Category: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES


CASE 2014-PAUL P. GABRIEL, JR., IRENEO C. CALWAG, THOMAS L. TINGGA-AN, AND THE HEIRS OF .JULIET B. PULKERA, PETITIONERS, – VERSUS – CARMELING CRISOLOGO, RESPONDENT. (G.R. NO. 204626, 09 JUNE 2014, MENDOZA, J.) SUBJECT/S: ACCION PUBLICIANA; RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF LAND; TORRENS TITLE; EJECTMENT; COLLATERAL AND DIRECT ATTACKS ON TITLE. (BRIEF TITLE: GABRIEL ET AL VS CRISOLOGO)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT IS ACTION PUBLICIANA?

 

IT IS AN ORDINARY CIVIL PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE THE BETTER RIGHT OF POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY INDEPENDENTLY OF TITLE.

 

IT IS ALSO KNOWN AS ACCION PLENARIA DE POSESION.

 

AFTER ONE YEAR FROM ACCRUAL OF ACTION FOR EJECTMENT (THAT IS: WHEN YOU CAN NO LONGER FILE A SUMMARY EJECTMENT SUIT BECAUSE OF THE LAPSE OF ONE YEAR) ACCION PUBLICIANA IS THE REMEDY.

 

WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PLAINTIFF IN ACCION PUBLICIANA?

 

TO RECOVER POSSESSION ONLY, NOT OWNERSHIP.

 

BUT CAN THE PARTIES RAISE THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP?

 

YES AND THE COURT MAY PASS UPON SUCH ISSUE BUT ONLY TO DETERMINE WHO BETWEEN THE PARTIES HAS THE RIGHT TO POSSESS THE PROPERTY.

 

WHEN WILL THE COURT PASS UPON THE ISSUE ON OWNERSHIP?

 

ONLY WHEN THE ISSUE ON OWNERSHIP IS INSEPARABLY LINKED TO THE ISSUE OF POSSESSION.

 

BUT IS THE RULING ON OWNERSHIP FINAL AND BINDING?

 

NO. IT IS ONLY PROVISIONAL. IT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. IT IS NOT A BAR TO AN ACTION BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES INVOLVING TITLE TO THE PROPERTY.

 

CRISOLOGO ASSERTS THAT SHE HAS TITLES TO SUBJECT PROPERTIES. PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT HER TITLES ARE VOID BECAUSE OF PD 1271 WHICH VOIDED ALL TITLES IN THE BAGUIO TOWNSITE RESERVATION WHERE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED. IS PETIONERS’ CONTENTION CORRECT?

 

NO. BECAUSE PD1271 PROVIDES THAT ALL TITLES ISSUED ON OR BEFORE JULY 31, 1973 SHALL BE CONSIDERED VALID AND THE LANDS COVERED BY THEM SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN CONVEYED IN FEE SIMPLE TO THE REGISTERED OWNERS UPON:

 

1)    SHOWING PROOF THAT THE LAND COVERED BY THE SUBJECT TITLE IS NOT WITHIN ANY GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC OR QUASI-PUBLIC RESERVATION, FOREST, MILITARY OR OTHERWISE, AS CERTIFIED BY APPROPRIATING GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; AND

 

2)    COMPLIANCE BY THE TITLE HOLDER WITH THE PAYMENT TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES OF THE CORRECT ASSESSED VALUE OF THE LAND WITHIN THE REQUIRED PERIOD.

 

CRISOLOGO PURCHASED THE PROPERTIES IN 1967.

 

BUT PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT CRISOLOGO DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS. CAN PETITIONERS USE SUCH ARGUMENT?

 

NO. PETITIONERS CANNOT USE SUCH ARGUMENT BECAUSE BY DOING SO THEY ARE MAKING A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE TITLES. A COLLATERAL ATTACK IS PROHIBITED.

 

ARE PETITIONERS THE PROPER PARTIES TO QUESTION THE STATUS OF CRISOLOGO’S TITLES?

 

NO. P.D. 1271 STATES THAT IT IS THE SOLICITOR GENERAL WHO SHALL INSTITUTE SUCH ACTION.

 

IF CRISOLOGO HAS TITLES, WHY DOES SHE HAVE RIGHT TO POSSESSION?

 

FIRST, HER TITLES ARE TORRENS TITLES AND A TORRENS TITLE IS EVIDENCE OF INDEFEASIBLE TITLE TO PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF THE PERSON IN WHOSE NAME THE TITLE APPEARS.

 

SECOND, AS TITLE HOLDER SHE IS ENTITLED TO ALL ATTRIBUTES OF OWNERSHIP INCLUDING POSSESSION.

 

WHY CANT A TORRENS TITLE NOT BE SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK?

 

BECAUSE IT IS PROVIDED BY LAW. SECTION 48 OF PD 1529 PROVIDES:

 

SEC. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. – A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.

 

CAN YOU CITE A CASE WHERE THIS PROVISION WAS APPLIED?

 

FRANCISCO MADRID V. SPOUSES MAPOY (G.R. NO. 150887, AUGUST 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 14, 26-27).

 

IN THIS CASE THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT REGISTRATION OF LAND UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM, ASIDE FROM PERFECTING THE TITLE AND RENDERING IT INDEFEASIBLE AFTER THE LAPSE OF THE PERIOD ALLOWED BY LAW, ALSO RENDERS THE TITLE IMMUNE FROM COLLATERAL ATTACK.

 

WHAT IS COLLATERAL ATTACK?

 

IT IS AN ATTACK ON A JUDGMENT GRANTING TITLE BUT MADE IN ANOTHER ACTION TO OBTAIN A DIFFERENT RELIEF, SUCH AS POSSESSION.

 

WHAT IS A DIRECT ATTACK?

 

IT IS AN ATTACK AGAINST A JUDGMENT GRANTING THE TITLE, THROUGH AN ACTION WHOSE MAIN OBJECTIVE IS TO ANNUL, SET ASIDE, OR ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH   JUDGMENT IF NOT YET IMPLEMENTED, OR TO SEEK RECOVERY IF THE PROPERTY TITLED UNDER THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN DISPOSED OF.

 

WHY IS COLLATERAL ATTACK NOT PERMITTED?

 

BECAUSE TO PERMIT A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON A TORRENS TITLE IS TO WATER DOWN THE INTEGRITY AND GUARANTEED LEGAL INDEFEASIBILITY OF A TORRENS TITLE.

 

WHY DOES CRISOLOGO HAVE A BETTER RIGHT OF POSSESSION?

 

THE TESTIMONIAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD PROVE THAT CRISOLOGO HAS A PREFERRED CLAIM OF POSSESSION OVER THAT OF PETITIONERS.

 

SHE BOUGHT THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER IN 1967, WHICH WAS WHY THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED IN HER NAME.

 

RECORDS FURTHER SHOW THAT SHE HAS BEEN PAYING THE REALTY TAXES ON THE SAID PROPERTIES SINCE 1969.

 

SHE LIKEWISE APPOINTED ISICAN AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DISPUTED LANDS.

 

MORE IMPORTANTLY, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT SHE OFFERED TO SELL TO PETITIONERS THE PORTIONS OF THE SUBJECT PROPE1IIES OCCUPIED BY THEM.

 

HENCE, SHE DESERVES TO BE RESPECTED AND RESTORED TO HER LAWFUL POSSESSION AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 539 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2014-0049-JUNE 2014-CRISOLOGO

 

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 
 

CASE 2014-0048:        EUPROCINA I. CRISOSTOMO, MARILYN L. SOLIS, EVELYN MARQUIZO, ROSEMARIE BALATUCAN, MILDRED BATANG, MARILEN MINERALES, and MELINDA D. SIOTING, Complainants, -versus – ATTY. PHILIP z. A. NAZARENO, Respondent. (A.C. No. 6677, 10 JUNE 2014, PERLAS=BERNABE, J.) SUBJECT: NOTARIAL MALPRACTICE. (BRIEF TITLE: CRISOSTOMO ET AL VS. ATTY. NAZARENO)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno is found GUILTY of making false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping subject of this case, as well as malpractice as a notary public. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one ( 1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Further, he is PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public and, his notarial commission, if currently existing, is hereby REVOKED.

 

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent’s personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.”

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

 

SCD-2014-0048-JUNE 2014-NAZARENO

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

CASE 2014-0047: LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, – VERSUS – VICTORINO T. PERALTA, (G.R. NO. 182704 , 23 APRIL 2014, VILLAMARA, J.) SUBJECT: HOW TO COMPUTE JUST COMPENSATION IN AGRARIAN CASES (BRIEF TITLE: LAND BANK VS PERALTA)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 5, 2007 and Resolution dated April 24, 2008 of the Court of Appeals Mindanao Station in CA-G.R. SP No. 00161 are hereby SET ASIDE. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Special Agrarian Court, Branch 9, of the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, for further reception of evidence to determine just compensation strictly in accordance with Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657, DAR AO No. 05, series of 1998 and applicable DAR regulations.

            

No pronouncement as to costs.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHO HAS PRIMARY AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER CASES INVOLVING THE VALUATION OF LAND, PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION AND PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION, FIXING AND COLLECTION OF LEASE RENTALS, DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION, AMORTIZATION PAYMENTS, AND SIMILAR DISPUTES CONCERNING THE FUNCTIONS OF THE LBP?

 

IT IS THE DARAB (DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD).

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

TO WHOM IS THE DARAB DECISION APPEALABLE?

 

IT IS APPEALABLE TO REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS DESIGNATED AS SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURTS (SAC) WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE THEREOF.  

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

IT SEEMS THAT APPEAL TO THE SAC WAS MADE LATE (55 DAYS FROM DATE OF THE DARAB DECISION. THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF DARAB DECISION WAS NOT STATED.) WAS THE APPEAL TO SAC STILL VALID?

 

YES.

 

THE DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION BY THE DARAB IS MERELY A PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE BEFORE THE SACS WHICH HAVE ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER ALL PETITIONS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 57, R.A. NO. 6657.

 

SINCE SAC STATUTORILY EXERCISES ORIGINAL AND EXCUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER ALL PETITIONERS FOR THE THE DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION TO LANDOWNERS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE DECISION OF THE ADJUDICATOR, IF NOT APPEALED TO THE SAC, WOULD BE DEEMED FINAL AND EXECUTORY, UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

IN CERTAIN CASES, THE COURT HAS ADOPTED A POLICY OF LIBERALLY ALLOWING PETITIONS FOR DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION EVEN THOUGH THE PROCEDURE UNDER DARAB RULES HAVE NOT BEEN STRICTLY FOLLOWED, WHENEVER CIRCUMSTANCES SO WARRANT.

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED UNDER PD 27. WHEN RESPONDENT FILED HIS PETITION WITH SAC, RA 6657 ALREADY TOOK EFFECT (ON JUNE 15, 1988). WHICH WILL NOW BE APPLIED IN DETERMINING JUST COMPENSATION? PD 27 OR RA 6657?

 

R.A. 6657

 

THE COURT HAS, IN SEVERAL CASES, FOR REASON OF EQUITY, APPLIED R.A. NO. 6657 IN DETERMINING JUST COMPENSATION FOR LANDS ACQUIRED UNDER P.D. NO. 27 AND BEFORE THE EFFECTIVITY OF R.A. NO. 6657.

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

WHAT ARE THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING JUST COMPENSATION TO THE LANDOWNER?

 

THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND; THE CURRENT VALUE OF LIKE PROPERTIES, ITS NATURE, ACTUAL USE AND INCOME, THE SWORN VALUATION BY THE OWNER, THE TAX DECLARATIONS, AND THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY GOVERNMENT ASSESSORS SHALL BE CONSIDERED.

 

THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS CONTRIBUTED BY THE FARMERS AND THE FARMWORKERS AND BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE NON-PAYMENT OF TAXES OR LOANS SECURED FROM ANY GOVERNMENT FINANCING INSTITUTION ON THE SAID LAND SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS ADDITIONAL FACTORS TO DETERMINE ITS VALUATION.

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

WHERE THESE FACTORS CONSIDERED IN THIS INSTANT CASE?

 

NO.

 

THE SAC BASED ITS DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION SOLELY ON THE OPINION OF THE MUNICIPAL ASSESSOR AS TO THE CURRENT MARKET VALUE OF RESPONDENT’S LAND WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

 

HENCE THE CASE HAS TO BE REMANDED TO THE LOWER COURT FOR RECEPTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

 SCD-2014-0047-MAY 2014-PERALTA

 

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 206 other followers