Case Digest (G.R. No. 129471)
Facts:
Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Carlos Cajes, G.R. No. 129471, April 28, 2000, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns 19.4 hectares in San Miguel, Bohol. The property was originally held by Ulpiano Mumar (Tax Declaration No. 3840 since 1917) and sold in 1950 to Carlos Cajes (who thereafter obtained Tax Declarations R-1475 in 1950, R-799 in 1961, and D-2247 in 1974). Cajes occupied and cultivated the land continuously; his possession was shown by witnesses and his tax declarations.
Unknown to Cajes, Jose Alvarez secured registration in 1969 (OCT No. 546) over a large parcel that included the 19.4 hectares; Alvarez never possessed or improved the disputed portion. In 1972 Alvarez sold to spouses Gaudencio and Rosario Beduya, who were issued TCT No. 10101 and subsequently mortgaged the property to Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) as security for loans (1972 loan and a later 1978 loan). The Beduyas defaulted; after foreclosure in 1985 DBP was the highest bidder and consolidated ownership.
Separately, Cajes applied for a loan from DBP in 1978, offering the same 19.4 hectares as collateral. A DBP representative inspected and appraised the land; DBP initially released the loan but then discovered the parcel was included in TCT No. 10101, cancelled the loan and demanded payment. Cajes repaid and received a Cancellation of Mortgage dated March 18, 1981.
In April 1986 DBP reappraised the foreclosed property, discovered Cajes was occupying the 19.4 hectares, and asked him to vacate; he refused. DBP filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages in the Regional Trial Court, Tagbilaran City, Branch 1. The RTC, by decision dated August 22, 1989, declared DBP the lawful owner of the entire TCT No. 10101 parcel and ordered Cajes to vacate.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed by decision dated August 30, 1996, and held that the disputed 19.4 hectares belonged exclusively to Cajes, ordering segregation of that portion from TCT No. 10101 and reconveyance ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner DBP an innocent purchaser/mortgagee for value entitled to the protection of Section 38 (and related provisions) of Act No. 496, thus barring reconveyance to respondent Cajes?
- Is respondent Cajes's counterclaim for reconveyance barred by prescription?
- Did the decree of registration (OCT No. 546 / TCT No. 10101) in favor of Alvarez/Beduya extinguish Cajes's ownership acquired by long possessi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)