Case Summary (G.R. No. 218390)
Summary of Facts
The case arises from a Petition for Review concerning a quieting of title action initiated by the Robles siblings, claiming inheritance of land originally owned by their ancestor, Leon Robles, who possessed the property since 1916. Following a series of inheritances, the property was declared in the name of Exequiel Ballena, leading to a mortgage with the Rural Bank of Antipolo and subsequent foreclosures. Eventually, the property was sold to the Santos spouses, which prompted the Robles to claim quieting of title, asserting their long-term possession of the land.
Initial Court Findings
The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the free patent title issued to the Santos spouses as null and void and upholding the Robles’ claim of ownership based on adverse possession since 1916. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this ruling, stating that the Robles had lost their title due to the land being declared under different names over the years, which suggested abandonment or abandonment of their claims.
Issues Raised
The petitioners primarily contested three issues: the nature of the remedy of quieting of title, the validity of the mortgage, and the efficacy of the free patent granted to the Santos spouses. The central argument revolved around whether the petitioners had valid title to the disputed property to seek quieting of title.
Quieting of Title
Under Article 476 of the Civil Code, the remedy of quieting title requires a showing that there is a cloud on the title and that the titleholder holds a valid claim. The petitioners contended they had continuous possession since 1916, thus having a valid legal interest in the land despite intervening declarations of tax ownership that seemed to detract from their claims.
Validity of the Real Estate Mortgage
The Court of Appeals concluded that the mortgage executed by Hilario Robles was valid, thereby enabling the rural bank to acquire rights to the property. However, the petitioners argued that Hilario, as a co-owner, lacked the absolute title necessary to mortgage the entire property and that the bank acted without proper due diligence in verifying Hilario's claims, categorizing them as a mortgagee in bad faith.
Efficacy of the Free Patent Grant
The petitioners maintained that the land was private property due to their open, continuous occupation and cultivation since at least 1916, deeming it ineligible for a free patent issuance. The court must determine the legitimacy of the free pat
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 218390)
Overview of the Case
- The case involves a Petition for Review filed by petitioners Lucio Robles, Emeteria Robles, Aludia Robles, and Emilio Robles against several respondents including the Court of Appeals, spouses Virgilio Santos and Baby Ruth Cruz, and the Rural Bank of Cardona, Inc.
- It centers on a dispute regarding the ownership of a parcel of land located in Kay Taga, Lagundi, Morong, Rizal.
- The main legal issue is the petitioners’ claim for quieting of title against claims made by the respondents.
Background Facts
- Leon Robles originally owned the disputed land, which he declared for taxation purposes in 1916 and consistently paid taxes on.
- Upon his death, the land was inherited by his son Silvino Robles, who also declared and paid taxes on it.
- After Silvino's death in 1942, the land was inherited by his widow Maria de la Cruz and their children, who continued to pay taxes and cultivate the land.
- In 1962, the tax declaration was transferred to Exequiel Ballena, who later used this declaration to secure loans from banks, leading to foreclosure proceedings.
- The Rural Bank of Cardona, Inc. acquired the property through auction after the foreclosure and eventually sold it to the spouses Santos in 1987.
- The petitioners discovered the mortgage and foreclosure only in September 1987 and filed their suit in March 1988.
Initial Court Decisions
- The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the Free Patent Title issued to the Santos spouses as null and void, and ordering the return of the property to the petitioners.
- The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, stating that the petitioners no longer had title to the property due to the subsequent transfers of tax de
- ...continue reading