Thursday 31 May 2012

Ladignon vs CA and Dimaun


LTD: Collateral Attack

GR No. 122973
Dionisio C. Ladignon VS Court of Appeals and Luzviminda C. Dimaun
July 18, 2000

FACTS:
The case originates from a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Conveyance and Recovery of Possession and Damages against petitioner, Richart Tong, Jose Porciunla, Jr. and Litogo Company, Inc. Private respondent claimed that petitioner made her sign a petition for the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 240724, covering a 859.7 square meter parcel of land located in Quezon City. Said Peition was, however, dismissed on August 28, 1989 for her failure to appear at the scheduled hearing, which was superseded by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 383675 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City.

ISSUES:
1.       Whether the signatures of plaintiff on the Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the inherited property to defendants are forged / falsified or not;
2.       Whether the failure of plaintiff to reconstitute TCT No. 240724 covering the property subject matter hereof affects the issuance of TCT No. 383675 or not;
3.       Whether defendants should be held liable for damages to plaintiff for their wanton acts of depriving plaintiff of her inherited property;

HELD:
The instant petition calls for a review of the facts of the case. On this matter, well-settled is the rule that in the exercise of the power to review, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on this court. However, there are recognized exceptions among which is when the factual findings of the Court. However, there are recognized exceptions among which is when the factual findings of the trial court and appellate court are conflicting. The instant case falls within this exception and we are thus constrained to examine the arguments presented by petitioner.

As a public document, the subject Deed of Absolute Sale hand in its favour  the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant; otherwise, the document should be upheld.

Tenio-Obsequio vs Court of Appeals provides that forgery cannot be presumed; it must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence. In imputing discrepancy in the signatures appearing in the charge forms and those appearing on the credit cards as well as in its records, AMEXCO should have conducted an examination of the signatures before the court. The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it it be handwriting of ta person because he has been the person write, or has been writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been changed.

Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 proved that Certificate of Title cannot be the subject of collateral attack. Clearly, the action for nullity of conveyance is hardly the direct proceeding required by law to attack a Torrens certificate of Title.

Wherefore, the instant petition for review is hereby GRANTED.

Yu Chang vs Republic


LTD: Public Domain

GR No. 171726
Vicente Yu Chang and Soleda Yu Chang VS Republic of the Philippines
February 23, 2011

FACTS:
Petitioner’s father L. Yu Chang executed an Agreement to Exchange Real Property with the Mayor of Pili, Camarines Sur, Justo Casuncad. Office of Solicitor General (OSG) filed an opposition, saying that the land is legally classified as Public Domain, forest land.

HELD:
Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act as amended by PD 1073 provised that: The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose title have not been perfected or completed, may apply to Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a Certificate of title thereof, under the Property Registration Decree.

In order that petitioner’s application for registration of title my be granted, they must first establish the following:
1.       That the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the Public Domain
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.

Jose Amunategui vs Director of Forestry provides that: A forested area classified as forest land of the public domain does not lose such classification simply because loggers or settlers may have stripped it of its forest cover.

The classification of land is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like.

Calicdan vs Cendana


LTD: Acquisitive Prescription

GR No. 155090
Soledad Calicdan vs Silverio Cendana
February 05, 2004

FACTS:
On August 25, 1947, Fermina executed a deed of donation inter vivos whereby she conveyes the land to respondent Silverio Cendana, who immediately entered into possession of the land, build a fence around the land and constructed a two-storey residential house thereon sometime 1949, where he resided until his death in 1998.

HELD:
Gesmundo vs Court of Appeals provides that: Prescription is another mode of acquiring ownership and other real rights over immovable property. It is concerned with the lapse of time in the manner and under conditions laid down by law; that the possession should be the concept of owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse.

Acquisitive Prescription:
A.      Ordinary Acquisitive Prescription – requires possession in good faith and with just title for ten years.
B.      Extraordinary Acquisitive Prescription – acquired through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for 30 years without need of title of good faith.

The good faith of the possessor consists in the reasonable belief that the person form whom received the thing was the owner thereof, and could transmit his ownership.