5 SENTENCE SUMMARY; RELEVANT PRINCIPLES having purchased the property despite the notice of lis

pendens clearly annotated on the subject lot’s title.

1. Prudential Bank vs Panis; GR No. 50008; August 31,
1988 In a complaint for unlawful detainer, the following key
jurisdictional facts must be alleged and sufficiently
Spouses Magcale secured a loan from Prudential Ban. As established: 1) initially, possession of property by the
security, respondent spouses executed a real estate defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
mortgage, their residential building. Spouses defaulted in 2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by
their payment, the security was eventually sold in a public plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter's right of
auction. possession; 3) thereafter, the defendant remained in
possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the
A valid real estate mortgage can be constituted on the enjoyment thereof; and 4) within one year from the last
building erected on the land belonging to another. In the demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff
enumeration of properties under Article 415 of the Civil Code instituted the complaint for ejectment.
of the Philippines, this Court ruled that, "it is obvious that the
inclusion of 'building' separate and distinct from the land, in In the case at bar, the first requisite mentioned above is
said provision of law can only mean that a building is by markedly absent because Carmencita failed to clearly
itself an immovable property." allege and prove how and when the respondents entered
the subject lot and constructed a house upon it.
Thus, while it is true that a mortgage of land necessarily
includes, in the absence of stipulation of the improvements 5. Gasataya vs Mabasa; GR No. 148147; Feb 16, 2007
thereon, buildings, still a building by itself may be
mortgaged apart from the land on which it has been built. Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an intentional
Such a mortgage would be still a real estate mortgage for the deception practiced by means of misrepresentation of
building would still be considered immovable property even if material facts, which in this case was the conscious
dealt with separately and apart from the land. representation by petitioner's father (Sabas Gasataya)
that respondent's obligation to DBP had already been
2. Harty vs Municipality of Victoria; GR No. 5013; March settled. It is fraud to knowingly omit or conceal a fact, upon
11, 1909 which benefit is obtained, to the prejudice of another.
Consequently, fraud is a ground for reconveyance.
The subject property was formerly owned and donated by a
certain Tañedo for religious purposes. Harty argues that said An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property
property belongs to the Catholic Church while the of another without notice that some other person has a right
Municipality of Victoria claims it as property for public use. to or interest in that same property, and who pays a full and
fair price at the time of the purchase or before receiving any
The parcel of land surrounding the parish Church of Victoria notice of another person's claim. Obviously, petitioner was
was property for public use. Even assuming that the property not an innocent purchaser for value.
was originally private property, it must be assumed that the
donor waived his right thereto for the benefit of the 6. Republic vs Carrasco; GR No. 143491; Dec 6, 2006
townspeople since they have continuously enjoyed the use of
the land as a public plaza. The property thus became Carrasco was unable to sufficiently prove his possession of
property for public use. As such, it could not have been the the land sough to be registered. To begin with, Carrasco
validly donated by the town to the church. The same could failed to prove that Norberto Mingao, from whom he allegedly
not likewise be acquired by prescription. derived his title, was the owner of the subject and and hence
can transmit rights over the same in his favor. Hence, since
3. Flancia vs CA; GR No. 146997; April 26, 2005 Mingao's possession and ownership of the subject land were
not sufficiently proven, Mingao himself cannot validly transmit
Petitioners purchased, by virtue of a contract, from Oakland his rights over the land in respondent's favor.
corporation, a parcel of land. Sometime after, petitioners
received a notice foreclosing the mortgage. It turns out that In sum, the respondent could not have acquired an
the corporation mortgaged to Genato 2 parcels of land, imperfect title to the land in question because he has not
including the petitioner’s property, for unpaid loans. proved possession openly, continuously and adversely
in the concept of an owner since June 12, 1945, the
When the subject property was mortgaged to respondent, period of possession required by law. At best, he can only
Genato, what was in effect between Oakland Corporation and prove possession since 1990, the date which he admitted to
Spouses Flancia was only a contract to sell, and not a have taken possession of the subject parcel of land from
contract of sale. Thus, Oakland retained absolute ownership Mingao.
over the subject property. Because Oakland retained all the
rights as owner of the property, it was entitled absolutely to 7. Spouses Del Campo vs Abesia; GR No. L-49219; April
mortgage it to Genato. Hence, the mortage was valid. 15, 1988
Moreover, Genato’s registered mortgage was superior to
Spouses’ contract to sell. The trial court, in this case, correctly held that Article 448 of
the Civil Code cannot apply where a co-owner builds, plants
4. Suarez vs Emboy; GR No. 187994; March 12, 2014 or sows on the land owned in common for then he did not
build, plant or sow upon land that exclusively belongs to
Respondents argue that they have been occupying the another but of which he is a co-owner. The co-owner is not a
subject lot in the concept of owner for several decades. third person under the circumstances, and the situation is
Carmencita, on the other hand, was a buyer in bad faith for governed by the rules of co-ownership.
 A government declaration was issued reserving a parcel of
However, when, as in this case, the co-ownership is land for development of geothermal energy. A portion of the
terminated by the partition and it appears that the house of subject lot was under an application for registration. The
defendants overlaps or occupies a portion of 5 square meters period of possession and occupancy after such proclamation
of the land pertaining to plaintiffs which the defendants could no longer be tracked in favour of the claimant. Further,
obviously built in good faith, then the provisions of Article 448 private respondent cannot tack her own possession of the
of the new Civil Code should apply. property to that of her parents because there is no evidence
that the parents ever had open, continuous, adverse, and
8. Office of the City Mayor vs Ebio; GR No. 178411; June actual possession of the lot.
23, 2010 12. Benin vs Tuason; GR No. L-26127; June 28, 1974

Alluvial deposits along the banks of a creek do not form The purpose of the new publication is to give notice to all
part of the public domain as the alluvial property persons concerned regarding the amended application.
automatically belongs to the owner of the estate to which Without a new publication the registration court cannot
it may have been added. The only restriction provided for by acquire jurisdiction over the area or parcel of land that is
law is that the owner of the adjoining property must register added to the area covered by the original application,
the same under the Torrens system; otherwise, the alluvial and the decision of the registration court would be a
property may be subject to acquisition through prescription by nullity insofar as the decision concerns the newly
third persons. included land.

That for more than 30 years, neither Guaranteed Homes, The reason is because without a new publication, the law is
Inc. nor the local government of Parañaque in its infringed with respect to the publicity that is required in
corporate or private capacity sought to register the registration proceedings, and third parties who have not had
accreted portion. Undoubtedly, respondents are deemed to the opportunity to present their claim might be prejudiced in
have acquired ownership over the subject property through their rights because of failure of notice.
prescription. Respondents can assert such right despite the
fact that they have yet to register their title over the said lot. But if the amendment consists in the exclusion of a
portion of the area covered by the original application
and the original plan as previously published, a new
9. Heirs of Cabal vs Spouses Cabal; GR No. 153625; July publication is not necessary. In the latter case, the
31, 2006 jurisdiction of the court over the remaining area is not
affected by the failure of a new publication.
Marcelino is one of the heirs of Marcelo Cabal, who was
allowed by the latter to build his house on subject lot. When
Marcelo’s heirs extra-judicially settled among themselves the 13. Corporation vs Treyes; GR No. 170916; April 27, 2007
estate of Marcelo, it was reavealed that Marcelino had
occupied and built his house not on his lot but on respodents’ Respondent allegedly harvested several marine products and
lot, Spouses Cabal. ransacked petitioners’ chapel, prompting the latter to file an
independent action for damages during the pendency of the
Marcelino has been in possession of the disputed lot forcible entry and detainer cases.
since then with the knowledge of his co-heirs, such that
even before his father died in 1954, when the co-ownership The recoverable damages in forcible entry and detainer
was created, his inheritance or share in the co-ownership cases thus refer to "rents" or "the reasonable compensation
was already particularly designated or physically segregated. for the use and occupation of the premises" or "fair rental
value of the property" and attorney's fees and costs.
However, in the present case, petitioners claim for
10. Vda De Alberto vs CA; GR No. L-29759; May 18, 1989 damages have no direct relation to their loss of
possession of the premises.
As a general rule, the action for partition among co-owners
does not prescribe so long as the co-ownership is expressly
or impliedly recognized. The said rule does not apply in the 14. Republic vs CA; GR No. 108926; July 12, 1996
case at bar because private respondent (Antonio Alberto,
Jr.) was never recognized as a co-heir either expressly or Private respondent, Democrito Plaza acquired the subject
impliedly. property from the Heirs of Alhambra, took possession, paid
the taxes and declared the Tax Declarations in his name.
Moreover, private respodent’s action for recovery of property However, the President then issued Proclamation No. 679
is barred by prescription. The Court found no explanation withdrawing the subject property from sale and reserved the
for the surprising delay in the filing of the complaint, same for slum improvement and disposition of the NHA in
allowing more than 10 years to elapse from the death of coordination with the DENR – NCR.
Alberto, Sr. The negligence or omission to assert a right
within a reasonbale time, warrants a presumption that the The court ruled that there is clear and convincing evidence
party entitled to assert it etiher has abandoned it or declined that the appellee has established possession over the land
to assert it. for 30 years. His bona fide claim of ownership is evidenced
by the tax payment receipts, deed of sale, tax declaration,
improvements made on the land and developing it into a rice
11. Republic vs Jacob; GR No 146874; July 20, 2006 field.

15. Moralidad vs Pernes; GR No. 152809; August 3, 2006

Petitioner initially bought a parcel of land in Davao for her
family to transfer and be safe from NPA rebels but also
wanted the property to be available for her upon her
retirement. However, relations soured between Moralidad
and respondents, Pernes family, prompting her to file an
unlawful detainer suit against the latter. The document in dispute is a donation mortis causa because
The written letter by the petitioner to the defendants, it the spouses were aware of the difference between the two
created the usufruct between the parties. What was donations, and they needed to execute another deed of
constituted between the parties herein is one of usufruct over donation inter vivos.
a piece of land, with the petitioner being the owner of the
property upon whom the naked title thereto remained and the Acceptance is a requirement for donations inter vivos.
respondents being 2 among other unnamed usufructuaries’ Donations mortis causa, being in the form of a will, are
who were simply referred to as petitioner’s kin. not required to be accepted by the donees during the
donors' lifetime.
From the pleadings submitted by the parties, it is indubitable
that there were indeed facts and circumstances whereby the 18. Cariño vs Abaya; GR No. 46706; June 26, 1940
subject usufruct may be deemed terminated or extinguished
by the occurrence of the resolutory conditions provided for in Gray sisters, Petrona and Dorotea, both died intestate
the title creating the usufruct. without either descendants and ascendants and assigned
Miguel Cariño to administer their properties. Thereafter, Jose
Thus, the Court rules that the continuing animosity between Cariño prayed to be appointed as an administrator of the
the petitioner and the Pernes family and the violence and estate of the Gray sisters. Father Abaya opposed, stating the
humiliation she was made to endure, despite her advanced document was neither a donation inter vivos nor a will, but a
age and frail condition, are enough factual bases to consider void donation mortis causa.
the usufruct as having been terminated.
Donations which are to become effective upon the death of
16. Hidalgo Enterprises Inc vs Balandan; GR No. L-3422; the donor partake of the nature of disposals of property by
June 13, 1952 will and shall be governed by the rules established for
testamentary successions. Accordingly, said donations can
Petitioner was the owner of an Ice plant, who had in their only be made with the formalities of a will. As the document
premises 2 tanks filled of water, 9 feet deep. The factory was was not executed in conformity with the provisions of section
fenced but Ingress and egress was easily made because the 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, conspicuously for lack of
gates were always open and there was no guard assigned in attestation clause and marginal signatures, we are
the said gate. constrained to hold that the same cannot be accorded any
force and effect.
One day when Mario (respondent’s son) was playing with his
friend, they saw the tank inside the factory and began playing 19. JLT Agro Inc vs Balansag; GR No. 141882; March 11,
and swimming inside it. While bathing, Mario sank to the 2005
bottom of the tank, and fished out later, having died of
‘asphyxia secondary to drowning.’ The lower decided in the Don Julian contracted two marriages. He had two children
favor of the parents saying that the petitioner is liable for with the first wife Antonia and 4 children on the second wife
damages due to the doctrine of attractive nuisance. Milagros. The present controversy involves a parcel of land
which was originally registered in the name of Don Julian and
A water tank is NOT an instrumentality or appliance Antonia. Don Julian married Milagros without partitioning the
considered as an attractive nuisance. The great majority of properties in his first marriage. To avoid conflict, the parties
American decisions say no. There are numerous cases in entered into a Compromise Agreement which embodied the
which the attractive nuisance doctrine has not been held to partition of all the properties of Don Julian. The above parcel
be applicable to ponds or reservoirs, pools of water, streams, of land was included to be the share of Milagros and her
canals, dams, ditches, culverts, drains, cesspools or sewer children. Milagros took possession of the said property which
pools. was subsequently sold to respondents herein. Respondents,
upon registering the said land discovers that the title to the
17. Gestopa vs CA; GR No. 111904; October 5, 2000 above land was on the name of Petitioner herein.

Spouses Danlag own six parcels of land. To four parcels of Don Julian after the execution of the Compromise Agreement
land, they executed a donation mortis causa in favor of executed a Deed of Assignment of Assets with Assumption of
respondent Mercedes Danlag-Pilapil, reserving donor's rights Liabilities to petitioner which transfers the ownership of the
to amend, cancel, or revoke the donation and to sell or subject land in favor to the petitioner. Don Julian died
encumber such properties. intestate.

Years later, they executed another donation, this time inter Manresa defines preterition as the omission of the heir in the
vivos, to six parcels of land in favor of respondents, reserving will. In the case at bar, Don Julian did not execute a will since
their rights to the fruits of the land during their lifetime and for what he resorted to was a partition inter vivos of his
prohibiting the donee to sell or dispose the properties properties, as evidenced by the court approved Compromise
donated. Subsequently, the spouses sold 2 parcels to herein Agreement. Thus, it is premature if not irrelevant to speak of
petitioners, spouses Gestopa, and eventually revoking the preterition prior to the death of Don Julian in the absence of a
donation. Respondent filed a petition to quiet title, stating that will depriving a legal heir of his legitime. Besides, there are
she had already become the owner of the parcels of land.
other properties which the heirs from the second marriage
could inherit from Don Julian upon his death.