Case Digest (G.R. No. 138053)
Facts:
Cornelio M. Isaguirre v. Felicitas de Lara, G.R. No. 138053, May 31, 2000, Supreme Court Third Division, Gonzaga‑Reyes, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arises from competing claims over a portion of Lot No. 502, Guianga Cadastre. Alejandro de Lara filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application in 1942 over 2,342 sqm; after administrative reductions the subject area became 1,000 sqm. Upon Alejandro’s death his wife, Felicitas de Lara (respondent), succeeded as claimant. A two‑story residential‑commercial structure on the lot was declared for taxation under the names of respondent’s sons, Apolonio and Rodolfo de Lara.
In February 1960 respondent executed a document titled “Deed of Sale and Special Cession of Rights and Interests” selling a 250‑sqm portion (with the two‑story structure) to petitioner Cornelio M. Isaguirre for P5,000. Petitioner later filed a sales application (August 21, 1969) based on that deed; after administrative processing Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P‑11566 was issued to him on February 13, 1984. Meanwhile respondent’s sales application over the entire 1,000 sqm was likewise processed and resulted in OCT No. P‑13038 issued to her on June 19, 1989, producing overlapping titles.
Petitioner sued respondent in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Davao City, for quieting of title and damages (Civil Case No. 20124‑90). On October 19, 1992 the RTC ruled for petitioner. The Court of Appeals (CA), however, reversed on March 31, 1995 (CA G.R. CV No. 42065), holding the 1960 document to be an equitable mortgage, upholding respondent’s OCT No. P‑13038 and declaring petitioner’s OCT No. P‑11566 null and void. This Court (G.R. No. 120832) affirmed the CA decision on July 8, 1996 and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Following finality, respondent sought execution: the trial court granted a motion for execution (Aug. 18, 1997) and later granted a writ of possession (March 12, 1998), denial of reconsideration being entered May 21, 1998; a writ of possession dated June 16, 1998 and a Sheriff’s Notice to Vacate dated July 7, 1998 were served on petitioner. Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition in the CA seeking to annul the trial court’s possession orders and prayed for injunctive relief. The CA (Eighth Division; CA‑G.R. SP No. 48310) dismissed the petition and remanded the case to...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of possession in favor of respondent?
- Is petitioner, as mortgagee under the judicially declared equitable mortgage, entitled to retain possession of the property until full payment of the loan?
- Is petitioner a builder (possessor) in good faith entitled to reimbursement for useful and necessary improvements?
- Is interest on the loan due from an earlier date or only from the time the judgment declaring...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)