Case Digest (G.R. No. 192450)
Facts:
Lorenzo Coloso, Jr. sold an unregistered 1,192-square-meter parcel in Alubijid, Misamis Oriental to Ramon Jamis under a notarized deed of conditional sale dated March 28, 1966; Jamis later executed a notarized deed of definite sale dated March 29, 1966 in favor of Jorge P. Tortola (Tortola). Tortola took possession, built a residential lot, planted fruit-bearing trees, and paid realty taxes; however, tax receipts generally still bore Coloso, Jr.’s name. In 1977, Tortola moved to Bukidnon and left Godofredo Villaflores as caretaker and agent, while Tortola continued asserting ownership through letters exchanged with Atty. Rene Artemio Pacana.In 1993, the heirs of Coloso, Jr. applied for a free patent, and on December 14, 1994 OCT No. P-20825 was issued to them; on October 11, 2000 they sold the same property to Santiago V. Soquillo (Soquillo). Soquillo later filed illegal detainer (Civil Case No. 245) against Villaflores in 2001 and obtained ejectment; after learning of this, T
Case Digest (G.R. No. 192450)
Facts:
- Conveyances and possession over the disputed property
- On March 28, 1966, Lorenzo Coloso, Jr. (Coloso, Jr.) sold to Ramon Jamis (Jamis) a 1,192 square meter parcel of land in Alubijid, Misamis Oriental (the disputed property).
- A notarized deed of conditional sale of an unregistered land was executed.
- On March 29, 1966, a notarized deed of definite sale was executed, reflecting that Jamis sold the disputed property to Jorge P. Tortola (Tortola).
- Tortola took possession of the disputed property, planted it with fruit-bearing trees, and built a residential lot thereon.
- Tortola paid the realty taxes due for the years 1975 to 2002, but the receipts still bore the name of Coloso, Jr., except for:
- Tax Declaration No. 942443, and
- Tax Declaration No. 026083, which bore the name of Jorge Tortola.
- In 1977, Tortola and his family moved to Bukidnon.
- Tortola left Godofredo Villaflores (Villaflores) as agent and caretaker of the disputed property.
- Letters of inquiry and Tortola’s documented claim of ownership
- Tortola received from Atty. Rene Artemio Pacana (Atty. Pacana) a letter dated March 1, 1988 informing him that Arthur Coloso (Coloso) and other heirs of Coloso, Jr. had sought legal services to recover the disputed property.
- Atty. Pacana requested Tortola to explain how he acquired the disputed property.
- In a reply letter dated March 14, 1988 to Atty. Pacana, Tortola attached a copy of the notarized deed of definite sale executed between Tortola and Jamis.
- In 1992, Atty. Pacana sent another letter reiterating prior inquiries and demanding documents to prove that Coloso, Jr. disposed the disputed property in Tortola’s favor.
- Tortola reminded Atty. Pacana of the March 14, 1988 reply and enclosed copies of the notarized deeds of conditional and definite sale executed in 1966.
- Free patent application, survey, issuance of title, and later sale to Soquillo
- On September 21, 1993, Coloso and the other heirs of Coloso, Jr. filed an application for free patent with the Office of the Community Environment and Natural Resources (CENRO) of Cagayan de Oro City to obtain a title over the disputed property.
- On July 15, 1994, a survey of the disputed property was conducted.
- The land investigator reported that the heirs of Coloso, Jr. were in possession and were cultivating the disputed property, and recommended issuance of a free patent in their favor.
- On December 14, 1994, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P20825 was issued in favor of the Heirs of Coloso, Jr.
- On October 11, 2000, the Heirs of Coloso, Jr. executed a notarized deed of absolute sale conveying the disputed property to Santiago V. Soquillo (Soquillo) (the present petitioner).
- Illegal detainer against Villaflores and consequent ejectment
- In 2001, Soquillo filed before the Muni...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Standing and cause of action
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that Tortola’s complaint stated no cause of action, including the contention that the complaint should have been filed by the State because Tortola sought cancellation of a free patent.
- Whether Tortola was the real party-in-interest for filing the action for declaration of nullity of the free patent and certificate of title.
- Purchaser in good faith and for value; effect of fraud
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that Soquillo was a purchaser in good faith and for value.
- Whether Soquillo and his predecessors-in-interest could invoke indefeasibility of title despite alleged fraud attending issuance of the free patent and title.
- Whether Soquillo’s...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)