Title
Cagatao vs. Almonte
Case
G.R. No. 174004
Decision Date
Oct 9, 2013
Dispute over Lot No. 5598 ownership: Cagatao claims transfer from Gatchalian via Manzulin; Fernandez Siblings hold title. SC upheld CA, denying Cagatao's petition, respecting his possession but affirming Fernandez's valid purchase.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 4277)

Petitioner and Respondents

Virgilio G. Cagatao claims ownership of the property through an alleged transfer from Delfin Manzulin, who purportedly acquired the land from Gatchalian. The respondents, specifically the Spouses Fernandez, assert ownership through their purchase of the property from Almonte and Aguilar, and subsequently from Emmaculada Carlos.

Applicable Law

The case involves pertinent provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution as well as Commonwealth Act No. 141, the Public Land Act of 1936, and the provisions regarding Torrens Titles under Presidential Decree No. 1529.

Factual Background

Cagatao initiated legal action on April 18, 1996, seeking annulment of sales and cancellation of titles pertaining to the land in question (Lot No. 5598, Pls-67), originally issued to Gatchalian. Cagatao argued that a deed of sale from Deltin Manzulin to himself existed, but the supporting documentation was lost during the Second World War. He occupied the lot and cultivated it until the Fernandez Siblings attempted to assume possession.

Proceedings at the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

The RTC, in its June 22, 2001 decision, dismissed Cagatao’s claims. It concluded that Cagatao failed to establish a lawful title to the property since Gatchalian’s transfer to Manzulin violated regulations of Commonwealth Act No. 141. Despite recognizing Cagatao’s possession, the court sided with the Fernandezes by upholding the validity of their title based on the transactions recorded by the Register of Deeds.

Court of Appeals Decision

On July 29, 2005, the Court of Appeals partially granted Cagatao's appeal by affirming the original ownership of Gatchalian but decided against Cagatao's claims of ownership due to insufficient evidence. Then, on March 9, 2006, the CA amended its previous decision, reinforcing the validity of the sale from Carlos to the Spouses Fernandez while respecting Cagatao's possession pending appropriate legal actions.

Issues Raised

Cagatao's petition raised critical legal issues, including whether the reconstituted TCT No. 12159-A should be declared void, if Gatchalian retained ownership through succession, and if the CA's amendment of its initial decision regarding the sale to the Fernandez Spouses was erroneous.

Legal Reasoning of the Court

The Supreme Court upheld the notion that TCT No. 12159-A could not be collaterally attacked, reiterating that such titles possess irrevocability and that any challenge must occur in a direct action. It underscored that Carlos was an indispensable party who was not included in the annulment proceedings, providing grounds for her title's validity and the subsequent transactions

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.