Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > October 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17168 October 31, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. AMBROSIO CABILDO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17168. October 31, 1962.]

J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMBROSIO CABILDO, Defendant-Appellant.

Rosalio A. de Leon and, for Defendant-Appellant.

Araneta & Araneta for Plaintiff-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. EJECTMENT; POSSESSION OF LAND BY DEFENDANT WITHOUT OWNER’S KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT. — It appearing that the parcel of land which is occupied by defendant is covered by a torrens title issued in the name of plaintiff and that it was taken possession of by defendant without plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, no other conclusion can be drawn than that defendant is a usurper and so he must vacate the land.

2. TRIAL; RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE THRU A REFEREE; WHAT CONSTITUTES SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION I, RULE 34, RULES OF COURT. — There is substantial compliance with Section I, Rule 34, of the Rules of Court if, although no agreement was made previous to the delegation of authority to the court stenographer, a lawyer, to receive evidence, it appears that the trial court suggested to both parties the necessity of submitting their evidence to a referee and both, thru their counsel, consented thereto and in fact appeared before the referee, submitted evidence to him and examined and cross-examined the witnesses of both parties.

3. SALES; PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WITH KNOWLEDGE OF FLAW IN SELLER’S TITLE; PURCHASER IN BAD FAITH NOT ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR IMPROVEMENTS. — One who buys properly knowing that there is a flaw in the title of the seller is not a purchaser in good faith and cannot claim for damages relative to the improvements he may have introduced on the property.

4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS; INDEFINITE SUSPENSION OF EJECTMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT 3453 UNCONSTITUTIONAL. — If the intendment of Congress in approving Republic Act 3453 is to allow the suspension of an ejectment proceeding indefinitely even if no expropriation proceeding is started by the government, the same would be unconstitutional, for it would amount to confiscation of private property without due process in violation of the Constitution.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., a duly organized corporation, filed on June 8, 1959 before the Court of First Instance of Rizal an action seeking to eject Ambrosio Cabildo from a parcel of land situated in Quezon City. It was claimed that Cabildo sometime in July, 1950 took possession thru force of said property which is included in the certificate of title issued to plaintiff by the register of deeds of said city.

Defendant in his defense claims to be the owner of the land he is occupying having acquired it from spouses Eugenio Ealdama and Asuncion B. Ealdama sometime in February, 1955; that said spouses in turn purchased the land from spouses Manuel Jacinto and Virginia L. Jacinto by virtue of a document executed on July 29, 1954; that the spouses Jacinto in turn acquired the land from one Silvestra Galing by virtue of a document executed on August 30, 1951; that Silvestra Galing in turn purchased the land from Pedro Deudor who claims to be the owner thereof by virtue of a possessory information issued in 1893 in favor of Telesforo Deudor, his predecessor-in-interest; that in 1949, Silvestra Galing constructed in good faith a house on the land which defendant has improved after he had acquired it. Defendant asked that he be paid damages in the amount of P12,000.00 as value of the improvements he introduced on the land should the court find that the same belongs to the plaintiff.

After the reception of the evidence, the court a quo rendered decision finding that the land in question is covered by a certificate of title issued in favor of plaintiff and so it ordered defendant to vacate the same by paying plaintiff a rental of P30.00 a month from July, 1950 until its possession is restored to plaintiff.

Defendant took this case on appeal directly to this Court purely on questions of law.

The present being a direct appeal from the court a quo the facts found by it in its decision should be deemed uncontroverted. These facts are: Plaintiff is the registered owner of a parcel of land located in Quezon City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1267. Sometime in July, 1950, defendant, without plaintiff’s consent, entered into the possession of a portion of 100 sq. m. of the aforesaid parcel of land and constructed his house thereon. And as a consequence, plaintiff suffered damages in the sum of P30.00 monthly rental which defendant has failed to pay. The court also found that defendant purchased the land from one Asuncion Ealdama who in turn acquired it from Manuel Jacinto and his wife, the latter having in turn acquired it from one Silvestra Galing. Defendant introduced improvements on the land consisting of a building assessed at P7,550.00. And from the foregoing facts, the court a quo drew the conclusion that the land being covered by a certificate of title issued in the name of plaintiff its title cannot be defeated by the purchase made thereof by defendant from different persons who do not derive their title from the plaintiff. The court concluded that said transfers can not defeat the ownership of the plaintiff which is covered by a torrens title.

It appearing that the parcel of land which is occupied by defendant is covered by a torrens title issued in the name of plaintiff and that it was taken possession of by defendant without plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, no other conclusion can be drawn than that defendant is a usurper and so he must vacate the land. In this respect, we do not find error in the finding of the court a quo.

It is, however, contended that the decision of the court a quo is null and void for the reason that it was rendered not on the basis of the evidence received by the court but by one Paulino Santillan who was appointed by the court as referee to receive the evidence. And the contention of appellant is based on the plea that under Section 1 of Rule 34 the reception of the evidence by a commissioner or referee can only be delegated if the parties should so agree and here there was no such agreement. The trial court merely made the designation motu proprio.

While there was no agreement made previous to the delegation of authority to receive evidence to Atty. Paulino Santillan, a court stenographer, it appears however that the court a quo suggested to both parties the necessity of submitting their evidence to a referee and both, thru their counsel, readily gave their conformity thereto. In fact, both appeared before the referee and examined and cross-examined the witnesses of both parties. They submitted to him their evidence. There is, therefore, a substantial compliance with Section 1, Rule 34, and no harm was done to the parties, including appellant. Moreover, this procedural question is being raised for the first time in this appeal and so the objection comes too late.

Appellant complains that the trial court has failed to entertain his claim for damages relative to the improvements he had introduced on the land after having ordered his ejectment therefrom. In this we find also no error considering that appellant was found to have acted in bad faith in acquiring the property (Article 449, new Civil Code). It is undeniable that when he acquired the land from the Ealdama spouses he was expressly warned that there was a pending litigation on the property between J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. and Pedro Deudor, who appellant well knew was the predecessor-in-interest of the Ealdamas. This warning was expressed in the very deed of sale. When he acquired the property he, therefore, knew that there was a flaw in the title of the spouses from whom he was purchasing the property. He is not, therefore, a purchaser in good faith.

We are aware of Republic Act No. 2616, as amended by Republic Act 3453, which provides that upon approval of the latter Act no ejectment proceedings shall be instituted and if one has already been commenced, the same shall not be continued, in order to give time to the expropriation of the property, but we are apprehensive as to its applicability to the present case considering that the government has not so far taken any action relative to the expropriation of the Tatalon Estate. Moreover, if the intendment of Congress in approving said Republic Act 3453 is to allow the suspension of an ejectment proceeding indefinitely even if no expropriation proceeding is started by the government, the same would be unconstitutional, for it would amount to confiscation of private property without due process in violation of our Constitution. Thus, in a recent case decided by this Court, we said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"But the amendment wrought into Republic Act No. 2616 by Republic Act No. 3453 brushes aside all these requirements for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain contemplated in our Constitution. It in effect commands that no ejectment proceedings shall be instituted, or if one shall have been commenced it shall be suspended, even if no expropriation proceedings shall have been filed by the government. This is indeed confiscatory, for its necessary implication is that as long as the government refrains from an action for expropriation the owner cannot enjoy its dominical rights over the property. And if the government chooses not to take any action for expropriation indefinitely the occupant would remain in the illegal possession of the land also indefinitely. Such a situation cannot be sanctioned by this Court for it will result in a flagrant confiscation of private property without due process in violation of our Constitution. It is, therefore, imperative that we declare, as we now do, that Section 4 of Republic Act No. 3453 which prohibits the filing of an ejectment proceeding, or the continuance of one that has already been commenced, even in the absence of expropriation proceedings, offends our Constitution and, hence, is unenforceable." (Cuatico, Et. Al. v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., G. R. Nos. L-20141-42, October 31, 1962; See also J.M. Tuazon & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals Et. Al., and Republic of the Philippines v. J. M. Tuazon & Co., Inc., Et Al., G. R. Nos L-18128 and L-18672, December 26, 1961; Teresa Realty, Inc. v. State Construction & Supply Co., Et Al., 105 Phil., 353; Teresa Realty, Inc. v. Marima Blouse de Potenciano, G. R. No. L-17588, May 30, 162.)

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against Appellant.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.




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






October-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-10614 October 22, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TUAZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17474 October 25, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE V. BAGTAS

  • A.C. No. 57 October 30, 1962 - HERMENEGILDO U. ABSALUD v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-48922 October 30, 1962 - AMPARO M. VDA. DE ROYO v. N. T. DEEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12919 October 30, 1962 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS HOSPITAL v. U.S.T. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15183 October 30, 1962 - IN RE: PAULINO P. GOCHECO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO T. ESTACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15548 October 30, 1962 - JOSE KABIGTING v. ACTING DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-16096 October 30, 1962 - C. N. HODGES v. DY BUNCIO & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16174 October 30, 1962 - RUBEN O. SANGALANG v. BRIGIDA VERGARA

  • G.R. No. L-16519 October 30, 1962 - PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN, ET AL. v. PEDRO PALISOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16705 October 30, 1962 - ANTONIO E. QUEROL v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17053 October 30, 1962 - GAVINO LAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17176 October 30, 1962 - ROSENDO RALLA v. MATEO L. ALCASID, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17207 & L-17372 October 30, 1962 - U.S.T. PRESS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17399 October 30, 1962 - BONIFACIO SY PIÑERO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17530 October 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAUSIANO ENOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17570 October 30, 1962 - ROSALINA MARTINEZ v. AURELIA GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17645 October 30, 1962 - JULIANA ZAPATA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

  • G.R. No. L-17784 October 30, 1962 - MARIANO GARCHITORENA v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17822 October 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO DOMENDEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17924 October 30, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18008 October 30, 1962 - ELISEA LAPERAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18066 October 30, 1962 - JUANITA NAIRA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18068 October 30, 1962 - IN RE: ANTONIO GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18112 October 30, 1962 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA NG ALAK v. HAMILTON DISTILLERY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18216 October 30, 1962 - STOCKHOLDERS OF F. GUANZON, ET AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-18235 October 30, 1962 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. KIN SAN RICE AND CORN MILL COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18239 October 30, 1962 - CESAR ROBLES, ET AL. v. DONATO TIMARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18622 October 30, 1962 - LIM SON v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-18953 October 30, 1962 - EMILIO ARZAGA v. FRANCISCO BOBIS, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-20010 October 30, 1962 - FRANCISCO BOIX, ET AL. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13486 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN BAGSICAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13968 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO CORTEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14366 October 31, 1962 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14542 October 31, 1962 - MANUEL A. CORDERO v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14848 October 31, 1962 - COLUMBIAN ROPE COMPANY OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. TACLOBAN ASSOC. OF LABORERS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-15201 and L-15202 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPIO G. TIONGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15310 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO ABLOG

  • G.R. No. L-15605 October 31, 1962 - URSULA FRANCISCO v. JULIAN RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15983 October 31, 1962 - MAXIMO ACIERTO, ET AL. v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16587 October 31, 1962 - VICTORIA D. MIAILHE, ET AL. v. RUFINO P. HALILI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16708 October 31, 1962 - BENIGNO T. PEREZ, ET AL. v. J. ANTONIO ARANETA

  • G.R. No. L-16789 October 31, 1962 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17008 October 31, 1962 - ALLISON J. GIBBS, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17062 October 31, 1962 - MARIANO S. RAMIREZ v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17168 October 31, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. AMBROSIO CABILDO

  • G.R. No. L-17429 October 31, 1962 - GLICERIA RAMOS, ET AL. v. JULIA CARIÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17560 October 31, 1962 - VICENTE GARCIA, ET AL. v. JOSE FENOY

  • G.R. No. L-17619 October 31, 1962 - FRANCISCA GATCHALIAN v. GORGONIO PAVILIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17439 October 31, 1962 - JOSE IRA, ET AL. v. MARINA ZAFRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17760 October 31, 1962 - RAMCAR, INC. v. EUSEBIO S. MILLAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17772 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17898 October 31, 1962 - PASTOR D. AGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17914 October 31, 1962 - ROSARIO MARTIN VDA. DE MALLARI v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17991 October 31, 1962 - JOSE MA. DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18006 October 31, 1962 - IN RE: CUAKI TAN SI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18030 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESMAEL SUSUKAN

  • G.R. No. L-18078 October 31, 1962 - AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND COOPERATIVE FINANCING CORP. v. GOYENA LUMBER CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18231 October 31, 1962 - MIGUEL R. SOCCO, ET AL. v. SALVADORA G. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18253 October 31, 1962 - WENCESLAO PLAZA, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18285 October 31, 1962 - IN RE: TOMASA V. BULOS v. VICENTE TECSON

  • G.R. No. L-18338 October 31, 1962 - KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA v. RICARDO TANTONGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18379 October 31, 1962 - AMANDA V. CABIGAO v. AMADO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18588 October 31, 1962 - INES R. DE PAGES, ET AL. v. MATEO CANONOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18589 October 31, 1962 - BALDOMERO BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRA CABLAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19968-69 October 31, 1962 - ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL. v. FILOMENO B. YBAÑEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20131 October 31, 1962 - MACO STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20141-42 October 31, 1962 - JOAQUIN CUATICO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20389 October 31, 1962 - FRANCISCO B. BAUTISTA v. PRIMITIVO A. GARCIA