Docuri.com_civil-law-review-.pdf

  • Uploaded by: Di ko alam
  • 0
  • 0
  • November 2019
  • PDF

This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA


Overview

Download & View Docuri.com_civil-law-review-.pdf as PDF for free.

More details

  • Words: 31,583
  • Pages: 90
           

CASE  DIGESTS   CIVIL  LAW  REVIEW              

  SUBMITTED  BY:   SHEENA  MARIE  T.  MORALES   11185694   Class  No.  12  GO3   DLSU  –  COL               SUBMITTED  TO:   ATTY.  CRISOSTOMO  A.  URIBE  

 

 

   

1  

 

Case  Titles  

Subject  

Republic  of  the  Philippines  vs.  Robert  P.  Narceda   G.R.  No.  182760   April  10,  2013   Ponente:  C.J.  Sereno   Syed  Azhar  Abbas  v.  Gloria  Goo  Abbas   G.R.  No.  183896   January  30,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Velasco  Jr.   Republic  of  the  Philippines  vs.  Cesar  Encelan   G.R.  No.  170022   January  09,  2013   Ponente:  J.Brion   Antonio  Perla  vs.  Mirasol  Baring  and  Randy  Perla   G.R.  No.  172471   November  12,  2012   Ponente:  J.Del  Castillo   Arabelle  J.  Mendoza  vs.  Republic  of  the  Philippines  and   Dominic  C.  Mendoza   G.R.  No.  157649   November  12,  2012   Ponente:  J.Bersamin   Republic  of  the  Philippines  vs.  Court  of  Appeals  and   Eduardo  De  Quintos,  Jr.   G.R.  No.  159594   November  12,  2012   Ponente:  J.Bersamin   Charles  Gotardo  vs.  Divina  Buling   G.R.  No.  165166   August  15,  2012   Ponente:  J.Brion   Charlie  Fortaleza  and  Ofelia  Fortaleza  vs.  Raul  Lapitan   and  Rona  Lapitan   G.R.  No.  178288   August  15,  2012   Ponente:  J.  Del  Castillo   Brigido  B.  Quiao  vs.  Rita  C.  Quiao,  et.  al.   G.R.  No  176556   July  4,  2012   Ponente:  J.Reyes   Republic  of  the  Philippines  vs.  Yolanda  Cadacio  Granada   G.  R.  No.    187512   June  13,  2012   Ponente:  J.  Sereno  

 

2  

 

Topic  

Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Declaration  of   Presumptive  Death    

Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Marrigae  License   as  Formal   Requisite  

Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Psychological   Incapacity  

Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Page   Numbers  

8-­‐9  

10-­‐11  

12-­‐13  

14-­‐15   Filiation  

16-­‐17   Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Psychological   Incapacity  

18-­‐19   Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Psychological   Incapacity   20-­‐21   Filiation  

22   Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Family  Home  

Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Conjugal   Partnership  of   Gains  

Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Declaration  of   Presumptive  Death  

23-­‐24  

25-­‐26  

Merope  Enriquez  Vda.  De  Catalan  vs.  Louella  A.  Catalan-­‐ Lee   G.  R.  No.  183622   February  8,  2012   Ponente:  J.  Sereno   Antonia  R.  Dela  Peña  et.  al.  vs.  Gemma  Remilyn  Avila   and  FEBTC-­‐BPI   G.R.  No.  187490   February  8,  2012   Ponente:  J.  Perez   Bobby  Tan  vs.  Grace  Andrade,  et.  al.   G.R.  No.  171904  and  172017   August  7,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Perlas-­‐Bernabe   Minoru  Fujiki  vs.  Maria  Paz  Galela  Marinay,  Shinichi   Maekara   G.R.  No.  196049   June  26,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Sereno   California  Clothing,  Inc.  and  Michelle  Ybañez  vs.  Shirley   Quiñones   G.R.  No.175822   October  23,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Peralta   Edilberto  U.  Ventura  Jr.  vs.  Spouses  Paulino  and   Evangeline  Abuda   G.R.  No.  202932   October  23,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Carpio   The  Republic  of  the  Philippines  vs.  Liberty  D.  Albios   G.R.  No.  198780   October  16,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Mendoza   Estrella  Aduan  Orpiano  vs.  Spouses  Antonio  C.  Tomas   and  Myrna  U.  Tomas   G.R.  No.  178611   January  14,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Del  Castillo     Spouses  Benjamin  Mamaril  and  Sonia  Mamaril  vs.  The   Boy  Scout  of  the  Philippines   G.R.  No.  179382   January  14,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Perlas-­‐Bernabe  

 

3  

 

27-­‐28   Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Nationality   Principle  

Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Conjugal   Partnership  of   Gains  

Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Conjugal   Partnership  of   Gains  

29-­‐30  

31-­‐32  

33-­‐34   Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Declaration  for   Nullity  of  Marriage    

35-­‐36   Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Exercise  of  Rights    

Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Conjugal   Partnership  of   Gains  

Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Declaration  for   Nullity  of  Marriage    

Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Sale  of  Conjugal   Property  

    37-­‐38  

39-­‐40  

41-­‐42  

43   Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Human  Relations  

Ma.  Carminia  C.  Calderon  vs.  Jose  Antonio  F.  Roxas  and   the  Court  of  Appeals   G.R.  No.  185595   January  9,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Villarama  Jr.     Evangeline  Rivera-­‐Calingasan  vs.  Wilfredo  Rivera   G.R.  No.171555   April  17,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Brion   Spouses  Cabahug  vs.  National  Power  Corporation   G.R.  No.  186069   January  30,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Perez   Mercy  Vda.  De  Roxas  vs.  Our  Lady’s  Foundation,  Inc.   G.R.  No.  182378   March  6,  2013   Ponente:  CJ.  Sereno   Juanita  Ermitaño  vs.  Lailanie  M.  Paglas   G.R.  No.  174436   January  23,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Peralta   Purificacion  and  Ruperto  Estanislao  vs.  Spouses  Norma   and  Damiano  Gudito   G.R.  NO.  173166   March  13,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Peralta   Republic  of  the  Philippines  vs.  AFP  Retirement  and   Separation  Benefits  System   G.R.  No.  180463   January  16,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Del  Castillo   VSD  Realty  &  Development  Corporation  vs.  Uniwide   Sales  Inc.   G.R.  No.  170677   July  31,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Peralta   Heirs  of  Margarita  Prodon  vs.  Heirs  of  Maximo  S.  Alvarez   and  Valentina  Clave   G.R.  No.  170604   September  2,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Bersamin   Jose  Z.  Casilang,  Sr.  (substituted  by  his  heirs)  vs.  Rosario   Z.  Casilang-­‐Dizon,  et.  al.     G.R.  No.  180269   February  20,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Reyes  

 

4  

 

44   Persons  and  Family   Relations  

Support  Pendente   Lite   46  

Property  

Forcible  Enrty  

Property  

Power  of  Eminent   Domain  

Property  

Rights  of  Builder  in   Bad  Faith  

Property  

Right  of   Redemption  

47  

48-­‐49  

50-­‐51  

55-­‐53   Property  

Unlawful  Detainer  

54-­‐55   Property  

Donation  

56-­‐57   Property  

Recovery  of   Possession  

58-­‐59   Property  

Quieting  of  Title  

60-­‐61   Property  

Partition  

Republic  of  the  Philippines  (DPWH)  vs.  Bank  of  the   Philippine  Islands  (BPI)   G.R.  No.  203039     September  11,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Carpio   Pilar  Development  Corporation  vs.  Ramon  Dumadag  et.   al.     G.R.  No.  194336   March  11,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Peralta   Teodoro  S.  Teodoro  (Substituted  by  Heirs)  vs.  Danilo   Espino  et.  al.       G.R.  No.  189248   February  5,  2014   Ponente:  J.  Perez   Antonio  James  et.  al.  vs.  Eurem  Realty  Development   Corporation   G.R.  No.  190650   October  14,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Reyes   Heirs  of  Albina  G.  Ampil  vs.  Teresa  and  Mario  Manahan   G.R.  No.  175990   October  11,  2012   Ponente:  J.  Mendoza   Gaudencio  Pacete  vs.  Inocencio  Asotigue   G.R.  No.  188575   December  10,  2012   Ponente:  J.  Mendoza   Jose  Casilang  Sr.  vs.  Rosario  Casilang-­‐Dizon,  et.  al.   G.R.  No.  180269   February  20,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Reyes   Maria  Mendoza,  et.  al.  vs.  Julia  Policarpio  Delos  Santos   G.R.  No.  176422   March  20,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Reyes   Carolina  Vda.  De  Figuracion,  et.  al.  vs.  Emilia  Figuracion-­‐ Gerilla   G.R.  No.  151334   February  13,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Reyes   Richard  B.  Lopez  vs.  Diana  Jeanne  Lopez,  et.  al.   G.R.  No.  189984   November  12,  2012   Ponente:  J.Perlas-­‐Bernabe  

 

5  

 

62-­‐63   Property  

Eminent  Domain  

64-­‐65   Property  

Easement  

66-­‐67   Property  

Forcible  Enrty  

68-­‐69   Property  

Quieting  of  Title     70-­‐71  

Property  

Ownership   72-­‐73  

Property  

Ownership   75-­‐76  

Succession  

Partition   77-­‐78  

Succession  

Reserva  Troncal  

79-­‐80   Succession  

Partition  

Succession  

Probate:   Attestation  Clause  

81-­‐82  

Antipolo  Ining  et.  al.  vs.  Leonardo  R.  Vega  et.  al     G.R.  No.  174727   August  12,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Del  Castillo   Heirs  of  Magdaleno  Ypon  vs.  Gaudioso  Ponteras   Ricaforte  a.k.a.  “Gaudioso  E.  Ypon”   G.R.  No.  198680   July  8,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Perlas-­‐Bernabe   Heirs  of  Dr.  Mariano  Favis  Sr.  vs.  Juana  Gonzales   G.R.  No.  185922                                 January  15,  2014   Ponente:  J.  Perez   Cerila  J.  Calanasan  vs.  Spouses  Virgilio  Dolorito  and   Evelyn  c.  Dolorito   G.R.  No.  171937   November  25,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Brion    

 

Succession  

Repudiation  of  a   Co-­‐owner  

Succession  

Determination  of   Heirship  in  Special   Proceeding  

Succession  

Donation  Inter   Vivos  

83-­‐84  

85-­‐86  

87-­‐88  

89-­‐90   Succession  

6  

 

Donation  

                PERSONS  AND  FAMILY  RELATIONS  CASES  

 

7  

 

Republic  of  the  Philippines  vs.  Robert  P.  Narceda   G.R.  No.  182760   April  10,  2013   Ponente:  C.J.  Sereno     Topic:  Declaration  of  Presumptive  Death       Facts:     Robert   Narceda   married   Marina   on   July   22,   1987.   According   to   Robert   Narceda,   Marina   went   to   Singapore   sometime   in   1994   and   never   returned   since.   There   was   never   any   communication   between   them.   Though   he   tried   to   look   for   her,   but   he   could   not   find   her.   One   of   their   town   mates   who   came   from   Singapore,   had   told   him   that   the   last   time   she   saw   Marina,   she   was   already   living   with   a   Singaporean   husband.   In   view   of   her   absence  and  his  desire  to  remarry,   Narceda   filed  a  Petition  for  a   Judicial   Declaration   of   the   Presumptive   Death   and/or   Absence   of   Marina   with   the   RTC   on   May   16,   2002.   The  Petition  was  granted,  declaring  the  presumptive  death  of  Marina  B.  Narceda  for  all  legal  intents  and   purposes  of  law.  The  Republic,  appealed  the  Decision  to  the  Court  of  Appeals.  According  to  the  Republic,   Narceda  failed  to  conduct  a  search  for  his  missing  wife  with  the  diligence  required  by  law  and  enough  to   give   rise   to   a   “well-­‐founded”   belief   that   she   was   dead.   The   CA   dismissed   the   appeal   ruling   that   the   hearing   of   a   petition   for   the   declaration   of   presumptive   death   is   a   summary   proceeding   which   under   Article   247   of   the   Family   Code   provides   that   the   judgment   of   the   trial   court   in   summary   court   proceedings  shall  be  immediately  final  and  executory.     Issue:     Did   the   Court   of   Appeals   commit   an   error   in   dismissing   the   petition   for   a   lack   of   jurisdiction   by   ruling   that   the   presumptive   death   of   Marina   was   immediately   final   and   executory,   because   by   express   provision  of  law,  the  judgment  of  the  RTC  is  not  appealable?     Held:     No.       “The  appellate  court  argues  that  there  is  no  reglementary  period  within  which  to  perfect  an  appeal  in   summary  judicial  proceedings  under  the  Family  Code,  because  the  judgments  rendered  thereunder,  by   express  provision  of  Article  247,  are  immediately  final  and  executory  upon  notice  to  the  parties.       In  Republic  v.  Tango,  the  remedy  of  a  losing  party  in  a  summary  proceeding  is  not  an  ordinary  appeal,   but  a  petition  for  certiorari,  to  wit:     “By   express   provision   of   law,   the   judgment   of   the   court   in   a   summary   proceeding   shall   be   immediately  final  and  executory.  As  a  matter  of  course,  it  follows  that  no  appeal  can  be  had  of   the   trial   court’s   judgment   in   a   summary   proceeding   for   the   declaration   of   presumptive   death   of   an  absent  spouse  under  Article  41  of  the  Family  Code.  It  goes  without  saying,  however,  that  an   aggrieved   party   may   file   a   petition   for  certiorari  to   question   abuse   of   discretion   amounting   to   lack  of  jurisdiction.  Such  petition  should  be  filed  in  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  accordance  with  the   Doctrine  of  Hierarchy  of  Courts.  To  be  sure,  even  if  the  Court’s  original  jurisdiction  to  issue  a  writ   of  certiorari  is   concurrent   with   the   RTCs   and   the   Court   of   Appeals   in   certain   cases,   such  

 

8  

 

concurrence   does   not   sanction   an   unrestricted   freedom   of   choice   of   court   forum.   From   the   decision   of   the   Court   of   Appeals,   the   losing   party   may   then   file   a   petition   for   review   oncertiorari  under   Rule   45   of   the   Rules   of   Court   with   the   Supreme   Court.   This   is   because   the   errors   which   the   court   may   commit   in   the   exercise   of   jurisdiction   are   merely   errors   of   judgment   which  are  the  proper  subject  of  an  appeal.”     When   the   OSG   filed   its   notice   of   appeal   under   Rule   42,   it   availed   itself   of   the   wrong   remedy.   As   a   result,   the   running   of   the   period   for   filing   of   a   Petition   for  Certiorari  continued   to   run   and   was   not   tolled.   Upon   lapse  of  that  period,  the  Decision  of  the  RTC  could  no  longer  be  questioned.”  

 

9  

 

Syed  Azhar  Abbas  v.  Gloria  Goo  Abbas   G.R.  No.  183896   January  30,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Velasco  Jr.   Topic:  Marrigae  License  as  Formal  Requisite     Facts:     Syed,   a   Pakistani   citizen   and   Gloria,   a   Filipino   citizen,   were   married   on   August   9,   1992   at   the   Taipei   Mosque  in  Taiwan.  On  January  9,  1993,  he  was  told  by  his  mother-­‐in-­‐law  that  he  was  going  to  undergo   some  ceremony  but  was  not  told  of  the  nature  of  said  ceremony.  During  the  ceremony,  he  and  Gloria   signed  a  document.  He  claimed  that  he  did  not  know  that  the  ceremony  on  was  a  marriage  until  Gloria   told  him  later.  He  claimed  that  he  did  not  go  to  Carmona,  Cavite  to  apply  for  a  marriage  license,  and  that   he   had   never   resided   in   that   area.   He   went   to   the   Office   of   the   Civil   Registrar   of   Carmona,   Cavite,   to   check  on  their  marriage  license,  and  was  asked  to  show  a  copy  of  their  marriage  contract  wherein  the   marriage  license  number  could  be  found.  The  Municipal  Civil  Registrar  issued  a  certification  on  July  11,   2003  to  the  effect  that  the  marriage  license  number  appearing  in  the  marriage  contract  he  submitted,   was  the  number  of  another  marriage  license  issued  to  a  certain  couple.       Atty.   Sanchez   testified   that   he   was   asked   to   be   the   sponsor   of   the   wedding   of   Syed   Abbas   and   Gloria   Goo  by  the  mother  of  the  bride  and  that  he  requested  a  certain  Qualin  to  secure  the  marriage  license  for   the  couple,  and  that  this  Qualin  secured  the  license  and  gave  the  same  to  him  on  January  8,  1993.  He   further  testified  that  he  did  not  know  where  the  marriage  license  was  obtained.       The   Pasay   City   RTC   held   that   no   valid   marriage   license   was   issued   in   favor   of   Gloria   and   Syed,   as   Marriage  License  No.  9969967  had  been  issued  to  someone  else  and  that  neither  party  was  a  resident  of   Carmona,  Cavite,  the  place  where  Marriage  License  No.  9969967  was  issued,  which  was  in  violation  of   Article  9  of  the  Family  Code.  The  Municipal     Civil  Registrar  of  Carmona,  Cavite  had  certified  that  no  marriage  license  had  been  issued  for  Gloria  and   Syed.   The   Court   of   Appeals   reversed   the   decision   stating   that   the   certification   of   the   Municipal   Civil   Registrar  failed  to  categorically  state  that  a  diligent  search  for  the  marriage  license  of  Gloria  and  Syed   was  conducted,  and  thus  held  that  said  certification  could  not  be  accorded  probative  value.     Issue:     Was  there  a  valid  marriage  license  issued  for  the  marriage  of  Syed  Azhar  Abbas  and  Gloria  Goo  Abbas?     Held:     No.       “It   is   telling   that   Gloria   failed   to   present   their   marriage   license   or   a   copy   thereof   to   the   court.   She   failed   to   explain   why   the   marriage   license   was   secured   in   Carmona,   Cavite,   a   location   where,   admittedly,   neither   party   resided.   She   took   no   pains   to   apply   for   the   license,   so   she   is   not   the   best   witness   to   testify   to  the  validity  and  existence  of  said  license.  Neither  could  the  other  witnesses  she  presented  prove  the   existence   of   the   marriage   license,   as   none   of   them   applied   for   the   license   in   Carmona,   Cavite.   Her  

 

10  

mother,  Felicitas  Goo,  could  not  even  testify  as  to  the  contents  of  the  license,  having  admitted  to  not   reading   all   of   its   contents.   Atty.   Sanchez,   one   of   the   sponsors,   whom   Gloria   and   Felicitas   Goo   approached  for  assistance  in  securing  the  license,  admitted  not  knowing  where  the  license  came  from.   The   task   of   applying   for   the   license   was   delegated   to   a   certain   Qualin,   who   could   have   testified   as   to   how  the  license  was  secured  and  thus  impeached  the  certification  of  the  Municipal  Civil  Registrar  as  well   as   the   testimony   of   her   representative.   As   Gloria   failed   to   present   this   Qualin,   the   certification   of   the   Municipal  Civil  Registrar  still  enjoys  probative  value.     In  the  case  of  Cariño  v.  Cariño,  following  the  case  of  Republic,  it  was  held  that  the  certification  of  the   Local  Civil  Registrar  that  their  office  had  no  record  of  a  marriage  license  was  adequate  to  prove  the  non-­‐ issuance  of  said  license.  The  case  of  Cariño  further  held  that  the  presumed  validity  of  the  marriage  of   the  parties  had  been  overcome,  and  that  it  became  the  burden  of  the  party  alleging  a  valid  marriage  to   prove  that  the  marriage  was  valid,  and  that  the  required  marriage  license  had  been  secured.     All   the   evidence   cited   by   the   CA   to   show   that   a   wedding   ceremony   was   conducted   and   a   marriage   contract   was   signed   does   not   operate   to   cure   the   absence   of   a   valid   marriage   license.   Article   4   of   the   Family  Code  is  clear  when  it  says,  “The  absence  of  any  of  the  essential  or  formal  requisites  shall  render   the   marriage   void   ab   initio,   except   as   stated   in   Article   35(2).”   Article   35(3)   of   the   Family   Code   also   provides  that  a  marriage  solemnized  without  a  license  is  void  from  the  beginning,  except  those  exempt   from   the   license   requirement   under   Articles   27   to   34,   Chapter   2,   Title   I   of   the   same   Code.   Again,   this   marriage   cannot   be   characterized   as   among   the   exemptions,   and   thus,   having   been   solemnized   without   a  marriage  license,  is  void  ab  initio.”  

 

11  

Republic  of  the  Philippines  vs.  Cesar  Encelan   G.R.  No.  170022   January  09,  2013   Ponente:  J.Brion     Topic:  Psychological  Incapacity       Facts:       On   August   25,   1979,   Cesar   married   Lolita.   To   support   his   family,   Cesar   went   to   work   in   Saudi   Arabia.   Cesar,   while   still   in   Saudi   Arabia,   learned   that   Lolita   had   been   having   an   illicit   affair   with   Alvin.   Lolita   allegedly  left  the  conjugal  home  with  her  children  and  lived  with  Alvin.  Since  then,  Cesar  and  Lolita  had   been  separated.  Cesar  filed  with  the  RTC  a  petition  for  the  declaration  of  the  nullity  of  his  marriage  with   Lolita  based  on  her  psychological  incapacity.  Lolita  denied  that  she  had  an  affair  and  insisted  that  she  is   not  psychologically  incapacitated  and  that  she  left  their  home  because  of  irreconcilable  differences  with   her   mother-­‐in-­‐law.   Cesar   presented   the   psychological   evaluation   report   on   Lolita   prepared   by   Dr.   Flores   of  the  National  Center  for  Mental  Health.  Dr.  Flores  found  that  Lolita  was  "not  suffering  from  any  form   of  major  psychiatric  illness  but  had  been  "unable  to  provide  the  expectations  expected  of  her  for  a  good   and   lasting   marital   relationship"   and   that   her   "transferring   from   one   job   to   the   other   depicts   some   interpersonal   problems   with   co-­‐workers   as   well   as   her   impatience   in   attaining   her   ambitions   and   her   refusal   to   go   with   her   husband   abroad   signifies   her   reluctance   to   work   out   a   good   marital   and   family   relationship."     Issue:     Are  Lolita's  interpersonal  problems  with  co-­‐workers  enough  basis  to  nullify  Cesar's  marriage  to  her  on   the  ground  of  psychological  incapacity?     Held:     No.       There   is   no   sufficient   basis   existing   to   annul   Cesar's   marriage   to   Lolita   on   the   ground   of   psychological   incapacity.     “Cesar   mistakenly   relied   on   Dr.   Flores'   psychological   evaluation   report   on   Lolita   to   prove   her   alleged   psychological  incapacity.  The  psychological  evaluation,  in  fact,  established  that  Lolita  did  not  suffer  from   any   major   psychiatric   illness.   Dr.   Flores'   observation   on   Lolita's   interpersonal   problems   with   co-­‐workers,   to   our   mind,   does   not   suffice   as   a   consideration   for   the   conclusion   that   she   was   –  at   the   time   of   her   marriage  –  psychologically  incapacitated  to  enter  into  a  marital  union  with  Cesar.  Aside  from  the  time   element   involved,   a   wife's   psychological   fitness   as   a   spouse   cannot   simply   be   equated   with   her   professional/work   relationship;   workplace   obligations   and   responsibilities   are   poles   apart   from   their   marital   counterparts.   While   both   spring   from   human   relationship,   their   relatedness   and   relevance   to   one  another  should  be  fully  established  for  them  to  be  compared  or  to  serve  as  measures  of  comparison   with  one  another.  To  be  sure,  the  evaluation  report  Dr.  Flores  prepared  and  submitted  cannot  serve  this   purpose.    

 

12  

Dr.  Flores'  further  belief  that  Lolita's  refusal  to  go  with  Cesar  abroad  signified  a  reluctance  to  work  out  a   good  marital  relationship  is  a  mere  generalization  unsupported  by  facts  and  is,  in  fact,  a  rash  conclusion   that  this  Court  cannot  support.     Once  again,  we  stress  that  marriage  is  an  inviolable  social  institution  protected  by  the  State.  Any  doubt   should  be  resolved  in  favor  of  its  existence  its  existence  and  continuation  and  against  its  dissolution  and   nullity.  It  cannot  be  dissolved  at  the  whim  of  the  parties  nor  by  transgressions  made  by  one  party  to  the   other  during  the  marriage.”  

 

13  

Antonio  Perla  vs.  Mirasol  Baring  and  Randy  Perla   G.R.  No.  172471   November  12,  2012   Ponente:  J.Del  Castillo     Topic:  Filiation     Facts:     Mirasol  filed  a  complaint  for  support  for  her  son  Randy  against  Antonio.  Mirasol  testified  that  Antonio   courted   her  and   eventually   became   her   first   boyfriend.   When   Mirasol   became   pregnant,   Antonio   assured  her  that  he  would  support  her.  Eventually,  however,  Antonio  started  to  evade  her.  Mirasol  gave   birth   to   Randy.  She   presented   Randy’s   Certificate   of   Live   Birth  and   Baptismal   Certificate  indicating   her   and   Antonio   as   parents   of   the   child.   According   to   her,   when   Antonio   landed   a   job   as   seaman,   he   abandoned   them   and   failed   to   give   any   support   to   his   son.  Randy   recounted   having   met   Antonio   for   the   first  time  in  1994  in  the  house  of  his  Aunt  Lelita,  Antonio’s  sister,  where  he  was  vacationing.  During  their   encounter,   Randy   called   Antonio   "Papa"   and   kissed   his   hand   while   the   latter   hugged   him.   Antonio   denied   having   fathered   Randy.   Although   he   admitted   to   having   known   Mirasol,   denied   courting   her   and   that   she   never   became   his   common-­‐law   wife   nor   was   she   treated   as   such.   Regarding   Randy’s   Certificate   of  Live  Birth,  Antonio  testified  as  to  several  inaccuracies  in  the  entries  thereon.       Issues:     1.  Are  the  birth  and  baptismal  certificates  competent  proofs  of  paternity  when  putative  father  had  no   hand  in  preparation?   2.  Was  Mirasol  and  Randy  able  to  prove  filiation  through  the  open  and  continuous  possession  of  status   of  Randy?     Held:     No  to  both  issues.       Mirasol  and  Randy  failed  to  establish  Randy’s  illegitimate  filiation  to  Antonio.     Issue  1.  “Respondents  presented  the  Certificate  of  Live  Birth  of  Randy  identifying  Antonio  as  the  father.   However,   said   certificate   has   no   probative   value   to   establish   Randy’s   filiation   to   Antonio   since   the   latter   had   not   signed   the   same.  It   is   settled   that   "a   certificate   of   live   birth   purportedly   identifying   the   putative   father  is  not  competent  evidence  of  paternity  when  there  is  no  showing  that  the  putative  father  had  a   hand  in  the  preparation  of  said  certificate.”     x   x   x     “Anent   Randy’s   baptismal   certificate,   we   cannot   agree   with   the   CA   that   the   same   is   a   good   proof   of   Antonio’s   paternity   of   Randy.   Just   like   in   a   birth   certificate,   the   lack   of   participation   of   the   supposed   father   in   the   preparation   of   a   baptismal   certificate   renders   this   document   incompetent   to   prove   paternity.  And  "while  a  baptismal  certificate  may  be  considered  a  public  document,  it  can  only  serve  as   evidence  of  the  administration  of  the  sacrament  on  the  date  specified  but  not  the  veracity  of  the  entries   with  respect  to  the  child’s  paternity.  Thus,  x  x  x  baptismal  certificates  are  per  se  inadmissible  in  evidence  

 

14  

as   proof   of   filiation   and   they   cannot   be   admitted   indirectly   as   circumstantial   evidence   to   prove   the   same.”       Issue   2.   “Neither   does   the   testimony   of   Randy   establish   his   illegitimate   filiation.   That   during   their   first   encounter   in   1994   Randy   called   Antonio   "Papa"   and   kissed   his   hand   while   Antonio   hugged   him   and   promised  to  support  him;  or  that  his  Aunt  Lelita  treated  him  as  a  relative  and  was  good  to  him  during  his   one-­‐week   stay   in   her   place,   cannot   be   considered   as   indications   of   Randy’s   open   and   continuous   possession   of   the   status   of   an   illegitimate   child   under   the   second   paragraph   of   Article   172(1).   "[T]o   prove  open  and  continuous  possession  of  the  status  of  an  illegitimate  child,  there  must  be  evidence  of   the   manifestation   of   the   permanent   intention   of   the   supposed   father   to   consider   the   child   as   his,   by   continuous  and  clear  manifestations  of  parental  affection  and  care,  which  cannot  be  attributed  to  pure   charity.  Such  acts  must  be  of  such  a  nature  that  they  reveal  not  only  the  conviction  of  paternity,  but  also   the   apparent   desire   to   have   and   treat   the   child   as   such   in   all   relations   in   society   and   in   life,   not   accidentally,   but   continuously."  Here,   the   single   instance   that   Antonio   allegedly   hugged   Randy   and   promised   to   support   him   cannot   be   considered   as   proof   of   continuous   possession   of   the   status   of   a   child.  To  emphasize,  "[t]he  father’s  conduct  towards  his  son  must  be  spontaneous  and  uninterrupted  for   this  ground  to  exist."  Here,  except  for  that  singular  occasion  in  which  they  met,  there  are  no  other  acts   of   Antonio   treating   Randy   as   his   son.   Neither   can   Antonio’s   paternity   be   deduced   from   how   his   sister   Lelita   treated   Randy.   To   this   Court,   Lelita’s   actuations   could   have   been   done   due   to   charity   or   some   other  reasons.”  

 

15  

Arabelle  J.  Mendoza  vs.  Republic  of  the  Philippines  and  Dominic  C.  Mendoza   G.R.  No.  157649   November  12,  2012   Ponente:  J.Bersamin     Topic:  Psychological  Incapacity     Facts:     Arabelle   and   Dominic   got   married   while   they   were   still   in   college.   Arabelle   became   pregnant   with   Allysa   Bianca.   When   Arabelle   delivered   Alyssa   Bianca,   Dominic   had   to   borrow   funds   from   petitioner’s   best   friend  to  settle  the  hospital  bills.  He  remained  jobless  and  dependent  upon  his  father  for  support  until   he   finished   his   college   course.   Arabelle   took   on   various   jobs   to   meet   the   family’s   needs   and   she   shouldered   all   of   the   family’s   expenses.   When   Dominic   got   a   commission   basis   job,   he   spent   his   first   sales  commission  on  a  celebratory  bash  with  his  friends.  Arabelle  discovered  Dominic’s  illicit  relationship   with  Zaida,  his  co-­‐employee  at  Toyota  Motors.  Dominic  gave  her  a  Daihatsu  car  as  a  birthday  present.   Later   on,   he   asked   her   to   issue   two   blank   checks   that   he   claimed   would   be   for   the   car’s   insurance   coverage.  She  soon  found  out,  however,  that  the  checks  were  not  paid  for  the  car’s  insurance  coverage   but  for  his  personal  needs.  Worse,  she  also  found  out  that  he  did  not  pay  for  the  car  itself,  forcing  her  to   rely   on   her   father-­‐in-­‐law   to   pay   part   of   the   cost   of   the   car,   leaving   her   to   bear   the   balance.   Dominic   was   fired  from  his  employment  after  he  ran  away  with  money  belonging  to  his  employer.  He  was  criminally   charged   with   violation   of   Batas   Pambansa   Blg.   22   and   estafa,   for   which   he   was   arrested   and   incarcerated.   Arabelle   bailed   him   out   and   discovered   his   swindling   activities.   Dominic   abandoned   the   conjugal  abode  because  Arabelle  asked  him  for  "time  and  space  to  think  things  over."  A  month  later,  she   refused   his   attempt   at   reconciliation,   causing   him   to   threaten   to   commit   suicide.   At   that,   she   and   her   family  immediately  left  the  house  to  live  in  another  place  concealed  from  him.  Arabelle  filed  in  the  RTC   her  petition  for  the  declaration  of  the  nullity  of  her  marriage  with  Dominic  based  on  his  psychological   incapacity   under   Article   36   of   the   Family   Code.   The   Office   of   the   Solicitor   General   (OSG)   opposed   the   petition.  In  the  Psychiatric  Report  of  Dr.  Samson,  it  stated  that  Dominic  had  evidently  failed  to  comply   with   what   is   required   of   him   as   a   husband   and   father.   Besides   from   his   adulterous   relationship   and   irresponsibility,   his   malevolent   conduct   and   lack   of   true   remorse   indicate   that   he   is   psychologically   incapacitated   to   fulfill   the   role   of   a   married   man.   The   RTC   declared   the   marriage   an   absolute   nullity   and   the  Republic  appealed.  The  CA  reversed  the  decision.     Issues:     1.  Did  the  report  on  the  psychiatric  evaluation  conducted  by  Dr.  Samson  comply  with  the  requirements   to   prove   psychological   incapacity   since   a   personal   medical   or   psychological   examination   is   no   longer   needed  for  a  declaration  of  nullity?     2.  Are  appeals  by  the  Office  of  the  Solicitor  General  no  longer  required  under  A.M.  No.  02-­‐11-­‐10?     Held:     Issue   1.   No.   The   totality   of   the   evidence   adduced   by   petitioner   was   insufficient   to   prove   that   Dominic   was   psychologically   unfit   to   discharge   the   duties   expected   of   him   as   a   husband,   and   that   he   suffered   from  such  psychological  incapacity  as  of  the  date  of  the  marriage.    

 

16  

“In   fine,   the   failure   to   examine   and   interview   Dominic   himself   naturally   cast   serious   doubt   on   Dr.   Samson’s  findings.  The  CA  rightly  refused  to  accord  probative  value  to  the  testimony  of  such  expert  for   being   avowedly   given   to   show   compliance   with   the   requirements   set   in   Santos   and   Molina   for   the   establishment  of  Dominic’s  psychological  incapacity.”     x   x   x     “Apparent  from  the  aforecited  pronouncements  is  that  it  was  not  the  absence  of  the  medical  expert’s   testimony  alone  that  was  crucial  but  rather  petitioners’  failure  to  satisfactorily  discharge  the  burden  of   showing  the  existence  of  psychological  incapacity  at  the  inception  of  the  marriage.  In  other  words,  the   totality  of  the  evidence  proving  such  incapacity  at  and  prior  to  the  time  of  the  marriage  was  the  crucial   consideration,  as  the  Court  has  reminded  in  Ting  v.  Velez-­‐Ting:     “By   the   very   nature   of   cases   involving   the   application   of   Article   36,   it   is   logical   and   understandable   to   give  weight  to  the  expert  opinions  furnished  by  psychologists  regarding  the  psychological  temperament   of   parties   in   order   to   determine   the   root   cause,   juridical   antecedence,   gravity   and   incurability   of   the   psychological   incapacity.   However,   such   opinions,   while   highly   advisable,   are   not   conditions   sine   qua   non  in  granting  petitions  for  declaration  of  nullity  of  marriage.  At  best,  courts  must  treat  such  opinions   as   decisive   but   not   indispensable   evidence   in   determining   the   merits   of   a   given   case.   In   fact,   if   the   totality   of   evidence   presented   is   enough   to   sustain   a   finding   of   psychological   incapacity,   then   actual   medical  or  psychological  examination  of  the  person  concerned  need  not  be  resorted  to.  The  trial  court,   as   in   any   other   given   case   presented   before   it,   must   always   base   its   decision   not   solely   on   the   expert   opinions   furnished   by   the   parties   but   also   on   the   totality   of   evidence   adduced   in   the   course   of   the   proceedings.”     x   x   x     “In   light   of   the   foregoing,   even   if   the   expert   opinions   of   psychologists   are   not   conditions   sine   qua   non   in   the   granting   of   petitions   for   declaration   of   nullity   of   marriage,   the   actual   medical   examination   of   Dominic   was   to   be   dispensed   with   only   if   the   totality   of   evidence   presented   was   enough   to   support   a   finding  of  his  psychological  incapacity.  This  did  not  mean  that  the  presentation  of  any  form  of  medical  or   psychological   evidence   to   show   the   psychological   incapacity   would   have   automatically   ensured   the   granting  of  the  petition  for  declaration  of  nullity  of  marriage.  What  was  essential,  we  should  emphasize   herein,   was   the   "presence   of   evidence   that   can   adequately   establish   the   party’s   psychological   condition,"  as  the  Court  said  in  Marcos.     But   where,   like   here,   the   parties   had   the   full   opportunity   to   present   the   professional   and   expert   opinions   of   psychiatrists   tracing   the   root   cause,   gravity   and   incurability   of   the   alleged   psychological   incapacity,   then   the   opinions   should   be   presented   and   be   weighed   by   the   trial   courts   in   order   to   determine  and  decide  whether  or  not  to  declare  the  nullity  of  the  marriages.”     Issue  2.  No.  “The  Resolution  nowhere  stated  that  appeals  by  the  OSG  were  no  longer  required.  On  the   contrary,   the   Resolution   explicitly   required   the   OSG   to   actively   participate   in   all   stages   of   the   proceedings”.  

 

17  

Republic  of  the  Philippines  vs.  Court  of  Appeals  and  Eduardo  De  Quintos,  Jr.   G.R.  No.  159594   November  12,  2012   Ponente:  J.Bersamin     Topic:  Psychological  Incapacity     Facts:   Eduardo   and   Catalina   were   married.   Eduardo   filed   a   petition   for   the   declaration   of   nullity   of   their   marriage,  citing   Catalina’s   psychological   incapacity   to   comply   with   her   essential   marital   obligations.   Eduardo   testified   that   Catalina   always   left   their   house   without   his   consent;   that   she   engaged   in   petty   arguments  with  him;  that  she  constantly  refused  to  give  in  to  his  sexual  needs;  that  she  spent  most  of   her  time  gossiping  with  neighbors  instead  of  doing  the  household  chores  and  caring  for  their  adopted   daughter;  that  she  squandered  by  gambling  all  his  remittances  as  an  overseas  worker  in  Qatar  and  that   she  abandoned  the  conjugal  home  in  1997  to  live  with  Bobbie  Castro,  her  paramour.  Eduardo  presented   the  results  of  the  neuro-­‐psychiatric  evaluation  conducted  by  Dr.  Annabelle  L.  Reyes,  a  psychiatrist.  Based   on  the  tests  she  administered  on  Catalina,  Dr.  Reyes  opined  that  Catalina  exhibited  traits  of  Borderline   Personality  Disorder  that  was  no  longer  treatable.  Dr.  Reyes  found  that  Catalina’s  disorder  was  mainly   characterized   by   her   immaturity   that   rendered   her   psychologically   incapacitated   to   meet   her   marital   obligations.       Issue:     Was   the   Neuropsychiatric   Evaluation   and   Testimony   of   Dr.   Reyes   able   to   establish   Catalina’s   Psychological  Incapacity  despite  not  having  a  thorough  and  in-­‐depth  assessment?     Held:     No.       “Psychological  incapacity  under  Article  36  of  the  Family  Code  contemplates  an  incapacity  or  inability  to   take  cognizance  of  and  to  assume  basic  marital  obligations,  and  is  not  merely  the  difficulty,  refusal,  or   neglect  in  the  performance  of  marital  obligations  or  ill  will.  It  consists  of:  (a)  a  true  inability  to  commit   oneself  to  the  essentials  of  marriage;  (b)  the  inability  must  refer  to  the  essential  obligations  of  marriage,   that   is,   the   conjugal   act,   the   community   of   life   and   love,   the   rendering   of   mutual   help,   and   the   procreation   and   education   of   offspring;   and   (c)   the   inability   must   be   tantamount   to   a   psychological   abnormality.   Proving   that   a   spouse   failed   to   meet   his   or   her   responsibility   and   duty   as   a   married   person   is   not   enough;   it   is   essential   that   he   or   she   must   be   shown   to   be   incapable   of   doing   so   due   to   some   psychological  illness.”       x   x   x     “Thirdly,  we  have  said  that  the  expert  evidence  presented  in  cases  of  declaration  of  nullity  of  marriage   based   on   psychological   incapacity   presupposes   a   thorough   and   in-­‐depth   assessment   of   the   parties   by   the  psychologist  or  expert  to  make  a  conclusive  diagnosis  of  a  grave,  severe  and  incurable  presence  of   psychological  incapacity.”       x   x   x  

 

18  

  “But   Dr.   Reyes   had   only   one   interview   with   Catalina,   and   did   not   personally   seek   out   and   meet   with   other   persons,   aside   from   Eduardo,   who   could   have   shed   light   on   and   established   the   conduct   of   the   spouses  before  and  during  the  marriage.  For  that  reason,  Dr.  Reyes’  report  lacked  depth  and  objectivity,   a   weakness   that   removed   the   necessary   support   for   the   conclusion   that   the   RTC   and   the   CA   reached   about  Catalina’s  psychological  incapacity  to  perform  her  marital  duties.”       x     x   x     “Fourthly,  we  held  in  Suazo  v.  Suazo   that  there  must  be  proof  of  a  natal  or  supervening  disabling  factor   that  effectively  incapacitated  the  respondent  spouse  from  complying  with  the  basic  marital  obligations,   viz:     It   is   not   enough   that   the   respondent,   alleged   to   be   psychologically   incapacitated,   had   difficulty   in   complying  with  his  marital  obligations,  or  was  unwilling  to  perform  these  obligations.  Proof  of  a  natal  or   supervening  disabling  factor  –  an  adverse  integral  element  in  the  respondent’s  personality  structure  that   effectively   incapacitated   him   from   complying   with   his   essential   marital   obligations   –   must   be   shown.   Mere  difficulty,  refusal  or  neglect  in  the  performance  of  marital  obligations  or  ill  will  on  the  part  of  the   spouse   is   different   from   incapacity   rooted   in   some   debilitating   psychological   condition   or   illness;   irreconcilable  differences,  sexual  infidelity  or  perversion,  emotional  immaturity  and  irresponsibility  and   the  like,  do  not  by  themselves  warrant  a  finding  of  psychological  incapacity  under  Article  36,  as  the  same   may  only  be  due  to  a  person’s  refusal  or  unwillingness  to  assume  the  essential  obligations  of  marriage.”  

 

19  

Charles  Gotardo  vs.  Divina  Buling   G.R.  No.  165166   August  15,  2012   Ponente:  J.Brion     Topic:  Filiation     Facts:     Divina  and  Charles  met  at  the  Philippine  Commercial  and  Industrial  Bank,  Maasin,  Southern  Leyte  branch   where  they  were  co-­‐employees.    Charles  eventually  started  intimate  sexual  relations  with  Divina  leading   to   her   pregnancy.  When   told   of   the   pregnancy,   Charles   was   happy   and   made   plans   to   marry   Divina.    However,  Charles  backed  out  of  the  wedding  plans.  Divina  gave  birth  to  their  son  Gliffze.  When   Charles   did   not   show   up   and   failed   to   provide   support   to   Gliffze,   Divina   sent   him   a   letter   demanding   recognition   of   and   support   for   their   child.  When   Charles   did   not   answer   the   demand,   Divina   filed   her   complaint  for  compulsory  recognition  and  support  pendente  lite.  Charles  denied  the  imputed  paternity.     Issue:     Can  the  issue  on  support  be  adjudicated  in  a  filiation  proceeding?     Held:     Yes.       “We   have   recognized   that   "[f]iliation   proceedings   are   usually   filed   not   just   to   adjudicate   paternity   but   also   to   secure   a   legal   right   associated   with   paternity,   such   as   citizenship,   support   (as   in   this   case)   or   inheritance.   [In   paternity   cases,   the   burden   of   proof]   is   on   the   person   who   alleges   that   the   putative   father  is  the  biological  father  of  the  child.”       x     x   x     “In  Herrera   v.   Alba,   we   stressed   that   there   are   four   significant   procedural   aspects   of   a   traditional   paternity   action   that   parties   have   to   face:   a  prima   facie  case,   affirmative   defenses,   presumption   of   legitimacy,   and   physical   resemblance   between   the   putative   father   and   the   child.  We   explained   that   a  prima  facie  case  exists  if  a  woman  declares  —  supported  by  corroborative  proof  —  that  she  had  sexual   relations   with   the   putative   father;   at   this   point,   the   burden   of   evidence   shifts   to   the   putative   father.  We   explained  further  that  the  two  affirmative  defenses  available  to  the  putative  father  are:  (1)  incapability   of   sexual   relations   with   the   mother   due   to   either   physical   absence   or   impotency,   or   (2)   that   the   mother   had  sexual  relations  with  other  men  at  the  time  of  conception.     In  this  case,  the  respondent  established  a  prima  facie  case  that  the  petitioner  is  the  putative  father  of   Gliffze  through  testimony  that  she  had  been  sexually  involved  only  with  one  man,  the  petitioner,  at  the   time  of  her  conception.  Rodulfo  corroborated  her  testimony  that  the  petitioner  and  the  respondent  had   intimate  relationship.”       x     x   x    

 

20  

“Since   filiation   is   beyond   question,   support   follows   as   a   matter   of   obligation;   a   parent   is   obliged   to   support   his   child,   whether   legitimate   or   illegitimate.  Support   consists   of   everything   indispensable   for   sustenance,   dwelling,   clothing,   medical   attendance,   education   and   transportation,   in   keeping   with   the   financial   capacity   of   the   family.   Thus,   the   amount   of   support   is   variable   and,   for   this   reason,   no   final   judgment  on  the  amount  of  support  is  made  as  the  amount  shall  be  in  proportion  to  the  resources  or   means  of  the  giver  and  the  necessities  of  the  recipient.  It  may  be  reduced  or  increased  proportionately   according  to  the  reduction  or  increase  of  the  necessities  of  the  recipient  and  the  resources  or  means  of   the  person  obliged  to  support.”    

 

21  

Charlie  Fortaleza  and  Ofelia  Fortaleza  vs.  Raul  Lapitan  and  Rona  Lapitan   G.R.  No.  178288   August  15,  2012   Ponente:  J.  Del  Castillo     Topic:  Family  Home       Facts:     Spouses  Fortaleza  obtained  a  loan  from  spouses  Lapitan.  As  security,  spouses  Fortaleza  executed  a  Deed   of  Real  Estate  Mortgage  over  their  residential  house  and  lot.  When  spouses  Fortaleza  failed  to  pay  the   indebtedness  including  the  interests  and  penalties,  the  creditors  applied  for  extrajudicial  foreclosure  of   the  Real  Estate  Mortgage.  At  the  sale,  the  creditors’  son  Dr.  Raul   Lapitan  and  his  wife  Rona  emerged  as   the  highest  bidders.  The  one-­‐year  redemption  period  expired  without  the  spouses  Fortaleza  redeeming   the   mortgage.   Thus,   spouses   Lapitan   executed   an   affidavit   of   consolidation   of   ownership.   Despite   the   foregoing,   the   spouses   Fortaleza   refused   spouses   Lapitan’s   formal   demand  to   vacate   and   surrender   possession   of   the   subject   property.   Spouses   Fortaleza   argue   that   the   subject   property   is   exempt   from   forced  sale  because  it  is  a  family  home.     Issue:     Is   the   residential   house   of   the   Spouses   Fortaleza   which   was   made   subject   to   a   Real   Estate   Mortgage   exempt  from  execution  because  it  is  a  family  home?     Held:     No.       “As   a   rule,   the   family   home   is   exempt   from   execution,   forced   sale   or   attachment.   However,   Article   155(3)   of   the   Family   Code   explicitly   allows   the   forced   sale   of   a   family   home   "for   debts   secured   by   mortgages   on   the   premises   before   or   after   such   constitution."   In   this   case,   there   is   no   doubt   that   spouses   Fortaleza   voluntarily   executed   on   January   28,   1998   a   deed   of   Real   Estate   Mortgage   over   the   subject   property   which   was   even   notarized   by   their   original   counsel   of   record.   And   assuming   that   the   property   is   exempt   from   forced   sale,   spouses   Fortaleza   did   not   set   up   and   prove   to   the   Sheriff   such   exemption  from  forced  sale  before  it  was  sold  at  the  public  auction.  As  elucidated  in  Honrado  v.  Court  of   Appeals:   “While   it   is   true   that   the   family   home   is   constituted   on   a   house   and   lot   from   the   time   it   is   occupied   as   a   family   residence   and   is   exempt   from   execution   or   forced   sale   under   Article   153   of   the   Family   Code,   such   claim   for   exemption   should   be   set   up   and   proved   to   the   Sheriff   before   the   sale   of   the   property  at  public  auction.  Failure  to  do  so  would  estop  the  party  from  later  claiming  the  exemption.  “     As   this   Court   ruled   in  Gomez   v.   Gealone:   “Although   the   Rules   of   Court   does   not   prescribe   the   period   within  which  to  claim  the  exemption,  the  rule  is,  nevertheless,  well-­‐settled  that  the  right  of  exemption  is   a  personal  privilege  granted  to  the  judgment  debtor  and  as  such,  it  must  be  claimed  not  by  the  sheriff,   but   by   the   debtor   himself   at   the   time   of   the   levy   or   within   a   reasonable   period   thereafter.   Certainly,   reasonable   time   for   purposes   of   the   law   on   exemption   does   not   mean   a   time   after   the   expiration   of   the   one-­‐year  period  for  a  judgment  debtor  to  redeem  the  property.”    

 

22  

Brigido  B.  Quiao  vs.  Rita  C.  Quiao,  et.  al.   G.R.  No  176556   July  4,  2012   Ponente:  J.Reyes     Topic:  Conjugal  Partnership  of  Gains     Facts:     Rita  C.  Quiao  filed  a  complaint  for  legal  separation  against  Brigido  B.  Quiao.  The  RTC  rendered  a  Decision   declaring  the  legal  separation.  In  the  decision,  Brigido’s  share  of  the  net  profits  earned  by  the  conjugal   partnership  is  forfeited  in  favor  of  the  common  children  being  the  guilty  party.  Brigido  claimed  that  the   court  a  quo  is  wrong  when  it  applied  Article  129  of  the  Family  Code,  instead  of  Article  102.    He  argued   that   Article   102   applies   because   there   is   no   other   provision   under   the   Family   Code   which   defines   net   profits  earned  subject  of  forfeiture  as  a  result  of  legal  separation.     Issue:     Was  Brigido’s  vested  right  over  half  of  the  common  properties  of  the  conjugal  partnership  violated  when   the   trial   court   forfeited   them   in   favor   of   his   children   pursuant   to   Articles   63(2)   and   129   of   the   Family   Code?       Held:     No.       “Thus,   from   the   foregoing   facts   and   law,   it   is   clear   that   what   governs   the   property   relations   of   the   petitioner  and  of  the  respondent  is  conjugal  partnership  of  gains.    And  under  this  property  relation,  “the   husband  and  the  wife  place  in  a  common  fund  the  fruits  of  their  separate  property  and  the  income  from   their   work   or   industry.”    The   husband   and   wife   also   own   in   common   all   the   property   of   the   conjugal   partnership  of  gains.         Second,   since   at   the   time   of   the   dissolution   of   the   petitioner   and   the   respondent's   marriage   the   operative  law  is  already  the  Family  Code,  the  same  applies  in  the  instant  case  and  the  applicable  law  in   so  far  as  the  liquidation  of  the  conjugal  partnership  assets  and  liabilities  is  concerned  is  Article  129  of   the  Family  Code  in  relation  to  Article  63(2)  of  the  Family  Code.    The  latter  provision  is  applicable  because   according  to  Article  256  of  the  Family  Code  “[t]his  Code  shall  have  retroactive  effect  insofar  as  it  does   not  prejudice  or  impair  vested  or  acquired  rights  in  accordance  with  the  Civil  Code  or  other  law.”         x     x   x     “Indeed,  the  petitioner  claims  that  his  vested  rights  have  been  impaired,  arguing:  “As  earlier  adverted   to,  the  petitioner  acquired  vested  rights  over  half  of  the  conjugal  properties,  the  same  being  owned  in   common  by  the  spouses.    If  the  provisions  of  the  Family  Code  are  to  be  given  retroactive  application  to   the   point   of   authorizing   the   forfeiture   of   the   petitioner's   share   in   the   net   remainder   of   the   conjugal   partnership   properties,   the   same   impairs   his   rights   acquired   prior   to   the   effectivity   of   the   Family   Code.”    In   other   words,   the   petitioner   is   saying   that   since   the   property   relations   between   the   spouses   is   governed  by  the  regime  of  Conjugal  Partnership  of  Gains  under  the  Civil  Code,  the  petitioner  acquired  

 

23  

vested   rights   over   half   of   the   properties   of   the   Conjugal   Partnership   of   Gains,   pursuant   to   Article   143   of   the  Civil  Code,  which  provides:  “All  property  of  the  conjugal  partnership  of  gains  is  owned  in  common  by   the  husband  and  wife.”    Thus,  since  he  is  one  of  the  owners  of  the  properties  covered  by  the  conjugal   partnership  of  gains,  he  has  a  vested  right  over  half  of  the  said  properties,  even  after  the  promulgation   of   the   Family   Code;   and   he   insisted   that   no   provision   under   the   Family   Code   may   deprive   him   of   this   vested   right   by   virtue   of   Article   256   of   the   Family   Code   which   prohibits   retroactive   application   of   the   Family  Code  when  it  will  prejudice  a  person's  vested  right.”     x     x   x     “From  the  foregoing,  it  is  clear  that  while  one  may  not  be  deprived  of  his  “vested  right,”  he  may  lose  the   same  if  there  is  due  process  and  such  deprivation  is  founded  in  law  and  jurisprudence.”     x     x   x         “From   the   foregoing,   the   petitioner's   claim   of   a   vested   right   has   no   basis   considering   that   even   under   Article  176  of  the  Civil  Code,  his  share  of  the  conjugal  partnership  profits  may  be  forfeited  if  he  is  the   guilty  party  in  a  legal  separation  case.    Thus,  after  trial  and  after  the  petitioner  was  given  the  chance  to   present   his   evidence,   the   petitioner's   vested   right   claim   may   in   fact   be   set   aside   under   the   Civil   Code   since  the  trial  court  found  him  the  guilty  party.”  

 

24  

Republic  of  the  Philippines  vs.  Yolanda  Cadacio  Granada   G.  R.  No.    187512   June  13,  2012   Ponente:  J.  Sereno     Topic:  Declaration  of  Presumptive  Death     Facts:     Yolanda  Cadacio  Granada  married  Cyrus  Granada  and  their  marriage  resulted  in  the  birth  of  their  son,   Cyborg  Dean  Cadacio  Granada.  Sometime  in  May  1994,  when  Sumida  Electric  Philippines  closed  down,   Cyrus  went  to  Taiwan  to  seek  employment.  Yolanda  claimed  that  from  that  time,  she  had  not  received   any   communication   from   her   husband,   notwithstanding   efforts   to   locate   him.   After   nine   (9)   years   of   waiting,   Yolanda   filed   a   Petition   to   have   Cyrus   declared   presumptively   dead   which   was   granted.   The   Office   of   the   Solicitor   General   (OSG),   filed   a   Motion   for   Reconsideration   of   this   Decision   arguing   that   Yolanda   had   failed   to   exert   earnest   efforts   to   locate   Cyrus   and   thus   failed   to   prove   her   well-­‐founded   belief  that  he  was  already  dead.  However,  the  RTC  denied  the  motion.       The  OSG  filed  a  Notice  of  Appeal  to  elevate  the  case  to  the  CA.  Yolanda  filed  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  on  the   ground  that  the  CA  had  no  jurisdiction  over  the  appeal.  She  argued  that  her  Petition  for  Declaration  of   Presumptive   Death,   based   on   Article   41   of   the   Family   Code,   was   a   summary   judicial   proceeding,   in  which  the  judgment  is  immediately  final  and  executory  and,  thus,  not  appealable.       Issue:     1.  Is  a  petition  for  declaration  of  presumptive  death  of  an  absent  spouse  for  the  purpose  of  contracting  a   subsequent  marriage  a  summary  proceeding  and  therefore  not  subject  to  appeal?     2.  Did  Yolanda  fail  to  exert  earnest  efforts  to  locate  Cyrus  and  prove  her  well-­‐founded  belief  that  Cyrus   was  already  dead?     Held:     Issue   1.   Yes.   “Clearly,   a   petition   for   declaration   of   presumptive   death   of   an   absent   spouse   for   the   purpose   of   contracting   a   subsequent   marriage   under   Article   41   of   the   Family   Code   is   a   summary   proceeding  “as  provided  for”  under  the  Family  Code.”     x     x   x     “Under  Article  41  of  the  Family  Code,  the  losing  party  in  a  summary  proceeding  for  the  declaration  of   presumptive   death   may   file   a   petition   for   certiorari   with   the   CA   on   the   ground   that,   in   rendering   judgment  thereon,  the  trial  court  committed  grave  abuse  of  discretion  amounting  to  lack  of  jurisdiction.   From  the  decision  of  the  CA,  the  aggrieved  party  may  elevate  the  matter  to  this  Court  via  a  petition  for   review  on  certiorari  under  Rule  45  of  the  Rules  of  Court.”     Issue  2.  Yes.  However,  the  RTC  ruling  on    the  issue  of  whether  respondent  was  able  to  prove  her  “well-­‐ founded  belief”  that  her  absent  spouse  was  already  dead  prior  to  her  filing  of  the  Petition  to  declare  him   presumptively  dead  is  already  final  and  can  no  longer  be  modified  or  reversed.  

 

25  

  “Similarly,  in  Republic  v.  Court  of  Appeals  and  Alegro,  petitioner  Republic  sought  the  reversal  of  the  CA   ruling   affirming   the   RTC’s   grant   of   the   Petition   for   Declaration   of   Presumptive   Death   of   the   absent   spouse  on  the  ground  that  the  respondent  therein  had  not  been  able  to  prove  a  “well-­‐founded  belief”   that   his   spouse   was   already   dead.   The   Court   reversed   the   CA,   granted   the   Petition,   and   provided   the   following   criteria   for   determining   the   existence   of   a   “well-­‐founded   belief”   under   Article   41   of   the   Family   Code:   For   the   purpose   of   contracting   the   subsequent   marriage   under   the   preceding   paragraph,   the   spouse   present   must   institute   a   summary   proceeding   as   provided   in   this   Code   for   the   declaration   of   presumptive   death   of   the   absentee,   without   prejudice   to   the   effect   of   reappearance  of  the  absent  spouse.       The  spouse  present  is,  thus,  burdened  to  prove  that  his  spouse  has  been  absent  and  that  he  has   a   well-­‐founded   belief   that   the   absent   spouse   is   already   dead   before   the   present   spouse   may   contract   a   subsequent   marriage.   The   law   does   not   define   what   is   meant   by   a   well-­‐grounded   belief.   Cuello   Callon   writes   that   “es   menester   que   su   creencia   sea   firme   se   funde   en   motivos   racionales.”       Belief  is  a  state  of  the  mind  or  condition  prompting  the  doing  of  an  overt  act.  It  may  be  proved  by  direct   evidence   or   circumstantial   evidence   which   may   tend,   even   in   a   slight   degree,   to   elucidate   the   inquiry   or   assist  to  a  determination  probably  founded  in  truth.  Any  fact  or  circumstance  relating  to  the  character,   habits,  conditions,  attachments,  prosperity  and  objects  of  life  which  usually  control  the  conduct  of  men,   and  are  the  motives  of  their  actions,  was,  so  far  as  it  tends  to  explain  or  characterize  their  disappearance   or  throw  light  on  their  intentions,  competence  [sic]  evidence  on  the  ultimate  question  of  his  death.           The   belief   of   the   present   spouse   must   be   the   result   of   proper   and   honest   to   goodness   inquiries   and   efforts  to  ascertain  the  whereabouts  of  the  absent  spouse  and  whether  the  absent  spouse  is  still  alive  or   is   already   dead.   Whether   or   not   the   spouse   present   acted   on   a   well-­‐founded   belief   of   death  of  the  absent  spouse  depends  upon  the  inquiries  to  be  drawn  from  a  great  many  circumstances   occurring   before   and   after   the   disappearance   of   the   absent   spouse   and   the   nature   and   extent   of   the   inquiries  made  by  present  spouse.       Applying  the  foregoing  standards  to  the  present  case,  petitioner  points  out  that  respondent  Yolanda  did   not  initiate  a  diligent  search  to  locate  her  absent  husband.  While  her  brother  Diosdado  Cadacio  testified   to  having  inquired  about  the  whereabouts  of  Cyrus  from  the  latter’s  relatives,  these  relatives  were  not   presented  to  corroborate  Diosdado’s  testimony.       In  short,  respondent  was  allegedly  not  diligent  in  her  search  for  her  husband.  Petitioner  argues  that  if   she   were,   she   would   have   sought   information   from   the   Taiwanese   Consular   Office   or   assistance   from   other  government  agencies  in  Taiwan  or  the  Philippines.  She  could  have  also  utilized  mass  media  for  this   end,  but  she  did  not.  Worse,  she  failed  to  explain  these  omissions.  

 

26  

Merope  Enriquez  Vda.  De  Catalan  vs.  Louella  A.  Catalan-­‐Lee   G.  R.  No.  183622   February  8,  2012   Ponente:  J.  Sereno     Topic:  Nationality  Principle     Facts:     Orlando  B.  Catalan  was  a  naturalized  American  citizen.  After  allegedly  obtaining  a  divorce  in  the  United   States  from  his  first  wife,  Felicitas  Amor,  he  contracted  a  second  marriage  with  Merope.  Orlando  died   intestate   in   the   Philippines.   Merope   filed   with   the   RTC   Petition   for   the   issuance   of   letters   of   administration   for   her   appointment   as   administratrix   of   the   intestate   estate   of   Orlando.   Louella   A.   Catalan-­‐Lee,  one  of  the  children  of  Orlando  from  his  first  marriage,  filed  a  similar  petition  with  the  RTC.   Merope  prayed  for  the  dismissal  of  Louella’s  petition  on  the  ground  of  litis  pendentia,  considering  that   her   petition   covering   the   same   estate   was   already   pending.   Louella   alleged   that   Merope   was   not   considered  an  interested  person  qualified  to  file  a  petition  for  the  issuance  of  letters  of  administration   of  the  estate  of  Orlando.  In  support  of  her  contention,  Louella  alleged  that  a  criminal  case  for  bigamy   was   filed   against   Merope   by   Felicitas   Amor   alleging   that   Merope   contracted   a   second   marriage   to   Orlando   despite   having   been   married   to   one   Eusebio   Bristol.   The   court   had   acquitted   petitioner   of   bigamy   in   that   case.  The   trial   court   also   ruled   then   that   since   the   deceased   was   a   divorced   American   citizen,  and  since  that  divorce  was  not  recognized  under  Philippine  jurisdiction,  the  marriage  between   him   and   petitioner   was   not   valid.   Finally,   the   trial   court   found   that,   in   the   first   place,   petitioner   had   never   been   married   to   Eusebio   Bristol.   The   RTC   dismissed   the   Petition   for   the   issuance   of   letters   of   administration   filed   by   Merope   and   granted   that   of   Louella.   Contrary   to   the   findings   in   the   case   for   bigamy,  the  RTC  held  that  the  marriage  between  Merope  and  Eusebio  Bristol  was  valid  and  subsisting   when  she  married  Orlando.  Without  expounding,  it  reasoned  further  that  her  acquittal  in  the  previous   bigamy  case  was  fatal  to  her  cause.  Thus,  the  trial  court  held  that  Merope  was  not  an  interested  party   who  may  file  a  petition  for  the  issuance  of  letters  of  administration.       Issue:   1.  Did  the  acquittal  of  Merope  from  the  bigamy  case  render  her  marriage  with  Orlando  as  valid?   2.  Can  the  divorce  of  Orlando  to  Felicitas  be  considered  valid?     Held:     Issue   1.   Yes.   “At   the   outset,   it   seems   that   the   RTC   in   the   special   proceedings   failed   to   appreciate   the   finding  of  the  RTC  in  Crim.  Case  No.  2699-­‐A  that  petitioner  was  never  married  to  Eusebio  Bristol.  Thus,   the   trial   court  concluded   that,   because   petitioner   was   acquitted   of   bigamy,   it   follows   that   the   first   marriage   with   Bristol   still   existed   and   was   valid.    By   failing   to   take   note   of   the   findings   of   fact   on   the   nonexistence  of  the  marriage  between  petitioner  and  Bristol,  both  the  RTC  and  CA  held  that  petitioner   was  not  an  interested  party  in  the  estate  of  Orlando.”     Issue   2.   Yes.   “Second,   it   is   imperative   to   note   that   at   the   time   the   bigamy   case   in   Crim.   Case   No.   2699-­‐A   was   dismissed,   we   had   already   ruled   that   under   the   principles   of   comity,   our   jurisdiction   recognizes   a   valid  divorce  obtained  by  a  spouse  of  foreign  nationality.  This  doctrine  was  established  as  early  as  1985   in  Van  Dorn  v.  Romillo,  Jr.  wherein  we  said:    

 

27  

It   is   true   that   owing   to   the   nationality   principle   embodied   in   Article   15   of   the   Civil   Code,   only  Philippine  nationals  are  covered  by  the  policy  against  absolute  divorces[,]  the  same   being   considered   contrary   to   our   concept   of   public   policy   and   morality.  However,   aliens   may   obtain   divorces   abroad,   which   may   be   recognized   in   the   Philippines,   provided   they   are   valid   according   to   their   national   law.  In   this   case,   the   divorce   in   Nevada   released  private  respondent  from  the  marriage  from  the  standards  of  American  law,   under  which  divorce  dissolves  the  marriage.  Xxx”     x     x   x     “Nonetheless,  the  fact  of  divorce  must  still  first  be  proven  as  we  have  enunciated  in  Garcia  v.  Recio,[9]  to   wit:     Respondent   is   getting   ahead   of   himself.   Before   a   foreign   judgment   is   given   presumptive   evidentiary   value,   the   document   must   first   be   presented   and   admitted   in   evidence.   A   divorce   obtained   abroad   is   proven   by   the   divorce   decree   itself.  Indeed   the   best   evidence  of  a  judgment  is  the  judgment  itself.  The  decree  purports  to  be  a  written  act   or  record  of  an  act  of  an  official  body  or  tribunal  of  a  foreign  country.”     x     x   x     “It  appears  that  the  trial  court  no  longer  required  petitioner  to  prove  the  validity  of  Orlando’s  divorce   under  the  laws  of  the  United  States  and  the  marriage  between  petitioner  and  the  deceased.  Thus,  there   is  a  need  to  remand  the  proceedings  to  the  trial  court  for  further  reception  of  evidence  to  establish  the   fact  of  divorce.     Should   petitioner   prove   the   validity   of   the   divorce   and   the   subsequent   marriage,   she   has   the   preferential   right   to   be   issued   the   letters   of   administration   over   the   estate.   Otherwise,   letters   of   administration   may   be   issued   to   respondent,   who   is   undisputedly   the   daughter   or   next   of   kin   of   the   deceased,  in  accordance  with  Sec.  6  of  Rule  78  of  the  Revised  Rules  of  Court.”  

 

28  

Antonia  R.  Dela  Peña  et.  al.  vs.  Gemma  Remilyn  Avila  and  FEBTC-­‐BPI   G.R.  No.  187490   February  8,  2012   Ponente:  J.  Perez     Topic:  Conjugal  Partnership  of  Gains     Facts:     Antonia   R.   Dela   Peña   obtained   from   A.C.   Aguila   &   Sons,   Co.   a   loan.   Antonia   also   executed   in   favor   of   Aguila   a   notarized  Deed   of   Real   Estate   Mortgage  over   a   property   registered   in   the   name   of   Antonia,   “married   to   Antegono   A.   Dela   Peña”,   for   the   purpose   of   securing   the   payment   of   said   loan   obligation.  Antonia   then   executed   a   notarized  Deed   of   Absolute   Sale  over   the   property   in   favor   of   Gemma  Remilyn  C.  Avila.  Gemma  also  constituted  a  real  estate  mortgage  over  said  parcel  in  favor  of  Far   East   Bank   and   Trust   Company   (FEBTC-­‐BPI),   to   secure   a   loan   facility.   Antonia   filed   with   the   Register   of   Deeds  of  Marikina  an  Affidavit  of  Adverse  Claim  to  the  effect,  among  others,  that  she  was  the  true  and   lawful   owner   of   the   property   which   had   been   titled   in   the   name   of   Gemma   and,   that   the   Deed   of   Absolute  Sale  Gemma  utilized  in  procuring  her  title  was  simulated.  In  view  of  Gemma’s  failure  to  pay  the   principal   as   well   as   the   accumulated   interest   and   penalties   on   the   loans   she   obtained,   on   the   other   hand,   FEBTC-­‐BPI   caused   the   extrajudicial   foreclosure   of   the   real   estate   mortgage   constituted   over   the   property.  Antonia   and   her   son,   Alvin,   filed   against   Gemma   the   complaint   for   annulment   of   deed   of   sale.    Claiming   that   the   subject   realty   was   conjugal   property,   the   Dela   Peñas   alleged,   among   other   matters,  that  the  Deed  of  Real  Estate  Mortgage  Antonia  executed  in  favor  of  Aguila  was  not  consented   to   by   Antegono   who   had,   by   then,   already   died   and   that   no   liquidation   was   done   as   required   under   Article  130  of  the  Family  Code.     Issue:     Was   the   property   conjugal   in   nature   and   therefore   leading   to   the   Deed   of   Absolute   Sale   executed   by   Antonia  in  favor  of  Gemma  being  void  as  a  disposition  without  the  liquidation  required  under  Article  130   of  the  Family  Code?         Held:     No.       “Pursuant   to   Article   160   of   the  Civil   Code   of   the   Philippines,   all   property   of   the   marriage   is   presumed   to   belong  to  the  conjugal  partnership,  unless  it  be  proved  that  it  pertains  exclusively  to  the  husband  or  to   the   wife.    Although   it   is   not   necessary   to   prove   that   the   property   was   acquired   with   funds   of   the   partnership,  proof  of  acquisition  during  the  marriage  is  an  essential  condition  for  the  operation  of  the   presumption  in  favor  of  the  conjugal  partnership.”       x     x   x     “As   the   parties   invoking   the   presumption   of   conjugality   under   Article   160   of   the  Civil   Code,   the   Dela   Peñas  did  not  even  come  close  to  proving  that  the  subject  property  was  acquired  during  the  marriage   between   Antonia   and   Antegono.    Beyond   Antonia’s   bare   and   uncorroborated   assertion   that   the   property  was  purchased  when  she  was  already  married,  the  record  is  bereft  of  any  evidence  from  which  

 

29  

the  actual  date  of  acquisition  of  the  realty  can  be  ascertained.    When  queried  about  the  matter  during   his  cross-­‐examination,  even  Alvin  admitted  that  his  sole  basis  for  saying  that  the  property  was  owned  by   his  parents  was  Antonia’s  unilateral  pronouncement  to  the  effect.  Considering  that  the  presumption  of   conjugality   does   not   operate   if   there   is   no   showing   of  when  the   property   alleged   to   be   conjugal   was   acquired,   we   find   that   the   CA   cannot   be   faulted   for   ruling   that   the   realty   in   litigation   was   Antonia’s   exclusive  property.       Not  having  established  the  time  of  acquisition  of  the  property,  the  Dela  Peñas  insist  that  the  registration   thereof  in  the  name  of  “Antonia  R.  Dela  Peña,  of  legal  age,  Filipino,  married  to  Antegono  A.  Dela  Peña”   should  have  already  sufficiently  established  its  conjugal  nature.    Confronted  with  the  same  issue  in  the   case  Ruiz   vs.   Court   of   Appeals,  this   Court   ruled,   however,   that   the   phrase   “married   to”   is   merely   descriptive  of  the  civil  status  of  the  wife  and  cannot  be  interpreted  to  mean  that  the  husband  is  also  a   registered  owner.    Because  it  is  likewise  possible  that  the  property  was  acquired  by  the  wife  while  she   was   still   single   and   registered   only   after   her   marriage,   neither   would   registration   thereof   in   said   manner   constitute  proof  that  the  same  was  acquired  during  the  marriage  and,  for  said  reason,  to  be  presumed   conjugal   in   nature.    “Since   there   is   no   showing   as   to   when   the   property   in   question   was   acquired,   the   fact   that   the   title   is   in   the   name   of   the   wife   alone   is   determinative   of   its   nature   as   paraphernal,  i.e.,  belonging  exclusively  to  said  spouse.”    

 

30  

Bobby  Tan  vs.  Grace  Andrade,  et.  al.   G.R.  No.  171904  and  172017   August  7,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Perlas-­‐Bernabe     Topic:  Conjugal  Partnership  of  Gains     Facts:     Rosario   Vda.   De   Andrade   was   the   registered   owner   of   four   parcels   of   land,   which   she   mortgaged   to   and   subsequently  foreclosed  by  one  Simon  Diu.  When  the  redemption  period  was  about  to  expire,  Rosario   sought  the  assistance  of  Bobby  Tan  who  agreed  to  redeem  the  subject  properties.  Rosario  sold  the  lands   to  Bobby  and  her  son,  Proceso  Andrade,  Jr.  which  was  evidenced  by  a  Deed  of  Absolute  Sale.  Proceso,  Jr.   executed  a  Deed  of  Assignment,  ceding  unto  Bobby  his  rights  and  interests  over  the  subject  properties   in  consideration  of  P50,000.00.  The  Deed  of  Assignment  was  signed  by  one  of  Rosario’s  sons,  Henry,  as   instrumental  witness.  In  the  Deed  of  Sale,  Bobby  extended  an  Option  to  Buy  the  subject  properties  in   favor   of   Proceso,   Jr.,   giving   the   latter   until   7:00   pm   to   purchase   the   same.   Which   he   failed   to   do   so,   hence,  Bobby  consolidated  his  ownership  over  the  subject  properties.  Rosario’s  children,  namely,  Grace,   Proceso,  Jr.,  Henry,  Andrew,  Glory,  Miriam  Rose,  Joseph,  Jasmin  Blaza,    and    Charity    A.    Santiago,  filed  a   complaint      for  reconveyance  and  annulment  of  deeds  of  conveyance  and  damages  against  Bobby  and   alleged   that   the   transaction   between   Rosario   and   Bobby   was   not   one   of   sale   but   was   actually   an   equitable   mortgage   which   was   entered   into   to   secure   Rosario’s   indebtedness   with   Bobby.   They   also   claimed  that  Rosario  had  no  right  to  dispose  of  their  respective  shares  because  the  subject  properties   were  inherited  by   them  from  their  father,  Proceso  Andrade,   Sr.,  the  subject   properties  were  conjugal  in   nature.   In   t his     light,     they     argued     that     they   remained  as   co-­‐owners  of  the  subject  properties  together   with  Bobby,  despite  the  issuance  of  the  TCTs  in  his  name.       Issue:     Are  the  subject  properties  are  conjugal  in  nature?     Held:     Yes.         “Pertinent   to   the   resolution   of   this   second   issue   is   Article   160   of   the   Civil   Code which   states   that   “All   property   of   the   marriage   is   presumed   to   belong   to   the   conjugal   partnership,   unless   it   be   proved   that   it   pertains   exclusively   to   the   husband   or   to   the   wife.”   For   this   presumption   to   apply,   the   party   invoking  the  same   must,   however,  preliminarily  prove   that  the  property  was  indeed   acquired  during  the   marriage.  “     x   x   x     “In   this   case,   records   reveal   that   the   conjugal   partnership   of   Rosario   and   her   husband   was     terminated   upon   the   latter’s   death   on   August   7,   1978 while   the   transfer   certificates   of   title   over   the   subject   properties   were   issued   on   September   28,   1979   and   solely   in   the   name   of   “Rosario   Vda.   de       Andrade,   of     legal     age,     widow,     Filipino.” Other     than     their     bare     allegation,     no   evidence     was     adduced     by     the     Andrades     to     establish     that     the     subject  properties   were   procured   during   the  

 

31  

coverture   of   their   parents   or   that   the   same   were   bought   with   conjugal   funds.   Moreover,   Rosario’s     declaration  that  she   is   the   absolute  owner   of   the   disputed  parcels   of   land   in   the   subject   deed  of   sale was   not   disputed   by   her   son   Proceso,   Jr.,   who   was   a   party   to   the  same.  Hence,  by   virtue  of   these     incidents,   the   Court   upholds   the   RTC’s   finding   that   the   subject   properties   were   exclusive   or   sole   properties   of  Rosario.”  

 

32  

Minoru  Fujiki  vs.  Maria  Paz  Galela  Marinay,  Shinichi  Maekara   G.R.  No.  196049   June  26,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Sereno     Topic:    Declaration  for  Nullity  of  Marriage       Facts:     Minoru  Fujiki  is  a  Japanese   national  who  married   Maria   Paz   Galela   Marinay   in   the   Philippines.  Fujiki’s   parents   are   against   the   said   marriage.   Thus,   he   could   not   bring   his   wife   to   Japan   where   he   resides.   Marinay  met   another  Japanese,  Shinichi  Maekara.  Without  the   first   marriage  being   dissolved,  Marinay   and   Maekara   were   married   in   the   Philippines.   Maekara   brought   Marinay   to   Japan.   However,  Marinay   allegedly   suffered   physical   abuse   from   Maekara.  She   left   Maekara  and   started   to   contact   Fujiki.   Fujiki   and   Marinay   met   in   Japan   and   they   were   able   to   reestablish   their   relationship.   Fujiki   helped   Marinay  obtain  a  judgment  from  a  family  court  in  Japan  which  declared   the  marriage  between   Marinay   and   Maekara   void   on   the   ground   of   bigamy.   Fujiki   filed   a   petition   for   Judicial   Recognition   of   Foreign   Judgment  with  RTC.    Fujiki  prayed  that  the  judgment  of  the  Japanese  Family  Court  be   recognized  and   that   the   bigamous   marriage   between   Marinay   and   Maekara   be   declared   void   ab   initio   under   Articles   35(4)  and   41   of   the   Family  Code  of   the   Philippines.  RTC  dismissed  the  Petition  and  took   the   view  that   only  “the  husband  or   the  wife,”  in   this  case  either  Maekara  or   Marinay,  can   file  the   petition  to   declare   their  marriage  void,  and  not  Fujiki.     Issue:     Does  Fujiki  has  the  personality  to  declare  his  wife’s  subsequent  marriage  void?     Held:     Fujiki  has   the   personality  to   file   a   petition  to   recognize  the   Japanese  Family  Court   judgment   nullifying   the   marriage   between   Marinay   and   Maekara   on   the   ground   of   bigamy   because   the   judgment   concerns   his   civil   status   as   married   to   Marinay.   For   the   same   reason   he   has   the   personality   to   file   a   petition   under   Rule   108   to   cancel   the   entry   of   marriage   between   Marinay  and  Maekara  in   the  civil   registry  on   the   basis  of   the   decree  of   the   Japanese  Family  Court.       There   is   no   doubt   that   the   prior   spouse   has   a   personal   and   material   interest   in   maintaining   the   integrity   of   the   marriage   he   contracted   and   the   property   relations   arising   from   it.   There   is   also   no   doubt  that   he   is   interested  in   the   cancellation  of   an   entry   of   a   bigamous  marriage  in   the   civil   registry,   which  compromises  the  public  record  of  his  marriage.  The  interest  derives  from   the  substantive  right   of   the  spouse   not  only  to  preserve   (or  dissolve,  in  limited   instances)  his  most  intimate   human  relation,  but     also  to  protect  his   property  interests   that  arise  by  operation   of  law  the  moment  he  contracts   marriage. These   property   interests   in   marriage   include   the   right   to   be   supported   “in   keeping   with   the   financial     capacity  of  the  family” and  preserving  the  property  regime  of  the  marriage         Property   rights   are   already   substantive   rights   protected   by   the   Constitution, but   a   spouse’s  right   in   a   marriage  extends  further  to  relational   rights  recognized  under  Title  III  (“Rights  and  Obligations   between  

 

33  

  Husband  and   Wife”)   of   the   Family   Code. A.M.   No.   02-­‐11-­‐10-­‐SC  cannot   “diminish,  increase,  or   modify”       the  substantive  right  of  the  spouse  to  maintain  the  integrity   of   his   marriage. In   any   case,   Section   2(a)   of   A.M.   No.   02-­‐11-­‐10-­‐SC   preserves   this   substantive   right   by   limiting   the   personality   to   sue   to   the   husband  or  the  wife  of  the  union  recognized  by  law.     Section  2(a)  of  A.M.  No.  02-­‐11-­‐10-­‐SC  does  not  preclude  a  spouse  of  a  subsisting  marriage  to  question  the   validity   of   a   subsequent  marriage   on   the  ground     of     bigamy.     On     the     contrary,    when     Section     2(a)     states    that    “[a]  petition  for   declaration  of   absolute  nullity  of   void  marriage  may  be   filed  solely   by  the   husband   or   the   wife”―it   refers   to   the   husband   or   the   wife   of   the   subsisting   marriage.   Under   Article   35(4)   of   the   Family   Code,   bigamous   marriages   are   void   from   the   beginning.   Thus,   the   parties   in   a   bigamous  marriage  are  neither  the  husband  nor  the  wife   under   the  law.  The  husband  or  the   wife   of   the   prior   subsisting   marriage   is   the   one   who   has   the   personality   to   file   a   petition   for   declaration   of   absolute  nullity  of  void   marriage  under  Section  2(a)  of  A.M.  No.  02-­‐11-­‐10-­‐SC.”     x   x   x     When  the  right  of   the  spouse  to   protect  his  marriage  is   violated,  the  spouse  is   clearly  an  injured  party   and   is   therefore  interested  in   the   judgment  of     the     suit.  Juliano-­‐Llave     ruled     that     the     prior     spouse     “is     clearly     the  aggrieved   party   as   the   bigamous   marriage   not   only   threatens   the   financial  and   the   property  ownership  aspect  of   the  prior  marriage  but  most  of  all,  it  causes  an  emotional  burden  to   the     prior  spouse.” Being   a  real  party   in  interest,   the   prior   spouse   is   entitled   to   sue   in   order   to   declare   a   bigamous   marriage   void.   For   this   purpose,   he   can   petition   a   court   to   recognize   a   foreign   judgment   nullifying   the   bigamous   marriage   and   judicially   declare   as   a   fact   that   such   judgment   is   effective   in   the   Philippines.   Once   established,   there   should   be   no   more   impediment   to   cancel   the   entry   of   the   bigamous  marriage  in  the  civil  registry.  

 

34  

California  Clothing,  Inc.  and  Michelle  Ybañez  vs.  Shirley  Quiñones   G.R.  No.175822   October  23,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Peralta     Topic:  Exercise  of  Rights       Facts:   Shirley  G.  Quiñones  is  a  Reservation  Ticketing  Agent  of  Cebu  Pacific  Air  in  Lapu  Lapu  City,  went   inside  the  Guess  Boutique  at  the  second  floor  of  Robinson’s  Department  Store  in  Cebu  City.  She  decided   to  purchase  the  black  jeans.  Respondent  allegedly  paid  to  the  cashier  evidenced  by  a  receipt  issued  by   the  store.  While  she  was  walking  to  her  next  destination,  an  employee  from  the  Guess  store  approached   and   informed   her   that   she   failed   to   pay   the   item   she   got.   She,   however,   insisted   that   she   paid   and   showed  the  receipt  issued.  She  then  suggested  that  they  talk  about  it  at  the  Cebu  Pacific  Office  located   at  the  basement  of  the  mall.  When  she  arrived  at  the  Cebu  Pacific  Office,  the  Guess  employees  allegedly   subjected  her  to  humiliation  in  front  of  the  clients  of  Cebu  Pacific  and  repeatedly  demanded  payment   for   the   black   jeans.  They   supposedly   even   searched   her   wallet   to   check   how   much   money   she   had,   followed   by   another   argument.   On   the   same   day,   the   Guess   employees   allegedly   gave   a   letter   to   the   Director   of   Cebu   Pacific   Air   narrating   the   incident,   but   the   latter   refused   to   receive   it   as   it   did   not   concern   the   office.  Another   letter   was   allegedly   prepared   and   was   supposed   to   be   sent   to   the   Cebu   Pacific  Office  in  Robinson’s,  but  the  latter  again  refused  to  receive  it.  Respondent  also  claimed  that  the   Human  Resource  Department  of  Robinson’s  was  furnished  said  letter  and  the  latter  in  fact  conducted  an   investigation  for  purposes  of  canceling  respondent’s  Robinson’s  credit  card.  She  thus  filed  the  Complaint   for   Damages  before   the   RTC   against   petitioners   California   Clothing,   Inc.,   Villagonzalo,   Hawayon   and   Ybañez.   Petitioners   and   the   other   defendants   admitted   the   issuance   of   the   receipt   of   payment.   They   claimed,  however,  that  instead  of  the  cashier  (Hawayon)  issuing  the  official  receipt,  it  was  the  invoicer   (Villagonzalo)   who   did   it   manually.   They   explained   that   there   was   miscommunication   between   the   employees  at  that  time  because  prior  to  the  issuance  of  the  receipt.  Realizing  the  mistake,  Villagonzalo   rushed  outside  to  look  for  respondent  and  when  he  saw  the  latter,  he  invited  her  to  go  back  to  the  shop   to  make  clarifications  as  to  whether  or  not  payment  was  indeed  made.  Instead,  however,  of  going  back   to  the  shop,  respondent  suggested  that  they  meet  at  the  Cebu  Pacific  Office.  Villagonzalo,  Hawayon  and   Ybañez   thus   went   to   the   agreed   venue   where   they   talked   to   respondent.  They   pointed   out   that   it   appeared   in   their   conversation   that   respondent   could   not   recall   whom   she   gave   the   payment.  They   emphasized   that   they   were   gentle   and   polite   in   talking   to   respondent   and   it   was   the   latter   who   was   arrogant  in  answering  their  questions.         Issue:     Did   California   Clothing,   Inc.   and   Michelle   Ybañez   abuse   their   rights   by   subjecting   Shirley   Quiñones   to   ridicule   and   humiliation   by   their   act   of   questioning   and   the   sending   of   the   letter   to   the   Cebu   Pacific   Office?     Held:     Yes.      

 

35  

“In   this   case,   petitioners   claimed   that   there   was   a   miscommunication   between   the   cashier   and   the   invoicer   leading   to   the   erroneous   issuance   of   the   receipt   to   respondent.   When   they   realized   the   mistake,  they  made  a  cash  count  and  discovered  that  the  amount  which  is  equivalent  to  the  price  of  the   black   jeans   was   missing.   They,   thus,   concluded   that   it   was   respondent   who   failed   to   make   such   payment.   It   was,   therefore,   within   their   right   to   verify   from   respondent   whether   she   indeed   paid   or   not   and  collect  from  her  if  she  did  not.  However,  the  question  now  is  whether  such  right  was  exercised  in   good  faith  or  they  went  overboard  giving  respondent  a  cause  of  action  against  them.     Under  the  abuse  of  rights  principle  found  in  Article  19  of  the  Civil  Code,  a  person  must,  in  the  exercise  of   legal  right  or  duty,  act  in  good  faith.  He  would  be  liable  if  he  instead  acted  in  bad  faith,  with  intent  to   prejudice   another.  Good   faith   refers   to   the   state   of   mind   which   is   manifested   by   the   acts   of   the   individual   concerned.   It   consists   of   the   intention   to   abstain   from   taking   an   unconscionable   and   unscrupulous   advantage   of   another.  Malice   or   bad   faith,   on   the   other   hand,   implies   a   conscious   and   intentional  design  to  do  a  wrongful  act  for  a  dishonest  purpose  or  moral  obliquity.       Initially,   there   was   nothing   wrong   with   petitioners   asking   respondent   whether   she   paid   or   not.   The   Guess  employees  were  able  to  talk  to  respondent  at  the  Cebu  Pacific  Office.  The  confrontation  started   well,  but  it  eventually  turned  sour  when  voices  were  raised  by  both  parties.  As  aptly  held  by  both  the   RTC   and   the   CA,   such   was   the   natural   consequence   of   two   parties   with   conflicting   views   insisting   on   their  respective  beliefs.  Considering,  however,  that  respondent  was  in  possession  of  the  item  purchased   from   the   shop,   together   with   the   official   receipt   of   payment   issued   by   petitioners,   the   latter   cannot   insist   that   no   such   payment   was   made   on   the   basis   of   a   mere   speculation.   Their   claim   should   have   been   proven  by  substantial  evidence  in  the  proper  forum.     x   x   x     It   can   be   inferred   from   the   foregoing   that   in   sending   the   demand   letter   to   respondent’s   employer,   petitioners   intended   not   only   to   ask   for   assistance   in   collecting   the   disputed   amount   but   to   tarnish   respondent’s   reputation   in   the   eyes   of   her   employer.   To   malign   respondent   without   substantial   evidence   and   despite   the   latter’s   possession   of   enough   evidence   in   her   favor,   is   clearly   impermissible.   A   person   should   not   use   his   right   unjustly   or   contrary   to   honesty   and   good   faith,   otherwise,   he   opens   himself   to   liability.  The   exercise   of   a   right   must   be   in   accordance   with   the   purpose   for   which   it   was   established  and  must  not  be  excessive  or  unduly  harsh.  In  this  case,  petitioners  obviously  abused  their   rights.  

 

36  

Edilberto  U.  Ventura  Jr.  vs.  Spouses  Paulino  and  Evangeline  Abuda   G.R.  No.  202932   October  23,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Carpio     Topic:  Conjugal  Partnership  of  Gains       Facts:     Socorro  Torres  and  Esteban  Abletes  were  married.  They  never  had  common  children  but  both  of  them   had   children   from   prior   marriages.   Esteban   had   a   daughter   named   Evangeline   Abuda   and   Socorro   had   a   son,   who   was   the   father   of   Edilberto   U.   Ventura,   Jr.,   the   petitioner.   Socorro   had   a   prior   subsisting   marriage  to  Crispin  Roxas  when  she  married  Esteban.  This  marriage  was  not  annulled,  and  Crispin  was   alive  at  the  time  of  Socorro’s  marriage  to  Esteban.  According  to  Edilberto,  sometime  in  1968,  Esteban   purchased   a   portion   of   a   lot   situated   at   2492   State   Alley,   Bonifacio   Street,   Vitas,   Tondo,   Manila   (Vitas   Property).   The   remaining   portion   was   thereafter   purchased   by   Evangeline   on   her   father’s   behalf   .  The   Vitas   property   was   covered   by   Transfer   Certificate   of   Title   No.   141782,   issued   to   “Esteban   Abletes,   of   legal  age,  Filipino,  married  to  Socorro  Torres.”  According  to  Edilberto,  when  Esteban  was  diagnosed  with   colon   cancer,   he   decided   to   sell   the   Delpan   and   Vitas   properties   to   Evangeline.   Evangeline   continued   paying  the  amortizations  on  the  two  (2)  properties  situated  in  Delpan  Street.       Issue:     Are  the  Vitas  and  Delpan  property  presumed  to  be  co-­‐owned  by  Socorro  and  Esteban?     Held:     No.       Edilberto   admitted   that   in   unions   between   a   man   and   a   woman   who   are   incapacitated   to   marry   each   other,   the   ownership   over   the   properties   acquired   during   the   subsistence   of   that   relationship   shall   be   based  on  the  actual  contribution  of  the  parties.       Applying  the  foregoing  provision,  the  Vitas  and  Delpan  properties  can  be  considered  common  property   if:   (1)   these   were   acquired   during   the   cohabitation   of   Esteban   and   Socorro;   and   (2)   there   is   evidence   that  the  properties  were  acquired  through  the  parties’  actual  joint  contribution  of  money,  property,  or   industry.     The  title  itself  shows  that  the  Vitas  property  is  owned  by  Esteban  alone.  The  phrase  “married  to  Socorro   Torres”  is  merely  descriptive  of  his  civil  status,  and  does  not  show  that  Socorro  co-­‐owned  the  property.   The  evidence  on  record  also  shows  that  Esteban  acquired  ownership  over  the  Vitas  property  prior  to  his   marriage   to   Socorro,   even   if   the   certificate   of   title   was   issued   after   the   celebration   of   the   marriage.   Registration   under   the   Torrens   title   system   merely   confirms,   and   does   not   vest   title.   Edilberto   claims   that   Esteban's   actual   contribution   to   the   purchase   of   the   Delpan   property   was   not   sufficiently   proven   since   Evangeline   shouldered   some   of   the   amortizations.   Thus,   the   law   presumes   that   Esteban   and   Socorro  jointly  contributed  to  the  acquisition  of  the  Del  pan  property.    

 

37  

Thus,  it  is  clear  that  Evangeline  paid  on  behalf  of  her  father,  and  the  parties  intended  that  the  Delpan   property  would  be  owned  by  and  registered  under  the  name  of  Esteban.  

 

38  

The  Republic  of  the  Philippines  vs.  Liberty  D.  Albios   G.R.  No.  198780   October  16,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Mendoza     Topic:  Declaration  for  Nullity  of  Marriage     Facts:     Fringer  is  an  American  citizen  was  married  to  Albios.  Albios  filed  with  the  RTC  a  Petition  for  Declaration   of  Nullity  of  Marriage.  She  alleged  that  immediately  after  their  marriage,  they  separated  and  never  lived   as   husband   and   wife   because   they   never   really   had   any   intention   of   entering   into   a   married   state   or   complying  with  any  of  their  essential  marital  obligations.  She  described  their  marriage  as  one  made  in   jest   and,   therefore,   null   and   void  ab   initio.   The   RTC   declared   the   marriage   void  ab   initio,   declaring   the   marriage  of  Liberty  Albios  and  Daniel  Lee  Fringer  as  void  from  the  very  beginning.    The  RTC  was  of  the   view   that   the   parties   married   each   other   for   convenience   only.   Giving   credence   to   the   testimony   of   Albios,  it  stated  that  she  contracted  Fringer  to  enter  into  a  marriage  to  enable  her  to  acquire  American   citizenship;   that   in   consideration   thereof,   she   agreed   to   pay   him   the   sum   of   $2,000.00;   that   after   the   ceremony,  the  parties  went  their  separate  ways;  that  Fringer  returned  to  the  United  States  and  never   again   communicated   with   her;   and   that,   in   turn,   she   did   not   pay   him   the   $2,000.00   because   he   never   processed  her  petition  for  citizenship.  The  RTC,  thus,  ruled  that  when  marriage  was  entered  into  for  a   purpose  other  than  the  establishment  of  a  conjugal  and  family  life,  such  was  a  farce  and  should  not  be   recognized  from  its  inception.  The  CA  affirmed  the  RTC  ruling  which  found  that  the  essential  requisite  of   consent  was  lacking.       Issue:     Is  a  marriage  contracted  for  the  sole  purpose  of  acquiring  American  citizenship  in  consideration  of   $2,000.00  void  ab  initio  on  the  ground  of  lack  of  consent?     Held:     No.       Under  said  Article  2,  for  consent  to  be  valid,  it  must  be  (1)  freely  given  and  (2)  made  in  the  presence  of  a   solemnizing   officer.   A   “freely   given”   consent   requires   that   the   contracting   parties   willingly   and   deliberately   enter   into   the   marriage.   Consent   must   be  real  in   the   sense   that   it   is   not   vitiated   nor   rendered  defective  by  any  of  the  vices  of  consent  under  Articles  45  and  46  of  the  Family  Code,  such  as   fraud,  force,  intimidation,  and  undue  influence.  Consent  must  also  be  conscious  or  intelligent,  in  that  the   parties   must   be   capable   of   intelligently   understanding   the   nature   of,   and   both   the   beneficial   or   unfavorable   consequences   of   their   act.  Their   understanding   should   not   be   affected   by   insanity,   intoxication,drugs,  or  hypnotism.       Based  on  the  above,  consent  was  not  lacking  between  Albios  and  Fringer.  In  fact,  there  was  real  consent   because   it   was   not   vitiated   nor   rendered   defective   by   any   vice   of   consent.   Their   consent   was   also  conscious   and   intelligent  as   they   understood   the   nature   and   the   beneficial   and   inconvenient   consequences   of   their   marriage,   as   nothing   impaired   their   ability   to   do   so.   That   their   consent   was   freely   given  is  best  evidenced  by  their  conscious  purpose  of  acquiring  American  citizenship  through  marriage.  

 

39  

Such   plainly   demonstrates   that   they   willingly   and   deliberately   contracted   the   marriage.   There   was   a   clear  intention  to  enter  into  a  real  and  valid  marriage  so  as  to  fully  comply  with  the  requirements  of  an   application  for  citizenship.  There  was  a  full  and  complete  understanding  of  the  legal  tie  that  would  be   created  between  them,  since  it  was  that  precise  legal  tie  which  was  necessary  to  accomplish  their  goal.     In   ruling   that   Albios’   marriage   was   void   for   lack   of   consent,   the   CA   characterized   such   as   akin   to   a   marriage  by  way  of  jest.  A  marriage  in  jest  is  a  pretended  marriage,  legal  in  form  but  entered  into  as  a   joke,  with  no  real  intention  of  entering  into  the  actual  marriage  status,  and  with  a  clear  understanding   that  the  parties  would  not  be  bound.     The  ceremony  is  not  followed  by  any  conduct  indicating  a  purpose  to  enter  into  such  a  relation.  It  is  a   pretended  marriage  not  intended  to  be  real  and  with  no  intention  to  create  any  legal  ties  whatsoever,   hence,   the   absence   of   any   genuine   consent.   Marriages   in   jest   are   void  ab   initio,   not   for   vitiated,   defective,  or  unintelligent  consent,  but  for  a  complete  absence  of  consent.  There  is  no  genuine  consent   because   the   parties   have   absolutely   no   intention   of   being   bound   in   any   way   or   for   any   purpose.     The   respondent’s   marriage   is   not   at   all   analogous   to   a   marriage   in   jest.   Albios   and   Fringer   had   an   undeniable  intention  to  be  bound  in  order  to  create  the  very  bond  necessary  to  allow  the  respondent  to   acquire  American  citizenship.  Only  a  genuine  consent  to  be  married  would  allow  them  to  further  their   objective,   considering   that   only   a   valid   marriage   can   properly   support   an   application   for   citizenship.   There   was,   thus,   an   apparent   intention   to   enter   into   the   actual   marriage   status   and   to   create   a   legal   tie,   albeit  for  a  limited  purpose.  Genuine  consent  was,  therefore,  clearly  present.     The   avowed   purpose   of   marriage   under   Article   1   of   the   Family   Code   is   for   the   couple   to   establish   a   conjugal   and   family   life.   The   possibility   that   the   parties   in   a   marriage   might   have   no   real   intention   to   establish  a  life  together  is,  however,  insufficient  to  nullify  a  marriage  freely  entered  into  in  accordance   with   law.   The   same   Article   1   provides   that   the   nature,   consequences,   and   incidents   of   marriage   are   governed   by   law   and   not   subject   to   stipulation.   A   marriage   may,   thus,   only   be   declared   void   or   voidable   under   the   grounds   provided   by   law.   There   is   no   law   that  declares   a   marriage   void   if   it   is   entered   into   for   purposes  other  than  what  the  Constitution  or  law  declares,  such  as  the  acquisition  of  foreign  citizenship.   Therefore,  so  long  as  all  the  essential  and  formal  requisites  precribed  by  law  are  present,  and  it  is  not   void  or  voidable  under  the  grounds  provided  by  law,  it  shall  be  declared  valid.       Motives  for  entering  into  a  marriage  are  varied  and  complex.  The  State  does  not  and  cannot  dictate  on   the  kind  of  life  that  a  couple  chooses  to  lead.  Any  attempt  to  regulate  their  lifestyle  would  go  into  the   realm   of   their   right   to   privacy   and   would   raise   serious   constitutional   questions.  The   right   to   marital   privacy   allows   married   couples   to   structure   their   marriages   in   almost   any   way   they   see   fit,   to   live   together   or   live   apart,   to   have   children   or   no   children,   to   love   one   another   or   not,   and   so   on.   Thus,   marriages  entered  into  for  other  purposes,  limited  or  otherwise,  such  as  convenience,  companionship,   money,  status,  and  title,  provided  that  they  comply  with  all  the  legal  requisites,  are  equally  valid.  Love,   though   the   ideal   consideration   in   a   marriage   contract,   is   not   the   only   valid   cause   for   marriage.   Other   considerations,  not  precluded  by  law,  may  validly  support  a  marriage.  

 

40  

Estrella  Aduan  Orpiano  vs.  Spouses  Antonio  C.  Tomas  and  Myrna  U.  Tomas   G.R.  No.  178611   January  14,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Del  Castillo     Topic:  Sale  of  Conjugal  Property     Facts:     Petitioner  Estrella  Aduan  Orpiano  is  the  widow  of  Alejandro  Orpiano.  Part  of  their  conjugal  estate  is  a  lot   covered  by  TCT  No.  RT-­‐23468.  A  Decision  was  rendered  by  the  defunct  Juvenile  and   Domestic  Relations   Court  declaring  Estrella  an  absent/absentee  spouse  and  granting  Alejandro  the  authority  to  sell  the  lot.   Alejandro  sold  the  lot  on  installment  basis  to  respondent  spouses  Antonio  and  Myrna  Tomas.  That  very   same  day,  a  new  title  was  issued  in  the  name  of  the  Spouses  Tomas  despite  the  fact  that  the  purchase   price   has   not   been   paid   in   full,   the   spouses   having   been   given   until   December   of   that   same   year   to   complete   their   payment.   Alejandro   filed   a   collection   case   in   the   RTC   seeking   collection   of   the   balance   of   the   price   in   the   amount   supposedly   left   unpaid   by   the   Tomas   spouses.   During   the   pendency   of   the   collection  case,  Alejandro  passed  away.  His  heirs  including  Estrella  were  substituted  in  his  stead  in  the   collection   case.   Estrella   moved   to   amend   the   Complaint   to   one   for   Rescission/   Annulment   of   Sale   and   Cancellation  of  Title,  but  was  denied  by  the  Court.  She  next  moved  to  be  dropped  as  party  plaintiff  but   was  again  rebuffed.  Estrella  filed  for  annulment  of  the  March  1996  sale  and  cancellation  of  TCT  No.  N-­‐ 152326.   Estrella   claimed   that   the   1979   declaration   of   her   absence   and   accompanying   authority   to   sell   the  lot  were  obtained  by  Alejandro  through  misrepresentation,  fraud  and  deceit,  adding  that  the  May   1979  JDRC  Decision  was  not  published  as  required  by  law  and  by  the  domestic  relations  court.  Thus,  the   declaration   of   absence   and   Alejandro’s   authority   to   sell   the   lot   are   null   and   void.   The   Tomas   spouses   prayed   for   the   dismissal   thereof   on   the   ground   of   forum   shopping,   arguing   that   the   filing   of   the   annulment   case   was   prompted   by   the   denial   of   Estrella’s   motion   initiated   in   the   collection   case   to   amend  the  Complaint  to  one  for  annulment  of  sale.  The  trial  court  dismissed  the  annulment  case.       Issue:     Can  Estrella  maintain  her  collection  case  for  her  conjugal  share  and  at  the  same  time  file  an  annulment   case  for  the  sale  based  on  the  absence  of  her  consent?       Held:     No.       “As   plaintiff   in   the   collection   case,   Estrella   –   though   merely   succeeding   to   Alejandro’s   rights   –   was   an   indispensable   party,   or   one   without   whom   no   final   determination   can   be   had   in   the   collection   case.   Strictly,  she  may  not  be  dropped  from  the  case.  However,  because  of  her  dual  identity,  first  as  heir  and   second   as   owner   of   her   conjugal   share,   she   has   been   placed   in   the   unique   position   where   she   has   to   succeed   to   her   husband’s   rights,   even   as   she   must   protect   her   separate   conjugal   share   from   Alejandro’s   perceived  undue  disposition.  She  may  not  seek  to  amend  the  cause  of  action  in  the  collection  case  to   one   for   annulment   of   sale,   because   this   adversely   affects   the   interests   of   her   co-­‐heirs,   which   is   precisely   to  obtain  payment  of  the  supposed  balance  of  the  sale  price.  Nor  may  Estrella  simultaneously  maintain   the  two  actions  in  both  capacities,  as  heir  in  the  collection  case  and  as  separate  owner  of  her  conjugal   share  in  the  annulment  case.  This  may  not  be  done,  because,  as  was  earlier  on  declared,  this  amounts  to  

 

41  

simultaneously   accepting   and   rejecting   the   same   deed   of   sale.   Nor   is   it   possible   to   prosecute   the   annulment   case   simultaneously   with   the   collection   case,   on   the   premise   that   what   is   merely   being   annulled  is  the  sale  by  Alejandro  of  Estrella’s  conjugal  share.  To  repeat,  the  absence  of  the  consent  of   one  spouse  to  a  sale  renders  the  entire  sale  null  and  void,  including  the  portion  of  the  conjugal  property   pertaining  to  the  spouse  who  contracted  the  sale.     Undoubtedly,   Estrella   had   the   right   to   maintain   the   annulment   case   as   a   measure   of   protecting   her   conjugal   share.   There   thus   exists   a   just   cause   for   her   to   be   dropped   as   party   plaintiff   in   the   collection   case  so  that  she  may  institute  and  maintain  the  annulment  case  without  violating  the  rule  against  forum   shopping.  Unless  this  is  done,  she  stands  to  lose  her  share  in  the  conjugal  property.”  

 

42  

Spouses  Benjamin  Mamaril  and  Sonia  Mamaril  vs.  The  Boy  Scout  of  the  Philippines   G.R.  No.  179382   January  14,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Perlas-­‐Bernabe     Topic:  Human  Relations     Facts:     Spouses  Benjamin  C.  Mamaril  and  Sonia  P.  Mamaril  would  park  their  6  passenger  jeepneys  every  night   at  the  Boy  Scout  of  the  Philippines'  compound.  One  evening,  all  these  vehicles  were  parked  inside  the   BSP  compound;  however,  one  of  the  vehicles  was  missing  and  was  never  recovered.  The  guards  claimed   that   a   male   person   took   the   subject   vehicle   out   of   the   compound.   Sps.   Mamaril   filed   a   complaint  for   damages  before  the  RTC  and  averred  that  the  loss  of  the  subject  vehicle  was  due  to  the  gross  negligence   of   the   above-­‐named   security   guards   on-­‐duty   who   allowed   the   subject   vehicle   to   be   driven   out   by   a   stranger   despite   their   agreement   that   only   authorized   drivers   duly   endorsed   by   the   owners   could   do   so.   BSP   denied   any   liability   contending   that   not   only   did   Sps.   Mamaril   directly   deal   with   AIB   with   respect   to   the  manner  by  which  the  parked  vehicles  would  be  handled,  but  the  parking  ticket  itself  expressly  stated   that  the  "Management  shall  not  be  responsible  for  loss  of  vehicle  or  any  of  its  accessories  or  article  left   therein."       Issue:     Is  BSP  liable  for  the  lost  of  the  vehicle  due  to  their  negligence?     Held:     No.       “Article   20   of   the   Civil   Code   provides   that   every   person,   who,   contrary   to   law,   willfully   or   negligently   causes  damage  to  another,  shall  indemnify  the  latter  for  the  same.”     “In   this   case,   it   is   undisputed   that   the   proximate   cause   of   the   loss   of   Sps.   Mamaril's   vehicle   was   the   negligent   act   of   security   guards   Peña   and   Gaddi   in   allowing   an   unidentified   person   to   drive   out   the   subject   vehicle.   Proximate   cause   has   been   defined   as   that   cause,   which,   in   natural   and   continuous   sequence,  unbroken  by  any  efficient  intervening  cause,  produces  the  injury  or  loss,  and  without  which   the  result  would  not  have  occurred.”    

 

43  

Ma.  Carminia  C.  Calderon  vs.  Jose  Antonio  F.  Roxas  and  the  Court  of  Appeals   G.R.  No.  185595   January  9,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Villarama  Jr.       Topic:  Support  Pendente  Lite     Facts:     Ma.   Carminia   C.   Calderon   and   Jose   Antonio   F.   Roxas,   were   married.   Calderon   filed   an   Amended   Complaint  for   the   Declaration   of   Nullity   of   their   Marriage   on   the   ground   of   psychological   incapacity   under  Art.  36  of  the  Family  Code  of  the  Philippines.  The  trial  court  issued  an  Order  granting  petitioner’s   application   for   support   pendente   lite.   Roxas   filed   a   Motion   to   Reduce   Support   citing,   among   other   grounds,  that  the  monthly  support  for  the  children  as  fixed  by  the  court  was  even  higher  than  his  then   monthly   salary   as   city   councilor.   The   trial   court   issued   an   Order  dated   March   7,   2005   granting   the   motion   to   reduce   support   and   denying   petitioner’s   motion   for   spousal   support,   increase   of   the   children’s   monthly   support   pendente   lite   and   support-­‐in-­‐arrears.   Calderon   filed   a   motion   for   partial   reconsideration   of   the   March   7,   2005   Order   which   was   denied   on   May   4,   2005.   On   June   14,   2005,   Calderon   through   counsel   filed   a   Notice   of   Appeal   from   the   Orders   dated   March   7,   2005   and   May   4,   2005.       Issue:     Are  the  March  7,  2005  and  May  4,  2005  Orders  on  the  matter  of  support  pendente  lite  interlocutory  or   final?     Held:     Yes.       “The  assailed  orders  relative  to  the  incident  of  support  pendente  lite  and  support   in  arrears,  as  the  term   suggests,   were   issued   pending   the   rendition   of   the   decision   on   the   main   action   for   declaration   of   nullity   of  marriage,  and  are  therefore  interlocutory.  They  did  not  finally  dispose  of  the  case  nor  did  they  consist   of   a   final   adjudication   of   the   merits   of   petitioner’s   claims   as   to   the   ground   of   psychological   incapacity   and  other  incidents  as  child  custody,  support  and  conjugal  assets.     The  Rules  of  Court  provide  for  the  provisional  remedy  of  support  pendente  lite  which  may  be  availed   of   at  the  commencement  of  the  proper  action  or  proceeding,  or  at  any  time  prior  to  the  judgment  or  final   order.  On  March  4,  2003,  this  Court  promulgated  the  Rule  on  Provisional  Orders  which  shall  govern  the   issuance   of   provisional   orders   during   the   pendency   of   cases   for   the   declaration   of   nullity   of   marriage,   annulment   of   voidable   marriage   and   legal   separation.   These   include   orders   for   spousal   support,   child   support,   child   custody,   visitation   rights,   hold   departure,   protection   and   administration   of   common   property.”     “The   subject   orders   on   the   matter   of   support   pendente   lite   are   but   an   incident   to   the   main   action   for   declaration  of  nullity  of  marriage.”    

 

44  

 

           

 

PROPERTY  CASES          

 

45  

Evangeline  Rivera-­‐Calingasan  vs.  Wilfredo  Rivera   G.R.  No.171555   April  17,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Brion     Topic:  Forcible  Entry     Facts:     Wilfredo  Rivera  and  his  wife,  Loreto  Inciong,  acquired  several  parcels  of  land.  When  Loreto  died,  he  was   survived   by   Wilfredo   and   their   two   daughters,   Evangeline   and   Brigida   Liza.   Loreto’s   heirs   executed   an   extrajudicial   settlement   of   her   one-­‐half   share   of   the   conjugal   estate,   adjudicating   all   the   properties   in   favor  of  Evangeline  and  Brigida  Liza  while  Wilfredo  waived  his  rights  to  the  properties,  with  a  reservation   of   his   usufructuary   rights   during   his   lifetime.   Wilfredo   filed   with   MTC   a   Complaint   for   Forcible   Entry   against   the   petitioners   and   Star   Honda,   Inc.   claiming   that   he   lawfully   possessed   and   occupied   the   2   parcels  of  land  with  a  building  used  for  his  furniture  business.  Taking  advantage  of  his  absence  due  to  his   hospital  confinement,  the  petitioners  and  Star  Honda,  Inc.  took  possession  and  caused  the  renovation  of   the  building  on  the  property.  The  petitioners  and  Star  Honda,  Inc.,  with  the  aid  of  armed  men,  barred   him  from  entering  the  property.    Both  the  Petitioners  countered  that  Wilfredo  voluntarily  renounced  his   usufructuary   rights   in   a   Petition   for   Cancellation   of   Usufructuary   Rights.   The   Court   held   that   Wilfredo   lacked  a  cause  of  action  to  evict  the  petitioners  and  Star  Honda,  Inc.  since  Evangeline  is  the  registered   owner  of  the  property  and  Wilfredo  had  voluntarily  renounced  his  usufructuary  rights.     Issue:     Should   the   ejectment   case   prosper   on   the   ground   that   Wilfredo   have   prior   physical   possession   of   the   property?     Held:     Yes.       “The  only  question  that  the  courts  resolve  in  ejectment  proceedings  is:  who  is  entitled  to  the  physical   possession   of   the   premises,   that   is,   to   the   possession   de   facto   and   not   to   the   possession   de   jure.   It   does   not   even   matter   if   a   party's   title   to   the   property   is   questionable."  Thus,   "an   ejectment   case   will   not   necessarily  be  decided  in  favor  of  one  who  has  presented  proof  of  ownership  of  the  subject  property."       Indeed,  possession  in  ejectment  cases  "means  nothing  more  than  actual  physical  possession,  not  legal   possession  in  the  sense  contemplated  in  civil  law."  In  a  forcible  entry  case,  "prior  physical  possession  is   the  primary  consideration."  "A  party  who  can  prove  prior  possession  can  recover  such  possession  even   against  the  owner  himself.  Whatever  may  be  the  character  of  his  possession,  if  he  has  in  his  favor  prior   possession   in   time,   he   has   the   security   that   entitles   him   to   remain   on   the   property   until   a   person   with   a   better  right  lawfully  ejects  him."  "The  party  in  peaceable,  quiet  possession  shall  not  be  thrown  out  by  a   strong  hand,  violence,  or  terror."       The  respondents  have  proven  prior  physical  possession  of  the  property.  In  this  case,  we  are  convinced   that  Wilfredo  had  been  in  prior  possession  of  the  property  and  that  the  petitioners  deprived  him  of  such   possession  by  means  of  force,  strategy  and  stealth.”  

 

46  

Spouses  Cabahug  vs.  National  Power  Corporation   G.R.  No.  186069   January  30,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Perez     Topic:  Power  of  Eminent  Domain     Facts:     The   Spouses   Cabahug   are   the   owners   of   2   parcels   of   land   registered   in   their   names.   A   suit   for   expropriation  was  filed  covering  the  properties  by  NPC  before  the  RTC,  in  connection  with  its  Leyte-­‐Cebu   Interconnection  Project,  which  was  dismissed  when  NPC  opted  to  settle  with  the  landowners  by  paying   an  easement  fee  equivalent  to  10%  of  value  of  their  property.  Jesus  Cabahug  executed  two  documents   denominated  as  Right  of  Way  Grant  in  favor  of  NPC.  Jesus  Cabahug  granted  NPC  a  continuous  easement   of   right   of   way   for   the   latter’s   transmissions   lines   and   their   appurtenances   over   the   said   parcels   of   land.   Jesus   Cabahug   agreed   not   to   construct   any   building   or   structure   whatsoever,   nor   plant   in   any   area   within   the   Right   of   Way   that   will   adversely   affect   or   obstruct   the   transmission   line   of   NPC,   except   agricultural   crops,   the   growth   of   which   will   not   exceed   three   meters   high   but   reserved   the   option   to   seek   additional   compensation   for   easement   fee,   based   on   the   Supreme   Court’s   in   National   Power   Corporation   v.   Spouses   Misericordia   Gutierrez   and   Ricardo   Malit,   et   al.   with   G.R.   No.   60077.   Spouses   Cabahug  filed  the  complaint  for  the  payment  of  just  compensation,  damages  and  attorney’s  fees  against   NPC.   Claiming   to   have   been  totally  deprived   of  the  use   of   the   portions   of  land   and  alleged   among   other   matters,   that   in   accordance   with   the   reservation,   they   have   demanded   from   NPC   payment   of   the   balance  of  the  just  compensation  for  the  subject  properties  which,  based  on  the  valuation  fixed  by  the   Leyte  Provincial  Appraisal  Committee.       Issue:     Can   the   Spouses   Cabahug   ask   for   additional   compensation   on   the   ground   that   they   have   been   totally   deprived  of  the  use  of  the  portions  of  the  subject  land?       Held:     Yes.       “Where  the  right  of  way  easement,  as  in  this  case,  similarly  involves  transmission  lines  which  not  only   endangers  life  and  limb  but  restricts  as  well  the  owner's  use  of  the  land  traversed  thereby,  the  ruling  in   Gutierrez   remains   doctrinal   and   should   be   applied.  It   has   been   ruled   that   the   owner   should   be   compensated   for   the   monetary   equivalent   of   the   land   if,   as   here,   the   easement   is   intended   to   perpetually   or   indefinitely   deprive   the   owner   of   his   proprietary   rights   through   the   imposition   of   conditions   that   affect   the   ordinary   use,   free   enjoyment   and   disposal   of   the   property   or   through   restrictions   and   limitations   that   are   inconsistent   with   the   exercise   of   the   attributes   of   ownership,   or   when   the   introduction   of   structures   or   objects   which,   by   their   nature,   create   or   increase   the   probability   of  injury,  death  upon  or  destruction  of  life  and  property  found  on  the  land  is  necessary.  Measured  not   by  the  taker’s  gain  but  the  owner’s  loss,  just  compensation  is  defined  as  the  full  and  fair  equivalent  of   the  property  taken  from  its  owner  by  the  expropriator.”  

 

47  

Mercy  Vda.  De  Roxas  vs.  Our  Lady’s  Foundation,  Inc.   G.R.  No.  182378   March  6,  2013   Ponente:  CJ.  Sereno     Topic:  Rights  of  Builder  in  Bad  Faith     Facts:     Salve  Dealca  Latosa  filed  a  Complaint  for  the  Recovery  of  Ownership  of  a  portion  of  her  residential  land   located   at   Our   Lady’s   Village.   She   alleged   that   Petitioner   Atty.   Henry   Amado   Roxas   encroached   on   a   quarter   of   her   property   by   arbitrarily   extending   his   concrete   fence   beyond   the   correct   limits.   In   his   Answer,   Roxas   imputed   the   blame   to   respondent   Our   Lady’s   Village   Foundation,   Inc.,   now   Our   Lady’s   Foundation,  Inc  and  filed  a  Third-­‐Party  Complaint  against  respondent  and  claimed  that  he  only  occupied   the   adjoining   portion   in   order   to   get   the   equivalent   area   of   what   he   had   lost   when   OLFI   trimmed   his   property   for   the   subdivision   road.   The   Trial   Court   held   that   Latosa   had   established   her   claim   of   encroachment   by   a   preponderance   of   evidence.   It   found   that   Roxas   occupied   a   total   of   112   square   meters   of   Latosa’s   lots,   and   that,   in   turn,   OLFI   trimmed   his   property   by   92   square   meters.   Having   it   become   final,   the   RTC   issued   a   Writ   of   Execution  to   implement   the   ruling   ordering   OLFI   to   reimburse   Roxas  for  the  value  of  the  92-­‐square-­‐meter  property  plus  legal  interest  to  be  reckoned  from  the  time  the   amount   was   paid   to   the   third-­‐party   defendant.   The   trial   court   then   approved   the   Sheriff’s   Bill,  which   valued   the   subject   property   at  P2,500   per   square   meter   or   a   total   of  P230,000.   Adding   the   legal   interest   of   12%   per   annum   for   10   years,   respondent’s   judgment   obligations   totaled  P506,000.   Opposing   the   valuation   of   the   subject   property,   OLFI   filed   a   Motion   to   Quash   the   Sheriff’s   Bill   and   a   Motion   for   Inhibition  of  the  RTC  judge.  It  insisted  that  it  should  reimburse  Roxas  only  at  the  rate  of  P40  per  square   meter,  the  same  rate  that  Roxas  paid  when  the  latter  first  purchased  the  property.  Nevertheless,  before   resolving   the   Motions   filed   by   OLFI,   the   trial   court   approved   an   Amended   Sheriff’s   Bill,  which   reduced   the  valuation  to  P1,800  per  square  meter.  Eventually,  the  RTC  denied  both  the  Motion  for  Inhibition  and   the   Motion   to   Quash   the   Sheriff’s   Bill.   It   cited   fairness   to   justify   the   computation   of   respondent’s   judgment  obligation  found  in  the  Amended  Sheriff’s  Bill  stating  that  although  it  might  be  true  that  the   property   was   originally   purchased   at  P40.00   per   square   meter,   the   value   of   the   Philippine   Peso   has   greatly   devaluated.   Refusing   to   pay  P1,800   per   square   meter   to   Roxas,   OLFI   filed   a   Rule   65   Petition   before  the  CA.  The  CA  construed  reimbursement  as  an  obligation  to  pay  back  what  was  previously  paid   and   thus   required   OLFI   to   merely   reimburse   him   at   the   rate   of  P40   per   square   meter,   which   was   the   consideration  respondent  had  received  when  Roxas  purchased  the  subdivision  lots.       Issue:     In  reimbursing  Roxas  for  the  land  encroached  upon  by  OLFI,  should  the  rate  at  the  time  of  purchase  be   the  one  used  as  basis?     Held:     No.       “To   settle   the   contention,   this   Court   resorts   to   the   provisions   of   the   Civil   Code   governing   encroachment   on   property.   Under   Article   448   pertaining   to   encroachments   in   good   faith,   as   well   as   Article   450  

 

48  

referring  to  encroachments  in  bad  faith,  the  owner  of  the  land  encroached  upon  –  petitioner  herein  –   has  the  option  to  require  respondent  builder  to  pay  the  price  of  the  land.     Although  these  provisions  of  the  Civil  Code  do  not  explicitly  state  the  reckoning  period  for  valuing  the   property,   Ballatan   v.   Court   of   Appeals  already   specifies   that   in   the   event   that   the   seller   elects   to   sell   the   lot,   "the   price   must   be   fixed   at   the   prevailing   market   value   at   the   time   of   payment."   More   recently,   Tuatis  v.  Spouses  Escol  illustrates  that  the  present  or  current  fair  value  of  the  land  is  to  be  reckoned  at   the  time  that  the  landowner  elected  the  choice,  and  not  at  the  time  that  the  property  was  purchased.  “   x   x   x     “From   these   cases,   it   follows   that   the   CA   incorrectly   pegged   the   reimbursable   amount   at   the   old   market   value   of   the   subject   property   –  P40   per   square   meter   –   as   reflected   in   the   Deed   of   Absolute   Sale  between  the  parties.  On  the  other  hand,  the  RTC  properly  considered  in  its  2  December  2004  Order   the   value   of   the   lot   at  P1,800   per   square   meter,   the   current   fair   price   as   determined   in   the   Amended   Sheriff’s   Bill.   Thus,   we   reverse   the   ruling   of   the   CA   and   reinstate   the   2   December   2004   Order   of   the   RTC   directing  OLFI  to  reimburse  petitioner  at  P1,800  per  square  meter.”  

 

49  

Juanita  Ermitaño  vs.  Lailanie  M.  Paglas   G.R.  No.  174436   January  23,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Peralta     Topic:  Right  of  Redemption       Facts:     Petitioner   Juanita   Ermitaño   through   her   representative,   lsabelo   R.   Ermitaño,   executed   a   Contract   of   Lease   for   a   period   of   1   year,   wherein   petitioner   leased   in   favor   of   respondent   Lailanie   M.   Paglas   a   residential   lot   and   a   house.   The   contract   period   is   one   (1)   year,   which   commenced   on   November   4,   1999.   Subsequent   to   the   execution   of   the   lease   contract,   respondent   received   information   that   sometime   in   March   1999,   petitioner   mortgaged   the   subject   property   in   favor   of   a   certain   Charlie   Yap   (Yap)   and   that   the   same   was   already   foreclosed   with   Yap   as   the   purchaser   of   the   disputed   lot   in   an   extra-­‐judicial  foreclosure  sale  which  was  registered  on  February  22,  2000.  Yap's  brother  later  offered   to   sell  the  subject  property  to  respondent.  Respondent  entertained  the  said  offer  and  negotiations  ensued.   On  June  1,  2000,  respondent  bought  the  subject  property  from  Yap.  A  Deed  of  Sale  of  Real  Property  was   executed  by  the  parties  as  evidence  of  the  contract.  However,  it  was  made  clear  in  the  said  Deed  that   the  property  was  still  subject  to  petitioner's  right  of  redemption.  Prior  to  respondent's  purchase  of  the   subject  property,  petitioner  filed  a  suit  for  the  declaration  of  nullity  of  the  mortgage  in  favor  of  Yap  as   well  as  the  sheriff's  provisional  certificate  of  sale  which  was  issued  after  the  disputed  house  and  lot  were   sold  on  foreclosure.  Meanwhile,  on  May  25,  2000,  petitioner  sent  a  letter  demanding  respondent  to  pay   the  rentals  which  are  due  and  to  vacate  the  leased  premises.  A  year  later,  a  second  demand  letter  was   sent  but  both  letters  were  ignored.  Petitioner  filed  with  the  MTCC  a  case  of  unlawful  detainer  against   respondent   that   was   dismissed,   which   prompted   Petitioner   to   file   an   appeal   with   the   RTC.   The   RTC   ordered   to   pay   plaintiff   herein   petitioner   the   equivalent   of   10   months   unpaid   rentals   on   the   property   but   dismissed   the   unlawful   detainer   case.   Petitioner   filed   a   petition   for   review   with   the   CA   which   affirmed  the  decision.     Issue:     Is   Ermitaño   entitled   to   the   physical   possession   of   the   premises   because   the   right   of   redemption   has   not   yet  expired?     Held:     Yes.       “There  is  no  dispute  that  at  the  time  that  respondent  purchased  Yap's  rights  over  the  subject  property,   petitioner's  right  of  redemption  as  a  mortgagor  has  not  yet  expired.  It  is  settled  that  during  the  period  of   redemption,   it   cannot   be   said   that   the   mortgagor   is   no   longer   the   owner   of   the   foreclosed   property,   since   the   rule   up   to   now   is   that   the   right   of   a   purchaser   at   a   foreclosure   sale   is   merely   inchoate   until   after   the   period   of   redemption   has   expired   without   the   right   being   exercised.  The   title   to   land   sold   under   mortgage   foreclosure   remains   in   the   mortgagor   or   his   grantee   until   the   expiration   of   the   redemption   period   and   conveyance   by   the   master's   deed.   Indeed,   the   rule   has   always   been   that   it   is   only  upon  the  expiration  of  the  redemption  period,  without  the  judgment  debtor  having  made  use  of  his   right  of  redemption,  that  the  ownership  of  the  land  sold  becomes  consolidated  in  the  purchaser.”  

 

50  

“It,   thus,   clearly   follows   from   the   foregoing   that,   during   the   period   of   redemption,   the   mortgagor,   being   still  the  owner  of  the  foreclosed  property,  remains  entitled  to  the  physical  possession  thereof  subject  to   the   purchaser's   right   to   petition   the   court   to   give   him   possession   and   to   file   a   bond   pursuant   to   the   provisions  of  Section  7  of  Act  No.  3135,  as  amended.  The  mere  purchase  and  certificate  of  sale  alone  do   not  confer  any  right  to  the  possession  or  beneficial  use  of  the  premises.       In   the   instant   case,   there   is   neither   evidence   nor   allegation   that   respondent,   as   purchaser   of   the   disputed  property,  filed  a  petition  and  bond  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Section  7  of  Act  No.   3135.   In   addition,   respondent   defaulted   in   the   payment   of   her   rents.   Thus,   absent   respondent's   filing   of   such  petition  and  bond  prior  to  the  expiration  of  the  period  of  redemption,  coupled  with  her  failure  to   pay  her  rent,  she  did  not  have  the  right  to  possess  the  subject  property.”  

 

51  

Purificacion  and  Ruperto  Estanislao  vs.  Spouses  Norma  and  Damiano  Gudito   G.R.  NO.  173166   March  13,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Peralta     Topic:  Unlawful  Detainer     Facts:     Respondents  Spouses  Norma  and  Damiano  Gudito  are  the  owners  of  a  residential  lot  being  leased  by   petitioners   on   a   month-­‐to-­‐month  basis.  Petitioners  has  been  renting  and  occupying  the  subject  lot  since   1934   and   were   the   ones   who   built   the   house   on   the   subject   lot   in   accordance   with   their   lease   agreement   with   one   Gaspar   Vasquez.   When   Gaspar   Vasquez   died,   the   portion   of   the   lot   on   which   petitioners'   house   was   erected   was   inherited   by   his   son   Victorino   Vasquez   who   was   then   married   to   Ester   Vasquez.   The   Vasquez   couple   wanted   the   Estanislao   family   and   the   other   tenants   to   vacate   the   said   property,   but   the   tenants   refused.   The   Vasquez   couple   refused   to   accept   their   rental   payments.   Thus,  petitioner  Purificacion  Estanislao,  with  due  notice  to  Ester  Vasquez,  deposited  the  amount  of  her   monthly  rentals  at  Allied  Banking  Corporation  under  a  savings  account  in  the  name  of  Ester  Vasquez  as   lessor.  A  Deed  of  Donation  was  executed  by  the  Vasquez  couple  in  favor  of  respondent  Norma  Vasquez   Gudito.   Hence,   in   October   1994,  respondents   notified   petitioners  to   remove  their   house   and   vacate  the   premises  within  three  months  because  of  their  urgent  need  of  the  residential  lot.  However,  petitioners   failed   to   comply.   On   November   10,   1995,   respondents   filed   a   Complaint   for   Unlawful   Detainer/   Ejectment   against   petitioners   before   the   MeTC   which   rendered   a   decision  in   favor   of   respondents.   MeTC's  decision  was  reversed  by  RTC.  The  CA  annulled  and  set  aside  the  RTC's  decision  and  reinstated   the  MeTC's  decision.       Issue:     Do   the   Spouses   Norma   and   Damiano   Gudito   have   the   better   right   of   possession   over   the   subject   property?     Held:     No.       “Petitioners  strongly  argue  that  respondents  cannot  evict  them  from  the  subject  property  pursuant  to   Presidential  Decree  (P.D.)  1517,  in  relation  to  P.D.  2016,  as  the  subject  property  is  allegedly  within  one   of  the  245  Proclaimed  Area  for  Priority  Development  and/or  Urban  Land  Reform  No.  1967,  as  amended   by   Presidential   Proclamation   No.   2284.   Petitioners   further   contend   that   they   were   not   aware   that   the   subject   property   had   been   acquired   by   respondents   via   a   Deed   of   Donation   executed   by   the   Vasquez   couple.  Thus,  they  assail  that  said  donation  was  merely  simulated  in  order  to  deprive  them  of  their  right   of  first  refusal  to  buy  the  subject  property.     x   x   x     Here,   it   is   undisputed   that   respondents   do   not   own   any   other   lot   or   real   property   except   the   herein   subject  lot.  They  have  urgent  need  of  the  same  to  build  their  own  house  to  be  used  as  their  residence.   Also,   petitioners   had   already   been   asked   to   leave   the   premises   as   early   as   1982,   but   sternly   refused,  

 

52  

hence,   its   former   owners   refused   to   accept   their   rental   payments.   When   the   same   property   was   donated   to   respondents,   petitioners   were   allowed   to   continue   occupying   the   subject   lot   since   respondents   did   not   as   yet   have   the   money   to   build   a   house   of   their   own.   But   now   that   respondents   have  sufficient  money  to  build  their  own  house,  petitioners  still  rebuff  respondents'  demand  to  vacate   the  premises  and  to  remove  or  demolish  their  house.  Clearly,  since  respondents  have  complied  with  the   requirements  of  the  law,  their  right  to  possess  the  subject  property  for  their  own  use  as  family  residence   cannot  be  denied.     It  is  also  worthy  to  note  that  petitioners  have  failed  to  prove  that  the  transfer  of  the  subject  property   was   merely   a   ploy   designed   to   defeat   and   circumvent   their   right   of   first   refusal   under   the   law.   As   emphasized  by  the  CA,  the  Deed  of  Donation  executed  in  favor  of  respondents  was  signed  by  the  parties   and  their  witnesses,  and  was  even  notarized  by  a  notary  public.     x   x   x     As   can   be   gleaned   from   the   foregoing,   petitioners   cannot   use   P.D.   1517   as   a   shield   to   deny   respondents   of  their  inherent  right  to  possess  the  subject  property.  The  CA  correctly  opined  that  "under  P.D.  1517,  in   relation   to   P.D.   2016,   the   lessee   is   given   the   right   of   first   refusal   over   the   land   they   have   leased   and   occupied   for   more   than   ten   yean   and   on   which   they   constructed   their   houses.   But   the   right   of   first   refusal  applies  only  to  a  case  where  the  owner  of  the  property  intends  to  sell  it  to  a  third  party.  If  the   owner  of  the  leased  premises  do  not  intend  to  sell  the  property  in  question  but  seeks  to  eject  the  tenant   on   the   ground   that   the   former   needs   the   premises   for   residential   purposes,   the   tenant   cannot   invoke   the  land  reform  law."     Clearly,   the   circumstances   required   for   the   application   of   P.D.   1517   are   lacking   in   this   case,   since   respondents   had   no   intention   of   selling   the   subject   property   to   third   parties,   but   seek   the   eviction   of   petitioners  on  the  valid  ground  that  they  need  the  property  for  residential  purposes.      

 

53  

Republic  of  the  Philippines  vs.  AFP  Retirement  and  Separation  Benefits  System   G.R.  No.  180463   January  16,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Del  Castillo     Topic:  Donation       Facts:     By  virtue  of  Proclamation  No.  168,  3  parcels  of  land  particularly,  lots  X,  Y-­‐1  and  Y-­‐2  were  reserved  for   recreation   and   health   purposes.   In   1983,   Proclamation   No.   2273   was   issued   amending   Proc.   No.   168,   and   removing   and   segregating   Lots   Y-­‐1   and   Y-­‐2   from   the   reservation   and   declaring   them   open   for   disposition   to   qualified   applicants.   As   a   result,   only   Lot   X   (15,020   sqm)   remained   part   of   the   reservation   now  known  as  Magsaysay  Park.  The  respondents-­‐intervenors  waged  a  campaign  –  through  petitions  and   pleas  made  to  the  President  –  to  have  Lots  Y-­‐1  and  Y-­‐2  taken  out  of  the  reservation  for  the  reason  that   through  their  predecessor  Cabalo  Kusop,  they  have  acquired  vested  private  rights  over  these  lots.  This   campaign   resulted   in   Proc.   2273,   which   re-­‐classified   and   returned   Lots   Y-­‐1   and   Y-­‐2   to   their   original   alienable  and  disposable  state.  Respondents-­‐intervenors  filed  applications  for  the  issuance  of  individual   miscellaneous  sales  patents  over  the  whole  of  Lot  X.  Consequently,  16  OCTs  covering  Lot  X  were  issued   in   the   names   of   respondents-­‐intervenors   and   several   others.   These   16   titles   were   simultaneously   conveyed  to   herein   respondent   AFP-­‐Retirement   and   Separation   Benefits   System,   resulting   in   the   issuance   of   16   new   titles.   The   Republic   of   the   Philippines   instituted   a   Complaint  for   reversion,   cancellation   and   annulment   of   the   AFP-­‐RSBS   titles   because   they   were   issued   over   a   public   park   which   is   classified   as   inalienable   and   non-­‐disposable   public   land.   Respondents-­‐intervenors   argued   that   their   predecessor-­‐in-­‐interest   Kusop   had   acquired   vested   interests   over   Lot   X   even   before   Proc.   168   was   issued,  having  occupied  the  same  for  more  than  30  years.  They  claimed  that  these  vested  rights,  taken   together   with   the   favorable   recommendations   and   actions   of   the   DENR   and   other   government   agencies   to   the   effect   that   Lot   X   was   alienable   and   disposable   land   of   the   public   domain,   as   well   as   the   subsequent  issuance  of  sales  patents  and  OCTs  in  their  names,  cannot  be  defeated  by  Proc.  168.       Issue:     Did  the  heirs  of  Cabalo  Kusop  have  any  transmissible  proprietary  rights  over  the  donated  property  at  the   time  of  the  donation?     Held:     No.       Respondents-­‐intervenors  no  longer  had  any  right  to  Lot  X  –  not  by  acquisitive  prescription,  and  certainly   not  by  sales  patent.  In  fact,  their  act  of  applying  for  the  issuance  of  miscellaneous  sales  patents  operates   as  an  express  acknowledgment  that  the  State,  and  not  respondents-­‐intervenors,  is  the  owner  of  Lot  X.  It   is   erroneous   to   suppose   that   respondents-­‐intervenors   possessed   title   to   Lot   X   when   they   applied   for   miscellaneous  sales  patents,  for  the  premise  of  such  grant  or  privilege  is  precisely  that  the  State  is  the   owner   of   the   land,   and   that   the   applicant   acknowledges   this   and   surrenders   to   State   ownership.   The   government,   as   the   agent   of   the   State,   is   possessed   of   the   plenary   power   as   the   persona   in   law   to   determine   who   shall   be   the   favored   recipients   of   public   lands,   as   well   as   under   what   terms   they   may   be  

 

54  

granted   such   privilege,   not   excluding   the   placing   of   obstacles   in   the   way   of   their   exercise   of   what   otherwise  would  be  ordinary  acts  of  ownership.       Respondents-­‐intervenors’  actions  betray  their  claim  of  ownership  to  Lot  X.  When  Proc.  168  was  issued,   they  did  not  institute  action  to  question  its  validity,  using  as  cause  of  action  their  claimed  ownership  and   title   over   the   land.   The   same   is   true   when   Proc.   2273   came   out.   They   did   not   file   suit   to   invalidate   it   because   it   contravenes   their   claimed   ownership   over   Lot   X.   They   simply   sat   and   waited   for   the   good   graces   of   the   government   to   fall   on   their   laps.   They   simply   waited   for   the   State   to   declare   them   beneficiaries   of   the   land.   And   when   the   President   failed   to   include   Lot   X   in   Proc.   2273   and   declare   it   open  for  disposition  to  them  as  beneficiaries,  they  filed  their  applications  for  issuance  of  miscellaneous   sales   patents   over   said   lot.   All   these   actions   are   anathema   to   a   claim   of   ownership,   and   instead   indicate   a  willingness  to  abide  by  the  actions  of  the  State,  a  show  of  respect  for  its  dominion  over  the  land.     Under   the   law,   respondents-­‐intervenors   are   charged   with   knowledge   of   the   law;   they   cannot   feign   ignorance.   In   fact,   they   could   not   claim   to   be   unaware   of   Proc.   168,   for   precisely   they   hid   under   its   protective  mantle  to  seek  the  invalidation  of  a  donation  claimed  to  have  been  made  by  them  to  one  Jose   Tayoto.  Thus,  in  Tayoto  v.  Heirs  of  Kusop,  an  alleged  donee  (Tayoto)  of  property  located  within  Lots  X,  Y-­‐ 1,   and   Y-­‐2   filed   a   case   for   quieting   of   title   against   the   donors   –   herein   respondents-­‐intervenors   –   to   protect  the  property  which  they  allegedly  donated  to  him,  which  was  then  in  danger  of  being  lost  for  the   reason   that   respondents-­‐intervenors   supposedly   reneged   on   the   donation.   Respondents-­‐intervenors   filed  an  urgent  motion  to  dismiss  the  Complaint  claiming,  among  others,  the  "invalidity  of  the  donation   as   the   subject   thereof   had   not   yet   been   excluded   from   the   Magsaysay   Park."  In   disposing   of   the   case,   the  Court  made  the  following  pronouncement:     Be   that   as   it   may,   the   donation   is   void.   There   are   three   essential   elements   of   donations:   [1]   the   reduction   of   the   patrimony   of   the   donor,   [2]   the   increase   in   the   patrimony   of   the   donee,   and   [3]   the   intent  to  do  an  act  of  liberality  (animus  donandi).  Granting  that  there  is  an  animus  donandi,  we  find  that   the  alleged  donation  lacks  the  first  two  elements  which  presuppose  the  donor's  ownership  rights  over   the  subject  of  the  donation  which  he  transmits  to  the  donee  thereby  enlarging  the  donee's  estate.  This   is   in   consonance   with   the   rule   that   a   donor   cannot   lawfully   convey   what   is   not   his   property.   In   other   words,  a  donation  of  a  parcel  of  land  the  dominical  rights  of  which  do  not  belong  to  the  donor  at  the   time  of  the  donation,  is  void.  This  holds  true  even  if  the  subject  of  the  donation  is  not  the  land  itself  but   the  possessory  and  proprietary  rights  over  said  land.     In   this   case,   although   they   allegedly   declared   Magsaysay   Park   as   their   own   for   taxation   purposes,   the   heirs  of  Cabalo  Kusop  did  not  have  any  transmissible  proprietary  rights  over  the  donated  property  at  the   time  of  the  donation.  In  fact,  with  respect  to  Lot  Y-­‐2,  they  still  had  to  file  a  free  patents  application  to   obtain  an  original  certificate  of  title  thereon.  This  is  because  Proclamation  No.  2273  declaring  as  ‘open   to  disposition  under  the  provisions  of  the  Public  Land  Act’  some  portions  of  the  Magsaysay  Park,  is  not   an  operative  law  which  automatically  vests  rights  of  ownership  on  the  heirs  of  Cabalo  Kusop  over  their   claimed  parcels  of  land.  

 

55  

VSD  Realty  &  Development  Corporation  vs.  Uniwide  Sales  Inc.   G.R.  No.  170677   July  31,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Peralta     Topic:  Recovery  of  Possession       Facts:     Petitioner   VSD   Realty   and   Development   Corporation   filed   a   Complaint   for   Annulment   of   Title   and   Recovery  of  Possession  of  property  against  respondents  Uniwide  Sales,  Inc.  and  Dolores  Baello  with  the   RTC.   Petitioner   sought   the   nullification   of   TCT   in   the   name   of   Dolores   Baello   and   the   recovery   of   possession  of  property  that  is  being  occupied  by  Uniwide  by  virtue  of  a  Contract  of  Lease  with  Dolores   Baello.  Petitioner  VSD  claimed  ownership  over  the  parcel  of  land  in  Caloocan  City  which  was  allegedly   bought  from  Felisa  D.  Bonifacio,  whose  title  thereto  was  registered  by  virtue  of  an  Order  authorizing  the   segregation  of  the  same  in  the  Land  Registration  Commission  Case.  Petitioner  also  alleged  that  its  right   to  the  subject  property  and  the  validity  and  correctness  of  the  technical  description  and  location  of  the   property   are   duly   established   in   LRC   Case   No.   C-­‐3288.  Petitioner   alleged   that   its   title   is   the   correct,   valid   and   legal   document   that   covers   the   subject   property,   since   it   is   the   result   of   land   registration   proceedings   in   accordance   with   law.   Petitioner   alleged   that   respondent   Baello’s   title,   covering   the   same   property,  is  spurious  and  can  only  be  the  result  of  falsification  and  illegal  machinations.     Issue:     Was   there   a   valid   ground   to   annul   respondent’s   title   to   warrant   the   reconveyance   of   the   subject   property  to  petitioner?     Held:     The  case  was  remanded  to  the  CA.      “The   established   legal   principle   in   actions   for   annulment   or   reconveyance   of   title   is   that   a   party   seeking   it  should  establish  not  merely  by  a  preponderance  of  evidence  but  by  clear  and  convincing  evidence  that   the   land   sought   to   be   reconveyed   is   his.   Article   434  of   the   Civil   Code   provides   that   to   successfully   maintain  an  action  to  recover  the  ownership  of  a  real  property,  the  person  who  claims  a  better  right  to  it   must   prove   two   (2)   things:   first,   the   identity   of   the   land   claimed,   and;   second,   his   title   thereto.  In   an   action   to   recover,   the   property   must   be   identified,   and   the   plaintiff   must   rely   on   the   strength   of   his   title   and  not  on  the  weakness  of  the  defendant's  claim.       The   Court   upheld   the   decision   of   the   trial   court   that   petitioner   was   able   to   establish   through   documentary   and   testimonial   evidence   that   the   technical   description   of   its   Torrens   title,   embodying   the   identity  of  the  land  claimed,  covers  the  property  that  is  being  occupied  by  respondent  Uniwide  by  virtue   of   a   lease   contract   with   respondent   Baello,   and   that   a   comparison   of   the   technical   description   of   the   land  covered  by  the  title  of  petitioner  and  the  technical  description  of  the  land  covered  by  the  title  of   Baello  shows  that  they  are  not  the  same.  Hence,  the  Court  granted  the  petition,  and  reversed  and  set   aside   the   Decision   of   the   Court   of   Appeals   and   its   Resolution   denying   petitioners'   motion   for   reconsideration;  and  the  Decision  of  the  RTC  was  reinstated  with  modification.  The  dispositive  portion   of  the  Court's  decision  has  been  cited  earlier.  

 

56  

  x   x   x     The   Court   recognizes   the   importance   of   protecting   the   country's   Torrens   system   from   fake   land   titles   and  deeds.  Considering  that  there  is  an  issue  on  the  validity  of  the  title  of  petitioner  VSD,  which  title  is   alleged  to  be  traceable  to  OCT  No.  994  registered  on  April  19,  1917,  which  mother  title  was  held  to  be   inexistent  in  Manotok  Realty,  Inc.  v.  CLT  Realty  Development  Corporation,  in  the  interest  of  justice,  and   to   safeguard   the   correct   titling   of   properties,   a   remand   is   proper   to   determine   which   of   the   parties   derived  valid  title  from  the  legitimate  OCT  No.  994  registered  on  May  3,  1917.  Since  this  Court  is  not  a   trier  of  facts  and  not  capacitated  to  appreciate  evidence  of  the  first  instance,  the  Court  may  remand  this   case  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  further  proceedings.  

 

57  

Heirs  of  Margarita  Prodon  vs.  Heirs  of  Maximo  S.  Alvarez  and  Valentina  Clave   G.R.  No.  170604   September  2,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Bersamin     Topic:  Quieting  of  Title     Facts:       Respondents,  in  their  Complaint  for  Quieting  of  Title  and  Damages  against  Margarita  Prodon  averred  the   following:  1-­‐  that  their  parents,  the  late  spouses  Maximo  S.  Alvarez,  Sr.  and  Valentina  Clave,  were  the   registered   owners   of   that   parcel   of   land;   2-­‐   that   their   parents   had   been   in   possession   of   the   property   during   their   lifetime;   3-­‐   that   upon   their   parents’   deaths,   they   had   continued   the   possession   of   the   property   as   heirs,   paying   the   real   property   taxes   due   thereon;   4-­‐   that   they   could   not   locate   the   owner’s   duplicate   copy   but   original   copy   on   file   with   the   Register   of   Deeds   of   Manila   was   intact;   5-­‐   that   the   original  copy  contained  an  entry  stating  that  the  property  had  been  sold  to  defendant  Prodon  subject  to   the  right  of  repurchase;  and  6-­‐  that  the  entry  had  been  maliciously  done  by  Prodon  because  the  deed  of   sale   with   right   to   repurchase   covering   the   property   did   not   exist.   Consequently,   they   prayed   that   the   entry  be  cancelled,  and  that  Prodon  be  adjudged  liable  for  damages.     Prodon’s   Answer   claimed   that   the   late   Maximo   Alvarez,   Sr.   had   executed   on   September   9,   1975   the   deed  of  sale  with  right  to  repurchase;  that  the  deed  had  been  registeredwith  the  Register  of  Deeds  and   duly   annotated   on   the   title;   that   the   late   Maximo   Alvarez,   Sr.   had   been   granted   six   months   from   September   9,   1975   within   which   to   repurchase   the   property;   and   that   she   had   then   become   the   absolute  owner  of  the  property  due  to  its  non-­‐repurchase  within  the  given  6-­‐month  period.     Issue:       Is  Prodon’s  claim  of  ownership  was  already  barred  by  laches?     Held:     Yes   For  an  action  to  quiet  title  to  prosper,  two  indispensable  requisites  must  concur,  namely:  (a)  the  plaintiff   or  complainant  has  a  legal  or  an  equitable  title  to  or  interest  in  the  real  property  subject  of  the  action;   and   (b)   the   deed,   claim,   encumbrance,   or   proceeding   claimed   to   be   casting   cloud   on   his   title   must   be   shown  to  be  in  fact  invalid  or  inoperative  despite  its  prima  facie  appearance  of  validity  or  legal  efficacy.   This  case  involves  an  action  for  quieting  of  title,  a  common-­‐law  remedy  for  the  removal  of  any  cloud  or   doubt   or   uncertainty   on   the   title   to   real   property   by   reason   of   any   instrument,   record,   claim,   encumbrance,   or   proceeding   that   is   apparently   valid   or   effective,   but   is,   in   truth   and   in   fact,   invalid,   ineffective,   voidable,   or   unenforceable,   and   may   be   prejudicial   to   said   title.   In   such   an   action,   the   competent   court   is   tasked   to   determine   the   respective   rights   of   the   complainant   and   other   claimants   to   place  things  in  their  proper  place  and  to  make  the  one  who  has  no  rights  to  said  immovable  respect  and   not  disturb  the  other.  The  action  is  for  the  benefit  of  both,  so  that  he  who  has  the  right  would  see  every   cloud   of   doubt   over   the   property   dissipated,   and   he   can   thereafter   fearlessly   introduce   any   desired   improvements,  as  well  as  use,  and  even  abuse  the  property.       x   x   x  

 

58  

The  action  for  quieting  of  title  may  be  based  on  the  fact  that  a  deed  is  invalid,  ineffective,  voidable,  or   unenforceable.  The  terms  of  the  writing  may  or  may  not  be  material  to  an  action  for  quieting  of  title,   depending   on   the   ground   alleged   by   the   plaintiff.   For   instance,   when   an   action   for   quieting   of   title   is   based  on  the  unenforceability  of  a  contract  for  not  complying  with  the  Statute  of  Frauds,  Article  1403  of   the   Civil   Code   specifically   provides   that   evidence   of   the   agreement   cannot   be   received   without   the   writing,   or   a   secondary   evidence   of   its   contents.   There   is   then   no   doubt   that   the   Best   Evidence   Rule   will   come  into  play.     x   x   x     Her  inaction  was  an  index  of  the  falsity  of  her  claim  against  the  respondents.  

 

59  

Jose  Z.  Casilang,  Sr.  (substituted  by  his  heirs)  vs.  Rosario  Z.  Casilang-­‐Dizon,  et.  al.     G.R.  No.  180269   February  20,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Reyes     Topic:  Partition     Facts:     The   late   spouses   Liborio   and   Francisca   had   8   children,   namely:   Felicidad,   Ireneo,   Marcelina,   Jacinta,   Bonifacio,  Leonora,  Jose,  and  Flora.  Liborio  died  intestate  at  the  age  of  83,  followed  not  long  after  by  his   wife   Francisca.   Their   son   Bonifacio   also   died   and   was   survived   by   his   child   Bernabe,   while   when   son   Ireneo   died   he   was   survived   by   his   4   children,   namely:   Mario,   Angelo,   Rosario   and   Rodolfo,   herein   respondents.     The  estate  of  Liborio,  which  left  no  debts,  consisted  of  3  parcels  of  land.  Respondent  Rosario  filed  with   the   MTC   a   complaint   for   unlawful   detainer   to   evict   her   uncle,   petitioner   Jose   from   the   lot   that   was   owned  by  her  father  Ireneo,  as  evidenced  by  Tax  Declaration.  Thereafter,  the  respondents  executed  a   Deed   of   Extrajudicial   Partition   with   Quitclaim   whereby   they   adjudicated   the   said   lot   to   themselves.   In   the   same   instrument,   respondents   Mario,   Angelo   and   Rodolfo   renounced   their   respective   shares   in   favor  of  Rosario.  As  a  defense,  Jose  said  that  he  was  the  “lawful,  absolute,  exclusive  owner  and  in  actual   possession”  of  the  said  lot,  and  that  he  acquired  the  same  “through  intestate  succession  from  his  late   father.”       Subsequently,  7  of  the  8  children  of  Liborio  and  Francisca  filed  with  the  RTC  a  Complaint  for  “Annulment   of  Documents,  Ownership  and  Peaceful  Possession  with  Damages”  against  the  respondents.  Among  the   documents   sought   to   be   annulled   was   the   1997   Deed   of   Extrajudicial   Partition   executed   by   Ireneo’s   children.   The   petitioners   alleged   in   their   complaint   that   all   8   children   of   Liborio   entered   into   a   verbal   partition  of  his  estate,  pursuant  to  which  Jose  was  allotted  the  said  lot  as  his  share  and  that  Ireneo  never   claimed   ownership   of   nor   took   possession   of   it.   The   complete   disposition   of   the   intestate   estate   of   Liborio  was  done  through  verbal  partition.     Issue:     Is  the  verbal  partition  made  valid  and  binding?     Held:     Yes     The  validity  of  an  oral  partition  is  well-­‐settled  in  our  jurisdiction.  In  Vda.  de  Espina  v.  Abaya  (1991),  this   Court   declared   that   an   oral   partition   is   valid:   Anent   the   issue   of   oral   partition,   We   sustain   the   validity   of   said  partition.  “An  agreement  of  partition  may  be  made  orally  or  in  writing.  An  oral  agreement  for  the   partition   of   the   property   owned   in   common   is   valid   and   enforceable   upon   the   parties.   The   Statute   of   Frauds   has   no   operation   in   this   kind   of   agreements,   for   partition   is   not   a   conveyance   of   property   but   simply  a  segregation  and  designation  of  the  part  of  the  property  which  belong  to  the  co-­‐owners.”     x   x   x  

 

60  

  A   possessor   of   real   estate   property   is   presumed   to   have   title   thereto   unless   the   adverse   claimant   establishes   a   better   right.   Moreover,   under   Article   541   of   the   Civil   Code,   one   who   possesses   in   the   concept   of   owner   has   in   his   favor   the   legal   presumption   that   he   possesses   with   a   just   title,   and   he   cannot   be   obliged   to   show   or   prove   it.   Similarly,   Article   433   of   the   Civil   Code   provides   that   actual   possession   under   a   claim   of   ownership   raises   a   disputable   presumption   of   ownership.   Thus,   actual   possession   and   exercise   of   dominion   over   definite   portions   of   the   property   in   accordance   with   an   alleged   partition   are   considered   strong   proof   of   an   oral   partition   which   the   Court   will   not   hesitate   to   uphold.  

 

61  

Republic  of  the  Philippines  (DPWH)  vs.  Bank  of  the  Philippine  Islands  (BPI)   G.R.  No.  203039     September  11,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Carpio     Topic:  Eminent  Domain     Facts:     On  February  12,  1998,  Department  the  of  Public  Works  and  Highways  (DPWII)  filed  with  the  RTC  a  case   for  expropriation  against  portions  of  the  properties  of  Bank  of  the  Philippine  Islands  (BPI)  and  of  Bayani   Villanueva  (Villanueva)  in  Las  Piñas  City  for  the  construction  of  the  Zapote-­‐Alabang  Fly-­‐Over.     Neither   BPI   nor   Villanueva   objected   to   the   propriety   of   the   expropriation   hence,   the   trial   court   in   its   Decision   set   the   fair   market   value   at   P40,000.00   per   square   meter   which   then   became   final   and   executor.       Meanwhile,  BPI  filed  a  Motion  for  Partial  New  Trial  to  determine  the  just  compensation  of  its  building,   which   was   not   included   in   the   said   Decision.   The   motion   was   properly   heeded   by   the   trial   court,   increasing   the   amount   of   just   compensation   due   to   BPI.   DPWH   moved   for   the   reconsideration     of   the   amended  Decision  on  the  ground  that  the  proceeding  fixing  the  just  compensation  of  the  building  is  null   and  void  for  not  complying  with  the  mandatory  procedure  set  forth  in  Sections  5  to  8  of  Rule  67  of  the   Rules  of  Court.     Issue:     Is  the  award  of  additional  just  compensation  for  BPI’s  building  in  the  amount  fixed  therefor  is  unfounded   and  without  legal  basis?     Held:     No.       The   findings   of   the   lower   courts   are   borne   by   the   records.   Hence,   there   was   proper   basis   for   the   determination  of  just  compensation  for  the  building  for  consequential  damages.     Eminent  domain  is  the  authority  and  right  of  the  State,  as  sovereign,  to  take  private  property  for  public   use   upon   observance   of   due   process   of   law   and   payment   of   just   compensation.   The   State’s   power   of   eminent   domain   is   limited   by   the   constitutional   mandate   that   private   property   shall   not   be   taken   for   public  use  without  just  compensation.     Just  compensation  is  the  full  and  fair  equivalent  of  the  property  sought  to  be  expropriated.  The  general   rule  is  that  the  just  compensation  to  which  the  owner  of  the  condemned  property  is  entitled  to  is  the   market  value.  Market  value  is  that  sum  of  money  which  a  person  desirous  but  not  compelled  to  buy,  and   an   owner   willing   but   not   compelled   to   sell,   would   agree   on   as   a   price   to   be   paid   by   the   buyer   and   received  by  the  seller.  The  general  rule,  however,  is  modified  where  only  a  part  of  a  certain  property  is   expropriated.   In   such   a   case,   the   owner   is   not   restricted   to   compensation   for   the   portion   actually   taken;   he  is  also  entitled  to  recover  the  consequential  damage,  if  any,  to  the  remaining  part  of  the  property.  

 

62  

  x   x   x     No   actual   taking   of   the   building   is   necessary   to   grant   consequential   damages.   Consequential   damages   are   awarded   if   as   a   result   of   the   expropriation,   the   remaining   property   of   the   owner   suffers   from   impairment  or  decrease  in  value.  The  rules  on  expropriation  clearly  provide  a  legal  basis  for  the  award  of   consequential   damages.   Section   6   of   Rule   67   of   the   Rules   of   Court   provides:   x  x  x   The   commissioners   shall  assess  the  consequential  damages  to  the  property  not  taken  and  deduct  from  such  consequential   damages  the  consequential  benefits  to  be  derived  by  the  owner  from  the  public  use  or  public  purpose  of   the  property  taken,  the  operation  of  its  franchise  by  the  corporation  or  the  carrying  on  of  the  business   of   the   corporation   or   person   taking   the   property.   But   in   no   case   shall   the   consequential   benefits   assessed  exceed  the  consequential  damages  assessed,  or  the  owner  be  deprived  of  the  actual  value  of   his  property  so  taken.          

 

63  

Pilar  Development  Corporation  vs.  Ramon  Dumadag  et.  al.     G.R.  No.  194336   March  11,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Peralta     Topic:  Easements     Facts:     Petitioner   filed   a   Complaint   for   accion   publiciana   with   damages   against   respondents   for   allegedly   building  their  shanties,  without  its  knowledge  and  consent.    It  claims  that  said  parcel  of  land,  which  is   duly   registered   in   its   was   designated   as   an   open   space   of   Pilar   Village   Subdivision   intended   for   village   recreational   facilities   and   amenities   for   subdivision   residents.   Respondents   denied   the   material   allegations  of  the  Complaint  and  briefly  asserted  that  it  is  the  local  government,  not  petitioner,  which   has   jurisdiction   and   authority   over   them.   RTC   dismissed   petitioner’s   complaint,   finding   that   the   land   being   occupied   by   respondents   are   situated   on   the   sloping   area   going   down   and   leading   towards   the   Mahabang  Ilog  Creek,  and  within  the  three-­‐meter  legal  easement;  thus,  considered  as  public  property   and   part   of   public   dominion   under   Article   502   of   the   New   Civil   Code   which   could   not   be   owned   by   petitioner.   The   court   further   opined   that   respondents   have   a   better   right   to   possess   the   occupied   lot,   since  they  are  in  an  area  reserved  for  public  easement  purposes  and  that  only  the  local  government  of   Las  Piñas  City  could  institute  an  action  for  recovery  of  possession  or  ownership.     Issue:     Is  the  Petitioner  the  owner  of  the  subject  parcel  of  land  (3-­‐meter  strip),  which  entitled  to  him  the  lawful   possession,  hence,  the  proper  party  to  file  an  action  for  recovery  of  possession?     Held:     No.     Petitioner’s   right   of   ownership   and   possession   has   been   limited   by   law   with   respect   to   the   3-­‐meter   strip/zone  along  the  banks  of  Mahabang  Ilog  Creek.  Similar  to  petitioner,  respondents  have  no  right  or   title  over  it  precisely  because  it  is  public  land.     x   x   x     An  easement  or  servitude  is  a  real  right  on  another’s  property,  corporeal  and  immovable,  whereby  the   owner  of  the  latter  must  refrain  from  doing  or  allowing  somebody  else  to  do  or  something  to  be  done   on  his  or  her  property,  for  the  benefit  of  another  person  or  tenement;  it  is  jus  in  re  aliena,  inseparable   from   the   estate   to   which   it   actively   or   passively   belongs,   indivisible,   perpetual,   and   a   continuing   property   right,   unless   extinguished   by   causes   provided   by   law.   The   Code   defines   easement   as   an   encumbrance   imposed   upon   an   immovable   for   the   benefit   of   another   immovable   belonging   to   a   different  owner  or  for  the  benefit  of  a  community,  or  of  one  or  more  persons  to  whom  the  encumbered   estate  does  not  belong.  There  are  two  kinds  of  easement  according  to  source:  by  law  or  by  will  of  the   owners—the  former  are  called  legal  and  the  latter  voluntary  easement.  A  legal  easement  or  compulsory   easement,   or   an   easement   by   necessity   constituted   by   law   has   for   its   object   either   public   use   or   the   interest  of  private  persons.  

 

64  

  x   x   x     While   Article   630   of   the   Code   provides   for   the   general   rule   that   “[t]he   owner   of   the   servient   estate   retains   the   ownership   of   the   portion   on   which   the   easement   is   established,   and   may   use   the   same   in   such   a   manner   as   not   to   affect   the   exercise   of   the   easement,”   Article   635   thereof   is   specific   in   saying   that  “[all]  matters  concerning  easements  established  for  public  or  communal  use  shall  be  governed  by   the  special  laws  and  regulations  relating  thereto,  and,  in  the  absence  thereof,  by  the  provisions  of  this   Title  [Title  VII  on  Easements  or  Servitudes].”     x   x   x     Yet   all   is   not   lost   for   petitioner.   It   may   properly   file   an   action   for   mandamus   to   compel   the   local   government   of   Las   Piñas   City   to   enforce   with   reasonable   dispatch   the   eviction,   demolition,   and   relocation  of  respondents  and  any  other  persons  similarly  situated  in  order  to  give  flesh  to  one  of  the   avowed   policies   of   R.A.   7279,   which   is   to   reduce   urban   dysfunctions,   particularly   those   that   adversely   affect  public  health,  safety,  and  ecology.  Indeed,  as  one  of  the  basic  human  needs,  housing  is  a  matter  of   state  concern  as  it  directly  and  significantly  affects  the  general  welfare.    

 

65  

Teodoro  S.  Teodoro  (Substituted  by  Heirs)  vs.  Danilo  Espino  et.  al.       G.R.  No.  189248   February  5,  2014   Ponente:  J.  Perez     Topic:  Forcible  Entry     Facts:       The   case   is   for   Forcible   Entry   filed   by   the   predecessor-­‐in-­‐interest   of   petitioners   Nelson   and   Rolando   Teodoro,   heirs   of   Teodoro   S.   Teodoro   against   respondents   Danilo   Espino,   Rosario   Santiago,   Juliana   Castillo,   Paulina   Litao,   Raquel   Rodriguez,   Rufina   dela   Cruz   and   Leonila   Cruz,   a   squabble   for   physical   possession  of  a  portion  of  a  real  property,  the  ownership  of  which  is  traceable  to  Genaro  Teodor.  The   subject   property   pertains   to   the   vacant   lot   where   the   old   ancestral   house   of   Genaro   stood   until   its   demolition  in  June  2004,  at  the  instance  of  Teodoro  Teodoro.     Genaro   had   5   children:   Santiago;   Maria,   from   whom   respondents   descended   and   trace   their   claim   of   ownership  and  right  of  possession;  Petra,  Mariano,  Teodoro  Teodoro’s  father;  and  Ana.  Genaro  and  his   children   are   all   deceased.   Petra’s   holographic   will,   which   was   validly   asserted   ownership,   devised   the   subject   property   to   Teodoro   Teodoro.   Teodoro   Teodoro   effected   the   demolition   of   the   ancestral   house,   intending   to   use   the   subject   property   for   other   purposes.   Respondents,   who   resided   at   portions   that   surround   the   subject   property   on   which   the   ancestral   house   previously   stood,   erected   a   fence   on   the   surrounding   portion,   barricaded   its   frontage,   and   put   up   a   sign   thereat,   effectively   dispossessing   Teodoro   Teodoro   of   the   property   bequeathed   to   him   by   Petra.   After   Teodoro   Teodoro’s   demand   for   respondents   to   vacate   the   subject   property   went   unheeded,   he   filed   the   complaint   for   forcible   entry   against  respondents.         Issue:     Is  the  act  of  respondents  in  barricading  the  frontage  of  the  portion  of  Lot  No.  2476  on  which  stood  the   ancestral   house   occupied   by   Petra   amounted   to   Teodoro   Teodoro’s   unlawful   dispossession   thereof   through  the  forcible  entry  of  respondents?       Held:     Yes     Certainly,   and   as   found   by   the   trial   courts,   the  whole   of   Lot   No.   2476   including   the   portion   now   litigated   is,  owing  to  the  fact  that  it  has  remained  registered  in  the  name  of  Genaro  who  is  the  common  ancestor   of  both  parties  herein,  co-­‐owned  property.  All,  or  both  Teodoro  Teodoro  and  respondents  are  entitled   to  exercise  the  right  of  possession  as  co-­‐owners.  Neither  party  can  exclude  the  other  from  possession.   Although   the   property   remains   unpartitioned,   the   respondents   in   fact   possess   specific   areas.   Teodoro   Teodoro   can   likewise   point   to   a   specific   area,   which   is   that   which   was   possessed   by   Petra.   Teodoro   Teodoro  cannot  be  dispossessed  of  such  area,  not  only  by  virtue  of  Petra’s  bequeathal  in  his  favor  but   also  because  of  his  own  right  of  possession  that  comes  from  his  co-­‐ownership  of  the  property.  As  the   RTC  concluded,  petitioners,  as  heirs  substituting  Teodoro  Teodoro  in  this  suit,  should  be  restored  in  the   lawful  possession  of  the  disputed  area.  

 

66  

  x   x   x     The  ground  rules  in  forcible  entry  cases:  (1)  One  employs  force,  intimidation,  threat,  strategy  or  stealth   to  deprive  another  of  physical  possession  of  real  property.  (2)  Plaintiff  (Teodoro  Teodoro)  must  allege   and   prove   prior   physical   possession   of   the   property   in   litigation   until   deprived   thereof   by   the   defendant   (herein   respondents).   This   requirement   implies   that   the   possession   of   the   disputed   land   by   the   latter   was   unlawful   from   the   beginning.   (3)   The   sole   question   for   resolution   hinges   on   the   physical   or   material   possession  (possession  de  facto)  of  the  property.  Neither  a  claim  of  juridical  possession  (possession  de   jure)   nor   an   averment   of   ownership   by   the   defendant   can,   at   the   outset,   preclude   the   court   from   taking   cognizance  of  the  case.  (4)  Ejectment  cases  proceed  independently  of  any  claim  of  ownership,  and  the   plaintiff  needs  merely  to  prove  prior  possession  de  facto  and  undue  deprivation  thereof.            

   

 

67  

Antonio  James  et.  al.  vs.  Eurem  Realty  Development  Corporation   G.R.  No.  190650   October  14,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Reyes     Topic:  Quieting  of  Title       Facts:     On  September  17,  2003,  the  heirs  of  Gorgonio  (petitioners)  filed  Civil  Case  for  Declaration  of  Nullity  of   Title   and   Ownership   of   Real   Property   with   Damages   against   Eurem   Realty   Development   Corporation   (respondent).  They  alleged  that  they  are  the  registered  owners  and  possessors  of  a  448  sqm  property  in   Dipolog   City   while   respondent   is   the   registered   owner   of   a   344-­‐sq   m   portion   of   the   same   property   owned  by  the  petitioners  which  the  respondent  derived  its  title  from  Lopez  who  executed  in  its  favor  a   Deed  of  Assignment  and  Exchange  on  September  6,  1990.  In  turn,  Lopez  derived  his  title  from  Primitivo   (Gorgonio’s   brother)   in   which   there   is   an   annotation   made   that   TCT   in   the   name   of   Primitivo   as   null   and   void,   and   ordering   the   partition   among   the   heirs   of   Butler   James   in   accordance   with   the   terms   of   “Partition  Extrajudicially”  executed  on  October  21,  1949.  The  said  annotation  was  not  carried  on  in  the   respondent’s   name   that   made   his   title   void   ab   initio   as   its   predecessor-­‐in-­‐interest   Lopez   derived   his   title   from  Primitivo’s  void  title.  They  emphasized  that  Lopez  acted  in  bad  faith  in  assigning  the  property  to   the   respondent   as   he   knew   fully   well   that   he   had   no   right   or   interest   over   said   property   and   the   respondent   has   knowledge   of   Lopez’s   bad   faith   since   it   is   a   corporation   organized   by   Lopez.   They   are   basically   praying   for   nullification   of   respondent’s   title   and   to   be   declared   as   the   lawful   owner   of   the   entire  subject  property.       However   respondent   argued   that   the   complaint   is   barred   by   prior   judgment   (res   judicata)   and   that   prescription   has   already   set   in.   The   heirs   of   Gorgonio   was   the   defendant   in   Civil   Case   for   recovery   of   possession   and   damages   filed   by   Lopez   in   which   the   court   declared   Lopez   as   the   lawful   and   absolute   owner  and  possessor  of  the  said  lot.  Further,  petitioners  filed  the  complaint  in  Declaration  of  Nullity  of   Title  and  Ownership  of  Real  Property  with  Damages  on  September  17,  2003,  or  more  than  30  years  after   its   predecessor-­‐in-­‐interest   Lopez   bought   the   property   from   Primitivo   way   back   in   April   25,   1972.   Hence,   such  action  was  barred  by  prescription.       Issue:       Is  the  petitioners’  action  is  barred  by  prescription?     Held:       No.       Parenthetically,  there  are  two  kinds  of  prescription  provided  in  the  Civil  Code.  One  is  acquisitive,  i.e.,  the   acquisition   of   a   right   by   the   lapse   of   time;   the   other   is   extinctive,   whereby   rights   and   actions   are   lost   by   the  lapse  of  time.  The  kind  of  prescription  raised  by  the  respondent  pertains  to  extinctive  prescription.     The   action   filed   by   the   petitioners   is   essentially   one   for   quieting   of   title.   An   action   to   quiet   title   is   a   common  law  remedy  designed  for  the  removal  of  any  cloud  upon,  or  doubt,  or  uncertainty  affecting  title   to  real  property.  The  pleadings  filed  in  this  case  show  that  both  the  petitioners  and  respondent  have  title   over   the   same   property,   albeit   the   petitioners’   title   covers   448   sq   m,   while   that   of   the   respondent’s  

 

68  

covers   a   344-­‐sq   m   portion   thereof.   It   likewise   appears   from   the   records   that   both   parties   are   in   possession  of  their  respective  portions  of  the  property.  In  an  action  for  quieting  of  title,  the  competent   court  is  tasked  to  determine  the  respective  rights  of  the  complainant  and  the  other  claimants,  not  only   to   place   things   in   their   proper   places,   and   make   the   claimant,   who   has   no   rights   to   the   immovable,   respect   and   not   disturb   the   one   so   entitled,   but   also   for   the   benefit   of   both,   so   that   whoever   has   the   right   will   see   every   cloud   of   doubt   over   the   property   dissipated,   and   he   can   thereafter   fearlessly   introduce  any  desired  improvements,  as  well  as  use,  and  even  abuse  the  property.     An  action  to  quiet  title  is  a  real  action  over  immovables,  which  prescribes  after  thirty  years.  Thus,  even   assuming   that   the   petitioners’   action   is   subject   to   extinctive   prescription,   it   was   error   for   the   RTC   to   reckon   the   date   when   prescription   began   to   run   solely   on   the   date   of   the   issuance   of   Lopez’s   title   on   October  11,  1972.  The  petitioners  cannot  be  expected  to  file  the  action  after  the  issuance  of  Lopez’s  title   since  at  that  time,  the  appeal,  the  case  between  their  predecessor  Gorgonio  and  his  siblings  as  against   their   other   sibling   Primitivo,   was   still   pending   and   was   only   resolved   with   finality   by   the   CA   only   on   November  7,  1978.  The  appeal  in  the  case  between  Lopez  and  Gorgonio,  meanwhile,  was  dismissed  by   the  CA  with  finality  only  on  August  17,  1978.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  what  is  being  attacked  is  the   respondent’s   TCT   which   was   issued   on   March   2,   1992.   Thus,   reckoning   the   prescriptive   period   from   said   date,  the  30-­‐year  period  clearly  has  not  yet  lapsed  since  the  complaint  was  filed  only  on  September  17,   2003.  

 

69  

Heirs  of  Albina  G.  Ampil  vs.  Teresa  and  Mario  Manahan   G.R.  No.  175990   October  11,  2012   Ponente:  J.  Mendoza     Topic:  Ownership     Facts:     Exequiel   G.   Ampil,   as   representative   of   the   heirs   of   the   late   Albina   G.   Ampil   filed   a   complaint  for   ejectment   against   spouses   Perfecto   Manahan   and   Virginia   Manahan,   Teresita   Manahan,  Almario   Manahan,  Irene  Manahan  and  all  persons  claiming  rights  under  them.  It  was  alleged  that  Albina  was  the   owner   of   two   (2)   adjoining   residential   lots.   They   asserted   that   during   her   lifetime,   Albina   allowed   Perfecto   and   his   family   to   occupy   a   portion   of   the   said   properties   on   the   condition   that   they   would   vacate  the  same  should  the  need  to  use  it  arise.  After  the  death  of  Albina  in  1986,  her  heirs,  represented   by   Exequiel,   requested   Perfecto   and   family   to   vacate   the   property   in   question   but   the   latter   refused.   Petitioners,   through   counsel,   sent   a   demand   letter   to   the   respondents   to   surrender   possession   of   the   lands  in  question  but  to  no  avail.  Consequently,  petitioners  filed  a  complaint  for  ejectment  before  the   Municipal  Trial  Court.  The  respondents  filed  their  answer  with  counterclaim   averring  that  the  lots  they   had   been   occupying   belonged   to   them,   their   predecessor-­‐in-­‐interest   having   been   in   peaceful   and   continuous  possession  thereof  in  the  concept  of  an  owner  since  time  immemorial  and  that  Albina  was   never  the  owner  of  the  property.       Issue:   1.  Did  Exequiel  have  the  authority  to  file  the  complaint  on  behalf  of  his  co-­‐heirs?   2.  Can  Exequiel  prove  his  ownership  through  tax  declarations,  despite  them  not  being  conclusive?     Held:     Issue  1:  Yes.  “Article  487  of  the  Civil  Code  provides  that  anyone  of  the  co-­‐owners  may  bring  an  action  for   ejectment  without  joining  the  others.  The  action  is  not  limited  to  ejectment  cases  but  includes  all  kinds   of  suits  for  recovery  of  possession  because  the  suit  is  presumed  to  have  been  instituted  for  the  benefit   of  all.”     x   x   x     “In  the  case  at  bench,  the  complaint  clearly  stated  that  the  disputed  property  was  held  in  common  by   the  petitioners;  and  that  the  action  was  brought  to  recover  possession  of  the  lots  from  respondents  for   the   benefit   of   all   the   heirs   of   Albina.   Hence,   Exequiel,   a   co-­‐owner,   may   bring   the   action   for   unlawful   detainer   even   without   the   special   power   of   attorney   of   his   co-­‐heirs,   for   a   complete   relief   can   be   accorded   in   the   suit   even   without   their   participation   because   the   suit   is   deemed   to   be   instituted   for   the   benefit  of  all  the  co-­‐owners.”     Issue   2:   Yes.   “In   an   unlawful   detainer   case,   the   physical   or   material   possession   of   the   property   involved,   independent  of  any  claim  of  ownership  by  any  of  the  parties,  is  the  sole  issue  for  resolution.  But  where   the   issue   of   ownership   is   raised,   the   courts   may   pass   upon   said   issue   in   order   to   determine   who   has   the   right  to  possess  the  property.  This  adjudication,  however,  is  only  an  initial  determination  of  ownership   for   the   purpose   of   settling   the   issue   of   possession,   the   issue   of   ownership   being   inseparably   linked  

 

70  

thereto.  As  such,  the  lower  court’s  adjudication  of  ownership  in  the  ejectment  case  is  merely  provisional   and  would  not  bar  or  prejudice  an  action  between  the  same  parties  involving  title  to  the  property.       In  the  case  at  bench,  the  Court  sustains  the  findings  of  both  the  MTC  and  the  RTC.  The  bare  allegation  of   respondents,  that  they  had  been  in  peaceful  and  continuous  possession  of  the  lot  in  question  because   their   predecessor-­‐in-­‐interest   had   been   in   possession   thereof   in   the   concept   of   an   owner   from   time   immemorial,   cannot   prevail   over   the   tax   declarations   and   other   documentary   evidence   presented   by   petitioners.  In  the  absence  of  any  supporting  evidence,  that  of  the  petitioners  deserves  more  probative   value.     A   perusal   of   the   records   shows   that   respondents’   occupation   of   the   lot   in   question   was   by   mere   tolerance.   To   prove   ownership   over   the   property,   the   petitioners   presented   the   tax   declarations   covering   the   properties   and   a   certification   issued   by   the   Municipality   of   Paombong,   Bulacan,   showing   that   their   mother,   Albina,   had   been   paying   the   corresponding   real   property   taxes   thereon.   Petitioners   also  submitted  a  survey  plan,  dated  August  5,  1968,  prepared  by  Geodetic  Engineer  Roberto  H.  Dimailig,   in  support  of  Albina’s  application  for  land  registration  over  the  disputed  lots.  In  fact,  on  December  14,   2006,   the   Registry   of   Deeds   of   Bulacan   issued   Katibayan   ng   Orihinal   na   Titulo   Blg.   P-­‐13627,   conferring   title  over  Lot  742  in  the  names  of  the  heirs  of  Albina.”     x   x   x     “Well   established   is   the   rule   that   ownership   over   the   land   cannot   be   acquired   by   mere   occupation.  While   it   is   true   that   tax   declarations   are   not   conclusive   evidence   of   ownership,   they,   nevertheless,   constitute   at   least   proof   that   the   holder   has   a   claim   of   title   over   the   property.   It   strengthens  one's  bona  fide  claim  of  acquisition  of  ownership.”  

 

71  

Gaudencio  Pacete  vs.  Inocencio  Asotigue   G.R.  No.  188575   December  10,  2012   Ponente:  J.  Mendoza     Topic:  Ownership     Facts:     Asotigue  filed   a   complaint   for   reconveyance   and   damages   against   Pacete   before   the   RTC   which   he   averred   that   he   acquired   the   disputed   land,   denominated   as   Lot   No.   5-­‐A,   from   Rizalino   Umpad   and   that   he   had   been   in   possession   and   occupation   of   the   said   lot   openly,   publicly,   notoriously,   and   in   the   concept   of   an   owner   for   more   than   21   years.   He   had   declared   the   lot   in   his   name   for   taxation   purposes,   paying   faithfully   the   real   taxes   due   thereon,   as   shown   by   his   Tax   Declaration   and   that   he   introduced   permanent   improvements   on   the   said   lot   by   planting   considerable   number   of   rubber   trees   and   other   fruit-­‐bearing   trees.   He   said   that   the   present   dispute   arose   when   he   found   out   for   the   first   time,   upon   filing   his   application   for   title   over   the   said   lot,   that   it   was   included   in   Pacete’s   OCT   and   that   he   then   demanded   from   Pacete   the   reconveyance   of   the   said   lot,   but   his   demand   was   unheeded.   Pacete   denied   the  material  allegations  of  Asotigue  and  asserted  that  he  was  the  owner  of  the  disputed  lot,  presenting   OCT   No.   issued   on   July   13,   1961   as   evidence   of   his   ownership.   He   claimed   that   sometime   in   1979,   Asotigue,  by  stealth,  strategy  and  prior  knowledge,  entered  the  disputed  lot  and  started  planting  trees   despite   his   demand   to   vacate   the   said   lot.   Asotigue   testified   that   the   disputed   lot   was   previously   owned   by  Sambutuan  Sumagad,  a  native.  The  lot  was  mortgaged  by  Sumagad  to  Pasague  who  later  on  bought   it.   Pasague   then   sold   the   lot   to   Umpad   by   way   of  Relinquishment   of   Rights   and   Improvements.   Asotigue   bought  the  lot  from  Umpad  by  way  of  Transfer  of  Rights  and  Improvements.  Asotigue  then  entered  the   lot  and  planted,  among  others,  rubber  trees,  fruit  trees  and  coconut  trees.  According  to  him,  he  failed  to   apply   for   a   title   over   the   said   lot   due   to   financial   constraint.   Nonetheless,   he   declared   the   same   for   taxation  purposes  under  his  name  and  consistently  paid  the  real  taxes  due  thereon.  To  strengthen  his   claim   of   ownership,   Asotigue   also   submitted   documentary   evidence,   among   which   were   copies   of   the   Transfer  of  Rights  and  Improvements  and  Tax  Declarations  under  his  name.       Issue:     Is   the   OCT   issued   in   Pacete’s   name   in   1961   an   unassailable   evidence   of   his   ownership   over   the   disputed   lot  having  been  issued  pursuant  to  the  Torrens  System  of  Registration?     Held:     No.       “On  the  issue  of  whether  Pacete’s  title,  OCT  No.  V-­‐16654,  which  had  included  the  lot  in  dispute,  can  be   considered  unassailable  evidence  of  his  ownership  over  the  disputed  lot,  the  Court   rules  in  the  negative.   It  must  be  stressed  that  both  the  RTC  and  the  CA  have  passed  upon  this  factual  issue.  In  affirming  the   RTC,  the  CA  made  the  following  findings:     Plaintiff’s   evidence   proves   that   all   transactions   involving   the   conveyance   or   transfer   of   rights   and   improvements   of   the   land   in   litigation   were   with   the   knowledge   and   even   consent   of   defendant.   Defendant  even  accompanied  Pasague,  Sumagad,  Datu  Balimba,  Datu  Masagra  and  Brgy.  Chairman  Abay   when  this  land  was  conveyed  to  Umpad  by  Pasague.  Umpad  later  on  conveyed  this  land  to  plaintiff.  This  

 

72  

land  was  conveyed  from  Sumagad  to  Pasague,  then  Pasague  to  Umpad  and  finally  to  plaintiff.  From  all   these  conveyances  defendant  did  not  make  any  claim  on  the  land.  He  did  not  oppose  any  transfer  from   one  person  to  another.  It  was  the  third  transfer  to  plaintiff  that  defendant  had  laid  claim.  x  x  x.     The  transfer  from  Pasague  to  Umpad  was  done  on  March  19,  1971.  The  sale  by  Sumagad  to  Pasague  was   obviously  on  a  much  earlier  date.  The  land  was  granted  to  defendant  in  1961.  Original  Certificate  of  Title   No.  V-­‐16654  (Exh.  "1")  was  issued  in  his  favor.  Defendant  therefore  was  aware  that  the  portion  of  this   land   was   conveyed   by   Sumagad,   then   Pasague,   then   Umpad   and   ultimately   to   plaintiff.   He   did   not   protest  their  occupation  until  the  year  2000.     The   possession   of   Sumagad   in   1958   tacked   to   the   possession   of   Pasague,   Umpad   and   plaintiff   was   more   than   thirty   (30)   years.   When   Sumagad   took   possession   on   the   land,   it   was   still   alienable   and   disposable.   The  title  to  defendant  was  only  issued  in  1961.  x  x  x.     Plaintiff   had,   therefore,   acquired   by   operation   of   law   a   right   to   a   grant,   a   government   grant   without   the   necessity  of  a  certificate  of  title  being  issued  on  the  land  he  is  now  in  possession  and  cultivation.     Records   also   show   that   when   the   disputed   lot   was   conveyed   by   Pasague   to   Umpad,   Pacete   never   objected  to  it.  Neither  did  he  file  a  suit  against  Pasague  over  the  said  transfer  to  protect  his  supposed   interest   over   the   said   lot.   In   fact,   the   testimony   of   Pasague   taken   on   12   November   2001   will   bolster   the   fact   that   Pacete   had   full   knowledge   of   the   conveyance   or   transfer   of   the   said   lot   made   by   Pasague   to   Umpad”     x   x   x     “Thus,   Pacete   cannot   therefore   rely   on   his   OCT   No.   V-­‐16654   as   an   unassailable   evidence   of   his   ownership   over   the   disputed   property.   The   Land   Registration   Act   and   the   Cadastral   Act   only   protect   holders  of  a  title  in  good  faith  and  do  not  permit  their  provisions  to  be  used  as  a  shield  to  enrich  oneself   at  the  expense  of  another.       As  correctly  found  by  the  CA,  Pacete  cannot  rely  on  his  OCT  No.  V-­‐  16654  as  an  incontrovertible  proof  of   his   ownership   over   the   property   in   dispute   because   he   was   not   in   good   faith   when   he   obtained   the   said   title  as  he  was  fully  aware  of  the  conveyance  of  the  said  lot  between  Pasague  and  Umpad.     Reconveyance   is   proper   under   the   circumstances.   Reconveyance   is   available   not   only   to   the   legal   owner   of   a   property   but   also   to   the   person  with   a   better   right  than   the   person   under   whose   name   said   property  was  erroneously  registered.  Although  Asotigue  is  not  the  titled  owner  of  the  disputed  lot,  he   apparently  has  a  better  right  than  Pacete,  the  latter  not  being  in  good  faith  when  he  obtained  his  title  to   the  said  property.”              

   

73  

                           

SUCCESSION  CASES  

 

74  

Jose  Casilang  Sr.  vs.  Rosario  Casilang-­‐Dizon,  et.  al.   G.R.  No.  180269   February  20,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Reyes     Topic:  Partition     Facts:     The   late   spouses   Liborio   and   Francisca   had   8   children,   namely:   Felicidad,   Ireneo,   Marcelina,   Jacinta,   Bonifacio,  Leonora,  Jose  and  Flora.  Liborio  died  intestate  followed  not  long  after  by  his  wife  Francisca.   Their  son  Bonifacio  also  died  in  1986,  survived  by  his  child  Bernabe,  while  son  Ireneo  died  on  June  11,   1992,   survived   by   his   four   children,   namely:   Mario,   Angelo,   Rosario   and   Rodolfo,   herein   respondents.   Rosario,   et.   al.   executed   a  Deed   of   Extrajudicial   Partition   with  Quitclaim  whereby   they   adjudicated   Lot   No.   4618   to   themselves.   In   the   same   instrument,   respondents   Mario,   Angelo   and   Rodolfo   renounced   their  respective  shares  in  Lot  No.  4618  in  favor  of  Rosario.  Rosario  filed  with  the  Municipal  Trial  Court   (MTC)  of  Calasiao,  Pangasinan  a  complaint  for  unlawful  detainer,  to  evict  her  uncle,  petitioner  Jose  from   Lot  No.  4618.  Rosario  claimed  that  Lot  No.  4618  was  owned  by  her  father  Ireneo,  as  evidenced  by  Tax   Declaration   No.   555   under   her   father’s   name.   In   his   Answer,   Jose   raised   the   defense   that   he   was   the   "lawful,   absolute,   exclusive   owner   and   in   actual   possession"   of   the   said   lot,   and   that   he   acquired   the   same  "through  intestate  succession  from  his  late  father."  The  MTC  rendered  judgment  finding  Rosario  to   be   the   owner   of   Lot   No.   4618,   and   ordering   Jose   to   remove   his   house,   vacate   Lot   No.   4618.   The   petitioners,  counting  7  of  the  8  children  of  Liborio  and  Francisca,  filed  with  the  RTC  of  Dagupan  City  a   Complaint   for   "Annulment   of   Documents,   Ownership   and   Peaceful   Possession   with   Damages"   against   Rosario,  et.  al.  The  petitioners  alleged  in  their  complaint  that  all  eight  children  of  Liborio  entered  into  a   verbal   partition   of   his   estate,   pursuant   to   which   Jose   was   allotted   Lot   No.   4618   as   his   share.   Rosario   alleged  that  she  is  the  actual  and  lawful  owner  of  Lot  No.  4618,  having  acquired  the  same  by  way  of  a   Deed  of  Extra  judicial  Partition  with  Quitclaim  which  was  duly  executed  among  her  and  her  brothers  and   that  her  ownership  over  subject  property  could  be  traced  back  to  her  late  father  Ireneo  which  the  latter   inherited  by  way  of  intestate  succession  from  his  deceased  father  Liborio.       Issue:     Can   the   subject   lot   be   adjudicated   to   Jose   Casilang   Sr.   through   oral   partition   invalidating   the   deed   of   extrajudicial  partition  and  quitclaim  by  Rosario?     Held:     Yes.       “A   review   of   the   parties’   evidence   shows   that   they   entered   into   an   oral   partition,   giving   Lot   No.   4618   to   Jose  as  his  share,  whereas  Rosario  presented  no  proof  whatsoever  that  her  father  inherited  Lot  No.  4618   from  his  father  Liborio.     Rosario’s  only  proof  of  Ireneo’s  ownership  is  TD  No.  555,  issued  in  his  name,  but  she  did  not  bother  to   explain  why  it  was  dated  1994,  although  Ireneo  died  on  June  11,  1992.   Liborio’s  ownership  of  Lot  No.   4618   is   admitted   by   all   the   parties,   but   it   must   be   asked   whether   in   his   lifetime   Liborio   did   in   fact   transmit  it  to  Ireneo,  and  if  not,  whether  it  was  conveyed  to  him  by  Liborio’s  heirs.  It  is  imperative  for  

 

75  

Rosario   to   have   presented   proof   of   this   transfer   to   Ireneo,   in   such   a   form   as   would   have   vested   ownership  in  him.  We  find,  instead,  a  preponderance  of  contrary  evidence.     “The  validity  of  an  oral  partition  is  well-­‐settled  in  our  jurisdiction.  In  Vda.  de  Espina  v.  Abaya,  this  Court   declared  that  an  oral  partition  is  valid:     Anent   the   issue   of   oral   partition,   We   sustain   the   validity   of   said   partition.   "An   agreement   of   partition   may  be  made  orally  or  in  writing.  An  oral  agreement  for  the  partition  of  the  property  owned  in  common   is   valid   and   enforceable   upon   the   parties.   The   Statute   of   Frauds   has   no   operation   in   this   kind   of   agreements,  for  partition  is  not  a  conveyance  of  property  but  simply  a  segregation  and  designation  of   the  part  of  the  property  which  belong  to  the  co-­‐owners."       “In  numerous  cases  it  has  been  held  or  stated  that  parol  partition  may  be  sustained  on  the  ground  of   estoppel  of  the  parties  to  assert  the  rights  of  a  tenant  in  common  as  to  parts  of  land  divided  by  parol   partition   as   to   which   possession   in   severalty   was  taken   and  acts  of   individual  ownership  were   exercised.   And   a   court   of   equity   will   recognize   the   agreement   and   decree   it   to   be   valid   and   effectual   for   the   purpose   of   concluding   the   right   of   the   parties   as   between   each   other   to   hold   their   respective   parts   in   severalty.     A  parol  partition  may  also  be  sustained  on  the  ground  that  the  parties  thereto  have  acquiesced  in  and   ratified  the  partition  by  taking  possession  in  severalty,  exercising  acts  of  ownership  with  respect  thereto,   or  otherwise  recognizing  the  existence  of  the  partition.”  

 

76  

Maria  Mendoza,  et.  al.  v.  Julia  Policarpio  Delos  Santos   G.R.  No.  176422   March  20,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Reyes     Topic:  Reserva  Troncal     Facts:     Petitioners   are   grandchildren   of   Placido   Mendoza   and   Dominga   Mendoza.   Placido   and   Dominga   had   4   children:   Antonio,   Exequiel,   married   to   Leonor,   Apolonio   and   Valentin.   Petitioners   Maria,   Deogracias,   Dionisia,  Adoracion,  Marcela  and  Ricardo  are  the  children  of  Antonio.  Respondents  on  the  other  hand   are   Valentin’s   children:   Juliana,   Fely,   Mercedes,   Elvira   and   Fortunato.   Petitioners   alleged   that   the   properties   were   part   of   Placido   and   Dominga’s   properties   that   were   subject   of   an   oral   partition   and   subsequently  adjudicated  to  Exequiel.  After  Exequiel’s  death,  it  passed  on  to  his  spouse  Leonor  and  only   daughter,   Gregoria.   After   Leonor’s   death,   her   share   went   to   Gregoria.   Gregoria   died   intestate   and   without  issue.  They  claimed  that  after  Gregoria’s  death,  respondent,  who  is  Leonor’s  sister,  adjudicated   unto  herself  all  these  properties  as  the  sole  surviving  heir  of  Leonor  and  Gregoria.  Hence,  Mendoza,  et.   al.  claim  that  the  properties  should  have  been  reserved  by  Delos  Santos  in  their  behalf  and  must  now   revert   back   to   them,   applying   Article   891   of   the   Civil   Code   on   reserva   troncal.   Delos   Santos,   however,   denies  any  obligation  to  reserve  the  properties  as  these  did  not  originate  from  Mendoza’s  familial  line   and  were  not  originally  owned  by  Placido  and  Dominga.  According  to  her,  the  properties  were  bought  by   Exequiel   and   Antonio   from   a   certain   Alfonso   Ramos.   The   Regional   Trial   Court   (RTC)   of   Malolos,   Bulacan,   Branch   6,   found   merit   in   Mendoza’s   claim   and   granted   their   action   for   Recovery   of   Possession   by   Reserva   Troncal.   The   CA   ruled   that   Mendoza   failed   to   establish   that   Placido   and   Dominga   owned   the   properties  in  dispute.  The  CA  also  ruled  that  even  assuming  that  Placido  and  Dominga  previously  owned   the  properties,  it  still  cannot  be  subject  to  reserva  troncal  as  neither  Exequiel  predeceased  Placido  and   Dominga  nor  did  Gregoria  predecease  Exequiel.       Issue:     Are   the   properties   reservable   and   is   it   sufficient   that   the   properties   came   from   the   paternal   line   of   Gregoria  for  it  to  be  subject  to  reserva  troncal?     Held:     No.       “There  are  three  (3)  lines  of  transmission  in  reserva  troncal.  The  first  transmission  is  by  gratuitous  title,   whether   by   inheritance   or   donation,   from   an   ascendant/brother/sister   to   a   descendant   called   the   prepositus.  The  second  transmission  is  by  operation  of  law  from  the  prepositus  to  the  other  ascendant   or   reservor,   also   called   the   reservista.   The   third   and   last   transmission   is   from   the   reservista   to   the   reservees   or   reservatarios   who   must   be   relatives   within   the   third   degree   from   which   the   property   came.”     “It   should   be   pointed   out   that   the   ownership   of   the   properties   should   be   reckoned   only   from   Exequiel’s   as  he  is  the  ascendant  from  where  the  first  transmission  occurred,  or  from  whom  Gregoria  inherited  the   properties   in   dispute.   The   law   does   not   go   farther   than   such   ascendant/brother/sister   in   determining  

 

77  

the   lineal   character   of   the   property.  It   was   also   immaterial   for   the   CA   to   determine   whether   Exequiel   predeceased  Placido  and  Dominga  or  whether  Gregoria  predeceased  Exequiel.  What  is  pertinent  is  that   Exequiel  owned  the  properties  and  he  is  the  ascendant  from  whom  the  properties  in  dispute  originally   came.   Gregoria,   on   the   other   hand,   is   the   descendant   who   received   the   properties   from   Exequiel   by   gratuitous  title.     Moreover,  Article  891  simply  requires  that  the  property  should  have  been  acquired  by  the  descendant   or   prepositus   from   an   ascendant   by   gratuitous   or   lucrative   title.   A   transmission   is   gratuitous   or   by   gratuitous   title   when   the   recipient   does   not   give   anything   in   return.   At   risk   of   being   repetitious,   what   was  clearly  established  in  this  case  is  that  the  properties  in  dispute  were  owned  by  Exequiel  (ascendant).   After  his  death,  Gregoria  (descendant/prepositus)  acquired  the  properties  as  inheritance.”     x   x   x     “Gregoria’s   ascendants   are   her   parents,   Exequiel   and   Leonor,   her   grandparents,   great-­‐grandparents   and   so  on.  On  the  other  hand,  Gregoria’s  descendants,  if  she  had  one,  would  be  her  children,  grandchildren   and  great-­‐grandchildren.   Not   being   Gregoria’s   ascendants,   both   petitioners   and   Julia,   therefore,   are   her   collateral   relatives.   In   determining   the   collateral   line   of   relationship,   ascent   is   made   to   the   common   ancestor   and   then   descent   to   the   relative   from   whom   the   computation   is   made.   In   the   case   of   Julia’s   collateral   relationship   with   Gregoria,   ascent   is   to   be   made   from   Gregoria   to   her   mother   Leonor   (one   line/degree),  then  to  the  common  ancestor,  that  is,  Julia  and  Leonor’s  parents  (second  line/degree),  and   then  descent  to  Julia,  her  aunt  (third  line/degree).  Thus,  Julia  is  Gregoria’s  collateral  relative  within  the   third  degree  and  not  her  ascendant.”     x   x   x     “Moreover,   petitioners   cannot   be   considered   reservees/reservatarios   as   they   are   not   relatives   within   the  third  degree  of  Gregoria  from  whom  the  properties  came.  The  person  from  whom  the  degree  should   be   reckoned   is   the   descendant/prepositus―the   one   at   the   end   of   the   line   from   which   the   property   came  and  upon  whom  the  property  last  revolved  by  descent.  It  is  Gregoria  in  this  case.  Petitioners  are   Gregoria’s   fourth   degree   relatives,   being   her   first   cousins.   First   cousins   of   the   prepositus   are   fourth   degree  relatives  and  are  not  reservees  or  reservatarios.”       x   x   x     “Following   the   order   prescribed   by   law   in   legitimate   succession,   when   there   are   relatives   of   the   descendant   within   the   third   degree,   the   right   of   the   nearest   relative,   called   reservatario,   over   the   property  which  the  reservista  (person  holding  it  subject  to  reservation)  should  return  to  him,  excludes   that  of  the  one  more  remote.  The  right  of  representation  cannot  be  alleged  when  the  one  claiming  same   as  a  reservatario  of  the  reservable  property  is  not  among  the  relatives  within  the  third  degree  belong  to   the  line  from  which  such  property  came,  inasmuch  as  the  right  granted  by  the  Civil  Code  in  Article  811   now  Article  891  is  in  the  highest  degree  personal  and  for  the  exclusive  benefit  of  the  designated  persons   who   are   the   relatives,   within   the   third   degree,   of   the   person   from   whom   the   reservable   property   came.   Therefore,  relatives  of  the  fourth  and  the  succeeding  degrees  can  never  be  considered  as  reservatarios,   since  the  law  does  not  recognize  them  as  such.”    

 

78  

Carolina  Vda.  De  Figuracion,  et.  al.  vs.  Emilia  Figuracion-­‐Gerilla   G.R.  No.  151334   February  13,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Reyes     Topic:  Partition     Facts:     Leandro  Figuracion  died  intestate  and  the  parties  herein  are  his  heirs.  Petitioner  Carolina  is  the  surviving   spouse.   The   other   petitioners   –   Elena   Figuracion-­‐Ancheta,   Hilaria   A.   Figuracion,   Felipa   Figuracion-­‐ Manuel,   Quintin   Figuracion,   and   Mary   Figuracion-­‐Ginez   –   and   respondent   Emilia   were   Carolina   and   Leandro’s  children.  Subject  of  the  dispute  are  2  parcels  of  land  which  were  acquired  by  Leandro  during   his  lifetime.  Both  lands  were  registered  in  the  name  of  Leandro  Figuracion  married  to  Carolina  Adviento.   Leandro   executed   a   Deed   of   Quitclaim   over   the   above   real   properties   in   favor   of   his   6   children.   Their   shares,  however,  were  not  delineated  with  particularity  because  spouses  Leandro  and  Carolina  reserved   the  lots  and  its  fruits  for  their  expenses.  Also  involved  in  the  controversy  is  Lot  No.  707  originally  owned   by   Eulalio   Adviento,   covered   by   OCT   No.   15867   issued   in   his   name.   Eulalio   begot   Agripina   Adviento   with   his  first  wife  Marcela  Estioko,  whom  Eulalio  survived.  When  he  remarried,  Eulalio  had  another  daughter,   herein   petitioner   Carolina,   with   his   second   wife,   Faustina   Escabesa.   Agripina  executed   a  Deed   of   Quitclaim  over  the  eastern  half  of  Lot  No.  707  in  favor  of  her  niece,  herein  respondent  Emilia.  Petitioner   Carolina   executed   an  Affidavit   of   Self-­‐Adjudication,   adjudicating   unto   herself   the   entire   Lot   No.   707   as   the   sole   and   exclusive   heir   of   her   deceased   parents,   Eulalio   and   Faustina.   Carolina   also   executed   a  Deed   of  Absolute  Sale  No.  707  in  favor  of  petitioners  Hilaria  and  Felipa,  who  in  turn  immediately  caused  the   cancellation  of  OCT  No.  15867  and  the  issuance  of  TCT  No.  42244  in  their  names.  Emilia  and  her  family   went  to  the  United  States  and  returned  to  the  Philippines  only  in  1981.  Upon  her  return  and  relying  on   the  Deed   of   Quitclaim,   she   built   a   house   on   the   eastern   half   of   Lot   No.   707.   The   legal   debacle   of   the   Figuracions   started   in   1994   when   Hilaria   and   her   agents   threatened   to   demolish   the   house   of   Emilia   who,  in  retaliation,  was  prompted  to  seek  the  partition  of  Lot  No.  707.       Issue:     Can  Emilia  compel  the  partition  of  Lot  No.  707?     Held:     Yes.       “The   first   stage   in   an   action   for   partition   is   the   settlement   of   the   issue   of   ownership.   Such   an   action   will   not   lie   if   the   claimant   has   no   rightful   interest   in   the   subject   property.   In   fact,   the   parties   filing   the   action   are   required   by   the   Rules   of   Court   to   set   forth   in   their   complaint   the   nature   and   the   extent   of   their   title   to  the  property.  It  would  be  premature  to  effect  a  partition  until  and  unless  the  question  of  ownership  is   first  definitely  resolved.       Here,   the   respondent   traces   her   ownership   over   the   eastern   half   of   Lot   No.   707   from   the  Deed   of   Quitclaimexecuted   by   Agripina,   who   in   turn,   was   the   co-­‐owner   thereof   being   one   of   the   legitimate   heirs   of   Eulalio.   It   is   well   to   recall   that   the   petitioners   failed   to   categorically   dispute   the   existence   of   the  Deed  

 

79  

of  Quitclaim.  Instead,  they  averred  that  it  has  been  rendered  ineffective  by  TCT  No.  42244  in  the  name   of  Felipa  and  Hilaria―this  contention  is,  of  course,  flawed.   Mere  issuance  of  a  certificate  of  title  in  the  name  of  any  person  does  not  foreclose  the  possibility  that   the   real   property   may   be   under   coownership   with   persons   not   named   in   the   certificate,   or   that   the   registrant   may   only   be   a   trustee,   or   that   other   parties   may   have   acquired   interest   over   the   property   subsequent   to   the   issuance   of   the   certificate   of   title.  Stated   differently,   placing   a   parcel   of   land   under   the  mantle  of  the  Torrens  system  does  not  mean  that  ownership  thereof  can  no  longer  be  disputed.  The   certificate  cannot  always  be  considered  as  conclusive  evidence  of  ownership.  In  this  case,  co-­‐ownership   of   Lot   No.   707   was   precisely   what   respondent   Emilia   was   able   to   successfully   establish,   as   correctly   found  by  the  RTC  and  affirmed  by  the  CA.     The  status  of  Agripina  and  Carolina  as  the  legitimate  heirs  of  Eulalio  is  an  undisputed  fact.  As  such  heirs,   they  became  co-­‐owners  of  Lot  No.  707  upon  the  death  of  Eulalio  on  July  20,  1930.  Since  Faustina  was   predeceased   by   Eulalio,   she   likewise   became   a   co-­‐owner   of   the   lot   upon   Eulalio’s   death.   Faustina’s   share,   however,   passed   on   to   her   daughter   Carolina   when   the   former   died   on   October   18,   1949.   The  Affidavit   of   Self-­‐Adjudicationexecuted   by   Carolina   did   not   prejudice   the   share   of   Agripina   because   it   is  not  legally  possible  for  one  to  adjudicate  unto  himself  an  entire  property  he  was  not  the  sole  owner   of.  A  co-­‐owner  cannot  alienate  the  shares  of  her  other  co-­‐owners  –  nemo  dat  qui  non  habet.       Hence,  Lot  No.  707  was  a  co-­‐owned  property  of  Agripina  and  Carolina.  As  co-­‐owners,  each  of  them  had   full  ownership  of  her  part  and  of  the  fruits  and  benefits  pertaining  thereto.  Each  of  them  also  had  the   right  to  alienate  the  lot  but  only  in  so  far  as  the  extent  of  her  portion  was  affected.     Thus,   when   Carolina   sold   the   entire   Lot   No.   707   on   December   11,   1962   to   Hilaria   and   Felipa   without   the   consent   of   her   co-­‐owner   Agripina,   the   disposition   affected   only   Carolina’s  pro   indiviso  share,   and   the   vendees,  Hilaria  and  Felipa,  acquired  only  what  corresponds  to  Carolina’s  share.  A  co-­‐owner  is  entitled   to   sell   his   undivided   share;   hence,   a   sale   of   the   entire   property   by   one   co-­‐owner   without   the   consent   of   the   other   co-­‐owners   is   not   null   and   void   and   only   the   rights   of   the   co-­‐owner/seller   are   transferred,   thereby  making  the  buyer  a  co-­‐owner  of  the  property.     Accordingly,  the  deed  of  sale  executed  by  Carolina  in  favor  of  Hilaria  and  Felipa  was  a  valid  conveyance   but  only  insofar  as  the  share  of  Carolina  in  the  co-­‐ownership  is  concerned.  As  Carolina’s  successors-­‐in-­‐ interest   to   the   property,   Hilaria   and   Felipa   could   not   acquire   any   superior   right   in   the   property   than   what  Carolina  is  entitled  to  or  could  transfer  or  alienate  after  partition.     In   a   contract   of   sale   of   co-­‐owned   property,   what   the   vendee   obtains   by   virtue   of   such   a   sale   are   the   same  rights  as  the  vendor  had  as  co-­‐owner,  and  the  vendee  merely  steps  into  the  shoes  of  the  vendor  as   co-­‐owner.  Hilaria   and   Felipa   did   not   acquire   the   undivided   portion   pertaining   to   Agripina,   which   has   already   been   effectively   bequeathed   to   respondent   Emilia   as   early   as   November   28,   1961   thru   the  Deed   of   Quitclaim.   In   turn,   being   the   successor-­‐in-­‐interest   of   Agripina’s   share   in   Lot   No.   707,   respondent   Emilia   took   the   former’s   place   in   the   co-­‐ownership   and   as   such   co-­‐owner,   has   the   right   to   compel   partition  at  any  time.  

 

80  

Richard  B.  Lopez  v.  Diana  Jeanne  Lopez,  et.  al.   G.R.  No.  189984   November  12,  2012   Ponente:  J.Perlas-­‐Bernabe     Topic:  Probate:  Attestation  Clause     Facts:     Enrique   S.   Lopez   died   leaving   his   wife,   Wendy   B.   Lopez,   and   their   four   legitimate   children,   namely,   petitioner  Richard  B.  Lopez  and  the  respondents  Diana  Jeanne  Lopez,  Marybeth  de  Leon  and  Victoria  L.   Tuazon   as   compulsory   heirs.   Before   Enrique’s   death,   he   executed   a   Last   Will   and   Testament  and   constituted   Richard   as   his   executor   and   administrator.   Richard   filed   a   petition   for   the   probate   of   his   father's  Last  Will  and  Testament  before  the  RTC  with  prayer  for  the  issuance  of  letters  testamentary  in   his   favor.   Marybeth   and   Victoria   opposed   the   petition   contending   that   the   purported   last   will   and   testament   was   not   executed   and   attested   as   required   by   law,   and   that   it   was   procured   by   undue   and   improper   pressure   and   influence   on   the   part   of   Richard.   The   RTC   denied   probate.   It   held   that   while   Article   809   of   the   same   Code   requires   mere   substantial   compliance   of   the   form   laid   down   in   Article   805   thereof,   the   rule   only   applies   if   the   number   of   pages   is   reflected   somewhere   else   in   the   will   with   no   evidence  aliunde  or  extrinsic  evidence  required.  While  the  acknowledgment  portion  stated  that  the  will   consists   of   7   pages   including   the   page   on   which   the   ratification   and   acknowledgment   are   written,   the   RTC  observed  that  it  has  8  pages  including  the  acknowledgment  portion.       Issue:     Can   the   fact   that   the   acknowledgment   portion   stated   that   the   will   consisted   of   7   pages   including   the   page  on  which  the  ratification  and  acknowledgment  are  written  when  it  actually  consisted  of  8  pages  be   considered  as  substantial  compliance  in  the  form  of  a  will?     Held:     No.       “The   law   is   clear   that   the   attestation   must   state   the   number   of   pages   used   upon   which   the   will   is   written.   The   purpose   of   the   law   is   to   safeguard   against   possible   interpolation   or   omission   of   one   or   some  of  its  pages  and  prevent  any  increase  or  decrease  in  the  pages.     While  Article  809  allows  substantial  compliance  for  defects  in  the  form  of  the  attestation  clause,  Richard   likewise   failed   in   this   respect.   The   statement   in   the   Acknowledgment   portion   of   the   subject   last   will   and   testament  that  it  "consists  of  7  pages  including  the  page  on  which  the  ratification  and  acknowledgment   are  written"  cannot  be  deemed  substantial  compliance.  The  will  actually  consists  of  8  pages  including  its   acknowledgment   which   discrepancy   cannot   be   explained   by   mere   examination   of   the   will   itself   but   through   the   presentation   of   evidence   aliund.   On   this   score   is   the   comment   of   Justice   J.B.L.   Reyes   regarding  the  application  of  Article  809,  to  wit:     “The  rule  must  be  limited  to  disregarding  those  defects  that  can  be  supplied  by  an  examination  of  the   will   itself:   whether   all   the   pages   are   consecutively   numbered;   whether   the   signatures   appear   in   each   and   every   page;   whether   the   subscribing   witnesses   are   three   or   the   will   was   notarized.   All   these   are   facts   that   the   will   itself   can   reveal,   and   defects   or   even   omissions   concerning   them   in   the   attestation  

 

81  

clause   can   be   safely   disregarded.   But   the   total   number   of   pages,   and   whether   all   persons   required   to   sign  did  so  in  the  presence  of  each  other  must  substantially  appear  in  the  attestation  clause,  being  the   only  check  against  perjury  in  the  probate  proceedings.”  

 

82  

Antipolo  Ining  et.  al.  vs.  Leonardo  R.  Vega  et.  al     G.R.  No.  174727   August  12,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Del  Castillo     Topic:  Repudiation  of  a  Co-­‐owner     Facts:       Leon   Roldan   is   the   owner   of   the   subject   property   in   Aklan.   He   is   married   to   Rafaela   Menez.   Leon   and   Rafaela   died   without   issue.   Leon   was   survived   by   his   siblings   Romana   and   Gregoria   who   are   also   now   both  deceased.  Petitioners  in  this  case,  except  for  Tresvalles  and  Tajonera,  are  Gregoria’s  heirs.       Leonardo   filed   with   the   Regional   Trial   Court   for   partition,   recovery   of   ownership   and   possession,   with   damages,  against  Gregoria’s  heirs  and  alleged  that  on  several  occasions,  he  demanded  the  partition  of   the   property   but   Gregoria’s   heirs   refused   to   heed   his   demands   and   Gregoria’s   heirs   claimed   sole   ownership   of   the   property.   Among   others,   he   further   alleged   that   portions   of   the   property   were   sold   to   Tresvalles   and   Tajonera,   which   portions   must   be   collated   and   included   as   part   of   the   portion   to   be   awarded  to  Gregoria’s  heirs  and  that  the  husband  of  the  petitioner  Teodora,  illegally  claimed  absolute   ownership  of  the  property  which  have  deprived  him  of  the  fruits  of  the  property.       Other   heirs   claimed   in   their   answer   that   Leonardo   had   no   cause   of   action   against   them   and   that   they   have   become   the   sole   owners   of   the   subject   property   through   continuous,   actual,   adverse,   notorious   and  exclusive  possession  of  the  property  with  a  just  title.     Leonardo  passed  away  and  was  duly  substituted  by  his  heirs,  the  respondents  herein.  Leonardo  action   for  partition  was  dismissed  and  referred  to  MTC.  The  property  was  allegedly  sold  by  Leon  to  Enriquez   through  an  unnotarized  document  who  in  turn  allegedly  sold  the  property  to  Lucimo  Sr.  Petitioners  were   in   sole   possession   of   the   property   for   more   than   30   years,   while   Leonardo   acquired   custody   of   OCT.   Lucimo  Sr.  executed  an  Affidavit  of  Ownership  of  Land  claiming  sole  ownership  of  the  property  which  he   utilized  to  secure  in  his  name  Tax  Declaration  over  the  property.  Lucimo  Sr.  died  in  199  and  the  property   was  partitioned  among  the  petitioners,  to  the  exclusion  of  Leonardo.       Issue:       Is   Lucimo   Sr.’s   execution   of   the   Affidavit   of   Ownership   of   Land   in   1979   amounted   to   a   repudiation   of   his   co-­‐ownership  of  the  property  with  Leonardo  hence  his  action  for  partition  is  barred  by  prescription  and   laches?     Held:       No.       The  finding  that  Leon  did  not  sell  the  property  to  Lucimo  Sr.  had  long  been  settled  and  had  become  final   for   failure   of   petitioners   to   appeal.   Thus,   the   property   remained   part   of   Leon’s   estate.   Thus,   petitioners’   insistence  on  Lucimo  Sr.’s  1943  purchase  of  the  property  to  reinforce  their  claim  over  the  property  must   be  ignored.  Since  no  transfer  from  Leon  to  Lucimo  Sr.  took  place,  the  subject  property  clearly  remained   part  of  Leon’s  estate  upon  his  passing  in  1962.  

 

83  

  x   x   x     Leon  died  without  issue;  his  heirs  are  his  siblings  Romana  and  Gregoria.  Gregoria’s  and  Romana’s  heirs     are  co-­‐owners  of  the  subject  property.     Thus,  having  succeeded  to  the  property  as  heirs  of  Gregoria  and  Romana,  petitioners  and  respondents   became   co-­‐owners   thereof.   As   co-­‐owners,   they   may   use   the   property   owned   in   common,   provided   they   do   so   in   accordance   with   the   purpose   for   which   it   is   intended   and   in   such   a   way   as   not   to   injure   the   interest  of  the  co-­‐ownership  or  prevent  the  other  co-­‐owners  from  using  it  according  to  their  rights.  They   have  the  full  ownership  of  their  parts  and  of  the  fruits  and  benefits  pertaining  thereto,  and  may  alienate,   assign  or  mortgage  them,  and  even  substitute  another  person  in  their  enjoyment,  except  when  personal   rights   are   involved.   Each   co-­‐owner   may   demand   at   any   time   the   partition   of   the   thing   owned   in   common,   insofar   as   his   share   is   concerned.   Finally,   no   prescription   shall   run   in   favor   of   one   of   the   co-­‐ heirs  against  the  others  so  long  as  he  expressly  or  impliedly  recognizes  the  co-­‐ownership.     x   x   x     For  prescription  to  set  in,  the    repudiation  must  be  done  by  a    co-­‐owner.  “A  co-­‐owner  cannot  acquire  by   prescription   the   share   of   the   other   co-­‐owners,   absent   any   clear   repudiation   of   the   co-­‐ownership.   In   order  that  the  title  may  prescribe  in  favor  of  a  co-­‐owner,  the  following  requisites  must  concur:  (1)  the   co-­‐owner   has   performed   unequivocal   acts   of   repudiation   amounting   to   an   ouster   of   the   other   co-­‐ owners;  (2)  such  positive  acts  of  repudiation  have  been  made  known  to  the  other  co-­‐owners;  and  (3)  the   evidence  thereof  is  clear  and  convincing.”     In   fine,   since   none   of   the   co-­‐owners   made   a   valid   repudiation   of   the   existing   co-­‐ownership,   Leonardo   could  seek  partition  of  the  property  at  any  time.  

 

84  

Heirs  of  Magdaleno  Ypon  vs.  Gaudioso  Ponteras  Ricaforte  a.k.a.  “Gaudioso  E.  Ypon”   G.R.  No.  198680   July  8,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Perlas-­‐Bernabe     Topic:  Determination  of  Heirship  in  Special  Proceeding     Facts:     Petitioners,   together   with   some   of   their   cousins   filed   a   complaint   for   Cancellation   of   Title   and   Reconveyance   with   Damages   against   respondent   Gaudioso   Ponteras   Ricaforte.   They   alleged   that   Magdaleno  died  intestate  and  childless  but  left  various  real  estate  properties.  They  are  claiming  to  be   the   sole   heir   of   Magdaleno   but   Gaudioso   executed   an   Affidavit   of   Self-­‐Adjudication   and   caused   the   cancellation  certificates  of  title  that  lead  to  subsequent  transfer  in  his  name  which  to  the  prejudice  of   petitioners  who  are  Magdaleno’s  collateral  relatives  and  successors-­‐in-­‐interest.  In  his  answer,  Gaudioso   claimed  to  be  the  lawful  son.         Issue:     Can   the   determination   of   heirship   be   made   in   an   ordinary   action   for   recovery   of   ownership   and/or   possession?       Held:     No.       Matters  relating  to  the  rights  of  filiation  and  heirship  must  be  ventilated  in  the  proper  probate  court  in  a   special  proceeding  instituted  precisely  for  the  purpose  of  determining  such  rights.―In  the  case  of  Heirs   of  Teofilo  Gabatan  v.  CA  (2009),  the  Court  held  that  the  determination  of  who  are  the  decedent’s  lawful   heirs  must  be  made  in  the  proper  special  proceeding  for  such  purpose,  and  not  in  an  ordinary  suit  for   recovery  of  ownership  and/or  possession,  as  in  this  case:  Jurisprudence  dictates  that  the  determination   of  who  are  the  legal  heirs  of  the  deceased  must  be  made  in  the  proper  special  proceedings  in  court,  and   not  in  an  ordinary  suit  for  recovery  of  ownership  and  possession  of  property.  This  must  take  precedence   over  the  action  for  recovery  of  possession  and  ownership.  The  Court  has  consistently  ruled  that  the  trial   court   cannot   make   a   declaration   of   heirship   in   the   civil   action   for   the   reason   that   such   a   declaration   can   only  be  made  in  a  special  proceeding.       x   x   x     In  the  early  case  of  Litam,  et  al.  v.  Rivera,  this  Court  ruled  that  the  declaration  of  heirship  must  be  made   in  a  special  proceeding,  and  not  in  an  independent  civil  action.  This  doctrine  was  reiterated  in  Solivio  v.   Court   of   Appeals   x  x  x:   In   the   more   recent   case   of   Milagros   Joaquino   v.   Lourdes   Reyes,   the   Court   reiterated  its  ruling  that  matters  relating  to  the  rights  of  filiation  and  heirship  must  be  ventilated  in  the   proper   probate   court   in   a   special   proceeding   instituted   precisely   for   the   purpose   of   determining   such   rights.   Citing   the   case   of   Agapay   v.   Palang,   this   Court   held   that   the   status   of   an   illegitimate   child   who   claimed  to  be  an  heir  to  a  decedent’s  estate  could  not  be  adjudicated  in  an  ordinary  civil  action  which,   as  in  this  case,  was  for  the  recovery  of  property.  

 

85  

  x   x   x       By   way   of   exception,   the   need   to   institute   a   separate   special   proceeding   for   the   determination   of   heirship   may   be   dispensed   with   for   the   sake   of   practicality,   as   when   the   parties   in   the   civil   case   had   voluntarily   submitted   the   issue   to   the   trial   court   and   already   presented   their   evidence   regarding   the   issue   of   heirship,   and   the   Regional   Trial   Court   had   consequently   rendered   judgment   thereon,   or   when   a   special  proceeding  had  been  instituted  but  had  been  finally  closed  and  terminated,  and  hence,  cannot   be   re-­‐opened.   However,   in   this   case,   none   of   the   foregoing   exceptions,   or   those   of   similar   nature,   appear  to  exist.  

 

86  

Heirs  of  Dr.  Mariano  Favis  Sr.  vs.  Juana  Gonzales   G.R.  No.  185922                                 January  15,  2014   Ponente:  J.  Perez     Topic:  Donation  Inter  Vivos     Facts:     Dr.   Favis   was   married   to   Capitolina   Aguilar   with   whom   he   had   7   children   named   Purita,   Reynaldo,   Consolacion,   Mariano,   Esther,   Mercedes   and   Nelly.   When   Capitolina   died,   Dr.   Favis   took   Juana   as   his   common-­‐law   wife   with   whom   he   sired   one   child,   Mariano.   When   Dr.   Favis   got   married   to   Juana,   he   executed  an  affidavit  acknowledging  Mariano  as  one  of  his  legitimate  children.  Mariano  was  married  to   Larcelita  with  whom  he  has  four  children,  named:  Ma.  Theresa  Joana,  Ma.  Cristina,  James  Mark,  and  Ma.   Thea.       On   July   29,   1995,   Dr.   Favis   died   of   cardiopulmonary   arrest   secondary   to   multi-­‐organ/system   failure   secondary   to   sepsis   secondary   to   pneumonia.   He   died   intestate   and   left   the   following   properties:     a   parcel  of  residential  land,  a  commercial  building  erected  on  the  said  land,  another  parcel  of  residential   land,  a  house,  a  parcel  of  orchard  land.     Before  he  died,  he  allegedly  executed  a  Deed  of  Donation  transferring  and  conveying  properties  in  favor   of  his  grandchildren  with  Juana.  Which  was  claimed  to  prejudiced  petitioners’  legitime,  hence  the  filing   of   an   action   for   annulment   of   the   Deed   of   Donation,   inventory,   liquidation   and   partition   of   property   before  the  RTC  of  Vigan,  Ilocos  Sur.     Issue:     Is  the  Deed  of  Donation  void  for  it  was  executed  not  under  the  fullness  of  faculties  of  the  donor?     Held:     Yes.       The  issue  of  the  validity  of  donation  was  fully  litigated  and  discussed  by  the  trial  court.  Indeed,  the  trial   court's   findings   were   placed   at   issue   before   the   Court   of   Appeals   but   the   appellate   court   chose   to   confine  its  review  to  the  procedural  aspect.       In  addressing  first  the  procedural  issue,  the  facts  of  the  case  show  that  compromise  was  never  an  option   insofar   as   the   respondents   were   concerned.   The   impossibility   of   compromise   instead   of   litigation   was   shown   not   alone   by   the   absence   of   a   motion   to   dismiss   but   on   the   respondents’   insistence   on   the   validity   of   the   donation   in   their   favor   of   the   subject   properties.   Nor   could   it   have   been   otherwise   because  the  Pre-­‐trial  Order  specifically  limited  the  issues  to  the  validity  of  the  deed  and  whether  or  not   respondent  Juana  and  Mariano  are  compulsory  heirs  of  Dr.  Favis.       The   Court   of   Appeals   ignored   the   facts   of   the   case   that   clearly   demonstrated   the   refusal   by   the   respondents   to   compromise.   Instead   it   ordered   the   dismissal   of   petitioner’s   complaint   on   the   ground   that  it  did  not  allege  what  in  fact  was  shown  during  the  trial.  The  error  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  is  patent.  

 

87  

  x   x   x     Dr.  Mariano  Favis,  Sr.  during  the  execution  of  the  Deed  of  Donation  was  already  92  years  old;  living  with   the   defendants   and   those   years   from   1993   to   1995   were   the   critical   years   when   he   was   sick   most   of   the   time.  In  short,  he’s  dependent  on  the  care  of  his  housemates  particularly  the  members  of  his  family.  It  is   the  contention  of  the  defendants  though  that  Dr.  Mariano  Favis,  Sr.  had  full  control  of  his  mind  during   the   execution   of   the   Deed   of   Donation   because   at   that   time,   he   could   go   on   with   the   regular   way   of   life   or   could   perform   his   daily   routine   without   the   aid   of   anybody   like   taking   a   bath,   eating   his   meals,   reading   the   newspaper,   watching   television,   go   to   the   church   on   Sundays,   walking   down   the   plaza   to   exercise  and  most  importantly  go  to  the  cockpit  arena  and  bet.  Dr.  Ofelia  Adapon,  a  neurology  expert   however,   testified   that   a   person   suffering   from   Parkinson’s   disease   when   he   goes   to   the   cockpit   does   not   necessarily   mean   that   such   person   has   in   full   control   of   his   mental   faculties   because   anyone,   even   a   retarded   person,   a   person   who   has   not   studied   and   have   no   intellect   can   go   to   the   cockpit   and   bet.   One   can  do  everything  but  do  not  have  control  of  his  mind.  x  x  x  That  Hiatal  Hernia  creeps  in  very  insidiously,   one  is  not  sure  especially  if  the  person  has  not  complained  and  no  examination  was  done.  It  could  be   there  for  the  last  time  and  no  one  will  know.  x  x  x.     The  correctness  of  the  finding  was  not  touched  by  the  Court  of  Appeals.  The  respondents  opted  to  rely   only  on  what  the  appellate  court  considered,  erroneously  though,  was  a  procedural  infirmity.  The  trial   court's   factual   finding,   therefore,   stands   unreversed;   and   respondents   did   not   provide   us   with   any   argument  to  have  it  reversed.  

 

88  

Cerila  J.  Calanasan  vs.  Spouses  Virgilio  Dolorito  and  Evelyn  c.  Dolorito   G.R.  No.  171937   November  25,  2013   Ponente:  J.  Brion     Topic:  Donation     Facts:       Cerila  took  care  of  her  orphan  niece,  Evelyn,  since  the  latter  was  a  child  and  when  Evelyn  was  already   married   to   Virgilio,   Cerila   donated   to   Evelyn   a   parcel   of   land   which   had   earlier   been   mortgaged   for   P15,000.00.   The   donation   was   conditional   that   Evelyn   must   redeem   the   land   and   the   petitioner   was   entitled  to  possess  and  enjoy  the  property  as  long  as  she  lived.  Evelyn  redeemed  the  property,  had  the   title  of  the  land  transferred  to  her  name,  and  granted  the  Cerila  usufructuary  rights  over  the  donated   land.  Soon  after,  Cerila  filed  a  complaint  that  Evelyn  had  committed  acts  of  ingratitude  against  her  and   prayed  that  her  donation  be  revoked.  Cerila  died  while  the  case  was  pending  with  the  RTC.  Respondents   filed  a  demurrer  to  evidence  because  the  petitioner  failed  to  prove  that  it  was  Evelyn  who  committed   acts   of   ingratitude   against   the   petitioner,   thus,   Article   765   of   the   New   Civil   Code   found   no   application   in   the  case.     Issue:       Is  Article  765  of  the  New  Civil  Code  applicable  in  determining  if  there  was  a  valid  revocation  of  donation   or  not  in  the  case?     Held:   No.       Rules  of  contract  govern  the    onerous  portion  of  donation;  rules  of  donation  only  apply  to    the  excess,  if   any.     x   x   x     In  Republic  of  the  Phils.  v.  Silim,  we  classified  donations  according  to  purpose.  A  pure/simple  donation  is   the  truest  form  of  donation  as  it  is  based  on  pure  gratuity.  The  remuneratory/compensatory  type  has  for   its  purpose  the  rewarding  of  the  donee  for  past  services,  which  services  do  not  amount  to  a  demandable   debt.   A   conditional/modal   donation,   on   the   other   hand,   is   a   consideration   for   future   services;   it   also   occurs  where  the  donor  imposes  certain  conditions,  limitations  or  charges  upon  the  donee,  whose  value   is   inferior   to   the   donation   given.   Lastly,   an   onerous   donation   imposes   upon   the   donee   a   reciprocal   obligation;   this   is   made   for   a   valuable   consideration   whose   cost   is   equal   to   or   more   than   the   thing   donated.     x   x   x     Since   the   donation   imposed   on   the   donee   the   burden   of   redeeming   the   property   for   P15,000.00,   the   donation  was  onerous.  As  an  endowment  for  a  valuable  consideration,  it  partakes  of  the  nature  of  an   ordinary  contract;  hence,  the  rules  of  contract  will  govern  and  Article  765  of  the  New  Civil  Code  finds  no   application  with  respect  to  the  onerous  portion  of  the  donation.  

 

89  

  Insofar  as  the  value  of  the  land  exceeds  the  redemption  price  paid  for  by  the  donee,  a  donation  exists,   and  the  legal  provisions  on  donation  apply.  Nevertheless,  despite  the  applicability  of  the  provisions  on   donation  to  the  gratuitous  portion,  the  petitioner  may  not  dissolve  the  donation.  She  has  no  factual  and   legal  basis  for  its  revocation,  as  aptly  established  by  the  RTC.  First,  the  ungrateful  acts  were  committed   not   by   the   donee;   it   was   her   husband   who   committed   them.   Second,   the   ungrateful   acts   were   perpetrated   not   against   the   donor;   it   was   the   petitioner’s   sister   who   received   the   alleged   ill   treatments.   These  twin  considerations  place  the  case  out  of  the  purview  of  Article  765  of  the  New  Civil  Code.      

 

90  

More Documents from "Di ko alam"