JAVIER v.

CA, 231 SCRA 498

FACTS: Petitioner, Guillermo Javier, filed an action for reconveyance and recovery of possession with damages against respondents Demetrio Caringal and spouses Dionisio Caay and Nazaria Caringal involving a parcel of land situated at Barangay No. IV, Poblacion, Balayan, Batangas. The evidence for the petitioner shows that the property was the subject of a prior Miscellaneous Sales Application filed by petitioner with the Bureau of Lands. Petitioner claims that he has been in peaceful and adverse possession of the property since 1971 and this possession was confirmed by the Bureau of Lands Investigator Felix O. Laude, Sr., when the latter recommend that the miscellaneous sales application of petitioner be given due course. Later, petitioner sold the land covered by his sales application to Santiago de Guzman by virtue of a deed of absolute sale. During this time, respondents Dionisio Caay and Cesaria Caringal constructed a house on the disputed lot with permission and upon tolerance of Santiago de Guzman. Respondent Dionisio Caay was then the driver of Santiago de Guzman. A few years after, petitioner repurchased the property from Santiago de Guzman with knowledge that the house of respondents Dionisio Caay and Cesaria Caringal was existing on the property but did not immediately eject them. Petitioner later discovered, respondent Demetrio Caringal, father of respondent Cesaria Caringal, was awarded by the Bureau of Lands a free patent over the property in question and was issued an original certificate of title in his name. On the other hand, evidence for private respondents shows that respondent Demetrio Caringal filed a free patent application covering the disputed property; that his possession started in 1981 when it was sold to him by Gavino Tesorero who appeared to be the only surviving heir of Gregoria Pineda, the original applicant for free patent. Gregoria Pineda had been in possession of the property since 1942 and had applied in 1951 for a revocable permit with the Bureau of Lands in Tanduay, Manila. During the lifetime of Gregoria, respondent Caringal had introduced improvements on the property including the house presently occupied by respondents Dionisio Caay and Cesaria Caringal. After Gregoria died, her surviving heir, Gavino Tesorero, sold the disputed property to respondent Caringal as evidenced by an affidavit executed by Tesorero. After proper inspection and investigation by the Bureau of Lands, the free patent application of respondent Caringal was given due course. In 1982, the land was awarded by the Bureau of Lands to respondent Demetrio Caringal under a free patent application and was registered in his name. On 7 July 1986, the trial court rendered its decision declaring petitioner the legal owner of the disputed property. It also ordered the Register of Deeds of Batangas to cancel the name and personal circumstances of respondent Caringal as the registered and to substitute the name and personal circumstances of petitioner.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is the rightful owner of the disputed land.

DECISION: The petitioner is not the rightful owner of the disputed land. Petitioner failed to show sufficient proof of ownership over the land in question. In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. If he claims a right granted or created by law, he must prove his claim by competent evidence. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his opponent. In the case at bar,

petitioner as plaintiff in the trial court tried to prove his ownership over the property registered in the name of respondent Caringal by a miscellaneous sales application he filed with the Bureau of Lands and by his continuous possession thereof since 1971 when he applied for a sales patent. Moreover, based on the evidence on record, there is a serious doubt on the precise identity of the parcel of land the petitioner seeks to recover. The description and boundaries of the land allegedly possessed by petitioner and which was the subject of his application for sales patent differ from the parcel of land he described in his complaint for reconveyance. It was held that in order to maintain an action to recover ownership of real property, the person who claims that he has a better right to it must prove not only his ownership of the same but he must also satisfactorily prove the identity thereof. In this case, failing to fix the identity of the property he claims, petitioner's action for reconveyance must fail. But, assuming in gratia argumenti that the property which petitioner seeks to be reconveyed to him is the same as the Title in the name of respondent Caringal, petitioner has not proved his ownership of the same. The filing of the miscellaneous sales application did not vest title upon petitioner over the property as there was no showing that his application was approved by the Bureau of Lands or that a sales patent over the property was granted to him prior to the issuance of free patent and that of the title issued in favor of respondent Caringal.

SAPTO v. FABIANA, 103 PHIL 683

FACTS: Sapto (Moro), now deceased, was the registered owner of a parcel of land located in Alambre, Toril, Davao City. When Sapto died, he left his children Samuel, Constancio, and Ramon as heirs of the property in question. Ramon pre-deceased his two brothers, leaving no, other heirs. On June 6, 1931, Samuel and Constancio Sapto executed a deed of sale of a portion of four hectares of the land aforementioned in favor of defendant Apolonio Fabiana. The sale was duly approved by the Provincial Governor of Davao, but was never registered. Possession of the land conveyed was, however, transferred to Fabiana and the latter has been in the possession thereof since 1931 up to the present. Thereafter, Constancio Sapto died without any issue. Samuel Sapto married one Dora (Bagoba) and upon his death was survived by his widow and two children, Laureana and Vicente Sapto. On October 19, 1954, the widow and children of Samuel Sapto filed this action in the Court of First Instance of Davao for the recovery of the parcel of land sold by their predecessors to defendant Apolonio Fabiana in 1931. After trial, the lower court held that although the sale between Samuel and Constancio Sapto and defendant in 1931 was never registered, it was valid and binding upon the parties and the vendors heirs, and ordered the plaintiffs to execute the necessary deed of conveyance in defendant's favor and its annotation in the certificate of title. From this judgment, plaintiffs appealed to this Court.

ISSUES: a.) Whether or not the deed of sale executed by appellants' predecessors in favor of the appellee over the land in question, although never registered, is valid and binding. b.) Whether or not the CFIs order of conveyance in favor of Fabiana is valid.

DECISIONS: a.) The deed of sale executed by appellants' predecessors in favor of the appellee over the land in question, although never registered, is valid and binding. The SC first affirmed the validity of the sale between the Sapto brothers and Fabiana, ruling, that even though it was never registered the sale was valid, binding, and effective upon the heirs of the vendor. According to the court, as between the parties to a sale, registration is not necessary to make it valid and effective, for actual notice is equivalent to registration. In fact in the case of Medina vs. Imaz and Warner Barnes and Co., 27 Phil., 314, it was held that the peculiar force of a title is exhibited only when the purchaser has sold to innocent third parties the land described in the conveyance, furthermore, in Galanza vs. Nuesa, 95 Phil., 713, the court held that "registration is intended to protect the buyer against claims of third persons arising from subsequent alienations by the vendor, and is certainly not necessary to give effect as between the parties to their deed of sale". Since no right of innocent third persons or subsequent transferees of the property in

question is involved herein. The property has remained and still is in the possession of the vendee of appellants' predecessors, herein appellee. It is, therefore, clear that the conveyance between appellee and his vendors are valid and binding upon the latter, and is equally binding and effective against the heirs of the vendors, herein appellants. In other words, the transfer and possession of the property was a clear indication of the validity of the sale. b.) The CFIs order of conveyance in favor of Fabiana is valid. In assailing the order, the Sapto heirs claimed that the CFI cannot order the conveyance because the defendants cause of action had already prescribed. The SC ruled however, that the action for conveyance was actually one to quiet title. In ruling so, the SC cited American jurisprudence and Art. 480 of the New Civil Code, which states, that actions to quiet title to property in the possession of the plaintiff are imprescriptible.