REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. MARJENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, G.R. No.

156205, November 12, 2014

Facts: On December 22, 1998, or almost 46 years after the issuance of OCT No. 0-669, Republic,
represented by the Region IV Regional Executive Director of the DENR, filed a petition before the
Court of Appeals for annulment of judgment, cancellation of title, and reversion against
respondents, the Register of Deeds for the Province of Batangas, and the Regional Trial Court of
Lipa City.
Petitioner alleges that respondents appear as registered owners of a land identified as Lot 1 Pcs943, which is a portion of Lots 1 and 2, plan Psu-114430 LRC Record No. N-3454, covered by TCT
No. T-18592.
The OSG alleges that upon verification, it was ascertained that the land covered by TCT No. T18592 is within the unclassified public forest per Land Classification Control Map No. 10,
therefore, cannot be subject of disposition or registration and the registration proceedings, the
judgment in the subject case, the OCT No. O-669 issued pursuant thereto, and all subsequent
titles are null and void. The land covered by TCT No. T-18592, not having been legally registered,
remains and forms part of the public domain of the State.
In their comment, respondents deny the OSG's allegations. They claim that their titles, their
predecessors' titles, and their mother title are issued in accordance with law, and that the
property was registered and brought under the Torrens system. Respondents contend that the
subject property was already private property even before the Spanish Crown ceded sovereignty
over the Philippine Islands to the United States of America.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the case and applied the case of Cariho v. Insular Government of
the Philippine Islands, which recognized private ownership of lands already possessed or held by
individuals under claim of ownership as far back as testimony or memory goes and therefore
never to have been public land that Spain could bequeath to the United States of America.
Unconvinced, the OSG filed this petition for review on certiorari before the Court.
Issue: W/N the subject property is a private property.
Discussion: The case of Cario v. Insular Government of the Philippine Islands states that
"[prescription is mentioned again in the royal cedula of October 15, 1754, cited in 3 Philippine,
546; '[w]here such possessors shall not be able to produce title deeds, it shall be sufficient if they
shall show that ancient possession, as a valid title by prescription.' It may be that this means
possession from before 1700; but, at all events, the principle is admitted. As prescription, even
against Crown lands, was recognized by the laws of Spain we see no sufficient reason for
hesitating to admit that it was recognized in the Philippines in regard to lands over which Spain
had only a paper sovereignty."
As for respondents, it is undisputed that the subject property traces its title to the property
originally owned by Rita Vda. de Ilustre since 1890. From her it passed on to several hands until it
was transferred to Hammon H. Buck, who successfully registered it in his name. From 1890,
respondents' predecessors in interest had been in peaceful, open, continuous, exclusive, adverse,
and notorious possession in the concept of an owner of the subject property. Following
the Cario ruling, the subject property had been a private land and excluded from the public
domain since 1890 prior to the signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. Therefore, it

is not part of the public domain that passed on from Spain to the United States of America.
For the same reason, it is also not part of the unclassified public forest as petitioner claims.
InRepublic v. Court of Appeals and Cosalan, the Court held that " 'while the Government has the
right to classify portions of public land, the primary right of a private individual who possessed
and cultivated the land in good faith much prior to such classification must be recognized and
should not be prejudiced be considered forestry land, unless private interests have intervened
before such reservation is made'"
Ruling: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision is AFFIRMED.

ANDY ANG, v. SEVERINO PACUNIO, G.R. No. 208928, July 08, 2015
Facts: Respondents filed a complaint for Declaration for nullity of Sale, Reconveyance and damages before
the RTC involving the subject land originally owned by Udiaan. Respondents alleged that they are
grandchildren and successor-in-interest of Udiaan. However, an imposter falsely representing herself as
Udiaan sold the subject land to petitioner.
Petitioner entered the subject land and used the same in his livestock business. Respondents then informed
petitioner that he did not validly acquire the subject land, and thereafter, demanded its return, but to no
avail. Hence, they filed the aforesaid complaint, contending the Udiaan cannot sold the subject considering
that she was already dead for more than 20 years when the sale occurred.
Petitioner denied respondents' allegations and countered that: (a) at first, he bought the subject land from a
person representing herself as Udiaan who showed a community tax certificate as proof of identity, has in
her possession OCT No. T-3593, knew the location of the subject land, and was not afraid to face the notary
public when they executed the Questioned Deed of Absolute Sale; (b) he was initially prevented from
entering the subject land since it was being occupied by the Heirs of Alfredo Gaccion; (c) in order to buy
peace, he had to "buy" the subject land anew from the Heirs of Gaccion; ( d) he was a buyer in good faith,
for value, and was without any knowledge or participation in the alleged defects of the title thereof; and (e)
respondents were never in possession of the subject land and they never paid real property taxes over the
same. Ultimately, petitioner claimed that he was duped and swindled into buying the subject land twice.

RTC ruled in favour of the petitioner. CA modified RTCs decision as follows: (a) 3,502 sq. m. to
petitioner; (b) 6,398 sq. m. to the Heirs of Gaccion; and (c) the remainder of the subject land to Udiaan's
children.
Petitioner MR but was denied, hence, this petition.
Issue: W/N the respondents are not real parties in interest.
Discussion: The rule on real parties in interest has two (2) requirements, namely: (a) to institute an action,
the plaintiff must be the real party in interest; and (b) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real
party in interest. Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means material interest or an interest in
issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the
question involved. One having no material interest cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff
in an action. When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the case is dismissible on the ground of lack
of cause of action.
In the instant case, respondents claim to be the successors-in-interest of the subject land just because they
are Udiaan's grandchildren. Under the law, however, respondents will only be deemed to have a material

interest over the subject land- and the rest of Udiaan's estate for that matter if the right of representation
30

31

provided under Article 970, in relation to Article 982, of the Civil Code is available to them. In this
situation, representatives will be called to the succession by the law and not by the person represented; and
the representative does not succeed the person represented but the one whom the person represented
would
have
succeeded.
For such right to be available to respondents, they would have to show first that their mother: (a)
predeceased Udiaan; (b) is incapacitated to inherit; or (c) was disinherited, if Udiaan died testate. However,
as correctly pointed out by the CA, nothing in the records would show that the right of representation is
available to respondents. Hence, the RTC and the CA correctly found that respondents are not real parties in
interest to the instant case. It is well-settled that factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are
entitled to great weight and respect by the Court and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by
the evidence on record, as in this case.
Ruling: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.

SPOUSES DOMINADOR MARCOS and GLORIA MARCOS, v. HEIRS OF ISIDRO BANGI, G.R.
No. 185745, October 15, 2014
Facts: On June 26, 1998, the heirs of Isidro) and Genoveva, filed with the RTC a complaint for
annulment of documents, cancellation of transfer certificates of titles, restoration of original
certificate of title and recovery of ownership plus damages against spouses Dominador and
Gloria. Likewise impleaded in the said complaint are spouses Jose and Pacita, Ceasaria , and
spouses Emilio and Zenaida.
In their complaint, the respondents averred that their parents, Isidro and Genoveva, bought the
one-third portion of subject property from Eusebio, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale
executed by the latter, which was subsequently registered in the name of Alipio, Eusebios father.
After the sale, the respondents claimed that Isidro and Genoveva took possession of the subject
property until they passed away. The respondents then took possession of the same.
Further, the respondents alleged that sometime in 1998, they learned that the title to the subject
property, including the portion sold to Isidro and Genoveva, was transferred to herein petitioner
Dominador, Primo, Ceasarias husband, Jose, and Emilio through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated
August 10, 1995, supposedly executed by Alipio with the consent of his wife Ramona. The
respondents claimed that the said deed of absolute sale is a forgery since Alipio died in 1918
while Ramona passed away on June 13, 1957.
Petitioners, together with the spouses Jose and Pacita, Ceasaria and the spouses Emilio and
Zenaida, denied the allegations of the respondents, claiming that they are the owners of the
subject property, including the one-third portion thereof allegedly sold by Eusebio to the
respondents parents Isidro and Genoveva.
RTC ruled in favour of the respondent. CA denied the MR. Hence, this petition.
Issue: W/N the transfer of the subject land by deed of absolute sale is valid.
Discussion: The appellate court upheld the validity of the sale of the one-third portion of the
subject property to the spouses Isidro and Genoveva mainly on the finding that, after the death of
Alipio in 1918, an oral partition was had between Eusebio and his siblings Espedita and Jose

Bangi; that at the time of the said sale on November 5, 1943 to the spouses Isidro and Genoveva,
Eusebio was already the owner of the subject property.
Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically states that the petition filed shall raise only
questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. A question of law arises when there is doubt
as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt
arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same
must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants
or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given
set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented,
the question posed is one of fact.
The determination of whether the heirs of Alipio had already partitioned his estate prior to the
sale of the one-third portion of the subject property on November 5, 1943 necessarily requires an
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties; the doubt arises on
the truth or falsity of the allegations of the parties.
Even granting arguendo that the petition falls under any of the exceptions justifying a factual
review of the findings of the appellate court, the petition cannot prosper. The Court is of the
opinion, and so holds, that the CA did not commit any reversible error in ruling that an oral
partition of the estate of Alipio had already been effected by his heirs prior to the sale by Eusebio
of the one-third portion of the subject property to the spouses Isidro and Genoveva on November
5, 1943.
Ruling: WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is DENIED.

AZNAR BROTHERS REALTY COMP., v. SPOUSES YBAEZ , G.R. No. 161380, April 21, 2014
Facts: On March 21, 1964, Casimiro, with the marital consent of Maria Daclan, executed a Deed of Absolute
Sale in favor of Aznar Brothers conveying unregistered agricultural land planted with 17 coconut trees
situated in Banika-Bulacao, Pardo, Cebu City. The Deed of Absolute Sale described the property as bounded
on the North by Aznar Brothers; on the East by Angel Sabellano; on the South by Bernardo Sabellano; and
on the West by Agaton Bacalso. The parties agreed to register the sale under Act No. 3344.
On February 17, 1967, Saturnino Tanuco sold to Aznar Brothers a parcel of corn and cogon land planted with
17 coconut trees situated in Candawawan, Pardo, Cebu City, bounded on the North by Alfonso Pacaa; on
the East by Tecla Cabales; on the South by Angel Abellana; and on the West by Castor Sabellano. The
parties agreed to register the parcel of land under Act No. 3344.
Casimiro died intestate leaving as heirs his wife Maria, and their children, namely, Fabian and Adriano, both
surnamed Ybaez. Adriano sold the land to Jose R. Ybaez, which then applied the same for a patent.

Aznar Brothers filed in the RTC a complaint against Jose R. Ybaez claiming absolute ownership
the lot by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 21, 1964 executed in its favor by
Casimiro. Alleging that the free patent issued in favor of Jose R. Ybaez covered the same
property already adjudicated as private property. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint but
the same was denied. RTC ruled in favour of the respondents. CA affirmed the decision of the
RTC.
Issue: W/N Spouses Ybanez are buyers in good faith.

Discussion: Court sustain the CAs conclusion that the Spouses Ybaez were guilty of bad faith,
and that they acquired Lot No. 18563 from sellers who were not the owners. Accordingly, we
resolve the second error raised herein in favor of Aznar Brothers.
The records and evidence fully substantiated the CAs conclusion. The Spouses Ybaez acquired
Lot No. 18563 through the deed of sale executed on June 21, 1978 by Adriano in favor of Jose R.
Ybaez. Together with his siblings Fabian Ybaez, Carmen Ybaez-Tagimacruz, Fe Ybaez-Alison,
and Dulcisima Ybaez-Tagimacruz, Adriano had supposedly inherited Lot No. 18563 from
Casimiro, their father, who had died intestate on July 3, 1968. Holding themselves as the heirs
and successors-in-interest of Casimiro, they had then executed on August 29, 1977 the
Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirs with an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased Person
and Deed of Absolute Sale, whereby they divided and adjudicated Lot No. 18563 among
themselves, and then sold the entire lot to Adriano
CA correctly found, the Spouses Ybaez held no right to Lot No. 18563 because Adriano, their
seller, and his siblings were not the owners of Lot No. 18563. Indeed, Casimiro had absolutely
conveyed his interest in Lot No. 18563 to Aznar Brothers under the Deed of Absolute Sale of
March 21, 1964 with the marital consent of Maria Daclan, Casimiros surviving spouse and the
mother of Adriano and his siblings. Considering that such conveyance was effective and binding
on Adriano and his siblings, there was no valid transmission of Lot No. 18563 upon Casimiros
death to any of said heirs, and they could not legally adjudicate Lot No. 18563 unto themselves,
and validly transfer it to Adriano. The conveyance by Adriano to Jose R. Ybaez on June 21, 1978
was absolutely void and ineffectual.
Ruling: WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of Court of Appeals.

SPOUSES MARIO AND JULIA CAMPOS, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.
184371, March 5, 2014
Facts: On November 17, 2003, the petitioners applied for the registration of a parcel of land
situated in Baccuit, Bauang, La Union. The petitioners bought the subject land from Roberto
Laigo, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the parties on July 26, 1990.
In support of their application, the petitioners presented, among others, the following evidence:
(1) testimony of petitioner Mario Campos; (2) testimony of adjoining lot-owner, Leopoldo Subang;
(3) Linen cloth of Lot 3876 of AP-1-002221, Cad-474-D; (4) Original technical description of the
lot; (5) Certificate of Assessment; (6) Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 26, 1990; (7) Certified true
copies of Tax declarations for the years 1948 and 1953 in the name of Margarita Laigo, the
mother of Roberto Laigo; (8) Certified true copies of Tax declarations for the years 1970, 1974,
1980, 1985 and 1987 in the name of Roberto Laigo; (9) Certified true copies of Tax declarations
for the years 1990, 1994, 1995 and 1998 in the names of the petitioners; (10) Tax receipts for the
years 1991-1994, 1999-2000, 2001-2002, 2003 and 2004; and (11) Certification from the DENRCENRO that Lot 3876 falls within the alienable or disposable land of the public domain.

Only the republic filed a formal opposition to the petitioners application, which the MTC
dismissed. Later on, MTC granted the registration. CA reversed the MTCs decision and dismissed
the petitioners application for registration of title.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: W/N petitioner presented sufficient evidence to show the nature and duration of their
possession and the fact that they had possessed and cultivated the land sought to be registered.
Discussion: Court found no error by the CA in resolving the issues on the nature and duration of
the petitioners possession and on the alienable character of the subject land. These issues were
apparently not raised by the Republic in its appeal before the CA, but are crucial in determining
whether the petitioners have registrable title over the subject land. In Mendoza v. Bautista, the
Court held that the appellate court reserves the right, resting on its public duty, to take
cognizance of palpable error on the face of the record and proceedings, and to notice errors that
are obvious upon inspection and are of a controlling character, in order to prevent a miscarriage
of justice due to oversight.
In deciding on the merits of the present petition, we affirm the CA in dismissing the petitioners'
application for registration of title.
Persons applying for registration of title under Section 14( 1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529
must prove: (1) that the land sought to be registered forms part of the disposable and alienable
lands of the public domain, and (2) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership since June
12, 1945, or earlier.
Ruling: WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition and AFFIRM the
decision of the CA.