Domingo Natividad vs. Pastor L. de Guzman and Clodualda C.

Manubag
- Cebu
- Petitioner files against Rosendo Cabal and respondent for damages against the formers illegal
and unlawful ejectment from his landholding.
- Rosendo and Clodualda alleges that petitioner is their tenant from land owned by Rosendo,
which was then donated to Clodualda while retaining for himself the use and enjoyment of the
land.
- When Rosendo died, the trial court moved to dismiss the case. Respondent judge of the court of
agrarian reforms dismissed the case without prejudice to a filing of a case for damages against
Manubag.
- Section 9, RA 1199 states that, in case of sale, the purchaser or transferee shall assume the
rights and obligations of the former land-holder in relation to the tenant. The provisions of
Section 17 of Rule 3, under whose authority the court ordered the dismissal of the case, would
seem to apply to obligations of a decedent transmissible to his heirs in general, not to
obligations of the decedent in particular relation to land or properties under tenancy.
- Court is wrong, it should have allowed the case to proceed against manubag, as the new owner
of the land.
Maxima Hemedes vs. CA, Dominium Realty & Construction Corporation, Enrique Hemedes, and R&B
Insurance Corp.
And
R&B Insurance Corp. vs. CA, Dominium Realty & Construction Corporation, Enrique Hemedes, and
Maxima Hemedes
- Laguna
- Land was owned by Jose Hemedes, who donated it to his wife, Justa Kauapin, who was to
transfer the land to the children or their heirs upon her death or remarriage. (donation inter
vivos with resolutory conditions.)
- Justa executed a public document transferring the land to Maxima. Maxima registered the land
with the annotation that Justa shall have usufructuary rights over the land during her lifetime or
widowhood.
- R&B claims that the land was mortgaged to them by Maxima, when she defaulted; R&B got the
land and was registered in their name. The annotation was maintained.
- Justa also transferred the same land to stepson Enrique Hemedes, who paid the lands real
estate taxes, had the land registered Cadastral 2990, and the known owner recorder in the
Ministry of Agrarian Reform Office.
- Enrique sold to Dominium, who leased it to its sister corporation, Asia Brewery, the latter of
which built two warehouses. R&B contests this under his claim of ownership, alleging that Asia is
a builder in bad faith. Maxima also filed against Asia, claiming she was the owner and denying
the mortgage to R&B. Dominium and Enrique filed against R&B to cancel its title, claiming that
Dominium us the owner by virtue of the sale between the latter and Enrique. The trial court
ruled for Dominium.
- Justa claims she did not understand the conveyance with Maxima, but she understood the
donation inter vivos with resolutory conditions, it even has her thumbmarks. The court decided
only upon Justas denial.
- Justas testimony was biased, as she was receiving allowances from her stepson, Enrique. It has
been held by this Court that ". . . mere preponderance of evidence is not sufficient to overthrow
a certificate of a notary public to the effect that the grantor executed a certain document and
acknowledged the fact of its execution before him. To accomplish this result, the evidence must
be as clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all reasonable controversy as to the falsity of the
certificate, and when the evidence is conflicting, the certificate will be
upheld." In the present case, we hold that private respondents have failed to produce clear, strong, and
convincing evidence to overcome the positive value of the "Deed Conveyance of Unregistered Real
Property by Reversion" a notarized document. The mere denial of its execution by the donor will not
suffice for the purpose. (deed of conveyance of unregistered real property by reversion)
- Enrique and Dominiums transactions are void as there is no valid transfer of ownership. Records cannot
defeat a valid certificate of title. R&B innocent purchaser, even with annotation, a owner of real property
can still the same even though it is subject to usufruct, the buyers title will simply be limited by the
usufructuary. R&B relied on the title, and had no need to look into it further.
NHA vs. CA, Bulacan Garden Corporation, and Manila Seeding Bank Foundation Inc.
- President Marcos issued Proclamation 481, which set aside 120 hectares of land for the National
Government Center. He then issued Proclamation 1670, which set aside 7 hectares of the land
for MSBF, and gave it usufructuary rights. (Subject to private rights if any there be, and to future
survey, under the administration of the Foundation.)
- Over the years, MSBF occupied more than the 7 hectares16 hectaresgranted to it. MSBF
leased a portion if occupied to the BGC.
- President Cory Aquino issued Memorandum Order 127, which revoked the status of the land
granted by Marcos and allowed the NHA to commercialize the area and sell it to the public. NHA
gave BGC within 10 days to leave the area, BGC contested.
- The trial court ruled for NHA, saying MSBF did not survey the land and it even surveyed too
much, this led to the order to demolish the properties built. The CA reversed the decision,
saying it deed surveytwiceand constructing the building there.
- The usufruct may be constituted for a specific term subject to conditions agreed by the parties.
The usufruct may lease the area as well. MSBF had usufruct over 7 hectares of land, the BGC
cannot be evicted or their constructions demolished if it is built within the 7 hectare area.
- ART. 565. The rights and obligations of the usufructuary shall be those provided in the title
constituting the usufruct; in default of such title, or in case it is deficient, the provisions
contained in the two following Chapters shall be observed.
- Proc. 1670 authorized MSBF to conduct the survey. The main buildings of the MSBF are located
in that are stated in the survey. However MSBF is wrong in exceeding the usufruct granted by
proc. 1670. Because of the scattered locations of MSBFs buildings, 7 hectare area is no longer
determinable. There must be a survey conducted jointly by NHA and MSBF.
- ART. 605. Usufruct cannot be constituted in favor of a town, corporation, or association for
more than fifty years. If it has been constituted, and before the expiration of such period the
town is abandoned, or the corporation or association is dissolved, the usufruct shall be
extinguished by reason thereof. MSBF has 22 years left. MO 127 does not affect MSBFs
usufruct.
Lopez Inc. represented David de Leon vs. Philippine & Eastern Trading Co.
- Baguio
- Before the last pacific war, defendant was lessee in the Lopez building owned by plaintiff. During
the bombing of Baguio, the property was destroyed leaving only the walls and the floors.
- After the war, plaintiff didnt rehabilitate the building. Defendant desiring to continue to
continue the lease. Macario Rebodos, VP of defendant, wished to discuss with atty. Eugenio
lopez, Pres of plaintiff, to rehabilitate the building but failed to meet him.
- Defendant proceeded to repair the building with the knowledge of Joseph K. Icard, agent of
plaintiff. Later an agreement was entered between defendant and plaintiff to re-lease the
premises. (160-300)
- Defendant failed to pay rentals from feb-sept amounting in 2200. The latter believed it would be
charged to the P14,583.45 improvements they introduced to the building. Plaintiff then filed an
ejectment suit against the defendant. Municipal court ruled for plaintiff. CA ruled for plaintiff,
but reserved for defendant right to be reimbursed.
- Plaintiff bases his contention on the fact that he is a possessir in good faith. However a
possessor in good faith refers to one who occupies or possess in the concept of an owner. This
concept does not apply to a lessee, because the latter does not own the property, neither can
he deny ownership of the lessor.
- Knowing that his occupation can continue during the life of the lease contract and he must
vacate upon termination of the same or upon violation of its terms, he introduces the
improvements on the risk of not being reimbursed nor retain the same until reimbursement.