Case Title:

Sps. Bernadette and Rodulfo Vilbar vs. Angelito Opinion

G.R. No. 176043

Date of Decision:
January 15, 2014

Ponente:
Justice Mariano Del Castillo

Facts:

The case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals which
affirmed the accion reivindicatoria of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 255 of Las Pinas
City filed by respondent Angelito L. Opinion against the petitioner spouses Bernadette and
Rodulfo Vilbar and others.

Spouses Vilbar and Angelito Opinion both claimed ownership over Lot 20 and 21 located in
Airmen’s Village, Las Pinas City. During trial, both parties presented different Transfer
Certificate Title (TCT) of the disputed lots issued by the Registry of Deeds.

It is alleged by the petitioner spouses that a portion of Lot 20, Lot 20-A, was bought by them by
virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale issued by Dulos Realty and Development Corporation for
P19,440 on July 10, 1979. Lot 20-B thereof was bought by Elena Guingon. Both the spouses
Vilbar and Elena Guingon were given an owner’s duplicate copy of TCT no. S-39849 covering
Lot 20 upon full payment of the said portion of the property.

Consequently, Lot 21 was obtained by the spouses Vilbar through a housing loan where Dulos
Realty had a hand in approving the said loan to the Development Bank of the Philippines. Upon
full of the loan, the spouses Vilbar took possession of the lot as the absolute owners thereof.

However, it is undisputed that both the Vilbars and Elena Guingon were not able to register and
transfer the title in their names because Dulos Realty allegedly failed to have the lot formally
subdivided.

On the other hand, Angelito Opinion traced his rights over the subject lots through extra-judicial
foreclosure of mortgage constituted by Otilio Gorospe, Sr. And Otilio Gorospe, Jr. in his favor.
He alleged that he loaned the Gorospes the sum of P440,000 and as security for the said loan, he
executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over the lots in dispute, Lot 20 and Lot 21. When the
Gorospe’s defaulted payment, he was prompted to file a Petition for Extra-Judicial Foreclosure
of Real Estate Mortgage and thereafter he emerged as the highest bidder when the said lots were
sold at public auction. The Gorospe’s failed to redeem the same within the period of redemption
prescribed by law, which later on led to the registration of the said Lots 20 and 21 in Opinion’s
name on January 22, 1997.

While on trial, Opinion explained how the Gorospe’s was able to acquire the subject lots. He
said that the same was acquired through an execution proceedings as consequence of the
previous Sum of Money, Specific Performance and Damages suit filed by Otilio Gorospe, Sr.
against Dulos Realty. According to Opionion, Gorospe, Sr. was a former Chairman of the Board
of Directors and CEO of Dulos Realty and as such he was entitled to benefits and privileges, one
of which is the residential house and lot in dispute located in Airmen’s Village. When Gorospe,
Sr. failed to accept the promised allowances despite repeated demands he filed the said suit,
which he won hence, Lots 20 and 21 was registered to him.

Meanwhile, Opinion filed a petition for a Writ of Possession and by virtue of which a notice to
vacate the premises was served to the petitioners. The writ was however quashed upon the filing
of an urgent motion for the quashal of the writ by the petitioners. This led respondent to file an
accion reivindicatoria with damages praying among others for him to be declared as the lawful
owner and possessor of the land and for his title be declared as authentic. He also prayed for the
cancellation of the titles in possession of the petitioners.

Case Digest by: Geline Joy D. Samillano LLB2B 1

The trial court rendered a decision in favor of Opinion. An affirmance of said decision was
upheld by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Who between the parties has a better right over Lots 20 and 21?

Ruling:

The respondent has the better right over the subject lots for he has presented an authentic title of
the disputed lots.
Time and time again, this Court has ruled that “a certificate of title serves as evidence of an
indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property of the person who name appears therein.”
Further, it is an established rule that “registration is the operative act which gives validity to the
transfer or creates a lien upon the land.”

In denying the petition for lack of merit, the Court is of the opinion that Gorospe, Sr. Was able to
secure TCT No. 117331, which said title explicitly provides that it cancelled TCT No. 39849.
Hence, having been superseded by TCT No. 117331 spouses Vilbars’ possession of TCT No.
39849 is of no consequence.

With respect to Lot 21, the Court also said that the issuance of TCT No. 36777 also becomes
suspect in light of the fact that no Deed of Absolute Sale was ever presented as basis for the
transfer of the title from Dulos Realty. Having presented none, at most, it affords spouses Vilbar
an inchoate right over the property.

Case Digest by: Geline Joy D. Samillano LLB2B 2