HEIRS OF LEOPOLDO VENCILAO, SR., represented by their Administrator ELPIDIO VENCILAO, petitioner, VENCILAO, petitioner, vs. vs. COR! COR! OF APPEAL APPEALS, S, SPOSE SPOSES S SA"AS and RPER!A #EP #EPALA# ALA#O, O, and and DO$I DO$ICI CIAN ANO O #EPALA#O, respondents. Lesson%
The The Supr Suprem eme e Cour Courtt held held that that a titl title, e, once once regi regist ster ered ed,, cann cannot ot be defe defeat ated ed even even by adverse, open and notorious possession. Tax declarations and receipts do not by themselves conclusively prove title to the land.
Fa&ts%
Heir Heirs s of Venci encila lao o adhe adhere re to acqui cquis sitiv itive e prescription, and spouses Gepalago asserting one oners rshi hip p on the the basi basis s of a deed deed of sale sale recorded in the certificate of title of the vendor as mortgagee and highest bidder in a foreclosure sale. The heirs of !eopoldo Vencilao Sr. alleged that they ere the absolute oners of a parcel of land. Having inherited the same from their father, !eopoldo Vencilao Sr., ho during his lifetime as in peaceful, open, notorious and uninterrupted possession and en"oyment of the property in the concept of oner, declared the property for taxation purposes and religiously paid the real real estate taxes. taxes. #fter his death, death, his heir heirs s cont contin inue ued d to poss posses ess s and and en"o en"oy y the the property. The Gepalago spouses, on the other hand, deni denied ed all all the the mate materi rial al alle allega gati tion ons s in the the comp compla lain intt and and clai claime med d that that they they ere ere the the regis registe tered red one oners rs of the the land. land. $rev $reviou iously sly a porti portion on of a land land origin originall ally y oned oned by $edro $edro !uspo. The entire parcel of land as mortgaged by $edro !uspo to $%& as security for for a loan loan.. Sinc Since e !usp !uspo o fail failed ed to pay pay the the obli obliga gati tion on the the mort mortga gage ge as as fore forecl clos osed ed.. Ther Therea eaft fter er $%&, $%&, the the high highes estt bidd bidder er in the the foreclosure sale, conveyed the hole property
to '( vendees vendees among hom ere the spouses Sabas and )uperta Gepalago. Since then, they had been the oner and possessor of the land until they donated the same in *+ to their son -omiciano Gepalago. The The tria triall cour courtt then then rule ruled d in favo favorr of the the Venci encila laos os stat statin ing g that that they they had been een in possess possession, ion, cultivat cultivation ion and en"oyme en"oyment nt of the property for more than / years and improvements therein ere introduced by them long before any title as ever issued to the Gepalagos. C# reversed the ruling of the )TC0 -efe -efen ndant dant1a 1app ppel ella lant nts s one oners rshi hip p of the the property as evidenced by a certificate of title hile hile plaintif plaintiff1ap f1appel pellees lees relied relied merely merely on tax declaration. The motion for reconsideration by the Vencilaos having been denied 2'3 they filed the instant petition for revie.
Iss'e% ho has a better right4
He(d%
5n order that an action to recover onersh onership ip of real propert property y may prosper prosper,, the person ho claims that he has a better right to it must prove not only his onership of the same but also satisfactorily prove the identity thereof. #s #s a general rule, here the certificate certificate of title is in the name of the vendor hen the land is sold, the vendee for value has the right to rely on hat appears on the face of the title. He is under no obligation to loo6 beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the face of the certificate. &y ay of exception, the vendee is required to ma6e the necessary inquiries if there is anything in the certificate of title hich indicates any cloud or vice in the onership of the real property. 5n
records shoing that the title of $%&, the vendor, as flaed. SPOSES PAN#)ODEN LEONEN et. A(
*s.
8 The portion segregated by the ne cree6, consisting of *,(.' square meters, is the strip of land sub"ect of this controversy.
ISA"EL
G.). %o. *++.77
8 5n *+?(, @anuel !eonen sa the carabao of petitioner #le"andro $ang1oden devouring the !eonens= sugar cane crops planted on the property in question. 5t as then that @anuel !eonen discovered that petitioners had encroached on the *,(.'1square meter portion of their property and had in fact occupied the same.
Fa&ts%
8 $etitioners and respondents are the oners of to 9:; ad"oining parcels of land located at Sudipen, !a
8 The to properties have a common boundary0 a cree6 hich ran from south to north, such that petitioners= property as bounded by said cree6 on the est, hile that of respondents as bounded by the same cree6 on the east.
8 -espite )epeated demands from respondents, #le"andro $ang1oden refused to surrender possession of said land. So the respondents filed a complaint for the )ecovery of $ossession &ased on Anership.
8 -ue to constant heavy rains and flood, ater from the cree6 overfloed and destroyed the irrigation canal located at the north of the property in dispute. 5n order to minimi>e the damage to the irrigation canal, the %ational 5rrigation #dministration 9%5#; diverted the course of the cree6 so rain ater ill not go directly to the irrigation canal.
8 #s a result, the course of the cree6 hich originally ran from south to north and hich used to separate the respective properties of the parties as instead diverted to run from south to northest, passing through the middle portion of the respondents= property and resulting to the formation of a ne cree6
8 $etitioners contend that no ne cree6 as created and that the present cree6 is the same cree6 hich bounds their property on the est, thus ma6ing them the oners of the property in question.
8 )TC and C# ruled in favor of the !eonens and ordered the $ang1 odens to vacate said lot. Thus this petition.
Iss'e% Bho beteen the petitioners and the respondents, on the strip of land sub"ect of the suit.777
R'(in+%
The SC ruled that the oners of the sub"ect strip of !and are the respondents herein. The C# and the trial court relied on the testimonies of to 9:; disinterested itnesses0 Gregorio !ibao, a retired employee of the %5#, and #nacleto -icta1an, a resident of Sudipen, !a
The evidence presented in this case shoed that the property sub"ect of the dispute rightfully belongs to the respondents, as it as established that the same is part of the parcel of land declared under the name of respondents= predecessor1in1interest, -ionisio !eonen. 5ndeed, the verification survey of the contested property conducted by Duvenal Euitoriano, a geodetic engineer, revealed that it as in the name of -ionisio !eonen.
Thus, petition is denied.
#.R. No. -/01. A'+'st 2, /33-4 HEIRS OF ANAS!ACIO FA"ELA, name(y5 !eod'(a Fabe(a Pa+'idopon, Ri&ardo Fabe(a, Irenita Fabe(a 6ea7d8, Caro(ina Fabe(a Ara9o Don+(as, and Ampi(o:'io Fabe(a, petitioners, vs. HON. COR! OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF RO;E NERI, name(y% Ro:'e Neri,
F 5n *+:, the sub"ect lot is a sub"ect of litigation 9Carmelino %eri v. &alhon and heirs of abela;. The parties entered into an agreement hich provided the Carmelino %eri be entrusted the possession of the land for * years from the date of the instrument 9@ay :/, *+:;, ill return the same upon expiration ithout need of JredemptionK. F !ot ?/ as erroneously registered in the name of %eri, he sold it to $H5V5-LC %eri aved his rght and the proceeds as given to abela. Hoever, %eri refused to return lot ( upon repeated demands of abela. Case as filed against %eri. F )TC ruled in favor of the plaintiff that they are entitled to the full en"oyment and possession of the property.
F C# reversed )TC decision. %eri is the registered claimant of the land that the * year agreement had lapsed a long time ago and the appellees did not exert diligent efforts to regain possession. @oreover, they had not successfully proved by the required preponderance of evidence their claim of absolute onership. ailure to prove right of onership ill bar an action to recover the property.
Iss'e% Bo% the plaintiff can validly recover the property from %eri4 SC%
%o. C# is correct in ruling that the petitioners failed to establish their case by preponderence of evidence. )ule is in order to maintain an action for recovery of onership, the person ho claims that he has a better right to the property must prove not only his onership of the property claimed but also the identity thereof. The party ho desires to recover must fix the identity of the land claimed by describing the location, area and boundaries thereof. $etitioners based their claim of onership on the *+: Lscritura de Transaccion 9only evidence they have;, the original copy of hich as not presented in the trial court, hile the photocopy as also lost hen the original records ere elevated to the respondent court.
%otably, the total area of lots ( and ?/ ould only be about (,(?+ sq. meters or about six 9(; hectares hich fails to correspond to the eighteen 9*; hectare parcel of land allegedly oned by the late #nastacio abela hich as the sub"ect of the Lscritura de Transaccion and testified to by Teodula abela $aguidopon. $etitioners failed to identify the land ith that degree of certainty required to support their affirmative allegation of onership. Bhen the record does not sho that the land hich is the sub"ect matter of the action for recovery of onership has been exactly determined, such action cannot prosper, inasmuch as the petitioners onership rights in the land claimed do not appear satisfactorily and conclusively proven at the trial.
REP"LIC V CARRASCO
FAC!S%
8 Actober *, *++(, in the )TC of @orong, )i>al, respondent Lfren @. Carrasco filed an application for registration of title over a *?,(?1 square meter land situated at $rovince of )i>al. 8 respondent alleged that said land is alienable and disposable and not ithin any military or hatever 6ind of reservation that to the best of his 6noledge, the land has never been mortgaged or encumbered or that any person has any interest thereon, legal or equitable and that the sub"ect land is declared for taxation purposes in his name.
8 respondents Affidavit of Ownership dated #ugust ::, *++(, therein stating that he too6 possession of the land in *++/ from his predecessor, %orberto @ingao, ho has occupied the land for the last :' years the latters Deed of aiver dated -ecember *(, *++*, thereunder aiving his claim over the land in favor of the responden 8 )epublic, through the Affice of the Solicitor General 9ASG;, filed an opposition to the application 8 %ovember :(, *++?1M land has not been the sub"ect of Ariginal )egistration of Title as amended by $- *':+ that he acquired the said land from %orberto @ingao as his compensation for having or6ed ith him and his acquisition as evidenced by a Baiver executed by %orberto @ingao in favor of petitioner on -ecember *(, *++* 8 been in possession of the same in the concept of an oner continuously, openly, and adversely for more than :' years that there are no other persons claiming possession over the property that the same property has not been mortgaged or encumbered to any other persons or entities that the property sub"ect matter of the case is not ithin a military or naval reservation. )
alienable and disposable land of the public domain and outside of any civil or military reservation. An the issue of hether the respondent as qualified to have the land registered in his name, the C# ruled in the affirmative having found the evidence sufficient to establish respondents and @ingaos onership and possession of the land in accordance ith the rule laid don in !epublic that occupation and v. ourt of Appeals cultivation for more than / years by an applicant and his predecessor1in1interest vest title on such applicant so as to segregate the land from the mass of the public domain.
SC1M)eversed
&efore one can register his title over a parcel of land, he must sho that0 9*; he, by himself or through his predecessors1in1interest, has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation thereof under a bona fide claim of onership since Dune *:, *+' or earlier and 9:; the land sub"ect of the application is alienable and disposable land of the public domain. 2*/3 or sure, Section *, paragraph 9*;, of the $roperty )egistration -ecree 9$.-. %o. *':+; explicitly states0
SLC. *. Bho may apply. The folloing persons may file in the proper Court of irst 5nstance 2no the )egional Trial Court3 an application for registration of title to land, hether personally or through their duly authori>ed representatives0 9*;
Those ho by themselves or through their predecessors1in1 interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a claim of bona fide onership since Dune *:, *+', or earlier.
8 )espondent failed to prove that %orberto @ingao from hom he allegedly derived his title, as the oner of the sub"ect land and hence can transmit rights over the same in his favor. 8 )espondent could not have acquired an imperfect title to the land in question because he has not proved possession openly, continuously and adversely in the concept of an oner since Dune *:, *+', the period of possession required by la. #t best, he can only prove possession since *++/, the date hich he admitted to have ta6en possession of the sub"ect parcel of land from @ingao. 8 )espondent may validly derive his right of possession from @ingao, still, hemay not rightfully apply for confirmation of title to the land in #uestion. or, as the C# correctly found, and hich the respondent does not dispute, @ingaos possession started only in *+'/ hich is ' years later than the rec6oning point of Dune *:, *+' under the $roperty )egistration -ecree 9$.-. %o. *':+;. 5t is thus clear that respondent failed to comply ith the period of possession and occupation not only as required by Section *9*;, supra, of the
$roperty )egistration -ecree but also by the $ublic !and #ct or Commonealth #ct 9C.#.; %o. **, the pertinent provision of hich is Section 9b;0
Ramos)"a(a(io *. Ramos
#CTS0 F $etitioner Nenaida )amos1&alalio is one of the children of Spouses &ueno and #bundio )amos ho occupies !ot %o. :/ starting in *+. F #bundio died in *+. Susana met her second husband, respondent Lusebio )amos in*+(, ith hom she had five children, one of hom is respondent )olando. F !ater on, Susana sold the land to petitioner ho, in turn, partitioned it among herself, her brother #lexander 9no decased; and ith )olando and his siblings. The partition as not registered but -eeds of Sale ere executed in favor of )olando and #lexander. F $etitioners thereafter mortgaged her share. Hoever, it came to her 6noledge that respondents )olando and Lusebio had usurped her and deprived the mortagagees of possession over the land. F $etioner filed a case for recovery of inheritance, possession and damages ith a petition forpreliminary mandatory in"unction. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner 9that indeed she as deprived of her right to cultivation and possession of her share;. F An appeal, the C# found that neither Nenaida nor #lexander complied ith the homestead application requirements in order to acquire superior vested right over the sub"ect parcel of land hich is still part of the public domain. #s a
consequence, the contract supposedly dividing the property cannot be enforced.
5SS
conclusive evidence of onership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of oner for no one in his right mind ould be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession. F They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not only ones sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property and announces his adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the Government.
REP"LIC V ENRI;E6
acts0 Herein respondents filed a verified petition for confirmation and registration to : parcel of land. Hoever, petitioner through the director of lands opposed the petition on the ground that the respondent or their predecessors in interest have not been in continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the property since Dune *:, *+' or prior thereto that respondents evidence is not sufficient to establish their claim and that the land applied for is a portion of the public domain )tc1 affirmed the the registration in favor of respondents Ca1 affirmed the decision of of he rtc denying the appeal made by the republic 5ssue0 hether or not the C# erred in affirming the decision of the trial court granting the application for land registration
SC
FAC!S%
The SC rules that the C# failed to ta6e relevant notice of the fact that there exist a material discrepancy in the technical description of parcel : applied for by the respondent. 5t should be noted that before one can register his title the applicant must sho that0 i. ACL% of the sub"ect of land under a bona fide claim since Dune *:, *+' ii. The land sub"ect of the application is alienable and disposable land of the public domain urthermore, one of the mandatory requirements for land registration is the submission in evidence of the original tracing cloth plan duly approved by the bureau of lands nor did they submit a report of the geodetic engineer. This is to establish the identity of the land and to avoid the issue of overlapping of a portion of the land already covered by a previous land registration hich the respondents failed to establish for parcel :.
-
Respondents fled an acon or quieng o tle o a property in located in Boracay (Lot 64). It was designated as Lot 64 during the
-
naonal surey o Boracay. Respondents allege that !y reason o the deed o a!solute sale e"ecuted !y spouses #regorio in aor o peoners oer Lot 64$ the sa%e has
-
cast cloud oer their tle. &o support the clai% o respondents$ they stated that Lot 64 was part o the ' hectare land !ought in pu!lic aucon !y their parents eidenced !y a fnal deed o sale in *. Lot 64 was only separately designated in the naonal surey !ecause the #regorio
-
spouses also clai% ownership. +eoners ,-ana clai% that they are purchasers in good aith and !eca%e lawul owners o Lot 64 !y reason o
urthermore, there as a discrepancy as to parcel :, the deed of sale shos that the parcel sold has a land area of :'/ sq.m hile the application sought to be registered is :+: sq.m
the deed o a!solute sale e"ecuted !y
The supreme court stress the fact that a person ho see6s registration of title must prove his or her claim by clear and convincing evidence and is duty bound to identify sufficient and satisfactory the property sought to be registered.
aor o the% RTC – Respondents failed to
)egistration of parcel * 1 granted )egistration of parcel : 1 denied
Bandiola oer #regorio. u!sequently$ !y a deed o a!solute sale e"ecuted !y the #regorios in -
establish identy of the land sold under the nal bill of sale. Finding equiponderance in evidence, ruled in -
favor of peoners. C - Reversed. Respondents are the o!ner of the land.
%o the petition. A9ana *s L'mbo
-
&he peoners to proe their clai% su!%i/ed a deed o a!solute sale
showing that Bandiola sold to
-
0hen an owner o real property is
#regorio a ' ha land where Lot 64 is
distur!ed in any way in his rights oer
included. 0hile respondents anchor their clai%
the property !y the unounded clai%
oer Lot 64 on a fnal !ill o sale.
quieng o tle. &he purpose o the
S'preme Co'rt% -
-
&he peoner in this case ailed to esta!lish !y preponderance o eidence the e"act peri%eters o the land which they clai% as their own !ecause i the land which Bandiola$
o others$ he %ay !ring an acon or acon is to re%oe the cloud on his tle created !y any instru%ent$ record$ encu%!rance or proceeding which is apparently alid or eece !ut is in truth and in act inalid and pre7udicial to his tle
the predecessor in interest !eore #regorio$ then it should hae !een !ounded !y the 1isayan ea in the 2astern poron. -
Respondents hae !een a!le to esta!lish !y preponderance o eidence that they are the righ3ul owners o Lot 64. &a" declaraons are an indicia o possession in the concept o an owner. oweer$ non5 declaraon o a property or ta" purposes does not necessarily negate ownership.
rom the foregoing, the fact that both tax declarations in the names of respondents covered !ot ( only did not necessarily mean they did not on !ot ( as they ere in fact able to present a document evidencing onership of both properties O the final bill of sale.
R$ARA!E 7Heirs8 *s. HERNANDE6 7Heirs8 7#.R. No. -1=///8
-ACT)5%L0 E<#%T<@ A $)AA $arties involved0 Santiago P oner of !ot %o. ?+ Sps. Teodulo )umarate Q )osita P Teodulo is godson to Santiago claims that Santiago orally bequeathed !ot %o. ?+ to him in *+:+ 9he as then only *; Sps. Cipriano Hernande> Q Dulia Hernande> P their heirs claimed that Santiago sold the lot to the Hernande> spouses in *+( #CTS0 Spouses )umarate filed an action for reconveyance of real property and quieting of title against respondent heirs of Hernande>. Teodulo claims that he, his ife and his ** children have been in open, continuous, notorious and exclusive possession of !ot %o. ?+ since *+:+, hen it as orally bequeathed to him by Santiago, his godfather. The )umarate family have been possessing and cultivating the same since then. To prove the same, they presented an imperfect title of the lot oing from a C5 decision. 5n *+(/, Santiago executed an R#ffidavit 9quit1claim;R to transfer his rights to Teodulo by ay of donation, but this as not embodied in a public
instrument. The heirs of Hernande> hoever allege that Santiago actually sold the lot to spouses Cipriano Hernande> Q Dulia Hernande> in *+( as evidenced by ACT A1 **. 5SS
spouses in *+( as by operation of the above provision, the )umarate family have already exhausted the /1year requirement as laful oner of the lot. 5n addition, Santiago did not exercise any act of onership over !ot %o. ?+ for * years beteen *+:+ to *+(/. Considering the evidences presented in the case at bar, quantum of proof has been met to prove onership of the parcel of land to the )umarate heirs F'(e *s. Le+are
!egare, her adopted son, and a maid named $urita Tarrosa. 5n the evening of @arch :+, *+', Dohn !egare had the plaintiff signed a paper ithout telling her its true content and itnessed by $urita. 5t turned out that said paper as a deed of sale of the lot and house in question in favor of Dohn B. !egare for the sum of $*:,///.//, and that it as supposed to have been executed on the ?th day of #pril *+', and ac6noledged before a notary public on that date. Dohn B. !egare approached Llias &. ermin, the real estate bro6er ho intervened in the securing of the loan contracted by the plaintiff from Tomas E. Soriano, and sought said bro6er=s help to sell the lot and house in question. Llias &. ermin accepted the commission and offered the property in sale to defendants spouses Conrado C. ule and !ourdes . #ragon. He agreed to purchase the property for $*:,///.// on condition that the sum of $?,///, the unpaid balance of plaintiff=s indebtedness to Tomas E. Soriano secured by a mortgage thereon, ould be deducted from the price, and that he ould assume said mortgage. Spouses ule accepted the sub"ect property and made it registered in their name.
Trial court ordered the cancellation of the ne titles and ma6ing valid the title of Lmilia de !egare. C# affirmed said "udgment by the loer court.
Fa&ts%
Iss'e%
Lmilia L. de !egare, as the oner of a parcel of land, together ith a residential house erected thereon, her onership being evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title %o. :*:', issued by the Affice of the )egister of -eeds of the $rovince of )i>al. She as living in that house together ith defendant Dohn B.
BA% petitioner spouses are purchasers in good faith and for value of the properties contested. R'(in+%
es. $etitioners are innocent purchasers for value of the house and lot here disputed and
they are here ad"udged the laful oners thereof. # purchaser in good faith is one ho buys property of another, ithout notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays a full and fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the property. Good faith consists in an honest intention to abstain from ta6ing any unconscientious advantage of another. 5n this case, the negotiation and transaction hich eventually caused the certificate of title to be transferred from the herein respondent to the petitioner spouses ere conducted by a real estate bro6er licensed since *+. %othing in Dohn B. !egare=s person or behaviour suggested anything suspicious. He as the adopted son of the herein respondent, and, to the time that he as contracting ith the petitioner spouses, he had not been 6non to commit crime or dishonesty. An the contrary, Dohn has had previous dealings ith the real estate bro6er during hich he exhibited the expected degree of trustorthiness.
prompted petitioner to file for e"ectment case hilst praying for reasonable compensation against private respondents. The case reached the SC and a decision as rendered in favor of $C#. $etitioner then had to file for motion for execution of "udgment to hich private respondents opposed to by filing for in"unction, prohibition and restraining order against $C# and the @TC hich granted the motion. City of @anila filed a complaint against $C# for the expropriation of the ad"acent land. $C# argued that a. City of @anila does not have the poer to expropriate b. Said action is accompanied ith political motive c. the expropriation is not for public use or benefit d. that the :@ deposit of City of @anila representing the provisional value of the land is insufficient and as made under $- *', a la declared unconstitutional by the SC. )TC dismissed $C#Is petition. #ccordingly, said expropriation as properly executed. City of @anila filed for an ex1parte motion for the issuance of rit of possession, mentioning the :@ deposit. This as granted by the )TC. The petition for preliminary in"unction filed by the private respondents as also granted.
ISSES%
*. BA% City of @anila has the poer to expropriate private property under *+? Constitution4 :. #ssuming it has, did it violate the public use requirement and petitionerIs right to due process4
RLIN#% FAC!S%
$etitioner is engaged in the business of providing sports and recreational facilities for its members. #d"acent to it is a ,:.+/ square meter lot under its onership but said land is occupied by private respondents. This
Sub"ect land as a remainder of the abie Lstate that as expropriated by the city pursuant to Ardinance %o. '+?* on *+((. %o, City of @anila pursuant to Ardinance %o. ??/, is expropriating the sub"ect land.
*. >ES. #rt. 555, Sec +, $H Consti, requires a la expressly authori>ing !G< to underta6e urban land reform. $ursuant to )evised Cahrter of the City of @anila, )# %o. /+, City of @anila can RA No. 32, Se& ?
Jcondemn private property for public useK and Jthe city may ta6e, purchase, receive, hold, lease, convey, and dispose of real and personal property for the general interest of the cityK and RA No. 32, Se& -33
J#cquire private landUand subdivide the same into home lots for sale on easy terms to city residents, giving first priority to the bona fide tenants of said lands and second to laborers and lo1salaried employeesUif necessary, may acquire the lands through expropriation proceedings in accordance ith la, ith the approval of the $residentUK
*. 7A8 $ublic use requirement
(Sumulong vs Guerrero)
That only fe could actually benefit from the expropriation does not diminish its public use character. 5t is simply impossible to provide all at once land and shelter to everyone. (JM Tuason & Co. Inc vs. Land Tenure Administration)
Lxpropriation is not anymore confined to vast tracts of land and landed estates. 5ts of no moment that the land sought to be expropriated is less than a half hectare only. $ublic use no includes the broader notion of indirect public benefit or
and housing. 9)efer to #rt. 555, Sec +, $H Consti; 7"8 -ue $rocess
$etitioner only raised the issue of Jlac6 of hearingK before SC. $C# as afforded due process but it "ust failed to file for motion for reconsideration of the trial courtIs order. Bith regard to the :@ deposit0 5t as not only fixed by the court but petitioner, albeit reluctantly, agreed to said valuation. #nyay, the parties ill have a second proceeding in determining the amount of "ust compensation to be paid.
#ARCIA V CA ! P +?* 7Danuary ::, *+/ 7 Fa&ts%
This case is about the issuance of to or more transfer certificates of title to different persons for the same lot, or subdivisions thereof, due to the fact that the original title as allegedly not cancelled hen the first transfer certificates of title ere issued to replace the original title. # deed of sale for lots L and G of Hacienda @aysilo and covered by ACT %o. + as executed in favor of 5smael !apus, a bona fide occupant thereof. The deed of sale as presented for registration and contained entries shoing that it as annotated on the bac6 of the ACT. Contrary to SA$ hoever, the deed of sale as not annotated on the ACT and that consequently, that title as apparently not cancelled. #s a result of the registration of the deed of sale, TCT %o. +*/ 9J!apus TitleK; as issued to !apus. 1 Go>on, ho had the land subdivided into '' lots and sold some to her no co1respondents. !apus and successors1in1interest have been in
possession of the lands even before *+*/ of more than ?/ years. 5n *+(:, the )iveras, alleged heirs of the late @aria de la Concepcion Vidal filed a motion in land registration cases, alleging that they ere deprived of their participation in the Hacienda @aysilo. Since per the ACT the land seemed unencumbered, the court ad"udicated the land in their favor. The ACT as then cancelled and TCT %o. **::' 9J)ivera TitleK; as issued to the )iveras. !ots ' and ? 9L and G; ere then assigned to &artolome )ivera to Sergio Cru> and $acifico Garcia, and subsequent TCTs ere issued in their behalf. Garcia had !ot ? 9G; subdivided into lots # and &, retained lot # and assigned & to #ntonio @uno>. @uno> mortgaged lot & to #ssociated &an6ing Corp. An the other hand, Cru> sold !ot ' 9L; to Santiago Go. Go mortgaged !ot ' to $hilippine %ational &an6. &oth @uno> and Go did not pay their mortgage debts, hence the to ban6s foreclosed the properties. $%& bought the mortgaged !ot ' at the auction, but notice of lis pendens as already annotated on the title. )iveras and their successors1in1interest have never set foot on the disputed lots. Go>on finally learned about the )iveras and others acquiring the land, had her adverse claims registered on the titles of lots ' and ? and filed an action to quiet title and damages. The trial court ruled in favor of Go>on and co1 plaintiffs and voided the TCTs issued to the )iveras, others. C# affirmed the decision. Garcia and $%& appealed.
Iss'e%
B% the *+:/ !apus title prevails over the *+( )ivera title and subsequent titles derived from it4
He(d% >es, Lap's tit(e pre*ai(s. !apus as an innocent purchaser for value ho validly transmitted to his successors1in1interest his indefeasible title or onership over the disputed lots. That title could not be nullified or defeated by the issuance years later to other persons of another title over the same lots due to the failure of the register of deeds to cancel the title preceding the title issued to !apus. This must be so considering that !apus and his successors1in1interest remained in possession of the disputed lots and the rival claimants never possessed the same. !he +enera( r'(e is that in the &ase o@ to &erti@i&ates o@ tit(e, p'rportin+ to in&('de the same (and, the ear(ier in date pre*ai(s. It is sett(ed that in this B'risdi&tion the maim prior est in tempore, potior est in ure 7he ho is @irst in time is pre@erred in ri+ht8 is @o((oed in (and res+istration matters.
The contention of $%& that it as a buyer in good faith has no merit because the deed of sale in favor of !apus and the titles issued to him and his successors1in1interest are all a matter of public record in the registry of deeds. Bhen a conveyance has been properly recorded, such record is a constructive notice of its contents and all interests, legal and equitable, included therein.
!HE $ANILA RAILROAD CO$PAN>
RO$ANA VELAS;E6, $ELECIO ALLARE> and DEO#RACIAS $ALI#ALI# $his case involves the determination of %ust compensation in e&propriation proceedings.
#CTS0 F The action as originally instituted by the @anila )ailroad Company for the prupose of expropriating *: small parcels of land for a railroad station site at !ucena, $rovince of Tayabas. F The lots ere oned by Velasque>, #llarey and @aligalig. F The value of the said ere fixed by the commissioners at $*,*:.?', and aarded to Simeon $ere> as damages for the removal of his camarin. F
*. D
*. @#)WLT V#!
RTo assessR is to perform a "udicial act. The commissioners= poer is limited to assessing the value and to determining the amount of the damages. There it stops they can go no farther. The value and damages aarded must be a "ust compensation and no more and no less. &ut in fixing these amounts, the commissioners are not to act ad libitum. They are to discharge the trust reposed in them according to ell established rules and form their "udgment upon correct legal principles. To deny this is to place them here no one else in this country is placed, above the la and beyond accountability. # Court of irst 5nstance or, on appeal under sections +( and +? of the Code of Civil $rocedure, the Supreme Court may substitute its on estimate of value as gathered from the record submitted to it, in cases here the only error of the commissioners is that they have applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them or that they have disregarded a clear preponderance of the evidence or that they have used an improper rule of assessment in arriving at the amount of the aard provided alays that the evidence be clear and convincing and the amount alloed by the commissioners is grossly inadequate or excessive. #d"udicated cases of this Supreme Court and of courts of other "urisdictions having similar procedure revieed and found to support the poer of the court to thus modify the report of the commissioners. '.
LV5-L%CL A S#!LS A %L#)& !#%- @# &L #-@5SS5&!L 5% THL -LTL)@5%#T5A% A D
Lvidence of bona fide sales of other nearby parcels is competent if the character of such parcels, as sites for business purposes, dellings, or for hatever use hich enhances the pecuniary value of the condemned land, is sufficiently similar to the latter that it may be reasonably assumed that the price of the condemned land ould be approximately near the price paid for the parcels sold. &ut to be admissible, the property thus sold must be in the immediate neighborhood, that is, in the >one of commercial activity ith hich the condemned property is identified. The sales must also be sufficiently near in point of time ith the date of the condemnation proceedings to exclude general increases or decreases in property values due to changed commercial conditions in the vicinity, and must be made by one ho is desirous but not obliged to sell, and to one ho is desirous but not obliged to buy. . 5@$)AVL@L%TS <%-L)T#WL% B5TH W%AB!L-GL TH#T L$)A$)5#T5A% $)ACLL-5%GS #)L CA%TL@$!#TLThe oner of property cannot be divested of his title until compensation is made or security given. #ct %A. *:' as amended affords a method hereby a railroad company may, by the exercise of due diligence, protect itself from the payment of damages for such improvements and until it ta6es a decisive step toards appropriating the land, the oner cannot be estopped from claiming damages for such improvements.
