Transcript
Borromeo v. Descallar Facts:
Wilhelm Jambrich, an Austrian, met Antonietta Descallar (respondent), a Filipina, while the former was working in the Philippines sometime in 1!"# $he two became sweetheart, and later cohabited as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage# During their cohabitation, the two ac%uired some real properties in the Philippines composed of se&eral houses and lots which the' bought bou ght from Agroacro De&elopment *orporation# $he deed of sale of said real properties were placed p laced in the name of both b oth Jambrich and Descallar as bu'ers, but were registered under the $orrens s'stem in the name of Descallar Descallar alone as Jambrich is dis%ualified to own real properties in the countr'# +t is sufficientl' established though that the funds used to bu' said properties came solel' from Jambrich, as Descallar has no sufficient source of income# After their relationship has turned sour and the two went their separate wa's, Jambrich sold his rights and interests in the Agroacro properties to *amilo orromeo (the petitioner), a Filipino, e&idenced b' a Deed of Absolute -ale.Assignment# When orromeo, the bu'er, tried to register the properties in his name, he disco&ered that it is registered in the name of Descallar, and that it has alread' been mortgaged# orromeo filed a complaint for reco&er' of real p ropert' against Descallar# Issues:
1# /a&ing established that the true bu'er of the disputed properties was the Austrian Wilhelm Jambrich, what is the effect of registration of the properties in the n ame of respondent Descallar0 # Whether the sale or assignment made b' b ' Jambrich to orromeo &alid considering that the former as alien is dis%ualified to own real properties in the Philippines0 Held:
1# $he registration of the properties in %uestion in the name of Descallar does not make her the owner of the said properties# 2+t is settled that registration is not a mode of ac%uiring ownership# +t is onl' a means of confirming the fact of its e3istence with notice to the world at large# *ertificates of title are not a source of right# $he mere possession of a title does not make one the true owner of the propert'# $hus, the mere fact that respondent has the titles of the disputed properties in her name does not necessaril', conclusi&el' and absolutel' make her the owner#4 (orromeo &s# Descallar, ibid.) ibid.) # 5i&en that aliens are dis%ualified to own real properties in the countr', 26t7herefore, in the instant case, the transfer of land from Agroacro De&elopment *orporation to Jambrich, who is an Austrian, would ha&e been declared in&alid if challenged, had not Jambrich con&e'ed the properties to petitioner who is a Filipino citi8en# citi8en# +n 9nited *hurch oard for World inistries &# -ebastian (5#:# ;o# <"=>?, arch "@, 1!!, 1 -*:A ==>), the *ourt reiterated the
consistent ruling in a number of cases that if land is in&alidl' transferred to an alien who subse%uentl' becomes a Filipino citi8en or transfers it to a Filipino, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered &alid#4
Benin v. Tuason Facts: The plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners and possessors of the three parcels of agricultural lands, described in paragraph V of the complaint, located in the barrio of La Loma (now barrio of San Jose) in the municipality (now city) of Caloocan, province of i!al, that they inherited said parcels of l and from their ancestor Si"to #enin, who in turn inherited the same from his father, $ugenio #enin% that they and their predecessors in interest had possessed these three parcels of land openly, adversely, and peacefully, cultivated the same and e"clusively en&oyed the fruits harvested therefrom% that $ugenio #enin, plaintiff's grandfather, had said parcels of land surveyed on arch and *, +-, that during the cadastral survey by the #ureau of Lands of the lands in #arrio San Jose in +-.. Si"to #enin and herein plaintiffs claim the ownership over said parcels of land% that they declared said lands for ta"ation purposes in +-/ under Ta" 0eclaration 1o2 33-% that after the outbrea4 of the last 5orld 5 ar, or sometime in +-3 and subse6uently thereafter, evacuees from anila and other places, after having secured the permission of the plaintiffs, constructed their houses thereon and paid monthly rentals to pl aintiffs2 7nly defendant J22 Tuason 8 Co2, 9nc2 was actually served with summons2 The other defendants were ordered summoned by publication in accordance with Sections +* and +: of the ules of Court2 7nly defendant J22 Tuason 8 Co2, 9nc2 appeared2 The other defendants were all declared in default2
HELD: 9t will be noted that in Civil Case 1o2 .*3+ the plaintiffs base their claim of ownership of the three parcels of land described in the complaint o n their being heirs or successors in interest of Sixto Benin who died in 19362 19362 9n Civil Case 1o2 .*33 the plaintiffs base their claim of ownership o ver the two parcels of land described in their complaint on their being the heirs and successors in interest of Bonoso Alcantara who died in 19342 19342 9n Civil Case 1o2 .*3. the plaintiffs base their claim of ownership of the one parcel of land described in their complaint on their being the heirs and successors in interest of Candido Candido Pili who died in 19312 19312 9t will be noted that in Civil Case 1o2 .*3+ the plaintiffs base their claim of ownership of the three parcels of land described in the complaint on their being heirs or successors in interest of Sixto Benin who died in 19362 19362 9n Civil Case 1o2 .*33 the plaintiffs base their claim of ownership over the two parcels of land described in their complaint on their being the heirs and successors in interest of Bonoso Alcantara who died in 19342 19342 9n Civil Case 1o2 .*3. the plaintiffs base their claim of ownership of the one parcel of land described in their complaint on their being the heirs and successors in interest of Candido Pili who died in 19312 1931 2 Therefore, that the decision of this Court, which affirmed the order of the Co urt of ;irst 9nstance of i!al dismissing the complaint of Jose
?+@*2 ), and ;ati&idad (petitioner)# (petitioner)# Francisco was sur&i&ed b' si3 children, namel' namel' respondents *larita, *larita, Florentino, Diosdado, Francisco Francisco ++, and Francisco +++, and the now deceased Arsenio, all surnamed autista# -implicio was sur&i&ed b' fi&e children, namel' namel' respondents Danilo, ue!on City Aall, including the 7ffice of the egister of 0eeds of >ue!on City, sometime in +-2 9n support of the petition, petitioners submitted the ownerIs duplicate copy of TCT 1o2 3+/+::, real estate ta" receipts, ta" decla?rations and the =lan ;LS .+* 0 covering the property2
Fpon being notified of the petition for administrative recon?stitution, private respondents (petitioners herein) filed their opposition thereto claiming that the lot covered by the title under reconstitution forms part of the land covered by their reconsti?tuted title TCT 1o2 T?33+, and alleging that TCT 1o2 3+/+:: in the name of petitionersI predeces?sors?in?interest is spurious2
ISS"E: 5hether or not irregularly issued titles can be cancelled by the L<2
Hel$: espondents levied on a portion of the
