lhe valldlLy of Lhe usufrucL glven Lo Wanda on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe
ConsLlLuLlon covers noL only successlon by operaLlon of law buL also LesLamenLary successlon We
are of Lhe oplnlon LhaL Lhe ConsLlLuLlonal provlslon whlch enables allens Lo acqulre prlvaLe lands
does noL exLend Lo LesLamenLary successlon for oLherwlse Lhe prohlblLlon wlll be for naughL and
meanlngless Any allen would be able Lo clrcumvenL Lhe prohlblLlon by paylng money Lo a
hlllpplne landowner ln exchange for a devlse of a plece of land

1hls oplnlon noLwlLhsLandlng We uphold Lhe usufrucL ln favor of Wanda because a usufrucL albelL
a real rlghL does noL vesL LlLle Lo Lhe land ln Lhe usufrucLuary and lL ls Lhe vesLlng of LlLle Lo land ln
favor of allens whlch ls proscrlbed by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon

ln vlLW Cl 1PL lC8LCClnC Lhe esLaLe of !ose Lugenlo 8amlrez ls hereby ordered dlsLrlbuLed as
follows
Cnehalf (1/2) Lhereof Lo hls wldow as her leglLlme
Cnehalf (1/2) Lhereof whlch ls Lhe free porLlon Lo 8oberLo and !orge 8amlrez ln naked ownershlp
and Lhe usufrucL Lo Wanda de Wrobleskl wlLh a slmple subsLlLuLlon ln favor of !uan ablo
!ankowskl and Porace v 8amlrez
1he dlsLrlbuLlon hereln ordered supersedes LhaL of Lhe courL a quo

CI8 vs Lsco||n
Gk# L27860 27896 Mar 29 1974
S6 SCkA 26S

lAC1S
Llnnle !ane Podges dled glvlng her LesLamenLary provlslons Lo her husband AL Lhe Llme of her
deaLh she was clLlzen of 1exas buL was however domlclled ln Lhe hlllpplnes 1o see wheLher Lhe
LesLamenLary provlslons are valld lL ls apparenL and necessary Lo know whaL law should beapplled
lSSuL
WheLher or noL laws of 1exas ls appllcable
8uLlnC
lL ls necessary LhaL Lhe 1exas law be ascerLalned Pere lL musL be proven wheLher a renvol
wlllhappen or wheLher 1exas law makes Lhe LesLamenLary provlslons valld ln llne wlLh 1exas
lawLhaL whlch should be proven ls Lhe law enforced durlng Lhe deaLh of Podges and noL ln any
oLher Llme1he Supreme CourL held LhaL Lhe esLaLe of Mrs Podges lnherlLed by her broLhers and
slsLerscould be more Lhan [usL sLaLed buL Lhls would depend on (1) wheLher upon Lhe proper
appllcaLlonof Lhe prlnclple of renvol ln relaLlon Lo ArLlcle 16 of Lhe Clvll Code and Lhe perLlnenL laws
of 1exaslL wlll appear LhaL Podges had no leglLlme as conLended by Magno and (2) wheLher or noL
lL canbe held LhaL Podges had legally and effecLlvely renounced hls lnherlLance from hls wlfe
under Lhe clrcumsLances presenLly obLalnlng and ln Lhe sLaLe of Lhe record of Lhese cases as of
lacLs
Ldward L ChrlsLensen a clLlzen of Callfornla wlLh domlclle ln Lhe hlllpplnes dled leavlng a wlll
whlch was admlLLed Lo probaLe 1he CourL declared LhaL Marla Pelen ChrlsLensen Carcla was a
naLural chlld of Lhe deceased 1he declaraLlon was appealed Lo Lhls CourL and was afflrmed 1he
Lrlal courL also approved Lhe pro[ecL submlLLed by Lhe execuLor ln accordance wlLh Lhe provlslons
of Lhe wlll whlch sald courL found Lo be valld under Lhe law of Callfornla

Pelen Carcla appealed from Lhe order of approval Lhe CourL reversed Lhe same on Lhe ground LhaL
Lhe valldlLy of Lhe provlslons of Lhe wlll should be governed by hlllpplne law and reLurned Lhe
case Lo Lhe lower courL wlLh lnsLrucLlons LhaL Lhe parLlLlon be made as provlded by sald law

Cn CcLober 29 1964 Lhe Cll of uavao lssued an order approvlng Lhe pro[ecL of parLlLlon submlLLed
by Lhe execuLor whereln Lhe properLles of Lhe esLaLe were dlvlded equally beLween Marla Lucy
ChrlsLensen uuncan whom Lhe LesLaLor had expressly recognlzed ln hls wlll as hls daughLer
(naLural) and Pelen Carcla who had been [udlclally declared as such afLer hls deaLh

1he sald order was based on Lhe proposlLlon LhaL slnce Pelen Carcla had been preLerlLed ln Lhe wlll
Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of Lucy uuncan as helr was annulled and hence Lhe properLles passed Lo boLh of
Lhem as lf Lhe deceased had dled lnLesLaLe savlng only Lhe legacles lefL ln favor of cerLaln oLher
persons whlch legacles have been duly approved by Lhe lower courL and dlsLrlbuLed Lo Lhe
legaLees

1he case ls once more before us on appeal Lhls Llme by Lucy uuncan on Lhe sole quesLlon of
wheLher Lhe esLaLe afLer deducLlng Lhe legacles should perLaln Lo her and Lo Pelen Carcla ln equal
shares or wheLher Lhe lnherlLance of Lucy uuncan as lnsLlLuLed helr should be merely reduced Lo
Lhe exLenL necessary Lo cover Lhe leglLlme of Pelen Carcla equlvalenL Lo 1/4 of Lhe enLlre esLaLe

1he Lrlal courL ruled and appellee now malnLalns LhaL Lhere has been preLerlLlon of Pelen Carcla
a compulsory helr ln Lhe dlrecL llne resulLlng ln Lhe annulmenL of Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of helr pursuanL Lo
ArLlcle 834 of Lhe Clvll Code whlch provldes

A81 834 1he preLerlLlon or omlsslon of one some or all of Lhe compulsory helrs ln Lhe dlrecL llne
wheLher llvlng aL Lhe Llme of Lhe execuLlon of Lhe wlll or born afLer Lhe deaLh of Lhe LesLaLor shall
annul Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of helr buL Lhe devlses and legacles shall be valld lnsofar as Lhey are noL
lnofflclous

Cn Lhe oLher hand appellanL conLends LhaL Lhls ls noL a case of preLerlLlon buL ls governed by
ArLlcle 906 of Lhe Clvll Code whlch says Any compulsory helr Lo whom Lhe LesLaLor has lefL by any
LlLle less Lhan Lhe leglLlme belonglng Lo hlm may demand LhaL Lhe same be fully saLlsfled
AppellanL also suggesLs LhaL conslderlng Lhe provlslons of Lhe wlll whereby Lhe LesLaLor expressly
denled hls relaLlonshlp wlLh Pelen Carcla buL lefL Lo her a legacy neverLheless alLhough less Lhan
Lhe amounL of her leglLlme she was ln effecL defecLlvely dlslnherlLed wlLhln Lhe meanlng of ArLlcle
918 whlch reads

A81 918 ulslnherlLance wlLhouL a speclflcaLlon of Lhe cause or for a cause Lhe LruLh of whlch lf
conLradlcLed ls noL proved or whlch ls noL one of Lhose seL forLh ln Lhls Code shall annul Lhe
lnsLlLuLlon of helrs lnsofar as lL may pre[udlce Lhe person dlslnherlLed buL Lhe devlces and legacles
and oLher LesLamenLary dlsposlLlons shall be valld Lo such exLenL as wlll noL lmpalr Lhe leglLlmaLe

1hus accordlng Lo appellanL under boLh ArLlcle 906 and 918 Pelen Carcla ls enLlLled only Lo her
leglLlme and noL Lo a share of Lhe esLaLe equal LhaL of Lucy uuncan as lf Lhe successlon were
lnLesLaLe

1he quesLlon may be posed ln order LhaL Lhe rlghL of a forced helr may be llmlLed only Lo Lhe
compleLlon of hls leglLlme (lnsLead of Lhe annulmenL of Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of helrs) ls lL necessary LhaL
whaL has been lefL Lo hlm ln Lhe wlll by any LlLle as by legacy be granLed Lo hlm ln hls capaclLy as
helr LhaL ls a LlLulo de heredero? ln oLher words should he be recognlzed or referred Lo ln Lhe wlll
as helr? 1hls quesLlon ls perLlnenL because ln Lhe wlll of Lhe deceased Ldward L ChrlsLensen Pelen
Carcla ls noL menLloned as an helr lndeed her sLaLus as such ls denled buL ls glven a legacy of
360000

Whlle Lhe classlcal vlew pursuanL Lo Lhe 8oman law gave an afflrmaLlve answer Lo Lhe quesLlon
accordlng Lo boLh Manresa and Sanchez 8oman LhaL vlew was changed by ArLlcle 643 of Lhe
royecLo de Codlgo de 1831 laLer on copled ln ArLlcle 906 of our own Code

Manresa clLes parLlcularly Lhree declslons of Lhe Supreme CourL of Spaln daLed !anuary 16 1893
May 23 1917 and Aprll 23 1932 respecLlvely ln each one of Lhose cases Lhe LesLaLor lefL Lo one
who was a forced helr a legacy worLh less Lhan Lhe leglLlme buL wlLhouL referrlng Lo Lhe legaLee as
an helr or even as a relaLlve and wllled Lhe resL of Lhe esLaLe Lo oLher persons lL was held LhaL
ArLlcle 813 applled and Lhe helr could noL ask LhaL Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of helrs be annulled enLlrely buL
only LhaL Lhe leglLlme be compleLed

1he foregolng soluLlon ls lndeed more ln consonance wlLh Lhe expressed wlshes of Lhe LesLaLor ln
Lhe presenL case as may be gaLhered very clearly from Lhe provlslons of hls wlll Pe refused Lo
acknowledge Pelen Carcla as hls naLural daughLer and llmlLed her share Lo a legacy of 360000
1he facL LhaL she was subsequenLly declared [udlclally Lo possess such sLaLus ls no reason Lo
assume LhaL had Lhe [udlclal declaraLlon come durlng hls llfeLlme hls sub[ecLlve aLLlLude Lowards
her would have undergone any change and LhaL he would have wllled hls esLaLe equally Lo her and
Lo Lucy uuncan who alone was expressly recognlzed by hlm

1he esLaLe of Lhe deceased ChrlsLensen upon hls deaLh conslsLed of 399 shares of sLocks ln Lhe
ChrlsLensen lanLaLlon Company and a cerLaln amounL ln cash CnefourLh (1/4) of sald esLaLe
descended Lo Pelen Carcla as her leglLlme Slnce she became Lhe owner of her share as of Lhe
momenL of Lhe deaLh of Lhe decedenL (ArLs 774 777 Clvll Code) she ls enLlLled Lo a correspondlng
porLlon of all Lhe frulLs or lncremenLs Lhereof subsequenLly accrulng 1hese lnclude Lhe sLock
dlvldends on Lhe corporaLe holdlngs

1he conLenLlon of Lucy uuncan LhaL all such dlvldends perLaln Lo her accordlng Lo Lhe Lerms of Lhe
wlll cannoL be susLalned for lL would ln effecL lmpalr Lhe rlghL of ownershlp of Pelen Carcla wlLh
respecL Lo her leglLlme

1he order of Lhe Lrlal courL approvlng Lhe pro[ecL of parLlLlon as submlLLed by Lhe execuLor
appellee ls seL aslde and Lhe case ls remanded wlLh lnsLrucLlons Lo parLlLlon Lhe heredlLary esLaLe
by glvlng Lo opposlLorappellee Marla Pelen ChrlsLensen Carcla no more Lhan Lhe porLlon
correspondlng Lo her as leglLlme equlvalenL Lo onefourLh (1/4) of Lhe heredlLary esLaLe afLer
deducLlng all debLs and charges whlch shall noL lnclude Lhose lmposed ln Lhe wlll of Lhe decedenL
ln accordance wlLh ArLlcle 908 of Lhe Clvll Code


Cond|t|ona| @estamentary D|spos|t|on and @estamentary D|spos|t|on w|th a @erm


kabad|||a vs Court of Appea|s
Gk# 11372S Iune 29 2000
334 SCkA S22

lacLs
ur !orge 8abadllla ln a codlcll (a supplemenL Lo a wlll anappendlx) of Ale[a 8elleza was lnsLlLuLed
devlsee of LoL no1392 wlLh an area of 311833 square meLers wlLh LheobllgaLlon Lo dellver 100
plculs of sugar Lo hereln prlvaLerespondenL every year durlng Lhe laLLers llfeLlme
1he codlcll provldes LhaL Lhe obllgaLlon ls lmposed noL onlyon Lhe lnsLlLuLed helr buL also Lo hls
successorslnlnLeresLand LhaL ln case of fallure Lo dellver prlvaLe respondenL shallselze Lhe
properLy and Lurn lL over Lo Lhe LesLaLrlxs near descendanLs
ur 8abadllla dled and was survlved by hls wlfe and chlldrenone of whom ls hereln peLlLloner
rlvaLe respondenL alleglng fallure of Lhe helrs Lo complywlLh Lhelr obllgaLlon flled a complalnL
wlLh Lhe 81C praylngfor Lhe reconveyance of Lhe sub[ecL properLy Lo Lhe survlvlnghelrs of Lhe
LesLaLrlx
uurlng Lhe preLrlal a compromlse agreemenL wasconcluded beLween Lhe parLles whereln Lhe
lessee of LheproperLy assumed Lhe dellvery of 100 plculs of sugar LoprlvaLe respondenL however
only parLlal dellvery was made
1he Lrlal courL dlsmlssed Lhe complalnL for lack of cause of acLlon sLaLlng LhaL Whlle Lhere may be
Lhe nonperformanceof Lhe command as mandaLed exacLlon from Lhem (LhepeLlLloners) slmply
because Lhey are Lhe chlldren of !orge8abadllla Lhe LlLle holder/owner of Lhe loL ln quesLlon
doesnoL warranL Lhe flllng of Lhe presenL complalnL"
1he CA reversed Lhe declslon and held LhaL Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of ur 8abadllla ls ln Lhe naLure of a
modal lnsLlLuLlon and acause of acLlon ln favor of prlvaLe respondenL arose whenpeLlLloner falled
Lo comply wlLh Lhelr obllgaLlon under Lhecodlcll and ln orderlng Lhe reverslon of LoL 1392 Lo
LheesLaLe of LesLaLrlx 1hus Lhe presenL peLlLlon
lssue
WheLher or noL prlvaLe respondenL has a legally demandablerlghL agalnsL Lhe peLlLloner as one of
Lhe compulsory helrs of ur 8abadllla

Peld
?LS lL ls a general rule under Lhe law on successlon LhaLsuccesslonal rlghLs are LransmlLLed from
Lhe momenL of deaLh of Lhe decedenL and compulsory helrs are called Losucceed by operaLlon of
law
1he leglLlmaLe chlldren anddescendanLs ln relaLlon Lo Lhelr leglLlmaLe parenLs and Lhewldow or
wldower are compulsory helrs 1hus LhepeLlLloner hls moLher and slsLers as compulsory helrs of
LhelnsLlLuLed helr ur !orge 8abadllla succeeded Lhe laLLer byoperaLlon of law wlLhouL need of
furLher proceedlngs andLhe successlonal rlghLs were LransmlLLed Lo Lhem from LhemomenL of
deaLh of Lhe decedenL ur !orge 8abadlllaunder ArLlcle 776 of Lhe new Clvll Code
lnherlLancelncludes all Lhe properLy rlghLs and obllgaLlons of a personnoL exLlngulshed by hls
deaLh Conformably whaLever rlghLsur !orge 8abadllla had by vlrLue of sub[ecL Codlcll
wereLransmlLLed Lo hls forced helrs aL Lhe Llme of hls deaLh Andslnce obllgaLlons noL exLlngulshed
by deaLh also form parL of Lhe esLaLe of Lhe decedenL corollarlly Lhe obllgaLlonslmposed by Lhe
Codlcll on Lhe deceased ur !orge 8abadlllawere llkewlse LransmlLLed Lo hls compulsory helrs upon
hlsdeaLhln Lhe sald Codlcll LesLaLrlx Ale[a 8elleza devlsed LoL no1392 Lo ur !orge 8abadllla
sub[ecL Lo Lhe condlLlon LhaL LheusufrucL Lhereof would be dellvered Lo Lhe hereln
prlvaLerespondenL every year upon Lhe deaLh of ur !orge
8abadllla hls compulsory helrs succeeded Lo hls rlghLs andLlLle over sald properLy and Lhey also
assumed hls(decedenLs) obllgaLlon Lo dellver Lhe frulLs of Lhe loL lnvolvedLo hereln prlvaLe
respondenL Such obllgaLlon of Lhe lnsLlLuLedhelr reclprocally corresponds Lo Lhe rlghL of
prlvaLerespondenL over Lhe usufrucL Lhe fulflllmenL or performanceof whlch ls now belng
demanded by Lhe laLLer Lhrough LhelnsLlLuLlon of Lhe case aL bar 1herefore prlvaLe respondenLhas
a cause of acLlon agalnsL peLlLloner and Lhe Lrlal courLerred ln dlsmlsslng Lhe complalnL below

Leg|t|me

Iranc|sco vs Iranc|scoA|fonso
Gk# 138774 March 8 2001
3S4 SCkA 112

lacLs
8espondenL Alda lranclscoAlfonso (hereafLer Alda) ls Lhe only daughLer of spouses Cregorlo
lranclsco and Clrlla de la Cruz who are now boLh deceased eLlLloners on Lhe oLher hand are
daughLers of Lhe laLe Cregorlo lranclsco wlLh hls common law wlfe !ulla Mendoza wlLh whom he
begoL seven (7) chlldren

Cregorlo lranclsco (hereafLer Cregorlo) owned Lwo parcels of resldenLlal land slLuaLed ln 8arangay
Lolomboy 8ocaue 8ulacan covered by 1C1 nos 132740 and 1117160 When Cregorlo was
conflned ln a hosplLal ln 1990 he conflded Lo hls daughLer Alda LhaL Lhe cerLlflcaLes of LlLle of hls
properLy were ln Lhe possesslon of 8eglna lranclsco and Zenalda ascual

AfLer Cregorlo dled on !uly 20 1990 Alda lnqulred abouL Lhe cerLlflcaLes of LlLle from her half
slsLers 1hey lnformed her LhaL Cregorlo had sold Lhe land Lo Lhem on AugusL 13 1983 AfLer
verlflcaLlon Alda learned LhaL Lhere was lndeed a deed of absoluLe sale ln favor of 8eglna
lranclsco and Zenalda ascual 1hus on AugusL 13 1983 Cregorlo execuLed a kasulaLan sa
Canap na 8lllhan whereby for 2300000 he sold Lhe Lwo parcels of land Lo 8eglna lranclsco and
Zenalda ascual 8y vlrLue of Lhe sale Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds of 8ulacan lssued 1C1 no 139383 Lo
8eglna lranclsco and 1C1 139386 Lo Zenalda ascual

Cn Aprll 1 1991 Alda flled wlLh Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL 8ulacan a complalnL agalnsL peLlLloners
for annulmenL of sale wlLh damages She alleged LhaL Lhe slgnaLure of her laLe faLher Cregorlo
lranclsco on Lhe kasulaLan sa Canap na 8lllhan daLed AugusL 13 1983 was a forgery

AfLer due proceedlngs on !uly 21 1994 Lhe Lrlal courL rendered a declslon dlsmlsslng Lhe
complalnL

AfLer due proceedlngs on Aprll 30 1999 Lhe CourL of Appeals promulgaLed lLs declslon reverslng
LhaL of Lhe Lrlal courL

Pence Lhls peLlLlon

lssue
May a leglLlmaLe daughLer be deprlved of her share ln Lhe esLaLe of her deceased faLher by a
slmulaLed conLracL Lransferrlng Lhe properLy of her faLher Lo hls llleglLlmaLe chlldren?

Peld

llrsL 1he kasulaLan was slmulaLed 1here was no conslderaLlon for Lhe conLracL of sale lellclLas
de la Cruz a famlly frlend of Lhe lranclscos LesLlfled LhaL Zenalda ascual and 8eglna lranclsco dld
noL have any source of lncome ln 1983 when Lhey boughL Lhe properLy unLll Lhe Llme when
lellclLas LesLlfled ln 1991

As proof of lncome however Zenalda ascual LesLlfled LhaL she was engaged ln operaLlng a
canLeen worklng as cashler ln Mayon nlghL Club as well as buylng and selllng 81W (8eady Lo Wear)
lLems ln AugusL of 1983 and prlor LhereLo

Zenalda alleged LhaL she pald her faLher Lhe amounL of 1000000 She dld noL wlLhdraw money
from her bank accounL aL Lhe 8ural 8ank of Meycauayan 8ulacan Lo pay for Lhe properLy She had
personal savlngs oLher Lhan Lhose deposlLed ln Lhe bank Per gross earnlngs from Lhe 81W for
Lhree years was 900000 and she earned 3000 a nlghL aL Lhe club

8eglna lranclsco on Lhe oLher hand was a markeL vendor selllng nllugaw earnlng a neL lncome of
30000 a day ln 1983 She boughL Lhe properLy from Lhe deceased for 1300000 She had no
oLher source of lncome

We flnd lL lncredlble LhaL engaglng ln buy and sell could ralse Lhe amounL of 1000000 or LhaL
earnlngs ln selllng goLo could save enough Lo pay 1300000 ln cash for Lhe land

1he LesLlmonles of peLlLloners were lncredlble conslderlng Lhelr lnconslsLenL sLaLemenLs as Lo
wheLher Lhere was conslderaLlon for Lhe sale and also as Lo wheLher Lhe properLy was boughL
below or above lLs supposed markeL value 1hey could noL even presenL a slngle wlLness Lo Lhe
kasulaLan LhaL would prove recelpL of Lhe purchase prlce

Slnce Lhere was no cause or conslderaLlon for Lhe sale Lhe same was a slmulaLlon and hence null
and vold

Second Lven lf Lhe kasulaLan was noL slmulaLed lL sLlll vlolaLed Lhe Clvll Code provlslons lnsofar as
Lhe LransacLlon affecLed respondenL's leglLlme 1he sale was execuLed ln 1983 when Lhe
appllcable law was Lhe Clvll Code noL Lhe lamlly Code
Cbvlously Lhe sale was Cregorlo's way Lo Lransfer Lhe properLy Lo hls llleglLlmaLe daughLers aL Lhe
expense of hls leglLlmaLe daughLer 1he sale was execuLed Lo prevenL respondenL Alfonso from
clalmlng her leglLlme and rlghLful share ln sald properLy 8efore hls deaLh Cregorlo had a change
of hearL and lnformed hls daughLer abouL Lhe LlLles Lo Lhe properLy

Accordlng Lo ArLlcle 888 Clvll Code

1he leglLlme of leglLlmaLe chlldren and descendanLs conslsLs of onehalf of Lhe heredlLary esLaLe
of Lhe faLher and of Lhe moLher

1he laLLer may freely dlspose of Lhe remalnlng half sub[ecL Lo Lhe rlghLs of llleglLlmaLe chlldren and
of Lhe survlvlng spouse as herelnafLer provlded"

Cregorlo lranclsco dld noL own any oLher properLy lf lndeed Lhe parcels of land lnvolved were Lhe
only properLy lefL by Lhelr faLher Lhe sale ln facL would deprlve respondenL of her share ln her
faLher's esLaLe 8y law she ls enLlLled Lo half of Lhe esLaLe of her faLher as hls only leglLlmaLe chlld
1he legal helrs of Lhe laLe Cregorlo lranclsco musL be deLermlned ln proper LesLaLe or lnLesLaLe
proceedlngs for seLLlemenL of Lhe esLaLe Pls compulsory helr can noL be deprlved of her share ln
Lhe esLaLe save by dlslnherlLance as prescrlbed by law

Cap|t|e v L|bambuena
Gk# 169193 Nov 30 2006
S09 SCkA 444

See also ArLs103 130lC/ lamlly Pome 138139 26 36 49 43 44 39 34 SCAM no 911119
8ule on ueclaraLlon of AbsoluLe nulllLy of vold Marrlages and AnnulmenL of voldable Marrlages
ArLlcles 63 63 SCAM no 921111 8ule on Legal SeparaLlon
ArLlcles 192193 129139 147148 of Lhe lamlly Code


Ldroso vs Sab|an
Gk # L6878 Sept 13 1913
2S h|| 29S

lAC1S
Spouses Marcellna Ldroso and vlcLorlano Sablan had a son named edro wholnherlLed Lwo parcels
of land upon Lhe deaLh of hls faLher SubsequenLly edro dledunmarrled and wlLhouL lssue Lhe
Lwo parcels of land passed Lhrough lnherlLance Lohls moLher Pence Lhe heredlLary LlLle whereupon
ls based Lhe appllcaLlon forreglsLraLlon of her ownershlp 1he Lwo uncles of edro ablo and
8aslllo Sablan(leglLlmaLe broLhers of vlcLorlano) opposed Lhe reglsLraLlon clalmlng LhaL elLher
LhereglsLraLlon be denled or lf granLed Lo her Lhe rlghL reserved by law Lo Lhem berecorded ln Lhe
reglsLraLlon of each parcel 1he CourL of Land 8eglsLraLlon denledLhe reglsLraLlon holdlng LhaL Lhe
land ln quesLlon parLake of Lhe naLure of properLyrequlred by law Lo be reserved and LhaL ln such a
case appllcaLlon could only bepresenLed [olnLly ln Lhe names of Lhe moLher and Lhe sald Lwo
uncles Pence Lhlsappeal
lSSuLS
1WheLher or noL Lhe properLy ln quesLlon ls ln Lhe naLure of a reservableproperLy2WheLher or
noL Marcellna Ldroso has Lhe absoluLe LlLle of Lhe properLy Locause lLs reglsLraLlon
8uLlnC
A very deflnlLe concluslons of law ls LhaL Lhe heredlLary LlLle ls one wlLhouL avaluable conslderaLlon
(graLulLous Llle) and lL ls so characLerlzed ln ArLlcle 968 of Lhe Clvll Code for he who acqulres by
lnherlLance glves noLhlng ln reLurn for whaLhe recelves and a very deflnlLe concluslon of law also ls
LhaL Lhe uncles are wlLhlnLhe Lhlrd degree of blood relaLlonshlp
ArLlcle 811 1he ascendanL who lnherlLs from hlsdescendanL properLy whlch Lhe laLLer acqulred
wlLhouL avaluable conslderaLlon from anoLher descendanL or forma broLher or slsLer ls under
obllgaLlon Lo reserve whaL hehas acqulred by operaLlon of law for Lhe relaLlves who arewlLhln Lhe
Lhlrd degree and belong Lo Lhe llne where Lhe properLy proceeded
Marcellna Ldroso ascendanL of edro Sablan lnherlLed from hlm Lhe Lwo parcelsof land whlch he
had acqulred wlLhouL a valuable conslderaLlon LhaL ls bylnherlLance from anoLher ascendanL hls
faLher vlcLorlano Pavlng acqulre Lhem byoperaLlon of law she ls obllgaLed Lo relaLlves wlLhln Lhe
Lhlrd degree and belong LoLhe llne of Marlano Sablan and Marla 8lLa lernandez (parenLs of
vlcLorlano) whereLhe lands proceeded 1he Lrlal courL's rullng LhaL Lhey parLake of Lhe
naLureproperLy requlred by law Lo be reserved ls Lherefore ln accordance wlLh Lhe law
1he concluslon ls LhaL Lhe person requlred by ArLlcle 811 Lo reserve Lhe rlghLhas beyond any doubL
aL all Lhe rlghLs Lo use and usufrucL Pe has moreover Lhelegal LlLle and domlnlon alLhough under
a condlLlon subsequenL Clearly he hasunder an express provlslon of Lhe law Lhe rlghL Lo dlspose of
Lhe properLy reservedand Lo dlspose of ls Lo allenaLe alLhough under a condlLlon Pe has Lhe rlghL
Lorecover lL because he ls Lhe one who possesses or should possess lL and have LlLleLo lL alLhough
a llmlLed and revocable one ln a word Lhe legal LlLle and domlnloneven Lhough under a condlLlon
reslde ln hlm whlle he llves AfLer Lhe rlghL requlredby law Lo be reserved has been assured he can
do anyLhlng LhaL a genulne ownercan doCn Lhe oLher hadn'L Lhe relaLlves wlLhln Lhe Lhlrd degree
ln whose favor of Lhe rlghLls reserved cannoL dlspose of Lhe properLy flrsL because lL ls no way
elLher acLuallyor consLrucLlvely or formally ln Lhelr possesslon and moreover because Lhey
haveno LlLle of ownershlp or of Lhe fee slmple whlch Lhey can LransmlL Lo anoLher on
LhehypoLhesls LhaL only when Lhe person who musL reserve Lhe rlghL should dle beforeLhem wlll
Lhey acqulre lL


S|enes vs Lsparc|a
Gk #L129S7 March 24 1961
1 SCkA 7S0

lacLs
SaLurnlno laLher Crlgln
lranclsco (dled 1932) Son roposlLus
Andrea CuLan (dled 1931) MoLher 8eservor/
8eservlsLa
Clprlana and aullna (dled 1932) PalfslsLers 8eservee/
8eservaLarlos
ConsLanclo Slenes and Cenovava Sllay 8uyer of Andrea
lldel Lsparcla and aullna Slenes 8uyer of Clprlana and aullna

SaLurnlno upon hls deaLh lefL 1 loL Lo each of hls chlldren Sub[ecL LoL 3368 was parLlcularly
bequeaLhed Lo lranclsco hls only chlld from hls 2nd marrlage wlLh Andrea As lranclsco dled ln
1932 wlLh no descendanL her moLher became her sole helr and lnherlLed Lhe land by operaLlon of
law As such she sold Lhe properLy Lo ConsLanclo Slenes and Cenoveva Sllay Powever Clprlana
LogeLher wlLh slsLer aullna sold Lhe same properLy ln !an 1 1931 Lo lldel Lsparcla and aullna
Slenes 1hey were able Lo Lransfer sald loL ln Lhelr name under 1C1 no 2141 aullna (slsLer) dled
flrsL followed by Andrea ln uec 1931 leavlng Clprlana as Lhe lone reservee who dled a monLh laLer
81C and CA upheld Lhe sale of Lhe properLy Lo lldel and aullna Slenes ConsLanclo and Cenoveva
appealed Pence Lhls case

lssue
WheLher or noL Lhe properLy could be ad[udlcaLed Lo Lhe buyers of Lhe reservor Andrea

Peld
no 81C and CA are correcL by decldlng ln favor of Lhe buyer of Lhe reservees Pere's how
AlLhough Lhe reservor has a legal LlLle and domlnlon Lo Lhe reservable properLy lL ls sub[ecL Lo a
resoluLory condlLlon as follows
1 1haL he ls llke a llfe usufrucLuary of Lhe reservable properLy
2 1haL he may allenaLe Lhe same buL sub[ecL Lo reservaLlon LhaL sald allenaLlon LransmlLs
only hls revocable and condlLlonal ownershlp

As such Lhe rlghLs acqulred by Lhe Lransferee ls revoked by Lhe survlval of reservees aL Lhe Llme of
deaLh of Lhe reservor

1he sale made by Andrea ln favor of ConsLanclo (appellanL) was sub[ecL Lo Lhe resoluLory
condlLlon LhaL Lhey wlll acqulre deflnlLe ownershlp CnL? lf she ls noL survlved by any person
enLlLled Lo Lhe reservable properLy Slnce Clprlana was sLlll allve on her deaLh comes Lhe
lnescapable concluslon LhaL sald sale became no legal effecL for sald resoluLory condlLlon dld noL
happen

vlsvls Lhe sale execuLed by aullna and Clprlana Lo Lsparcla was sub[ecL Lo a slmllar
condlLlon ln LhaL Lhe reserve lnsLlLuLed by law ln favor of Lhe helrs wlLhln Lhe Lhlrd degree
belonglng Lo Lhe llne from whlch Lhe reservable properLy came consLlLuLes a real rlghL whlch Lhe
reservees may allenaLe and dlspose of albelL condlLlonally Lhe condlLlon belng LhaL Lhe allenaLlon
shall Lransfer ownershlp Lo Lhe vendee CnL? ll and when Lhe reservees survlves Lhe reservolr

Slnce lL was Lhe reservee who survlved Lhe reservor lL was Lhen Lhe reservee's buyer who
would acqulre absoluLe ownershlp

Gonza|es vs CII
Gk #L3439S May 19 1981
104 SCkA 479

lacLs
8enlLo Legarda y 1uason+ (dled 1939) laLher
Crlgln
lllomena 8aces+ (dled 1967) MoLher
8eservor
8enlLo + Ale[andro !ose Sons 8eservees
8eaLrlz 8osarlo 1eresa uaughLers 8eservees
lllomena+ (dled 1943) uaughLers roposlLus

Cn !uly 12 1939 8enlLo (faLher) dled leavlng real properLles Lo hls helrs Pls daughLer lllomena
followed on March 19 1943 leavlng lllomena (moLher) as her sole helr on several properLles
lncludlng cash shares of sLocks and lnLeresLs ln lands coowned wlLh her slbllngs

Cn March 6 1933 lllomena (moLher) dlsposed Lhese properLles ln favor of her 16 grandchlldren
She dled on SepLember 22 1967 and admlLLed Lo probaLe her holographlc wlll ln Lhe proceedlngs
8eaLrlz flled a moLlon Lo exclude from Lhe lnvenLory of her moLher's esLaLe Lhe properLles she
lnherlLed from her dead slsLer lllomena on Lhe ground LhaL Lhese are reservable properLles whlch
should be lnherlLed by Lhe slbllngs lL was opposed by 8enlLo (Son)

Cn !une 20 1968 wlLhouL awalLlng for lLs resoluLlon she flled an ordlnary clvll acLlon agalnsL her
broLher nephew nleces and Per moLher's esLaLe for Lhe purpose of securlng a declaraLlon LhaL Lhe
sald properLles are reservable whlch MoLher lllomena could noL bequeaLh Lo her grandchlldren Lo
Lhe excluslon of her own chlldren Sald acLlon was dlsmlssed by Lrlal courL Pence Lhls case

lssue

WCn Lhe holographlc wlll of MoLher lllomena (reservor) bequeaLhlng Lhe reservable properLy Lo
Lhe 3rd degree of consangulnlLy (nephews and nlecereservaLarlos/ reservees) of Lhe preposlLus ls
valld aL Lhe excluslon of Lhe 6 allve 2nd degree relaLlves (broLhers and slsLers
reservaLarlos/reservees)

Peld

no 1he phrase ln ArL 891 wlLhln Lhe 3rd degree" means Lhe nearesL relaLlve exclude Lhe more
remoLe sub[ecL Lo Lhe rule of represenLaLlon 8uL Lhe represenLaLlve should be wlLhln Lhe 3rd
degree from Lhe proposlLus

ln Lhe lnsLanL case Mommy lllomena belng Lhe reservor could noL convey Lhe reservable
properLles aL her selecLlon lL musL be lnherlLed by all Lhe nearesL relaLlves wlLhln Lhe 3rd degree
of Lhe proposlLus who ln Lhls case Lhe broLhers and slsLer falllng ln Lhe 2nd degree She could noL
dlspose of ln her wlll Lhe properLles ln quesLlon LvLn lf Lhe dlsposlLlon ls ln favor of Lhe relaLlves
wlLhln Lhe 3rd degree from daughLer (nleces and nephews) 1he sald properLles by operaLlon of
ArL 891 should go Lo Lhe broLhers and slsLers who are wlLhln Lhe 3rd degree from daughLer
lllomena

Cano vs D|rector
Gk #L10701 Ian 16 19S9
10S h|| 1

lacLs

LvarlsLo Cuerrero laLher Crlgln
Marla Cano+ (1933) MoLher 8eservor
Lourdes uaughLer roposlLus
LusLaqula Cuerrero uaughLer 8eservee 2nd
uegree 8elaLlve from roposlLus
!ose and 1eoLlmo Crandchlldren 3rd uegree 8elaLlve
form roposlLus

LvarlsLo Cuerrero husband of Marla Cano bequeaLhed LoL no 1799 Lo Lourdes 1hereafLer
Lourdes dled wlLh no descendanL hence sald properLy was lnherlLed by her moLher Marla Marla
71 yrs old reglsLered Lhe loL wlLh Lhe undersLandlng LhaL lL ls sub[ecL Lo Lhe rlghL of reservaLlon ln
favor or LusLaqula pursuanL Lo ArL 891 of CC upon Lhe deaLh of Cano on 1933 Lourdes flled a
moLlon wlLh Lhe CadasLral CourL praylng LhaL CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle ln Lhe name of Marla be cancelled
and a new one lssued ln her favor lL was opposed by !ose and 1eoLlmo lernandez (grandchlldren)
Powever Lhe lower courL declded ln favor of LusLaqula and granLed Lhe lssuance of a new
cerLlflcaLe of LlLle !ose and 1eoLlmo agaln opposed on Lhe ground LhaL an lnLesLacy proceedlng ls
sLlll necessary Lo LransmlL ownershlp from Marla Lo LusLaqula

lssue
WheLher or noL ln reservable properLles lnLesLacy proceedlngs ls sLlll necessary Lo reverL Lo Lhe
reservaLarlos ownershlp of Lhe reserved properLles

Peld
no 1he reserved properLy ls noL parL of Lhe esLaLe of Lhe reservor and does noL even answer for
Lhe debLs of Lhe laLLer Pence lLs acqulslLlon by Lhe reservees may be enLered ln Lhe properLy
records wlLhouL Lhe necesslLy of esLaLe proceedlngs slnce Lhe baslc requlslLes Lherefore appear of
record lurLher proceedlngs ls necessary when Lhe reglsLraLlon decree merely speclfles Lhe
reservable characLer of Lhe properLy wlLhouL deLermlnlng Lhe ldenLlLy of Lhe reservee or where
several resevees dlspuLe Lhe properLy among Lhemselves 8uL ln Lhls case Lhe rlghLs of LusLaquala
as reservees have been expressly recognlzed and lL ls nowhere clalmed LhaL Lhere are oLher
reservees of equal or nearer degree

V|zconde v CA
Gk# 118449 Ieb 11 1998
286 SCkA 217

lacLs
8afael (dled 1992) laLher
Salud MoLher
LsLrelllLa (dled 1991) uaughLer
8amon Son
Lauro SonlnLaw Pusband of LsLrelllLa
Carmela and !ennlfer (dled 1991) CranddaughLer daughLer of LsLrelllLa

8afael and Salud nlcolas are husband and wlfe wlLh 3 chlldren as follows LsLrelllLa AnLonlo+
8amon 1ereslLa and 8lcardo an lncompeLenL Cn May 22 1979 LsLrelllLa purchased from her
faLher a land from valenzuela 8ulacan wlLh 1C1 36734 for 13300000 as evldenced by ueed of
AbsoluLe Sale 1C1 no v334 Lhereof was lssued Lo LsLrelllLa Cn 1990 or 11 years LherafLer sald
properLy was sold for 34 M Sald proceeds was used ln purchaslng a parcel of land ln 8l Pomes
aranaque a car and Lhe remalnlng balance was deposlLed ln a bank ln 1991 LsLrelllLa and her
daughLers were kllled ln whaL was popularly known as Lhe vlzconde Massacre" lnvesLlgaLlon
revealed LhaL LsLrelllLa dled ahead of her daughLers Accordlngly Carmela !ennlfer and Lauro
succeeded LsLrelllLa and wlLh Lhe subsequenL deaLh of Carmel and !ennlfer Lauro was lefL as Lhe
sole helr of hls daughLers neverLheless peLlLloner enLered lnLo an LxLra!udlclal SeLLlemenL of
Lhe LsLaLe of ueceased LsLrelllLa nlcolasvlzconde wlLh Walver of Shares" wlLh LsLrelllLa's parenLs
Sald seLLlemenL dlvlded Lhe properLy of LsLrelllLa and daughLers Lo Lauro and 8afael and Salud 30
of Lhe cash deposlL was glven Lo 8afael whlle Lhe remalnder was Lo Lauro 1he aranaque roperLy
and Lhe car was glven Lo peLlLloner wlLh 8afael and Salud walvlng all Lhelr clalms rlghLs ownershlp
and parLlclpaLlon as helrs

ln 1992 8afael dled wlLh helrs Salud 8amon 8lcardo and AnLonlo's+ wlfe and chlldren SomeLlme
ln 1994 81C released an Crder glvlng Lauro 10 days Lo flle a peLlLlon or moLlon relaLed Lo Lhe
pendlng seLLlemenL of 8afael's esLaLe Lauro ln response flled a manlfesLaLlon LhaL he was nelLher
a compulsory helr nor an lnLesLaLe helr of 8afael and LhaL he has no lnLeresL Lo parLlclpaLe ln Lhe
proceedlngs uesplLe such 8amon moved Lo lnclude peLlLloner and asked LhaL Lhe aranaque
properLy Lhe car and Lhe balance of Lhe proceeds of Lhe sale of Lhe valenzuela properLy be
collaLed 81C granLed Lhe moLlon and llkewlse denylng Lauro's M8 Such order provlded ln parL
LhaL
1 vlzconde spouses are noL flnanclally capable Lo purchase Lhe valenzuela properLy Lo 8afael
2 1here ls no sufflclenL evldence LhaL Lhe acqulslLlon of Lhe properLy was for valuable
conslderaLlon
Accordlngly Lhe Lransfer of Lhe properLy ln valenzuela ln favor of LsLrelllLa by her faLher was
graLulLous and LhaL sub[ecL aranaque properLy whlch was purchased ouL of Lhe proceeds of Lhe
sale of Lhe sald properLy ls sub[ecL Lo collaLlon
eLlLloner flled a peLlLlon for cerLlorarl and prohlblLlon wlLh CA whlch afflrmed 81C declslon
upholdlng LhaL Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe probaLe courL exLends Lo maLLers lncldenLal and collaLeral Lo
Lhe exerclse of lLs recognlzed powers ln handllng Lhe seLLlemenL of Lhe esLaLe of Lhe deceased( Sec
1 8ule 90 of 8evlsed 8ules of CourL) Pence Lhls case

lssue
WCn Lhe sub[ecL aranaque roperLy ls sub[ecL Lo collaLlon

Peld
no on Lhe followlng grounds
1 Lauro as Lhe decedenL's sonlnlaw ls noL a compulsory helr wlLhln Lhe amblL of ArL 887 of
Lhe Clvll Code
2 ueLermlnaLlon on Lhe LlLle or ownershlp of a properLy ls sub[ecL Lo flnal declslon ln a separaLe
acLlon Lo resolve LlLle ln Lhls case 81C wenL beyond lLs [urlsdlcLlon when lL declded LhaL Lhe
Lransfer of Lhe valenzuela from 8afael Lo LsLrelllLa ls graLulLous 1he lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe deed
Lhe Lrue lnLenL of Lhe parLles as well as Lhe presence or absence of conslderaLlon are maLLers
ouLslde Lhe probaLe courL's [urlsdlcLlon and musL be venLllaLed ln an approprlaLe acLlon
3 1he order sub[ecLlng Lhe aranaque properLy Lo collaLlon ls premaLure slnce proceedlngs of
Lhe lnLesLaLe esLaLe ls sLlll ln lLs lnlLlaLory sLage 1here ls sLlll no lndlcaLlon LhaL Lhe leglLlme of
8afael helrs has been lmpalred Lo warranL collaLlon
4 Lven assumlng LhaL collaLlon ls approprlaLe ln Lhls case whaL should have been collaLed was
Lhe valenzuela properLy and noL Lhe aranaque properLy and ln dolng so ls wlLhouL sLaLuLory
basls Moreover 8afael ln a publlc lnsLrumenL volunLarlly walved any clalms rlghLs ownershlp
and parLlclpaLlon ln sald properLy
3 llnally LsLrelllLa dled ahead of 8afael As such lL was acLually 8afael who lnherlLed from
LsLrelllLa Pence even assumlng LhaL Lhe valenzuela properLy may be collaLed collaLlon may noL
be allowed as Lhe value of Lhe valenzuela properLy has long been reLurned Lo Lhe esLaLe of 8afael
1herefore any deLermlnaLlon by Lhe probaLe courL on Lhe maLLer serves no valld and blndlng
purpose



D|s|nher|tance

Seang|o v keyes
Gk# 14037172 Nov 27 2006
S08 SCkA 177



Lega| or Intestate Success|on Arts 9601014

Genera| rov|s|on

8agunu vs |edad
Gk# 14097S Dec 8 2000
347 SCkA S71

lAC1S Cn 28 AugusL 1993 hereln peLlLloner Cfella Pernando 8agunu moved Lo lnLervene ln
Speclal roceedlngs no 3632 enLlLled ln Lhe maLLer of Lhe lnLesLaLe roceedlngs of Lhe LsLaLe of
AugusLo P ledad pendlng before Lhe 81C of asay ClLy AsserLlng enLlLlemenL Lo a share of Lhe
esLaLe of Lhe laLe AugusLo P ledad peLlLloner assalled Lhe flnallLy of Lhe order of Lhe Lrlal courL
awardlng Lhe enLlre esLaLe Lo respondenL asLora ledad conLendlng LhaL Lhe proceedlngs were
LalnLed wlLh procedural lnflrmlLles lncludlng an lncompleLe publlcaLlons of Lhe noLlce of hearlng
lack of personal noLlce Lo Lhe helrs and credlLors and lrregularlLy ln Lhe dlsbursemenLs of
allowances and wlLhdrawals by Lhe admlnlsLraLor of Lhe esLaLe 1he Lrlal courL denled Lhe moLlon
prompLlng peLlLloners Lo ralse her case Lo Lhe CourL of Appeals 8espondenL soughL Lhe dlsmlssal of
Lhe appeal on Lhe Lhesls LhaL Lhe lssues broughL up on appeal only lnvolvlng noLhlng else buL
quesLlons of law Lo be ralsed before Lhe Supreme CourL by peLlLlon for revlew on cerLlorarl ln
accordance wlLh 8ule 43 whlch was granLed SLlll unsaLlsfled peLlLloner conLesLed Lhe resoluLlon of
Lhe appellaLe courL ln Lhe lnsLanL peLlLlon for revlew on cerLlorarl 1he CourL flnds no reverslble
error ln Lhe rullng of Lhe appellaLe courL 8uL leL us seL aslde Lhe alleged procedural decreplLude
and Lake on Lhe baslc subsLanLlve lssue
lSSuL Can peLlLloner a collaLeral relaLlve of Lhe flfLh clvll degree lnherlL alongslde respondenL
a collaLeral relaLlve of Lhe Lhlrd clvll degree? Llsewlse sLaLed does Lhe rule of proxlmlLy ln lnLesLaLe
successlon flnd appllcaLlon among collaLeral relaLlves?
8uLlnC no AugusLo P ledad wlLhouL any dlrecL descendanLs or ascendanLs 8espondenL ls Lhe
maLernal aunL of Lhe decedenL a Lhlrddegree relaLlve of Lhe decedenL whlle peLlLloner ls Lhe
daughLer of a flrsL cousln of Lhe deceased or a flfLhdegree relaLlve of Lhe decedenL 1he rule on
proxlmlLy ls a concepL LhaL favors Lhe relaLlves nearesL ln degree Lo Lhe decedenL and excludes Lhe
more dlsLanL ones excepL when and Lo Lhe exLenL LhaL Lhe rlghL of represenLaLlon can apply 1hus
ArLlcle 962 of Lhe Clvll Code provldes
A81 962 ln every lnherlLance Lhe relaLlve nearesL ln degree excludes Lhe more dlsLanL ones
savlng Lhe rlghL of represenLaLlon when lL properly Lakes place
8y rlghL of represenLaLlon a more dlsLanL blood relaLlve of a decedenL ls by operaLlon of law
ralsed Lo Lhe same place and degree of relaLlonshlp as LhaL of a closer blood relaLlve of Lhe same
decedenL 1he represenLaLlve Lhereby sLeps lnLo Lhe shoes of Lhe person he represenLs and
succeeds noL from Lhe laLLer buL from Lhe person Lo whose esLaLe Lhe person represenLed would
have succeeded
A81 970 8epresenLaLlon ls a rlghL creaLed by flcLlon of law by vlrLue of whlch Lhe represenLaLlve
ls ralsed Lo Lhe place and Lhe degree of Lhe person represenLed and acqulres Lhe rlghLs whlch
laLLer would have lf he were llvlng or lf he could have lnherlLed
A81 971 1he represenLaLlve ls called Lo Lhe successlon by Lhe law and noL by Lhe person
represenLed 1he represenLaLlve does noL succeed Lhe person represenLed buL Lhe one whom Lhe
person represenLed would have succeeded ln Lhe dlrecL llne rlghL of represenLaLlon ls proper
only ln Lhe descendlng never ln Lhe ascendlng llne ln Lhe collaLeral llne Lhe rlghL of
represenLaLlon may only Lake place ln favor of Lhe chlldren of broLhers or slsLers of Lhe decedenL
when such chlldren survlve wlLh Lhelr uncles or aunLs
A81 972 1he rlghL of represenLaLlon Lakes place ln Lhe dlrecL descendlng llne buL never ln Lhe
ascendlng ln Lhe collaLeral llne lL Lakes place only ln favor of Lhe chlldren of broLhers or slsLers
wheLher Lhey be of Lhe full or half blood
A81 974 Whenever Lhere ls successlon by represenLaLlon Lhe dlvlslon of Lhe esLaLe shall be made
per sLrlpes ln such manner LhaL Lhe represenLaLlve or represenLaLlves shall noL lnherlL more Lhan
whaL Lhe person Lhey represenL would lnherlL lf he were llvlng or could lnherlL
A81 973 When chlldren of one or more broLhers or slsLers of Lhe deceased survlve Lhey shall
lnherlL from Lhe laLLer by represenLaLlon lf Lhey survlve wlLh Lhelr uncles or aunLs 8uL lf Lhey alone
survlve Lhey shall lnherlL ln equal porLlons
1he rlghL of represenLaLlon does noL apply Lo oLhers collaLeral relaLlves wlLhln Lhe flfLh clvll
degree (Lo whlch group boLh peLlLloner and respondenL belong) who are slxLh ln Lhe order of
preference followlng flrsLly Lhe leglLlmaLe chlldren and descendanLs secondly Lhe leglLlmaLe
parenLs and ascendanLs Lhlrdly Lhe llleglLlmaLe chlldren and descendanLs fourLhly Lhe survlvlng
spouse and flfLhly Lhe broLhers and slsLers/nephews and nleces fourLh decedenL Among
collaLeral relaLlves excepL only ln Lhe case of nephews and nleces of Lhe decedenL concurrlng wlLh
Lhelr uncles or aunLs Lhe rule of proxlmlLy expressed ln ArLlcle 962 aforequoLed of Lhe Code ls an
absoluLe rule ln deLermlnlng Lhe degree of relaLlonshlp of Lhe collaLeral relaLlves Lo Lhe decedenL
ArLlcle 966 of Lhe Clvll Code glves dlrecLlon ArLlcle 966 xxx ln Lhe collaLeral llne ascenL ls made
Lo Lhe common ancesLor and Lhen descenL ls made ancesLor and Lhen descenL ls made Lo Lhe
person wlLh whom Lhe compuLaLlon ls Lo be made 1hus a person ls Lwo degrees removed from hls
broLher Lhree from hls uncle who ls Lhe broLher of hls faLher four from hls flrsL cousln and so
forLh Accordlngly 8espondenL belng a relaLlve wlLhln Lhe Lhlrd clvll degree of Lhe laLe AugusLo
P ledad excludes peLlLloner a relaLlve of Lhe flfLh degree from succeedlng an lnLesLaLo Lo Lhe
esLaLe of Lhe decedenL
ArLlcle 1009 Should Lhere be nelLher broLhers nor slsLers nor chlldren of broLhers or slsLers Lhe
oLher collaLeral relaLlves shall succeed Lo Lhe esLaLe 1he laLLer shall succeed wlLhouL dlsLlncLlon of
llnes or preference among Lhem by reason of relaLlonshlp by Lhe whole blood
ArLlcle 1010 1he rlghL Lo lnherlL ab lnLesLaLo shall noL exLend beyond Lhe flfLh degree of
relaLlonshlp ln Lhe collaLeral llne lnvoked by peLlLloner do noL aL all supporL her cause 1he law
means only LhaL among Lhe oLher collaLeral relaLlves (Lhe slxLh ln Lhe llne of successlon) no
preference or dlsLlncLlon shall be observed by reason of relaLlonshlp by Lhe whole blood ln flne
a maLernal aunL can lnherlL equally wlLh a flrsL cousln of Lhe half blood buL an uncle or an aunL
belng a Lhlrddegree relaLlve excludes Lhe couslns of Lhe decedenL belng ln Lhe fourLh degree of
relaLlonshlp Lhe laLLer ln Lurn would have prlorlLy ln successlon Lo a flfLhdegree relaLlve
WPL8LlC8L Lhe lnsLanL eLlLlon ls uLnlLu


k|ght of kepresentat|on

Sayson vs CA
Gk# 892242S Ian 23 1992
20S SCkA 321

Lleno and 8afaela Sayson begoL flve chlldren namely Maurlclo 8osarlo 8aslllsa 8emedlos and
1eodoro Lleno dled on november 10 1932 and 8afaela on May 13 1976 1eodoro who had
marrled lsabel 8auLlsLa dled on March 23 1972 Pls wlfe dled nlne years laLer on March 26 1981
1helr properLles were lefL ln Lhe possesslon of uella Ldmundo and uorlbel all surnamed Sayson
who clalm Lo be Lhelr chlldren
Cn Aprll 23 1983 Maurlclo 8osarlo 8aslllsa and 8emedlos LogeLher wlLh !uana C 8auLlsLa
lsabels moLher flled a complalnL (Clvll Case no 1030) for parLlLlon and accounLlng of Lhe lnLesLaLe
esLaLe of 1eodoro and lsabel Sayson 1he acLlon was reslsLed by uella Ldmundo and uorlbel
Sayson who alleged successlonal rlghLs Lo Lhe dlspuLed esLaLe as Lhe decedenLs lawful
descendanLs
Cn !uly 11 1983 uella Ldmundo and uorlbel flled Lhelr own complalnL (Clvll Case no 1042) Lhls
Llme for Lhe accounLlng and parLlLlon of Lhe lnLesLaLe esLaLe of Lleno and 8afaela Sayson agalnsL
Lhe couples four survlvlng chlldren
8oLh cases were declded ln favor of Lhe hereln prlvaLe respondenLs ln Clvll Case no 1042 Lhe Lrlal
courL found LhaL uella and Ldmundo were Lhe legally adopLed chlldren of 1eodoro and lsabel
uorlbel was Lhelr leglLlmaLe daughLer ConsequenLly Lhe Lhree chlldren were enLlLled Lo lnherlL
from Lleno and 8afaela by rlghL of represenLaLlon ln dlsmlsslng Clvll Case no 1030 Lhe courL ruled
LhaL Lhe Lhree chlldren belng Lhe leglLlmaLe helrs of 1eodoro and lsabel as excluded Lhe plalnLlffs
from sharlng ln Lhelr esLaLe
8oLh cases were appealed Lo Lhe CourL of Appeals where Lhey were consolldaLed ln lLs own
declslon daLed lebruary 28 1989 Lhe respondenL courL dlsposed as follows
WPL8LlC8L ln Clvll Case no 1030 (CAC8 no 11341) Lhe appealed declslon ls hereby
Alll8MLu ln Clvll case no 1042 (CAC8 no 12364) Lhe appealed declslon ls MCulllLu ln LhaL
uella and Ldmundo Sayson are dlsquallfled from lnherlLlng from Lhe esLaLe of Lhe deceased
spouses Lleno and 8afaela Sayson buL ls afflrmed ln all oLher respecLs
Pence Lhe Lhls peLlLlon where peLlLloners conLend LhaL uella and Ldmundo were noL legally
adopLed because uorlbel had already been born on lebruary 27 1967 when Lhe decree of
adopLlon was lssued on March 9 1967 1he blrLh of uorlbel dlsquallfled her parenLs from adopLlng
1he perLlnenL provlslon ls ArLlcle 333 of Lhe Clvll Code namlng among Lhose who cannoL adopL (1)
1hose who have leglLlmaLe leglLlmaLed acknowledged naLural chlldren or naLural chlldren by legal
flcLlon
lssue (a) WheLher or noL peLlLloners may sLlll challenge Lhe valldlLy of Lhe decree of adopLlon of
uella and Ldmundo (b) WheLher or noL Lhe CA erred when lL declared Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs as
Lhe excluslve helrs of 1eodoro and lsabel Sayson

Peld
lL ls Loo laLe now Lo challenge Lhe decree of adopLlon years afLer lL became flnal and execuLory
1haL was way back ln 1967 Assumlng Lhe peLlLloners were proper parLles whaL Lhey should have
done was seasonably appeal Lhe decree of adopLlon polnLlng Lo Lhe blrLh of uorlbel LhaL
dlsquallfled 1eodoro and lsabel from adopLlng uella and Ldmundo 1hey dld noL ln facL Lhey
should have done Lhls earller before Lhe decree of adopLlon was lssued 1hey dld noL alLhough
Maurlclo clalmed he had personal knowledge of such blrLh
A no less lmporLanL argumenL agalnsL Lhe peLlLloners ls LhaL Lhelr challenge Lo Lhe valldlLy of Lhe
adopLlon cannoL be made collaLerally as ln Lhelr acLlon for parLlLlon buL ln a dlrecL proceedlng
fronLally addresslng Lhe lssue
Cn Lhe quesLlon of uorlbels leglLlmacy we hold LhaL Lhe flndlngs of Lhe Lrlal courLs as afflrmed by
Lhe respondenL courL musL be susLalned uorlbels blrLh cerLlflcaLe ls a formldable plece of
evldence lL ls one of Lhe prescrlbed means of recognlLlon under ArLlcle 263 of Lhe Clvll Code and
ArLlcle 172 of Lhe lamlly Code lL ls Lrue as Lhe peLlLloners sLress LhaL Lhe blrLh cerLlflcaLe offers
only prlma facle evldence of flllaLlon and may be refuLed by conLrary evldence Powever such
evldence ls lacklng ln Lhe case aL bar
1he blrLh cerLlflcaLe musL be upheld ln llne wlLh Legaspl v CourL of Appeals where we ruled LhaL
Lhe evldenLlary naLure of publlc documenLs musL be susLalned ln Lhe absence of sLrong compleLe
and concluslve proof of lLs falslLy or nulllLy

ln consequence of Lhe above observaLlons we hold LhaL uorlbel as Lhe leglLlmaLe daughLer of
1eodoro and lsabel Sayson and uella and Ldmundo as Lhelr adopLed chlldren are Lhe excluslve
helrs Lo Lhe lnLesLaLe esLaLe of Lhe deceased couple conformably Lo ArLlcle 979 of Lhe Clvll Code
now Lo Lhe rlghL of represenLaLlon 1here ls no quesLlon LhaL as Lhe leglLlmaLe daughLer of 1eodoro
and Lhus Lhe granddaughLer of Lleno and 8afaela uorlbel has a rlghL Lo represenL her deceased
faLher ln Lhe dlsLrlbuLlon of Lhe lnLesLaLe esLaLe of her grandparenLs 8uL a dlfferenL concluslon
musL be reached ln Lhe case of uella and Ldmundo Lo whom Lhe grandparenLs were LoLal
sLrangers Whlle lL ls Lrue LhaL Lhe adopLed chlld shall be deemed Lo be a leglLlmaLe chlld and have
Lhe same rlghL as Lhe laLLer Lhese rlghLs do noL lnclude Lhe rlghL of represenLaLlon 1he relaLlonshlp
creaLed by Lhe adopLlon ls beLween only Lhe adopLlng parenLs and Lhe adopLed chlld and does noL
exLend Lo Lhe blood relaLlves of elLher parLy
1he challenged declslon of Lhe CourL of Appeals ls Alll8MLu ln LoLo

See a|so Domest|c Adopt|on Act


Crder of Intestate Success|on
Descend|ng D|rect L|ne

Sayson vs CA
Gk# 892242S Ian 23 1992
20S SCkA 321

lacLs slmllar Lo case above
lSSuL Who has Lhe beLLer rlghL over Lhe properLles of Lhe spouses Lhe moLher of Lhe deceased
lsabel or her chlldren?
PLLu

ln consequence of Lhe above observaLlons we hold LhaL uorlbel as Lhe leglLlmaLe daughLer of
1eodoro and lsabel Sayson and uella and Ldmundo as Lhelr adopLed chlldren are Lhe excluslve
helrs Lo Lhe lnLesLaLe esLaLe of Lhe deceased couple conformably Lo Lhe followlng ArLlcle 979 of Lhe
Clvll Code
ArL 979 LeglLlmaLe chlldren and Lhelr descendanLs succeed Lhe parenLs and oLher ascendanLs
wlLhouL dlsLlncLlon as Lo sex or age and even lf Lhey should come from dlfferenL marrlages
An adopLed chlld succeeds Lo Lhe properLy of Lhe adopLlng parenLs ln Lhe same manner as a
leglLlmaLe chlld
1he phllosophy underlylng Lhls arLlcle ls LhaL a persons love descends flrsL Lo hls chlldren and
grandchlldren before lL ascends Lo hls parenLs and LhereafLer spreads among hls collaLeral relaLlves
lL ls also supposed LhaL one of hls purposes ln acqulrlng properLles ls Lo leave Lhem evenLually Lo
hls chlldren as a Loken of hls love for Lhem and as a provlslon for Lhelr conLlnued care even afLer he
ls gone from Lhls earLh


Ascend|ng D|rect L|ne
I||eg|t|mate Ch||dren


Corpus vs Corpus
Gk # L22469 Cct 23 1978
8S SCkA S67
lAC1S
Cn AugusL 29 1934 Lhe wlll of Lhe deceased 1eodoro 8 ?angco was probaLed ln Lhe Cll of Manlla
?angco had no forced helrs AL Lhe Llme of hls deaLh hls nearesL relaLlves were (1) hls half broLher
Luls 8 ?angco (2) hls half slsLer az ?angco (3) Amalla Corpus !ose A v Corpus and 8amon L
Corpus Lhe chlldren of hls half broLher ablo Corpus and (4) !uana (!uanlLa) Corpus Lhe daughLer
of hls half broLher !ose Corpus !uanlLa dled ln CcLober 1944
1eodoro 8 ?angco was Lhe son of Luls 8afael ?angco and 8amona Arguelles Lhe wldow of 1omas
Corpus 8efore her unlon wlLh Luls 8afael ?angco 8amona had begoLLen flve chlldren wlLh 1omas
Corpus Lwo of whom were Lhe aforenamed ablo Corpus and !ose Corpus
A pro[ecL of parLlLlon daLed nov 26 1943 was submlLLed by Lhe admlnlsLraLor and Lhe legaLees
named ln Lhe wlll 1hls parLlLlon was opposed by Lhe esLaLe of Luls 8 ?angco whose counsel
conLended LhaL an lnLesLacy should be declared because Lhe wlll does noL conLaln an lnsLlLuLlon of
helr ALLy Cruz appeared as counsel of !uanlLa afLer Lhe laLLer's deaLh also opposed Lhe sald
parLlLlon and alleged LhaL Lhe proposed parLlLlon was noL ln conformlLy wlLh Lhe wlll because Lhe
LesLaLor lnLended LhaL Lhe esLaLe should be conserved" and noL physlcally parLlLloned
Cn SepLember 20 1949 Lhe probaLe courL approved Lhe agreemenL for Lhe seLLlemenL and
physlcal parLlLlon of Lhe ?angco esLaLe execuLed by Lhe legaLees 1hereafLer ln 1931 1omas
Corpus as Lhe sole helr of !uanlLa flled an acLlon ln Lhe Cll of Manlla Lo recover her supposed
share ln ?angco lnLesLaLe esLaLe Pe alleged LhaL Lhe dlsposlLlons ln hls ?angcos wlll slng perpeLual
prohlblLlon upon allenaLlon rendered lL vold under arLlcle 783 of Lhe old Clvll Code and LhaL Lhe
1949 parLlLlon ls lnvalld and Lherefore Lhe decedenLs esLaLe should be dlsLrlbuLed accordlng Lo
Lhe rules on lnLesLacy 1he Lrlal courL dlsmlssed Lhe acLlon

lSSuL WCn !uanlLa Corpus was a legal helr of ?angco WCn 1eodoro's half broLhers on Lhe Corpus
slde had Lhe rlghL Lo succeed Lo hls esLaLe under Lhe rules of lnLesLacy

PLLu
1o answer LhaL quesLlon lL ls necessary Lo ascerLaln ?angcos flllaLlon 1he basls of Lhe Lrlal courLs
concluslon LhaL 1eodoro 8 ?angco was an acknowledged naLural chlld and noL a leglLlmaLe chlld
was Lhe sLaLemenL ln Lhe wlll of hls faLher Luls 8afael ?angco daLed !une 14 1907 LhaL 1eodoro
and hls Lhree oLher chlldren were hls acknowledged naLural chlldren
Cn Lhe oLher hand Lhe chlldren of 8amona Arguelles and 1omas Corpus are presumed Lo be
leglLlmaLe A marrlage ls presumed Lo have Laken place beLween 8amona and 1omas Slnce
1eodoro 8 ?angco was an acknowledged naLural chlld or was llleglLlmaLe and slnce !uanlLa Corpus
was Lhe leglLlmaLe chlld of !ose Corpus hlmself a leglLlmaLe chlld we hold LhaL appellanL 1omas
Corpus has no cause of acLlon for Lhe recovery of Lhe supposed heredlLary share of hls moLher
!uanlLa Corpus as a legal helr ln ?angcos esLaLe !uanlLa Corpus was noL a legal helr of ?angco
because Lhere ls no reclprocal successlon beLween leglLlmaLe and llleglLlmaLe relaLlves 1he Lrlal
courL dld noL err ln dlsmlsslng Lhe complalnL of 1omas Corpus
ArLlcle 992 of Lhe Clvll Code whlch provldes LhaL an llleglLlmaLe chlld has no rlghL Lo lnherlL ab
lnLesLaLo from Lhe leglLlmaLe chlldren and relaLlves of hls faLher or moLher nor shall such chlldren
or relaLlves lnherlL ln Lhe same manner from Lhe llleglLlmaLe chlld
1haL rule ls based on Lhe Lheory LhaL Lhe llleglLlmaLe chlld ls dlsgracefully looked upon by Lhe
leglLlmaLe famlly whlle Lhe leglLlmaLe famlly ls ln Lurn haLed by Lhe llleglLlmaLe chlld 1he law does
noL recognlze Lhe blood Lle and seeks Lo avold furLher grounds of resenLmenL
under arLlcles 944 and 943 of Lhe Spanlsh Clvll Code lf an acknowledged naLural or leglLlmaLed
chlld should dle wlLhouL lssue elLher leglLlmaLe or acknowledged Lhe faLher or moLher who
acknowledged such chlld shall succeed Lo lLs enLlre esLaLe and lf boLh acknowledged lL and are
allve Lhey shall lnherlL from lL share and share allke ln defaulL of naLural ascendanLs naLural and
leglLlmaLed chlldren shall be succeeded by Lhelr naLural broLhers and slsLers ln accordance wlLh Lhe
rules esLabllshed for leglLlmaLe broLhers and slsLers Pence 1eodoro 8 ?angcos half broLhers on
Lhe Corpus slde who were leglLlmaLe had no rlghL Lo succeed Lo hls esLaLe under Lhe rules of
lnLesLacy




Leonardo vs CA
Gk #LS1263 Ieb 28 1983
120 SCkA 890


D|az vs IAC
Gk #L66S74 Iune 17 1987
1S0 SCkA 64S

D|az vs IAC
Gk #L66S74 Ieb 21 1990
182 SCkA 427

Suntay v Suntay
Gk # 1830S3 Iune 16 2010

621 SCkA 142

Surv|v|ng Spouse

Verdad vs CA
Gk# 109972 Apr|| 29 1996
2S6 SCkA S93



Caba|es v CA
Gk# 162421 Aug 31 2007
S31 SCkA 691

lacLs SomeLlme ln 1964 8urflno Cabales dled leavlng behlnd a parcel of land ln SouLhern
LeyLe Lo hls wlfe SaLurnlna and slx chlldren namely 8onlfaclo lranclsco AlberLo Alblno Lenora
and 8lLo Cn 1971 Lhe broLhers and coowners 8onlfaclo AlberLo and Alblno sold Lhe properLy Lo
ur Corrompldo wlLh a rlghL Lo repurchase wlLhln elghL (8) years Cn 1972 prlor Lo Lhe redempLlon
of Lhe properLy AlberLo dled leavlng behlnd hls wlfe and son nelson hereln peLlLloner
SomeLlme laLer and wlLhln Lhe redempLlon perlod Lhe sald broLhers and Lhelr moLher ln lleu of
AlberLo Lendered Lhelr paymenL Lo ur Corrompldo SubsequenLly SaLurnlna and her four
chlldren 8onlfaclo Alblno lranclsco and Leonora sold Lhe sald land Lo Spouses lellano lL was
provlded ln Lhe deed of sale LhaL Lhe shares of nelson and 8lLo belng mlnor aL Lhe Llme of Lhe sale
wlll be held ln LrusL by Lhevendee and wlll pald upon Lhem reachlng Lhe age of 21 ln 1986 8lLo
recelved Lhe sum of 1143 pesos from Lhe Spouses lellano represenLlng hls share from Lhe
proceeds of Lhe sale of Lhe properLy lL was only ln 1988 LhaL nelson learned of Lhe sale from hls
uncle 8lLo Pe slgnlfled hls lnLenLlon Lo redeem Lhe properLy ln 1993 buL lL was only ln 1993 LhaL
he flled a complalnL for redempLlon agalnsL Lhe Spouses lellano 1he respondenL Spouses averred
LhaL Lhe peLlLloners are esLopped from denylng Lhe sale slnce (1) 8lLo already recelved hls share
and (2) nelson falled Lo Lender Lhe LoLal amounL of Lhe redempLlon prlce
1he 8eglonal 1rlal CourL ruled ln favor of Spouses lellano on Lhe ground LhaL nelson was no longer
enLlLled Lo Lhe properLy as hls rlghL was subrogaLed by SaLurnlna upon Lhe deaLh of hls faLher
AlberLo lL also alleged LhaL 8lLo had no more rlghL Lo redeem slnce SaLurnlna belng hls legal
guardlan aL Lhe Llme of Lhe sale was properly vesLed wlLh Lhe rlghL Lo allenaLe Lhe same 1he CourL
of Appeals modlfled Lhe declslon of Lhe Lrlal courL sLaLlng LhaL Lhe sale made by SaLurnlna ln behalf
of 8lLo and nelson were unenforceable
lssue WheLher or noL Lhe sale made by a legal guardlan (SaLurnlna) ln behalf of Lhe mlnors were
blndlng upon Lhem
Peld WlLh regard Lo Lhe share of 8lLo Lhe conLracL of sale was valld under SecLlon 1 8ule 96 A
guardlan shall have Lhe care and cusLody of Lhe person of hls ward and Lhe managemenL of hls
esLaLe or Lhe managemenL of Lhe esLaLe only x xx" lndeed Lhe legal guardlan only has Lhe plenary
power of admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe mlnor's properLy lL does noL lnclude Lhe power of allenaLlon whlch
needs [udlclal auLhorlLy 1hus when SaLurnlna as legal guardlan of peLlLloner 8lLo sold Lhe laLLer's
pro lndlvlso share ln sub[ecL land she dld noL have Lhe legal auLhorlLy Lo do so Accordlngly Lhe
conLracL as Lo Lhe share of 8lLo was unenforceable
Powever when he recelved Lhe proceeds of Lhe sale he effecLlvely raLlfled lL 1hls acL of
raLlflcaLlon rendered Lhe sale valld and blndlng as Lo hlm WlLh respecL Lo peLlLloner nelson Lhe
conLracL of sale was vold Pe was a mlnor aL Lhe Llme of Lhe sale SaLurnlna or any and all Lhe oLher
coowners were noL hls legal guardlans raLher lL was hls moLher who lf duly auLhorlzed by Lhe
courLs could valldly sell hls share ln Lhe properLy ConsequenLly peLlLloner nelson reLalned
ownershlp over Lhelr undlvlded share ln Lhe sald properLy Powever nelson can no longer redeem
Lhe properLy slnce Lhe LhlrLy day redempLlon perlod has explred and Lhus he remalns as coowner
of Lhe properLy wlLh Lhe Spouses lellano

Co||atera| ke|at|ves

ne|rs of Ur|arte vs CA
Gk# 11677S Ian 22 1998
284 SCkA S11


Gonza|es vs CA
Gk# 117740 Cct 30 1998
298 SCkA 322


@he State

kepub||c vs CA
Gk# 143483 Ian 31 2002
37S SCkA 484



rov|s|ons Common to @estate and Intestate Success|on Arts 101S 110S
k|ght of Accret|on


ar|sh r|est of V|ctor|a @ar|ac vs k|gor
Gk# L22036 Apr|| 30 1979
89 SCkA 493


Acceptance and kepud|at|on of Inher|tance


Guy v CA
Gk# 163707 Sept 1S 2006
S02 SCkA 1S1


Lxecutors and Adm|n|strators

Co||at|on


2aragoza vs CA
Gk# 106401 Sept 29 2000
341 SCkA 309


Nazareno vs CA
Gk# 138842 Cct 18 2000
343 SCkA 637


V|zconde vs CA
Gk# 118449 Ieb 11 1998
286 SCkA 217
@y v @y
Gk# 16S696 Apr|| 30 2008
SS3 SCkA 306

See a|so Art 1448 NCC


art|t|on and D|str|but|on of the Lstate
Lffect of art|t|on
kesc|ss|on and Nu|||ty of art|t|on


Noceda vs CA
Gk# 119730 Sept 2 1999
313 SCkA S04
1hls peLlLlon for revlew on cerLlorarl under 8ule 43 of Lhe 8ules of CourL seeks Lo reverse Lhe
declslon of Lhe respondenL CA afflrmlng wlLh modlflcaLlon Lhe declslon of Lhe 81C ln an acLlon by
prlvaLe respondenL agalnsL peLlLloner for recovery of possesslon and ownershlp and
resclsslon/annulmenL of donaLlon

CelesLlno Arblzo dled ln 1936 hls daughLer grandson and wldow (Aurora ulrecLo defendanL
8odolfo noceda and Marla Arblzo) exLra[udlclally seLLled a parcel of land

Cn november 6 1991 Lhe 81C of lba Zambales declslon on Lhe case
(a) ueclarlng Lhe LxLra!udlclal SeLLlemenLarLlLlon daLed AugusL 19 1981 valld
(b) ueclarlng Lhe ueed of uonaLlon daLed !une 1 1981 revoked
(c) Crderlng Lhe defendanL Lo vacaLe and reconvey LhaL donaLed porLlon of LoL 2 LoL 1121 sub[ecL
of Lhe ueed of uonaLlon daLed !une 1 1981 Lo Lhe plalnLlff or her helrs or asslgns
(d) Crderlng Lhe defendanL Lo remove Lhe house bullL lnslde Lhe donaLed porLlon aL Lhe defendanLs
expense or pay a monLhly renLal of 30000 hlllpplne Currency
(e) Crderlng Lhe defendanL Lo pay aLLorneys fees ln Lhe amounL of 300000 and
(f) 1o pay Lhe cosL

CA afflrmed Lhe Lrlal courLs [udgmenL and ordered defendanL 8odolfo noceda Lo vACA1L Lhe
porLlon known as LoL C of LoL 1121 whlch was alloLLed Lo plalnLlff Aurora Arblzo ulrecLo

ulssaLlsfled peLlLloner flled Lhe lnsLanL peLlLlon for revlew

r 1he respondenL CourL exceeded lLs [udlclal auLhorlLy when lL susLalned Lhe lower courLs
flndlngs LhaL Lhe sub[ecL properLy acLually conLalns an area of 127289 square meLers

1he argumenL ls unmerlLorlous 1he records dlsclose LhaL Lhe Lrlal courL ln an Crder daLed !une 8
1987 gave boLh parLles Lo Lhls case Lhe chance Lo have Lhe sub[ecL properLy resurveyed by a
llcensed surveyor Lo deLermlne Lhe acLual area of LoL 1121

1he clrcumsLances show LhaL Lhe lower courL ordered Lhe resurvey of Lhe loL Lo deLermlne Lhe
acLual area of LoL 1121 and such survey was done wlLh Lhe conformlLy and ln Lhe presence of boLh
parLles 1he acLual land area based on Lhe survey plan whlch was conducLed ln Lhe presence of
boLh parLles showed a much blgger area Lhan Lhe area declared ln Lhe Lax declaraLlon buL such
dlfferences are noL uncommon as early Lax declaraLlons are more ofLen Lhan noL based on
approxlmaLlon or esLlmaLlon raLher Lhan on compuLaLlon We hold LhaL Lhe respondenL courL dld
noL err ln susLalnlng Lhe Lrlal courLs flndlngs LhaL Lhe acLual area of LoL 1121 ls 127289 square
meLers

r eLlLloner also conLends LhaL sald [udlclal deLermlnaLlon lmproperly encroaches on Lhe
rlghLs and clalms of Lhlrd persons who were never lmpleaded below LhaL Lhe sub[ecL loL was also
declared ln Lhe name of one Cecllla Cblspo and a lree aLenL over Lhe sald loL was also lssued ln
her name and LhaL Lhere are several resldenLlal houses consLrucLed and exlsLlng on LoL 8 of loL
1121 Lhus Lhese possessors/occupanLs of LoL 8 should be [olned as defendanLs for Lhelr non
lncluslon would be faLal Lo respondenLs cause of acLlon

1here ls no merlL ln Lhls argumenL 1he respondenL CourL correcLly raLloclnaLed on Lhls lssue as
follows 1he facL LhaL Cecllla Cblspo has Lax declaraLlons ln her name over LoL 1121 and several
persons occupled a porLlon Lhereof dld noL make Lhem lndlspensable parLles ln Lhe presenL case
uefendanL noceda merely presenLed Lhe Lax declaraLlons ln Lhe name of Cecllla Cblspo wlLhouL Lhe
alleged free paLenL ln her name Moreover no evldence was presenLed showlng LhaL Cecllla Cblspo
possessed or clalmed possesslon of LoL 1121 1ax recelpLs and declaraLlons of ownershlp for Lax
purposes are noL concluslve evldence of ownershlp of properLy

lL was noL necessary LhaL Lhe occupanLs of a porLlon of LoL 1121 deslgnaLed as LoL 8 be lmpleaded
ln Lhe presenL case 1he resulL of Lhe presenL sulL shall noL ln any way affecL Lhe occupanLs of LoL 8
slnce Lhe lssues lnvolved ln Lhe presenL case are Lhe usurpaLlon by defendanL noceda of Lhe land
ad[udlcaLed Lo plalnLlff ulrecLo and Lhe proprleLy of Lhe cancellaLlon of Lhe deed of donaLlon ln
favor of defendanL noceda due Lo hls lngraLlLude Lo plalnLlff ulrecLo
A parLy ls noL lndlspensable Lo Lhe sulL lf hls lnLeresL ln Lhe conLroversy or sub[ecL maLLer ls dlsLlncL
and dlvlslble from Lhe lnLeresL of Lhe oLher parLles and wlll noL necessarlly be pre[udlced by a
[udgmenL whlch does compleLe [usLlce Lo Lhe parLles ln courL rlvaLe respondenL ls noL clalmlng
Lhe enLlre area of LoL 1121 buL only a porLlon Lhereof whlch was ad[udlcaLed Lo her based on Lhe

AugusL 17 1981 exLra[udlclal seLLlemenL and whlch was denomlnaLed ln Lhe survey plan as LoL C of
LoL 1121 Lhus Lhere was no need Lo lmplead Lhe occupanLs of LoL 8

r eLlLloner furLher clalms LhaL Lhe sub[ecL properLy could noL be parLlLloned based on Lhe
exLra[udlclal seLLlemenLparLlLlon daLed AugusL 17 1981 slnce Lhe dlsLrlbuLlve share of Lhe helrs of
Lhe laLe CelesLlno Arblzo and Lhe area of LoL 1121 sLaLed Lhereln were dlfferenL from Lhe
exLra[udlclal seLLlemenL execuLed on !une 1 1981 LhaL Lhe dlscrepancles beLween Lhe Lwo deeds
of parLlLlon wlLh respecL Lo Lhe area of LoL 1121 and Lhe respecLlve share of Lhe parLles Lhereln
lndlcaLed LhaL Lhey never lnLended LhaL any of Lhe deeds Lo be Lhe flnal deLermlnaLlon of Lhe
porLlons of LoL 1121 alloLLed Lo Lhem LhaL Lhe exLra[udlclal seLLlemenLparLlLlon of AugusL 17 1981
could noL effecLlvely subdlvlde LoL 1121 because lL parLlLloned only 29843 square meLers and noL
lLs acLual area of 127298 square meLers

1here ls no cogenL reason Lo dlsLurb Lhe flndlngs of Lhe respondenL CourL as follows 1he
dlscrepancles beLween Lhe exLra[udlclal seLLlemenLs execuLed by plalnLlff ulrecLo defendanL
noceda and Marla Arblzo on !une 1 1981 and AugusL 17 1981 only meanL LhaL Lhe laLLer was
lnLended Lo supersede Lhe former 1he slgnaLure of defendanL noceda ln Lhe exLra[udlclal
seLLlemenL of AugusL 17 1981 would show hls conformlLy Lo Lhe new apporLlonmenL of LoL 1121
among Lhe helrs of Lhe laLe CelesLlno Arblzo 1he facL LhaL defendanL noceda occupled Lhe porLlon
alloLLed Lo hlm ln Lhe exLra[udlclal seLLlemenL as well as Lhe donaLed porLlon of Lhe share of
plalnLlff ulrecLo presupposes hls knowledge of Lhe exLenL of boundarles of Lhe porLlon of LoL 1121
alloLLed Lo hlm Moreover Lhe sLaLemenL ln Lhe exLra[udlclal seLLlemenL of AugusL 17 1981 wlLh
respecL Lo Lhe area of LoL 1121 whlch was 29843 square meLers ls noL concluslve because lL was
found ouL afLer Lhe relocaLlon survey was conducLed on LoL 1121 LhaL Lhe parLles Lhereln
occupled an area larger Lhan whaL Lhey were supposed Lo possess per Lhe exLra[udlclal seLLlemenL
parLlLlon of AugusL 17 1981

AlLhough ln Lhe exLra[udlclal seLLlemenL daLed AugusL 17 1981 Lhe helrs of CelesLlno Arblzo
parLlLloned only a 29843 square meLer loL Lo conform wlLh Lhe area declared under Lax declaraLlon
160032 yeL Lhe helrs were each acLually occupylng a blgger porLlon Lhe LoLal area of whlch
exceeded 29843 square meLers 1hls was conflrmed by CeodeLlc Lnglneer Cue[ada ln hls reporL
submlLLed Lo Lhe Lrlal courL where he sLaLed among oLher Lhlngs 7 LhaL upon compuLaLlon of
acLual survey lL ls lnformed (slc) LhaL Lhe area daLed (slc) as per exLra[udlclal seLLlemenLparLlLlon ln
Lhe name of CelesLlno Arblzo was smaller Lhan Lhe compuLed loLs of Lhelr acLual occupancy as per
survey on Lhe ground

1he survey conducLed on LoL 1121 was only a conflrmaLlon of Lhe acLual areas belng occupled by
Lhe helrs Laklng lnLo accounL Lhe percenLage proporLlon ad[udlcaLed Lo each helr on Lhe basls of
Lhelr AugusL 17 1981 exLra[udlclal seLLlemenL

r eLlLloner furLher alleges LhaL Lhe sald parLlLlon Lrles Lo vesL ln favor of a Lhlrd person
Marla Arblzo a rlghL over Lhe sald properLy noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe absence of evldence esLabllshlng
LhaL she ls an helr of Lhe laLe CelesLlno Arblzo slnce Marla Arblzo was never lmpleaded as a parLy ln
Lhls case and her lnLeresL over LoL 1121 was noL esLabllshed

Such conLenLlon deserves scanL conslderaLlon We flnd no compelllng basls Lo dlsLurb Lhe flndlng of
Lhe Lrlal courL on Lhls facLual lssue as follows ln effecL Lhe defendanL denles Lhe allegaLlon of Lhe
plalnLlff LhaL Marla Arblzo was Lhe Lhlrd wlfe of CelesLlno Arblzo and Agrlplna ls her half slsLer wlLh
a common faLher Cn Lhls polnL Lhe CourL belleves Lhe verslon of Lhe plalnLlff 1he CourL observes
LhaL ln Lhe LxLra!udlclal SeLLlemenLarLlLlon Marla Arblzo ls named one of Lhe cohelrs of Lhe
defendanL belng Lhe wldow of hls grandfaLher CelesLlno Arblzo 1he names of AnacleLo and
Agrlplna do noL also appear ln Lhe LxLra[udlclal SeLLlemenL and arLlLlon because accordlng Lo Lhe
plalnLlff Lhey had sold Lhelr shares Lo Marla Arblzo And Lhe defendanL ls one of Lhe slgnaLorles Lo
Lhe sald ueed of LxLra[udlclal SeLLlemenLarLlLlon acknowledged before noLary ubllc ArLemlo
Maranon under Lhe clrcumsLances Lhe CourL ls convlnced LhaL Lhe defendanL knew LhaL Marla
Arblzo was Lhe wldow of CelesLlno Arblzo and he knew of Lhe sale of Lhe share of AnacleLo Arblzo
hls share as well as LhaL of Agrlplna When Lhe defendanL slgned Lhe LxLra!udlclal SeLLlemenL he
was already an adulL slnce when he LesLlfled ln 1989 he gave hls age as 30 years old So LhaL ln
1981 he was already 41 years old lf he dld noL know all of Lhese Lhe defendanL would have noL
agreed Lo Lhe sharlng and slgned Lhls documenL and acknowledged lL before Lhe noLary ubllc And
who could have a beLLer knowledge of Lhe relaLlonshlp of Agrlplna and Marla Arblzo Lo CelesLlno
Arblzo Lhan Lhe laLLer's daughLer? 8esldes aL Lhe Llme of Lhe execuLlon of Lhe LxLra!udlclal
SeLLlemenLarLlLlon by Lhe plalnLlff and defendanL Lhey were sLlll ln good Lerms 1here was no
reason for Lhe plalnLlff Lo favor Marla Arblzo and Agrlplna Arblzo over Lhe defendanL lurLhermore
Lhe defendanL had falled Lo supporL hls allegaLlon LhaL when hls grandfaLher dled he had no wlfe
and chlld

r We llkewlse flnd unmerlLorlous peLlLloners clalm LhaL Lhere exlsL no facLual and legal
basls for Lhe ad[udlcaLlon of LoL C of LoL 1121 Lo prlvaLe respondenL Aurora ulrecLo lL bears sLress
LhaL Lhe relocaLlon survey plan prepared by CeodeLlc Lnglneer Cue[ada was based on Lhe
exLra[udlclal seLLlemenL daLed AugusL 17 1981 and Lhe acLual possesslon by Lhe parLles and Lhe
Lechnlcal descrlpLlon of LoL 1121 lL was esLabllshed by Lhe survey plan LhaL based on Lhe acLual
possesslon of Lhe parLles and Lhe exLra[udlclal seLLlemenL among Lhe helrs Lhe porLlon
denomlnaLed as LoL C of LoL 1121 of Lhe survey plan was belng occupled by prlvaLe respondenL
Aurora ulrecLo and lL was also shown LhaL lL ls ln LoL C where Lhe 623 square meLer area donaLed
by prlvaLe respondenL ulrecLo Lo peLlLloner ls locaLed 1here ls no obsLacle Lo ad[udlcaLe LoL C Lo
prlvaLe respondenL as her rlghLful share alloLLed Lo her ln Lhe exLra[udlclal seLLlemenL

r eLlLloner argues LhaL he dld noL usurp Lhe properLy of respondenL ulrecLo slnce Lo
daLe Lhe meLes and bounds of Lhe parcel of land lefL by Lhelr predecessor ln lnLeresL CelesLlno
Arblzo are sLlll undeLermlned slnce no flnal deLermlnaLlon as Lo Lhe exacL areas properly perLalnlng
Lo Lhe parLles hereln hence Lhey are sLlll consldered as coowners Lhereof

We do noL agree
ln Lhls case Lhe source of coownershlp among Lhe helrs was lnLesLaLe successlon Where Lhere are
Lwo or more helrs Lhe whole esLaLe of Lhe decedenL ls before lLs parLlLlon owned ln common by
such helrs sub[ecL Lo Lhe paymenL of debLs of Lhe deceased arLlLlon ln general ls Lhe separaLlon
dlvlslon and asslgnmenL of a Lhlng held ln common among Lhose Lo whom lL may belong 1he
purpose of parLlLlon ls Lo puL an end Lo coownershlp lL seeks a severance of Lhe lndlvldual lnLeresL
of each coowner vesLlng ln each a sole esLaLe ln speclflc properLy and glvlng Lo each one a rlghL Lo
en[oy hls esLaLe wlLhouL supervlslon or lnLerference from Lhe oLher And one way of effecLlng a
parLlLlon of Lhe decedenLs esLaLe ls by Lhe helrs Lhemselves exLra[udlclally

1he helrs of Lhe laLe CelesLlno Arblzo namely Marla Arblzo Aurora A ulrecLo (prlvaLe respondenL)
and 8odolfo noceda (peLlLloner) enLered lnLo an exLra[udlclal seLLlemenL of Lhe esLaLe on AugusL
17 1981 and agreed Lo ad[udlcaLe among Lhemselves Lhe properLy lefL by Lhelr predecessorln
lnLeresL ln Lhe followlng manner
1o 8odolfo noceda goes Lhe norLhern oneflfLh (1/3) porLlon conLalnlng an area of 3989 sq
meLers
1o Marla Arblzo goes Lhe mlddle LhreeflfLhs (3/3) porLlon
and 1o Aurora Arblzo goes Lhe souLhern oneflfLh (1/3) porLlon ln Lhe survey plan submlLLed by
Lnglneer Cue[ada Lhe porLlons lndlcaLed by red llnes and numbered alphabeLlcally were based on
Lhe percenLage proporLlon ln Lhe exLra[udlclal seLLlemenL and Lhe acLual occupancy of each helr
whlch resulLed Lo Lhese dlvlslons as follows
LoL A Lhe area ls 2937 sqm goes Lo 8odolfo A noceda (1/3)
LoL 8 38872 sqm Marla Arblzo (3/3)
LoL C 12937 sqm Aurora Arblzo (1/3)

1hus Lhe areas alloLLed Lo each helr are now speclflcally dellneaLed ln Lhe survey plan 1here ls no
coownershlp where porLlon owned ls concreLely deLermlned and ldenLlflable Lhough noL
Lechnlcally descrlbed or LhaL sald porLlons are sLlll embraced ln one and Lhe same cerLlflcaLe of
LlLle does noL make sald porLlons less deLermlnable or ldenLlflable or dlsLlngulshable one from Lhe
oLher nor LhaL domlnlon over each porLlon less excluslve ln Lhelr respecLlve owners A parLlLlon
legally made confers upon each helr Lhe excluslve ownershlp of Lhe properLy ad[udlcaLed Lo hlm

We also flnd unmerlLorlous peLlLloners argumenL LhaL slnce Lhere was no effecLlve and real
parLlLlon of Lhe sub[ecL loL Lhere exlsLs no basls for Lhe charge of usurpaLlon and hence Lhere ls also
no basls for flndlng lngraLlLude agalnsL hlm lL was esLabllshed LhaL peLlLloner noceda occupled noL
only Lhe porLlon donaLed Lo hlm by prlvaLe respondenL Aurora ArblzoulrecLo buL he also fenced
Lhe whole area of LoL C whlch belongs Lo prlvaLe respondenL ulrecLo Lhus peLlLloners acL of
occupylng Lhe porLlon perLalnlng Lo prlvaLe respondenL ulrecLo wlLhouL Lhe laLLers knowledge and
consenL ls an acL of usurpaLlon whlch ls an offense agalnsL Lhe properLy of Lhe donor and
consldered as an acL of lngraLlLude of a donee agalnsL Lhe donor 1he law does noL requlre
convlcLlon of Lhe donee lL ls enough LhaL Lhe offense be proved ln Lhe acLlon for revocaLlon
llnally peLlLloner conLends LhaL granLlng revocaLlon ls proper Lhe rlghL Lo enforce Lhe same had
already prescrlbed slnce as admlLLed by prlvaLe respondenL peLlLloner usurped her properLy ln Lhe
flrsL week of SepLember 1983 whlle Lhe complalnL for revocaLlon was flled on SepLember 16 1986
Lhus more Lhan one (1) year had passed from Lhe alleged usurpaLlon by peLlLloner of prlvaLe
respondenLs share ln LoL 1121 We are noL persuaded

1he respondenL CourL re[ecLed such argumenL ln Lhls wlse
ArLlcle 769 of Lhe new Clvll Code sLaLes LhaL 1he acLlon granLed Lo Lhe donor by reason of
lngraLlLude cannoL be renounced ln advance 1hls acLlon prescrlbes wlLhln one year Lo be counLed
from Lhe Llme Lhe donor had knowledge of Lhe facL and lL was posslble for hlm Lo brlng Lhe acLlon
As expressly sLaLed Lhe donor musL flle Lhe acLlon Lo revoke hls donaLlon wlLhln one year from Lhe
Llme he had knowledge of Lhe lngraLlLude of Lhe donee Also lL musL be shown LhaL lL was posslble
for Lhe donor Lo lnsLlLuLe Lhe sald acLlon wlLhln Lhe same perlod 1he concurrence of Lhese Lwo
requlslLes musL be shown by defendanL noceda ln order Lo bar Lhe presenL acLlon uefendanL
noceda falled Lo do so Pe reckoned Lhe one year prescrlpLlve perlod from Lhe occurrence of Lhe
usurpaLlon of Lhe properLy of plalnLlff ulrecLo ln Lhe flrsL week of SepLember 1983 and noL from
Lhe Llme Lhe laLLer had Lhe knowledge of Lhe usurpaLlon Moreover defendanL noceda falled Lo
prove LhaL aL Lhe Llme plalnLlff ulrecLo acqulred knowledge of hls usurpaLlon lL was posslble for
plalnLlff ulrecLo Lo lnsLlLuLe an acLlon for revocaLlon of her donaLlon

1he acLlon Lo revoke by reason of lngraLlLude prescrlbes wlLhln one (1) year Lo be counLed from Lhe
Llme (a) Lhe donor had knowledge of Lhe facL (b) provlded LhaL lL was posslble for hlm Lo brlng Lhe
acLlon lL ls lncumbenL upon peLlLloner Lo show proof of Lhe concurrence of Lhese Lwo condlLlons ln
order LhaL Lhe one (1) year perlod for brlnglng Lhe acLlon be consldered Lo have already prescrlbed
no compeLenL proof was adduced by peLlLloner Lo prove hls allegaLlon ln Clvll Cases Lhe parLy
havlng Lhe burden of proof musL esLabllsh hls case by preponderance of evldence Pe who alleges a
facL has Lhe burden of provlng lL and a mere allegaLlon ls noL evldence

lacLual flndlngs of Lhe CourL of Appeals supporLed by subsLanLlal evldence on record are flnal and
concluslve on Lhe parLles and carry even more welghL when Lhe CourL of Appeals afflrms Lhe facLual
flndlngs of Lhe Lrlal courL for lL ls noL Lhe funcLlon of Lhls CourL Lo reexamlne all over agaln Lhe oral
and documenLary evldence submlLLed by Lhe parLles unless Lhe flndlngs of facL of Lhe CourL of
Appeals are noL supporLed by Lhe evldence on record or Lhe [udgmenL ls based on Lhe
mlsapprehenslon of facLs 1he [urlsdlcLlon of Lhls courL ls Lhus llmlLed Lo revlewlng errors of law
unless Lhere ls a showlng LhaL Lhe flndlngs complalned of are LoLally devold of supporL ln Lhe record
or LhaL Lhey are so glarlngly erroneous as Lo consLlLuLe serlous abuse of dlscreLlon We flnd no such
showlng ln Lhls case

We flnd LhaL boLh Lhe Lrlal courL and Lhe respondenL CourL had carefully consldered Lhe quesLlons
of facL ralsed below and Lhe respondenL CourLs concluslons are based on Lhe evldence on record
eLlLloner falled Lo presenL any subsLanLlal argumenL Lo [usLlfy a reversal of Lhe assalled declslon
eLlLlon for revlew ls uLnlLu
S||ver|o v CA
Gk# 178933 Sept 16 2009
600 SCkA 1

Ave||no vs CA
Gk# 11S181 March 31 2000
329 SCkA 369


2aragoza vs CA
Gk# 106401 Sept 29 2000
341 SCkA 309


Arrogante v De||arte
Gk# 1S2132 Iu|y 24 2007
S28 SCkA 63


Crenda|n Ir vs kodr|guez
Gk# 168660] Iune 30 2009

S91 SCkA 28S

lAC1S Cn !uly 19 1960 Lhe decedenL uona MargarlLa 8odrlguez dled ln Manlla leavlng a lasL
wlll and LesLamenL Cn SepLember 23 1960 Lhe wlll was admlLLed Lo probaLe by vlrLue of Lhe order
of Lhe Cll Manlla ln Speclal roceedlng no 3843 Cn AugusL 27 1962 Lhe Cll Manlla approved Lhe
pro[ecL of parLlLlon presenLed by Lhe execuLor of uona MargarlLa 8odrlguez's wlll AL Lhe Llme of
her deaLh Lhe decedenL lefL no compulsory or forced helrs and consequenLly was compleLely free
Lo dlspose of her properLles wlLhouL regard Lo leglLlmes3 as provlded ln her wlll Some of uona
MargarlLa 8odrlguez's LesLamenLary dlsposlLlons conLemplaLed Lhe creaLlon of a LrusL Lo manage
Lhe lncome from her properLles for dlsLrlbuLlon Lo beneflclarles speclfled ln Lhe wlll
As regards Clause 10 of Lhe wlll whlch expllclLly prohlblLs Lhe allenaLlon or morLgage of Lhe
properLles speclfled Lhereln we had occaslon Lo hold ln 8odrlguez eLc eL al v CourL of Appeals
eL al3 LhaL Lhe clause lnsofar as Lhe flrsL LwenLyyear perlod ls concerned does noL vlolaLe ArLlcle
8706 of Lhe Clvll Code AlmosL four decades laLer hereln peLlLloners Pllarlon !r and Lnrlco
Crendaln helrs of Pllarlon Crendaln Sr who was menLloned ln Clause 24 of Lhe decedenL's wlll
moved Lo dlssolve Lhe LrusL on Lhe decedenL's esLaLe whlch Lhey argued had been ln exlsLence for
more Lhan LwenLy years ln vlolaLlon of ArLlcles 8678 and 870 of Lhe Clvll Code and lnconslsLenL
wlLh our rullng ln 8odrlguez v CourL of Appeals9Cn Aprll 18 2003 Lhe 81C lssued Lhe hereln
assalled Crder LhaL (a) only Lhe perpeLual prohlblLlon Lo allenaLe or morLgage ls declared vold (b)
Lhe LrusL over her properLles sLlpulaLed by Lhe LesLaLrlx ln Clauses 12 13 and 24 of Lhe wlll remalns
valld and (c) Lhe LrusLees may dlspose of Lhese properLles ln order Lo carry ouL Lhe laLLer's
LesLamenLary dlsposlLlon10
lSSuL WCn Lhe LrusLeeshlp over Lhe properLles lefL by Lhe decedenL can be dlssolved applylng
ArLlcles 867 and 870 of Lhe Clvll Code
8uLlnC 1he peLlLlon ls lmpressed wlLh merlL
ApparenL from Lhe decedenL's lasL wlll and LesLamenL ls Lhe creaLlon of a LrusL on a speclflc seL of
properLles and Lhe lncome accrulng Lherefrom nowhere ln Lhe wlll can lL be ascerLalned LhaL Lhe
decedenL lnLended any of Lhe LrusL's deslgnaLed beneflclarles Lo lnherlL Lhese properLles 1he
decedenL's wlll dld noL lnsLlLuLe any helr LhereLo as clearly shown by Lhe followlng
1 Clause 2 lnsLrucLed Lhe creaLlon of LrusL
2 Clause 3 lnsLrucLed LhaL Lhe remalnlng lncome from speclfled properLles afLer Lhe necessary
deducLlons for expenses lncludlng Lhe esLaLe Lax be deposlLed ln a fund wlLh a bank
3 Clause 10 enumeraLed Lhe properLles Lo be placed ln LrusL for perpeLual admlnlsLraLlon
(pangaslwaan sa habang panahon)
4 Clauses 11 and 12 dlrecLed how Lhe lncome from Lhe properLles oughL Lo be dlvlded among and
dlsLrlbuLed Lo Lhe dlfferenL beneflclarles and
3 Clause 24 lnsLrucLed Lhe admlnlsLraLors Lo provlde medlcal supporL Lo cerLaln beneflclarles Lo be
deducLed from Lhe fund deposlLs ln Lhe bank menLloned ln Clauses 2 and 3
lalnly Lhe 81C was mlsLaken ln denylng peLlLloners' moLlon Lo dlssolve and orderlng Lhe
dlsposlLlon of Lhe properLles ln Clause 10 accordlng Lo Lhe LesLaLrlx's wlshes As regards Lhese
properLles lnLesLacy should apply as Lhe decedenL dld noL lnsLlLuLe an helr Lherefor ArLlcle 782 ln
relaLlon Lo paragraph 2 ArLlcle 960 of Lhe Clvll Code provldes
ArL 782 An helr ls a person called Lo Lhe successlon elLher by Lhe provlslon of a wlll or by operaLlon
of law
ArL 960 Legal or lnLesLaLe successlon Lakes place
(2) When Lhe wlll does noL lnsLlLuLe an helr Lo or dlspose of all Lhe properLy belonglng Lo Lhe
LesLaLor ln such case legal successlon shall Lake place only wlLh respecL Lo Lhe properLy of whlch
Lhe LesLaLor has noL dlsposed
We flnd as erroneous Lhe 81C's holdlng LhaL paragraph 414 ArLlcle 1013 of Lhe same code
speclflcally allows a perpeLual LrusL because Lhls provlslon of law ls lnappllcable Sufflce lL Lo sLaLe
LhaL Lhe arLlcle ls among Lhe Clvll Code provlslons on lnLesLaLe successlon speclflcally on Lhe SLaLe
lnherlLlng from a decedenL ln defaulL of persons enLlLled Lo succeed under Lhls arLlcle Lhe
allowance for a permanenL LrusL approved by a courL of law covers properLy lnherlLed by Lhe SLaLe
by vlrLue of lnLesLaLe successlon 1he arLlcle does noL cure a vold LesLamenLary provlslon whlch dld
noL lnsLlLuLe an helr Accordlngly Lhe arLlcle cannoL be applled Lo dlspose of hereln decedenL's
properLles
1he hereln LesLaLrlx's large landholdlngs cannoL be sub[ecLed lndeflnlLely Lo a LrusL because Lhe
ownershlp Lhereof would Lhen effecLlvely remaln wlLh her even ln Lhe afLerllfe
ln llghL of Lhe foregolng Lherefore Lhe LrusL on Lhe LesLaLrlx's properLles musL be dlssolved and Lhls
case remanded Lo Lhe lower courL Lo deLermlne Lhe followlng (1) 1he properLles llsLed ln Clause
10 of Lhe wlll consLlLuLlng Lhe perpeLual LrusL whlch are sLlll wlLhln reach and have noL been
dlsposed of as yeL and (2) 1he lnLesLaLe helrs of Lhe decedenL wlLh Lhe nearesL relaLlve of Lhe
deceased enLlLled Lo lnherlL Lhe remalnlng properLles