REP. OF PH VS SILIM GR.

140487, APRIL 2, 2001

Facts:
Spouses Leon Silim and Ildefonsa Mangubat, donated a 5,600 square
meter parcel of land in favor of the Bureau of Public Schools, Municipality POWER COMMERCIAL AND IND. CORP VS CA GR. 119745
of Malangas, Zamboanga del Sur. In the Deed of Donation, respondents FACTS:
imposed the condition that the said property should "be used exclusively Petitioner asbestos manufacturer Power Commercial and industrial
and forever for school purposes only." This donation was accepted by corporation bought the property of spouses Reynaldo and Angelita
Gregorio Buendia, the District Supervisor of BPS. Quiambao located in Makati City. Since there are lessees occupying the
subject land, part of the deed of sale is a warranty of respondents that will
The Bagong Lipunan school building that was supposed to be allocated defend its title and peaceful possession in favor of the petitioners. The
for the donated parcel of land in Brgy. Kauswagan could not be released property is mortgage to PNP and as such, petitioners filed a request to
since the government required that it be built upon a one (1) hectare assume responsibility of the mortgage. Because of petitioner’s failure to
parcel of land. To remedy this predicament, ASDS of the said Province produce the required papers, their petition was denied. Petitioners allege
authorized District Supervisor Buendia to officially transact for the that the contract should be rescinded because of failure of delivery.
exchange of the 1/2 hectare old school site of Kauswagan Elementary
School to a new and suitable location which would fit the specifications of ISSUE:
the government. Buendia and Teresita Palma entered into a Deed of WON the contract is recissible due to breach of contract.
Exchange whereby the donated lot was exchanged with the bigger lot
owned by the latter. The Bagong Lipunan school buildings were HELD:
constructed on the new school site and the school building previously There is no breach of contact in this case since there is no provision in the
erected on the donated lot was dismantled and transferred to the new contract that imposes the obligation to the respondents to eject the people
location. Respondents filed a Complaint for Revocation and Cancellation occupying the property. There was also a constructive delivery because
of Conditional Donation among others before RTC Pagadian. RTC the deed of sale was made in a public document. The contention of the
dismissed the case for lack of merit. CA reversed the decision of the trial petitioners that there could be no constructive delivery because the
court and declared the donation null and void. respondents is not in possession of the property is of no merit. What
matters in a constructive delivery is control and not possession. Control
Issue: was placed in the hands of the petitioners that is why they were able to file
Whether or not the Donation is null and void due to an alleged violation of an ejectment case. Prior physical delivery or possession is not legally
a condition in the donation. required and the execution of the deed of sale is deemed equivalent to
delivery.
Held:
No.The condition for the donation was not in any way violated when the lot HEIRS OF CECILIO CLAUDEL VS CA. GR 85240
donated was exchanged with another one. The purpose for the donation FACTS:
remains the same, which is for the establishment of a school. The On December 28, 1922, Basilio also known as "Cecilio" Claudel, acquired
exclusivity of the purpose was not altered or affected. In fact, the from the Bureau of Lands a Lot. He declared the lot in his name, and he
exchange of the lot for a much bigger one was in furtherance and dutifully paid the real estate taxes thereon until his death in 1937.
enhancement of the purpose of the donation. The acquisition of the bigger Thereafter, his widow "Basilia" and later, her son Jose, one of the herein
lot paved the way for the release of funds for the construction of Bagong petitioners, paid the taxes.The same piece of land purchased by Cecilio
Lipunan school building which could not be accommodated by the limited would, however, become the subject of protracted litigation thirty-nine
area of the donated lot. years after his death. Two branches of Cecilio's family contested the
ownership over the land-on one hand the children of Cecilio, and their
ALFONSO QUIJADA VS. CA GR. 126444 children and descendants, now the herein petitioners (hereinafter referred
Facts: to as HEIRS OF CECILIO), On the other, the brother and sisters of
· Petitioners are heirs of the late Trinidad Quijada. Trinidad inherited a Cecilio, and their children and descendants, now the herein private
2-hectare land. April 5,1956, Trinidad along with her siblings, executed a respondents (hereinafter referred to as SIBLINGS OF CECILIO). In 1972,
DEED OF DONATION in favor of the Municipality of Talacogon, with the HEIRS OF CECILIO partitioned this lot among themselves and
condition that the land shall be used exclusively as part of the campus of obtained the corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title on their shares.
the PROPOSED Provincial High School in Talacogon. Despite the Four years later, on December 7, 1976, private respondents SIBLINGS
donation, Trinidad still has possession of the land and sold 1 hectare to OF CECILIO, filed Civil Case a "Complaint for Cancellation of Titles and
Regalado. Subsequently, Trinidad sold the remaining 1 hectare to Reconveyance with Damages," alleging that 46 years earlier, or sometime
Regalado but this time verbally, no Deed of Sale but it evidenced by in 1930, their parents had purchased from the late Cecilio Claudel several
receipts of payment. Regalado sold portions of the land to respondents. portions of Lot for the sum of P30.00. 8. They admitted that the
The Municipality was not able to finish the school thus returning the transaction was verbal. However, as proof of the sale, the SIBLINGS OF
ownership of the property to the donors. July 5,1988. Petitioners (heirs) CECILIO presented a subdivision plan of the said land, dated March 25,
filed against the respondents stating that their late mother did sell the 1930, indicating the portions allegedly sold to the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO.
property. If it was true that she (Trinidad) sold the property, it would be null
and void since it was already donated to the Municipality thus the ISSUE:
ownership is with the Municipality. RTC ruled in favor of the heirs, ruling Whether a contract of sale of land may be proven orally; and whether the
that Trinidad had no capacity to sell because the ownership of the land prescriptive period for filing an action for cancellation of titles and
was already with the Municipality. CA reversed. reconveyance with damages should be counted from the allege sale upon
which they claim their ownership in 1930 or from the date of the issuance
Issue: W/ON the sale is valid of the titles sought to be cancelled in favour of the heirs in 1976.

RULING:
Held: Yes. When the property was donated to the Municipality, the The Supreme Court held that a sale of land, once consummated, is valid
ownership was transferred to them but wait there’s more, there was a regardless of the form it may have been entered into. For nowhere does
condition. A RESOLUTORY CONDITION, though it was not stated in the law or jurisprudence prescribe that the contract of sale be put in writing
condition on how long the condition was, it was evident that the before such contract can validly cede or transmit rights over a certain real
Municipality had intended to build the school. Again, though not stated property between the parties themselves.However, in the event that a
how long, the Municipality still gave back the property to the donors thus third party, as in this case, disputes the ownership of the property, the
the ownership was transferred. Making the sale valid since ownership was person against whom that claim is brought cannot present any proof of
returned such sale and hence has no means to enforce the contract under the
Statute of Frauds
 landholdings do not exceed 7 hectares. They invoke that since their
landholdings are less than 7 hectares, they should not be forced to
distribute their land to their tenants under R.A. 6657 for they themselves
SPOUSES OF AGUIRRE VS. HEIRS OF LUCAS GR. 169898 have shown willingness to till their own land. In short, they want to be
HEIRS OF ARZADON-CRISOLOGO VS. RANON GR 171068 exempted from agrarian reform program because they claim to belong to
FACTS: a different class.
Ranon claims to be the owner of said lot by prescription. That her family
had been in continuous, adverse and uninterrupted possession of such ISSUE:
since 1962; that they paid taxes thereto; and even built a house where  Whether or not just compensation, under the agrarian reform program,
she and her family had resided. They however moved to Manila but must be in terms of cash.
continued to visit the property from time to time. In 1986, a fire incident
occurred which destroyed the house. The same year, they discovered that RULING:
the property was already in the name of Sps. Montemayor. Sps. No. Money as [sole] payment for just compensation is merely a concept
Montemayor alleged that they bought the parcel of land from del Rosario in traditional exercise of eminent domain. The agrarian reform program is
and Arzadon (heirs in this case). The heirs however were able to a revolutionary exercise of eminent domain. The program will require
repurchase the property from the spouses. So between the heirs and billions of pesos in funds if all compensation have to be made in cash – if
Ranon, the heirs alleged that they are the owners through succession. everything is in cash, then the government will not have sufficient money
That Arzadon lived there until the fire incident; and that they paid taxes. hence, bonds, and other securities, i.e., shares of stocks, may be used for
They alleged that in 1977, Marcelina, their predecessor filed an adverse just compensation.
claim against Ranon. The heirs argued that such filing interrupted Ranon’s
possession over the property.
JESUS IS LORD CHRISTIAN SCHOOL FOUNDATION VS.
ISSUES: WON the Notice of Adverse Claim interrupted Ranon’s MUNICIPALITY OF PASIG GR. 152230
possession. -NO. WON Ranon’s possession is in the concept of an owner. FACTS:
-YES. WON Ranon acquired the property through acquisitive prescription. Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision of declaring
-YES respondent municipality (now city) as having the right to expropriate
petitioner’s property for the construction of an access road. Petitioner
argues that there was no valid and definite offer made before a complaint
RULING: for eminent domain was filed as the law requires (Art. 35, Rules and
NO. For civil interruption to take place, the possessor must have received Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code). Respondent
judicial summons. The Notice of Adverse Claim which was filed by contends that a letter to purchase was offered to the previous owners and
Marcelina in 1977 is nothing more than a notice of claim which did not the same was not accepted.
effectively interrupt Ranon’s possession. YES. Ranon’s possession is in
the concept of an owner. YES. Through Extraordinary Acquisitive ISSUE: Whether or not a letter to purchase is sufficient enough as a
Prescription. Ranon traced their claim of ownership from 1962 until the definite and valid offer to expropriate.
filing of their Complaint for Ownership on 1995, a total of 33 years. It was
never interrupted by the Notice of the Adverse Claim filed by Marcelina HELD: No. Failure to prove compliance with the mandatory requirement of
because it is judicial summons and not mere notice that is required by law a valid and definite offer will result in the dismissal of the complaint. The
purpose of the mandatory requirement to be first made to the owner is to
  encourage settlements and voluntary acquisition of property needed for
public purposes in order to avoid the expense and delay of a court of
REPUBLIC VS CA. 375 SCRA 484 action.
APO FRUITS CORP GR 164195
FACTS:
APO Fruits Corporation, Inc. (AFC) and Hijo Plantation Inc. (HPI) were
owners of 5 parcels of land (1338.60 has.) located in San Isidro, Tagum, DAR VS. APEX INVESTMENT FINANCING CORP GR. 149422
Davao. On 12 October 1995, the two voluntarily offered to sell the FACTS:
properties to the Department of Agrarian Reform. DAR offered P86.9 In 1994, pursuant to RA 6657, compulsory acquisition proceedings over
million for AFC’s land and P164.40 million for HPI’s land (total of about several lots owned by respondent were initiated by the Municipal Agrarian
P251.3 million). AFC, HPI and DAR cannot agree on the price hence the Reform Office (MARO). Copies of these notices were sent to respondent’s
Complaint for Determination of Just Compensation was filed before the office. Respondent, however, denied having received these Notice of
DAR Adjudication Board on 14 February 1997. The DARAB failed to Coverage and Notice of Acquisition. They learned of a lot (TCT No. T-
render a decision on the valuation of the land for three years. But 90476) has been placed under the compulsory acquisition program, only
nevertheless, the government, through the Land Bank of the Philippines, from “Balita” and filed a Protest on the ground that their lots were
deposited P26M into AFC’s account and P45M into HPI’s account as classified as residential even before the effectivity of the law, thus, are not
down payment in 1996. The DAR also caused the titling of the land in the covered by R.A. No. 6657. Only after more than one year from said
name of the Republic of the Philippines in December 1996. Later, titles Protest was it forwarded to the DAR. In the meantime, respondent’s title
were given to farmers under the CARP (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform had been cancelled and a new one issued to another. Thus, respondent
Program). Due to DARAB’s failure to adjudicate, AFC and HPI filed a filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, but
complaint for determination of just compensation before the Regional Trial petitioner contended that respondent failed to exhaust all administrative
Court of Davao which rendered a decision in favor of AFC and HPI. remedies.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was just compensation. ISSUE:

HELD: No. AFC’s and HPI’s land were taken in 1996 without just WON Respondent corporation violated the principle of exhaustion of
compensation. DARAB, an agency of the DAR which was commissioned remedies
by law to determine just compensation, sat on the cases for three years,
which was the reason that AFC and HPI filed the cases before the RTC. RULING:
The RTC’s finding is to be sustained as it based it’s ruling on evidence. No. This Court has consistently held that the doctrine of exhaustion of
DAR was given a chance to support its ruling on why the purchase price administrative remedies is a relative one and is flexible depending on the
should be at a lower amount but DAR failed to present such evidence. peculiarity and uniqueness of the factual and circumstantial settings of a
. case. Among others, it is disregarded where, as in this case, (a) there are
SMALL LANDOWNERS VS SEC OF AGRICULTURE GR 161656 circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention; and (b) the
FACTS: administrative action is patently illegal and amounts to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. Records show that the PARO did not take immediate action
The Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. sought on respondent’s Protest filed on January 12, 1998, what petitioner has
exception from the land distribution scheme provided for in R.A. 6657. The done was to require respondent every now and then to submit copies of
Association is comprised of landowners of ricelands and cornlands whose supporting documents which were already attached to its Protest. In the
meantime, respondent found that the PARO had caused the cancellation
of its title and that a new one was issued to an alleged farmer-beneficiary

LKEE VS. LANDBANK GR. 170422

HULST VS. PR BUILDERS GR 156364
KRINEKO VS, REGISTER OF DEEDS GR. L-630 11-15-1947 FACTS
FACTS: acobus Bernhard and his wife, both Dutch nationals entered into a
Alexander Krivenko, an alien, bought a residential lot in December of contract to sell with PR Builders for the purchase of a 210 sq m residential
1941. The registration was interrupted by war. In 1945, he sought to unit in Laurel, Batangas. PR Builders failed to comply with their verbal
accomplish the registration but was denied by the register of deed on promise to complete the project by June, and the petitioner filed before the
ground that, being an alien, he cannot acquire land within the jurisdiction. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), a complaint for
Krivenko appealed to the Court. rescission of contract with interest, damages, and attorney's fees. The
HLURB Arbiter issued a Writ of Execution addressed to Ex-Officio Sheriff
ISSUES: of Batangas to execute his judgment. They require the Sheriff to levy first
 Whether or not an alien under our Constitution may acquire residential on respondents personal property but unsatisfied so the Sheriff levied on
land? respondent's 15 parcel of land. The respondent filed an urgent motion to
Quash the Writ of levy on the ground that the Sheriff made an overlevy
RULING: since the aggregate value of the property at 6500/sqm is P83,616,000
NO. Under the Article XIII, Section 1, of the Constitution states that: All which was over and above the judgment award. The HLURB Arbiter and
agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, water, Director authorized the Sheriff to set aside the levy of the said property
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential because of its inadequacy of the price.
energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State,
and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be ISSUES:
limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or associations at Whether or not the contract to sell between Hulst and PR Builders is valid.
least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens,
subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the HELD:
inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution. This No. The contract to sell between Hulst and PR Builders is NULL and
means to say that, under the provisions of the Constitutions, aliens are not VOID. According to Sec.7 Art. XII of 1987 Constitution, "no private lands
allowed to acquire the ownership of urban or residential lands in the shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or
Philippines and, as consequence, all acquisitions made in contravention of associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of public domain". Since the
the prohibitions since the fundamental law became effective are null and petitioner and his wife are Dutch nationals, they are disqualified to acquire
void per se and ab initio. private lands. The petitioner is entitled only to recover what he has paid so
he must return to the respondent the amount P2,125,540 without interest
YAP VS. GRAGEDA GR L-31606 MARCH 28-1983 in excess to the proceeds of the auction sale. A void contract is equivalent
to nothing, it produces no civil effect.

THE HOLY SEE VS. DEL ROSARIO GR. 101949

FACTS:  Petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land. Lot 5-A,
registered under the name Holy See, was contiguous to Lot 5-B and 5-D RURAL BANK OF ANDA VS. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF
under the name of Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC).  The land was LINGAYEN GR. 155051
donated by the archdiocese of Manila to the Papal Nuncio, which
represents the Holy See, who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF PSAO GR.
Rome, Italy, for his residence. Said lots were sold through an agent to 8451 DEC 20 1957
Ramon Licup who assigned his rights to respondents Starbright Sales FACTS: Petitioner, The Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao
Enterprises, Inc. When the squatters refuse to vacate the lots, a dispute is a corporation sole organized and existing in accordance with Philippine
arose between the two parties because both were unsure whose laws and its then incumbent was a Canadian citizen. It purchased a parcel
responsibility was it to evict the squatters from said lots. Respondent land from Mateo Rodis. When the deed of sale was presented for
Starbright Sales Enterprises Inc. insists that Holy See should clear the registration with the Register of Deeds of Davao, petitioner was required
property while Holy See says that respondent corporation should do it or to submit an affidavit stating that the 60 per cent of the members of the
the earnest money will be returned. With this, Msgr. Cirilios, the agent, corporation were Filipino citizens. The Register of Deeds elevated the
subsequently returned the P100,000 earnest money. The same lots were matter to the Land Registration Commission which issued a Resolution
then sold to Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation. holding that in view of the provisions of Sections 1 and 5 of Article XIII of
Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc. filed a suit for annulment of the sale, the Philippine Constitution, the vendee-petioner is not qualified to acquire
specific performance and damages against Msgr. Cirilios, PRC as well as lands in the Philippines in the absence of proof that at least 60 per centum
Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation. The Holy See and of the capital, properties or assets of The Roman Catholic Apostolic
Msgr. Cirilos moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction based on Administrator of Davao is actually owned or controlled by Filipino citizens
sovereign immunity from suit   and it denied the registration of the deed of sale in the absence of proof of
compliance with such requisite.

ISSUE:  Whether the Holy See is immune from suit insofar as its business ISSUE: Whether or not a corporation sole such as petitioner or the
relations regarding selling a lot to a private entity.  Universal Roman Catholic Apostolic Church in the Philippines is qualified
to acquire private agricultural lands in the Philippines.
DECISION:  Petiton granted.  The Holy See is immune from suit because
the act of selling the lot of concern is non-propriety in nature. The lot was
acquired through a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila, not for a
commercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner to construct the official
place of residence of the Papal Nuncio thereof. The transfer of the
property and its subsequent disposal are likewise clothed with a
governmental (non-proprietal) character as petitioner sold the lot not for
profit or gain rather because it merely cannot evict the squatters living in
said property.