Heirs of Alfredo Cullado vs. Gutierrez, G.R. No.

212938, July 30, 2019

On May 10, 1995, A parcel of land with an [(OCT No.)] P-61499 located at Isabela was issued to Dominic
Gutierrez. On May 5, 1997 father of Domic named Dominador Gutierrez filed a case representing his son
(Dominic) a minor. The case filed in RTC was a recovery of ownership , possession with damages with
prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and temporary restraining order to Alfredo Cullado. Cullado
had been occupying the land as early as year of 1977 and despite of repeated demands by the Gutierrez
they refused to vacate in the said lot. Cullado in his defense state that he is in actual possession and
cultivation of the subject parcel of land in an open, adverse and continuous manner and likewise asked
for the reconveyance of the property, considering that [Dominic] and his father fraudulently had the
subject property titled in [Dominic]'s name. Alfredo Cullado died while the case was on going and so he
was represented by his heirs. RTC favored the side of Cullado and order the dismissal of the complaint.
With this, Gutierrez filed for annulment of judgment to CA fo reason of lack of jurisdiction. The CA
granted the petition stating that the allegations of the heirs of Cullado constitute a collateral attack
against [Dominic]'s title, which cannot be allowed in an accion publiciana. In sum, the defenses and
grounds raised by [the heirs of Cullado] ascribe errors in [Dominic]'s title that would require a review of
the registration decree made in [Dominic]'s favor

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT CA ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF RTC

RULING:

CA IS CORRECT.

The court stated that RTC was clearly without any power or jurisdiction to order the reconveyance of the
land in dispute because that can be done only upon a definitive ruling on the said issue something that
cannot be done in an accion publiciana. The court also clarifies that accion publiciana, the defense of
ownership (i.e., that the defendant, and not the plaintiff, is the rightful owner) will not trigger a
collateral attack on the plaintiffs Torrens or certificate of title because the resolution of the issue of
ownership is done only to determine the issue of possession.
2. GR No. 181359, Sps. Sabitsana vs Muertegui
FACTS:
On September 2, 1981, Alberto Garcia (Garcia) executed an unnotarized Deed of Sale 5 in favor of
respondent Juanito Muertegui6 over a parcel of unregistered land in, Biliran, Leyte del Norte covered by
Tax Declaration (TD) No. 1996 issued in 1985 in Garcia’s name. Juanito’s father Domingo Muertegui, Sr.
(Domingo Sr.) and brother Domingo Jr. took actual possession of the lot and planted trees and paid the
real property taxes on the lot for the years 1980 to 1998

On 1991, Garcia sold the lot to the Muertegui family lawyer, petitioner Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr.
(Atty. Sabitsana), through a notarized deed of absolute sale. 8 The sale was registered with the Register
of Deeds on February 6, 1992. 9 TD No. 1996 was cancelled and a new one, TD No. 5327, 10 was issued in
Atty. Sabitsana’s name. Although Domingo Jr. and Sr. paid the real estate taxes, Atty. Sabitsana also paid
real property taxes in 1992, 1993, and 1999. In 1996, he introduced concrete improvements on the
property, which shortly thereafter were destroyed by a typhoon.

When Domingo Sr. passed away, the heirs applied for registration and coverage of the lot under the
Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act No. 141.

Juanito, through his attorney-in-fact Domingo Jr., filed Civil Case No. B-1097 12 for quieting of title and
preliminary injunction, against herein petitioners Atty. Sabitsana and his wife, Rosario, claiming that
they bought the lot in bad faith and are exercising acts of possession and ownership over the same,
which acts thus constitute a cloud over his title.

Atty. Sabitsana stated that before purchasing the said lot party of Mueregui informed them that they
already buy the land of Garcia but could not show any proof as to the sale and such they conducted an
investigation to find a document, record or proof of the sale between Garcia and muertegui but the said
parcel of land is still in the name of Garcia and so they purchased it and begun in possession of it.

And so they asserted mainly that the sale to Juanito is null and void absent the marital consent of
Garcia’s wife, Soledad Corto (Soledad); that they acquired the property in good faith and for value; and
that the Complaint is barred by prescription and laches. They likewise insisted that the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Naval, Biliran did not have jurisdiction over the case, which involved title to or interest in
a parcel of land the assessed value of which is merely ₱1,230.00.

RTC ruled in favor of Muertegui, Sabitsana registration was not in good faith, preference should be given
to the sale in favor of Juanito, as he was the first to take possession of the lot in good faith, and the sale
to petitioners must be declared null and void for it casts a cloud upon the Muertegui title.

Party of Sabitsana appealed to CA but CA denied the appeal on which declared that Juanito, as the
rightful owner of the lot, possessed the requisite cause of action to institute the suit for quieting of title
and obtain judgment in his favor, and is entitled as well to an award for attorney’s fees and litigation
expenses, which the trial court correctly held to be just and equitable under the circumstances.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT THE CA ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF RTC.

RULING:

CA IS CORRECT.

-RTC HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE SUIT FOR QUIETING OF TITLE Under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, 29
an action to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom may be brought in the appropriate
RTC.

-Article 1544 of the Civil Code does not apply to sales involving unregistered land. Act No. 3344
applies to sale of unregistered lands.

What applies in this case is Act No. 3344,32 as amended, which provides for the system of
recording of transactions over unregistered real estate. Act No. 3344 expressly declares that any
registration made shall be without prejudice to a third party with a better right.

The fact that the sale to Juanito was not notarized does not alter anything, since the sale between him
and Garcia remains valid nonetheless. Notarization, or the requirement of a public document under the
Civil Code,33 is only for convenience, and not for validity or enforceability. 34 And because it remained
valid as between Juanito and Garcia, the latter no longer had the right to sell the lot to petitioners, for
his ownership thereof had ceased.

- The award of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses is proper because of petitioners’ bad faith

Petitioners’ actual and prior knowledge of the first sale to Juanito makes them purchasers in bad faith. It
also appears that petitioner Atty. Sabitsana was remiss in his duties as counsel to the Muertegui family.
Instead of advising the Muerteguis to register their purchase as soon as possible to forestall any legal
complications that accompany unregistered sales of real property, he did exactly the opposite.
GR No. 246096, Sps. Rol vs Racho

FACTS:

Isabel Urdas Racho sibling of Loreto Urdas who was the owner of a parcel of land located in Cagayan
with CT of O-1061. As Loreto died without an issue, it leaves his siblings an intestate heir of his lot. The
intestate heirs are Fausto, Chita, Maria, and Isabel. Isabel discovered that the said lot was subdivided to
lot a and lot and they made it appear that loreto sold it despit of his death. Having known that, Isabel
was constrained to file a complain for reivindicacion and damages before the RTC to SPS. Rol.

Sps. Rol asserted that wife and son of fausto Leoncia and Allan offered to sell them one-half of Lot No.
1559 for P25,000.00, to which they agreed. And so on September 13, 1993 Fausto, Chita, Maria, and
Allan executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale 15 (EJSS) concerning the subject lot whereby: (a) the
subject lot was subdivided equally into two (2) 624.50-sq. m. portions, denominated as Lot Nos. 1559-A
and 1559-B; (b) Lot No. 1559-A was adjudicated to Fausto, Chita, and Maria, who then sold the same to
petitioners for the aforementioned amount; and (c) Lot No. 1559-B was adjudicated to Allan.

RTC ruled in Isabel's favor, and accordingly, declared null and void the following: (a) the EJSS dated
September 13, 1993; (b) the Deed of Sale of a Portion of Land dated September 26, 2011; (c) the Deed of
Absolute Sale of Portion of Registered Land dated September 1, 2006; and (d) the Deed of Sale of a
Portion of Land dated June 19, 2012. The RTC also ordered petitioners to reconvey to Isabel the total
area of 312.25-sq. m. from Lot No. 1559, and to pay her P5,646.00 as actual damages, P30,000.00 as
attorney's fees, and the costs of suit.

SPS. Rol filed an appeal to CA and such favored the RTC decision with modifications that the sale by
Fausto, Chita, and Maria to petitioners are valid and binding but only insofar as their respective
undivided interests in the half of Lot No. 1559 is concerned; and (b) the award of actual damages to
Isabel was deleted.

ISSUE: whether the CA correctly ruled that the conveyance of Lot No. 1559 to petitioners is null and
void, except as to the portion in Lot No. 1559-A pertaining to Fausto, Chita, and Maria which is deemed
valid.

RULING:

THE PETITION IS WITHOUT MERIT.

As for the documents pointed out by Isabel, suffice it to say that they are null and void for being
forgeries, as it is simply impossible that Loreto, who died in 1963, could have executed said documents
in 2006 and 2012, respectively. It is settled that forged deeds of sale are null and void and convey no
title.28

As for the EJSS dated September 13, 1993, the CA correctly declared the same to be null and void,
considering that it was executed without the knowledge and consent of Isabel, a co-heir of Fausto,
Chita, and Maria, to the estate of their deceased brother, Loreto. 29
THE COURT FURTHER STATED THAT the co-owner cannot sell a definite portion of the land without
consent from his or her co-owners. He or she could only sell the undivided interest of the co-owned
property.

Accordingly, Lot No. 1559 should revert back to Loreto's estate, and only the parties' respective inchoate
interests should be recognized in this case. In particular, these inchoate interests over Lot No. 1559 are
as follows: petitioners, with 3/8 interest Isabel, with 1/4 interest and Fausto, Chita, and Maria, with 1/8
interest each. It goes without saying that each of them are free to resort to the available remedies in
order to settle Loreto's intestate estate, and subsequently, distribute/partition the property under
prevailing laws, rules, and jurisprudence.