Tensuan v. Heirs of Vasquez, G.R. No.

204992, * The heirs of Vasquez were ordered to restore

September 8, 2020 ownership and possession of the 1,680.92 square
Here is a summary of the *Tensuan vs Heirs of meter portion to the Tensuans.
Vasquez* case, as per the decision of the * The SC awarded the Tensuans acceptance
Supreme Court (SC): fees, attorney's fees, and appearance fees.
* The SC stated that the remaining 3,556.62
**Relevant Facts:** square meters belonged to the State.

* The Tensuan heirs claimed ownership of a **Rationale:**

parcel of land in Poblacion, Muntinlupa City,
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. * **Cause of Action and Prescription:** The SC
16532, which they inherited from Fernando determined that the case was essentially an action
Tensuan. to quiet title, which is imprescriptible if the plaintiff
* Ma. Isabel M. Vasquez, owner of a property in is in possession of the property. The Tensuans
Bagbagan, Tunasan, Muntinlupa City (Aguila were deemed to be in possession.
Village), commissioned rip-rapping along the * **Prior Registration:** The Tensuans' TCT No.
Magdaong River, the boundary between the two 16532 was issued in 1950, predating Vasquez's
properties. TCT No. 144017, issued in 1986. As prior
* The rip-rapping altered the river's course, registrants, the Tensuans had superior rights.
causing it to encroach on the Tensuan property, * **Invalidity of Special Work Order as Basis for
increasing Vasquez's land area by 5,237.53 Title:** Special Work Order 13-000271, a
square meters, which was then covered by TCT construction permit, was not a valid basis for
144017. claiming ownership or issuing TCT No. 144017. A
* A portion of this new area (1,680.92 square special work order cannot be the subject of titling.
meters) belonged to the Tensuans, while another The recognized modes of acquiring property under
portion (3,556.62 square meters) was part of the the Civil Code do not include a special work order.
Magdaong River. * **Public Dominion:** The Magdaong River is
* The Tensuans filed a suit for *accion part of the public domain and cannot be registered
reivindicatoria* and annulment of title, seeking to under the Land Registration Law.
recover their property and declare Vasquez's title * **Accretion:** The court noted that the claim of
and related Special Work Order void. accretion was raised late and could not be used to
justify including lands of public domain in the title.
**Issue:** * **Bad Faith:** Ma. Isabel Vasquez was deemed
a builder in bad faith for constructing on the
* The primary issue was the validity of TCT No. Tensuans' land and including a portion of the
144017 issued to Ma. Isabel M. Vasquez, which Magdaong River in her title.
included a portion of the Tensuan property and * **Article 450 of the Civil Code:** the owner of
part of the Magdaong River due to rip-rapping the land on which anything has been built, planted
activities. or sown in bad faith may (1) demand the
demolition of the work, or that the planting or
**Ruling:** sowing be removed, in order to replace things in
their former condition at the expense of the person
* The SC reversed the Court of Appeals' decision who built, planted or sowed; or (2) compel the
and reinstated the trial court's original decision builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and
favouring the Tensuans. the sower the proper rent.
* The SC declared Special Work Order —--------------------------------------------------------------
13-000271 and TCT No. 144017, along with its De los Reyes v. Kalibo, G.R. No. 214587,
derivative titles, null and void. February 26, 2018
Here is a summary of the case *Delos Reyes vs. classified the area as part of the public domain,
Municipality of Kalibo, Aklan*, following the format either as part of the Visayan Sea or the Sooc
you requested: Riverbed, reached by tide water. Courts generally
respect the findings of administrative agencies like
* **Relevant Facts:** the DENR due to their expertise.
* The Peraltas claimed ownership of land, * **Tax Declarations**: The Peraltas' claim was
arguing it was an accretion to their titled land (Lot based on tax declarations, but they failed to
No. 2076). adequately prove actual possession of the
* The Municipality of Kalibo contested this, property by themselves or their predecessors.
seeking to use a portion of the land as a garbage Proof of tax declaration does not constitute proof
dumpsite, arguing it was public domain. of ownership or possession in the absence of
* The Peraltas filed a complaint for quieting of actual possession.
title. * **Preponderance of Evidence**: The Peraltas
* The RTC ruled in favour of the Peraltas, but failed to establish their legal or equitable title to the
the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, property with a preponderance of evidence, which
declaring the land as part of the public domain. is necessary for their action to succeed.
* **Article 457 of the Civil Code**: The court
* **Issue:** determined that the increase in land size was not
* The central issue was whether the CA erred due to the gradual and imperceptible effects of a
in reversing the RTC and declaring the land as river current, as required by Article 457 of the Civil
accretion belonging to the Peraltas, not public Code for accretion to apply.
land. —----------------------------------------------------------------
Heirs of Delfin v. Heirs of Bacud, G.R. No.
* **Ruling:** 187633, April 4, 2016
* The Supreme Court denied the petition and Here is a summary of the *Heirs of Delfin and
affirmed the CA's decision, ruling that the Maria Tappa vs. Heirs of Jose Bacud, Henry
contested parcels of land were part of the public Calabazaron and Vicente Malupeng* case:
domain.
**Relevant Facts:**
* **Rationale:**
* **Quieting of Title**: For an action of quieting * Delfin and Maria Tappa filed a complaint for
of title to prosper, the plaintiff must have legal or Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession, and
equitable title to the property in question. The Damages against Jose Bacud, Henry
Peraltas did not have registered ownership of the Calabazaron, and Vicente Malupeng, concerning a
accretion. parcel of land identified as Lot No. 3341.
* **Accretion Requirements**: For land to be * The Spouses Tappa claimed ownership based
considered accretion, the deposit of soil must be on Original Certificate of Title No. P-69103, which
gradual and imperceptible, made by the current of they were issued on September 18, 1992, by virtue
water, and occur on land adjacent to the banks of of Free Patent No. 021519-92-3194. Delfin Tappa
rivers. The land was characterized as swampy, claimed he inherited the land from his father,
resulting from the change in the shoreline of the Lorenzo Tappa, and that they had been in open,
Visayan Sea, not gradual soil deposits. continuous, notorious, and exclusive possession of
* **Lack of Legal or Equitable Title**: The the lot since time immemorial.
Peraltas' claim was based on a quitclaim from a * The respondents, Bacud, Calabazaron, and
tenant (Ignacio), who did not have a proven right of Malupeng, countered that the original owner of Lot
title to transfer. No. 3341 was Genaro Tappa, who had two
* **Classification by DENR**: The Department children, Lorenzo and Irene. Upon Genaro's death,
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) the property passed to Lorenzo and Irene, making
them co-owners. The respondents based their * The court stated that a free patent issued over
claim on a joint affidavit dated April 29, 1963, private land is null and void.
which was signed by Delfin, his sisters, and their * The court noted that the respondents had been
mother, stating that Genaro originally owned Lot in possession of the property since 1963 and had
No. 3341. declared the portions of Lot No. 3341 for taxation
* Calabazaron and Malupeng claimed ownership in their names in 1994, and paid real property
over portions of Lot No. 3341 by virtue of Deeds of taxes on those portions from 1967 to 2004.
Sale executed in their favour in 1970 and 1971. * The court also ruled that there was no collateral
Bacud claimed ownership over a portion of Lot No. attack on the certificate of title. It reiterated that
3341 as an heir of Irene. what cannot be collaterally attacked is the
certificate of title and not the title. The court stated
**Issue:** that ownership is different from a certificate of title,
the latter being only the best proof of ownership of
* The central issue is whether the Court of a piece of land.
Appeals (CA) erred in dismissing Spouses Tappa's * The Supreme Court held that the respondents'
complaint for quieting of title against the claim against Spouses Tappa cannot be barred by
respondents. the one-year prescriptive period because the
* Whether the CA erred in not finding that respondents have been proved to be in
Spouses Tappa's certificate of title cannot be possession of the disputed portions of Lot No.
collaterally attacked in this case. 3341.
* Whether the CA erred in finding that —------------------------------------------------------------
respondents have acquired the property through Green Acres Holdings, Inc. v. Cabral, G.R. No.
acquisitive prescription. 175542, June 5, 2013
Here is a summary of the case *Green Acres
**Ruling:** Holdings, Inc. vs. Cabral*:

* The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, **Relevant Facts:**

dismissing Spouses Tappa's complaint. The court
ruled that the action for quieting of title should not * Victoria Cabral originally owned a parcel of land
prosper. that was later placed under agrarian reform.
* Emancipation Patents were issued to Spouses
**Rationale:** Moraga, who then had one of the EPs converted to
a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT).
* The Supreme Court cited Articles 476 and 477 * Cabral filed a complaint seeking the
of the Civil Code, which govern actions for quieting cancellation of these EPs, alleging fraud and that
of title. the land was misclassified.
* The court found that Spouses Tappa failed to * While the appeal was pending, Spouses
meet the two requisites for an action to quiet title: Moraga subdivided the land and sold it to Filcon
(1) having a legal or equitable title to the property, Ready Mixed Inc., who then sold it to Green Acres
and (2) demonstrating that the claim casting a Holdings, Inc.
cloud on their title is invalid. * Green Acres, after purchasing the property,
* The court agreed with the CA that at the time of constructed a warehouse building complex on the
the application for free patent, Lot No. 3341 had lots.
already become private land by virtue of the open, * The Department of Agrarian Reform
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession Adjudication Board (DARAB) eventually ordered
by respondents. The certificate of title indicates the cancellation of titles issued to Spouses Moraga
that it was issued by virtue of Patent No. and Filcon.
021519-92-3194.
* Green Acres, not a party to the DARAB case, noted that every person dealing with registered
filed a complaint for Quieting of Title, Damages land may safely rely on the correctness of the
with Application for Preliminary Injunction and Writ certificate of title issued.
of Preliminary Attachment before the Regional * **Cloud on Title**: The DARAB decision
Trial Court (RTC). satisfies the elements of a cloud on title because it
is an instrument, record, claim, and proceeding
**Issue:** that is apparently valid but is, in fact, ineffective
and unenforceable against Green Acres, an
* The key issues are whether the DARAB innocent purchaser for value.
decision can be enforced against Green Acres, * **Negligence**: Cabral's failure to annotate a
which was not a party to the DARAB proceedings, notice of *lis pendens* on the titles of the Spouses
and whether the DARAB decision constitutes a Moraga and Filcon was a critical point. This failure
cloud on Green Acres' title over the properties. meant that future transferees, like Green Acres,
were not warned of the ongoing litigation.
**Ruling:** * **Section 48 of P.D. No. 1529**: Certificate of
title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It
* The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Green cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in
Acres. a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
* The DARAB decision could not be enforced * **Article 476 of the Civil Code**: Whenever
against Green Acres. there is a cloud on title to real property or any
* The DARAB decision does constitute a cloud interest therein, by reason of any instrument,
on Green Acres' title. record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is
apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in
**Rationale:** fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable,
and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may
* **Due Process**: A person cannot be be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the
prejudiced by a ruling in an action where they were title.
not a party. Green Acres was not a party in the —------------------------------------------------------------
DARAB case; therefore, the decision cannot bind Heirs of Pocdo v. Avila, G.R. No. 199146, March
it. 19, 2014
* **Collateral Attack**: Seeking the cancellation of Here's a summary of the *Heirs of Pocdo vs. Avila*
Green Acres' titles through a motion for the case, focusing on the key aspects you requested:
issuance of a writ of execution constitutes a
collateral attack on the titles, which is not * **Relevant Facts:**
permissible. Certificates of title can only be altered,
modified, or cancelled in a direct proceeding in * The Heirs of Pacifico Pocdo filed a complaint
accordance with the law. to quiet title over a 1,728-square meter property in
* **Immutability of Judgment**: A writ of Baguio City, claiming ancestral ownership.
execution must conform strictly to the dispositive * Pacifico Pocdo claimed the land was part of a
portion of the decision. The DARAB decision did larger lot (Lot 43, TS-39) originally owned by his
not direct the cancellation of titles issued in favour father, Pocdo Pool.
of Green Acres. Enforcing the writ against Green * A portion of Lot 43 was ceded to Polon
Acres would be tantamount to modifying a final Pocdo, the predecessor-in-interest of Arsenia Avila
decision. and Emelinda Chua.
* **Innocent Purchaser for Value**: Green Acres * The Department of Environment and Natural
is considered an innocent purchaser for value. It Resources (DENR) declared Lot 43 as public land
relied on the clean certificates of title of Filcon, within the Baguio Townsite Reservation.
without notice of any adverse claims. The Court
 * Arsenia Avila was issued a Certificate of —---------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusion for 993 square meters from the Chua v. Lo, G.R. No. 196743, August 14, 2019
ancestral land claim of the Heirs of Pocdo Pool Here's a summary of the court case, focusing on
over Lot 43, which was later cancelled and then the key aspects you requested:
restored.
* **Relevant Facts:**
* **Issue:** * Spouses Lolito and Myrna Chua owned a
parcel of coconut land.
* Does the court have jurisdiction to quiet title * In 1976 and 1977, they sold portions of this
over the disputed property, considering the land to sisters Delia and Josefina Becina, totaling
DENR's declaration that it is public land? 5,012 square meters.
* The land was subdivided, and a dispute
* **Ruling:** arose over the area allocated to Josefina and
Delia.
* The Supreme Court denied the petition and * An agreement was reached where Josefina
affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. would get Lot No. 505-B-2 (3,534 sq m), with the
* The Regional Trial Court (RTC) correctly title to Lot No. 505-B-3 remaining with Lolito Chua.
dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. * Lot No. 505-B-3 was further subdivided into
Lot No. 505-B-3-A (600 sq m) and Lot No.
* **Rationale:** 505-B-3-B (1,478 sq m), with Lolito selling Lot No.
505-B-3-A to his brother, Sergio.
* **Public Land:** The DENR ruled that Lot 43 * Josefina and her spouse Agustin occupied
is public land within the Baguio Townsite the entire Lot No. 505-B-3, including Lot No.
Reservation, a decision affirmed by the Office of 505-B-3-A.
the President. * Victor Lo, Delia's husband, sold the entire Lot
* **Jurisdiction:** The trial court lacks No. 505-B-3 (2,078 sq m) to Agustin Lo Realty
jurisdiction to determine rights over public land. Corporation.
The power to control, administer, dispose of, and * The Chuas filed a complaint seeking to quiet
alienate public lands lies with the Director of title over Lot No. 505-B-3-A, annul the sale to
Lands, subject to the control of the Secretary of Agustin Lo Realty Corporation, and recover
Agriculture and Natural Resources. possession.
* **Action to Quiet Title:** For an action to quiet
title to prosper, the plaintiff must have legal or * **Issue:**
equitable title to the property. * The central issue is whether the petitioners
* **Lack of Title:** The Heirs of Pocdo do not (the Chuas) are entitled to recover Lot No.
have legal or equitable title over the disputed 505-B-3-A (600 sq m), which they claim represents
property because Lot 43 is public land, and they the excess area sold to Delia and Josefina.
were not granted a Certificate of Ancestral Land
Claim for it. * **Ruling:**
* **Legal Provisions:** * The Supreme Court granted the petition,
* **Articles 476 and 477 of the Civil Code:** reversing the Court of Appeals' decision.
These articles specify the requirements for an * The Deed of Sale executed by Victor Lo in
action to quiet title, including the necessity of the favour of Agustin Lo Realty Corporation was
plaintiff possessing legal or equitable title to the declared null and void, but only "insofar as the 600
property in question. sq m area is concerned".
* The court emphasizes that because the * Agustin Lo Realty Corporation was ordered to
land is public, the Pocdo heirs cannot meet the surrender possession of Lot No. 505-B-3-A (600
requirement of having a legal or equitable title. sq m) to the estate of Sergio Chua.
 * The court also ordered the Chuas to deliver
the 500 sq m, which was the subject of a 1975
sale transaction between Myrna Chua and
Josefina Lo.

* **Rationale:**
* The court determined that the 1976 and 1977
sales were essentially contracts to sell, meaning
ownership would transfer upon full payment.
* The February 25, 1984 Contract of Sale
arose from these earlier contracts.
* The court acknowledged that a total of 5,612
sq m had been delivered to Josefina and Delia,
which was 600 sq m more than the originally
agreed 5,012 sq m from the 1976 and 1977
transactions.
* The court emphasized that one cannot sell
what one does not own. Victor Lo's sale to Agustin
Lo Realty Corporation was excessive because it
included the 600 sq m portion (Lot 505-B-3-A)
already belonging to Sergio Chua.
* The action to quiet title was justified because
Sergio Chua had a legal title to Lot No. 505-B-3-A,
and the Deed of Sale to Agustin Lo Realty
Corporation cast a cloud on that title. A certificate
of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title to the property in favour of the
person whose name appears therein.
* The court noted the respondents' claim that
the 3,534 sq m in the 1984 contract included other
considerations, but this was not sufficiently
supported by evidence.
* Despite nullifying part of the sale, the Court
upheld the validity of the 1975 sale of 500 sq m
from Myrna to Josefina, ordering the Chuas to
execute a separate agreement for this transaction.