40 Borromeo Vs Descallar

40 Borromeo vs Descallar
G. R. No. 159310. February 24, 2009
Facts: Wilhelm Jambrich, an Austrian, arrived in the Philippines in 1983 after he was
assigned by his employer, Simmering-Graz Panker A.G., an Austrian company.
There, he met respondent Antonietta Opalla-Descallar, a separated mother of two

boys who was working as a waitress at St. Moritz Hotel. Jambrich and respondent fell
in love and decided to live together in a rented house in Hernan Cortes, Mandaue City.
Later, they transferred to their own house and lots at Agro-Macro Subdivision,
Cabancalan, Mandaue City. In the Contracts to Sell dated November 18, 1985
and March 10, 1986 covering the properties, Jambrich and respondent were
referred to as the buyers. A Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 16, 19873 was
likewise issued in their favor. However, when the Deed of Absolute Sale was
presented for registration before the Register of Deeds, registration was refused on
the ground that Jambrich was an alien and could not acquire alienable lands of the
public domain. Consequently, Jambrich’s name was erased from the document. But it
could be noted that his signature remained on the left hand margin of page 1, beside
respondent’s signature as buyer on page 3, and at the bottom of page 4 which is the
last page. Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 24790, 24791 and 24792 over the
properties were issued in respondent’s name alone.
However, the relationship of Jambrich and herein respondent didn’t last long.
Respondent found a new boyfriend while Jambrich began to
live with another woman in Danao City.
Jambrich met petitioner Camilo F. Borromeo sometime in 1986. Petitioner was

engaged in the real estate business. In 1989, Jambrich purchased an engine and
some accessories for his boat from petitioner, for which he became indebted to the
latter for about P150,000.00. To pay for his debt, he sold his rights and interests in the
Agro-Macro properties to petitioner for P250,000, as evidenced by a “Deed of
Absolute Sale/As-signment.” On July 26, 1991, when petitioner sought to register
the deed of assignment, he discovered that titles to the three lots have been
transferred in the name of respondent, and that the subject property has already
been mortgaged.
Respondent, on the other hand, claimed that she “solely and exclusively used her
own personal funds to defray and pay for the purchase price of the subject lots in
question,” and that Jambrich, being an alien, was prohibited to acquire or own real
property in the Philippines. Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent for
recovery of real property before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City.
The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners, and held that respondent could not have
purchased the subject properties on her own because she did not have the financial
means at the time of the sale, to purchase the subject properties. The CA reversed
the Trial Court’s decision and held that In the case at bar, the title of the subject
property is not in the name of Jambrich but in the name of defendant appellant. Thus,
Jambrich could not have transferred a property he has no title thereto.
Issue: Whether or not herein petitioner, to whom the subject properties were
subsequently transferred by Jambrich, is the rightful owner.
Held: YES.
Ruling:
Thus, as the rule now stands, the fundamental law explicitly prohibits non-Filipinos
from acquiring or holding title to private lands, except only by way of legal succession
or if the acquisition was made by a former natural-born citizen.
Therefore, in the instant case, the transfer of land from Agro-Macro Development
Corporation to Jambrich, who is an Austrian, would have been declared invalid if
challenged, had not Jambrich conveyed the properties to petitioner who is a Filipino
citizen. In United Church Board for World Ministries v. Sebastian, the Court reiterated
the consistent ruling in a number of cases that if land is invalidly transferred to an alien
who subsequently becomes a Filipino citizen or transfers it to a Filipino, the flaw in the
original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid.
Applying United Church Board for World Ministries, the trial court ruled in favor of
petitioner: [W]hile the acquisition and the purchase of (sic) Wilhelm Jambrich of the
properties under litigation [were] void ab initio since [they were] contrary to the
Constitution of the Philippines, he being a foreigner, yet, the acquisition of these
properties by plaintiff who is a Filipino citizen from him, has cured the flaw in the
original transaction and the title of the transferee is valid.”
The rationale behind the Court’s ruling in United Church Board for World Ministries, as
reiterated in subsequent cases,32 is this—since the ban on aliens is intended to
preserve the nation’s land for future generations of Filipinos, that aim is achieved by
making lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino citizens by
naturalization or those transfers made by aliens to Filipino citizens. As the property in
dispute is already in the hands of a qualified person, a Filipino citizen, there would be
no more public policy to be protected. The objective of the constitutional provision to
keep our lands in Filipino hands has been achieved.
Regarding the fact of the Certificate of Titles being named after herein
respondent: Still, no. Herein respondent cannot be deemed the owner of the
subject property.
It is settled that registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. It is only a
means of confirming the fact of its existence with notice to the world at large.
Certificates of
title are not a source of right. The mere possession of a title does not make one the
true owner of the property. Thus, the mere fact that respondent has the titles of the
disputed properties in her name does not necessarily, conclusively and absolutely
make her the owner.
The rule on indefeasibility of title likewise does not apply to respondent. A

certificate of title implies that the title is quiet, and that it is perfect, absolute and
indefeasible. However, there are well-defined exceptions to this rule, as when the
transferee is not a holder in good faith and did not acquire the subject properties for a
valuable consideration. This is the situation in the instant case. Respondent did not
contribute a single centavo in the acquisition of the properties. She had no income of
her own at that time, nor did she have any savings. She and her two sons were then
fully supported by Jambrich.

40 Borromeo Vs Descallar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

40 Borromeo Vs Descallar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

40 Borromeo Vs Descallar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

40 Borromeo vs Descallar

G. R. No. 159310. February 24, 2009

There, he met respondent Antonietta Opalla-Descallar, a separated mother of two

Jambrich met petitioner Camilo F. Borromeo sometime in 1986. Petitioner was

The rule on indefeasibility of title likewise does not apply to respondent. A

You might also like