SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-21544             September 30, 1968

J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ATANACIO MUNAR, Defendant-Appellant.

Araneta, Mendoza & Papa for plaintiff-appellee.
Cornelio S. Ruperto for defendant-appellant.

MAKALINTAL, J.:chanrobles virtual law library

          Plaintiff corporation, the registered owner of a parcel of land known as the Sta. Mesa Heights Subdivision, located at barrio North Tatalon, Quezon City, with transfer certificate of title No. 1267, brought this action for ejectment against defendant, alleging that the latter entered illegally into the possession of a 150-square-meter-portion of said land on July 5, 1958, without its authority and consent. After defendant's motion to dismiss was denied by the Court of First Instance of Rizal, he filed an answer to the complaint, in which he set up the defense that plaintiff's Torrens title was void due to fraud, and that pursuant to the compromise agreement of 1953 between plaintiff and the Deudors (defendant's predecessor-in- interest) his occupation and enjoyment of the premises in question was valid and enforceable against plaintiff. In the compromise agreement referred to by defendant, the Deudors, who used to claim ownership of certain areas covered by plaintiff's title, relinquished their claim for certain considerations, with a reservation in favor of third parties to whom the Deudors had earlier sold possessory rights in different portions of the land to purchase the same from herein plaintiff.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

          In a decision dated January 14, 1959, the trial court, after the failure of counsel for the defendant to adduce evidence by reason of defendant's absence, rendered judgment ordering defendant to vacate the premises and to remove the house and other constructions he had placed thereon and to pay the sum of P45.00 monthly, by way of rental, with 6% interest from the time of his occupation until possession was finally restored to plaintiff, plus costs. To give defendant another opportunity to adduce evidence, the decision of January 14, 1959 was set aside and a new trial was ordered. However, on the date set for the reception of defendant's evidence he again failed to do so, and instead merely manifested his intention to buy the property in question. Accordingly, judgment was rendered reiterating the decision dated January 14, 1959.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

          Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which subsequently certified the case to this Court in view of the fact that the issues tendered are purely legal.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

          Judgment must go for the plaintiff. In J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Lumanlan, L-23497, April 26, 1968, where the same plaintiff was involved in a similar ejectment case, practically the same defenses and arguments now availed of by defendant were raised. In finding said arguments unmeritorious we said:

          ... But, as ruled by this Court in previous cases, Lumanlan (like Munar in the instant case) is now barred from assailing the decree of registration in favor of Tuason & Co., Inc.'s predecessors twenty years after its issuance (cases cited).

x x x           x x x           x x xchanrobles virtual law library

          As to Lumanlan's allegation in her counterclaim that she should be deemed a builder in good faith, a similar contention has been rejected in Tuason & Co. vs. Macalindong, L-15398, December 29, 1962, where we ruled that there being a presumptive knowledge of the Torrens Titles issued to Tuason & Co. and its predecessors- in-interest since 1914, the buyer from the Deudors (or from their transferees) cannot, in good conscience, say now that she believed her vendor had right of ownership over the lot purchased.

x x x           x x x           x x xchanrobles virtual law library

          Lumanlan had chosen to ignore the Torrens title of Tuason & Co., Inc. and relied instead upon the Deudor claim of ownership, perhaps because said course appeared to her as more advantageous; hence, she has only herself to blame for the consequences now that the Deudors' claim has been abandoned by the Deudors themselves, and can not pretend good faith.

          WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, Fernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur.
Dizon, J., took no part.
Zaldivar, J., is on leave.