JAVIER V. VERIDIANO II- Action for Determination of Ownership

A final judgment on forcible entry or unlawful detainer is NOT a bar against to an action for determination of ownership. A judgment rendered in a case for recovery of possession is conclusive only as to possession, not ownership. It is not a bar against an action for determination of ownership.

FACTS:

Petitioner bought a land on a subdivision by filing a Miscellaneous Sales Application. Pending the approval of the sale, Ben Babol entered a portion adjacent to the land being bought by Petitioner. Petitioner claims that the occupied land by Babol is part of his land so he filed a forcible entry case. However, the trial court found Petitioner wrong and so sustained the possession of Babol. Later on, Babol would sell this portion to private Respondent. In the meantime, the application was approved and a TCT was delivered to Petitioner. This motivated the Petitioner to demand the land again, this time from Respondent, and this time on the basis of ownership. He filed a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession. Respondent countered that the first case on forcible entry constituted res judicata against the second complaint.

ISSUE:

W/N the first case on forcible entry was res judicata against the second case on quieting of title

RULING:

No! Once again, for res judicata to arise, four requisites must concur: Final judgment, Court with competent jurisdiction, judgment based on merits, identity of parties and cause of action.
The Court said that in the two cases, there were identity of parties because Respondent, having acquired the contested land by sale and tradition, is a successor in interest.

However, there was no identity of the causes of action. In forcible entry, the only issue is prior possession and not ownership. In accion reivindicatoria, the issue is the ownership. The Court held that the second case was actually an accion reivindicatoria as Petitioner set up title for herself, prayed that Respondent to be ejected and that she be declared the owner. Thus a final judgment on forcible entry or detainer is NOT a bar against to an action for determination of ownership.

Guidelines on how to detect fake titles

1.    Check if the initials, signatures, technical description, annotation and other component elements appearing on the front and at the back of the original are exactly the same as that appearing on the owner’s duplicate copy of the title.  Any variance is a ground for suspicion;

2.    Judicial Forms for titles are considered accountable forms.  A serial number is assigned to each judicial form.  The serial number to be used for the original copy is printer in rd and the serial number for the duplicate copy is in black.  The LRA distributes the judicial forms with serial number in consecutive order to the various Registries of Deeds.  Any certificate of title bearing a serial number which is not among the ones delivered to a particular registry is of doubtful authenticity;

3.    A number is assigned to each judicial form.  It is indicated on the upper left-hand corner of the form.  Example:  Judicial Form No. 109 is used for the original copy of the TCT which emanated from a decree of registration and Judicial Form No. 109-D is used for the title is not the proper form as indicated by the Judicial Form number, this should be investigated;

Immediately below the Judicial Form number is the year the form was printed or revised.  If, for instance, the judicial form on which the title was prepared bears a date previous to the time when such form was printed or revised, then this is a ground for suspicion;

4.    The owner’s duplicate copy of the title contains the words “Owner’s Duplicate Certificate” on the left side margin of the judicial form.  On the lower left corner of the form is affixed a red seal.  The seal should not blot or stain when wet;

5.    The last two digits of the title number should correspond with the page number of the registration book indicated on the upper right corner of the title.  Any variance should be investigated;

6.    A reconstituted transfer certificate of title is identified by the letters “RT” preceding the title number, while the reconstituted original certificate of title carries the letter “RO” before the title number;

7.    The Central Bank judicial form is printed on security paper which contains security features.  The paper is 50% cotton and 50% chemical wood pulp with artificially colored silk fibers.  It has a NALTDRA or LRA watermark which can be seen if held against the light.  Patently fake titles are usually printed in forms made of cartolina or some other material of inferior quality.

8.    Check if the Register of Deeds  who signed the title was the incumbent register of deeds at the time the title was issued;

9.    Check the entry of a related transaction in the Primary Entry Book to be certain that the title was issued on the basis of a duly registered document;

10. Check the Enumeration Book or logbook which contains information on the personnel assigned to prepare the title on a certain date and the serial number of the judicial form used;

11. Check the Releasing Book if there was a title of  such number that was released by the registry on that certain date;

12. Of necessary, trace the history of the title to determine the genuineness of its source.  This may entail going back to the mother title, the derivative titles and relevant documents.

13. If necessary, trace the history of the title to determine the genuineness of its source.  This may entail going back to the mother title, the derivative titles and relevant documents.

For more information, inquiries and the directory of LRA offices, please visit the LRA website or contact and visit the nearest LRA office in your area.

Source: Land Registration Authority (LRA) Philippine – Guidelines on How to Detect Fake Titles

WONG V. CARPIO

Possession in good faith ceases once defects in title are made known to the possessor by extraneous evidence or by suit for recovery by the owner; interruption takes place upon service of summons.

FACTS:

Mr. Giger sold to Plaintiff Mr. Mercado a piece of property for the price of P3,500 under the terms of a pacto de retro.

Mr.Mercado paid land taxes and planted coconut trees but failed to erect signs of occupancy, nor did he establish a hut. He spent much of his time away at his place of business where he ran a store. He visited the land occasionally only to make copra. Other than this, the place resembled a ghost town.
Mr Wong happened to chance upon the land, and finding no one occupying the same, purchased the property from Mr. Giger. Thereupon, he obtained a TCT, established a hut, populated the place with laborers and fenced the property.

Mr. Mercado returned to the property and was dismayed to find his land occupied. He had the incident blottered and filed for forcible entry against Mr. Wong. He also demanded rentals. Unfortunately, the MTC ruled in favor of Mr. Wong, stating that the latter was in open, actual, prior and continuous possession. On appeal, the CFI reversed and ruled for Mr. Mercado stating that he had taken possession of the property much earlier and that Mr. Wong is the actual intruder. Mr. Wong took the case to the CA which ruled against him.
(interesting note: Wong says Mercado was a mere laborer who was tolerated to gather fruits. How thick faced is that?)

ISSUE:

Whether or not Mercado was the real owner

HELD:Yes.

Art. 135 provides that “possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities for acquiring such right."

The law and jurisprudence indicate that the execution of a sale thru a public instrument shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing, unless there is stipulation to the contrary . But there’s a catch. Even if there exists the execution of the instrument, the purchaser cannot have the enjoyment and material tenancy of the purchased thing when such tenancy and enjoyment is opposed by another. In this case, delivery has not been effected.

It is crystal clear that possession passed from William Giger to Mercado by virtue of the first sale. This being the case, , the later sale in favor of thick-faced Wong failed to pass the possession of the property because there is an impediment — the possession exercised by respondent Mercado.
Possession cannot be recognized at the same time in two different personalities except in the cases of co-possession.

Should a question arise regarding the fact of possession, the present possessor shall be preferred; if there are two possessions, the one longer in possession, if the dates of possession are the same, the one who presents a title; and if these conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending determination of its possession or ownership through proper proceedings (Art. 538, Civil Code).
Furthermore, Wong cannot claim good faith to deny Mercado due rentals. The moment he received the complaint of forcible entry and summons, he should have been aware of defects in his title. He owes rentals from that point onwards.

SEMIRA v. CA- Forcible Entry

When the issue of possession cannot be decided independently of the question of ownership in an action for forcible entry, any pronouncement made affecting ownership is merely provisional and does not bar an action between the same parties involving title to the land.

FACTS :

Ms. Gutierez sold to Respondent Buenaventura An an 822sqm lot specifically designated by boundaries. Respondent then proceeded to occupy said lot within the boundaries.
Mr. Buenaventura got lucky with money and expanded. He subsequently purchased an adjacent lot with the size of 8,606 and another of 11,000 sqm. Not much later on, he then sold the original 822sqm lot to his nephew, Mr. Ramirez. The Deed indicated the same boundaries designated in the original sale from Gutierez to Buenaventura. Mr. Ramirez proceeded to occupy the lot according to the boundaries stated.

Seven years passed and Mr. Ramirez sold the 822 sqm lot to Mr. Semira according to the stated boundaries for a lump sum of P20,000. At this point, Mr Semira discovered that the actual size delimited by the boundaries was not 822sqm, but rather, 2200sqm. What a bonanza! Mr. Semira gleefully entered the lot according to its stated boundaries and built a rice mill.
Someone wasn’t pleased. Mr. Buenaventura, who occupied the adjacent lots, didn’t look to kindly upon the encroachment. He filed forcible entry, claiming that Mr. Semira forcibly occupied an additional 1,377 sqm. He asserts that Mr. Semira purchased an 822sqm lot, not a 2200sqm lot. The case went to court and during the pendancy of proceedings, Mr. Buenaventura obtained an OCT for the two lots surrounding that of Mr. Semira.

The MTC dismissed the forcible entry case against Mr Semira, stating that it had no jurisdiction to try cases on the issue of ownership. The RTC reversed and ruled for Buenaventura. CA affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Mr. Semira rightfully owned 2200sqm of land designated by boundaries and not the 822sqm erroneously stated on the Deed. (this is a boundary vs area quandary)

HELD:

Mr. Semira is entitled to 2200sqm designated by the boundary.

It is clear that the original “822sqm” lot was once owned by respondent Buenaventura; and that he sold same to his nephew, Cipriano Ramirez, in 1972 for the lump sum of P2,500.00. The "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" incorporated both the estimated area and the definite boundaries of the land; and, that private respondent's nephew in turn sold the lot to petitioner in 1979 with the very same boundaries mentioned in the deed of sale executed in his favor by his uncle Buenaventura An.
Petitioner Semira claims that owns the entire 2,200 square meters since it is the size of the lot he purchased as established boundaries. On the other hand, respondent Buenaventura insists that he only sold 822.5 square meters, therefore, his nephew Ramirez could not have transferred a bigger area to petitioner.

The SC sustained Mr. Semira as well as the MCTC’s decision. When land is sold for a lump sum and not on a per unit of measure or number, the boundaries of the land stated in the contract determine the effects and scope of the sale, not the area thereof. Hence, the Vendor Ramirez is obligated to deliver all the land included within the boundaries, regardless of whether the real area should be greater or smaller than that recited in the deed. The court stressed the point especially when the area is described in the vernacular as "humigit kumulang," that is, more or less.