9

JESSIE GASATAYA V. EDITHA MABASA

CC: the pet here wanted to seek review the decision of CA & RTC.
FACTS:
1

Respondent (editha) father BUENEVENTURA MABASA, was granted a patent

a homestead patent on Lots 279, 272 and 972 located in Lala, Lanao del Norte.
o
o

2
3

BuenaventuraMabasa mortgaged these lots to secure a loan from the

Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP).
Because of his failure to pay his indebtedness, DBP foreclosed on the lots
and sold them at public auction where it emerged as the highest bidder. DBP
then obtained titles to the lots: Lot 279 under TCT No. T-2247 and consolidated
Lots 272 and 972 under TCT No. T-2448.

7
8

ISSUE:

When Buenaventura Mabasa died, respondents siblings authorized her to negotiate

with DBP for the repurchase of the lots. DBP allowed respondent to reacquire the
foreclosed properties through a deed of conditional sale for P25,875.
Subsequently, respondent entered into an agreement with petitioners
father, Sabas Gasataya, for the latter to assume payment of her obligation to DBP.
They further agreed that Sabas Gasataya would take possession of the lots for 20
years and develop them into a fishpond. As consideration thereof, respondent
received P10,000 cash, in addition to the P25,000 that Sabas Gasataya had to
pay DBP on her behalf.

WON The respondent is entitle to the Reconveyance of the properties which they are not
the owner?
HELD:
SC, affirmed the decision of CA, on the following grounds;
1

Upon representation by Sabas Gasataya that respondents obligation to DBP had

already been settled, they entered into another agreement denominated as Deed of
Sale of Fishpond Lands with Right to Repurchase.
o

8 yrs after the execution of the deed of sale with right to repurchase,
respondent discovered that Sabas Gasataya had stopped paying DBP.
As a result, DBP revoked her right to repurchase the subject lots.

DBP later on held a public auction of the properties

o
where petitioner participated and bid the highest price of P27,200.
o
Eventually, pet. (he) acquired titles to the lots for which he was issued
TCT No. T-11720 in lieu of TCT No.T-2447 (Lot 279) and TCT No.T-11721
for TCT No. T-2448 (Lots 272 and 972).
Resp. then filed a complaint in the RTC for reconveyance of titles of lands with
damages[4] against petitioner and Sabas Gasataya (Gasatayas).
o
She claimed that the latter deliberately reneged on his commitment to pay
DBP to:
o
(1) revoke her right to repurchase the lots under the deed of conditional
sale and
o
(2) subject the properties to another public auction where petitioner could
bid.
Petitioner and his father denied the allegations saying that the deed of conditional sale
assumed by the latter from respondent was rendered ineffective by DBPs refusal
to accept payments thereon.
Howver the RTC favored respondent MABASA and against GASATAYA. And
ordered petitioner to reconvey the land to the respondent.

Hence, petitioner appealed in CA. but then again the CA affirmed the decision of RTC
for lack of merit.
CA BASIS OF ITS RULING
1
Ca believe the contention of mabasa that GASATAYA deliberately choose not to
pay DBP as agre agreed, in order for them to acquire said properties in a
fraudulent and treacherous manner
2
was not fully controverted by [them]. [The Gasatayas] failed to produce
evidence to support their defenses.
3
Moreover, [the Gasatayas] are in possession of said land[s] by virtue of a Deed
of Sale with a Right to Repurchase and not because the DBP granted it to
them[T]o facilitate their acquisition of the land in question, [they] deliberately
defaulted in the payment of the assumed obligation to the damage and
prejudice of [respondent].
4
Consequently, the lands in question were subjected to public bidding wherein
[petitioner] participated and eventually won[the Gasatayas] committed a breach
of trust amounting to fraud which would warrant an action forreconveyance

In this case, SC RULED that, RECONVEYANCE is available not only to the legal
owner of a property but also to the person with a better right than the person
under whose name said property was erroneously registered
]While respondent MABASA is not the legal owner of the disputed lots,
she has a better right than petitioner to the contested lots on the
following grounds:
1
the deed of conditional sale executed by DBP vested on her the
right to repurchase the lots and
2
her right to repurchase them would have subsisted had they
(theGasatayas) not defrauded HER.

2 . The SC said, petitioner cannot contend that the respondent has no right over the land since
the conditional sale was cancelled by the DBP hence, void and he cannot registered the land.
However the SC said that petitioner must be mindful that the DBP revoked respondent rights to
repurchase the land because of the DECEITFUL MANUVERINGS w/c his father GASATAYA
employed.

3
4

FURTHERMORE, The SC, cannot held that the public auction of the land is
valid since the sale w/c the pet is the highest bidder is DUE To this
FATHER GASATAYA FRAUDULENT SCHEMES.

FRAUD is the ground of RECONVEYANCE

NEITHER, pet here can be considered as INNOCENT PRUCHASER.
the law only protects an innocent purchaser for value and not one who has
knowledge of and participation in the employment of fraud. An innocent
purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that
some other person has a right to or interest in that same property, and who

pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before receiving any notice
of another persons claim.
SC, respondent father acquire the said land thru homestead. which they alienate the
homestead is OUT OF THE NECISSITY.

AMEROL V. BAGUMBARAN

CC; The case was all about the prescriptive period of an action for reconveyance of a real
property which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered under the Torrens system in
another name.
o

o
o

The plaintiff here w/c is defendant in the RTC case asserts thayt they have
10 yrs to bring the action, while the respondent here in the present case
(plaintiff in the lower court), claims that the prescriptive period is only 4 yrs.
Liwalug (Amerol) Datomanong- 10 yrs
Monolok Bagumbaran 4yrs

1.
2.

whether or not the plaintiff is guilty of fraud or misrepresentation in securing

the Free Patent ?
Won the action for reconveyance of the plaintiff here has already prescribe?

HELD:SC REVERSE THE DECISION OF RTC

Sc ruled that the prescriptive period for such action of reconveyance as in this case is 10 yrs
and not 4yrs.
1. For the first issue, the SC Upon a thorough examination of the evidence, proofs are
sufficient to support defendant's contention that plaintiff is guilty of fraud and
misrepresentation.

FACTS:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
ISSUE:

The Facts here are based in the trial court records;

(IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS) There 2 application of free patent filed by
Defenedant Liwalug Datomanong filed on September 4 1953 while Manotok file on
December 27,1954.
o
However, it was plaintiff Molok Bagumbaran was givem due course as a
resulf which free patent was issued on August 16 1955 by the respective
authorities.
Defendant Liwalug D. had never known plaintiff Molok.
o
nor was he ever notified or participated in the administrative proceedings
relative to plaintiff's free patent application.
o
He bough the land from Mandal Tondo, said defendant has been and up to
the present in continuous occupation and cultivation of the same.
MONOLOK CONTEND;
o
That said defendant did not take any action to annul the patent title o the
plaintiff MOLOK within 1 yr from the issuance thereof
o
And the said first step taken by the Liwalug TO CONTEST THE SAID
PATENT AND TITLE WAS A FORMAL PROTEST DATES ON april 24 1964
FILED IN THE bureau of land after the lapsed of 9 yrs from the issuance
of the patent toward plaintiff.
o
9 yers has already elapsed as alleged by the MOLOK here.
In the second claim of the defendant Datomanong dated December 24 1964 , in his
said counter claim reiterated his stand that plaintiff secured patent on the land by
means of DECEIT and FRAUD. Hence defendant prayed that the said title be
annulled or alternatively, and be ordered plaintiff to convey the said land to him
LIWALUG DATOMANONG.
In RTC- LIWALUG DATOMANONG lost.
o
The patent of the plaintiff having been registered back in 1955 and in
contemplation of law registration thereof is notice to the whole world and yet
defendant exerted no effort whatsoever either to annul the title or institute
proceedings for reconveyance except in his counterclaim contained in his
answer to the complaint in this case at bar which answer and counter-claim
was filed on December 4, 1964, some nine long years from the date of
registration of the patent, defendant unfortunately lost his right to
reconveyance within the period of four (4) years from the date of
registration of said patent.
Hence, pet here appealed in this court.

Proof will show that on the year 1952 when Mandal Tando transferred the
land to said defendant, the latter occupied, took possession thereof and
cultivated the same continuously, publicly, adversely against any claimant
and in the concept of owner up to the present; that said defendant had
introduced considerable improvements such as coconut and coffee
plantations and other fruit trees besides his farm house, a mosque, cassava
plantation and clearing and full cultivation of the entire area.
The fact of possession on the part of said defendant has been attested to
by competent and creditable witnesses like Mandal Tando who conveyed
the land to the defendant;
Hadji Sirad Gomandang, the barrio captain of and the other neighbors who
are farmers and barrio-mates of said defendant;
In fact there was occular inspection and investigation conducted of the
premises in connection with the protest of said defendant found thereon the
above-mentioned improvements introduced by the said defendant.

2 for the seconde issue on won the action for reconveyance of the plaintiff here has already
prescribe. The SC ruled on negative .
o

SC said, that the fact that the defendant here MOLOK in misrepresenting that he was
in actual possession and occupation of the property in question, obtaining a patent
and OCT in his name, created an implied trust in favor of the actual possessor of
the said property. The Civil Code provides:
ARTICLE 1456. If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person
obtaining it is by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for
the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.

In this case, the land in question was patented and titled in respondent's name by and
through his false pretenses.

Molok Bagumbaran fraudulently misrepresented that he was the

occupant and actual possessor of the land in question when he was not
because it was Liwalug Datomanong.

Bagumbaran falsely pretended that there was no prior applicant for a

free patent over the land but there was Liwalug Datomanong.

By such fraudulent acts, Molok Bagumbaran is deemed to hold the title of

the property in trust and for the benefit of petitioner Liwalug
Datomanong.

Although title was issued in faviored to him. However, Torrens

system, may still be compelled under the law to reconvey the subject
property to Liwalug Datomanong
Action for recoveyance is the transfer of the property, which has been wrongfully or
erroneously registered in another person's name, to its rightful and legal owner, or to
one with a better right. That is what reconveyance is all about
The SC also point out that the (3)several cases invoke as a defense and to justify,
still the court held them inapplicable, on the following grounds;

The cause of action assailing the frauds committed and impugning the
Torrens titles issued in those cases, all accrued prior to the effectivity of
the present Civil Code.

The accrual of the cause of action in

Fabian was in 1928,
in Miguel, February, 1950, and
in Ramirez, 1944.

It must be remembered that before August 30, 1950, the date of the
effectivity of the new Civil Code, the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act
No. 190) governed prescription. It provided:
SEC. 43. Par 3. Within four years

In contrast, under the present Civil Code, we find that just An action for reconveyance
based on an implied or constructive trust must perforce prescribed in ten years and
not otherwise.
The prevailing law art. 1122 and article 1456 is the prevailing law.

And when certain MANUEL quijano DIED, they divided the land whih now belong to the
RESPONDENT particularly to GWENDOLYN Q. LOT 379.
The plaintiff alleged, the plaintiffs nor their ascendants have never sold, donated, or
mortgaged any of these lots in question to the defendants or their ascendants;

HEIRS OF SANJORJO V, QUIJANO

CC: this is a petition for review of the decision of CA dated febuary 17 199 dismissing the MR of
the plaintiff.

7 in 1994, RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground of RES JUDICATA.

The SC partly GRANTED

Appealed in CA still dismissed but on the grounf =d of PRESCRIPTION

FACTS:

ISSUE:

1988- A FREE PATENT was issue to ALLAN QUIJANO married to MILA MATUTINA,
over a parcel of land located in antipolo Medilin Cebu, w/ an are of 14,197 sq meters.
Bec. of the issuance of the free patent an OCT was thereafter issue by the Register Of
Deeds to ALLAN Q.
On November 11, 1988, Free Patent was issued to and in favor
of Gwendolyn Q. Enriquez, married to Eugenio G. Enriquez same location.
identified as Lot 379, Cadastre 374-D, with an area of 6,640 square meters.
Thereafter OTC was also issue.

3 in the meantime GWENDOLYN ENRIQUEZ filed and application for freepatent over lot
376 and 374-D, 378 w/ DENR.
4. howver, the heirs of GUILLERMO all surname of Sanjorjo filed a protest in the
DENR for the cancellation for the free patent and dismissal of the free patent application.
o

o
o

WON THERE IS RESJUDICATA w/c barred there action in civil case due to the decision of the
DENR regional executive director?
WON the action against the private respondents for the reconveyance of Lots 374 and 379,
covered by OCT No. OP-38221 issued on September 6, 1988 and OCT No. OP-39847 issued
on February 11, 1989, respectively, was not barred by Section 32 of P.D. No. 1529? YES
HELD:
1.SC AGREE, latter decision (Regional executive director -DENR) is not a decision on its merits
so as to bar their complaint.- there is no res judicata in this case
o

SANJORJO contend; That the land originally owned by ANANIAS URSAL w/ but
were exchanged for a parcel of land located in San Remegio, Cebu, owned by their
predecessor, Guillermo Sanjorjo, married to Maria Ursal, and from whom they
inherited the property.
Hence they prayed the cancellation of the application of free patent by the respondent.
Before that, the pre-trial conference of August 2, 1991, the protestants/claimants
manifested that they were withdrawing their protest/complaint.

(1) the previous judgment has become final;

(2) the prior judgment was rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties;
(3) the first judgment was made on the merits; and

5. REGIONAL EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR-DENR rendered a decision decision7giving due

course to the applications. However, he ruled that the free patents over Lots 374 and
379 could no longer be disturbed since the complaint for the cancellation was filed more
than one year from their issuance.
o

o
o
o

(4) there was substantial identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action, as
between the prior and subsequent actions.
o

A judgment on the merits is one rendered after argument and investigation, and
when there is determination which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment
rendered upon some preliminary or formal or merely technical point, or by default and
without trial.

As gleaned from the decision of the DENR- he dismissed the petitioners complaint for
the cancellation of Free Patent Nos. the ground that it was filed only on May 22, 1991,
more than three years from the issuance of the said patents on August 29, 1988 and
November 11, 1988, respectively.

The free patent application was given due course given due course fro being
actual adverse and continuous possession of the land controversy.

6. the plaintiff thereafter filed in RTC for complaint for cancellation of title against
respondent under tax declaration and recoveyance of the real property.
They claim that they were the ownere of the parcel of land located in antipolo medilin cebu
with a Lot NO. 3734, 376, 378, 379.
That the said land originally belong to MAXIMO SANJORJO who died during WWII.
That in some time 1983 the parcel of land was LEASED TO MANUEL QUIJANO for 2 yrs
at the rate o 4,500 per year, howvere was never paid the lease and despite the
repeated demand s to returned the properties it never did.

Elements of res judicata;

In the said decision, RED declared that after the lapse of one year
from the issuance of patent XXonly the regular courts of justice
have jurisdiction on the matter of cancellation of title.

the petitioners agreed with the RED and withdrew their complaint,
opting to file an appropriate action in court for the nullification of
the said patents and titles. Hence, the decision of the REDwas
not a decision on the merits of the petitioners complaint. (AHHH
MAO DIAY NING WITHDRAW SILA 1991)

2 For the second issue the SC agree W/ pet.

o

SEC. 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value. The decree
of registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or
other disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any

court for reversing judgments, subject, however, to the right of any person, including
the government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or interest
therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to file in
the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening and review of the decree of
registration not later than one year from and after the date of the entry of such decree
of registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an
innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein, whose rights
may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase "innocent purchaser for value" or any
equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent
lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value
o

In this case, the disputed property is still registered in the name of respondent
Demetrio Caringal, so that petitioner was correct in availing himself of the procedural
remedy of reconveyance