Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1926 > December 1926 Decisions > G.R. No. 26337 December 17, 1926 - CELSO LEDESMA v. MUN. OF ILOILO, ET AL.

049 Phil 769:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 26337. December 17, 1926. ]

CELSO LEDESMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE MUNICIPALITY OF ILOILO, CONCEPCION LOPEZ, MAXIMO M. KALAW, and wife, and JULIO LEDESMA, Defendants-Appellees.

Juan Ledesma for Appellant.

Provincial Fiscal Borromeo Veloso for the appellee municipality.

Santos & Benitez for the other appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. LAND, REGISTRATION OF, UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM. — The simple possession of a certificate of title, under the Torrens system, does not necessarily make the possessor a true owner of all the property described therein. If a person obtains title, under the Torrens system, which includes, by mistake or oversight, lands which cannot be registered under the Torrens system, he does not, by virtue of said certificate alone, become the owner of the land illegally included. The inclusion of public highways in the certificate of title, under the Torrens system, does not thereby give to the holder of such certificate said public highways.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Iloilo. Its purpose was to recover of the defendant the municipality of Iloilo the sum of P15,780 as the value of two lots Nos. 537 and 703 which, the plaintiff claimed, the defendant municipality had illegally appropriated, together with the sum of P5,000 as damages and costs. The recovery of said sums was opposed by the defendants upon the ground that the plaintiff and appellant was not and never had been the owner of said lots Nos. 537 and 703. The municipality of Iloilo contended that it had purchased said lots from Concepcion Lopez on the 9th day of March, 1925, for the purpose of widening the adjoining streets and had paid therefor the sum of P25,000. The other defendants answered the petition and supported the contention of the municipality. After hearing the evidence upon the issue presented, the Honorable Leopoldo Rovira reached the conclusion that a preponderance of the evidence supported the contention of the defendants, and rendered a judgment absolving them from all liability under the complaint, without any finding as to costs. From that judgment the plaintiff appealed.

In order that the facts in the present cause may be more clearly understood, reference to the following map may be made:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

EXHIBIT 2 OF THE DEFENDANTS

It appears from the documentary evidence found in the record that prior to the 9th day of March, 1915, Concepcion Lopez was the owner of lots 228-A, 228-B, 537, and 703 as seen in said map, and that on said 9th day of March, 1915, all of said lots constituted lot No. 228. On the 9th day of March, 1915, Concepcion Lopez sold to the City of Iloilo a part of said lot, now numbered 537 and 703 for the sum of P25,000. The City of Iloilo promised to pay to Concepcion Lopez the said sum of P25,000 within a period of ten years (Exhibit 1). On the 11th day of November 1915, after the presentation of a petition for the registration of lot 228, a certificate of title (No. 464) was issued in favor of Concepcion for said lot 228, including lots 537 and 703. The inclusion of said lots (537 and 703) in said certificate of title was evidently an error on the part of someone connected with the office of the registrar of titles under the Torrens system.

Later and on the 27th day of April, 1918, Concepcion Lopez sold to Maximo M. Kalaw and wife said lot 228, including lots 537 and 703 evidently by mistake (see transfer certificate No. 617 and Exhibits B and 6). It is said that the inclusion of said lots 537 and 703 was a mistake because Concepcion Lopez as well as Maximo M. Kalaw and wife were ignorant of the fact that said lots were included in their transfer certificate of title. Later and on the 11th day of August, 1919, Concepcion Lopez, representing Maximo M. Kalaw, sold said lots (228, 537, and 703) to Julio Ledesma, which sale was ratified by Maximo M. Kalaw and his wife on the 15th day of August, 1919 (see Exhibit D.) Later a transfer certificate of title No. 908 was issued in favor of Julio Ledesma (Exhibit H). According to the admissions of Julio Ledesma lots 537 and 703 were included by mistake.

On the 15th day of September, 1919, Julio Ledesma sold a portion of lot No. 228 to Tomas Locsin Et. Al. Later a subdivision of lot 228 was made into two lots 228-A and 228-B. Lot 228-A remained the property of Julio Ledesma (see transfer certificate of title No. 1131, Exhibit I). Said lots 537 and 703, according to said transfer certificate, remained the property of Julio Ledesma.

On the 2nd day of August, 1922, Julio Ledesma sold to the appellant herein lots Nos. 228-A, 537, and 703 (see transfer certificate 1989 in favor of Celso Ledesma, Exhibit J). Again, according to Julio Ledesma, lots 537 and 703 were included in the transfer of lot No. 228-A to Celso Ledesma by mistake.

The theory of the appellant is that, by reason of the fact that said lots 537 and 703 had been included in the registered title (title No. 464) of Concepcion Lopez in November, 1915, and Concepcion included in each succeeding transfer of title to him said lots, that he was the indisputable owner thereof, and because the City of Iloilo had appropriated said lots, that he was entitled to recover the value of said lots together with damages.

With reference to the theory of the appellant, an examination of the record shows that as early as April, 1915, said lots had been turned over by Concepcion Lopez to the City of Iloilo under a contract of sale for street purposes. That fact was well known. The said lots had been included as a part of the streets of the City of Iloilo. They had been segregated from the lot formerly owned by Concepcion Lopez. Said lots 537 and 703 had become a part of a public highway established by law. The same were therefore illegally included, ill accordance with the provisions of section 39 of Act No. 496, in the certificate of title issued to Concepcion Lopez on the 10th day of November, 1915. That fact was recognized by Concepcion Lopez as well as by each of the subsequent purchasers of said lots. The simple possession of a certificate of title, under the Torrens system, does not necessarily make the possessor a true owner of all the property described therein. If a person obtains a title, under the Torrens system, which includes by mistake or oversight land which cannot be registered under the Torrens system, he does not, by virtue of said certificate alone, become the owner of the lands illegally included. (Legarda and Prieto v. Saleeby, 31 Phil., 590.)

The inclusion of public highways in a certificate of title does not thereby necessarily give to the holder of such certificate said public highways. The appellant, therefore, even though a part of said streets (lots 537 and 703) had been included in the original certificate of title and in the subsequent transfers of title, did not become the owner of said lots and is not therefore entitled to recover their value from the City of Iloilo nor the damages prayed for.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Malcolm and Ostrand, JJ., concur in the result.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1926 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 23451 December 2, 1926 - JUAN SUMULONG v. JOSEFA MORAN

    048 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 26320 December 3, 1926 - S. W. O’BRIEN, ET AL. v. Hon. SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. 25604 December 6, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ELIGIO AMANTE, ET AL.

    049 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 26170 December 6, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. TEODORO LUCHICO

    049 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. 23871 December 7, 1926 - MUNICIPALITY OF LEMERY v. ANDRES MENDOZA, ET AL.

    048 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 24995 December 8, 1926 - EUSEBIO MACASA, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF APOLONIO GARCIA

    049 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. 25235 December 9, 1926 - LIM JULIAN v. TIBURCIO LUTERO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 23386 December 12, 1926 - MERCEDES GUSTILO, ET AL. v. HERMINIO MARAVILLA

    048 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 25963 December 14, 1926 - SUSANA GLARAGA v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE CO. OF CANADA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 737

  • G.R. No. 25976 December 16, 1926 - FRANCISCO J. GONZALES, ET AL. v. PAULINA FRANCISCO

    049 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. 24788 December 17, 1926 - FULGENCIO M. DEL CASTILLO v. RUFINO MADRILEÑA

    049 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. 25845 December 17, 1926 - PARIS MANILA PERFUME CO. v. PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO.

    049 Phil 753

  • G.R. No. 26202 December 17, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FILEMON CABIGAS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 759

  • G.R. No. 26337 December 17, 1926 - CELSO LEDESMA v. MUN. OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. 25940 December 18, 1926 - ALEJANDRA MEJICA v. PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

    049 Phil 774

  • G.R. No. 24047 December 17, 1926 - ASIA BANKING CORPORATION v. LACSON COMPANY, INC.

    048 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 23483 December 18, 1926 - ANTONIO AMATA, ET AL. v. JUANA TABLIZO, ET AL.

    048 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 23810 December 18, 1926 - CATALINO VALDERRAMA v. NORTH NEGROS SUGAR CO., INC.

    048 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 25072 December 18, 1926 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. DOMINGO LEGARDA

    048 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. 25954 December 18, 1926 - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JUAN GISBERT, ET AL.

    049 Phil 779

  • G.R. No. 25267 December 24, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIO PAMINTUAN

    049 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. 25488 December 24, 1926 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. ASUNCION MITCHEL VDA. DE SY QUIA

    049 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. 25739 December 24, 1926 - MAXIMO VIOLA, ET AL. v. VICENTA TECSON, ET AL.

    049 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. 25846 December 24, 1926 - JUAN CAMAHORT v. JUAN POSADAS

    049 Phil 811

  • G.R. No. 25950 December 24, 1926 - E. AWAD v. FILMA MERCANTILE CO., INC.

    049 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. 26483 December 24, 1926 - SMITH, BELL & CO., ET AL. v. Hon. FRANCISCO SANTAMARIA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 820

  • G.R. No. 26615 December 24, 1926 - MANUEL RODRIGUEZ v. Hon. JULIO LLORENTE, ET AL.

    049 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. 24930 December 31, 1926 - TAN PHO, ET AL. v. AMPARO NABLE JOSE

    049 Phil 828

  • G.R. No. 25694 December 31, 1926 - LEOCADIA ANGELO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. 25811 December 31, 1926 - BPI v. ULRICH FOERSTER

    049 Phil 843

  • G.R. No. 26062 December 31, 1926 - JOSE V. RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. J. R. REDFERN

    049 Phil 849

  • G.R. No. 26374 December 31, 1926 - NICANOR JACINTO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    049 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. 25853 December 31, 1926 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. v. CIPRIANO E. UNSON

    050 Phil 981

  • G.R. No. 26118 December 31, 1926 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MARIANO ESCUETA

    050 Phil 991

  • G.R. No. 23239 December 31, 1926 - FELIPE DIZON v. NICOLAS RIVERA, ET AL.

    048 Phil 996

  • G.R. No. 24003 December 31, 1926 - JULIAN SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. PEDRO SANTOS, ET AL.

    048 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 23352 December 31, 1926 - PHILIPPINE SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT CO. v. JUAN M. POIZAT, ET AL.

    048 Phil 536