CIVIL

LAW
POINTERS IN CIVIL LAW
PROPERTY

G.R. No. 183511 March 25, 2015

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. EMETERIA G. LUALHATI, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J

The real property tax register presented by respondent evidenced payment of realty taxes
only from 1949 up to 1958. Consequently, this Court cannot concede to respondents
assertion that she had been adversely possessing the properties beginning in 1944 up
until the filing of her complaint in 2004, or for a duration of sixty full years, when the
evidence presented depicts payment of taxes for only nine years. Payment of realty taxes
for a brief and fleeting period simply cannot be considered sufficient proof of ownership.
It is clear, therefore, that respondents assertion of possession before 1945 will not suffice
for applicants for registration must present proof of specific acts of possession and
ownership and cannot just offer general statements which are mere conclusions of law
rather than factual evidence of possession.

G.R. No. 141809 April 8, 2013

JOSEFINA F. INGLES, JOSE F. INGLES, JR., HECTOR F. INGLES, JOSEFINA I. ESTRADA, and TERESITA I.
BIRON, Petitioners,
vs.
HON. ESTRELLA T. ESTRADA, in her capacity as former EXECUTIVE JUDGE, Regional Trial Court of
QUEZON CITY, and CHARLES J. ESTEBAN, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 147186

JOSEFINA F. INGLES, JOSE F. INGLES, JR., HECTOR F. INGLES, JOSEFINA I. ESTRADA and TERESITA I.
BIRON, Petitioners,
vs.
HON. ARSENIO J. MAGPALE, Judge, Presiding over Branch 225, Regional Trial Court, QUEZON CITY, and
CHARLES J. ESTEBAN, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
 CIVIL LAW
G.R. No. 173641

JOSEFINA F. INGLES, JOSE F. INGLES, JR., HECTOR INGLES, JOSEFINA I. ESTRADA and TERESITA I.
BIRON, Petitioners,
vs.
CHARLES J. ESTEBAN, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PEREZ, J.

As a rule, a petition for the issuance of a writ possession may not be consolidated with
any other ordinary action. It is well-settled that a petition for the issuance of a writ of
possession is ex-parte, summary and non-litigious by nature; which nature would be
rendered nugatory if such petition was to be consolidated with any other ordinary civil
action. The exception to the foregoing rule is the case of Active Wood Products, Co., Inc.
vs. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 774 (1990). In Active Wood, this Court allowed the
consolidation of a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession with an ordinary action
for the annulment of mortgage. In doing so, Active Wood justified such consolidation as
follows: It is true that a petition for a writ of possession is made ex-parte to facilitate
proceedings, being founded on a presumed right of ownership. Be that as it may, when
this presumed right of ownership is contested and made the basis of another action, then
the proceedings for writ of possession would also become seemingly groundless. The
entire case must be litigated and if need be as in the case at bar, must be consolidated
with a related case so as to thresh out thoroughly all related issues.

In Sps. De Vera v. Hon. Agloro, 448 SCRA 203 (2005), this Court held that the consolidation
of an action for the annulment of mortgage and extrajudicial sale with a petition for the
issuance of a writ of possession, is not mandatory but still rests within the discretion of
the trial court to allow. De Vera opined that when the rights of [a purchaser in an
extrajudicial foreclosure sale] would be prejudiced x x x especially since [the latter]
already adduced its evidence [in support of his application for a writ of possession]
consolidation of the two cases may rightfully be denied.

G.R. No. 169211 March 6, 2013

STAR TWO (SPV-AMC), INC.,1 Petitioner,

vs.
PAPER CITY CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N
 CIVIL LAW
PEREZ, J.

Law and jurisprudence provide and guide that even if not expressly so stated, the
mortgage extends to the improvements. Article 2127 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 2127.
The mortgage extends to the natural accessions, to the improvements, growing fruits,
and the rents or income not yet received when the obligation becomes due, and to the
amount of the indemnity granted or owing to the proprietor from the insurers of the
property mortgaged, or in virtue of expropriation for public use, with the declarations,
amplifications and limitations established by law, whether the estate remains in the
possession of the mortgagor, or it passes into the hands of a third person.

G.R. No. 175417 February 09, 2015

GENERAL MARIANO ALVAREZ SERVICES COOPERATIVE,

INC. (GEMASCO), Petitioner, v.NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (NHA) AND GENERAL
MARIANO ALVAREZ WATER DISTRICT (GMAWD), Respondents.

G.R. NO. 198923

GENERAL MARIANO ALVAREZ WATER DISTRICT (GMAWD), Petitioner, v. AMINA CATANGAY,

ELESITA MIRANDA, ROSITA RICARTE, ROSA FETIZANAN, ABSALON AGA, ELPIDIO SARMIENTO,
FRANCISCO RICARDE, ROMEO CATACUTAN, RASALIO LORENZO, ARTEMIO RAFAEL, MYRN
CEA, AND NORMA ESTIL; NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (NHA) AND GENERAL MARIANO
ALVAREZ SERVICES COOPERATIVE, INC., REPRESENTED BY ERNESTO FLORES, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:

It is interesting to note that the water works system in General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite,
including the three (3) water tanks subject of the assailed Writ of Execution in G.R. No.
198923, is devoted to public use and thus, property of public dominion, which GMAWD
has the right to operate, maintain, and manage. Properties of public dominion, being for
public use, are not subject to levy, encumbrance or disposition through public or private
sale. Any encumbrance, levy on execution or auction sale of any property of public
dominion is void for being contrary to public policy. Otherwise, essential public services
would stop if properties of public dominion would be subject to encumbrances,
foreclosures and auction sale. Since it is GEMASCO which is liable for the payment of the
separation pay and backwages to its illegally dismissed employees, any contemplated sale
 CIVIL LAW
must be confined only to those properties absolutely owned by it and the subject water
tanks must corollarily be excluded from the same.