Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Property
Olegario v. Mari
G.R. No. 147951
December 14, 2009
Possession, to constitute the foundation of acquisitive prescription, must be possession under a claim of title or
must be adverse. Acts of a possessory character performed by one who holds the property by mere tolerance
of the owner are clearly not in the concept of an owner and such possessory acts, no matter how long
continued, do not start the running of the period of prescription.
Adriano v. Tanco
G.R. No. 168164
July 5, 2010
The existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed and allegations that one is a tenant do
not automatically give rise to security of tenure. For tenancy relationship to exist, the following
essential requisites must be present: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject
matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent between the parties; (4) the purpose is agricultural
production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and, (6) there is sharing of the harvests
between the parties.
Settled is the rule that a person, whose certificate of title included by mistake or oversight the land
owned by another, does not become the owner of such land by virtue of the certificate alone. The
Torrens System is intended to guarantee the integrity and conclusiveness of the certificate of
registration but is not intended to perpetrate fraud against the real owner of the land. The certificate of
title cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner.
Article 749 of the Civil Code provides inter alia that "in order that the donation of an immovable may be
valid, it must be made in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of
the charges which the donee must satisfy." Corollarily, Article 709 of the same Code explicitly states
that "the titles of ownership, or other rights over immovable property, which are not duly inscribed or
annotated in the Registry of property shall not prejudice third persons." From the foregoing provisions,
it may be inferred that as between the parties to a donation of an immovable property, all that is
required is for said donation to be contained in a public document. Registration is not necessary for it
to be considered valid and effective. However, in order to bind third persons, the donation must be
registered in the Registry of Property (now Registry of Land Titles and Deeds). Although the non-
registration of a deed of donation shall not affect its validity, the necessity of registration comes into
play when the rights of third persons are affected.
Residents of Lower Atab & Teachers’ Village v. Sta. Monica Industrial & Development Corp.,
G.R. No. 198878
October 15, 2014
For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must be present, namely: "(1) the
plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the
action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title
must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal
efficacy. By stating that they were in the process of applying to purchase the subject property from the
government, they admitted that they had no such equitable title, at the very least, which should allow
them to prosecute a case for quieting of title.
Mananquil v. Moico
G.R. No. 180076
November 21, 2012
An action for quieting of title is essentially a common law remedy grounded on equity; For an action to
quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant
Seniors Batch 2017 - 2018 Page 5 of 14
Cases decided by J. Del Castillo Civil Law 1 - Property
has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the
deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be
in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.—An action
for quieting of title is essentially a common law remedy grounded on equity. The competent court is
tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant and other claimants, not only to place
things in their proper place, to make the one who has no rights to said immovable respect and not
disturb the other, but also for the benefit of both, so that he who has the right would see every cloud of
doubt over the property dissipated, and he could afterwards without fear introduce the improvements
he may desire, to use, and even to abuse the property as he deems best. But “for an action to quiet
title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a
legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed,
claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact
invalid or inoperative despite its prima facieappearance of validity or legal efficacy.”
Upon the expiration of the period to redeem and no redemption was made, the purchaser, as
confirmed owner, has the absolute right to possess the land and the issuance of the writ of possession
becomes a ministerial duty of the court upon proper application and proof of title.
Nevertheless, where the extra-judicially foreclosed real property is in the possession of a third party
who is holding the same adversely to the judgment debtor or mortgagor, the RTC’s duty to issue a writ
of possession in favor of the purchaser of said real property ceases to be ministerial and, as such,
may no longer proceed ex parte. In such a case, the trial court must order a hearing to determine the
nature of the adverse possession. For this exception to apply, however, it is not enough that the
property is in the possession of a third party, the property must also be held by the third party
adversely to the judgment debtor or mortgagor, such as a co-owner, agricultural tenant or
usufructuary.
Adolfo v. Adolfo
G.R. No. 201427
March 18, 2015
Under the Civil Code, all property brought by the wife to the marriage as well as all property she
acquires during the marriage in accordance with Article 148 of the same Code constitutes paraphernal
property. Thus, the wife is the sole owner of the subject paraphernal property.
Republic v. Daclan et al
G.R. No. 197115
March 23, 2015
The deeds of donation in the case at bar did not specifically prohibit the subsequent transfer of the
donated lands by the done. Contrary to the respondent’s contention that the deeds of donation they
executed are "personal and exclusively limited to the parties, the donor and the donee; and that they
do not extend to or inure to the benefit of their successors and assigns; and that the rights and
obligations of the parties to the donations are not transmissible by their nature or stipulation, the New
Civil Code expressly provides that contracts take effect between the parties, their assigns and heirs,
except in cases where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by
their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. Thus, as a general rule, rights and obligations
derived from contract are transmissible.
Republic of the Philippines v. Angeline L. Dayaoen, Agustina Tauel, & Lawana’t Batcagan
G.R. No. 200773
July 8, 2015
Mere notations appearing in survey plans are inadequate proof of the covered properties' alienable
and disposable character. These notations, at the very least, only establish that the land subject of the
application for registration falls within the approved alienable and disposable area per verification
through survey by the proper government office. The applicant, however, must also present a copy of
the original classification of the land into alienable and disposable land, as declared by the DENR
Secretary or as proclaimed by the President.
Jose Yulo Agricultural Corporation v. spouses Perla Cabaylo Davis and Scott Davis
G.R. No. 197709
August 3, 2015
In this jurisdiction, the general rule is that in the case of two certificates of title, purporting to include
the same land, the earlier in date prevails. Successive registrations, where more than one certificate is
Seniors Batch 2017 - 2018 Page 7 of 14
Cases decided by J. Del Castillo Civil Law 1 - Property
issued in respect of a particular estate or interest in land, the person claiming under the prior
certificate is entitled to the estate or interest; and that person is deemed to hold under the prior
certificate who is the holder of, or whose claim is derived directly or indirectly from the person who was
the holder of the earliest certificate issued in respect thereof.
Liwayway Andres, Ronnie Andres and Pablo Francisco v. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development,
Incorporated
G.R. No. 201405
August 24, 2015
Article 649 of the Civil Code provides that an easement of right of way may be demanded only by the
owner of an immovable property, or a person who may use or cultivate the property on account of a
real right. Petitioners attempted to establish their ownership through the two modes of acquisitive
prescription. Their main argument was that they obtained ownership over the property through
ordinary acquisitive prescription. However, petitioners failed to sufficiently establish that their
possession was in good faith and with just title, falling short of the requirements set by Article 11172 of
the Civil Code.
Petitioners are not entitled to reimbursement for necessary expenses. Indeed, under Article 452 of the
Civil Code, the builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the necessary
expenses of preservation of the land. However, in this case, respondent's lands were not preserved:
petitioners' construction and use thereof in fact caused damage, which must be undone or simply
endured by respondent by force of law and circumstance. Respondent did not in any way benefit from
petitioners' occupation of its lands.
2. Laches
On the question of laches, the CA correctly held that as owners of the subject property, respondent
has the imprescriptible right to recover possession thereof from any person illegally occupying its
lands. Even if petitioners have been occupying these lands for a significant period of time, respondent
as the registered and lawful owner has the right to demand the return thereof at any time.
Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty
with respect to title to real property. In order that an action for quieting of title may prosper, it is
essential that the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the property which is the
subject-matter of the action. Legal title denotes registered ownership, while equitable title means
beneficial ownership. In the absence of such legal or equitable title, or interest, there is no cloud to be
prevented or removed.
Hebron v. Loyola
G.R. No. 168960
July 5, 2010
The minor children by representation has the right over such inheritance from their grandparents if
their mother/father concerned is already deceased even if the other parent is still alive.
Baltazar v. Laxa
G.R. No. 174489
April 11, 2012
It is incumbent upon those who oppose the probate of a will to clearly establish that the decedent was
not of sound and disposing mind at the time of the execution of said will. Otherwise, the state is duty-
bound to give full effect to the wishes of the testator to distribute his estate in the manner provided in
his will so long as it is legally tenable.
Irrespective of the posture of any of the parties as regards the authenticity and due execution of the
will in question, it is the mandate of the law that it is the evidence before the court and/or evidence that
ought to be before it that is controlling. The very existence of the will is in itself prima facie proof that
the supposed testatrix has willed that her estate be distributed in the manner therein provided, and it is
incumbent upon the state that, if legally tenable, such desire be given full effect independent of the
attitude of the parties affected thereby. This, coupled with Lorenzos established relationship with
Paciencia, the evidence and the testimonies of disinterested witnesses, as opposed to the total lack of
evidence presented by petitioners apart from their self-serving testimonies, constrained the Court to tilt
the balance in favor of the authenticity of the Will and its allowance for probate.
In this case, Respondent had an unregistered deed of sale over the subject land. Since it was
unregistered, the title remained in the owner (decedent). When the decedent died, the title passed to
petitioner, who is the illegitimate child of the decedent. Therefore, Petitioner and her co-heirs have a
more favorable right on the question of possession of the subject land over Respondent.
Since the property was undoubtedly part of the conjugal partnership, the sale to Titan required the
consent of both spouses. Article 165 of the Civil Code expressly provides that the husband is the
administrator of the conjugal partnership. Likewise, Article 172 of the Civil Code ordains that the wife
cannot bind the conjugal partnership without the husband’s consent, except in cases provided by law.
Similarly, Article 124 of the Family Code requires that any disposition or encumbrance of conjugal
property must have the written consent of the other spouse, otherwise, such disposition is void.
Juliano-Llave v. Republic
G.R. No. 169766
March 30, 2011
Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may >le a petition for annulment of voidable marriages or
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or
intestate heirs of the spouses or by the State. Compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights
prior to the death of their predecessor, and hence can only question the validity of the marriage of the
spouses upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased
spouse >led in the regular courts. On the other hand, the concern of the State is to preserve marriage
and not to seek its dissolution
In a void marriage, in which no marriage has taken place and cannot be the source of rights, any
interested party may attack the marriage directly or collaterally without prescription, which may be >led
even beyond the lifetime of the parties to the marriage.
Kalaw v. Fernandez
G.R. No. 166357
Sept. 19, 2011
Petitioner failed to prove that his wife (respondent) suffers from psychological incapacity. While there
is no dispute that respondent played mahjong, its alleged debilitating frequency and adverse effect on
the children were not proven. Also, even assuming arguendo that petitioner was able to prove that
respondent had an extramarital affair with another man, sexual infidelity per se is a ground for legal
separation, but it does not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity.
Perla v. Baring
G.R. No. 172471
November 12, 2012
Mirasol's Complaint for support is based on Randy’s alleged illegitimate filiation to Antonio. Hence, for
Randy to be entitled for support, his filiation must be established with sufficient certainty. A review of
the Decision of the RTC would show that it is bereft of any discussion regarding Randy’s filiation.
Although the appellate court, for its part, cited the applicable provision on illegitimate filiation, it merely
declared the certified true copies of Randy’s birth certificate and baptismal certificate both identifying
Antonio as the father as good proofs of his filiation with Randy and nothing more. This is despite the
fact that the said documents do not bear Antonio’s signature. Time and again, this Court has ruled that
a high standard of proof is required to establish paternity and filiation. An order for support may create
an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the family or the lives of the parties so that it must
be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence.
Garcia v.
Vda. de Caparas
G.R. No. 180843
April 17, 2013
In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, the leasehold shall bind his legal
heirs. Amanda may not claim ignorance of the above provision, as ignorance of the law excuses no
one from compliance therewith.
Ining v. Vega
G.R. No. 174727
August 12, 2013
Under the Family Code, family relations, which is the primary basis for succession, exclude relations
by affinity.―What escaped the trial and appellate courts’ notice, however, is that while it may be
argued that Lucimo Sr. performed acts that may be characterized as a repudiation of the co-
ownership, the fact is, he is not a co-owner of the property. Indeed, he is not an heir of Gregoria; he is
merely Antipolo’s son-in-law, being married to Antipolo’s daughter Teodora. Under the Family Code,
family relations, which is the primary basis for succession, exclude relations by affinity. Art. 150. Family
relations include those: (1) Between husband and wife; (2) Between parents and children; (3) Among
other ascendants and descendants; and (4) Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half
blood. In point of law, therefore, Lucimo Sr. is not a co-owner of the property; Teodora is.
Consequently, he cannot validly effect a repudiation of the co-ownership, which he was never part of.
For this reason, prescription did not run adversely against Leonardo, and his right to seek a partition of
the property has not been lost.
Aguilar v. Siasat
G.R. No. 200169
January 28, 2015
Filiation may be proved by an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned, and such due recognition in any
authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the child, and no further court
action is required. And, relative to said form of acknowledgment.
Banguis-Tambuyat v. Balcom-Tambuyat
Seniors Batch 2017 - 2018 Page 12 of 14
Cases decided by J. Del Castillo Civil Law 1 - Persons and
Family Relations
G.R. No. 202805
March 23, 2015
Under Section 108 of PD 1529, the proceeding for the erasure, alteration, or amendment of a
certificate of title may be resorted to in seven instances: (1) when registered interests of any
description, whether vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased; (2)
when new interests have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the certificate; (3) when
any error, omission or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon or on
any duplicate certificate; (4) when the name of any person on the certificate has been changed; (5)
when the registered owner has been married, or, registered as married, the marriage has been
terminated and no right or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; (6) when a corporation,
which owned registered land and has been dissolved, has not conveyed the same within three years
after its dissolution; and (7) when there is reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of title.
Proceedings under Section 108 are "summary in nature, contemplating corrections or insertions of
mistakes which are only clerical but certainly not controversial issues.
Palma v. Omelio
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2223
August 30, 2017
AO 125-2007 provided for the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the
Judiciary and laid down the rules "to enable the solemnizing authorities of the Judiciary to secure and
safeguard the sanctity of marriage as a social institution.”
Respondent used her authority as a judge to make a mockery of marriage. As a judicial officer, she is
expected to know the law on solemnization of marriages. 'A judge is not only bound by oath to apply
the law; he [or she] must also be conscientious and thorough in doing so. Certainly, judges, by the
very delicate nature of their office, should be more circumspect in the performance of their duties.' A
judge should know, or ought to know, his or her role as a solemnizing officer.
Matudan v. Republic
G.R. No. 203284
November 14, 2016
1. Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (a) gravity,
(b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity "must be grave or serious such that
the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be
rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may
Seniors Batch 2017 - 2018 Page 13 of 14
Cases decided by J. Del Castillo Civil Law 1 - Persons and
Family Relations
emerge only after marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would
be beyond the means of the party involved."
3. The existence or absence of the psychological incapacity is based strictly on the facts of each
case and not on a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations. The incapacity should be
established by the totality of evidence presented during trial, making it incumbent upon the
petitioner to sufficiently prove the existence of the psychological incapacity.
4. 'Psychological incapacity,' as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code,
should refer to no less than a mental – not merely physical – incapacity that causes a party to be
truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and
discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code,
among others, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity
and render help and support.