Title
Paciente vs. Dacuycuy
Case
G.R. No. L-58319
Decision Date
Jun 29, 1982
A guardianship court upheld minors' rights to inherited land, canceling a title issued after an unauthorized sale, but invalidated a deposit order due to lack of valuation hearing.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-58319)

Facts:

  • Background of the Property and Family Relations
    • In 1972, Leonardo Homeres died, leaving behind his wife, Lilia Samson Homeres, and two minor children, Shirley and Leandro Homeres.
    • The deceased left a parcel of land known as Lot No. 3085-G in Sagkahan, Tacloban City, which was originally acquired from his father, Felizardo Homeres, and measured 1,701 square meters, with initial registration under TCT No. 12138.
  • Transactions Involving the Property
    • On September 9, 1976, Lilia S. Homeres sold Lot No. 3085-G to Conchita Dumdum for P10,000.00.
    • Shortly thereafter, on November 11, 1976, Lilia S. Homeres filed a petition for guardianship over her minor children. This petition was granted on August 9, 1977, and she took her oath as guardian on September 13, 1977.
    • On September 21, 1977, Conchita Dumdum sold the lot—which had been retitled in her name under TCT No. T-13121—to petitioner Patria Paciente for P15,000.00, prompting the issuance of TCT No. T-13238 in the petitioner’s name.
    • On December 27, 1978, the petitioner mortgaged the property to the Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation for P30,000.00.
  • Intervention by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
    • On September 12, 1980, the Acting City Register of Deeds of Tacloban City notified the court that the property, now registered in the petitioner’s name under TCT No. T-13238, was encumbered by a mortgage.
    • Responding to the notification, the court on November 14, 1980, issued an order requiring the petitioner and the bank manager to appear on January 21, 1981, to show cause why the title should not be cancelled for having been alienated without prior judicial approval.
    • When January 21, 1981 arrived, neither the petitioner nor the bank manager appeared; instead, Conchita Dumdum appeared and explained that the sale was executed without the court’s knowledge because she was unaware of the required judicial authorization for disposing of a ward’s property.
  • Subsequent Orders Issued by the Court
    • On April 24, 1981, the court issued an order directing the petitioner and Conchita Dumdum to deposit an additional P10,000.00 as further consideration for Lot No. 3085-G, deeming it a fair and reasonable price. The order warned that failure to comply by June 24, 1981, would lead to the cancellation of TCT No. T-13238, which was secured by a mortgage.
    • A motion for reconsideration regarding the order was subsequently filed by the petitioner and Conchita Dumdum but was denied by the court in its resolution dated August 21, 1981.
    • The resolution further directed the Register of Deeds of Tacloban City to cancel TCT No. T-13238 and issue a new title in favor of the present owners—assigning one-third interest each to Patria Paciente, Shirley Homeres, and Leandro Homeres—while keeping the mortgage lien intact.
  • Characteristics of the Petition
    • The petitioner sought certiorari and prohibition, challenging both the cancellation of her Torrens title and the order demanding an additional deposit.
    • The core factual contention rests on the failure to secure judicial authority for the sale of the ward’s property and the consequent actions taken by the guardianship court.

Issues:

  • Jurisdictional Authority of the Guardianship Court
    • Whether the Judicial Forum for guardianship proceedings possesses jurisdiction to cancel a Torrens title (TCT No. T-13238) and order the issuance of a new title that reflects the minors as co-owners with the petitioner.
    • Whether, given the court’s inherent limitations in guardianship proceedings, it can validly decide on the disposition of a property when its title is in question.
  • Validity and Due Process in the Issuance of Orders
    • Whether the additional deposit order of P10,000.00, issued without a proper hearing to determine the valuation of the property and an appropriate timeframe, can be considered valid.
    • Whether the petitioner’s rights to due process were violated by the unconventional procedures utilized by the guardianship court in handling the disposal of the ward’s property.
  • The Proper Forum for Determining Property Rights
    • Whether it is procedurally correct for the guardianship court (which normally handles the protection of persons under disability) to engage directly in the cancellation and reissuance of a Torrens title—a matter typically reserved for ordinary actions when title is disputed.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.