ATTY. PLARIDEL M. MINGOA, petitioner, vs. LAND REGISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR, respondent
Facts: Petition for Certiorari. A deed of donation of several parcels of land was executed by petitioner in favor of his children on July 15, 1987. The deed was forwarded to the Register of Deeds of Romblon for registration by registered mail on September 9, 1988. It was entered in the primary entry book of the Register of Deeds on September 20, 1988 under Entry No. 181. Said Register of Deeds suspended registration of the donation until the petitioner has secured the proper clearances from the Department of Agrarian Reform on the ground that under Section 6 of Republic Act 6657, any disposition of private agricultural lands made prior to June 15, 1988, when the Act took effect, must be registered within three (3) months from said date or on before September 13, 1988 to be valid.
The matter was elevated by petitioner en consulta with the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority LTA. On November 27,1990 the LTA Administrator issued a resolution sustaining the stand of the Register of Deeds that unless the proper clearances from the Department of Agrarian Reform are secured, the deed of donation may not be registered.
Issue: Whether or not Section 1, Rule 13 of the Rules of court should apply in a suppletory manner in that the date of the mailing should be considered the date of filing of the document in the office of the Register of Deeds.
Ruling: The petition is impressed with merit. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657 provides, among others: SEC. 6. Retention Limits.Except as otherwise provided in its Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age, and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm: Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder: Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of its Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead. The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner; Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this option with a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention. In all cases the security of tenure of the farmers or farm workers on the land prior to the approval of this Act shall be respected. Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of this Act shall be null and void; Provided, however, That those executed prior to this Act shall be valid only when registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3) months after the effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds shall inform the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) days of any transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares. (Emphasis supplied) 2
Section 56 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 also provides: SEC. 56. Primary Entry Book; fees; certified copies.Each Register of Deeds shall keep a primary entry book in which, upon payment of the entry fee, he shall enter, in the order of their reception, all instruments including copies of writs and processes filed with him relating to registered land. He shall, as a preliminary process in registration, note in such book the date, hour and minute of reception of all instruments, in the order in which they were received. They shall be regarded as registered from the time so noted, and the memorandum of each instrument, when made on the certificate of title to which it refers, shall bear the same date: Provided, that the national government as well as the provincial and city governments shall be exempt from the payment of such fees in advance in order to be entitled to entry and registration. Every deed or other instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary, so filed with the Register of Deeds shall be numbered and indexed and endorsed with a reference to the proper certificate of title. All records and papers relative to registered land in the office of the Register of Deeds shall be open to the public in the same manner as court records, subject to such reasonable relations as the Register of Deeds, No. 97282 under the direction of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may prescribe. All deeds and voluntary instruments shall be presented with their respective copies and shall be attend and sealed by the Register of Deeds, endorsed with the file number, and copies may be delivered to the person presenting them. Certified copies of all instruments filed and registered may also be obtained from the Register of Deeds upon payment of the prescribed fees.
Section 34 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 likewise provides: SEC. 34. Rules of procedure.The Rules of Court shall, insofar as not inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree, be applicable to land registration and cadastral cases by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.
Ruling (IMPORTANT): Consequently, Section 1, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court is applicable to this case in a suppletory character as it provides: SEC. 1. Filing with the court, defined.The filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders and other papers with the court as required by these rules shall be made by filing them personally with the clerk of the court or by sending them by registered mail. In the first case, the clerk shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of filing. In the second case, the date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the record of the case.
The foregoing rule clearly provides that the date of mailing of the motion, pleading, or any other papers, which may include instruments as the deed of donation, is considered the date of filing as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or registry receipt. The Court therefore finds and so holds that the date of mailing of an instrument to the Register of Deeds for purposes of registration should be considered the date of filing and receipt thereof by the Register of Deeds. It is this date that should be entered in the primary entry book of the Register of Deeds which shall be regarded as the date of its registration. Since in this case, the deed of donation was admittedly sent by registered mail to the Register of Deeds on September 9, 1988, said date is in effect the date of filing, receipt and registration of the instrument, although the instrument was actually received by said office only on September 20, 1988.
WHEREFORE, the petition is given due course and is hereby GRANTED. The questioned resolution of the public respondent Administrator of the Land Registration Authority dated November 27,1990 is hereby SET ASIDE and it is hereby directed that the registration of deed of donation subject of this petition be effected by the Register of Deeds of Romblon.
3
G.R. No. L-14676 January 31, 1963 CANDIDA VILLALUZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. JUAN NEME and FELICISIMA VILLAFRANCA, defendants-appellees.
Facts: This case was elevated to this Court "on purely questions of law." The record discloses that Maria Rocabo died intestate on February 17, 1937, leaving a parcel of land granted her under Homestead Patent No. 185321, issued on May 20, 1930, and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 217 (Exh. A), of the Register of Deeds of Camarines Norte. She left three (3) daughters, named Sinforosa, Patricia and Maria, surnamed Villaluz and grandchildren, Candida, Emilia, Clemencia, Roberto and Isidra Villaluz, legitimate children of her deceased son Pedro Villaluz; Isabelo and Teodoro Napoles, legitimate sons of a deceased daughter; Severina Villaluz and Sinforosa and Leonor Napoles, legitimate daughters of another deceased daughter, Gregoria Villaluz. After the approval of her application, but before granting of the patent, on March 6, 1926, Maria Rocabo donated the southern portion of the land to Maria, and the northern portion to Patricia, in two notarial deeds donation (Exhibits 1 and 7), giving them the right to present their deeds of donations to the Bureau of Lands. The said donees accepted the donations and took actual possession of their respective portions, but only Maria Villaluz remained on the entire land because Patricia left. Maria cultivated and improved the land from 1927 to 1938, inclusive. Maria and Patricia, however, forgot and cared not to present the deeds of donation to the Bureau of Lands. On March 27, 1930, the patent was granted and O.C.T. No. 217 was issued in the name of Maria Rocabo. Realizing that the deeds of donation were not in accordance with the formalities required by law, and because Sinforosa Villaluz, who had the custody of the title would not surrender it to the donees, unless given a share, upon the advise of a Notary Public, Carlos de Jesus, Maria, Patricia and Sinforosa, on September 1, 1939, executed a deed of extrajudicial partition (Exh. 2) among themselves, to the exclusion and without the knowledge and consent of their nephews and nieces, the herein plaintiffs-appellants, and in virtue thereof, O.C.T. No. 217 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 269 was issued in their names (Exh. 5) after having made representations that they were the only heirs of their mother, Maria Rocabo. On September 2, 1939, the 3 sisters declared the land for taxation purposes (Exh. 4). On September 11, 1939, they sold the land to Ramona Pajarillo, wife of Adriano Mago and Angela Pajarillo, wife of defendant Juan Neme (Exh. 3). Ramona and Angela declared land for taxation purposes in their names (Exh. 6). On August 3, 1953, the heirs of Adriano and Ramona sold the undivided interest of the latter to Juan Neme (Exh. 8), who, on August 8, 1953, sold the southern half portion of the property in favor of defendant Felicisima Villafranca (Exh. 13). Thereafter, the plaintiffs-appellants came to know that the land which was in the administration of their aunts, Sinforosa, Patricia and Maria, was already in the possession of the defendants. After attempts of amicable settlement had failed, the plaintiffs on June 3, 1954, filed a complaint for partition of said land and recovery of their respective shares on the property and accounting of the fruits thereof. It also appears that the deeds of sale of the land in question executed in favor of the defendants, had not been registered in favor of the defendants and had not been recorded in accordance with Public Land Act No. 141 and the Land Registration Law, Act No. 496; that the vendees failed to have their deed of sale (Exh. 3), annotated on said T.C.T. No. 269, or have the title thereof transferred in their names.
Issues: Whether or not the lower court erred: (1) In not finding that the extrajudicial paritition (Exh. 2), only affected the partition of Sinforosa, Patricia and Maria, surnamed Villaluz, on the land in question and not the participation of the plaintiffs- appellants, as compulsory heirs of Maria Rocabo (2) In finding that the plaintiffs- appellants are already barred from claiming their participation thereon; (3) In finding that defendants- appellees are owners, with right of possession of the said land.
Ruling (Trial Court): The lower court rendered judgment, dismissing the complaint, with costs against the plaintiffs, and declaring the defendants the owners of the land described in the complaint and in the T.C.T. No. 269. The trial court held that under Sec. 4, Rule 73 of the Rules, the plaintiffs cause of action had already prescribed. This section, however, refers only to the 4
settlement and distribution of the estate of the deceased by the heirs who make such partition among themselves in good faith, believing that they are the only heirs with the right succeed.
In the case at bar, however, the surviving sisters could not have ignored that they had co- heirs, the children of the 3 brothers who predeceased their mother. Considering that Maria Rocabo died during the regime of the Spanish Civil Code, the distribution of her properties should be governed by said Code, wherein it is provided that between co-heirs, the act to demand the partition of the inheritance does not prescribe. (Art 1965 [Old Civ. Code]; Baysa, et al. v. Baysa, 53 Off. Gaz., 7282). Verily the 3 living sisters were possessing the property as administratrices or trustees for and in behalf of the other co- heirs, plaintiffs-appellants herein, who have the right to vindicate their inheritance, regardless of the lapse of time (Sevilla v. De los Angeles, L-7745; 51 Off. Gaz., 5590, and case cited therein).
Moreover, the acquisition of the land in question is governed by the Public Land Act No. 141 and the Land Registration Law Act No. 496. And considering that the deed of sale had not been registered in accordance with the said laws, the same did not constitute a conveyance which would bind or affect the land, because the registration of a voluntary sale of land is the operative act that transmits or transfers title (Tuason v. Raymundo, 28 Phil.635).
The contention of the plaintiffs-appellants is meritorious. The decision found to be an incontrovertible fact that the land in question should be divided among the heirs of the decedent Sinforosa, Patricia and Maria Villaluz and her grandchildren. Thus, the trial Court said: ... The settlement of the estate of Maria Rocabo was summarily effected by the extrajudicial partition executed September 1, 1939, by the three surviving children to the exclusion of the plaintiffs who were entitled to inherit by representation. By virtue of the extrajudicial partition, Exhibit 1, the Original Certificate of Title No. 217 in the name of Maria Rocabo was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 269 was issued in lieu thereof in favor of Sinforosa Villaluz, Patricia Villaluz and Maria Villaluz on September 6, 1939, to the prejudice of the plaintiffs. . . .
Furthermore, Maria having left no testament or last will, her heirs succeeded to the possession and ownership of the land in question from the time of her death (Art. 440, Old Civil Code, Art. 533, New Civil Code; Lubrico v. Arbado, 12 Phil. 391). The deed of extrajudicial partition (Exh. 2), was fraudulent and vicious, the same having been executed among the 3 sisters, without including their co-heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent to the same. The partition, therefore, did not and could not prejudice the interest and participation of the herein plaintiffs- appellants, and the sale of the land to the defendants did not and could not also prejudice and effect plaintiffs-appellants' interest and participation thereon. The cancellation of O.C.T. No. 217 and the issuance of T.C.T. No. 269, did not likewise prejudice the interest and the participation of the plaintiffs-appellants. The three sisters could not have sold what did not belong to them. Nemo dat quod non habet
Ruling (IMPORTANT): Having held that the three sisters were mere trustees of the property for the benefit of the appellants, and it appearing that they had not repudiated the trust, defendants-appellees' pretension in this respect is without merit. The finding in the appealed decision that "there is no evidence that the said defendants are not innocent purchasers and for value" (good faith), is of no moment in the case at bar. As heretofore adverted to, there was no effective sale at all, which would affect the rights of the plaintiffs-appellants. Moreover, the lack of good faith on the part of the defendants-appellees can reasonably be inferred from thier conduct in not presenting for registration the supposed deed of sale in their favor; in failing to annotate the sale on the T.C.T. of the alleged donees, and in not asking that a transfer certificate of title be issued in their (vendees') names. It may also be reasonably concluded that if they did not present the deed of sale for registration, it was because they knew that their vendors were not the sole and only heirs so as to entitle them to the ownership of the land in question. IN VIEW HEREOF, the decision appealed from is hereby set aside, and the case is remanded to the court of origin, for further and appropriate proceedings.
5
G.R. No. L-40105 November 11, 1985 NESTOR L. CENTENO, BONIFACIO GUTIERREZ, ARTEMIO GUTIERREZ, GREGORIO FERNANDEZ, ZENAIDA DE LA CRUZ, FRANCISCO GOMEZ, RICARDO ADRAO, AMPARO RAYOS and OFELIA SANTOS, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, RUFINA C. VICTORIA and DANIEL O. VICTORIA, Respondents.
PPG Industries, Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Webster Auto Parts Inc. Anthony Puleo, and Patricia Puleo, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees, 128 F.3d 103, 2d Cir. (1997)