Republic v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 181435, October 2 2017, First Division, Sereno, C.J.

Parties:
Petitioner - Republic of the Philippines
Respondent- Rosario L. Nicolas

Proof of the classification, alienability and disposability of the subject property is of particular
significance in applications for the registration of land.

Respondent filed a petition for seeking for confirmation and registration of title. The Court has examined the
application for registration in this case under the legal framework of both Section 14 (1) and (2) of PD1529. What are
the requirements that need to be complied before one may be entitled to registration of property?

An applicant for registration under Section 14(1) must prove that the subject property has been classified as
alienable and disposable agricultural land by virtue of a positive act of the Executive Department.

To prove that the property is part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, applicants
must identify a positive act of the government, such as an official proclamation, declassifying inalienable public land
into disposable land for agricultural or other purposes. To sufficiently establish this positive act, they must submit (1)
a certification from the CENRO or the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO); and (2) a copy
of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of
the official records.

By express provision of the law, only private lands that have been acquired by prescription under existing
laws may be the subject of applications for registration under Section 14(2).
To establish that the land subject of the application has been converted into patrimonial property of the
State, an applicant must prove the following:
1. The subject property has been classified as agricultural land.
2. The property has been declared alienable and disposable.
3. There is an express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial, or is no
longer retained for public service or the development of national wealth.
Without the concurrence of these three conditions, the land remains part of public dominion and thus incapable of
acquisition by prescription.

Florencia Arjonillo v. Demetria Pagulayan, GR No. 196074, October 4 2017, Third Division, Martires

Parties:
Petitioner – Florencia Arjonillo
Respondent – Heirs of Demetria Pagulayan

It is fundamental that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible

Cue died intestate with no surviving descendants or ascendants but was survived by his nieces and
nephews, one of which was Florencia Arjonilla. They executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Cue, One
of the properties of the decedent include Lot 999-B-3-B. However, it is registered in the name of Demetria
Pagulayan. Some of the heirs of Cue, including Arjonillo, instituted a Civil Case for "Reivindicacion, with Partition and
Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Mandatory Injunction." They alleged that although the
property was registered in the name of Pagulayan, it was Cue who purchased it using his own funds; that being his
paramour, Pagulayan exercised undue influence on him in order to register the property exclusively in her own
name; and that the registration of the property in the name of Pagulayan is void as it is against public policy. On the
other hand, Pagulayan alleged that she acquired the property from Spouses Chua Bun Gui and Esmeralda Valdepanas
Chua. Who is the real owner of the property?

Pagulayan is the real owner of the property. The documentary and testimonial evidence on record clearly
support Pagulayan's ownership of the disputed property as reflected in TCT No. T-35506, which was issued in her
name pursuant to the aforesaid Deed of Sale." The titleholder is entitled to all the attributes of ownership,
including possession of the property. Though it has been held that placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the
Torrens system does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer be disputed, it cannot be ignored that
Arjonillo, together with her co-heirs, failed to discharge the burden of proving their claim by a preponderance of
evidence as required under the law.

Republic of the Philippines v. Metro Cebu Pacific Savings Bank and Cordova Trading Post, Inc.,
GR No. 205665, October 4 2017, Second Division, Reyes, Jr.

Parties:
Petitioner – Republic of the Philippines
Respondent – Cebu Pacific Savings Bank and Cordova Trading Post, Inc.

There must be a positive act declaring land of public domain as alienable and disposable and the
applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government.

This case involves an application for original registration of some properties. To prove open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a
bona fide claim of ownership, the respondents presented evidence such as: tax declarations as far as 1947; and
the testimony of witness, who claimed that he is a relative of Mr. Dalumpines (previous land owner) and that Mr.
Dalumpines has been in possession of the subject lot for a considerable period of time. The witness likewise
claimed that as soon as he reached the age of reason, he had already known that Mr. Dalumpines' family owned
the subject lot for a period of forty (40) years. Should the court approve respondents’ applications?

The court should deny the applications. The respondents failed to sufficiently establish that the subject
properties form part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. The well-entrenched rule is that all
lands not appearing to be clearly of private dominion presumably belong to the State. The onus to overturn, by
incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable and
disposable rests with the applicant. The applicant must prove that the Department DENR Secretary had approved
the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land
subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the
PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification
approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. These
facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable.

Pilipinas Makro, Inc., vs Coco Charcoal Philippines, Inc. and Lim Kim San, GR No. 196419,
October 4 2017, Third Division, Martires

Parties:
Petitioner – Makro
Respondent – Coco Charcoal Phils., Inc.

An express warranty is different from an implied warranty in that the former is found within the very
language of the contract while the latter is by operation of law.

Makro entered into a sale of real property with Coco Charcoal and Lim. It was found later on that a portion
of these properties were encroached upon by DPWH. Initially, Makro offered a compromise agreement in
consideration of a refund of 75% of the value of the encroached portions. Thereafter, Makro sent a final demand
letter to collect the refund of the purchase price corresponding to the area encroached upon by the road widening
project, seeking to recover P1,113,500.00 from Coco Charcoal and P1,105,000.00 from Lim. Failing to recover such,
Makro filed separate complaints against Coco Charcoal and Lim to collect the refund sought. Can Makro validly seek
for refund?

Yes. SC ruled that Makro was not guilty of bad faith. A warranty is a collateral undertaking in a sale of either
real or personal property, express or implied; that if the property sold does not possess certain incidents or qualities,
the purchaser may either consider the sale void or claim damages for breach of warranty. Thus, a warranty may
either be express or implied. Section 4 (i) of the deeds of sale is not akin to an implied warranty against eviction.
First, the deeds of sale categorically state that the sellers assure that the properties sold were free from any
encumbrances which may prevent Makro from fully and absolutely possessing the properties in question. It is
undisputed that Makro's legal counsel conducted an ocular inspection on the properties in question before the
execution of the deeds of sale and that there were noticeable works and constructions going on near them. A mere
ocular inspection could not have possibly determined the exact extent of the encroachment.
 Pilipinas Makro, Inc., v. Coco Charcoal Philippines, Inc. and Lim Kim San
GR No. 196419, October 4 2017, Third Division, Martires

Parties:
Petitioner – Florencia Arjonillo
Respondent – Heirs of Demetria Pagulayan

An express warranty is different from an implied warranty in that the former is found within the very
language of the contract while the latter is by operation of law.

Makro entered in to a sale of real property with Coco Charcoal and Lim. It was found later on that a portion
of these properties were encroached upon by DPWH. Initially, Makro offered a compromise agreement in
consideration of a refund of 75% of the value of the encroached portions. Thereafter, Makro sent a final demand
letter to collect the refund of the purchase price corresponding to the area encroached upon by the road widening
project, seeking to recover P1,113,500.00 from Coco Charcoal and P1,105,000.00 from Lim. Failing to recover such,
Makro filed separate complaints against Coco Charcoal and Lim to collect the refund sought. Can Makro validly seek
for refund?

CA opined that Makro was not entitled to a refund because it had actual knowledge of the ongoing road
widening project. SC ruled that Makro was not guilty of bad faith. A warranty is a collateral undertaking in a sale of
either real or personal property, express or implied; that if the property sold does not possess certain incidents or
qualities, the purchaser may either consider the sale void or claim damages for breach of warranty. Thus, a
warranty may either be express or implied. Section 4 (i) of the deeds of sale is not akin to an implied warranty
against eviction. First, the deeds of sale categorically state that the sellers assure that the properties sold were free
from any encumbrances which may prevent Makro from fully and absolutely possessing the properties in question.
It is undisputed that Makro's legal counsel conducted an ocular inspection on the properties in question before the
execution of the deeds of sale and that there were noticeable works and constructions going on near them.

Sps. Erwin and Marinela Santigao, et al v Northbay Knitting, Inc., GR No. 217296, October 11 2017,
Second Division, Peralta.

Parties:
Petitioners – Spouses Santiago, Sps. Manimtim, Sps. Albaran, and Cesar Odan
Respondent – Northbay Knitting, Inc. (NKI)

The only issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession of the
premises, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the party litigants.

Respondent NKI, filed a Complaint for Ejectment against petitioners. NKI averred that it is the absolute
owner of the subject property as evidenced by a TCT and supported by Tax Declarations. Moreover, petitioners, who
are the actual occupants of the said property, never paid rent but continued to possess the same upon respondent’s
mere tolerance. Despite receipt of NKI’s demand letters to vacate, petitioners refused and continued to occupy the
property. Petitioners contended that being tenants and actual occupants of the place, they have the right of first
refusal under the law. Can the MeTC take cognizance of the unlawful detainer case despite a pending case
questioning the sale of the property by the NHA to the respondent?

Yes. An ejectment suit is summary in nature and is not susceptible to circumvention by the simple expedient
of asserting ownership over the property. Where the parties to an ejectment case raise the issue of ownership, the
courts may pass upon that issue to determine who between the parties has the better right to possess the property.
However, where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to that of the possession, as in this case, adjudication of
the ownership issue is not final and binding, but merely for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession. The
adjudication of the issue of ownership is only provisional, and not a bar to an action between the same parties
involving the property.