December 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Civil Law

Posted on January 15, 2014 Posted in Civil Law, Philippines - Cases, Philippines
- Law
Here are seclect ece!"er 201# rulin$s o% the &upre!e Court o% the Philippines
on civil law'
Civil Code
Contracts( concept o% contracts) * contract is what the law de%ines it to "e, ta+in$
into consideration its essential ele!ents, and not what the contractin$ parties call
it) ,he real nature o% a contract !ay "e deter!ined %ro! the e-press ter!s o% the
written a$ree!ent and %ro! the conte!poraneous and su"se.uent acts o% the
contractin$ parties) However, in the construction or interpretation o% an instru!ent,
the intention o% the parties is pri!ordial and is to "e pursued) ,he deno!ination or
title $iven "y the parties in their contract is not conclusive o% the nature o% its
contents) ACE Foods, Inc. v. Micro Pacific Technologies Co., Ltd., /)0) 1o)
200202, ece!"er 11, 201#)
Contracts( contract o% loan( interest stipulated( reduced %or "ein$ ini.uitous and
unconsciona"le) Parties to a loan contract have wide latitude to stipulate on any
interest rate in view o% the Central 3an+ Circular 1o) 405 s) 1452 which suspended
the 6sury Law ceilin$ on interest e%%ective January 1, 145#) 7t is, however, worth
stressin$ that interest rates whenever unconsciona"le !ay still "e declared ille$al)
,here is nothin$ in the circular which $rants lenders carte blanche authority to
raise interest rates to levels which will either enslave their "orrowers or lead to a
he!orrha$in$ o% their assets)7n Menchavez v. Bermdez, the interest rate o% 58 per
!onth, which when su!!ed up would reach 208 per annu!, is null and void %or
"ein$ e-cessive, ini.uitous, unconsciona"le and e-or"itant, contrary to !orals, and
the law) Flor!ina Benvidez v. "estor #alvador, /)0) 1o) 19###1, ece!"er 11,
201#)
a!a$es( award o% costs( when entitled) Costs shall "e allowed to the prevailin$
party as a !atter o% course unless otherwise provided in the 0ules o% Court) ,he
costs 0a!ire: !ay recover are those stated in &ection 10, 0ule 142 o% the 0ules o%
Court) ;or instance, 0a!ire: !ay recover the law%ul %ees he paid in doc+etin$ his
action %or annul!ent o% sale "e%ore the trial court) ,he court adds thereto the
a!ount o% P#,5#0 or the a!ount o% doc+et and law%ul %ees paid "y 0a!ire: %or
%ilin$ this petition "e%ore this Court) #5<#5= ,he court deleted the award o% !oral
and e-e!plary da!a$es( hence, the restriction under &ection 9, 0ule 142 o% the
0ules o% Courtwould have prevented 0a!ire: to recover any cost o% suit) 3ut the
court certi%ies, in accordance with said &ection 9, that 0a!ire:>s action %or
annul!ent o% sale involved a su"stantial and i!portant ri$ht such that he is entitled
to an award o% costs o% suit) 1eedless to stress, the purpose o% para$raph 1 o% the
real estate !ort$a$e is to apprise the !ort$a$or, 0a!ire:, o% any action that the
!ort$a$ee-"an+ !i$ht ta+e on the su"?ect properties, thus accordin$ hi! the
opportunity to sa%e$uard his ri$hts) $ose T. %amirez v. The Manila Ban&ing
Cor!oration, /)0) 1o) 145500, ece!"er 11, 201#)
a!a$es( e-e!plary da!a$es( when entitled) 1o e-e!plary da!a$es can "e
awarded since there is no "asis %or the award o% !oral da!a$es and there is no
award o% te!perate, li.uidated or co!pensatory da!a$es)@-e!plary da!a$es are
i!posed "y way o% e-a!ple %or the pu"lic $ood, in addition to !oral, te!perate,
li.uidated or co!pensatory da!a$es) $ose T. %amirez v. The Manila Ban&ing
Cor!oration, /)0) 1o) 145500, ece!"er 11, 201#)
a!a$es( !oral da!a$es( when entitled) 1othin$ supports the trial court>s award
o% !oral da!a$es) ,here was no testi!ony o% any physical su%%erin$, !ental
an$uish, %ri$ht, serious an-iety, "es!irched reputation, wounded %eelin$s, !oral
shoc+, social hu!iliation, and si!ilar in?ury su%%ered "y 0a!ire:) ,he award o%
!oral da!a$es !ust "e anchored on a clear showin$ that 0a!ire: actually
e-perienced !ental an$uish, "es!irched reputation, sleepless ni$hts, wounded
%eelin$s or si!ilar in?ury) 0a!ire:>s testi!ony is also wantin$ as to the !oral
da!a$es he su%%ered) $ose T. %amirez v. The Manila Ban&ing Cor!oration, /)0)
1o) 145500, ece!"er 11, 201#)
;oreclosure( e-tra?udicial %oreclosure( notice o% e-tra?udicial %oreclosure
proceedin$s not necessary unless stipulated "y the parties) 7n Carlos Lim, et al. v.
'evelo!ment Ban& of the Phili!!ines, the court held that unless the parties
stipulate, personal notice to the !ort$a$or in e-tra?udicial %oreclosure proceedin$s
is not necessary "ecause &ection # o% *ct 1o) #1#5 only re.uires the postin$ o% the
notice o% sale in three pu"lic places and the pu"lication o% that notice in a
newspaper o% $eneral circulation) 7n this case, the parties stipulated in para$raph 1
o% the real estate !ort$a$e that all correspondence relative to the !ort$a$e
includin$ noti%ications o% e-tra?udicial actions shall "e sent to !ort$a$or 0a!ire:
at his $iven address) 0espondent had no choice "ut to co!ply with this contractual
provision it has entered into with 0a!ire:) ,he contract is the law "etween the!)
Hence, the court cannot a$ree with the "an+ that para$raph 1 o% the real estate
!ort$a$e does not i!pose an additional o"li$ation upon it to provide personal
notice o% the e-tra?udicial %oreclosure sale to the !ort$a$or 0a!ire:) $ose T.
%amirez v. The Manila Ban&ing Cor!oration, /)0) 1o) 145500, ece!"er 11,
201#)
;oreclosure o% !ort$a$e( proceeds( o"li$ations covered) ,he petitioner contends
that there was no e-cess or surplus that needs to "e returned to the respondent
"ecause her other outstandin$ o"li$ations and those o% her attorney-in-%act were
paid out o% the proceeds)
,he relevant provision, &ection 4 o% 0ule 25 o% the 0ules o% Civil Procedure,
!andates that'
&ection 4) 'is!osition of !roceeds of sale. A ,he a!ount reali:ed %ro! the
%oreclosure sale o% the !ort$a$ed property shall, a%ter deductin$ the costs o% the
sale, "e paid to the person %oreclosin$ the !ort$a$e, and when there shall "e any
"alance or residue, a%ter payin$ o%% the !ort$a$e de"t due, the sa!e shall "e paid
to ?unior encu!"rancers in the order o% their priority, to "e ascertained "y the
court, or i% there "e no such encu!"rancers or there "e a "alance or residue a%ter
pay!ent to the!, then to the !ort$a$or or his duly authori:ed a$ent, or to the
person entitled to it)
,hus, in the a"sence o% any evidence showin$ that the !ort$a$e also covers the
other o"li$ations o% the !ort$a$or, the proceeds %ro! the sale should not "e
applied to the!) Phili!!ine Ban& of Commnication v. Mar( Ann ). *eng, /)0)
1o) 194241, ece!"er 4, 201#)
Laches( concept o%) Bell settled is the rule that the ele!ents o% laches !ust "e
proven positively) Laches is evidentiary in nature, a %act that cannot "e esta"lished
"y !ere alle$ations in the pleadin$s and cannot "e resolved in a !otion to dis!iss)
*t this sta$e there%ore, the dis!issal o% the co!plaint on the $round o% laches is
pre!ature) ,hose issues !ust "e resolved at the trial o% the case on the !erits,
wherein "oth parties will "e $iven a!ple opportunity to prove their respective
clai!s and de%enses) Modesto #anchez v. Andre+ #anchez, /)0) 1o) 159221,
ece!"er 4, 201#.
Cort$a$e( rede!ption period( rec+onin$ o% the period o% rede!ption "y the
!ort$a$or or his successor-in-interest starts %ro! the re$istration o% the sale in the
0e$ister o% eeds) ,he rec+onin$ o% the period o% rede!ption "y the !ort$a$or or
his successor-in-interest starts %ro! the re$istration o% the sale in the 0e$ister o%
eeds) *lthou$h &ection 2 o% *ct 1o) #1#5, as a!ended, speci%ies that the period
o% rede!ption starts from and after the date o% the sale, ?urisprudence has since
settled that such period is !ore appropriately rec+oned %ro! the date o%
re$istration),nited Cocont Planters Ban& v. Christo!her Lmbo and Milagros
Lmbo, /)0) 1o) 122959, ece!"er 11, 201#)
D"li$ations( %orce !a?eure( concept o% %orce !a?eure) *nent petitioners> reliance
on force ma-ere, su%%ice it to state that Pea+star>s "reach o% its o"li$ations to
Cetro Concast arisin$ %ro! the Co* cannot "e classi%ied as a %ortuitous event
under ?urisprudential %or!ulation)
;ortuitous events "y de%inition are e-traordinary events not %oreseea"le or
avoida"le) 7t is there%ore, not enou$h that the event should not have "een %oreseen
or anticipated, as is co!!only "elieved "ut it !ust "e one i!possi"le to %oresee or
to avoid) ,he !ere di%%iculty to %oresee the happenin$ is not i!possi"ility to
%oresee the sa!e)
,o constitute a %ortuitous event, the %ollowin$ ele!ents !ust concur' <a= the cause
o% the un%oreseen and une-pected occurrence or o% the %ailure o% the de"tor to
co!ply with o"li$ations !ust "e independent o% hu!an will( <"= it !ust "e
i!possi"le to %oresee the event that constitutes the caso fortito or, i% it can "e
%oreseen, it !ust "e i!possi"le to avoid( <c= the occurrence !ust "e such as to
render it i!possi"le %or the de"tor to %ul%ill o"li$ations in a nor!al !anner( and,
<d= the o"li$or !ust "e %ree %ro! any participation in the a$$ravation o% the in?ury
or loss) Metro Concast #teel Cor!., #!oses $ose #. '(chiao and Ti )h *an, et
al. v. Allied Ban& Cor!oration, /)0) 1o) 199421, ece!"er 4, 201#)
D"li$ations( !odes o% e-tin$uish!ent) *rticle 12#1 o% the Civil Code states that
o"li$ations are e-tin$uished either "y pay!ent or per%or!ance, the loss o% the
thin$ due, the condonation or re!ission o% the de"t, the con%usion or !er$er o% the
ri$hts o% creditor and de"tor, co!pensation or novation) Metro Concast #teel
Cor!., #!oses $ose #. '(chiao and Ti )h *an, et al. v. Allied Ban& Cor!oration,
/)0) 1o) 199421, ece!"er 4, 201#)
D"li$ations( novation( e-tinctive novation distin$uished %ro! !odi%icatory
novation),o "e sure, novation, in its "road concept, !ay either "e e-tinctive or
!odi%icatory) 7t is e-tinctive when an old o"li$ation is ter!inated "y the creation
o% a new o"li$ation that ta+es the place o% the %or!er( it is !erely !odi%icatory
when the old o"li$ation su"sists to the e-tent it re!ains co!pati"le with the
a!endatory a$ree!ent) 7n either case, however, novation is never presu!ed, and
the anims novandi, whether totally or partially, !ust appear "y e-press a$ree!ent
o% the parties, or "y their acts that are too clear and une.uivocal to "e !ista+en)
ACE Foods, Inc. v. Micro Pacific Technologies Co., Ltd., /)0) 1o) 200202,
ece!"er 11, 201#)
Property( action %or reconveyance( prescriptive period( e-ception) ,he Court
li+ewise ta+es note that Para$uya>s co!plaint is li+ewise in the nature o% an action
%or reconveyance "ecause it also prayed %or the trial court to order &ps) Crucillo to
Esurrender ownership and possession o% the properties in .uestion to FPara$uyaG,
vacatin$ the! alto$ether ) ) ) )H espite this, Para$uya>s co!plaint re!ains
dis!issi"le on the sa!e $round "ecause the prescriptive period %or actions %or
reconveyance is ten <10= years rec+oned %ro! the date o% issuance o% the certi%icate
o% title, e-cept when the owner is in possession o% the property, in which case the
action %or reconveyance "eco!es i!prescripti"le) Lara F. Parag(a v. #!s. Alma
Escrel.Crcillo and Emeterio Crcillo and the %egister of 'eeds of #orsogon,
/)0) 1o) 200225, ece!"er 2, 201#)
Property( possessor in $ood %aith( rei!"urse!ent o% necessary and use%ul e-penses)
ionisio was well aware that this te!porary arran$e!ent !ay "e ter!inated at any
ti!e) 0espondents cannot now re%use to vacate the property or eventually de!and
rei!"urse!ent o% necessary and use%ul e-penses under *rticles 445 and 542 o% the
1ew Civil Code, "ecause the provisions apply only to a possessor in $ood %aith,
i.e., one who "uilds on land with the "elie% that he is the owner thereo%) Persons
who occupy land "y virtue o% tolerance o% the owners are not possessors in $ood
%aith) /eirs of Ci!riano Trazona, et al. v. /eirs of 'ionisio Ca0ada, et al., /)0)
1o) 195594, ece!"er 11, 201#)
Property( &panish titles can no lon$er "e used as evidence o% ownership a%ter si-
<2= !onths %ro! the e%%ectivity o% P 542) 3ased on &ection 1 o% P 542, entitled
Eiscontinuance o% the &panish Cort$a$e &yste! o% 0e$istration and o% the 6se o%
&panish ,itles as @vidence in Land 0e$istration Proceedin$s,H &panish titles can
no lon$er "e used as evidence o% ownership a%ter si- <2= !onths %ro! the
e%%ectivity o% the law, or startin$ *u$ust 12, 1492) Lara F. Parag(a v. #!s. Alma
Escrel.Crcillo and Emeterio Crcillo and the %egister of 'eeds of #orsogon,
/)0) 1o) 200225, ece!"er 2, 201#)
Property( waiver o% interest( when a"solute and unconditional)Lucila did not say,
Eto put everythin$ in proper order, 7 pro!ise to waive !y ri$htH to the property,
which is a %uture underta+in$, one that is de!anda"le only when everythin$ is put
in proper order) 3ut she instead said, Eto put everythin$ in proper order, 7 here"y
waiveH etc) ,he phrase Ehere"y waiveH !eans that Lucila was, "y e-ecutin$ the
a%%idavit, already waivin$ her ri$ht to the property, irreversi"ly divestin$ hersel% o%
her e-istin$ ri$ht to the sa!e) *%ter he and his co-owner @!elinda accepted the
donation, 7sa"elo "eca!e the owner o% hal% o% the su"?ect property havin$ the ri$ht
to de!and its partition)Isabelo C. 'ela Crz v. Lcila C. 'ela Crz, /)0) 1o)
142#5#, ece!"er 4, 201#)
Iuasi-contract( un?ust enrich!ent( concept o%( ele!ents)7n li$ht o% the %ore$oin$, it
is un%air to deny petitioner a re%und o% all his contri"utions to the car plan) 6nder
*rticle 22 o% the Civil Code, EFeGvery person who throu$h an act o% per%or!ance
"y another, or any other !eans, ac.uires or co!es into possession o% so!ethin$ at
the e-pense o% the latter without ?ust or le$al $round, shall return the sa!e to hi!)H
Antonio Locsin II v. Me&eni Food Cor!oration, /)0) 1o) 142105, ece!"er 4,
201#)
Iuasi-contract( concept o% .uasi-contract) *rticle 2142 o% the sa!e Code li+ewise
clari%ies that there are certain law%ul, voluntary and unilateral acts which $ive rise
to the ?uridical relation o% .uasi-contract, to the end that no one shall "e un?ustly
enriched or "ene%ited at the e-pense o% another) 7n the a"sence o% speci%ic ter!s
and conditions $overnin$ the car plan arran$e!ent "etween the petitioner and
Ce+eni, a .uasi-contractual relation was created "etween the!) Antonio Locsin II
v. Me&eni Food Cor!oration, /)0) 1o) 142105, ece!"er 4, 201#)
Iuasi-delict( ele!ents) *rticle 2192 o% the Civil Code provides that EFwGhoever "y
act or o!ission causes da!a$e to another, there "ein$ %ault or ne$li$ence, is
o"li$ed to pay %or the da!a$e done) &uch %ault or ne$li$ence, i% there is no pre-
e-istin$ contractual relation "etween the parties, is a .uasi-delict)H 6nder this
provision, the ele!ents necessary to esta"lish a .uasi-delict case are' <1= da!a$es
to the plainti%%( <2= ne$li$ence, "y act or o!ission, o% the de%endant or "y so!e
person %or whose acts the de%endant !ust respond, was $uilty( and <#= the
connection o% cause and e%%ect "etween such ne$li$ence and the da!a$es) ,hese
ele!ents show that the source o% o"li$ation in a .uasi-delict case is the "reach or
o!ission o% !utual duties that civili:ed society i!poses upon its !e!"ers, or
which arise %ro! non-contractual relations o% certain !e!"ers o% society to others)
'ra. Leila A. 'ela Llana v. %ebecca Biong, doing bsiness nder the name and
st(le of Pong&a( Trading, /)0) 1o) 152#52, ece!"er 4, 201#)
Iuasi-delict( .uantu! o% proo%( preponderance o% evidence) 3ased on these
re.uisites, ra) dela Llana !ust %irst esta"lish "y preponderance o% evidence the
three ele!ents o% .uasi-delict "e%ore we deter!ine 0e"ecca>s lia"ility as Joel>s
e!ployer) &he should show the chain o% causation "etween Joel>s rec+less drivin$
and her whiplash in?ury) Dnly a%ter she has laid this %oundation can the
presu!ption A that 0e"ecca did not e-ercise the dili$ence o% a $ood %ather o% a
%a!ily in the selection and supervision o% Joel A arise)Dnce ne$li$ence, the
da!a$es and the pro-i!ate causation are esta"lished, this Court can then proceed
with the application and the interpretation o% the %i%th para$raph o% *rticle 2150 o%
the Civil Code) 6nder *rticle 2192 o% the Civil Code, in relation with the %i%th
para$raph o% *rticle 2150, Ean action predicated on an e!ployee>s act or o!ission
!ay "e instituted a$ainst the e!ployer who is held lia"le %or the ne$li$ent act or
o!ission co!!itted "y his e!ployee)H,he rationale %or these $raduated levels o%
analyses is that it is essentially the wron$%ul or ne$li$ent act or o!ission itsel%
which creates the vinculu! ?uris in e-tra-contractual o"li$ations) 'ra. Leila A.
'ela Llana v. %ebecca Biong, doing bsiness nder the name and st(le of Pong&a(
Trading, /)0) 1o) 152#52, ece!"er 4, 201#)
&ales( car plan "ene%it( contri"utions as install!ent pay!ents distin$uished %ro!
rental pay!ents) ;ro! the evidence on record, it is seen that the Ce+eni car plan
o%%ered to petitioner was su"?ect to no other ter! or condition than that Ce+eni
shall cover one-hal% o% its value, and petitioner shall in turn pay the other hal%
throu$h deductions %ro! his !onthly salary) Ce+eni has not shown, "y
docu!entary evidence or otherwise, that there are other ter!s and conditions
$overnin$ its car plan a$ree!ent with petitioner) ,here is no evidence to su$$est
that i% petitioner %ailed to co!pletely cover one-hal% o% the cost o% the vehicle, then
all the deductions %ro! his salary $oin$ to the cost o% the vehicle will "e treated as
rentals %or his use thereo% while wor+in$ with Ce+eni, and shall not "e re%unded)
7ndeed, there is no such stipulation or arran$e!ent "etween the!) ,hus, the C*>s
reliance on Elisco Tool is without "asis, and its conclusions arrived at in the
.uestioned decision are !ani%estly !ista+en) ,o repeat what was said in Elisco
Tool, 12PGetitioner does not deny that private respondent 0olando Lantan ac.uired
the vehicle in .uestion under a car plan %or e-ecutives o% the @li:alde $roup o%
co!panies) 6nder a typical car plan, the co!pany advances the purchase price o% a
car to "e paid "ac+ "y the e!ployee throu$h !onthly deductions %ro! his salary)
,he co!pany retains ownership o% the !otor vehicle until it shall have "een %ully
paid %or) However, retention o% re$istration o% the car in the co!pany>s na!e is
only a %or! o% a lien on the vehicle in the event that the e!ployee would a"scond
"e%ore he has %ully paid %or it) ,here are also stipulations in car plan a$ree!ents to
the e%%ect that should the e!ploy!ent o% the e!ployee concerned "e ter!inated
"e%ore all install!ents are %ully paid, the vehicle will "e ta+en "y the e!ployer and
all install!ents paid shall "e considered rentals per a$ree!ent)E
7t was !ade clear in this pronounce!ent that install!ents !ade on the car plan
!ay "e treated as rentals only when there is an e-press stipulation in the car plan
a$ree!ent to such e%%ect) 7t was there%ore patent error %or the appellate court to
assu!e that, even in the a"sence o% e-press stipulation, petitioner>s pay!ents)
Antonio Locsin II v. Me&eni Food Cor!oration, /)0) 1o) 142105, ece!"er 4,
201#)
&ales( contract o% sale( ele!ents( distin$uished %ro! contract to sell) Corollary
thereto, a contract o% sale is classi%ied as a consensual contract, which !eans that
the sale is per%ected "y !ere consent) 1o particular %or! is re.uired %or its validity)
6pon per%ection o% the contract, the parties !ay reciprocally de!and per%or!ance,
i.e., the vendee !ay co!pel trans%er o% ownership o% the o"?ect o% the sale, and the
vendor !ay re.uire the vendee to pay the thin$ sold)
7n contrast, a contract to sell is de%ined as a "ilateral contract where"y the
prospective seller, while e-pressly reservin$ the ownership o% the property despite
delivery thereo% to the prospective "uyer, "inds hi!sel% to sell the property
e-clusively to the prospective "uyer upon %ul%ill!ent o% the condition a$reed upon,
i.e., the %ull pay!ent o% the purchase price) * contract to sell !ay not even "e
considered as a conditional contract o% sale where the seller !ay li+ewise reserve
title to the property su"?ect o% the sale until the %ul%ill!ent o% a suspensive
condition, "ecause in a conditional contract o% sale, the %irst ele!ent o% consent is
present, althou$h it is conditioned upon the happenin$ o% a contin$ent event which
!ay or !ay not occur) ACE Foods, Inc. v. Micro Pacific Technologies Co., Ltd.,
/)0) 1o) 200202, ece!"er 11, 201#)
&ales( contract to sell( concept o%) Jerily, in a contract to sell, the prospective seller
"inds hi!sel% to sell the property su"?ect o% the a$ree!ent e-clusively to the
prospective "uyer upon %ul%ill!ent o% the condition a$reed upon which is the %ull
pay!ent o% the purchase price "ut reservin$ to hi!sel% the ownership o% the su"?ect
property despite delivery thereo% to the prospective "uyer),he %ull pay!ent o% the
purchase price in a contract to sell is a suspensive condition, the non-%ul%ill!ent o%
which prevents the prospective seller>s o"li$ation to convey title %ro! "eco!in$
e%%ective, as in this case) )!timm 'evelo!ment Ban& v. #!oses Benigno v.
$ovellanos and Lordes %. $ovellanos, /)0) 1o) 154145, ece!"er 4, 201#)
&ales( contract to sell( real property in install!ents( covered "y 0ealty 7nstall!ent
3uyer Protection *ct) ;urther, it is si$ni%icant to note that $iven that the Contract
to &ell in this case is one which has %or its o"?ect real property to "e sold on an
install!ent "asis, the said contract is especially $overned "y A and thus, !ust "e
e-a!ined under the provisions o% A 0* 2552, or the E0ealty 7nstall!ent 3uyer
Protection *ctH, which provides %or the ri$hts o% the "uyer in case o% his de%ault in
the pay!ent o% succeedin$ install!ents) )!timm 'evelo!ment Ban& v. #!oses
Benigno v. $ovellanos and Lordes %. $ovellanos, /)0) 1o) 154145, ece!"er 4,
201#)
SPECIAL LAS
Property 0e$istration ecree( aliena"le lands o% pu"lic do!ain( proo% o%( to prove
that the land su"?ect o% an application %or re$istration is aliena"le, an applicant
!ust esta"lish the e-istence o% a positive act o% the /overn!ent) ,he "urden o%
proo% in overco!in$ the presu!ption o% &tate ownership o% lands o% the pu"lic
do!ain is on the person applyin$ %or re$istration, or in this case, %or ho!estead
patent) ,he applicant !ust show that the land su"?ect o% the application is aliena"le
or disposa"le) 7t !ust "e stressed that incontroverti"le evidence !ust "e presented
to esta"lish that the land su"?ect o% the application is aliena"le or disposa"le)
*s the court pronounced in %e!blic of the Phils. v. Tri.Pls Cor!oration, to prove
that the land su"?ect o% an application %or re$istration is aliena"le, an applicant
!ust esta"lish the e-istence o% a positive act o% the /overn!ent such as a
presidential procla!ation or an e-ecutive order, an ad!inistrative action,
investi$ation reports o% 3ureau o% Lands investi$ators, and a le$islative act or
statute) ,he applicant !ay also secure a certi%ication %ro! the /overn!ent that the
lands applied %or are aliena"le and disposa"le) %e!blic of the Phili!!ines.Brea
of Forest 'evelo!ment v. 3icente %o4as, et al.5Provident Tree Farms, Inc. v.
3icente %o4as, et al., /)0) 1os) 159455K120240, ece!"er 11, 201#)
Property 0e$istration ecree( estoppel( the principle o% estoppel does not operate
a$ainst the /overn!ent %or the act o% its a$ents) 1either can respondent 0o-as
success%ully invo+e the doctrine o% estoppel a$ainst petitioner 0epu"lic) Bhile it is
true that respondent 0o-as was $ranted Ho!estead Patent 1o) 111545 and DC,
1o) P-5555 only a%ter under$oin$ appropriate ad!inistrative proceedin$s, the
/overn!ent is not now estopped %ro! .uestionin$ the validity o% said ho!estead
patent and certi%icate o% title) 7t is, a%ter all, horn"oo+ law that the principle o%
estoppel does not operate a$ainst the /overn!ent %or the act o% its a$ents) *nd
while there !ay "e circu!stances when e.uita"le estoppel was applied a$ainst
pu"lic authorities, i)e), when the /overn!ent did not underta+e any act to contest
the title %or an unreasona"le len$th o% ti!e and the lot was already alienated to
innocent "uyers %or value, such are not present in this case) Core i!portantly, we
cannot use the e.uita"le principle o% estoppel to de%eat the law) %e!blic of the
Phili!!ines.Brea of Forest 'evelo!ment v. 3icente %o4as, et al.5Provident Tree
Farms, Inc. v. 3icente %o4as, et al., /)0) 1os) 159455K120240, ece!"er 11,
201#)
Property 0e$istration ecree( ho!estead patent( once re$istered, the certi%icate o%
title issued "y virtue o% said patent has the %orce and e%%ect o% a ,orrens title issued
under said re$istration laws( provided that the land covered "y said certi%icate is a
disposa"le pu"lic land within the conte!plation o% the Pu"lic Land Law)7t is true
that once a ho!estead patent $ranted in accordance with the Pu"lic Land *ct is
re$istered pursuant to *ct 442, otherwise +nown as ,he Land 0e$istration *ct, or
Presidential ecree 1o) 1524, otherwise +nown as ,he Property 0e$istration
ecree, the certi%icate o% title issued "y virtue o% said patent has the %orce and
e%%ect o% a ,orrens title issued under said re$istration laws)Be e-pounded in
L"aMe: v) 7nter!ediate *ppellate Court that'
,he certi%icate o% title serves as evidence o% an inde%easi"le title to the property in
%avor o% the person whose na!e appears therein) *%ter the e-piration o% the one <1=
year period %ro! the issuance o% the decree o% re$istration upon which it is "ased, it
"eco!es incontroverti"le) ,he settled rule is that a decree o% re$istration and the
certi%icate o% title issued pursuant thereto !ay "e attac+ed on the $round o% actual
%raud within one <1= year %ro! the date o% its entry and such an attac+ !ust "e
direct and not "y a collateral proceedin$) ,he validity o% the certi%icate o% title in
this re$ard can "e threshed out only in an action e-pressly %iled %or the purpose)
7t !ust "e e!phasi:ed that a certi%icate o% title issued under an ad!inistrative
proceedin$ pursuant to a ho!estead patent, as in the instant case, is as inde%easi"le
as a certi%icate o% title issued under a ?udicial re$istration proceedin$, provided the
land covered "y said certi%icate is a disposa"le pu"lic land within the
conte!plation o% the Pu"lic Land Law) %e!blic of the Phili!!ines.Brea of
Forest 'evelo!ment v. 3icente %o4as, et al.5Provident Tree Farms, Inc. v. 3icente
%o4as, et al., /)0) 1os) 159455K120240, ece!"er 11, 201#)
Property 0e$istration ecree( reversion( nature o%( $rounds) Be do not %ind
evidence indicatin$ that respondent 0o-as co!!itted %raud when he applied %or
ho!estead patent over the su"?ect property) 7t does not appear that he +nowin$ly
and intentionally !isrepresented in his application that the su"?ect property was
aliena"le and disposa"le a$ricultural land) 1onetheless, we reco$ni:ed in %e!blic
of the Phils. v. Mangotara that there are instances when we $ranted reversion %or
reasons other than %raud'
0eversion is an action where the ulti!ate relie% sou$ht is to revert the land "ac+ to
the $overn!ent under the 0e$alian doctrine) Considerin$ that the land su"?ect o%
the action ori$inated %ro! a $rant "y the $overn!ent, its cancellation is a !atter
"etween the $rantor and the $rantee) 7n @state o% the Late Jesus &) Lu?uico v)
0epu"lic <Lu?uico case=, reversion was de%ined as an action which see+s to
restore pu"lic land %raudulently awarded and disposed o% to private individuals or
corporations to the !ass o% pu"lic do!ain) 7t "ears to point out, thou$h, that the
Court also allowed the resort "y the /overn!ent to actions %or reversion to cancel
titles that were void %or reasons other than %raud, i)e), violation "y the $rantee o% a
patent o% the conditions i!posed "y law( and lac+ o% ?urisdiction o% the irector o%
Lands to $rant a patent coverin$ inaliena"le %orest land or portion o% a river, even
when such $rant was !ade throu$h !ere oversi$ht) 7n 0epu"lic v) /uerrero, the
Court $ave a !ore $eneral state!ent that the re!edy o% reversion can "e availed o%
Eonly in cases o% %raudulent or unlaw%ul inclusion o% the land in patents or
certi%icates o% title)H %e!blic of the Phili!!ines.Brea of Forest 'evelo!ment v.
3icente %o4as, et al.5Provident Tree Farms, Inc. v. 3icente %o4as, et al., /)0) 1os)
159455K120240, ece!"er 11, 201#)
Property 0e$istration ecree( ,orrens certi%icate o% title is not conclusive proo% o%
ownership) 7t is an esta"lished rule that a ,orrens certi%icate o% title is not
conclusive proo% o% ownership) Jerily, a party !ay see+ its annul!ent on the "asis
o% %raud or !isrepresentation) However, such action !ust "e seasona"ly %iled, else
the sa!e would "e "arred) Lara F. Parag(a v. #!s. Alma Escrel.Crcillo and
Emeterio Crcillo and the %egister of 'eeds of #orsogon, /)0) 1o) 200225,
ece!"er 2, 201#)
Property 0e$istration ecree( ,orrens certi%icate o% title is not conclusive proo% o%
ownership "eco!es incontroverti"le and inde%easi"le a%ter one <1= year %ro! the
date o% its entry) 7n this relation, &ection #2 o% P 1524 provides that the period to
contest a decree o% re$istration shall "e one <1= year %ro! the date o% its entry and
that, a%ter the lapse o% the said period, the ,orrens certi%icate o% title issued thereon
"eco!es incontroverti"le and inde%easi"le, viz.'
&ec) #2) %evie+ of decree of registration6 Innocent !rchaser for vale.A ,he
decree o% re$istration shall not "e reopened or revised "y reason o% a"sence,
!inority, or other disa"ility o% any person adversely a%%ected there"y, nor "y any
proceedin$ in any court %or reversin$ ?ud$!ents, su"?ect, however, to the ri$ht o%
any person, includin$ the $overn!ent and the "ranches thereo%, deprived o% land or
o% any estate or interest therein "y such ad?udication or con%ir!ation o% title
o"tained "y actual %raud, to %ile in the proper Court o% ;irst 7nstance a petition %or
reopenin$ and review o% the decree o% re$istration not later than one year %ro! and
a%ter the date o% the entry o% such decree o% re$istration, "ut in no case shall such
petition "e entertained "y the court where an innocent purchaser %or value has
ac.uired the land or an interest therein, whose ri$hts !ay "e pre?udiced) Bhenever
the phrase Einnocent purchaser %or valueH or an e.uivalent phrase occurs in this
ecree, it shall "e dee!ed to include an innocent lessee, !ort$a$ee, or other
encu!"rancer %or value)
6pon the e-piration o% said period o% one year, the decree o% re$istration and the
certi%icate o% title issued shall "eco!e incontroverti"le) *ny person a$$rieved "y
such decree o% re$istration in any case !ay pursue his re!edy "y action %or
da!a$es a$ainst the applicant or any other persons responsi"le %or the %raud)
<@!phases and underscorin$ supplied= Lara F. Parag(a v. #!s. Alma Escrel.
Crcillo and Emeterio Crcillo and the %egister of 'eeds of #orsogon, /)0) 1o)
200225, ece!"er 2, 201#)
7%ose than&s Anna Lorraine Mendoza for assisting in the !re!aration of this
!ost.8