MODULE 5 CASES owners are entitled to the possession of the

property covered by the said title from the time

such title was issued in their favor. The fact that
1. Apostol vs Court of Appeals the repondents were never in prior physical
Respondents Spouses Emmanuel and Edna Chua possession of the subject land is of no moment,
filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against as prior physical possession is necessary only in
the petitioners, Spouses Apostol. Respondents forcible entry cases. The issue of the validity of
alleged that they had contracted with the the title of the respondents can only be assailed
Spouses Pascia for the purchase of a parcel of in an action expressly instituted for that
land. Petitioners, who were present during the purpose.
negotiations, verbally assured the respondents
that they would vacate the properties within ten
(10) days from the execution of sales. 2. Sarmiento vs Lasaca
Petitioners then acknowledge that their stay in Petitioner Sarmiento was the owner of three (3)
the property was only upon the tolerance of its parcels of land and has been in possession of
former owners. Spouses Pascua executed a the aforesaid properties being the owner
Deed of Absolute Sale over the property and the thereof. Petitioner managed said properties to
improvements thereon in favor of the the Philippine National Bank (Bank). These were
respondents for 1,000,000.00. on the basis of subsequently foreclosed by the Bank. After
the said deed, the respondents were issued the failing to redeem within the prescribed period,
Transfer of Certificate of Title (TCT) over the petitioners TCTs were cancelled and new ones
property. Despite demands, however, the were issued in the name of the Bank. The bank
petitioners refused to vacate the property. sold the property to the respondent. Petitioner
then filed a complaint before the RTC for the
Petitioners filed a complaint against the annulment of TCT No 466519-R and the deed of
respondents, the Spouses Chua, the Spouses sale between the Bank and the respondent as
Pascua, and the Register of Deeds in the RTC of well as for reconveyance and damages. With
Quezon City for the annulment of deed of sale said Civil Case still pending, respondents sent
and for reconveyance with damages. Petitioners demand letters demanding petitioner to vacate
alleged that they had been in possession of the the premises.
property. Luz Pascua died but Paulo Pascua did
not inherit the property from because the same Respondent filed a complaint with the MTC for
had already been sold to the respondents; Paulo ejectment of damages. MTC rendered a decision
Pascua executed a falsified affidavit for self- in favor of respondent ordering the petitioners
adjudication over the property on the basis of to vacate the subject property. RTC rendered a
which he was able to secure. decision affirming with modification the MTC’s
decision. Respondent then filed a Motion with
MeTC rendered judgement in favor of the the RTC for issuance of writ of execution
respondents. RTC reversed the decision of the pending appeal. CA held that the continued
MeTC and ordering the dismissal of the possession of the property by petitioner had
complaint. CA held the decision of the MeTC. merely been tolerated by respondent.

The Supreme Court ruled that it is an accepted The SC ruled that the trial bought to light the
rule that a person who has a torrens title over true nature of the right of possession of
the property, such as the respondents, is respondent over the property, and the
entitled to the possession thereof. The cicrumstances surrounding her dispossession.
registered The facts, as culled from the evidence presented
by both parties, unequivocally show that the
instant case is one for unlawful detainer. a barbed wire fence along the road going to the
Respondent was able to present evidence petitioners’ fishponds and harvested several tons
showing that after the foreclosure of the of fishes owned by the petitioners.
property, petitioner failed to redeem it within
the redemption period. Thus, the later was Petitioners promptly filed with the MTC separate
divested of her ownership and right to retain complaints for Forcible Entry with Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction
possession thereof. Respondent acquired a
and Damages.
better right to possess the property after
acquiring title to it through a sale between her In a separate move, petitioners filed a complaint
and the mortgage bank. for damages against respondent alleging that
the unlawful, forcible and illegal
intrusion/destruction of defendant Ernesto
Treyes, Jr. and his men on the fishpond leased
3. Dumo vs Espinas
an possessed by the plaintiffs is without any
The present case arose from a complaint for
authority of the law and in violation of Art 539
forcible entry with prayer for the issuance of a
of the Civil Code.
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary
injunction filed by spouses Danilo and Suprema RTC dimissed petitioner’s complaint on the
Dumo (petitioners) against Erlinda Espinas, ground of prematurity and that holding a
Jhean Pacio, Phol Pacio, Manny Jubinal, Carlito complaint for damages may only be maintained
Campos and Severa Espinas (respondents). after a final determination on the forcible entry
cases has been made.

MTC rendered judgment holding that petitioners SC ruled that the petitioners claim for damages
were able to prove their right of possession over have no direct relation to their loss of
the subject property. RTC reversed and set possession of the premises. Surely, litis
aside the decision of MTC and dismissed the pendentia is not present and it may not be
case filed by the petitioners. CA promulgated invoked to dismiss petitioners’ complaint for
the presently assailed Decision setting aside the damages. Res judicata may not apply because
judgment of the RTC and reinstating with the court in a forcible entry has no jurisdiction
modification the decision of the MTC, by over claims for damages other than the use and
deleting the awards for actual, moral and occupation of the premises and attorney’s fees.
exemplary damages. Neither may forum shopping justify a dismissal
of the complaint for damages, the elements of
Although the MTC's order for the litis pendentia not being present or where a final
reimbursement to petitioners of their alleged jdgement in the forcible entry case will not
lost earnings over the subject premises, which is amount to res judicata in the former. Petitioners
a beach resort, could have been considered as filing an independent action for damages other
compensation for their loss of the use and than those sustained as a result og their
occupation of the property while it was in the dispossession or those caused by the loss of
possession of the respondents, records do not their use and occupation of their properties
show any evidence to sustain the same. could not thus be considering as splitting of a
cause of action.

4. Corporation vs Treyes 5. Wilmon Auto Supply Corp. vs Court of

CGE Corporation, Herman M. Benedicto and Appeals
Alberto R. Benedicto (petitioners) claimed to Wilmon Auto Supply Corporation , Iloilo Multi
have occupied a public land. Ernesto L. Treyes, Parts Supply Corporation, Virgilio Ang, Henry
Jr (respondent) allegedly forcibly and unlawfully Tan, Southern Sales Corporation, and Chang
entered the leased properties and once inside Liang, Jr. were lessees of a commercial building
barricaded the entrance to the fishponds, set up and bodegas standing on a registered land in
Iloilo City owned in common by Lucy, Fr.Jerry,
Lourdes, Manuel Locsin and Ester Jarantilla. The
leases were embodied and in uniformly worded 6. De Luna vs Court of Appeals
deeds executed by the individual petitioners, as Petitioner alleged that he is the owner of an
lessees, and Lourdes C. Locsin, representing the unregistered parcel land. Defendants Octavio
lessors-co-owners. Daclison, Oscar Crispin, and private respondents
Juan Dimaano, Jr. and Gerino Doble entered the
After the expiration of the period fixed in the land and began plowing it; and that said
lease agreements, the lessors executed a public defendants fenced the land with barbed wire
instrument entitled “Deed of Absolute Sale” in and began planting sugar cane, despite his
virtue of which they sold the leased property to objections. Petitioner prayed that the
Star Group Resources and Development Inc. the defendants be ordered to vacate the land and
deed provided that the “vendee shall henceforth pay him the amount of P45.00 monthly per
deal with the lessees and occupants of the hectare until possession thereof would be
properties herein sold without any further transferred to him, with litigation expenses and
warranty or obligation on the part of the costs.
vendors”.
Defendant Dimaano, Jr. raised as his special and
The buyer, Star Group, brought separate actions affirmative defense that petitioner was not the
of unlawful detainer in the MTC in Iloilo City owner of the property, alleging instead that the
against the lessees. owner thereof was Agustin Dequiña, Jr., Upon
the death of Agustin Dequiña, Sr. in 1945, he
Supreme Court ruled that the underlying was succeeded by his son Agustin Dequiña, Jr.,
reasonse for the above rulings were that the who possessed the property from 1945 up to
actions in RTC did not involve physical or de February 1972, when the same was leased to
facto possession and on not a few occasions, defendant Dimaano, Jr. Agustin Dequiña, Sr.
that the case in RTC was merely a ploy to delay happens to be the uncle of petitioner, the
disposition of the ejectment proceeding, or that former being the elder brother of the latter's
the issues presented in the former could quite mother, Apolonia Dequiña.
easily be set up as defenses in the ejectment
action and there resolved. This is specially true RTC judgment was rendered in favor of
in the cases at bar, where the petitioner-lesees petitioner, with the trial court ordering the
claim – that the lessors (and the buyer of the defendants or persons acting for and in their
leased premises) had violated their leasehold behalf to restore to petitioner possession of the
rights because (a) they were not accorded the property. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
right of pre emption, (b) the buyer was not Well-established is the rule in ejectment cases
required to respect their leases, and (c) the that the only issue to be resolved therein is who
lessees were denied the option to renew their is entitled to the physical or material possession
leases upon the expiration thereof – constituted of the premises, or possession de facto,
their causes of action in the suits commenced by independent of any claim of ownership that
them in the RTC. It may well be stressed in either party may set forth in their pleadings. If
closing that as the law now stands, even when, petitioner can prove prior possession in himself,
in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, he may recover such possession from even the
"the defendant raises the question of ownership owner himself. Whatever may be the character
in his pleadings and the question of possession of his prior possession, if he has in his favor
cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of priority time, he has the security that entitles
ownership," the Metropolitan Trial Courts, him to stay on the property until he is lawfully
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial ejected by a person having a better right by
Courts nevertheless have the undoubted either accion publiciana or accion reindivicatoria.
competence to resolve "the issue of
ownership . . . only to determine the issue of However, where the question of possession can
possession." not be resolved without deciding the question of
ownership, an inferior court has the power to
resolve the question of ownership but only mortgage executed by Buenaventura An.
insofar as to determine the issue of possession. Cipriano Ramirez sold the lot to petitioner Miguel
Semira. However, the area stated in the
In the case at bar, the inferior court acted "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" 4 was 2,200
correctly in receiving evidence regarding the square meters and not 822.5 appearing in the
ownership of the disputed property, inasmuch as previous document. As delimited by its
respondent Dimaano, Jr. claimed to possess the boundaries, the lot is actually much bigger than
property by virtue of a lease agreement with the 822.5 square meters.
alleged owner thereof, Agustin Dequiña, Jr .
Miguel Semira entered the very same premises
Petitioner has shown that he had prior previously occupied by Ramirez and began the
possession of the property. The prior possession construction of a new rice-mill. A complaint for
of petitioner was established by the testimony of forcible entry was filed against him by private
his witnesses, notably that of his tenant respondent. The latter claimed that the area of
Epigenio Dilag and Victor dela Cruz. While Lot 4221 was 822.5 square meters only and that
petitioner admitted that he declared the the excess of 1,377 square meters forcibly
property for taxation purposes only in 1957, he occupied by petitioner formed part of Lot 4215
had possessed the property beginning 1953 at which he acquired from the Hornillas in 1964.
the very latest, when he leased the same to
Epigenio Dilag, who in turn possessed the same
Private respondent appealed to the Regional
until respondent Dimaano, Jr. entered upon the
Trial Court which reversed the Municipal Circuit
property in 1972. The possession of the
Trial court,
property by Dilag since 1953 redounds to the
benefit of petitioner, since possession may be
exercised in one's own name or in that of Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, but
another. without success.

SC agree with the position of petitioner and

sustain the Municipal Circuit Trial Court in
holding that in the case at bench the issue of
possession cannot be decide independently of
the question of ownership.
7. Semira vs Court of Appeals
We have repeatedly ruled that where land is
Juana Gutierrez owned a parcel of land, which sold for a lump sum and not so much per unit of
she sold to private respondent Buenaventura An measure or number, the boundaries of the land
by means of a "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" stated in the contract determine the effects and
Thereafter, private respondent entered the scope of the sale, not the area thereof. 15
premises observing thereby the boundaries of Hence, the vendors are obligated to deliver all
the property and not the area given. Private the land included within the boundaries,
respondent sold Lot 4221 to his nephew, regardless of whether the real area should be
Cipriano Ramirez, and spouse by means of greater or smaller than that recited in the deed
another "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" where
the lot was described with the same area and Hence, when private respondent Buenaventura
boundaries with the exception of the boundary An sold Lot 4221 to his nephew Cipriano
on the east; which was changed from "Juana Ramirez by means of a "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng
Gutierrez" to "Buenaventura An" Lupa" which incorporated both the area and the
definite boundaries of the lot, the former
Cipriano Ramirez occupied the lot by observing transferred not merely the 822.5 square meters
the boundaries stated in the document of sale. stated in their document of sale but the entire
Subsequently, he applied for a new tax area circumscribed within its boundaries.
declaration to replace the one in the name of his
uncle but was denied in view of an existing
The fact that the area turned out to be 2,200 The fact that 4 years after the execution of the
square meters; instead of only 822.5 square contract, Juan Veloso executed an affidavit to
meters, is of no moment and does not entitle consolidate his right of ownership over the
private respondent to the difference because the parcel of land is of no consequence. The
defnite object sold was Lot 4221 in its entirety constructive possession over the parcel of land
and not just any unit of measure or number. mentioned by the appellate court did not ripen
The case before us is merely an action of into ownership. The rule is that only the
forcible entry and that the issue of ownership possession acquired and enjoyed in the concept
was decided for the sole purpose of resolving of owner can serve as a title for acquiring
priority of possession. Hence, any dominion. Veloso never owned the subject land
pronouncement made affecting ownership of the because the contract over the same between
disputed portion is to be regarded merely as them was an equitable mortgage and not a
provisional, hence, does not bar nor prejudice contract of sale.
an action between the same parties involving
title to the land

8. Balatero v. Intermediate Appellate Court (GR

73889) 9. Director of Lands v. Heirs of Tesalona (GR
66130)
FACTS: Director of Lands initiated the court
proceedings to settle and adjudicate lots to FACTS: The subject property was allegedly
rightful claimants of a tract of land. Property in acquired by Maria Rosita Lorenzo under a
question was originally owned by the parents of possessory informaion title under the Royal
Josefa Iglupas who is the mother in law of Decree. And Isabel, Consuelo, and Serapia
petitioner Balatero and her brother Alejo. After Tesalona, who now own the lot by inheritance
the death of their parents, the lot was given to file an application or regisrtation. The Director of
Alejo and his wife. After Alejo’s death, his wife Lands filed its opposition alleging that neither
and son sold the property to Josefa for a the applicants the applicants nor their
consideration of P111 which sale is embodied in predecessors in interest had sufficient title of the
a public document. They occupied the lot and land applied for no had they been in possession
the old house. Josefa loaned a sum of P68 and thereof for a period of at elast 30 years
mortgaged the property to claimant Jose Veloso immediately preceding the filing of the
in a public document named as Pacto de Retro application and that the land is a public land.
Sale. The loan was paid and the Josefa and her
Constancio dela Pena Tan also filed opposition.
children sold the portion to Florencio Balatero.
Tan contends that he had possessed the land as
The court ruled for Florencio since the claimant
lessee for a period of 35 years and that his
was never in possession of the property since
mother applied for registration by virtue of a
his basis was only a mortgage. Upon appeal, the
fishpond lease and that the lands were
decision was reversed. Hence this petition.
converted into fishponds. After the trial, the
RULING: The land remained undisturbed in the court rendered judgment adjudicating Lots 3,4,5
possession of the vendr Josefa even after the in favor of applicants and Lots 1 and 2 as
execution of the contract. Ad Josefa really government owned subject to the rights of
executed a contract of sale in favor of Veloso, lessee Constancio. Upon appeal, it affirmed the
the land should have been delivered to him and decision but modified declaring the confirmation
he would have taken immediate possession. The of title over Lots 1 and 2 and ordered the
assertion that Josefa became a lessee after registration in the names of the applicants.
execution of contract and the amounts he Hence this petition.
received were rentals create a presumption that
RULING: The basis of the claim of the Heirs of
the contract was intended to be an equitable
Tesalona is a Spanish title but they did not
mortgage under Article 1602.
submit the original possessory information title
and instead submitted an unclear, illegible copy Appellate Court. It ruled on reversing the
of a Spanish document purporting to be a title decision. Hence, this petition by Resurreccion.
evidencing the land grant. The Court has
reiterated that caution and care mnust be RULING: The deed of sale appears to be
exercised in accepting secondary evidence of unmarred by alteration but the missing page
alleged possessory information titles considering does affect the authenticity of the document
the number of fake titles that have been since it allegedly bears the signature of the
discovered following their supposed vendor of the portion of lot in question therefor
reconstitution after the last World War. it contains vital proof of the voluntary
Moreover, Lots 1 and 2 were classified as transmission of rights over the sale.
swampy area and were filled with mangrove On the issue of whether acquisitive prescription
trees which makes it part of forest land. Well- runs during the pendency of a cadastral case,
trenched is the rule that possession of forest the institution of proceedings, or at least the
lands, no matter how long, cannot ripen into publication of the notice therein issued, has the
private ownership. Its inclusion in a title, effect of suspending the running of the
whether the title be issued during the Spanish prescriptive period. That is why the appellate
regime or under the Torrens System, nullifies court erred in aascribing acquisitve prescription
the title. in favor of Ursula. Neither Ursula successfully
assert that prior to the institution of the
proceedings, she and her husband had gained
10. Bartolome v. Intermediate Appellate Court acquisitive prescription over the property until
(GR 76792) Doroteo was in possession of the whole lot.

FACTS: The subject property was first declared Further, while it is rtue that the property had
as the property of Epitacio Batara in a tax dec. been declared for tax purposes by Bernabe
He and his wife had 2 children, where one Bartolome, taxes were paid in the name of his
inherited the property since the other one died. son, ownership thereof had not been acquired
She bore 5 children all surnamed Bartolome. by Ursula or her heirs. Aside from the fact that
Thereafter, the Director of Lands instituted said declarations and payments were made
cadastral proceedings over the land involved. during the pendency of the case, a tax
Ursula Cid, widow of the son of Doroteo declaration in the name of the alleged property
Bartolome filed an answer claiming ownership of owner or his predecessor in interest, does not
the land and said that she acquired it through prove ownership but merely an indicium of a
inheritance. His brother-in-law, Resurreccion clam of ownership. Neither does payment of
Bartolome also filed an answer claiming taxes conclusively prove ownership of the land
ownership of land. Ursula and her children left paid for.
the house to a lessee and instructed her sister-
in-law, Maria to receive the rentals of the house.
As administrator, Maria leased the lot to 11. Alonso v. Cebu City Country Club (GR
Philippine United Trading Co., Inc. Maria then 130876)
filed an answer claiming co-ownership of said
land together with the heirs of Doroteo FACTS: Petitioner Alonso, who in the course of
Bartolome. When Ursula came back, she the proceedings died and was substituted by his
amended her answer that it was a claim on heirs, was the only son and sole heir of the late
basis of acquisition. The RTC found that the lots Tomas Alonso and Asuncion Medalle. He
described are defective as the vendors are not discovered documents and records showing that
the real owners of the lots. The court held that his father acquired subject property of the
Ursula’s possession of the land after the Banilad Friar Lands Estate from the Government.
claimants had filed their answers did not confer Such documents showed that the original
ownership on her because said possession was vendee of the subject lot assigned his sales of
interrupted and merely tolerated by all the certificate to his father and then was issued a
parties during the pendency of the case. To patent. The Director of Lands executed a final
which Ursula appeald before the Intermediate deed of sale but it was not registered with the
Register of Deeds because of lack of technical and his predecessor in interest have not been in
requirements. Upon investigation of the status OCENPO since June 12, 1945 and that tax decs
of the land, petitioner found out that the title do not constitute sufficient evidence of a boda
had been administratively reconstituted from the fide acquisition. A proclamation was issued by
owner’s duplicate under a Transfer of Certificate the President withdrawing the subject property
of Title in the name of United Service Country from sale or settlement and reserved it for slum
Club Inc., which is the predecessor of Cebu improvement. RTC confirmed respondent
Country Club. Petitioner filed before the RTC a Democrito Plaza’s title over the relocation plan
complaint for declaration of nullity and non- and was affirmed by CA.
existence of deed/title, cancellation of
certificates of title and recovery of property RULING: Although tax declarations or realty tax
against the respondent. RTC ruled in favor of payments of property are not conclusive
defendant and on appeal, it was affirmed by the evidence of ownership nevertheless, they are
CA. Hence this petition. good indicia of possession in the concept of
owner for no one in his right mind would be
RULING: Neither Tomas Alfonso nor the paying taxes for a proeprty that is not in his
petitioner, or his heirs are the lawful owners of actial or at least constructive possession. They
the subject land. Neither has the respondent constitute at least proof that the hilder has a
been able to establish a clear title over the claim of title over the property.
same. The reconstitution of a title is simply the
re-issuance of a lost duplicate certificate of title The proclamation did not prohibit the
in its original form and condition. It does not registration of title of one who claims, and
determine or resolve the ownership of the land proves, to be the owner thereof. At any rate,
covered by the lost or destroyed title. A registration does not vest title. It is merely
reconstituted title, like the original certificate of evidence of such title. Our land registration laws
title, by itself does not vest ownership of the do ot give the holder any better title than what
land or estate covered. That the tax declarations he actually has.
and realty tax payments are good indicia of
possession in the concept of ownerbut are not
conclusive evidence of ownership. The land 13. Cequena v. Bolante (GR 137944)
belongs to the Government.
FACTS: Respondent Honorata Bolante and
Miguel Mendoza, brother of petitioners, had a
dispute on the ownership of the land during the
12. Republic v. CA (GR 108926) cadastral survey. Because of this dispute, the
FACTS: Subject property was first owned by petitioners filed a case agasint them claiming
Santos dela Cruz and declared the said lot in his ownership and possession of the land of land in
name under a tax dec. Then the property was question. After the trial, RTC rendered its
bought or acquired by Pedro Cristobal et al. judgment in favor of petitioners and orderent
After one of the buyers died, his heirs the respondent to vacate said property and that
extrajudicially partitioned the subject property he is to deliver possession of the same to the
and declared it in their names under a tax dec. heirs of Margarito Mendoza. Respondent then
They executed a Deed of Sale With Mortgage filed an appeal before the CA which the
over the said land to petitioner-appellee. Upon appellate court reversed the decision rendered
full payment, they executed a Release of by he lower court.
Mortgage. After the sale, petitioner-appellee RULING: Petition has no merit. CA was crrect in
took possession over the property and paid the not giving credence to the affidavit presented by
taxes due and declared it in his name. He the petitioner for the reason that it cannot be
appointed an administrator and caretaker. Due admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule
to lossess, the property was cultivated only for a under the dead man’s statute. Also, the affidavit
while. He then filed for registration and cannot be considered an ancient document as
confirmation of his title over the property which the petitioner failed to explin how the signature
was opposed by the Republic alleging that he of one of the respondents could have been
affixed as she was an illiterate woman who had 13 Further, tax decs are not conclusive evidence
never had any formal schooling. of ownership but are mere prima facie proof of
ownership.
Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive
evidence of ownership. They constitute mere
prima facie proof of ownership or possession of
the property for which taxes had been paid. In CEQUENA VS. BOLANTE
the absence of actual public and adverse
possession, the declaration of the land for tax Facts: Prior to 1954, the subject land was
purposes does not prove ownership. Petitioners’ originally declared for taxation purposes in the
claim of ownership of the whole parcel has no name of Sinforoso Mendoza, father of
legal basis. respondent. Sinforoso died in 1930. Petitioners
were the daughters of Margarito Mendoza,
Sinforo’s brother. On the basis of an affidavit,
14. Serina v. Caballero (GR 127387)
the tax declaration in the name of Sinforoso
FACTS: Serina and his wife filed for quieting of Mendoza of the contested lot was cancelled and
title, recovery of possession and damages with a subsequently declared in the name of Margarito
prayer for writ of preliminary mandatory Mendoza. Respondent is the present occupant of
injunction against respondents Caballero and his
the land. Earlier, respondent and Miguel
tenants. When Serina died, he was substituted
by his children. The same alleged in their Mendoza, another brother of petitioners, during
complaint that they are the absolute owners and the cadastral survey had a dispute on the
have been in actual and constructive possession ownership of the land.
for 35 years of a parcel of land. That the said
land was bought by their father from Lucia Vda. The court a quo rendered its judgment in favor
De Marbella and presented a Deed of Sale and a
of petitioners. The Court of Appeals reversed the
tax declaration under the name of their father.
That respondent was claiming ownership over trial court, ruling among others, that the
the land and offering it for sale or mortgage to probative value of petitioners' tax receipts and
third parties and further contends that Eustaquio declarations paled in comparison with
Caballero declared the entire parcel of land for respondent's proof of ownership of the disputed
tax purposes even before the war and that he parcel.
inherited it. RTC rendered judgment dismissing
the complaint and upholding the right of the
Ruling: Ownership of immovable property is
respondents over the land. It held that it was
not clearly shown that the land bought by Serina acquired by ordinary prescription through
from Lucia was the same land owned by possession for ten years. Being the sole heir of
Caballero and that petitioners failed to show that her father, respondent showed through his tax
Lucia bought the land from Eustaquio, the receipt that she had been in possession of the
original owner and claimant. Further, that the land for more than ten years since 1932.
deed of sale between them showed an area of 5
Respondent's possession was not disturbed until
hectares whereas the petitioners claimed only
1953 when the petitioners' father claimed the
2.5 hectares and that the boundaries did not
coincide with the sale. The CA affirmed the land. But by then, her possession, which was in
decision. the concept of owner — public, peaceful, and
uninterrupted — had already ripened into
RULING: No reason to reverse the decision of
ownership. Furthermore she herself, after her
CA. It was correct in concluding that the
petitioners failed to establish that the land in the father's demise, declared and paid realty taxes
possession of the respondents is the same as for the disputed land. Tax receipts and
that of their complaint. There was no showing declarations of ownership for taxation, when
that the tax dec under Eustaquio’s name was coupled with proof of actual possession of the
cancelled.
property, can be the basis of a claim for immemorial, and that the entire parcel of land
ownership through prescription. was declared for tax purposes even before the
war.
Petitioners' contend that their ownership of the
disputed land was established before the trial The RTC rendered judgment dismissing the
court through the series of tax declarations and complaint, and upholding the right of the
receipts issued in the name of Margarito respondents over the land. The CA affirmed in
Mendoza. Such documents prove that the holder toto the decision of the RTC.
has a claim of title over the property. Aside from
manifesting a sincere desire to obtain title Ruling: Here, since the property has not been
thereto, they announce the holder's adverse clearly identified by the petitioners, their claim
claim against the state and other interested of acquisitive prescription cannot be considered.
parties. Insufficient identification of the portion of land
claimed in absolute ownership cannot ripen into
However, tax declarations and receipts are not ownership. Possession as a means of acquiring
conclusive evidence of ownership. At most, they ownership, while it may be constructive, is not a
constitute mere prima facie proof of ownership mere fiction.
or possession of the property for which taxes
have been paid. In the absence of actual public Assuming, however, that the disputed land has
and adverse possession, the declaration of the been clearly identified, acquisitive prescription
land for tax purposes does not prove ownership. will still not lie in favor of the petitioners
In sum, the petitioners' claim of ownership of because they were not able to prove that they
the whole parcel has no legal basis. have been in possession of the property for the
requisite number of years. Prescription requires
SERINA VS. CABALLERO public, peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse
possession of the property in the concept of an
Facts: Petitioners filed a Complaint for quieting owner for ten years, in case the possession is in
of title, recovery of possession, and damages good faith and with just title. Aside from the
with a prayer for a writ of preliminary testimony of Leonardo Vacalares that certain
mandatory injunction against respondents. They tenants of the petitioners cultivated the land for
alleged in their complaint that they are the a total of seven years, the petitioners did not
absolute owners and have been in actual and present any other evidence to show that they
constructive possession for thirty-five (35) years have been in actual possession of the property
of a parcel of land. They likewise averred that for at least ten years.
sometime in March 1982, they discovered that
respondent Caballero was claiming ownership The petitioners' argument that the payment of
over the said land and offering it for sale or taxes on the property since May 31, 1948
mortgage to third parties, and that respondents constitutes proof of their possession of the
Donelas were occupying the land as tenants and subject land for thirty-five years is untenable.
caretakers of the land. They presented a Deed Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive
of Sale, and averred that they regularly paid evidence of ownership. At most, they constitute
taxes thereon since 1947 up to the present. mere prima facie proof of ownership of the
property for which taxes have been paid. In the
Respondent Caballero alleged that he was the absence of actual, public and adverse
lawful owner, and had been in actual physical possession, the declaration of the land for tax
possession of the disputed land since time purposes does not prove ownership.
 substantially violated their obligation. Hence,
RAMEL VS. AQUINO respondents are entitled to a rescission of the
Facts: Daniel Aquino is the registered owner of a contract.
Lot. He mortgaged the property to the DBP. The
property was in danger of being foreclosed as Art. 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded
respondents had no means to pay for the loan. to every possessor; but only the possessor in
Thus, they offered to sell to petitioners a portion good faith may retain the thing until he has
of the mortgaged property. Petitioners were to been reimbursed therefor.
buy the said portion and would assume the
remaining mortgage obligation of respondents Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the
with DBP. possessor in good faith with the same right of
retention, the person who has defeated him in
Respondents also sold to petitioners a part of the possession having the option of refunding
the southern portion of the mortgaged property. the amount of the expenses or of paying the
Petitioners paid the full amount and were increase in value which the thing may have
allowed by respondents to take possession of acquired by reason thereof.
the parcels of land sold. Since then, they
allegedly introduced improvements to the The evidence show that both parties failed to
property. prove their respective claims. In the absence of
evidence from both parties on their claims,
Petitioners applied for a re-structuring of the offsetting is improper. The right to offset may
mortgage loan with the DBP for a period of ten exist but the question of how much is to be
years, allegedly with the conformity of offset is factual in nature and needs to be
respondents. Petitioners went to DBP to pay for proved by proper evidence.
the amortization but they found out that MWSS VS. COURT OF APPEALS
respondents had paid the bank. Petitioners
offered to return to respondents the said sum Facts: The City of Dagupan filed a complaint
but the latter refused to accept the offer. against the former NAWASA, now the
Instead, respondents told petitioners that they Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System
would return whatever they have paid for the (MWSS), for recovery of the ownership and
land, and threatened to withdraw the certificate possession of the Dagupan Waterworks System.
of title of the land from the bank. Judgment was rendered by the trial court in
favor of the CITY on the basis of a stipulation of
Petitioners filed with the trial court for Specific facts. The trial court found NAWASA to be a
Performance with Preliminary Injunction and possessor in bad faith and hence not entitled to
Damages. The trial court restrained the the reimbursement claimed by it. The appellate
respondents from withdrawing the certificate of court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
title and the Release of Mortgage. The bank was
also enjoined from releasing the title to Ruling: Article 449 of the Civil Code of the
respondents. Petitioners appealed to the Court Philippines provides that "he who builds, plants
of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the or sows in bad faith on the land of another,
trial court and denied their Motion for loses what is built, planted or sown without right
Reconsideration. to indemnity." As a builder in bad faith, NAWASA
lost whatever useful improvements it had made
Ruling: The trial court ruled and the appellate without right to indemnity.
court rightly affirmed that petitioners
Moreover, under Article 546 of said code, only a and as to the possession over the western
possessor in good faith shall be refunded for portion of the private road and the disputed
useful expenses with the right of retention until Lot ; and that said lot and the private road are
reimbursed; and under Article 547 thereof, only not included in the land purchased by the
a possessor in good faith may remove useful respondent. According to the trial court,
improvements if the can be done without respondent knew that the land was already in
damage to the principal thing and if the person dispute between Dasal and the petitioners.
who recovers the possession does not exercise
the option of reimbursing the useful expenses. Ruling: Private respondent could not be
The right given a possessor in bad faith is to considered a builder in good faith as to entitle
remove improvements applies only to him to the alternative choice of retention; and
improvements for pure luxury or mere pleasure, that the demolition of the private respondent's
provided the thing suffers no injury thereby and construction on the lot and on the private road
the lawful possessor does not prefer to retain is a logical consequence of the finding that he
them by paying the value they have at the time was privy to the losing parties Being adjudged in
he enters into possession. privy with the spouses Dasals, he cannot avail
himself of the rights granted to a builder in good
SABIDO VS. IAC faith. He, therefore, must remove all his useful
improvements over the lot at his own expense
Facts: An action for quieting of title which was and if the same have already been removed, he
filed by the Spouses Dasal against herein cannot be entitled to the right of retention or to
petitioners, on the question of ownership over any reimbursement.
two parcels of land. The trial court presided
declared the petitioners as owners of said Lots. EDU VS. GOMEZ
However, when the decision was being carried
out to put the petitioners in possession of one Facts: Subject matter of this case is a 1968
Lot, the Provincial Sheriff found three (3) model Volkwagen, bantam car allegedly owned
persons occupying portions of said lot. One of by Lt. Walter A. Bala. The Office of the
them as private respondent Dominador Sta. Commission on Land Transportation received a
Ana. report on that the said car was stolen.
Petitioners recognized subject car in the
Sta. Ana claimed ownership by purchase of a possession of herein private respondent Abello
bigger area of which the lot is a part. He stated and immediately seized and impounded the car
that the two other persons occupying the as stolen property. Likewise, herein petitioner
disputed portion are his tenants. Subsequently, Edu seized the car pursuant to Section 60 of
an order of demolition was issued by the trial Republic Act 4136 which empowers him to seize
court against the private respondent. This order the motor vehicle. Herein private respondent
was challenged by the private respondent. After Abello filed a complaint for replevin with
conducting an ocular inspection and hearing, damages in respondent court. Respondent CFI
private respondent was ordered to vacate the lot Judge found that the car in question was
upon finding that there is no proof that what the acquired by Lucila Abello by purchase from its
respondent allegedly purchased covers a portion registered owner.
of the Lot.
A resolution fnding that there was privity Ruling: The acquirer or the purchaser in good
between the private respondent and the faith of a chattel of movable property is entitled
spouses Dasal as to the ownership of another lot to be respected and protected in his possession
as if he were the true owner thereof until a above noted, delivery of the thing sold will
competent court rules otherwise. In the effectively transfer ownership to the buyer who
meantime, as the true owner, the possessor in can in turn transfer it to another.
good faith cannot be compelled to surrender
possession nor to be required to institute an Actual delivery of the books having been made,
action for the recovery of the chattel, whether Cruz acquired ownership over the books which
or not an indemnity bond is issued in his favor. he could then validly transfer to the private
The filing of an information charging that the respondents. The fact that he had not yet paid
chattel was illegally obtained through estafa for them to EDCA was a matter between him
from its true owner by the transferor of the and EDCA and did not impair the title acquired
bona fide possessor does not warrant disturbing by the private respondents to the books.
the possession of the chattel against the will of
the possessor.

EDCA VS. SANTOS

Facts: Professor Jose Cruz placed an order by

telephone with the petitioner company for
books, payable on delivery. EDCA prepared the
corresponding invoice and delivered the books
as ordered, for which Cruz issued a personal
check. Cruz sold 120 of the books to private
respondent Leonor Santos. EDCA having
become suspicious over a second order placed
by Cruz even before clearing of his first check,
made inquiries with the De la Salle
College where he had claimed to be a dean and
was informed that there was no such person in
its employ.

EDCA then went to the police, which set a trap

and arrested Cruz. The private respondents sued
for recovery of the books after demand for their
return was rejected by EDCA.

Ruling: Ownership in the thing sold shall not

pass to the buyer until full payment of the
purchase price only if there is a stipulation to
that effect. Otherwise, the rule is that such
ownership shall pass from the vendor to the
vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery
of the thing sold even if the purchase price has
not yet been paid. Non-payment only creates a
right to demand payment or to rescind the
contract, or to criminal prosecution in the case
of bouncing checks. But absent the stipulation