Title
Heirs of Enano vs. San Pedro Cineplex Properties, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 236619
Decision Date
Apr 6, 2022
Heirs of Manuel EAano claimed ownership of a Laguna property under TCT No. T-35050, alleging respondent's titles were fictitious. SC upheld CA, ruling petitioners failed to prove legal/equitable title; respondent's titles valid.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 236619)

Antecedents

In August 2006, Jennifer Eaano Bote, daughter of the deceased Manuel Eaano, empowered her husband Virgilio to file a Complaint for Quieting of Title concerning the subject property, which was allegedly registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-35050 in Manuel's name. The petitioners claimed that Manuel possessed the property since 1966 until his death in 1987, after which they continued his possession. Meanwhile, the respondent claimed ownership through TCTs T-309608, T-309609, and T-309610. Upon investigation, the petitioners learned that the respondent's TCTs were fictitious, prompting their legal action.

Regional Trial Court Decision

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro ruled in favor of the petitioners on June 20, 2014, affirming their ownership of the subject property. The court based its ruling on the evidence presented by the petitioners, which indicated that Manuel had a valid title and continuous possession. The RTC deemed the respondent's titles void since they were unsupported by adequate evidence from the land registration authorities.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On August 15, 2017, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, asserting that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a legal or equitable title over the property. The CA ruled that the petitioners' allegations regarding the fictitious nature of the respondent's titles did not hold against the established chain of transactions leading to the respondent’s ownership. The CA also noted that significant records indicated that Manuel's TCT was canceled and pertained to a different property altogether.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

In the petition submitted for a review, the petitioners raised multiple issues, including the CA's alleged errors in disregarding the evidence of the petitioners' ownership, the validity of the titles, and Virgilio's authority to file the case. The petitioners contended that the titles held by the respondent were products of a fraudulent reconstitution that did not actually occur.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA's decision. The Court emphasized that legal ownership requires proper evidence of title, which the petitioners failed to establish. The Court reiterated the two necessary requisites for an action for quieting of title: the plaintiff must have a legal or equitable title to the property, and the alleged

...continue reading

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.