Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > August 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16169 August 31, 1962 - BLAS CUNANAN v. FELICIDAD LARA DE ANTEPASADO, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16169. August 31, 1962.]

BLAS CUNANAN, Petitioner, v. FELICIDAD LARA DE ANTEPASADO, ET AL., Respondents.

Moises Dalisay for Petitioner.

Quitain & Vega for Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


Petition for review of a Court of Appeals’ decision ordering cancellation of T.C.T. No. 1481 (Register of Deeds of Davao) issued in petitioner’s name and the issuance to him of another covering the same land, minus a portion of 125 square meters, which was declared property of respondents Felicidad Lara de Antepasado, Et. Al.

It appears that on October 29, 1938, Luciano Antepasado sold to Blas Cunanan, for P300.00, a portion of his registered lot in Toril, Davao City. The deed of sale (Exhibit A) described the portion sold as:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A parcel of land (Lot No. 724-B-2-B-2 B-1 of the subdivision plan Psd —, being a portion of Lot No. 724-B-2-B-2 Psd- 14271, G.L.R.O. Record No. 317) . . . the point of beginning; containing an area of ONE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN (197) SQUARE METERS more or less."cralaw virtua1aw library

Thereafter, on May 10, 1940, Felicidad Lara de Antepasado, Juliana Antepasado and Gregorio Antepasado (widow and children of the vendor, who had died in the meantime) executed a document entitled "Ratification" (Exhibit B), wherein they admitted a mutual error in that the parties to the above sale (Exhibit A) mistakenly stated the area to be approximately 197 square meters, whereas the portion of land, object of the sale, actually covered 322 square meters, which was therein described. The document further recited:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREAS, the said Luciano Antepasado, in his lifetime, on the 29th day of October, 1938, in the City of Davao, Philippines, executed a certain contract of absolute sale before Notary Public Mr. Salvador Ibarreta, Reg. Not. No. 183, Page 41, Book 1, Series of 1938;

WHEREAS, in said contract, Luciano Antepasado transferred and conveyed by way of absolute sale in favor of BLAS CUNANAN a parcel of land situated at Toril, City of Davao, Philippines, which land is more particularly described in the above mentioned contract of sale;

WHEREAS, in the said contract of sale, the parties thereto, in good faith, calculated that the land covered by the sale was approximately One Hundred Ninety Seven (197) square meters in area;

WHEREAS, by virtue of a subsequent survey made and conducted by Mr. Roman Joaquin, the land which was sold in the aforecited contract has an area of Three Hundred Twenty Two (322) square meters, more particularly described as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘A parcel of land (Lot No. 724-B-2-B-2-B-1 of the subdivision plan Psd-16525, . . .’

NOW, THEREFORE, we FELICIDAD LARA, and JULIANA and GREGORIO, surnamed ANTEPASADO, widow and children of the said LUCIANO ANTEPASADO, ratify and make it appear of record that the aforementioned contract of sale entered into between Luciano Antepasado and Blas Cunanan was one of a sale of real estate for lump sum and not at the rate of a specified price for each unit of measures; and that it was the intention and understanding between the parties thereto to sell an area of Three Hundred Twenty Two)322) square meters, more or less, as indicated above."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon presentation of Exhibits A and B to the register of deeds, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1481 was issued to Cunanan on May 20, 1940.

In December 1951, Cunanan built his house, a portion of which stood outside the are described in Exhibit A, though within the confines of Exhibit B and T.C.T. No. 1481. Aware thereof, Felicidad Lara de Antepasado, Et Al., demanded from Cunanan rentals for the use of the land (not covered by Exhibit A) on the ground that same belonged to them. Upon Cunanan’s refusal, they instituted the present action in the Court of First Instance of Davao seeking annulment of Exhibit B on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, and collection of rentals for occupancy of the land not embraced in Exhibit A.

Finding no fraud or misrepresentation, the Davao court rendered judgment for Cunanan. Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals which awarded them the disputed 125 square meters (the difference in are between the land described in Exhibit A and that delimited in Exhibit B and T.C.T. No. 1481). With respect to that portion of Cunanan’s house on the disputed — which was found to have been built in good faith — the appellate court applied Articles 448, 546 and 548 of the Civil Code.

Expressly waiving the issue of fraud or misrepresentation, the appellate court found no sufficient evidence of mutual error, and therefore held there could be no "ratification" thru Exh. B. Then it went on to hold that said Exhibit could not be regarded as a valid independent contract of transfer of the 125 sq. m. lot, inasmuch as upon execution thereof, no consideration had passed to the widow and heirs of Luciano Antepasado.

Cunanan petitioned for review here; we gave it due course mainly upon the question of prescription. He had raised it in the Davao court; he had won there. The court of Appeals, however, ruled against him notwithstanding the document Exh. B had been executed in 1940 and his possession admittedly began that year and continued up to the presentation of this action in 1952. More than eleven years.

Said appellate court applied the principle that ownership of lands registered under the Torrens system may not be acquired by prescription or ten-year adverse possession.

There is no dispute over the principle. But Cunanan did not point to the 10-year period to set title in himself over the land. He mentioned it expressly to defeat the plaintiffs’ attempt to invalidate Exh. B on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation; more than 10 years had already elapsed, he argued. He does not claim the lot on the strength of a ten-year possession. He claims it by virtue of a Torrens title in his name, and by Exh. B which plaintiffs have signed — with knowledge of its contents 1 — and which they must first annual in order to succeed. But unfortunately for them, they moved only after eleven years, i.e. very late. 2

In this connection, it may be noted that the appellate court held Exh. B to be void for lack of consideration. Yet such was not the plaintiffs’ contention in the court of first instance, wherein they specifically alleged deceit and misrepresentation. On the other hand, if as Cunanan maintains, and the document itself says so, Exh. A erroneously described the lot sold to him, and Exh. B was executed to set matters aright, it would seem correct to argue that the latter exhibit was merely a reformation of Exh. A (ratification he calls it) the consideration therefor being the original price given by the purchaser to the deceased Luciana Antepasado. Nevertheless, there is no need to pass definitely on this phase of the litigation, since it is enough to hold that the action of plaintiffs to annul the contract Exh. B — on the ground of lack of consideration — had prescribed.

It is important to repeat that Cunanan has a Torrens title regularly issued in his name, on the strength of Exh. B 3 and Exh. A. For plaintiffs to prevail, they must first annul Exh. B; but their right of action, if any, has prescribed.

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment under review is hereby reversed, and one will entered dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint with costs against them.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.

Reyes, J.B.L. and Makalintal, J., did not take part.

Endnotes:



1. Davao Court said, there was no misrepresentation; and the Court of Appeals did not reverse that finding.

2. Art. 1144, New Civil Code; sec. 43, Act 190.

3. The Davao court related:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . something in 1940 when the deed of absolute sale (Exh. A) was presented for registration by the defendant the latter was informed by the then Register of Deeds Mr. Tinio that the document could not be registered because the are in the approved plan (of subdivision) did not tally with the area indicated in the advanced technical description appearing in the original contract Exh. A.

The defendant was then instructed to secure a ratification from the widow and as well as the children of age of the deceased Luciano Antepasado, and acting on that instruction the defendant requested Felicidad Lara de Antepasado and her children, who were then of age, to execute the deed of ratification to which the plaintiffs agreed.

This corroborates Cunanan’s claim of ratification (reformation) which, by its terms, Exh. B itself confirms.




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






August-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17507 August 6, 1962 - ALFREDO FERRER, ET AL. v. ANGELES RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-14127-28 August 21, 1962 - ISIDORO M. MERCADO v. LEON C. VIARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16253 August 21, 1962 - EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD. v. CITY OF DAVAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17780 August 24, 1962 - EUGENIO NADURA v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17993 August 24, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROTACIO MANLAPAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18327 August 24, 1962 - AGUSTIN ATIENZA v. N. ALMEDA LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18460 August 24, 1962 - DY PAC & COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14034 August 30, 1962 - ACTING COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LAZARUS JOSEPH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15050 August 30, 1962 - SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC. v. FELISA RESULTAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15206 August 30, 1962 - EXEQUIEL FLORO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15662 August 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMELO VALERA

  • G.R. No. L-15988 August 30, 1962 - VICENTE GARCIA, ET AL. v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-17084 August 30, 1962 - JOSEFA DULAY v. PEDRO C. MERRERA

  • G.R. No. L-17317 August 30, 1962 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINE, INC. v. JESUS D. VILLAPANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17449 August 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZOSIMO MONTEMAYOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17595 August 30, 1962 - RAFAEL MASCARIÑAS, ETC. v. CARMELO L. PORRAS, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-17801 August 30, 1962 - LEONOR G. TAGAYUMA v. OLEGARIO LASTRILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17836 August 30, 1962 - MATEO CANITE, ET AL. v. MADRIGAL & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17890 August 30, 1962 - REINERIO TICAO, ET AL. v. ARSENIO NAÑAWA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18058 August 30, 1962 - NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION v. NARIC WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18107 August 30, 1962 - MARIA G. AGUAS, ET AL. v. PERPETUA YERRO-LLEMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18119 August 30, 1962 - PABLO S. HAMOY v. PAMBAYA BATINGOLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18177 August 30, 1962 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION v. ISABEL ACUÑA DE NEPOMUCENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14129 August 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO MANANTAN

  • G.R. No. L-15858 August 30, 1962 - DY LAM GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18428 August 30, 1962 - MARIANO G. ALMEDA, SR., ET AL. v. JESUS Y. PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18745 August 30, 1962 - JOSE T. VELASQUEZ v. PEDRO K. CORONEL, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-13081 August 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LIMACO & DE GUZMAN COMMERCIAL CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14187 August 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14401 31 August 31, 1962 - PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. RICARDO FELICIANO

  • G.R. No. L-15022 August 31, 1962 - VICENTE STO. DOMINGO BERNARDO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO B. JOSE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15121 August 31, 1962 - GREGORIO PALACIO v. FELY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-15379 August 31, 1962 - TEODORO L. URBAYAN v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15663 August 31, 1962 - ANTONIO GUISADIO v. RUBEN A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16021 August 31, 1962 - ANTONIO PORTA FERRER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-16169 August 31, 1962 - BLAS CUNANAN v. FELICIDAD LARA DE ANTEPASADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16204 and L-16256 August 31, 1962 - ERNESTO A. PAPA, ET AL. v. SEVERO J. SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. L-16449 August 31, 1962 - PAUL SCHENKER v. WILLIAM F. GEMPERLE

  • G.R. No. L-16945 August 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS L. CRISOSTOMO

  • G.R. No. L-16953 August 31, 1962 - PABLO SARNILLO, ET AL. v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17303 August 31, 1962 - ANTONIO CO PO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17311 August 31, 1962 - QUIRICO A. ABELA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17389 August 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAMERTO S. MIRANDA

  • G.R. No. L-17448 August 31, 1962 - VICENTE DICHOSO v. LEANDRO VALDEPEÑAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17464 August 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE RECOLIZADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17620 August 31, 1962 - FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17750 August 31, 1962 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INC., ET AL. v. JOSE BORJA

  • G.R. No. L-17766 August 31, 1962 - LEONARDO MADRIGAL v. CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17799 August 31, 1962 - BENVENENCIO VALENCIA, ET AL. v. CITY OF DUMAGUETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17831 August 31, 1962 - JESUS J. ANDRES v. MELECIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17849 August 31, 1962 - GREGORIO G. AGUILAR v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17897 August 31, 1962 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18040 August 31, 1962 - SANTIAGO RICE MILL, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-18055 August 31, 1962 - FELIX MORADA v. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18076 August 31, 1962 - ELEUTERIO CANEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18251 and Nos L-18252 August 31, 1962 - IRINEO SANTOS, JR., ET AL. v. JOSE P. FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18316 August 31, 1962 - RODOLFO CACHUELA v. NATALIO P. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. L-18469 August 31, 1962 - MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF BANSUD, ORIENTAL MINDORO, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18541 August 31, 1962 - DONATO IGNACIO, ET AL. v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18564 August 31, 1962 - CONSUELO T. DE CASES v. TERESITA F. PEYER

  • G.R. No. L-18695 August 31, 1962 - CIPRIANO MARTINEZ, ET AL. v. RAYMUNDO VILLACETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18836 August 31, 1962 - BENJAMIN SIA v. JAVIER T. BUENA

  • G.R. No. L-19823 August 31, 1962 - RUPERTO ADVINCULA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, ET AL.