Title
Vda. de Viray vs. Spouses Usi
Case
G.R. No. 192486
Decision Date
Nov 21, 2012
Dispute over Lot 733 in Pampanga: 1986 sales to Viray family upheld as valid, invalidating later subdivision agreements; res judicata bars relitigation.
dispute resolution
ownership
parcels of land

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-1679)

Factual Background

The controversy concerns portions of Lot No. 733, Cad-305-D, Masantol Cadastre (hereinafter Lot 733) originally registered as TCT No. 141-RP in the names of Ellen P. Mendoza and Moses Mendoza. Geodetic Engineer Abdon G. Fajardo prepared on April 28, 1986 a subdivision plan (the Fajardo Plan) dividing Lot 733 into Lots 733-A to 733-F. On April 29, 1986 Mendoza executed two notarized deeds of absolute sale conveying Lot 733-F to Jesus Carlo Gerard Viray and Lot 733-A to Spouses Avelino and Margarita Viray. The Fajardo Plan had not then been approved by the Land Management Bureau (LMB). Later instruments based on a different, LMB-approved plan by Geodetic Engineer Alfeo S. Galang (the Galang Plan) culminated in two subdivision agreements: the 1st Subdivision Agreement of August 20, 1990 subdividing Lot 733 into Lots A to C, and the 2nd Subdivision Agreement of April 5, 1991 subdividing Lot 733-C into thirteen units, Lot 733-C-1 to 733-C-13. Derivative titles issued under the Galang scheme included TCT Nos. 1585-RP, 2092-RP, and 2101-RP in the names of the Spouses Usi covering Lots 733-B, 733-C-1 and 733-C-10 respectively. A survey and ocular inspection by Engr. Angelito Nicdao of the LMB in 1999 found that the Fajardo Lots 733-A and 733-F overlap substantially with parcels later allotted under the Galang Plan, giving rise to competing claims of ownership and possession.

Procedural History

Multiple suits and cross actions arose from the overlapping transactions. Two annulment actions filed in 1988 (Civil Case Nos. 88-0265-M and 88-0283-M) seeking to nullify the April 29, 1986 deeds were jointly tried by the RTC, which, by Joint Decision of August 1, 1989, dismissed the complaints. The Court of Appeals and later this Court in G.R. No. 122287 affirmed that dismissal and thereby sustained the validity of the 1986 conveyances. A forcible entry action filed by Jesus Viray produced a July 29, 1998 MCTC decision awarding possession of Lot 733-F to Viray; that judgment became final and executable. The Spouses Usi attempted annulment of that MCTC decision but the RTC and CA dismissed their petition, and this Court denied further review in G.R. No. 154538. On December 12, 2001 the Spouses Usi filed an action for accion publiciana and reivindicatoria (Civil Case No. 01-1118(M)) asserting ownership and seeking to recover Lots 733-B, 733-C-1 and 733-C-10. The RTC dismissed the petition on June 21, 2007. The CA reversed on July 24, 2009 in CA-G.R. CV No. 90344, declaring the Usis owners of the specified lots. The CA denied reconsideration on June 2, 2010. Petitioners then sought relief by Rule 45 before this Court.

Issue Presented

Whether the Court a quo gravely erred in reversing and setting aside the RTC decision dismissing the Spouses Usis petition; more concretely, whether the subdivision agreements of August 20, 1990 and April 5, 1991 validly effected partition and conveyed the subject lots to the Spouses Usi, and whether the April 29, 1986 deeds of sale and prior final judgments preclude the Usis actions under the doctrine of res judicata.

Position of the Parties

Petitioners maintained that the CA erred in treating the 1990 and 1991 subdivision agreements as bona fide partitions among co-owners and as valid conveyances. Petitioners asserted that the April 29, 1986 deeds to the Viray family were valid, prior transfers that created a double sale when overlapping lots were later allotted under the Galang Plan. Petitioners further argued that the records show no basis to conclude that the Spouses Usi were co-owners of Lot 733 at the time of the purported partitions and that prior final judgments established petitioners’ possessory and ownership rights, thus invoking res judicata. Respondents, as reflected in the CA decision, relied on the notarized subdivision agreements later approved by the LMB, the issuance of certificates of title as indefeasible proof of ownership, the characterization of the Galang subdivisions as partition of pro-indiviso shares, and the contention that petitioners failed to establish title and possession by preponderance of evidence in the RTC.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The RTC, Branch 55, Macabebe, Pampanga, in Civil Case No. 01-1118(M) rendered judgment on June 21, 2007 dismissing the petition of Spouses Usi for accion publiciana/reivindicatoria. The RTC held that the Spouses Usi failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence their claim of title, possession and ownership over the lots subject of the petition.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On July 24, 2009 the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision. The CA declared the Spouses Usi as legal and valid owners of Lot Nos. 733-B, 733-C-1 and 733-C-10 under TCT Nos. 1585-R.P., 2092-R.P., and 2101-R.P., respectively, ordered petitioners to cease and desist from acts of dispossession and to refrain from disturbing their possession and ownership, and denied claims for damages. The CA premised its holding on a cluster of findings: the notarized subdivision agreements were valid and LMB-approved; the Galang subdivisions represented partitions of co-owners’ pro-indiviso shares; Mendoza’s April 29, 1986 conveyances transferred only abstract, pro-indiviso shares; there was no showing of fraud in the partitions; certificates of title established indefeasible ownership; and possession followed from ownership.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Partition and Conveyance

The Court concluded that the CA gravely erred in treating the two subdivision agreements as genuine partitions effectuating conveyances to the Spouses Usi. The Court examined the evidentiary record and found no proof that the Usis were co-owners of Lot 733 prior to the April 29, 1986 deeds. TCT No. 141-RP was in the names of Ellen and Moses Mendoza and the records established that Emerencia Vda. de Mallari became a co-owner only by purchase in 1984 to the extent of 416 square meters. The Court observed that the 1st and 2nd Subdivision Agreements merely declared that the signatories were sole and exclusive owners or undivided co-owners without showing how the purported co-ownership arose or how ownership shares were constituted. The Court held that the documentary presumption accorded to notarized instruments did not substitute for proof that a partition among legitimate co-owners had occurred. As thus, the purported partitions were not shown to be partitions by co-owners.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on the April 29, 1986 Deeds and Double Sale

The Court reiterated that the RTC and this Court previously sustained the validity of the April 29, 1986 deeds of sale conveying Lots 733-A and 733-F to the Viray family in the proceedings culminating in G.R. No. 122287. The Court emphasized that those earlier adjudications became final and that the combined area of the sold parcels was less than one half of Lot 733 so that the sales of those portions of conjugal property were valid. The Court found that the later subdivision agreements and resulting transfers under the Galang Plan overlapped substantially with the earlier sold parcels. Relying on the LMB survey of Engr. Nicdao, the Court observed that Lot 733-A (Fajardo Plan) fell within Lot 733-B (Galang Plan) allotted to the Usis and that Lot 733-F (Fajardo Plan) corresponded to Lots 733-C-8 to 733-C-12 and a portion of 733-C-10. The Court concluded that these facts established a situation of double sale and recalled the requisites for double sale jurisprudentially: valid sales, same subject matter, conflicting interests of buyers, and purchase from the same seller. The Court further held that the 1st and 2nd Subdivision Agreements fai

...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.

About Privacy Terms