Property Digest Pool: Case Title: G.R. No: Topic: Date: Tickler
Property Digest Pool: Case Title: G.R. No: Topic: Date: Tickler
Property Digest Pool: Case Title: G.R. No: Topic: Date: Tickler
196743
Case Title: CHUA V. LO G.R. No:
04 August
Topic: Quieting of Title Date:
2019
Tickler: Excess of 600 sqm, Lot No. 505 subdivided
For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur,
namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or
interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim,
encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown
to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or
legal efficacy.
Doctrine/s:
It is fundamental that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears
therein. After the expiration of the one-year period from the issuance of the decree
of registration upon which it is based, it becomes incontrovertible.
FACTS
Case Type: Petition for Review on Certiorari
The case arose from a Complaint for Quieting of Title, Annulment of Sale, Recovery of
Possession and Damages, with Preliminary Injunction filed by petitioners spouses
Lolito Chua and Myrna Palomaria and spouses Sergio Chua and Elena Chua seeking to
(1) Quiet title over the parcel of land of land covered by TCT in the name of petitioner
Sergio Chua; (2) Annul the Deed of Sale executed by respondent Victor Lo in favor of
co-respondent Agustin Lo Realty Corporation over Lot 505-B-3; and (3) Evict the
respondents from and recover possession of Lot 505-B-3-A.
The spouses Lolito and Myrna were the owners of a parcel of coconut land (Lot 505)
in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, with an area of 21,644 sq m and covered by OCT No. P-3264. On
January 15, 1976, Myrna, with the consent of Lolito, sold to sisters Delia N. Becina
and Josefina N. Becina, a portion of Lot No. 505 with an area of 4,612 sq m. On
August 5, 1977, Lolito, with the consent of Myrna, sold to Delia and Josefina an
additional 400 sq m of Lot No. 505. All in all, Josefina and Delia acquired from the
spouses Chua a total area of 5,012 sq m as a result of these two sales.
On March 1, 1978, Lot No. 505 was subdivided into two lots: Lot No. 505-A with an
area of 14,492 sq m and Lot No. 505-B with an area of 7,152 sq m. Lot No. 505-B is
covered by TCT No. 83840 under the name of Lolito. Subsequently, Lot No. 505-B was
subdivided into three lots, namely: Lot No. 505-B-1 (1,540 sq m); Lot No. 505-B-2
General
(3,534 sq m); and Lot No. 505-B-3 (2,078 sq m). Lot No. 505-B-3 was further
Facts
subdivided into Lot No. 505-B-3-A (600 sq m) and Lot No. 505-B-3-B (1,478 sq m).
In view of the 1976 and 1977 sales in favor of Josefina and Delia, Lot No. 505-B-2
and Lot No. 505-B-3 were allotted to them. However, the spouses Lolito and Myrna
objected, claiming that Lot Nos. 505-B-2 and 505-B-3 covered a total area of 5,612 sq
m or 600 sq m more than what they sold to Josefina and Delia. The parties eventually
agreed that Lot No. 505-B-2 (3,534 sq m) be conveyed and transferred to Josefina
(wife of Agustin Lo [Agustin]), but the title to Lot No. 505-B-3 would remain in the
name of Lolito. Lot No. 505-B-3 will be further subdivided into two lots to segregate
the excess area of 600 sq m therefrom. Thus, Lot No. 505-B-3 was subdivided into Lot
No. 505-B-3-A (600 sq m) and Lot No. 505-B-3-B (1,478 sq m).
A Deed of Sale was executed whereby Lolito sold to Josefina Lot No. 505-B-2 for a
consideration of P94,180.00 where TCT No. T-101045 was issued in Josefina's
name. Lot No. 505-B-3 became TCT No. T-101046 and was registered under the
name of Lolito. Since this Lot No. 505-B-3 was subdivided into two, the other half (Lot
No. 505-B-3-A) comprising of 600 sq m was sold by Lolito to his brother, Sergio, and
is now covered by TCT No. T-114915. However, in violation of the agreement,
Josefina and her spouse Agustin forcibly occupied the whole area of Lot No. 505-
B-3, even encroaching upon Lot No. 505-B-3-A.
U.I.O.G.D.
Pool of: Bae, Escarcha, Fernandez, Lapuz, Mariano, Novales, Paghunasan, Tana
PROPERTY DIGEST POOL
A.Y. 2021 – 2022
Meanwhile, on January 23, 1987, Delia died, leaving her husband Victor Lo and
children, Nelia, Henry, Vicky, and Bernie, as heirs. On September 12, 1999, Victor
sold to Agustin Lo Realty Corporation, the entire Lot No. 505-B-3 (2,078 sq m) and
another non-existent Lot No. 505-B-4 with an area of 428 sq m. Pursuant thereto,
Agustin Lo Realty Corporation occupied the entire Lot No. 505-B-3 (A&B) and
started constructing a building thereon.
The spouses Chua demanded from them to vacate Lot No. 505-B-3-A which is the
alleged excess area consisting of 600 sq m and to remove the construction being
built thereon, but to no avail. The parties failed to reach an amicable settlement.
This prompted the spouses Chua to file the instant action.
Respondents admitted the existence of the 1976 and 1977 Deeds of Sale in favor of
Delia and Josefina. However, they claimed that prior to that or on December 30,
1975, Myrna sold to Josefina a portion of the lot containing 500 sq m. Further, they
alleged that it was the spouses Chua who caused the subdivision of Lot No. 505 into
two lots (Lot No. 505-A and Lot No. 505-B). And that on February 15, 1980 and
February 21, 1981, the spouses Chua, with bad faith, mortgaged Lot No. 505-B and
on September 23, 1983, mortgaged Lot No. 505-A-3-B, even though said lots were
already sold to them.
It was on February 25, 1984 when Lolito, with the conformity of his wife Myrna,
conveyed by way of registrable deed of sale in favor of Josefina the whole Lot No.
505-B-2 with an area of 3,534 sq m which consists of the following: (a) the 500 sq m
subject of the 1975 sale; (b) 2,506 sq m, Josefina's share in the 1976 and 1977 sale;
and (c) the 528 sq m portion which was subject of an amicable settlement between the
parties as compensation for the damages suffered by Josefina arising from the delay in
the transfer of the 500 sq m lot to her, the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH) road widening, the river easement, the disturbance caused on the portion of
Lot No. 505 sold to her, and the mortgage done by the spouses Chua (for three times)
of the said portion of lot. Josefina took possession of Lot No. 505-B-2 (now registered
in her name) together with the additional 528 sq m in the concept of an owner.
Respondents are only entitled to 5,012 sq m of Lot No. 505 as it is the only area sold to
them by virtue of the contracts to sell executed in 1976 and 1977. By virtue of the
February 25, 1984 Deed of Sale, Lot No. 505-B-2 comprising of 3,534 sq m was already
Petitioner’s
given to Josefina. If Delia (represented by her heirs) will be given Lot No. 505-B-3
Contention
comprising of 2,078 sq m, they would own a total of 5,612 sq m which is 600 sq m more
than the original 5,012 sq m sold to Josefina and Delia.
It only on February 25, 1984 when they discovered that the spouses Chua, in conspiracy
Respondent’s with Josefina and Agustin caused the execution of a Deed of Sale of a portion of Lot
Contention No. 505 with an area of 3,534 sq m (Lot No. 505-B-2) to Josefina instead of only 2,506
sq m reducing the pro-indiviso portion pertaining to Delia by 1,028 sq m.
Trial Court’s RTC rendered a Decision in favor of respondents, thereby dismissing the complaint of
Decision the petitioners.
CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC. The spouses Chua filed the instant Petition with
CA’s
this Court questioning both the ownership and possessory rights of the respondents
Decision
over Lot No. 505-B-3-A comprising of 600 sq m.
ISSUE/S
1. Whether or not petitioners are entitled to recover Lot no. 505-B-3-A containing an area
of 600 sq m allegedly representing the excess area sold to Delia and Josefina. – YES
RULING
U.I.O.G.D.
Pool of: Bae, Escarcha, Fernandez, Lapuz, Mariano, Novales, Paghunasan, Tana
PROPERTY DIGEST POOL
A.Y. 2021 – 2022
There is no doubt as to the existence of the 1976 and 1977 sale transactions between the spouses Chua
and Delia and Josefina, the subject matter of which pertains respectively to 4,612 sq m and the 400 sq m
portion of Lot No. 505. Extant on records are the Deeds of Sale dated January 15, 1976 and August 5,
1977. As seen on records, the Contract of Sale executed in February 25, 1984 was indeed an off-shoot
of the 1976 and 1977 Deeds of Sale, which we ruled to be, in reality, Contracts to Sell. This is
categorically admitted by the spouses Chua and was admitted by Josefina and Delia's heirs when they
were referring to said 1976 and 1977 sale transactions as bases of their present claims. In other words,
the February 25, 1984 Contract of Sale is not a separate transaction from the 1976 and 1977 Deeds of
Sale.
Confusion arose when the February 25, 1984 Contract of Sale was executed, which conveyed in favor of
Josefina alone Lot No. 505-B-2 with an area of 3,534 sq m. This erroneous execution of the Contract of
Sale, which was supposed to reflect the intent of the parties in the earlier "Contract to Sell" gave rise to
the parties' different and conflicting claims. As shown by records, the execution of the February 25, 1984
Contract of Sale was a result of the agreement made by all the parties which took place during the
confrontation at the office of Atty. Añonuevo. The parties came into an agreement to execute a Contract
of Sale in favor of Josefina conveying upon her Lot No. 505-B-2 with an area of 3,534 sq m. No one
from the parties disputed this agreement which they voluntarily made. Consequently, TCT No. T-101045
was issued in the name of Josefina.
By mathematical precision, the parties cannot deny that the total area delivered to Josefina and Delia was
in excess of 600 sq m. Out of the total area of 5,012 sq m, subject of the 1976 and 1977 Contracts to Sell,
what were already given by the spouses Chua were Lot No. 505-B-2 with an area of 3,534 sq m to
Josefina (by virtue of the Contract of Sale in favor of Josefina) and Lot No. 505-B-3 to Delia with an
area of 2,078 sq m (by implied acquiescence of Delia based on the parties' agreement). Adding up the
areas of the two lots that were delivered, the spouses Chua had conveyed a total of 5,612 sq m (3,534 sq
m + 2,078 sq m) or 600 sq m more of the 5,012 sq m agreed upon by the parties in their 1976 and 1977
sale transactions.
Clearly, the sale of Victor in favor of Agustin Lo Realty Corporation is in excess of the area of 600 sq
m. The heirs of Delia could only dispose of Delia's rightful share, which as per their agreement, is up to
1,478 sq m area only. This is consistent with the rule that one cannot sell what he does not own and this
rule has much force when the subject of the sale is a titled land that belongs to another person. Thus, the
Deed of Sale executed by Victor in favor of Agustin Lo Realty Corporation (which conveyed upon the
latter 2,078 sq m of the lot) should be nullified as it includes the 600 sq m portion of a land not owned
by the seller.
On this score, we rule that petitioners' action to quiet title stands on legal grounds. In an action for
quieting of title, the complainant is seeking for an adjudication that a claim of title or interest in property
adverse to the claimant is invalid, to free him from the danger of hostile claim, and to remove a cloud
upon or quiet title to land where stale or unenforceable claims or demands exist. For an action to quiet
title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant
has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the
deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to
be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.
Both requisites are present in the instant case.
No doubt the 600 sq m portion of the lot (designated as Lot No. 505-B-3-A) is covered by TCT No.
T-114915 in the name of Sergio. Clearly, Sergio has a legal title to the said portion of the disputed
lot. It is fundamental that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. After the
expiration of the one-year period from the issuance of the decree of registration upon which it is
based, it becomes incontrovertible.
Secondly, the Deed of Sale executed by Victor, conveying the entire Lot No. 505-B-2 in favor of Agustin
Lo Realty Corporation, which appears to be valid, but in fact invalid, casts a cloud on the title of Sergio.
As earlier discussed, Lot No. 505-B-2 was not entirely owned by Victor, the spouse of Delia. Hence, the
latter has no right to dispose of that said portion by virtue of the Deed of Sale. By reason of the void sale,
Agustin Lo Realty Corporation has no right, whatsoever, over the said 600 sq m portion of the lot.
Possession thereof must be returned to the registered owner, Sergio.
U.I.O.G.D.
Pool of: Bae, Escarcha, Fernandez, Lapuz, Mariano, Novales, Paghunasan, Tana
PROPERTY DIGEST POOL
A.Y. 2021 – 2022
In a last ditch attempt to show that the spouses Chua is still obligated to deliver the other half-portion of
the 5,012 sq m, subject of the sale which is 2,506 sq m in favor of Delia's heirs, respondent spouses
Josefina and Agustin claim that the 3,534 sq m subject of the February 25, 1984 Contract of Sale in favor
of Josefina comprised not only of Josefina's share (2,506 sq m or one-half of 5,012 sq m) in the lot sold
to her by the spouses Chua, but also includes the 500-sq m lot earlier sold to Josefina by Myrna in 1975
and the 528 sq m subject of an amicable settlement as compensation given by the spouses Chua for the
damages sustained by Josefina arising from the delay in the transfer of the 500-sq m lot to her, the DPWH
road widening, the river easement, the disturbance caused on the portion of Lot No. 505 sold to her, and
the mortgage done by the spouses Chua (for three times) of the said portion of lot. Thus: Lot sold to
Josefina in 1975 (500 sq m), One-half of the Lot sold to Josefina in 1976 and 1977 (2,506 sq m),
compensation for damages (528 sq m) = total area conveyed (3,534 sq m)
We do not subscribe. Their claim, while characterized with exactness, was not supported by sufficient
evidence. Quite telling is the fact that even the 1984 Contract of Sale itself does not mention of this
arrangement, where the breakdown of the 3,534 sq m, subject matter of the sale, was specifically
delineated. What was clear, from the above discussion, are the parties' admission that the 1984 Contract
of Sale was an off-shoot of the Contracts to Sell executed by the parties in 1976 and 1977 and was never
a separate contract from one another and their compromise agreement to convey the said Lot No. 505-
B-2 with an area of 3,534 sq m in favor of Josefina.
But this does not mean that we invalidate the sale by Myrna of the 500 sq m in favor of Josefina in 1975.
On the contrary, we sustain its validity and the binding force and effect of the said contract as between
the parties. Apart from the fact that said sale was well-supported by a Certification dated December 30,
1975 signed by Myrna, attesting to the sale of 500 sq m in favor of Josefina, no one from the parties
disputed its existence and genuineness. For this reason, the spouses Chua is obligated to execute a
separate contract/agreement to fortify this 1975 sale transaction and to deliver the said 500 sq m apart
from the 5,012 sq m subject matter of the 1976 and 1977 sale transactions.
We, however, cannot sustain the veracity of 528 sq m, which was allegedly subject of the amicable
settlement as compensation for the damages sustained by Josefina. Apart from respondents' bare
allegation, no other clear, concrete and convincing evidence was presented that the spouses Chua were
amenable to compensate Josefina of the damages and that they are expressly relinquishing their 528 sq
m interest in Lot No. 505.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The questioned Decision dated November 23, 2010
and the April 28, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 85892 are REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, a new one is issued, as follows:
1. Petitioners' action to quiet TCT No. T-114915 is GRANTED.
2. The Deed of Sale dated September 21, 1999 executed by Victor Lo in favor of Agustin Lo Realty
Corporation is declared NULL and VOID insofar as the 600 sq m area is concerned.
3. Agustin Lo Realty Corporation is ordered to SURRENDER POSSESSION of Lot No. 505-B-
3-A with an area of 600 sq m in favor of the estate of the deceased petitioner Sergio Chua.
4. Petitioner spouses Lolito and Myrna Chua are ordered to DELIVER in favor of Josefina Lo the
500 sq m subject of the 1975 sale transaction between Myrna Chua and Josefina Lo.
U.I.O.G.D.
Pool of: Bae, Escarcha, Fernandez, Lapuz, Mariano, Novales, Paghunasan, Tana