Borromeo vs. Descallar G.R. No. 159310 February 24, 2009 Facts

BORROMEO vs. DESCALLAR to live with another woman in Danao City.
Jambrich
G.R. No. 159310 February 24, 2009 supported respondent’s sons for only two months after the
break up.
Facts:  Jambrich met petitioner Camilo F. Borromeo sometime in
 Wilhelm Jambrich, an Austrian, arrived in the Philippines 1986. Petitioner was engaged in the real estate business, he
in 1983 after he was assigned by his employer, Simmering- also built and repaired speedboats as a hobby.
Graz Panker A.G., an Austrian company, to work at a  In 1989, Jambrich purchased an engine and accessories for
project in Mindoro. his boat from petitioner, and became indebted to petitioner
 In 1984, he transferred to Cebu. There he met respondent for about P150,000.00. To pay for his debt, he sold his rights
Antonietta Opalla-Descallar, a separated mother of two and interests in the Agro-Macro properties to petitioner for
boys who was working as a waitress. He befriended P250,000, as evidenced by a "Deed of Absolute
respondent and asked her to tutor him in English. Sale/Assignment"
 Jambrich and respondent fell in love and decided to live  On 1991, when petitioner sought to register the deed of
together in a rented house in Mandaue City. Later, they assignment, but discovered that titles to the three lots have
transferred to their own house and lots at Agro-Macro been transferred in the name of respondent, and that the
Subdivision, Mandaue City. In the Contracts to Sell dated subject property has already been mortgaged.
November 18, 1985 and March 10, 1986 covering the  Petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of real property
properties, Jambrich and respondent were referred to as before the RTC of Mandaue City.
the buyers. A Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 16,
1987 was likewise issued in their favor.
 When the Deed of Absolute Sale was presented for Petitioner’s Allegations:
registration, it was refused on the ground that Jambrich  The Contracts to Sell dated November 18, 1985 and March
was an alien and could not acquire alienable lands of the 10, 1986 and the Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 16,
public domain. 1987 over the properties which identified both Jambrich and
 Consequently, Jambrich’s name was erased from the respondent as buyers do not reflect the true agreement of
document. But it could be noted that his signature the parties since respondent did not pay a single centavo of
remained on the left hand margin of page 1, beside the purchase price and was not in fact a buyer
respondent’s signature as buyer on page 3, and at the  That it was Jambrich alone who paid for the properties
bottom of page 4 which is the last page. TCT Nos. 24790, using his exclusive funds
24791 and 24792 over the properties were issued in  That Jambrich was the real and absolute owner of the
respondent’s name alone. properties
 Jambrich also formally adopted respondent’s two sons.
 However, the idyll lasted only until April 1991. By then,
respondent found a new boyfriend while Jambrich began
 That petitioner acquired absolute ownership by virtue of the of more or less ₱2,000.00 she could not even provide [for]
Deed of Absolute Sale/Assignment dated July 11, 1991 the daily needs of her family so much so that it is safe to
which Jambrich executed in his favor. conclude that she was really in financial distress when she
 Presented Jambrich as his witness and documentary met and accepted the offer of Jambrich to come and live
evidence showing the substantial salaries which Jambrich with him because that was a big financial opportunity for
received while still employed by the Austrian company, her and her children who were already abandoned by her
Simmering-Graz Panker A.G. husband.
Respondent’s Allegations: CA reversed the decision of the RTC:

 Respondent belied the allegation that she did not pay a  The title of the subject property is not in the name of
single centavo of the purchase price. On the contrary, Jambrich but in the name of defendant-appellant. Thus,
she claimed that she "solely and exclusively used her Jambrich could not have transferred a property he has no
own personal funds to defray and pay for the purchase title thereto.
price of the subject lots in question,"
 Jambrich, being an alien, was prohibited to acquire or Issue:
own real property in the Philippines. What is the effect of registration of the properties in the name of
 Presented evidence showing her alleged financial the defendant?
capacity to buy the disputed property with money from
a supposed copra business. Ruling:
Jamrich was the rightful owner of the properties. The following
RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner: additional pieces of evidence point to Jambrich as the source of
 Evidence clearly show that at the time of the purchase and fund used to purchase the three parcels of land, and to construct
acquisition of [the] properties under litigation that the house thereon:
Wilhelm Jambrich was still working and earning much.
This fact of Jambrich earning much is not only supported (1) Respondent Descallar herself affirmed under oath,
by documentary evidence but also by the admission made during her re-direct examination and during the
by the defendant Antoniet[t]a Opalla. So that, Jambrich’s proceedings for the adoption of her minor children, that
financial capacity to acquire and purchase the Jambrich was the owner of the properties in question, but
properties . . . is not disputed. that his name was deleted in the Deed of Absolute Sale
 It is highly improbable and impossible that she could because of legal constraints. Nonetheless, his signature
acquire the properties under litigation or could contribute remained in the deed of sale, where he signed as buyer.
any amount for their acquisition which according to her is
worth more than ₱700,000.00 when while she was working (2) The money used to pay the subject parcels of land in
as [a] waitress earning ₱1,000.00 a month as salary and tips installments was in postdated checks issued by Jambrich.
Respondent has never opened any account with any bank. The transfer of land from Agro-Macro Development Corporation
Receipts of the installment payments were also in the to Jambrich, who is an Austrian, would have been declared
name of Jambrich and respondent. invalid if challenged, had not Jambrich conveyed the properties to
petitioner who is a Filipino citizen. In United Church Board for
(3) In 1986-1987, respondent lived in Syria with Jambrich World Ministries v. Sebastian, the Court reiterated the consistent
and her two children for ten months, where she was ruling in a number of cases that if land is invalidly transferred to
completely under the support of Jambrich. an alien who subsequently becomes a Filipino citizen or transfers
it to a Filipino, the flaw in the original transaction is considered
(4) Jambrich executed a Last Will and Testament, where cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid. Applying
he, as owner, bequeathed the subject properties to United Church Board for World Ministries, the trial court ruled in
respondent. favor of petitioner, viz.:
Thus, Jambrich has all authority to transfer all his rights, interests [W]hile the acquisition and the purchase of (sic) Wilhelm Jambrich
and participation over the subject properties to petitioner by of the properties under litigation [were] void ab initio since [they
virtue of the Deed of Assignment he executed on July 11, 1991. were] contrary to the Constitution of the Philippines, he being a
foreigner, yet, the acquisition of these properties by plaintiff who
It is settled that registration is not a mode of acquiring is a Filipino citizen from him, has cured the flaw in the original
ownership.21 It is only a means of confirming the fact of its transaction and the title of the transferee is valid.
existence with notice to the world at large. Certificates of title are
not a source of right. The mere possession of a title does not make The rationale behind the Court’s ruling in United Church Board
one the true owner of the property. Thus, the mere fact that for World Ministries, as reiterated in subsequent cases, is this –
respondent has the titles of the disputed properties in her name since the ban on aliens is intended to preserve the nation’s land for
does not necessarily, conclusively and absolutely make her the future generations of Filipinos, that aim is achieved by making
owner. The rule on indefeasibility of title likewise does not apply lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino
to respondent. A certificate of title implies that the title is citizens by naturalization or those transfers made by aliens to
quiet,23 and that it is perfect, absolute and indefeasible. However, Filipino citizens. As the property in dispute is already in the
there are well-defined exceptions to this rule, as when the hands of a qualified person, a Filipino citizen, there would be no
transferee is not a holder in good faith and did not acquire the more public policy to be protected. The objective of the
subject properties for a valuable consideration. This is the constitutional provision to keep our lands in Filipino hands has
situation in the instant case. Respondent did not contribute a been achieved.
single centavo in the acquisition of the properties. She had no
income of her own at that time, nor did she have any savings. She
and her two sons were then fully supported by Jambrich.

Borromeo vs. Descallar G.R. No. 159310 February 24, 2009 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Borromeo vs. Descallar G.R. No. 159310 February 24, 2009 Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Borromeo vs. Descallar G.R. No. 159310 February 24, 2009 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BORROMEO vs. DESCALLAR to live with another woman in Danao City.

Respondent’s Allegations: CA reversed the decision of the RTC:

You might also like