PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

|

Search for www.chanrobles.com

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-14852     August 21, 1964

TEODOSIA NATIVIDAD and RUFINO POQUIZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. MARCELIANO NADAL, TOMAS NADAL, FILEMON NADAL and ISABELO MENDOZA, Defendants-Appellees.

R E S O L U T I O N

PADILLA, J.: chanrobles virtual law library

This is a motion for reconsideration filed by counsel for the appellants, plaintiffs in the court below, on the ground that the Court overlooked paragraph 3 of the stipulation of facts, which reads as follows: chanrobles virtual law library

That, however since 1942 the plaintiffs, on the strength of the above mentioned Certificate of Title in the name of their grandfather, took possession of said while lot 34 which is included within said title, and have since been in continuous, exclusive and adverse possession thereof as owners and have been exclusively enjoying the products therefrom up to the present, notwithstanding the opposition of the defendants.

Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It is true that the patent issued to Mariano Natividad, father of the appellant Teodosia Natividad, could not confer title to the patentee, because it was a private land registered in the name of Antonia Tamondong, which had been the subject of registration proceedings, where the Nadals had filed an opposition to the application in so far as it included a parcel of land owned by them and, after hearing, were declared owners of the lot claimed by them, numbered 34, and excluded from one of the parcels of land applied for registration by Antonia Tamondong, and the part of the parcel of land not objected to and the other parcels of land were decreed registered in the name of the applicant Antonia Tamondong. It also is true that on the back of the certificate of title No. 1633 issued to Mariano Natividad upon a patent, Lot No. 34, a parcel of land of 4 hectares, 58 ares and 27 centiares, or 56,827 sq. m., was noted to belong to Marceliano Nadal. This notation on the back of the certificate of title No. 1633, Exhibit A, does not constitute a decree of registration. It was the result of a decree entered by the Court of Land Registration before the passage of the amendatory Act No. 3621 which took effect on 5 December 1929.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The decree entered by the Court of Land Registration, affirmed by this Court, wherein Marceliano Nadal was held to be the owner of that parcel of land included in another parcel applied for by Antonia Tamondong may be likened to a judgment rendered by a court in an action for quieting title to a parcel of land. Such decree or judgment does not preclude any party from acquiring title to the parcel of land by adverse possession, pursuant to section 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Act No. 190.

Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It appearing from the stipulation of facts that Teodosia Natividad and her predecessor-in-interest had been in possession for more than ten years, they acquired title to the said parcel of land of 45,827 sq.m.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The original judgment promulgated on 30 May 1961 which affirmed the judgment appealed from is set aside and the case remanded to the Court whence it came to proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with this resolution, without pronouncement as to costs.

Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts.

Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Bengzon, C.J., Barrera and Dizon, JJ., took no part.