Case Digest (G.R. No. 202805)
Facts:
The case involves Rosario Banguis-Tambuyat (petitioner) and Wenifreda Balcom-Tambuyat (respondent). The events leading to the case began with the marriage of Adriano M. Tambuyat (Adriano) and Wenifreda on September 16, 1965. During their marriage, Adriano acquired several properties, including a 700-square meter parcel of land in Barangay Muzon, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, purchased on November 17, 1991. The deed of sale was signed solely by Adriano, with Banguis as a witness. However, the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-145321 was issued in the name of "ADRIANO M. TAMBUYAT married to ROSARIO E. BANGUIS." At the time, Banguis was still married to Eduardo Nolasco, a marriage that was never annulled. Adriano died intestate on June 7, 1998.
On October 18, 1999, Wenifreda filed a Petition for Cancellation of TCT T-145321 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, claiming that she was Adriano's surviving spouse and that the title was errone...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 202805)
Facts:
- Marriage of Adriano and Wenifreda: Adriano M. Tambuyat and Wenifreda Balcom-Tambuyat were married on September 16, 1965.
- Acquisition of Subject Property: During their marriage, Adriano acquired several real properties, including a 700-square meter parcel of land in Bulacan, which was purchased on November 17, 1991. The deed of sale was signed by Adriano alone, with Rosario Banguis-Tambuyat (petitioner) as one of the witnesses.
- Title Issuance: The Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) for the subject property was issued in the name of "ADRIANO M. TAMBUYAT married to ROSARIO E. BANGUIS," despite the fact that Rosario was married to Eduardo Nolasco and had never been annulled.
- Adriano’s Death and Wenifreda’s Petition: Adriano died on June 7, 1998. Wenifreda filed a petition for the cancellation of TCT T-145321, claiming that the inclusion of Rosario as Adriano’s spouse was erroneous and fraudulent.
- Rosario’s Claims: Rosario opposed the petition, alleging that she was the actual owner of the property, purchased with her personal funds, and that she cohabited with Adriano as his wife. She also claimed that she and Adriano had a son.
Issue:
- Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to cancel and correct the entry in TCT T-145321 under Section 108 of the Property Registration Decree despite Rosario’s serious objections.
- Whether the trial court erred in disregarding Rosario’s proof of ownership and possession of the subject property.
- Whether the trial court violated Article 148 of the Family Code by not recognizing Rosario’s rights as a co-owner of the property acquired during her cohabitation with Adriano.
- Whether the trial court erred in granting execution pending appeal despite the lack of good or special reasons.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied Rosario’s petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision with modifications. The court ruled that:
- The trial court had jurisdiction to resolve the objections raised by Rosario in the petition for cancellation of the title, as she freely submitted her evidence and issues for determination.
- The inclusion of Rosario’s name as Adriano’s spouse in the title was erroneous, as Wenifreda was Adriano’s lawful spouse.
- Rosario’s claims of ownership were irrelevant to the petition for cancellation, and she failed to prove her contribution to the purchase of the property.
- The trial court’s grant of execution pending appeal was not improper, as Rosario failed to oppose the motion for execution.
Ratio:
- Jurisdiction of the Trial Court: The trial court, acting as a land registration court, had jurisdiction to resolve Rosario’s objections, and a separate action was unnecessary. Rosario’s active participation in the proceedings constituted a waiver of any jurisdictional objections.
- Erroneous Entry in Title: The inclusion of Rosario’s name as Adriano’s spouse was a clerical error that could be corrected under Section 108 of the Property Registration Decree. Wenifreda, as Adriano’s lawful spouse, was entitled to have her name included in the title.
- Ownership of the Property: Rosario’s claim of ownership was unsupported by evidence. The deed of sale indicated that Adriano alone was the vendee, and Rosario failed to prove any contribution to the purchase.
- Execution Pending Appeal: The trial court’s grant of execution pending appeal was valid, as Rosario failed to oppose the motion, and the execution did not impair any rights.