Scribd
Upload
31 views3 pages

DIGEST Leyson vs. Bontuyan

Uploaded by

Michael James Duazo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
31 views3 pages

DIGEST Leyson vs. Bontuyan

Uploaded by

Michael James Duazo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

12/4/24, 8:46 PM Leyson vs.

Bontuyan

Title
Leyson vs. Bontuyan

Case Decision Date


G.R. No. 156357 Feb 18, 2005

In a dispute over land ownership, the court rules in favor of the Leyson heirs, nullifying
the certificate of title issued to the respondents and ordering new titles to be issued in
favor of the Leyson heirs.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 156357)


Comprehensive

Facts:
The case involves a land ownership dispute between the heirs of Lourdes Leyson and
the Bontuyan family.
The land in question is located in Barangay Adlawon, Mabolo, Cebu City.
Originally owned by Calixto Gabud, the property was divided into two parcels due to a
provincial road construction.
Gabud sold the property to Protacio Tabal in 1948, who then sold it to Simeon Noval in
1959.
Noval, married to Vivencia Bontuyan, sold the property to Lourdes Leyson in 1968.
Despite this sale, Gregorio Bontuyan, Vivencia's father, applied for a free patent over
the property in 1968, falsely claiming it was public land and unoccupied.
Gregorio secured Free Patent No. 510463 and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-
1619 in 1974.
Gregorio sold the property to his son, Naciansino Bontuyan, in 1976 and again in 1980.
The Bontuyans mortgaged the property to the Development Bank of the Philippines
(DBP) and later redeemed it in 1989.
Upon returning from the United States, the Bontuyans found tenants installed by
Gabriel Leyson, one of Lourdes Leyson's children, on the property.
The Bontuyans filed a complaint for quieting of title and damages against Gabriel
Leyson in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City.
The RTC ruled in favor of the Leyson heirs, declaring them the true owners and
nullifying the titles issued to the Bontuyans.
The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC's decision, declaring the Leyson heirs as
owners of Lot No. 13273 and the Bontuyans as owners of Lot No. 17150.
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/leyson-v-bontuyan?q=156357 1/3
12/4/24, 8:46 PM Leyson vs. Bontuyan

The Leyson heirs filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

Issue:
1. Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the nullity or validity of OCT No. 0-1619
cannot be ruled upon in the proceedings brought by the respondents for the quieting of
their title?
2. Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the petitioners' answer with counterclaim,
praying for the cancellation of the plaintiffs' Torrens Certificate, is a mere collateral
attack on the title?
3. Did the Court of Appeals err in modifying the RTC's decision by declaring the
respondents as owners of Lot No. 17150 despite affirming the trial court's findings of
fraud by Gregorio Bontuyan?
4. Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the reconveyance of title of Lot No. 17150 in
favor of the petitioners had prescribed?
5. Did the Court of Appeals err in not granting attorney's fees and appearance fees despite
the respondents' fraud in acquiring title over the subject properties?

Ruling:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that the CA erred in not nullifying OCT No. 0-1619 and TCT
No. 1392 and ordering the respondents to reconvey the property covered by the said
title to the petitioners.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the CA erred in holding that the petitioners'
counterclaim constituted a collateral attack on the title.
3. The Supreme Court ruled that the CA erred in modifying the RTC's decision by
declaring the respondents as owners of Lot No. 17150.
4. The Supreme Court ruled that the CA erred in holding that the action for reconveyance
had prescribed.
5. The Supreme Court ruled that the award of attorney's fees and appearance fees to the
petitioners was proper.

Ratio:
1. The Supreme Court found that the respondents failed to prove their claim of
ownership over Lot No. 17150. The evidence showed that the property was sold to
Lourdes Leyson in 1968, and Gregorio Bontuyan fraudulently secured a free patent and
title over the property. The respondents could not have acquired the property in good
faith as they were aware of the sale to Lourdes Leyson.
2. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' counterclaim in their answer to the
complaint constituted a direct attack on the validity of OCT No. 0-1619. A counterclaim

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/leyson-v-bontuyan?q=156357 2/3
12/4/24, 8:46 PM Leyson vs. Bontuyan

is considered a new suit and stands on the same footing as an independent action.
3. The Supreme Court found that the CA's modification of the RTC's decision was
erroneous as it failed to consider the fraudulent actions of Gregorio Bontuyan in
acquiring the title. The evidence showed that the Leyson heirs were the rightful owners
of the property.
4. The Supreme Court held that the action for reconveyance was imprescriptible as the
petitioners were in actual possession of the property. The right to seek reconveyance
does not prescribe when the claimant is in possession of the property.
5. The Supreme Court affirmed the award of attorney's fees and appearance fees to the
petitioners, finding that the respondents acted in bad faith and the petitioners were
compelled to seek legal representation to defend their interests.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/leyson-v-bontuyan?q=156357 3/3

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy