Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47531)
Facts:
Jose Baniqued and Bibiana Soriano v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Macaria Baniqued, et al., G.R. No. L-47531, February 20, 1984, Supreme Court First Division, Relova, J., writing for the Court.Private respondents (plaintiffs below) alleged that Julio Baniqued was the registered owner of Lot No. 19355 under OCT No. 20468 later reconstituted as Transfer Certificate of Title No. R.T. No. 224 (16849), containing 53,464 square meters. Julio executed a donation on October 23, 1923 in favor of Benedicta and Rosa Gallardo, and on June 8, 1933 executed an escritura de donacion intervivos conveying pro-indiviso portions of Lot 19355 to several children; the 1933 instrument, proved at trial, showed that only 6,234 square meters were donated to his son Jose Baniqued. After the donations, donees took possession and paid taxes, and by common agreement Jose worked the land as tenant.
Beginning in 1970 Jose refused to deliver the several shares and instead claimed the entire lot. Investigation disclosed that on September 9, 1958 Jose had petitioned the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate for TCT No. 16849, alleging loss and representing the donation as covering the entire lot; the lower court’s order directed issuance of a new owner’s duplicate, but the Register of Deeds issued TCT No. 27617 in Jose’s name alone. In 1967 petitioners mortgaged the property to Kaluyagan Rural Bank; after default the bank foreclosed and acquired the property at public auction.
On April 4, 1968 private respondents sued petitioners for annulment of TCT No. 27617, reinstatement of TCT No. R.T. No. 224 (16849), partition, and damages. Petitioners counterclaimed and asserted absolute ownership of the entire lot and long possession. The trial court on April 7, 1971 (as later amended September 9, 1971) declared the lot owned in common pro-indiviso among the donees and Jose in specified proportions, annulled TCT No. 27617, reinstated the original title and ordered procedures for issuance of new titles; it declared the bank a mortgagee in good faith, authorized redemption by the co-owners, and awarded damages and costs against Jose. The Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. No. 49713-R affirmed the trial court’s factual findings and conclusions, specifically finding that the 1958 procurement/issuance of TCT No. 27617 involved misrepresentation, fraud and at least negligence or connivance by registration authorities, and...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court proper and should it be granted to reverse the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the trial court’s factual findings?
- Did TCT No. 27617 issued in the name of Jose Baniqued validly vest ownership of the entire Lot No. 19355 in him, or was it subject to annulment for procurement by misrepresentation/fraud?
- Could petitioners successfully assert prescription or long possession to defeat the donees’ earlier donations ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)