Estudio II…

FACTS:

A 6,270 square-meter parcel of land in the poblacion of Gubat, Sorsogon was the subject of this action for reconveyance and damages. Julia Galpo de Domalaon was the owner of a piece of land with an area of 1,260 sq. m. and the two-storey house standing thereon. In 1950, she extrajudicially constituted this property into a family home. Alicia Domalaon-Esquivias, Elena G. Domalaon & Jose G. Domalaon, among other children, were named beneficiaries. A Deed of Absolute Sale was executed by Julia Galpo de Domalaon in favor of her son-in-law, Atty. Salvador Esquivias, husband of Alicia Domalaon. The subject matter of the deed was the property constituting the family home.

ISSUE:

Who has a better right over the subject property, the Esquiviases or the Domalaons?

HELD:

While the certificates of title in the names of Jose G. Domalaon and Elena G. Domalaon were indefeasible, unassailable and binding against the whole world, they do not create or vest title. They merely confirm or record title already existing and vested. They cannot use the same to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can they be used as a shield for the commission of fraud; neither do they permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Court reversing that of the RTC is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

________________________________________________________________________

39. VDA. DE CABRERA vs. COURT OF APPEALS 267 SCRA 339

FACTS:

On January 16, 1950, a Deed of Sale was executed by Daniel Teokemian and Albertana Teokemian in favor of Andres Orais over a parcel of unregistered land situated at Abejod, Davao Oriental with an area of 7.3720 hectares. The property was owned in common by Daniel and Albertana and their sister Felicidad Teokemian, having inherited the same from their late father, Domingo Teokemian. However, the Deed of Sale was not signed by Felicidad, although her name was printed therein as one of the vendors. On January 26, 1950, the parcel of land was surveyed in the name of Virgilia Orais, daughter of vendee Andres Orais, and denominated as Lot No. 2239, Cateel Cadastre. As surveyed, the property had an area of 11.1000 hectares. Virgilia Orais was issued a free patent therefor. An Original Certificate of Title was issued in her name.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent Court erred in holding laches in this case.

HELD:

No. The argument that laches does not apply because what was sold to the Cabreras was a definite portion of the community property, and, therefore, void, is likewise untenable.

Art. 493 of the Civil Code provides that “Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and even 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 the 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.”

Petition GRANTED.

________________________________________________________________________

40. IGNACIO GONZALES vs. COURT OF APPEALS 358 SCRA 598, June 18, 2001

FACTS:

Spouses Ignacio Gonzales and Marina Gonzales were the registered owners of two parcels of agricultural land situated at Barrio Fortaleza, Cabanatuan City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2742 and denominated as Lot 551-C and Lot 552-A. Lot 551-C contains an area of 46.97 hectares while Lot 552-A contains an area of 37.5735 hectares. Herein petitioners were the successors-in-interest or the children and grandchildren of said Gonzales spouses. On the other hand, private respondents were the farmers and tenants of said spouses who had been cultivating the parcels of land even before World War II either personally or through their predecessors-in-interest. The donation had been duly accepted by the donees who were already of legal age on the date of the donation and by the legal guardians of the donees who were still minors at that time, and the donor having known of said acceptance, the donation had therefore been perfected in accordance with law, and the donees had acquired a valid title to the portion donated on the date the instrument was executed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the property subject of the deed of donation which was not registered when P.D. No. 27 took effect should be excluded from the Operation Land Transfer.

HELD:

No. The land subject of the donation is covered by Operation Land Transfer. The findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court even if contrary to these of the trial court or the administrative agency, so long as such findings are supported by the records or based on substantial evidence (Tabaco vs. Court of Appeals, 239 SCRA 485, 1994). While the foregoing doctrine is not absolute, petitioners have not sufficiently proved that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the records, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion.

Agrarian laws have never really been effectively implemented. Certain individuals have continued to prey on the disadvantage, and as a result, the

farmers who are intended to be protected and uplifted by the said laws find themselves back in their previous plight or even in a more distressing situation. This Court ought to be an instrument in achieving a dignified

_____________________________________________________________________________

_

existence for these farmers free from pernicious restraints and practices, and there is no better time to do it than now.

Petition DENIED.

________________________________________________________________________

41. OLIZON vs. COURT OF APPEALS