Facts:
J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Teodosio Macalindong, G.R. No. L-15398, December 29, 1962, the Supreme Court En Banc, Paredes, J., writing for the Court.
Plaintiff-appellee
J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., represented by its managing partner Gregorio Araneta, Inc., sued defendant-appellant
Teodosio Macalindong in Civil Case No. Q-3303 filed on September 9, 1958 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal for recovery of possession of a parcel in the Sta. Mesa Heights Subdivision, Quezon City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1267 (37686 Rizal), alleging that the defendant had, about December 5, 1955, forcibly entered some 200 square meters of the parcel, built a house thereon, and that plaintiff suffered damages at P60.00 monthly as rental value.
Defendant answered claiming open, adverse, public, continuous and actual possession in the concept of owner by him and his predecessors since time immemorial, asserting improvements valued at P9,000, and counterclaimed for P25,000 moral and exemplary damages and P600 attorney’s fees. He offered documents showing a chain of acquisition from Graciano M. Flores (purchase June 28, 1954) to Lucia T. Teotico (April 27, 1954) back to Agustin de Torres (April 1, 1950) and ultimately to Telesforo Deudor, tying into an earlier Compromise Agreement and related CFI cases.
The trial court (CFI, Rizal) rendered judgment for the plaintiff, took judicial notice of the Torrens registration dating to an original certificate (O.C.T. No. 735, Rizal, July 8, 1914) and TCT No. 1267 (issued May 29, 1939), declared defendant had no valid right of possession or title, ordered him and those claiming under him to vacate and remove constructions, ordered payment of P30.00 monthly rents from the date of usurpation in 1955 until plaintiff’s restoration, and imposed costs. Defendant’s motion for reconsideration was denied on February 21, 1959.
The defendant appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising five principal assignments of error: that the trial court erred in (1) not holding the Torrens certificate null and void as to the disputed portion, (2) not holding the action prescribed or barred by laches, (3) not declaring him a possessor in good faith entitled to retention until reimbursed for improvements, (4) ordering him to pay renta...
(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May appellant raise for the first time on appeal that appellee’s Torrens title is null and void?
- Is appellee’s Torrens certificate of title null and void as to the disputed 200-square-meter portion?
- Is appellee’s action for recovery of possession barred by prescription or laches?
- Was appellant a builder/possessor in good faith entitled to retention of improvements and thus not liable for rents?
- Should the complaint have been dismiss...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: