[FULL CASE] PNB v. HON. RUSTICO DE LOS REYES, AMANDO ARANA and JULIA REYES (G.R. Nos. L-46898-99)

November 28, 1989

Ponente: Regalado, J.

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari are (1) the decision1 of the then Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, Branch I, dated May 11, 1976 in Civil Case No. 2677, entitled "Amando Arana et al. vs. Philippine National Bank," and Special Proceeding No. 2679, entitled "Philippine National Bank, Petitioner-Appellant, Re: Properties of Spouses Amando Arana and Julia Reyes;" and (2) the resolution 2 of the same court, dated January 17, 1977, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of said decision.

The records show that on August 30, 1966, respondent spouses mortgaged six (6) parcels of land located at Cantilla, Sorsogon to petitioner bank (PNB) to secure the payment of a loan of P10,000.00. Two (2) of the six (6) parcels of land are covered by free patent titles while the other four (4) are untitled and covered only by tax declarations.

For failure of respondent spouses to pay the loan after its maturity, petitioner bank, pursuant to a special power of attorney in the mortgage deed, effected the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage under Act No. 3135, as amended, and purchased the same at public auction for P12,735.30 which amount included the expenses of sale, interest and attorney's fees. The certificate of sale, dated July 1, 1969, was duly registered with the Register of Deeds on July 8, 1970. 3

After the one-year redemption period provided in said law expired without respondent spouses having exercised their right or redemption, petitioner executed and registered an affidavit of consolidation of ownership over the six (6) parcels of land on July 9, 1970 and new titles were issued in its name for the two (2) parcels covered by free patent titles and the corresponding tax declarations for the four (4) parcels were placed in its name. 4

On May 12, 1971, Jose Barrameda, then the manager of petitioner's Sorsogon Branch, sent a letter to respondent spouses informing them of the consolidation of title and inviting them to repurchase the lands not later than June 15, 1971. Respondent spouses replied on October 28, 1971 through a letter written and signed by Alejandro Liadones, Municipal Mayor of Castilla, Sorsogon, requesting petitioner to extend the period of repurchase to November 5, 1971. On December 19, 1971, petitioner sent another letter to respondent spouses reminding them of the projected repurchase and informing them that petitioner would take actual possession of the lands unless the repurchase would be effected on or before November 30, 1971. 5

[CASE DIGEST] Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) v. BPI Employees Union

October 19, 2011 | G.R. No. 164301

Bank of the Philippine Islands, petitioner
BPI Employees Union - Davao Chapter - Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank, respondents

FACTS: 

Two banks namely BPI and Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) merged, with BPI as the surviving corporation. On account of this merger, FEBTC employees were hired by BPI as its own employees.

BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter - Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of BPI's rank and file employees in Davao City.

In March 2000, the BPI Employees Union invited the former FEBTC employees to a meeting regarding the Union Shop Clause (Article II, Section 2) of the existing CBA. Some of the former FEBTC employees joined the Union, while others refused. Some of those who initially joined retracted their membership. It must be noted that the former FEBTC rank-and-file employees in Davao City did not belong to any labor union at the time of the merger.

Subsequently, the Union sent notices to the former FEBTC employees who refused to join, as well as those who retracted their membership, and called them to a hearing, which they refused to attend. The president of the Union requested BPI to implement the Union Shop Clause of the CBA and to terminate those who refuse to join the Union.

ISSUE:

Whether the former FEBTC employees are covered by the Union Shop Clause in the CBA. -- YES.

HELD:

[FULL CASE] HEIRS OF BATIOG LACAMEN vs. HEIRS OF LARUAN (G.R. No. L-27088)

July 31, 1975

Ponente: Martin, J.

Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Baguio City in Civil Case No. 738 entitled "Heirs of Batiog Lacamen vs. Heirs of Laruan" "... declaring the contract of sale between Lacamen and Laruan null and void [for lack of approval of the Director of the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes] ..."

Petitioners-appellants are the surviving heirs of Batiog Lacamen, while respondents-appellants are the heirs of Laruan.

Sometime on January 28, 1928, Laruan executed a Deed of Sale in favor of Batiog Lacamen conveying for the sum of P300.00 his parcel of land situated in the sitio of La Trinidad, Benguet, Mountain Province, comprising 86 ares and 16 centares and covered by Certificate of Title No. 420 of the Registry of Benguet. The deed was acknowledged before Antonio Rimando, a notary public in the City of Baguio.

Immediately after the sale, Laruan delivered the certificate of title to Lacamen. Thereupon, Lacamen entered in possession and occupancy of the land without first securing the corresponding transfer certificate of title in his name. He introduced various improvements and paid the proper taxes. His possession was open, continuous, peaceful, and adverse. After his death in 1942, his heirs remained in and continued possession and occupancy of the land. They too paid the taxes.

After the last Global War, Lacamen's heirs "started fixing up the papers of all the properties" left by him5 In or about June, 1957, they discovered that Laruan's heirs, respondents-appellants, were able to procure a new owner's copy of Certificate of Title No. 420 by a petition filed in court alleging that their copy has been lost or destroyed. Through this owner's copy, respondents-appellants caused the transfer of the title on the lot in their names.6 Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-775 was issued to them by the Registry of Deeds of Benguet.

Refused of their demands for reconveyance of the title, petitioners-appellants sued respondents-appellants in the Court of First Instance of Baguio City on December 9, 1957, prayings among other things, that they be declared owners of the subject property; that respondents-appellants be ordered to convey to them by proper instruments or documents the land in question; and that the Register of Deeds of Benguet be ordered to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-775 and issue in lieu thereof a new certificate of title in their names.7

In answer, respondents-appellants traversed the averments in the complaint and claim absolute ownership over the land. They asserted that their deceased father, Laruan, never sold the property and that the Deed of Sale was not thumbmarked by him.8

On 5 April 1962, the Court of First Instance of Baguio City found for respondents-appellants and against petitioners-appellants. Forthwith, petitioners-appellants appealed to the Court of Appeals.

On 7 December 1966, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court.

In this review, petitioners-appellants press that the Court of Appeals erred —

I

... IN DECLARING THE SALE BETWEEN LACAMEN AND LARUAN TO BE NULL AND VOID.

II

... IN APPLYING STRICTLY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 118 AND 122 OF ACT NO. 2874 AND SECTIONS 145 AND 164 OF THE CODE OF MINDANAO AND SULU.

III

... IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BAGUIO CITY.

which assignments could be whittled down into the pervading issue of whether the deceased Batiog Lacamen and/or his heirs, herein petitioners-appellants, have validly acquired ownership over the disputed parcel of land.

[CASE DIGEST] WIDOWS AND ORPHANS ASSOCIATION v. CA (G.R. No. 91797)

August 28, 1991

Ponente: Bidin, J.

FACTS:

Plaintiff WIDORA filed before the respondent court an application for registration of a parcel of land alleging that said is coveredcovered by Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136 and issued in the name of the deceased Mariano San Pedro y Esteban and acquiredsaid property from the heirs of Don Mariano San Pedro situated in at Malitlit-Uoogong, Quezon City, with an area of 156 hectares,more or less, described in Plan No. LRC (SWO)-15352.

Respondent of the previous case, Molina, filed an opposition to the CA, claiming ownership over 12 to 14 hectares of Lot 8.Petitioner Ortigas filed a motion to dismiss the case alleging that said court had no jurisdiction over the case, the land being appliedfor having been already registered under the Torrens System and in the name of Ortigas under TCT 77652 and TCT 77653.

The court issued an order directing the applicant to prove its contention that TCT 77652 and TCT 77653 are not proper derivatives of the original certificates of titles. petitioner Ortigas filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging among others that Land RegistrationCommission itself has advised the court that the 156 hectare property sought to be registered is covered by valid and subsistingtitles in the name of Ortigas, but was later denied by the same court.

The CA, dated dated November 27, 1989, declared respondent Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership (Ortigas) as the registeredowner of the disputed parcel of land is covered by Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136. Respondent filed a motion forreconsideration which was again denied.

Later, respondent Ortigas instituted an action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before respondent court praying for theannulment prayed that the trial court be ordered to dismiss the land registration case. Which was granted by the court.

The petition on hand, WIDORA argues that respondent court erred in sustaining the validity of TCTs Nos. 77652 and 77653 despitethe absence of a supporting decree of registration and instead utilized secondary evidence, OCT 351 which is supposedly a copy of Decree 1425. . Petitioner maintains that Decree 1425 is itself existing and available at the Register of Deeds of Manila and on its faceshows that it covers a parcel of land with an area of only 17 hectares in Sta. Ana while the parcel of land applied for contains an areaof 156 hectares, located at Quezon City, 4 kilometers away from Sta. Ana and certified by the Bureau of Lands and the Bureau of Forestry as alienable and disposable.

RULING:

Whether or not the respondent trial court erred in sustaining the validity of the TCT NOs. . 77652 and 77653 despite the absence of a supporting decree of registration. - YES.
 
Under Act 496, it is the decree of registration issued by the Land Registration Commission which is the basis for the subsequentissuance of the certificate of title by the corresponding Register of Deeds that quiets the title to and binds the land. Consequently, if no decree of registration had been issued covering the parcel of land applied for, then the certificate of title issued over the saidparcel of land does not quiet the title to nor bind the land and is null and void..
 
As for the error of the court, Sec. 108, PD 1529 states that: “no correction of certificate of title shall be made except by order of the court in a petition filed for the purpose and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered” and jurisprudence held that:

“While the law fixes no prescriptive period therefor, the court, however, is not auth
orized to alter orcorrect the certificate of title if it would mean the reopening of the decree of registration beyond the period allowed by law.”

As jurisprudence stated: “One who relies on a document evidencing his title to the property must prove not only the genuineness thereof but also the identity of the land therein referred to” In the case at bar, private respondent's TCT Nos. 77652 and 77653 tracetheir origins from OCT Nos. 337, 19, 336 and 334 and not from OCT 351 as it is now claimed by respondent Ortigas.
 
As for the decision of the trial court in the previous case, ..." Nowhere in said decision, however, is a pronouncement that TCT Nos.77652 and 77653 were issued from TCT No. 227758. On the contrary, it is not disputed by the parties that TCT Nos. 77652 and 77653themselves show that they were derived from OCT No. 337, 19, 336 and 334 and not from OCT 351 or TCT 227758. If indeed, thereal origin thereof is OCT No. 351, what respondent Ortigas should have done was to file a petition for the correction of the TCTs inquestion as stated earlier.
 
Wherefore, , the assailed judgment of respondent court is SET ASIDE and the orders of the trial court in dismissing Ortigas’ motion todismiss and motion for reconsideration are reinstated.

[FULL CASE] THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS (Republic of the Philippines) v. HON. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL, BRANCH I, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY; PROVINCIAL SHERIFF, Misamis Oriental; and GRACIANO B. NERI, JR., JOSEFINA V. VDA. DE NERI, VICTORIA N. FERNANDEZ, RAMON V. NERI, MA. THERESA N. YRASTORZA (G.R. No. L-58823)

March 18, 1985

Ponente: Abad Santos, J.

The Director of Lands in his petition for certiorari, prohibition with preliminary injunction ex-parte prays that:

“After due hearing, judgment be rendered: (a) declaring null and void the proceedings in Land Registration Case No. N-531, LRC Cad Rec. No. 1561, Lot No. 2821, Cagayan de Oro Cadastre; (b) cancelling original certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0662; and (c) issuing the writs of certiorari and prohibition, prayed for against aforementioned respondents; and making the writ of injunction permanent (Rollo, p. 21.)”

The factual background is as follows:chanrobles virtual law library

In Land Registration Case No. 17 of the defunct Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, Graciano B. Neri, Jr., et al. applied for judicial confirmation of their title to a piece of land situated in Cagayan de Oro City. The application was later amended by adding the addresses of the two persons who were said to be legal occupants of the land in the concept of tenants.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In an Order dated September 5, 1975, the land registration court said in part:

It appearing that the only ground relied upon by the oppositors in their opposition to the application of Graciano B. Neri, Jr., et al., is that the same is a public land and it likewise appear that the Bureau of Lands has not filed any opposition in the above-entitled petition the opposition of the oppositors represented by Attorneys Benjamin Tabique and Borja is hereby dismissed. (Rollo, p. 46.)

Subsequently, the court rendered a decision dated February 5, 1976, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, rectifying and confirming herein the order of general default entered in this case, and applicants having conclusively established to the satisfaction of this court their ownership of the parcel of land subject matter of this application, and that the opposition being not substantial, Lot No. 2821 of the Cagayan Cadastre should be as it is hereby adjudicated in equal shares to the following, to wit: JOSEFINA B. VDA. DE NERI, a widow; GRACIANO B. NERI, JR., married to Victoria Babiera; VICTORIA NERI, married to Mario P. Fernandez; RAMON B. NERI, single; and TERESA NERI, married to Alberto Yrastorza, all of legal age, Filipinos and residents of the City of Cagayan de Oro, subject, however, to road-rights-of-way in favor of the City of Cagayan de Oro. (Rollo, P. 48.)

[CASE DIGEST] REALTY SALES ENTERPRISES v. IAC (G.R. No. 67451)

April 25, 1989

Per Curiam

FACTS

Two (2) adjacent parcels of land located in Almanza, Las Piñas, Metro Manila are covered by three (3) distinct sets of Torrens titles, one of which is TCT No. 20408 issued in the name of Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc., pursuant to Decree No. N-63394 in LRC Cases Nos. 657, 758 and 976, GLRO Record Nos. N-29882, N-33721 and N-43516, respectively.

In 1977, Morris Carpo filed a complaint for "declaration of nullity of Decree No. N-63394 and TCT No. 20408." The complaint alleged that TCT No. 20408 as well as OCT No. 1609 from which it was derived, is a nullity as the CFI of Rizal, Branch VI, was not sitting as a land registration court, but as a court of ordinary jurisdiction.

During the pendency of this case, Petitioners filed a manifestation alleging that the case at bar is closely connected with G.R. No. L-46953, Jose N. Mayuga et. al. v. The Court of Appeals, Macondray Farms, Inc., Realty Sales Enterprise, inc., et. al. and moved for consolidation of the two cases involving as they do the same property. By Resolution of August 29, 1984, this Court denied the motion for consolidation.

ISSUE: WON the case at hand and G.R. No. L-46953 should be consolidated?

NO, the two cases should not be consolidated.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the action filed by Carpo against Realty is in the nature of an action to remove clouds from title to real property. By asserting its own title to the property in question and asking that Carpo's title be declared null and void instead, and by filing the third-party complaint against QCDFC, Realty was similarly asking the court to remove clouds from its own title.

Actions of such nature are governed by Articles 476 to 481, Quieting of Title of the Civil Code and Rule 64, Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies of the Rules of Court.

Suits to quiet title are not technically suits in rem, nor are they, strictly speaking, in personam, but being against the person in respect of the res, these proceedings are characterized as quasi in rem. (McDaniel v. McElvy, 108 So. 820 [1926].) The judgment in such proceedings is conclusive only between the parties. (Sandejas v. Robles, 81 Phil. 421 [1948]).

The ruling in this case is therefore without any prejudice to this Court's final determination of G.R. No. L-46953 – a case involving the validity of the compromise agreement between the parties in this case.

[CASE DIGEST] VALLANGCA v. CA (G.R. No. 55336)

May 4, 1989

Ponente: Padilla, J.

FACTS:

Land is owned by petitioners Vallangca. Anna Vallangca, widow of Fortunato Vallangca, mortgaged the disputed property to her cousin Nazario Rabenas (private respondent). At the time of said mortgage, the land was already mortgaged to PNB. After the Pacific War, Nazario went to the residence of Anna and made her sign an absolute deed of sale.

Anna being illiterate and trusted her cousin affixed her signature on the document. Later, Anna was informed by a cousin that the document she signed was actually a deed of sale. Anna and her son Benjamin went to Rabenas to tender the 800 loan amount and redeedmed the land but Rabenas told them that the land could no longer be redeemed and drove them away.

RULING:

The SC ruled in favor of Anna.

Since the Public Land Law is silent as to the form and manner in which the right repurchase may be exercised, any act which amounts to a demand for reconveyance should be sufficient.

It is worth noting that private respondents did not refute petitioner's averment that Anna, together with her son Benjamin, went to Rabenas' residence in 1946 to redeem the property and tendered to him the amount of P800 in PH currency, but the latter made a statement that the land could no longer be redeemed. By Anna's act of tendering to Rabenas the P800, she had in effect exercised her right to repurchase.