Cases for Property 2nd Assignment

Bailon-Casilao v. CA

Facts: The fate of petitioners' claim over a parcel of land rests ultimately on a determination of
whether or not said petitioners are chargeable with such laches as may effectively bar their
present action.

There is a parcel of land in the names of the Bailons (Rosalia, Gaudencio, Sabina Bernabe,
Nenita and Delia) as co-owners, each with a 1/6 share. Gaudencio and Nenita are now dead,
(Nenita being represented in this case by her children) Bernabe went to China and had not been
heard from since It appears that Rosalia and Gaudencio sold a portion of the land to Donato
Delgado. Rosalia alone, then sold the remainder of the land to Ponciana Aresgado de Lanuza.
On the same date, Lanuza acquired from Delgado land which the Delgado had earlier acquired
from Rosaliaand Gaudencio. Husband John Lanuza, acting under a special power of attorney
given by his wife, Ponciana, sold the two parcels of landto Celestino Afable, Sr. In all these
transfers, it was stated in the deeds of sale that the land was not registered under the
provisions of Act No.496 when the fact is that it is. It appears that the land had been
successively declared for taxation first, in the name of Ciriaca Dellamas,mother of the co-
owners, then in the name of Rosalia Bailon, then in that of Donato Delgado, then in Poncianade
Lanuza's name, and finally in the name of Celestino Afable, Sr. The petitioners in this case, the
Bailons, filed a case for recovery of property against Celestino Afable.

In his answer, Afable claimed that he had acquired the land in question through prescription
and said that the Bailons areguilty of laches. LC declared Afable co-owner because he validly
bought 2/6 of the land (the shares of Rosalia and Gaudencio) CA affirmed. Prescription does not
apply against the Bailons because they are co-owners of the original sellers. But, anaction to
recover may be barred by laches.

CA held the Bailons guilty of laches and dismissed their complaint.

Issue: Applicability of the doctrine of laches

Held: Initially, a determination of the effect of a sale by one or more co-owners of the entire
property held in common without the consent of all the co-owners and of the appropriate
remedy of the aggrieved co-owners is required.

The rights of a co-owner of a certain property are clearly specified in NCC 493:
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the acts and benefits
pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate assign or mortgage it and even substitute
another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the
alienation or mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which
may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership

SC has already ruled in other cases that even if a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the
sale will affect only his own share but not those of the other co-owners who did not consent to
the sale By virtue of the sales made by Rosalia and Gaudencio, which are valid with respect to
their proportionate shares, and the subsequent transfers which culminated in the sale to
private respondent Celestino Afable, Afable thereby became a co-owner of the disputed parcel
of land Since a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property by
one co-owner without the consent of the other co-owners is not null and void.

However, only the rights of the co-owner-seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-
owner of the property. The proper action in cases like this is not for the nullification of the sale
or for the recovery of possession but the division of the common property.

Neither recovery of possession nor restitution can be granted since the buyers are legitimate
possessors in joint ownership of the common property. Here, prescription cannot be invoked.

Pursuant to NCC 494, no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Such co-
owner may demand at anytime the partition of the thing owned in common insofar as his share
is concerned.

In Budiong v. Bondoc, SC has interpreted that provision to mean that the action for partition is
imprescriptible or cannot be barred by prescription. For NCC 494 explicitly declares: No
prescription shall lie in favor of a co-owner or co- heir so long as he expressly or impliedly
recognizes the co-ownership.

Also, the disputed parcel of land being registered under the Torrens System, the express
provision of Act No. 496 that “no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered
owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession”is applicable.

Prescription will not lie in favor of Afable as against the Bailons who remain the registered
owners of the parcel of land.
ROBLES V. CA
FACTS
Petitioners (all surnamed Robles) trace their ownership of a parcel of land (9,985 sq m.) to Leon
and Silvino, their grandfather and father, respectively. Upon Silvino’s death in 1942, said
petitioners inherited the property and started cultivation thereof. Hilario Robles, private
respondent and half-brother of the petitioners, was entrusted with the payment of land taxes
due on the property. In 1962, Hilario caused both the cancellation of the tax declaration
covering the property and its transfer to Ballane (his father-in-law). Ballane mortgaged the
property and, for some reason, the tax declaration thereon was subsequently named to Hilario.
The latter then mortgaged the property to private respondent Rural Bank of Cardona. The
mortgage was foreclosed and said bank acquired by public bidding the property which was then
sold by it to the spouses Santos. Petitioners learned of the mortgage only in 1987.
Subsequently, the action was filed, impleading also as parties-defendant the Director of Lands
and the District Land Officer sue to an issuance of a free patent in favour of spouses Santos.
Trial court ruled in favour of petitioners, declaring null the patent, declaring the heirs of Silvino
absolute owners of the subject land. CA reversed on the ground that petitioners no longer had
title to the property.
ISSUES
(1) whether petitioners have the appropriate title essential to an action for quieting of title
(relevant issue) and whether title claimed by respondents is valid
(2) whether REM between Hilario and RBC is valid
(3) whether issuance of free patent is valid
HELD
(1) Petitioners have valid title by virtue of their continued and open occupation and possession
as owners of the subject property.
In this case, the cloud on petitioners’ title emanate from the apparent validity of the free
patent issued and the tax declarations and other evidence in favour of respondents ultimately
leading to the transfer of the property to spouses Santos. WRT title of the spouses Santos, such
is deemed invalid/inoperative insofar as it is rooted in the title and appropriation of Hilario.
Hilario could not have prejudiced the rights of his co-heirs as co-owners of the real estate. He
must have first repudiated the ownership clearly and evidently. CA failed to consider the
irregularities in the transactions involving the property. No instrument/deed of conveyance was
presented to show any transaction between petitioners and Ballane or even Hilario.

(2) Mortgage was only valid insofar as Hilario’s undivided interest is concerned there being co-
ownership between the heirs. Court also delved into gross negligence which amounted to bad
faith on part of bank by not exercising due diligence in verifying the ownership of the land
considering such was unregistered.
Free patent was also not valid, the land in question having been converted ipso jure to private
land by virtue of the adverse possession in the concept of owners since.

(3) 1916 by the petitioners. Issuance of patents covering private lands is out of the jurisdiction
of the Director of Lands or Bureau of Lands.

Hence, the sale of the property in favour of the spouses Santos WRT the share of Hiario was
valid but the patent issued was null.
ADILLE V. CA
FACTS:
There was a woman who had two husband. With the first husband, she produced the
Petitioner. The second husband, the Respondents. Meanwhile, this woman owned a land and
sold the same to a third person with right of repurchase. However, when the woman died, it
was Petitioner who by himself repurchased the land and later on he executed an affidavit of
sole ownership and registered the land unto himself alone. Eventually, the other heirs
(Respondent) learned of the registration so they filed an action to cancel the title.

Now Petitioner claims prescription almost on similar grounds with the previous case, i.e. the
registration constituted constructive notice to the other heirs, if not to the world.
ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioner is correct.
RULING: No. First of all, the redemption by Petitioner benefited all so that the ownership did
not transfer to him alone. The other heirs only need to reimburse him.
As to the notice, the registration by Petitioner cannot be considered as notice of the
repudiation because they were done in bad faith to deprive the other co-heirs. In fact, they
were done clandestinely. One of the co-heir in fact was in possession of the land and yet he was
not informed of the pending registration nor ousted by Petitioner. Hence, should there have
been any notice, it would be during litigation when the heirs finally learned of the registration.
In that case, there is no prescription yet.

GALVEZ vs. CA

Facts:

Ulpiano and Paz Galvez are children of Timotea F. Galvez, who died intestate. However,
Ulpiano predeceased Timotea and was survived by his son, Porfirio Galvez. Timotea left a parcel
of land which passed by succession, both to Timotea’s daughter, Paz Galvez, and to the
former’s grandson, Porfirio, the latter succeeding by right of representation as the son of
Ulpiano. Paz Galvez executed an affidavit of adjudication stating that she is the true and lawful
owner of the said property, which said property was sold to Carlos Tam without the knowledge
and consent of Porfirio Galvez. Subsequently, Carlos Tam sold the same to Tycoon Properties,
Inc.

Issues:

1. Won respondent's claim over the subject property, which is based on an implied trust, has
already prescribed because the action was filed 24 years after petitioner repudiated the said
trust.

2. Won respondent's claim is already barred by laches because he failed to assert his alleged
right for almost twenty four (24) years.

3. Won petitioners [Carlos Tam and] Tycoon Properties are buyers in good faith.

Held:

1. No, prescription will not lie.

This case is governed by the rules on co-ownership since both Paz Galvez and Porfirio Galvez
are obviously co-owners of the disputed property having inherited the same from a common
ancestor. Article 494 of the Civil Code provides that "[a] prescription shall not run in favor of a
co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs as long as he expressly or impliedly
recognizes the co-ownership."

It is a fundamental principle that a co-owner cannot acquire by prescription the share of the
other co-owners, absent any clear repudiation of the co-ownership. In Santos v. Santos, citing
the earlier case of Adille v. Court of Appeals, this Court found occasion to rule that:
Prescription, as a mode of terminating a relation of co-ownership, must have been preceded by
repudiation (of the co-ownership). The act of repudiation, in turn, is subject to certain
conditions: (1) a co-owner repudiates the co-ownership; (2) such an act of repudiation is clearly
made known to the other co-owners; (3) the evidence thereon is clear and conclusive; and (4)
he has been in possession through open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the
property for the period required by law.

In this case, we find that Paz Galvez effected no clear and evident repudiation of the co-
ownership. The execution of the affidavit of self-adjudication does not constitute such sufficient
act of repudiation as contemplated under the law as to effectively exclude Porfirio Galvez from
the property. This Court has repeatedly expressed its disapproval over the obvious bad faith of
a co-heir feigning sole ownership of the property to the exclusion of the other heirs essentially
stating that one who acts in bad faith should not be permitted to profit from it to the detriment
of others. In the cases of Adille and Pangan where, as in this case, a co-heir was excluded from
his legal share by the other co-heir who represented himself as the only heir, this Court held
that the act of exclusion does not constitute repudiation.

2. No. The equitable remedy of laches is unavailing in this case.

On the matter of laches, it is hornbook doctrine that laches is a creation of equity and its
application is controlled by equitable considerations. Laches cannot be used to defeat justice or
perpetrate fraud and injustice. Neither should its application be used to prevent the rightful
owners of a property from recovering what has been fraudulently registered in the name of
another.

3. No. A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the property without notice that
some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays its fair price before he
has notice of the adverse claims and interest of another person in the same property. So it is
that the "honesty of intention" which constitutes good faith implies a freedom from knowledge
of circumstances which ought to put a person on inquiry.

Suffice it to state that both the trial and appellate courts found otherwise as "Tam did not exert
efforts to determine the previous ownership of the property in question" and relied only on the
tax declarations in the name of Paz Galvez. It must be noted that Carlos Tam received a copy of
the summons and the complaint on 22 September 1994. This notwithstanding, he sold the
property to Tycoon Properties, Inc. on 27 September 1994. Significantly, Carlos Tam is also an
owner of Tycoon Properties, Inc. to the extent of 45%. A notice of lis pendens dated 8 July 1997
filed with the Registry of Deeds of the Province of La Union was inscribed on TCT No. T- 40390.
Despite the inscription, Tycoon Properties, Inc. mortgaged the land to Far East Bank and Trust
Company for the sum of P11,172,600. All these attendant circumstances negate petitioners’
claim of good faith.

Baloloy vs Hular

FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari on the decision of the CA. The respondent
Alfredo Hular filed a complaint for quieting of title of real property with damages against the
children and heirs of Iluminado Baloloy and petitioners Reynaldo and Adelina. The respondent
alleged in his complaint that his father, Astrologo Hular, was the owner of a parcel of residential
land located in Juban, Sorsogon, with an area of 287 square meters, and that such lot was part
of Lot No. 3347 of the Juban Cadastre. The respondent alleged that Iluminado Baloloy, the
petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest, was able to secure a Free Patent over the property through
fraud on March 1, 1968, on the basis of which the Register of Deeds issued Original Certificate
of Title (OCT) No.P-16540 in his name. Subsequently, the respondent later discovered that in
the cadastral survey of lands in Juban, the property of his father, which actually consisted of
1,405 square meters was made to form part of Lot No. 3353, the property of Iluminado Baloloy.
According to the respondent, even if the residential land was made to form part of Lot No. 3353
registered under the name of Iluminado Baloloy, he had acquired ownership of the property by
acquisitive prescription, as he and his predecessors had been in continuous, uninterrupted and
open possession of the property in the concept of owners for more than 60 years. Hence, this
petition.

ISSUE: Whether all the indispensable parties had been impleaded by the respondent in the trial
court?

RULING: It is the contention of the respondent that the subject property was sold by Lagata to
his father, Astrologo Hular, in1961. Hence, when his parents died intestate, they were survived
by their children. Article 1078 of the Civil Code provides that where there are two or more
heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before partition, owned in common by such heirs,
subject to the payment of the debts of the deceased. Until a division is made, the respective
share of each cannot be determined and every co-owner exercises, together with his co-
participants, joint ownership over the pro indiviso property, in addition to the use and
enjoyment of the same. Under Article 487 of the New Civil Code, any of the co-owners may
bring an action in ejectment. This article covers all kinds of actions for the recovery of
possession, including an accion publiciana and a reinvidicatory action. A co-owner may bring
such an action without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because
the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all. In this case, the respondent alone filed
the complaint, claiming sole ownership over the subject property and praying that he be
declared the sole owner thereof. There is no proof that the other co-owners had waived their
rights over the subject property or conveyed the same to the respondent or such co-owners
were aware of the case in the trial court.