Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Heirs of Ramon Durano, Sr. vs. Uy
Heirs of Ramon Durano, Sr. vs. Uy
concept of owner.
Ownership Prescription Ordinary acquisitive prescription, in
the case of immovable property, requires possession of the thing in
good faith and with just title, for a period of ten years.Ordinary
acquisitive prescription, in the case of immovable property,
requires possession of the
_______________
*
THIRD DIVISION.
239
239
thing in good faith and with just title, for a period often years. A
possessor is deemed to be in good faith when he is not aware of
any flaw in his title or mode of acquisition of the property. On the
other hand, there is just title when the adverse claimant came
into possession of the property through one of the modes for
acquiring ownership recognized by law, but the grantor was not
the owner or could not transmit any right. The claimant by
prescription may compute the tenyear period by tacking his
possession to that of his grantor or predecessorininterest.
Same Land Titles Notarial Law Fraud in the issuance of a
certificate of title may be raised only in an action expressly
instituted for that purpose, and not collaterally as in an action for
reconveyance and damages Unregistrability of the deed of sale is a
serious defect that should affect the validity of the certificates of
title Notarization of the deed of sale is essential to its
registrability, and the action of the Register of Deeds in allowing
the registration of the unacknowledged deed of sale is
unauthorized and does not render validity to the registration of the
document.It is true that fraud in the issuance of a certificate of
title may be raised only in an action expressly instituted for that
purpose, and not collaterally as in the instant case which is an
action for reconveyance and damages. While we cannot sustain
the Court of Appeals finding of fraud because of this
jurisdictional impediment, we observe that the aboveenumerated
circumstances indicate none too clearly the weakness of
petitioners evidence on their claim of ownership. For instance,
the nonproduction of the alleged reconstituted titles of Cepoc
despite demand therefor gives rise to a presumption (unrebutted
240
241
242
purported sale by Cepco to Durano & Co., the latter sold the
property to petitioner Ramon Durano III, who immediately
procured the registration of the property in his name. Obviously,
Durano & Co. was used by petitioners merely as an
instrumentality to appropriate the disputed property for
themselves.
243
Ramos, who respondents in their Answer before the trial court declared
were only witnesses for respondents, and not claimants to the disputed
property. RTC Decision, 3 Records of the Case.
2
244
245
Ibid., 55.
246
246
c)
d)
e)
f)
submarkings)
i) PRIMITIVA GARROTax Declaration No. 28651
.3000 ha. Bulldozed on September 7, 1970.
Improvements destroyed consist of 183 trees, 10
pineapples, a cassava field, area if planted with
corn good for 1/2 liter, sweet potato, area if planted
with corn good for 1/2 liter all valued at P10,410.00.
(Exh. J, including submarkings)
j) TEOTIMO GONZALESTax Declaration No.
38159 .8644 ha. Tax Declaration No. 38158 .8000
ha. Bulldozed on September 10, 1970
improvements destroyed consist of 460 trees valued
at P20,000.00. Bull
247
247
248
Ibid., 5054.
249
249
250
250
x x x x x x x x x
251
251
b)
c)
P 14,400.00
4,400.00
118,400.00
d)
115,050.00
_______________
7
252
252
e)
35,500.00
f)
70,300.00
g)
h)
66,060.00
i)
48,600.00
j)
13,000.00
k)
63,200.00
1)
85,300.00
m)
70,860.00
n)
101,700.00
o)
192,550.00
p)
q)
28,560.00
r)
81,500.00
s)
101,700.00
t)
u)
v)
5,000.00
1,200.00
27,800.00
2,360.00
902,840.00
253
Ibid., 111.
254
254
255
255
256
corporate personality.
5. It was an error to hold that the respondents had
proved the existence of improvements on the land
by preponderance of evidence, and in awarding
excessive damages therefor.
6. It was error to direct the return of the properties to
respondents Venancia Repaso, Hermogenes Tito
and Marcelino Gonzales.
7. The award of litigation expenses and attorneys fees
was erroneous.
8. The petitioners are not possessors in bad faith.
On their first assignment of error, petitioners contend that
before the Court of Appeals, they only questioned that
portion of the RTC decision which directed the return of the
properties to respondents Repaso, Tito and Gonzales. They
argued that the return of
________________
13
257
15
16
258
259
260
19
19
20
21
22
261
24
25
Mallilin, Jr. vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 136803, June 16, 2000, 333 SCRA
628 Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals, 311 SCRA 18 P.D. 1529, Sec. 48.
262
262
28
27
28
29
Republic vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 105630, February 23, 2000, 326
SCRA 267 Embrado vs. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 355 (1994).
30
St. Peter Memorial Park, Inc. vs. Cleofas, 92 SCRA 389 (1979).
263
263
ity of title, i.e., that Torrens titles can be attacked for fraud
only within one year from the date of issuance of the decree
of registration, does not altogether deprive an aggrieved
party of a remedy at law. As clarified by the Court in
31
31
Castro, G.R. No. 112905, February 3, 2000, 324 SCRA 591 Millena vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127797, January 31, 2000, 324 SCRA 126.
264
264
265
265
33
34
266
35
Lim vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124715, January 24, 2000, 323
SCRA 102 Concept Builders, Inc. vs. NLRC, 257 SCRA 149 (1996).
36
267
SO ORDERED.
Melo (Chairman), Vitug and Panganiban, JJ.,
concur.
Purisima, J., No part.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed with modification.
Notes.Questions not assigned as error may be
considered on appeal if necessary for the just and complete
resolution of the case. (Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. vs. Court
of Appeals, 234 SCRA 717 [1994])
The appellate court is accorded a broad discretionary
power to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and
to consider errors not assigned. (Catholic Bishop of
Balanga vs. Court of Appeals, 264 SCRA 181 [1996])
An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole
case open for review and it becomes the duty of the
appellate court to correct an error as maybe found in the
appealed judgment, whether it is made the subject of
assignment of errors or not. (People vs. Calayca, 301 SCRA
192 [1999])
The rule that an appellate court may only pass upon
errors assigned, as well as its exceptions, is also applicable
to administrative bodies. (Diamonon vs. Department of
Labor and Employment, 327 SCRA 283 [2000])
The purpose of an assignment of errors is to point out to
the appellate court the specific portions of the decision
appealed from which the appellant seeks to controvert.
(Bayer Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 340 SCRA 437
[2000])
o0o
268
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.