Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 49065. April 30, 1947. ]

RITA GARCHITORENA VDA. DE CENTENERA, applicant-appellee; MARIANO GARCHITORENA, movant-appellee, v. VICENTE SOTTO, H. P. OBIAS and ANA PATAAN, Oppositors-Appellants.

Lorenzo Sumulong for oppositor and appellant Sotto.

Jose M. Peñas for oppositors and appellants Obias and Pataan.

Jose Ma. Recto and Jayme Reyes for applicant and appellee Garchitorena.

Manly & Reyes for movant and appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. LAND REGISTRATION; PROCEEDINGS, "IN REM" ; FAILURE OF CLAIMANTS TO APPEAR; CASE AT BAR. — R and J. A. have been finally declared the owners of the 500 hectares in question, and such declaration is good for all purposes including the issuance of the corresponding certificates of tittle to said owners or their successors in interest, such as buyer M. G. Appellant’s allegation that the decree of registration in favor of M. G. for the portions awarded to R and J. A. would prejudice interested parties is groundless, because all interested parties were given full opportunity to advance and present their respective claims since the original application was duly published and the proceedings for registration, which are in rem in character. were begun, it appearing that the original application included the 500 hectares which were finally adjudicated to R and J. A. Anybody and everybody who had any legitimate claim to said 500 hectares or any part thereof, if they wanted to, could have appeared before the court and presented their claims. If they failed to do it at the opportune time, it is now too late for them to complain.

2. ID.; PRIVATE LAND; FREE PATENT ISSUED THEREON NULL AND VOID; CASE AT BAR. — The appellant complains that the lower court erred in holding that the free patent title number 1406 of said A. P. is null and void ab initio. The lower court’s action is based upon the fact that when the free patent title number 1406 was issued in 1937, the land of 10 hectares covered by it was part of a larger tract which was declared private property according to the decision of May 14, 1931, which was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, very much earlier than the issuance of the free patent title in question. There is no error in the lower court’s action.

3. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION; ADJUDICATION SUBJECT TO SECTIONS 712 AND 713 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, EFFECT OF; CASE AT BAR. — R. G. has never become the owner of the lots in question, it appearing that the adjudication made in her favor was subject to the provisions of sections 712 and 713 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which in substance means without prejudice to the rights of the creditors of her deceased father, A. G.

4. ID.; SUCCESSION; EFFECTIVITY. — Although the Civil Code provides that succession takes effect from the time of the death of the owner, such provision does not create a succession which, as a matter of fact, does not exist and in the contemplation of the law, no succession shall be declared unless and until a liquidation of the assets and debts left by the deceased shall have been made and all his creditors fully paid. Until a final liquidation is made and all debts are paid, there is no way of determining if his heirs may inherit anything.


D E C I S I O N


PERFECTO, J.:


On June 20, 1940, Mariano Garchitorena filed a motion praying that subdivision plan Psu-66063-Amd., marked as Annex E, be approved and that it be decreed that certificates of title be issued in his name on lots 2, 3, and 4 of the original plan Psu-66063 and upon lots 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the subdivision plan Psu-66063-Amd.

The movant alleged that on May 14, 1931, a decision was rendered by the lower court granting Rita Garchitorena as heiress of her father Andres, title over four lots the same described in her original application, subject to lien in favor of Mariano Garchitorena and other creditors, with the exclusion of about 500 hectares belonging to Ramon and Jose Alvarez, about 300 hectares of land of the public domain, a portion of 18 hectares belonging to Hermogenes P. Obias and another portion of 24 hectares of land of the public domain, with the exception of 4 hectares belonging to Januario Alvarez, all said positions being included in lot number 1. It is also alleged that after said judgment was modified by the Supreme Court and some steps have been taken as a result of said modification, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of land Psu-66063 were adjudicated to Mariano Garchitorena in consideration of the amount of P28,745.93, a deed of sale having been executed to said effect on September 8, 1935, which was approved by the lower court on April 26, 1940, and that Mariano Garchitorena bought the 500 hectares of Ramon and Jose Alvarez on April 27, 1939.

Several persons appeared to oppose the motion, but only three of them came to us appealing against the lower court’s order dated June 28, 1941, decreeing the issuance of certificate of titles in favor of Mariano Garchitorena on lots 2, 3, and 4 of the original plan Psu-66063, and on lots 6 and 8 of the subdivision plan Psu-66063-Amd., and on lots 1, 6, and 7 of the same subdivision plan.

The appellants are H. P. Obias, Ana Pataan and Vicente Sotto.

We will deal separately with their respective contentions.

OPPOSITION OF H. P. OBIAS

This oppositor contends that the 300 hectares ordered to be excluded from lot number 1 as land of public domain, as provided in the lower court’s decision of May 14, 1931, in fact should measure not only 300 hectares but 961 hectars, 38 ares and 9 centares.

The lower court disposed of the opposition by stating that the decision of May 14, 1931, was amended, and the Supreme Court affirmed it as amended, and that the subdivision plan Psu-66063-Amd. is in conformity with the terms of said amended decision.

Appellant Obias complains in his appeal that the lower court erred in awarding to Mariano Garchitorena the title on lots l, 6, and 7 of subdivision plan Psu-66063-Amd., belonging originally to Ramon and Jose Alvarez.

No law and no authority has been invoked in support of appellant’s contention, although he advances several reasons in support of his theory. The reasons advanced are stated in his brief as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Ramon Alvarez did not seek any affirmative relief in his opposition to the application for registration of Rita Garchitorena so that what the Court did in rendering its decision was simply to order its segregation from the plan, and hence his supposed successor in interest, Mariano Garchitorena, could not be entitled to the issuance of a degree of registration in the name of the latter.

"2. Because the decision rendered in this case is already final, and hence cannot be amended.

"3. Because the duty of the lower Court in regards to this case is simply to comply with that final judgment so that inasmuch as the dispositive part orders the segregation from the plan of the portions awarded to Roman Alvarez, the lower Court is duty bound to comply with that mandatory order.

"4. Because the issuance of a decree of registration in favor the movant-appellant for the portions awarded to Ramon Alvarez and Jose Alvarez would create an anomaly, in the sense that interested parties would be prejudiced thereby. There are several persons possessing portions of land within the land adjudicated to Ramon Alvarez and Jose Alvarez. They possessed these portions with a claim of right of ownership adverse to that of Ramon Alvarez and Jose Alvarez."cralaw virtua1aw library

We do not find merit in appellant’s contention.

Section 38 of the Land Registration Act No. 496, as amended by Act No. 3621, which took effect on December 5, 1929, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"If the court after hearing finds that the applicant or adverse claimant has title as stated in his application or adverse claim and proper for registration, a decree of confirmation and registration hall be entered . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of Garchitorena Vda. de Centenera v. Obias (58 Phil., 21, 23), the Supreme Court declared that from the evidence "it conclusively appears that the late Jose Alvarez and his successors had a considerable extent of land in the same place where the applicant’s land is situated, and taking also into account that the land was surveyed for purposes of registration, we find that the weight of the evidence indicates that the land claimed by the opponent Ramon Alvarez had been included in the applicant’s plan. This land has an area of 500 hectares. According to Ramon Alvarez, it appears that his father, Ibo Albarez, had held the tract since 1905 and that at the death of said Ibo Alvarez, Ramon Alvarez and his co-owner, Alvarez, entered into possession and have remained therein since."cralaw virtua1aw library

From the above, there cannot be any doubt that Ramon and Jose Alvarez have been finally declared as the owners of the 500 hectares in question, and such declaration is good for all purposes, including the issuance of the corresponding certificates of title to said owners or their successors in interest, such as buyer Mariano Garchitorena. Appellant’s allegation that the decree of registration in or of Mariano Garchitorena for the portions awarded to Ramon and Jose Alvarez would prejudice interested parties is groundless, because all interested parties were given full opportunity to advance and present their respective claims since the original application was duly published and the proceedings for registration, which are rem in character, were begun, it appearing that the original application included the 500 hectares which were any adjudicated to Ramon and Jose Alvarez. Anybody and everybody who had any legitimate claim to said 500 hectares or any part thereof, if they wanted to, could have appeared before the court and presented their claims. If they failed to do it at the opportune time, it is now too late for them to complain.

APPEAL OF ANA PATAAN

This appellant complains that the lower court erred holding that the free patent title number 1406 of said la Pataan is null and void ab anitio.

The lower court’s action is based upon the fact that when the free patent title number 1406 was issued in 1937, the land of 10 hectares covered by it was part of a larger tract which was declared private property according to the decision of May 14, 1931, which was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, very much earlier than the issuance of the free patent title in question.

We do not find any error in the lower court’s action.

The decision of the Supreme Court declaring the land in question as private property was promulgated on March
Top of Page