Petronito Maylem vs. Ellano G.R. No. 162721, July 13, 2009

"emancipation patent"


Facts:
Petitioner files a motion for recovery of possession of a piece of agricultural land.
Bonifacio Abad was awarded a parcel of land that was under a leasehold agreement
he entered with the petitioner’s husband by virtue of PD No, 27 under Emancipation
Patent. The land transfer was covered by a transfer certificate of title registered with the
Register of Deeds. Petitioner persuaded Abad to allow her to a one year possession of the
land which he allowed. After the lapse of the agreed period petitioner refused to return
the land to Abad who subsequently filed complaint for recovery of possession of said
property before the provincial adjudicator of DAR after learning that it was mortgaged
by the petitioner to a third party. Meantime, the petitioner filed exclusion of her property
from the coverage of the Agrarian Reform Law. The Provincial adjudicator rendered
favor of Abad ruling that ownership of Abad of the property by virtue of emancipation
patent is absolute. Petitioner contends that pending the appeal for retention Abad’s
ownership of the land is not yet absolute and that the action brought by Abad already
prescribed. CA ruled in favor of Abad rendering him absolute owner of the property by
virtue of emancipation patent.

New Regent Sources, Inc. vs. Tanjuatco G.R. No. 168800, April 16, 2009

"accretion"


Facts:
The petitioner filed a complaint on rescission/declaration of nullity of contract,
reconveyance and damages against the respondent. Petitioner allegedly authorized
Vicente Cuevas being its Chairman and President to apply on its behalf to acquire
two parcels of land by right of accretion. Cuevas applied the lot in his name and while
pending approval of the application with the Bureau of Lands he assigned his rights to
the respondent. An order from the Director of Lands was issued transferring rights from
Cuevas to Tanjuatco. During the preliminary hearing, respondent filed a motion for
demurrer of evidence after the petitioner presented their evidence. The RTC dismissed
the case for insufficiencies of evidence and ruled that respondent is an innocent purchaser
hence this petition for certiorari.

Imuan vs. Cereno, G.R. No. 167995, Sept. 11, 2009

"prescription"

Facts:
Pablo contracted two marriages and all his children on both are already dead. The petitioners
in the case are his grandchildren while the respondent is the husband of his daughter from his
second marriage. Juana, Pablo’s second wife, together with her children continued to be in
possession of the parcel of land owned by Pablo after his death. A joint affidavit was executed
attesting that Pablo ceded the property in favor of Juana in the occasion of their marriage but the
document was lost. Juana sold said parcel of land to the respondent which was registered in the
register of deeds. The land area sold to respondents was divided by a barangay road. They built a
house on one side and planted fruit-bearing trees on the other side. It is on the latter’s side where
the petitioners took possession and built a nipa hut thereon. An ejectment case was filed by the
respondents against petitioners but was later dismissed when the petitioners left the area.

Roman Catholic Bishop of Kalibo, Aklan vs. Mun. of Buruanga, Aklan (March 31, 2006)

“towns/pueblos/churches/public plaza are property for public use and not subject for appropriation by the State and private persons”

Facts:

Petitioners claim ownership on Lots 138-A, 138-B, and 138-C contending that said lots were adjacent to the land area occupied by the church. Respondent however claims ownership on Lots 138-A and 138-C as the Lot 138-B is indisputably owned by the Church with its open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession thereof. The lots in dispute have constructions of a public plaza, municipal building, rural health center, community medicare hospital, basketball court, Rizal monument and a grandstand. Petitioner contends that such constructions and buildings were merely allowed by them in occupation by tolerance and does not constitute possession of the respondents.

Heirs of Palanca vs Republic (August 30, 2006)

“the government should exercise a positive act to re-classify inalienable land to alienable for proper disposition; action to recover property of public domain never prescribes”

Facts:

Petitioners acquired 2 pieces of lands by inheritance and in a court decision they were declared as owners in fee simple. 23 years later the Republic filed a petition to annul the judgment and cancel the decree of registration and title and to reverse the property to the State as unclassified forest lands.

Republic vs. Naguiat (Jan. 24, 2006)

“unclassified lands cannot be acquired by adverse possession/occupation; occupation in the concept of an owner however long cannot ripen into private ownership and be registered as a title.”

Facts:

Respondent applies for registration of title to 4 parcels of land contending she is the owner of the said land which she acquired from the LID Corporation which in turn acquired the same from persons who have been in possession thereof for more than 30 years. The Republic filed in opposition that said lands belong to the public domain and not subject to private appropriation.

Republic vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 108926, July 12, 1996 (328 Phil. 238)

“right to register land”

Facts:

The appellant Republic implores before the court to set aside the decision of the CA declaring the ownership of a parcel of land in favor of Democrito Plazas. Plazas filed a petition for registration and confirmation of his title over the land in dispute contending that he is the owner thereof by virtue of an absolute deed of sale and that his predecessor-in-interests have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same. The Republic filed in opposition to said motion assailing on the contrary while invoking that the land belongs to a public dominion and not subject for private appropriation. The land is subject to a request by the DENR for a Presidential Proclamation to reserve the land for Slum Improvement and Resettlement Site of the NHA.

Traders Royal Bank vs. Court of Appeals, Patria Capay, et al G.R. No. 118862, Sept. 24, 1999 (315 SCRA 190)

"Torrens System"
"latches"

Facts:

A parcel of land owned by the spouses Capay was mortgage to and subsequently extrajudicially foreclosed by Traders Royal Bank (TRB). To prevent property sale in public auction, the Capays filed a petition for preliminary injunction alleging the mortgage was void because they did not receive the proceeds of the loan. A notice of lis pendens (suit pending) was filed before the Register of Deeds with the notice recorded in the Day Book. Meanwhile, a foreclosure sale proceeded with the TRB as the sole and winning bidder. The Capays title was cancelled and a new one was entered in TRB’s name without the notice of lis pendens carried over the title. The Capays filed recovery of the property and damages. Court rendered a decision declaring the mortgage was void for want of consideration and thus cancelled TRB’s title and issued a new cert. of title for the Capays.

Aniceto Sumulong vs. Fortunato Sumulong G.R. No. S.P. No. 68699 June 16, 2006

"Jurisdiction"

Facts:

Fortunato Sumulong applied for an application for a land registration for a parcel of land before the RTC which was later assigned to the MTC pursuant to delegated jurisdiction. He wants the land to be confirmed and registered in his name. In opposition, Aniceto filed a motion to reopen the case, lift the order of general default and to admit opposition contending he is a part owner and actual occupant of the land whose name was omitted by Fortunato in his application for registration. This amounts to failure of Fortunato to comply with the requirement set forth in Section 15 and 23 of PD 1529 which makes the land registration proceeding null and void with the deliberate omission of his name as one of the occupants and part owner of said land as constituting fraud. He further contends that the application failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirement because the market value of the property is more than P100,000 and should be heard before the RTC. The MTC ruled in favor of Fortunato holding that when the said land registration was published it was a notice sent to the whole world and the MTC has acquired jurisdiction over it and Aniceto’s claim of no knowledge about the registration cannot be given any due course. Upon appeal, the CA denied Aniceto’s motion for reconsideration contending that the assessed value of the property as provided in the tax declaration should be followed which is valued at P50,860.00 and upheld the lower court’s decision.

Heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, Spouses Sabas Gepalago, G.R. No. 123713, April 1, 1998

Fact:

Both petitioner and respondent claim ownership over a 3,625 sq.m land located at Bohol. Petitioner claims ownership by virtue of inheritance from their father who, during his lifetime took an uninterrupted possession over the land, declared the property for taxation purpose and religiously paid the real estate tax. The respondent claims ownership as registered owner of said lot as a portion of the lot owned by Pedro Luspo who mortgaged his land to PNB and subsequently was foreclosed. The respondents won as the highest bidder and they became the owner of that portion of land. The lower court ruled in favor to the petitioners holding that they were in continuous possession and cultivating the land for more than 30 years. Thus they acquired the land by prescription. Although a Torrens Title is indefeasible and not subject for prescription it is not when the respondents purchased the land from PNB with prior knowledge that the land was in possession of the petitioner’s father. Upon appeal the CA reversed the court ruling and declared the petitioners as the true owners of the property.

Enriquito Serna vs. Court of Appeals, Santiago Fontanilla Rasing,, 308 SCRA 527

Facts:

The petitioner spouses and respondent spouses are first cousins in dispute of land ownership. Apparently, their grandfather owns a 12,508 sq.m. land that was surveyed by Turner Land Surveying Co. for him which he promised to pay for after the approval of Bureau of Lands. He failed to pay for the costs and to elude foreclosure of the land he sold said land to his daughter Rosa who assumed payment for the property tax. Rosa subsequently sold the land to her nephew Santiago Fontanilla, herein respondent, under a notarized deed of sale that was not registered to the Register of Deeds. Fontanilla constructed a house and lived there. In 1978 they went to the US to visit their daughter. While out of the country, petitioners Enriquito Serna applied a land registration of said lot which was successfully registered in their name on Jan. 10, 1980. On May 27, 1981, respondents filed an action for reconveyance and damages against petitioners. Petitioners contend that when their grandfather failed to pay the surveying company they took the property in question but it was redeemed later on and sold to their father but they could not produce evidence. The court ruled in favor to the respondents as true owners of the said lot hence this petition to the S.C.

Purita Salvatierra, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 45

Facts:

Enrique Salvatierra died without issues and survived by his brothers Tomas, Bartolome, Venancio, Macario and sister Marcela. He left them parcel of land as heirs that was extrajudicially partitioned among them. Anselmo, the son of Macario registered the whole Lot no. 26 with 749 sq. m. land area in his name on May 20, 1980 with a showing of bad faith knowingly that he only owns 405 sq. m. of land portion in Lot 26 as sold by his father to him which the latter inherited from Enrique. Lito Longalong and Paciencia Mariano who bought a portion of land in Lot 26 of 149 sq. m. land area brought an action for reconveyance on the said lot on November 22, 1985. Anselmo contends that such action already prescribed in 4 years as provided in article 1391 (action be brought for annulment within 4 yrs upon discovery of fraud.) However, the CA ruled that the prescription periods in the case at bar is 10 years according to Art. 1144.

Reodica v CA 292 SCRA 87

Facts:

Isabelita Reodica was allegedly recklessly driving a van and hit Bonsol causing him physical injuries and damage to property amounting to P 8,542.00. Three days after the accident a complaint was filed before the fiscal’s office against the petitioner. She was charged of "Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Slight Physical Injury." After pleading not guilty trial ensued. RTC of Makati rendered the decision convicting petitioner of "quasi offense of reckless imprudence, resulting in damage to property with slight physical injuries" with arresto mayor of 6 months imprisonment and a fine of P 13,542.00. Petitioner made an appeal before the CA which re-affirmed the lower court’s decision. In its motion for reconsideration, petitioner now assails that

1. the court erred in giving its penalty on complex damage to property and slight physical injuries both being light offenses over which the RTC has no jurisdiction and it can’t impose penalty in excess to what the law authorizes.
2. reversal of decision is still possible on ground of prescription or lack of jurisdiction.

Zaldivia v Reyes G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA 277

Facts: A complaint was filed before the fiscal’s office constituting an offense in violation of a city ordinance. The fiscal did not file the complaint before the court immediately but instead filed it 3 months later. The defendant’s counsel filed a motion to quash on ground that the action to file the complaint has prescribed. The fiscal contends that the filing of the complaint before his office already interrupts the prescription period.