CASE SYNTHESIS AND COMPARISON ON SAMUEL MALABANA VS.

RURAL BANK OF CABUYAO INC, AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

SUBMITTED BY: SUBJECT: PROFFESSOR: SCHEDULE:

GRETCHEN G. ASIAIN LAND TITLES AND DEEDS ATTY. PETER CANAMO WEDNESDAY 5:30 7:30 PM

SYNTHESIS

CASE 1: SAMUEL MALABANAN VS. RURAL BANK OF CABUYAO INC Samuel Malabanan was indebted to Rural Bank of Cabuyao in the amount of P5,000,000. To secure payment of such obligation he executed a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land. When he failed to settle his loan, he executed a dacion en pago over the mortgaged property in favor of respondent. By virtue thereof a transfer of registration was effected under respondents name. Malabanan refused to surrender possession. He then filed an action for annulment of the dacion en pago before the RTC. Thereafter respondent also filed a complaint for unlawful detainer in the MTCC. MTCC dismissed the complaint, however on appeal RTC reversed the dismissal. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. On petition for review on Certiorari, SC held that In unlawful detainer case the only issue to be resolved is who between the parties is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property in dispute. RTC and CA were one in saying that respondent had overwhelmingly established its right of possession by virtue of the dacion en pago and the Torrens Title.

CASE 2: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS Naguit filed with the MCTC a petition for registration of title of a parcel of land, seeking judicial confirmation of imperfect title. Said parcel of land was sold to Naguit in 1955 or 1956. The State and another Oppositor Angeles failed to appear during trial, hence MCTC rendered a decision ordering registration in the name of Naguit. OSG then file a motion for reconsideration, stressing that the land applied for was declared alienable and disposable only in 1980. Court denied the motion. Both RTC and MTC dismissed states appeal. In a petition for review on certiorari, SC held that there are three obvious requisites of the filing of an application for registration of title under sec. 14 of the Property Registration decree, and these are ; (1) that the property in question is alienable and disposable land of the public domain; (2) that applicant have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation; (3) that such possession is under a bonafide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945. The more reasonable interpretation of sec. 14 is that it merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for

registration of title is filed. In this case, the property has already been classified as alienable, then there is already an intention on the part of the state to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property. Hence, there is no reason to disturb the findings of RTC and CA.

COMPARISON The two prior cases expresses to different doctrine. In the case of Malabanan vs Rural Bank of Cabuyao, it was held that in cases of unlawful detainer, the sole question to be resolved is possession, and if the court due to the peculiar circumstances of the case needs to rule on the issue of ownership such ruling in not conclusive but only provisional. On the other hand in the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. The Honorable Court of appeals, it was held that although the requisites of transferability set under sec. 14 of the Property Registration Decree is not met at the time of the sale of the land, such parcel of land may still be transferred if such requisites is met at the time of the transfer itsel.