Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 85 views

    Galang V Reyes

    Uploaded by

    Diane ヂエン
    1) The Reyeses claimed ownership over two properties including a dried up creek bed that was formerly occupied by Marigman Creek before it changed course. However, the Galangs were issued a title over the dried creek bed by DENR. 2) The CA ruled in favor of the Reyeses, finding that as owners of the land now occupied by the new creek course, they automatically owned the abandoned old creek bed under Article 461 of the Civil Code. 3) However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the Reyeses failed to conclusively prove the old creek course, the natural abandonment, and new course as required to claim ownership under Article 461. Their claims of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Galang V Reyes

    Uploaded by

    Diane ヂエン
    85 views2 pages
    1) The Reyeses claimed ownership over two properties including a dried up creek bed that was formerly occupied by Marigman Creek before it changed course. However, the Galangs were issued a title over the dried creek bed by DENR. 2) The CA ruled in favor of the Reyeses, finding that as owners of the land now occupied by the new creek course, they automatically owned the abandoned old creek bed under Article 461 of the Civil Code. 3) However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the Reyeses failed to conclusively prove the old creek course, the natural abandonment, and new course as required to claim ownership under Article 461. Their claims of

    Original Description:

    Hhk uu uuuo

    Original Title

    Galang v Reyes

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Reyeses claimed ownership over two properties including a dried up creek bed that was formerly occupied by Marigman Creek before it changed course. However, the Galangs were issued a title over the dried creek bed by DENR. 2) The CA ruled in favor of the Reyeses, finding that as owners of the land now occupied by the new creek course, they automatically owned the abandoned old creek bed under Article 461 of the Civil Code. 3) However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the Reyeses failed to conclusively prove the old creek course, the natural abandonment, and new course as required to claim ownership under Article 461. Their claims of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    85 views2 pages

    Galang V Reyes

    Uploaded by

    Diane ヂエン
    1) The Reyeses claimed ownership over two properties including a dried up creek bed that was formerly occupied by Marigman Creek before it changed course. However, the Galangs were issued a title over the dried creek bed by DENR. 2) The CA ruled in favor of the Reyeses, finding that as owners of the land now occupied by the new creek course, they automatically owned the abandoned old creek bed under Article 461 of the Civil Code. 3) However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the Reyeses failed to conclusively prove the old creek course, the natural abandonment, and new course as required to claim ownership under Article 461. Their claims of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Sps. Galang v. Sps.

    Reyes (678 SCRA 523)

    FACTS: Conrado S. Reyes and Fe de Kastro Reyes (The Reyeses) alleged that they owned two properties: (1)
    a subdivision project known as Ponderosa Heights Subdivision (Ponderosa), and (2) an adjoining property
    covered by TCT No. 185252, with an area of 1,201 sq.m.; that the properties were separated by the
    Marigman Creek, which dried up sometime in 1980 when it changed its course and passed through
    Ponderosa; that spouses Crispin and Caridad Galang (The Galangs), by employing manipulation and fraud,
    were able to obtain a certificate of title over the dried up creek bed from (DENR), through its Provincial
    Office (PENRO); that, specifically, the property was denominated as Lot 5735, Cad 29 Ext., Case-1, with an
    area of 1,573 sq.m. covered by OCT No. P-928; that they discovered the existence of the certificate of title in
    through their caretaker, Federico Enteroso (Enteroso); that prior to such discovery, Enteroso applied for the
    titling of the property, as he had been occupying it since 1968 and had built his house on it; that, later, Enteroso
    requested the Reyeses to continue the application because of financial constraints on his part; that they
    continued the application, but later learned that the application papers were lost in the Assessor’s Office; and
    that as the owners of the land where the new course of water passed, they are entitled to the ownership of the
    property to compensate them for the loss of the land being occupied by the new creek.

    The Galangs in their Answer7 denied that the land subject of the complaint was part of a creek and countered
    that OCT No. P-928 was issued to them after they had complied with the free patent requirements of the
    DENR, through the PENRO; that they and their predecessor-in-interest had been in possession, occupation,
    cultivation, and ownership of the land for quite some time; that the property described under TCT No. 185252
    belonged to Apolonio Galang, their predecessor-in-interest, under OCT No. 3991; that the property was
    transferred in the names of the Reyeses through falsified document; that assuming ex gratia argumenti that the
    creek had indeed changed its course and passed through Ponderosa, the Reyeses had already claimed for
    themselves the portion of the dried creek which adjoined and co-existed with their property; that Enteroso was
    able to occupy a portion of their land by means of force, coercion, machinations, and stealth in 1981; that such
    unlawful entry was then the subject of an Accion Publiciana before the RTC of Antipolo City (Branch 72); and
    that at the time of the filing of the Complaint, the matter was still subject of an appeal before the CA, under CA-
    G.R. CV No. 53509.

    On September 1997, the Reyeses filed a case for the annulment of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-928
    against spouses the Galangs with the RTC Antipolo. In its Decision, the RTC dismissed the complaint for lack
    of cause of action and for being an erroneous remedy. The RTC stated that a title issued upon a patent may be
    annulled only on grounds of actual and intrinsic fraud, which much consist of an intentional omission of fact
    required by law to be stated in the application or willful statement of a claim against the truth. The RTC added
    since the land was presumably public land, only the State can institute an action for the annulment of the title
    covering it.

    On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision and ordered the cancellation of OCT No. P-928
    and the reconveyance of the land to the Reyeses. The CA found that the Reyeses had proven by
    preponderance of evidence that the subject land was a portion of the creek bed that was abandoned through
    the natural change in the course of the water, which had now traversed a portion of Ponderosa. As owners of
    the land occupied by the new course of the creek, the Reyeses had become the owners of the abandoned
    creek bed ipso facto. Inasmuch as the subject land had become private, a free patent issued over it was null
    and void and produced no legal effect whatsoever. The Galangs moved for a reconsideration, but their motion
    was denied in a Resolution dated October 6, 2008.

    ISSUES: Whether or not the CA’s decision which deviated from the findings of fact of the Trial Court and
    applying Art. 420 in relation of Art. 461 of the NCC can be sustained.
    RULING: The CA decision in applying Art. 420 in relation to Article 461 is correct, but it cannot be sustained.
    Article 461 of the NCC provides that “River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the
    course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion
    to the area lost. However, the owners of the lands adjoining the old bed shall have the right to acquire the same
    by paying the value thereof, which value shall not exceed the value of the area occupied by the new bed”. If
    such property was the former bed of a creek that changed its course and passed through the property of the
    claimant, then, pursuant to Article 461, the ownership of the old bed left to dry by the change of course
    was automatically acquired by the claimant by clear and convincing evidence. Before reaching such
    conclusion, the claimant must prove three key elements that the creek indeed changed its course without
    artificial or man-made intervention. These are: (1) the old course of the creek, (2) the new course of the creek,
    and (3) the change of course of the creek from the old location to the new location by natural occurrence. In
    this regard, the Reyeses failed to adduce indubitable evidence to prove the old course, its natural
    abandonment and the new course. It is not clear whether or not the Marigman Creek dried-up naturally
    back in 1980. Neither did private respondents submit any findings or report from the Bureau of Lands or the
    DENR Regional Executive Director, who has the jurisdiction over the subject lot, regarding the nature of
    change in the course of the creek’s waters. Worse, what is even uncertain in the present case is the exact
    location of the subject matter of dispute. This is evident from the RTC’s decision which failed to specify which
    portion of the land is actually being disputed by the contending parties. Since the propriety of the remedy taken
    by private respondents in the trial court and their legal personality to file the aforesaid action depends on
    whether or not the litigated property in the present case still forms part of the public domain, or had already
    been converted into a private land, the identification of the actual portion of the land subject of the controversy
    becomes necessary and indispensable in deciding the issues herein involved. Moreover, during cross-
    examination, Conrado S. Reyes admitted that the plan surveyed for Fe de Castro Reyes and Jose de Castro,
    was prepared by a geodetic engineer without conducting an actual survey on the ground:

    The conflicting claims here are (1) the title of the Galangs issued by the DENR, through the PENRO, and (2)
    the claim of the Reyeses, based on unsubstantiated testimony, that the land in question is the former bed of a
    dried up creek. As between these two claims, this Court is inclined to decide in favor of the Galangs who hold a
    valid and subsisting title to the property which, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court presumes
    to have been issued by the PENRO in the regular performance of its official duty.

    The bottom line here is that, fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation of patent and annulment
    of title, should never be presumed, but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, with mere
    preponderance of evidence not being adequate. Fraud is a question of fact which must be proved. 22

    In this case, the allegations of fraud were never proven. There was no evidence at all specifically showing
    actual fraud or misrepresentation. Thus, the Court cannot sustain the findings of the CA.

    Hence, the petition is granted. The finding of the CA is reversed and set aside. The case in the RTC is
    dismissed for lack of merit.

    You might also like