Turkesa vs Valera
7
FIRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 76371. January 20, 2000] MARIANO TURQUESA, ABRAHAM LALUGAN and LAYAO, MANUEL MAGALA substituted by his Heirs, OTILIO DAMASEN and SEGUNDINA DAMASEN, ANTONIO ESCALANTE, METODIO TULLAS, FLORA LABUGUEN and JUANA LABUGUEN, LOURDES SINDON BAYUBAY, MANUEL MEDRANO and JOSE MEDRANO, ** petitioners, vs., ROSARIO VALERA and the HONORABLE COURT of APPEALS, respondents. D E C I S I O N YNARES_SANTIAGO, J .: More than half a century ago, [1] private respondent applied for the registration of two parcels of land located in Barrio Pulot, Laguyan, Abra described in Plan PSU-119561 with a total land area of 232,908 square meters. The first lot (hereinafter referred to as Lot 1) has an area of 210,767 square meters whereas the other lot (Lot 2) has an area of 22,141 square meters. In support of her application, private respondent presented documents showing that when she was still single, she bought Lot 1 during the years 1929-1932 from Cristeta Trangued and the heirs of Juan Valera Rufino who were allegedly in possession thereof since the Spanish regime in the concept of owners and who declared it in their name for taxation purposes. From 1929, she continued possession of said land in the concept of owner and continued to pay the tax thereon in her name. Notices of the application for registration were published in the Official Gazette, with copies thereof sent to persons mentioned therein and posted in the proper places. The Director of Lands together with petitioners and other persons [2] opposed the application of private respondent. These oppositors were excluded from the order of general default issued by the lower court on June 16, 1950. [ 3] In the course of the hearing, the oppositors (except the Director of Lands) aver that their lands were included in Lot 1 which private respondent sought to register in her name. In support thereof, they contend that the land embraced by Lot 1 at the time it was bought by private respondent is not the same land covered in her application for registration. To avoid confusion, oppositors moved for an ocular inspection in order to determine the correct boundary limits of the lands they respectively claim, however, the same was not allowed by the court a quo. For his part, the Director of Lands opposition was denied for failure to substantiate his claim that the subject lands were part of the public domain. The opposition of the oppositors other than the herein petitioners were likewise denied for various reasons including failure to present their evidence. After trial, in a decision dated April 23, 1956, the lower court disposed of the application for registration as follows: In view of all the foregoing, the applicant Rosario Valera married to Juan Valera, a resident of Bangued, Abra, has proven that she has a registerable title to Lot 1, Psu- 119561, with an area of 210,767 square meters as her exclusive property, subject to the encumbrance in favor of the Philippine National Bank in the sum of P1,000.00; and to Lot 2 in the same plan, with an area of 22,141 square meters, without liens or encumbrances,
-
Upload
hanna-pentino -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Turkesa vs Valera
-
6/30/2015 TurquesavsValera:76371:January20,2000:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/76371.html 1/7
FIRSTDIVISION
[G.R.No.76371.January20,2000]
MARIANOTURQUESA,ABRAHAMLALUGANandLAYAO,MANUELMAGALAsubstitutedbyhisHeirs,OTILIODAMASENandSEGUNDINADAMASEN,ANTONIOESCALANTE,METODIOTULLAS,FLORALABUGUENandJUANALABUGUEN,LOURDESSINDONBAYUBAY,MANUELMEDRANOandJOSEMEDRANO,**petitioners,vs.,ROSARIOVALERAandtheHONORABLECOURTofAPPEALS,respondents.
DECISION
YNARES_SANTIAGO,J.:
Morethanhalfacenturyago,[1]privaterespondentappliedfortheregistrationoftwoparcelsoflandlocatedinBarrioPulot,Laguyan,AbradescribedinPlanPSU119561withatotallandareaof232,908squaremeters.Thefirstlot(hereinafterreferredtoasLot1)hasanareaof210,767squaremeterswhereastheotherlot(Lot2)hasanareaof22,141squaremeters.Insupportofherapplication,privaterespondentpresenteddocumentsshowingthatwhenshewasstillsingle,sheboughtLot1duringtheyears19291932fromCristetaTranguedandtheheirsofJuanValeraRufinowhowereallegedlyinpossessionthereofsincetheSpanishregimeintheconceptofownersandwhodeclareditintheirnamefortaxationpurposes.From1929,shecontinuedpossessionofsaidlandintheconceptofownerandcontinuedtopaythetaxthereoninhername.NoticesoftheapplicationforregistrationwerepublishedintheOfficialGazette,withcopiesthereofsenttopersonsmentionedthereinandpostedintheproperplaces.
TheDirectorofLandstogetherwithpetitionersandotherpersons[2]opposedtheapplicationofprivaterespondent.TheseoppositorswereexcludedfromtheorderofgeneraldefaultissuedbythelowercourtonJune16,1950.[3]Inthecourseofthehearing,theoppositors(excepttheDirectorofLands)averthattheirlandswereincludedinLot1whichprivaterespondentsoughttoregisterinhername.Insupportthereof,theycontendthatthelandembracedbyLot1atthetimeitwasboughtbyprivaterespondentisnotthesamelandcoveredinherapplicationforregistration.Toavoidconfusion,oppositorsmovedforanocularinspectioninordertodeterminethecorrectboundarylimitsofthelandstheyrespectivelyclaim,however,thesamewasnotallowedbythecourtaquo.Forhispart,theDirectorofLandsoppositionwasdeniedforfailuretosubstantiatehisclaimthatthesubjectlandswerepartofthepublicdomain.Theoppositionoftheoppositorsotherthanthehereinpetitionerswerelikewisedeniedforvariousreasonsincludingfailuretopresenttheirevidence.
Aftertrial,inadecisiondatedApril23,1956,thelowercourtdisposedoftheapplicationforregistrationasfollows:
Inviewofalltheforegoing,theapplicantRosarioValeramarriedtoJuanValera,aresidentofBangued,Abra,hasproventhatshehasaregisterabletitletoLot1,Psu119561,withanareaof210,767squaremetersasherexclusiveproperty,subjecttotheencumbranceinfavorofthePhilippineNationalBankinthesumofP1,000.00andtoLot2inthesameplan,withanareaof22,141squaremeters,withoutliensorencumbrances,
-
6/30/2015 TurquesavsValera:76371:January20,2000:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/76371.html 2/7
asconjugalpartnershippropertywithherhusband,JuanValera.
Afterthisdecisionhasbecomefinal,letthecorrespondingdecreebeenteredandthecorrespondingtitleissueinaccordancewithlaw.[4]
OppositorsappealedtotheCourtofAppeals(CA)insofaronlyasLot1isconcerned,arguing,amongothers,thatthetrialcourterredinnotgrantingtheirmotionfornewtrialandtheirdemandforocularinspection.OnMarch15,1966,theCourtofAppealssetasidetheappealeddecisionandremandedthecasetothelowercourtforfurtherproceedings,andorderedtheconductofanocularinspection.ThedispositiveportionoftheCAdecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,thejudgmentappealedfromisreversedandsetaside.Thiscaseshallberemandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingswhichshallincludeanocularinspectionofthelandappliedwithaviewtodetermineitsidentity,locationandboundarylimitswhetherthelatterhavebeenincludedinLot1oftheapplicantsplantowarranttheirexclusionfromtheplan,ortheirregistrationinthenamesoftheoppositorswhohavepresentedevidenceinsupportoftheirclaim.Thereafterjudgmentshallbeaccordinglyrendered.[5]
InaccordancewiththeCAdirective,threecommissionerswereappointedbythetrialcourttoconducttheocularinspection.Thecommissionersfound:
ThatthepropertysoughttoberegisteredundersurveyplanPsu119561wasrelocatedandtheextentandboundsoftheportionsclaimedbytheoppositorswerepointedtobythempersonallyorbytheirsupposedrepresentative,theresultsofwhichareclearlyshownintheaccompanyingsketchplanmarkedasAnnex"A"oftheirreportbythecorrespondingnames,areaanddimensions.
Thatthesurveyoftheclaimswascontinuedthefollowingday,January29,1967.
OBSERVATIONSANDFINDINGS
1.TheclaimsofManuelMagala,AbrahamLalugan,andLayao,JuanMedranoandEugenioMedranoasshownnowinthesketchplanAnnex"A"arenotshownintheoriginalsurveyplanPsu119561
2.ThatclaimsofOtilioDamasen,NicolasBigornia,RicardoBersamira,BonifacioBrangan,CristetaMedrano,MatiasTurdil,MarianoTurqueza,FloraLabuguen,CornelioBayubay,PonceTalape,andMetodioTullar,appearedintheoriginalsurveyplanPsu119561andlikewiseinsketchplanAnnex"A"althoughthreeoftheseclaimsbeardifferentidentifyingnamesinthesketchAnnex"A"
3.Thatoutoftheoriginalareaof210,767squaremetersinoriginalsurveyplanPsu119561,theremainingportionnotsubjectofoppositionasappearinginsketchplanAnnex"A"is69,683squaremeters
4.Thatthe"CalleparaCollago"whichaccordingtothedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsandisstoutlymaintaineduntilthepresentbytheoppositorstobetheextentorboundaryofthepropertyoftheapplicantontheSouthsideisexistingandstillistheboundaryontheSouthandontheSoutheastside,asshownintheSketchPlan,Exh."A"
ThatthepropertyofFranciscoSantuaaboundalsotheapplicantspropertysoughttobe
-
6/30/2015 TurquesavsValera:76371:January20,2000:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/76371.html 3/7
registeredontheSouthsides,atpresentaswasthecaseduringtheoriginalsurvey.[6]
Theoppositorsfiledanoppositiontothecommissionersreport,whereuponasecondocularinspectionwasorderedbythetrialcourt.Afterthesecondinspection,thetrialcourt,onAugust28,1967againrenderedjudgmentreiteratingitsoriginaldecisionorderingtheregistrationoftheaforesaidLot1ofPSU119561withanareaof210,767[7]squaremetersinthenameofprivaterespondent.Thejudgemadethefollowingobservationsbasedontheocularinspection:
TheCommissionersandthePresidingJudge,upontheirocularinspection,foundoutavisibleboundaryontheSoutheastsideofLot1knownas"CalleparaCollago"whichisrepresentedintherelocationplanExh.HHrunningfromtheintersectiontoLagayanbetweenpoints22and21downtopoint18.This,intheopinionoftheCourt,istheextensionofthe"CalleparaCollago"referredtobytheapplicantRosarioValeraasboundaryexactlyontheSouthbutwhichwasconvertedintoricefieldsbyFranciscoSantua.ThiscircumstancenowcouldexplainthepresenceofFranciscoSantuaasboundaryownerontheSouthwhichthepartiesstoutlymaintainedintheformerproceedingsthatthe"CalleparaCollago"wasontheSouthbutwhichoppositorsnowrepudiateclaimingthatthe"CalleparaCollago"isontheEast.TakingagoodviewoverLot1,itcouldsafelybeconcludedthattheexisting"CalleparaCollago"ismoretotheSouththantotheEast.
WithrespecttotheclaimoftheDamasensoverLotAmentionedinExh.DwhichtheCourtinadvertentlyfailedtopassupon,theCourthasfoundthatitiswithinthepropertyoftheapplicant.[8]
Thedispositiveportionofthetrialcourtsdecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,thisCourtreiteratesitsformerdecisionorderingtheregistrationofLot1ofPlanPsu119561,Exh.D,withanareaof210,767squaremetersinthenameofapplicantROSARIOVALERAofBangued,Abra,andaconjugalpropertywithherhusbandJuanValeraofthesamemunicipality.TheencumbrancewiththePhilippineNationalBankintheamountofP1,000.00havingalreadybeensettled(Exh.JJ1)sameshallnolongerbeannotatedonthetitlehenceforthtobeissued.
Uponthisdecisionbecomingfinal,letthecorrespondingdecreeissue.
TheapplicantRosarioValeraisherebydirectedtopaywithinseventytwohoursfromnoticehereofthesumofP182.00asfeesforthecommissionerSantiagoAlejandrewhomadetherelocationsurvey.[9]
ThecasewasagainappealedtotheCourtofAppeals(CAGR.40796R)bytheoppositors,someofwhomarenowthepetitionersinthiscase.[10]TheyarguethatthelowercourterredinnotexcludingtheareastheyclaimedastheirownwhichwerewrongfullyincludedinLot1butwasorderedregisteredinprivaterespondentsname.Disposingoftheappeal,theCAruled:
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,withthemodificationthattheregistrationofLot1ofappellees(privaterespondentherein)shouldbeconfinedtotheextentonlyasindicatedinthesketchannexedtotheCommissionersreport,ExhibitHH,andexcludingtherefromthelandholdingoftheoppositors,asindicatedinthesamesketch,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisherebyAFFIRMED.Withoutcosts.
-
6/30/2015 TurquesavsValera:76371:January20,2000:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/76371.html 4/7
SOORDERED.[11]
ThisdecisionbecamefinalandexecutoryforwhichacorrespondingentryofjudgmentwasissuedbytheCourtofAppeals.[12]Later,privaterespondentfiledwiththetrialcourtamotionfortheissuanceofwritofpossessionovertwolotsrespectivelytenantedbyTriumDonatoandRudyDonatowhichwerelikewiserespectivelyclaimedbySantiagoPartolan(notanoppositorinthelandregistrationcase)andCrispinBaltar(oneoftheoppositors).[13]InanOrderissuedonSeptember14,1981,thecourtaquodeniedthemotion.[14]WhenhersubsequentmotionforreconsiderationwasalsodeniedinanotherOrderdatedNovember25,1981,[15]privaterespondentappealedtothethenIntermediateAppellateCourt(IAC)whichreversedthesaidtwoordersandforthwithissuedadecisionwiththefollowingdisposition:
WHEREFORE,PREMISES,CONSIDERED,theORDERSappealedfromareherebyREVERSEDandjudgmentisherebyenteredordering:
1.TheissuanceofaWRITOFPOSSESSIONinfavorofapplicantappellantcoveringthelandholdingclaimedbyoppositorCrispinBaltarandtenantedbyRudyDonato
2.Confirmingtheword"Landholding"inthedispositiveportionofthedecisioninCAG.R.No.40796RassingularandreferringonlytothelandholdingopposedbyoppositorsSegundinaandOtilioDamasenastheonlylandholdingexcludedfromlot1and
3.OrderingtheissuanceoftheWRITOFPOSSESSIONinfavoroftheapplicantappellantcoveringthelandholdingsopposedbytheotheroppositorswhodidnotappealthedecisionofthelowercourtdatedAugust28,1967.
Withoutanyspecialpronouncementastocost.
SOORDERED.[16]
OppositorsfiledamotionforreconsiderationbutthesamewasdeniedbytheCourtofAppeals.[17]Hencethispetitionforreviewinitiatedbysomeoftheoppositorsinthetrialcourt.ThepetitionwasinitiallydeniedbytheCourt.Onmotionforreconsiderationfiledbypetitioners,thecasewasreinstatedandrespondentwasrequiredtosubmithercommenttothepetition.[18]
Afterapainstakingreviewofthevintagerecordsofthiscaseandafterdecipheringtheambiguousdiscussionsinthepetition,[19]theassailedrulingoftherespondentcourtcannotbesustained.Theburdenofproofinlandregistrationcasesisincumbentontheapplicant[20]whomustshowthatheistherealandabsoluteownerinfeesimpleofthelandappliedfor.[21]Onhimalsoreststheburdentoovercomethepresumptionthatthelandsoughttoberegisteredformspartofthepublicdomain[22]consideringthattheinclusioninatitleofapartofthepublicdomainnullifiesthetitle.[23]Undoubtedly,alandregistrationproceedingisonewhichisinremincharacter,sothatthedefaultorderissuedbythecourtbindsthewholeworldandallpersonswhetherknownorunknown,[24]exceptthosewhohaveappearedandfiledtheirpleadingsintheregistrationcase.[25]Inthecaseatbar,thoseexemptedfromtheorderofgeneraldefaultarethepetitionersandtheotheroppositorsmentionedinfootnotenumber2.
ThereisnodisputethatthelandsoccupiedandclaimedbyoppositorspetitionersSegundinaandOtilioDamasenwerealreadyfinallyadjudgedexcludedfromLot1andcannotberegisteredinprivaterespondentsname.Inotherwords,theDamasensweredeclaredtohavearightfulandregistrablerightovertheirclaimsofspecificportionsofLot1.WhatprivaterespondentwantsisthatshebeinstalledinpossessionoftheareaclaimedbySantiagoPartolanandCrispinBaltar.Ofthesetwo,onlyBaltarenteredhisoppositiontoprivaterespondentsapplicationforlandregistration.Beingaproceedinginrem,
-
6/30/2015 TurquesavsValera:76371:January20,2000:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/76371.html 5/7
Partolanischargedwithknowledgeoftheapplicationofprivaterespondentsincethenoticewaspublishedinaccordancewithlaw.
Notwithstandingtheforegoing,however,privaterespondentisnotentitledtoawritofpossessionofthatportionofLotIoccupiedbyPartolanandBaltar.Noevidencewasshownthatprivaterespondenthadarightfulclaimwhetherpossessoryorproprietarywithrespecttothoseareas.EvenifPartolanwasexcludedbytheorderofgeneraldefaultandBaltardidnotappealfromthetrialcourtsdecisionofApril23,1956,theapplicantmuststillproveandestablishthatshehasregistrablerightsoverthelandwhichmustbegroundedonincontrovertibleevidenceandbasedonpositiveandabsoluteproof.Thedeclarationbytheapplicantthatthelandappliedforhasbeeninthepossessionofherpredecessorininterestforacertainperiod,doesnotconstitutethe"wellnighincontrovertible"and"conclusive"evidencerequiredinlandregistration.[26]AllegationsofherpredecessorsownershipofthelotduringtheSpanishperiodisselfserving[27]andthedeclarationofownershipforpurposesofassessmentonthepaymentoftaxisnotsufficientevidencetoproveownership.[28]Itshouldbenotedthattaxdeclaration,byitself,isnotconsideredconclusiveevidenceofownershipinlandregistrationcases.[29]Privaterespondentshouldhavesubstantiatedherclaimwithclearandconvincingevidencespecificallyshowingthenatureofherclaim.Herdescriptionofthecircumstancesofherownpossessioninrelationtothatofherpredecessorininterestaremereconclusionsoflawwhichrequirefurtherfactualsupportandsubstantiation.Ifanapplicantdoesnothaveanyrightfulclaimoverrealproperty,theTorrenssystemofregistrationcanconfirmorrecordnothing.[30]
Privaterespondent,beingtheapplicantforregistrationoflandandonewhoreliesonsomedocumentsenforcingherallegedtitlethereto,mustprovenotonlythegenuinenessofsaidtitlebutalsotheidentityofthelandthereinreferredto,[31]inasmuchasthisisrequiredbylaw.Thedisputeinthiscasepertainstothecorrectnessofthesurveyofspecificareasoflands.Itmustbeborneinmindthatwhatdefinesapieceoflandisnotthesizeorareamentionedinitsdescription,buttheboundariesthereinlaiddown,asenclosingthelandandindicatingitslimits.[32]Consideringthatthewritofpossessionwassoughtbyprivaterespondentagainstpersonswhowerein"actualpossessionunderclaimofownership,"thelatterspossessionraisesadisputablepresumptionofownership.[33]Thisunrebuttedpresumptionmilitatesagainsttheclaimofprivaterespondent,especiallyconsideringtheevidentiaryruleunderArticle434oftheCivilCodethataclaimantofaparcelofland,suchasprivaterespondent,mustrelyonthestrengthofhistitleandnotontheweaknessofthedefendantsclaim.[34]
PrivaterespondentscontentionthatthedispositiveportionoftheCAdecisiononApril30,1979inCAGR40796Rwhichmentionedonly"landholding"andnot"landholdings",thusreferringonlytothatareaclaimedbytheDamasenspouses,istootrivial.AreadingofthesaiddecisionandtheforegoingdiscussionsclearlyindicatesthatthelandtoberegisteredinprivaterespondentsnameislimitedtoacertainareastatedinthesketchannexedtotheCommissionersreport.Itcategoricallyexcludedthoseportionspertainingtotheoppositors.Sinceprivaterespondentfailedtoshowthatshehasaproprietaryrightovertheexcludedareas,suchastheportionsoccupiedbythoseagainstwhomthewritofpossessionwassoughtfor,thenthetrialcourtwascorrectinrefusingtograntthewritasthesamehasnobasis.
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,thedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisREVERSEDandSETASIDEandthetwoordersofthetrialcourtdatedSeptember14,1981andNovember25,1981areREINSTATED.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),Kapunan,andPardo,JJ.,concur.
-
6/30/2015 TurquesavsValera:76371:January20,2000:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/76371.html 6/7
Puno,J.,noparthadsomeparticipationincourtbelow.
**Someofthepetitionersarealreadydead.[1]April18,1949.[2]Theotheroppositorsasidefrompetitionerswere:NicolasBergoniatheheirsofRicardoBersamiraPericoTalapewhoserightsweretransferredtooppositorMateoValeraGalinganManuelMagalalatersubstitutedbyhisheirsrepresentedbyLouisaMagalaBayleAgatonPajoCornelioBayubaysubstitutedbyhisheirswhoarerepresentedbyMariaBayubayandhiswidowLourdesSindonBayubay,oneofthepetitionersBonifacioBringasMatiasTurdilandJuanMedrano.SeeDecisioninCAG.R.No.69366oftheIntermediateAppellateCourt(IAC)FirstCivilCasesDivisionbeforeitwasagainrenamedCourtofAppeals(CA)promulgatedMarch26,1984pennedbyJusticeRosarioQuetulioLosawithJusticesRamonGaviola,Jr.andEduardoCaguioa,concurring,p.2Rollo,p.22CARollo,p.23[3]OrderofthethenCourtofFirstInstance(CFI)ofAbraissuedbyJudgeZoiloHilario.[4]DecisionofthetrialcourtdatedApril23,1956pennedbyJudgeJoseM.MendozaRollo,pp.23,253254.[5]CADecisiondatedMarch15,1966pennedbyJusticeSalvadorEsguerrawithJusticesJulioVillamorandRamonNolascoRecordonAppeal,pp.1923Rollo,pp.26,254.[6]Rollo,pp.2627.[7]Exh."D".[8]Rollo,pp.256,269.[9]CourtofFirstInstance(CFI)DecisiondatedAugust28,1967pennedbyJudgeMacarioM.Ofilada,p.6Rollo,pp.2728271RecordonAppeal,p.29.[10]Inadditiontopetitionersherein(exceptFloraLabuguenwhowasnotincludedintheappeal),therestoftheappellantsinCAGR40796RwereLayaoGalingan,MateoValera,CrispinBaltar,LouisaMagalaBayleandBonifacioBringas.(SeeAnnex"B"ofthePetitionRollo,p.38).[11]Annex"B"ofPetitionCASpecialFormer8thDivision.DecisionpromulgatedApril30,1979inCAGR.40796RpennedbyJusticeSimeonGopengcowithJusticesMamaBusranandLorenzoRelova,concurringp.13Rollo,p.48.[12]PerCAsEntryofJudgment,theApril30,1979CADecisionhadbecomefinalandexecutoryonSeptember22,1979Rollo,p.244.[13]RecordonAppeal,pp.4142.[14]OrderdatedSeptember14,1981issuedbyActingPresidingJudgeLeopoldoB.GironellaofthethenCFIBranchII,Abra.Thedispositiveportionofwhichstates:"WHEREFORE,findingthattherearenooppositorsonthelandoftheapplicantmovant,becausealllandholdingsoftheoppositorsasindicatedinExhibitHareexcluded,themotionisdenied.SOORDERED."(RecordonAppeal,p.43Rollo,pp.21,258).[15]ThedispositiveportionoftheOrderdatedNovember25,1981provides:"ActingontheMotionforReconsiderationoftheOrderofthisCourtdatedSeptember14,1981denyingtheissuanceofaWritofPossessionfiledbytheapplicantandfindingthatthewritprayedisnotinaccordancewiththedispositiveportionofthedecisionoftheHonorableCourtofAppealsbecauseitcoverslandholdingoftheoppositorswhichwereclearlyexcludedinthedecision,themotionisherebydenied.SOORDERED."(RecordonAppeal,p.48Rollo,p.21).[16]IACFirstCivilCasesDivisionDecisioninCAG.R.No.69366promulgatedMarch26,1984pennedbyJusticeQuetulioLosawithJusticesGaviola,Jr.andCaguioa,concurring,p.15Rollo,p.35.[17]CAResolutiondatedSeptember29,1986pennedbyJusticeJoseCampos,Jr.withJusticesVenancioAldecoa,Jr.andReynatoPuno,concurringCARollo,p.124.[18]SCMinuteResolutiondatedFebruary4,1987Rollo,pp.64,67.[19]UnderSection2(a),Rule45(nowSection4,Rule45,1997RulesofCivilProcedure),thepetitionshallsetforthconciselyastatementofthemattersinvolved,andthereasonsorargumentsrelieduponfortheallowanceofthepetition.Petitionerscounsel(MarilynDamasenBontia)whosignedthepetitionandpetitionersmemorandumcannotbeconsideredashavingconciselystatedherarguments.Thesaidpleadingswerenotpreparedwithproperattentionandadequatepreparation.[20]GutierrezHermanosv.CA,178SCRA37(1989).[21]MalolesandMalvarv.DirectorofLands,25Phil.548(1913)DelosReyesv.Paterno,34Phil.420(1916)RomanCatholicBishopofLipav.MunicipalityofTaal,38Phil.367(1918)DirectorofLandsv.Agustin,42Phil.227(1921)citedinRepublicv.Lee,197SCRA13(1991).[22]Republicv.RegisterofDeedsofQuezonCity,244SCRA537(1995)DirectorofLandsv.Aquino,192SCRA296(1990)Republicv.Sayo,191SCRA71(1990).
-
6/30/2015 TurquesavsValera:76371:January20,2000:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/jan2000/76371.html 7/7
[23]DirectorofLandsv.Aquino,192SCRA296(1990).[24]Cachov.CA,269SCRA159(1997)Moscosov.CA,128SCRA705(1984).[25]Cacherov.Marzan,196SCRA601(1991).[26]Republicv.Lee,274Phil.284,291(1991).[27]IglesianiCristov.CFIofNuevaEcija,123SCRA516(1983).[28]Curegv.IAC,177SCRA313(1989).[29]Palomov.CA,266SCRA392(1997)Riverav.CA,244SCRA218(1995)DirectorofLandsv.Buyco,216SCRA78(1992).[30]Santiagov.CA,278SCRA98(1997).[31]RepublicCementCorporationv.CA,198SCRA734(1991)Lasamv.DirectorofLands,65Phil.367(1938)citedinAlbavda.DeRazv.CA,G.R.No.120066,September9,1999.[32]Dichosov.CA,192SCRA169(1990).[33]Article433,CivilCode(NCC)reads:"Actualpossessionunderclaimofownershipraisesadisputablepresumptionofownership.Thetrueownermustresorttojudicialprocessfortherecoveryoftheproperty."SeealsoDavidv.Malay,G.R.No.132644,November19,1999citingFajav.CA,75SCRA441(1977).[34]CivilCode,Article434.
