SPOUSES CLEMENCIO C. SABITSANA, JR. and MA. ROSARIO M.
title to or interest in a parcel of land which has an assessed value of
SABITSANA, petitioners, vs. JUANITO F. MUERTEGUI, represented by
his Attorney-in-Fact DOMINGO A. MUERTEGUI, JR., respondent.
GR No. 181359 August 5, 2013 [WENCESLAO]
DOCTRINE: On the question of jurisdiction, it is clear under the rules that an
action for quieting of title may be instituted in the RTC, regardless of the
assessed value of the real property in dispute.
FACTS:
Sept 2, 1981 Alberto Garcia executed an unnotairzed Deed of Sale
in favor of respondent Juanito Muertegi over a 7,500 sqm parcel of
unregistered land located in Dalutan Island, Talahid, Almeira, Biliran,
Leyte del Norte covered by Tax Declaration no. 1996 issued in 1985
in Garcia;s name.
Juanitos father Domingo and brother Domingo Jr. took possession of
the lots and planted thereon coconut and ipil-ipil trees. They also paid
the real property taces on the lots for the years 1980 up to 1998.
1991 Garcia sold the lot to the Muertegi Family lawyer, Atty.
Clemencio Sabitsana through a notarized deed of sale. The deed was
registered and eventually issued in Atty. Sabitsanas name.
As result, both Atty. Sabitsana and Juanitos family (brother and
father) have been paying real estate taxes on the property.
When Domingo (father Muertegi) passed away, his heirs applied for
registration and coverage of the lot under CA 141 or the Public Land
Act.
On the other hand, Sabitsana opposed such application and claimed
that he was the true owner of the lost and asked that the application
be held in abeyance until the issue of conflicting ownership be
resolved.
April 11, 2000 Juanito, through his attorney-in- fact, Domingo, Jr.
filed for quieting of title against petitioner Sabitsana and his wife.
Muertegis claim the ff:
(a) the spouses bought the lot in bad faith and are exercising acts of
possession and ownership and thus, constitute a cloud over his
title.
(b) The complaint also prayed for that the deed of sale be declared
null and void
(c) That Sps should respect Juanitos title over the lot
(d) Claim for moral and exemplary damages
Answer with Counterclaim of petititoners asserted mainly that the sale
between Garcia and Juanito was null and void ofr absence of marital
consent (Garcias wife). More importantly, they insisted that the RTC
of Naval, Biliran did not have jurisdiction over the case which involved
merely P1230.00.
Evidence and testimonies during trial:
Muertegis: Atty. Sabitsana was the family lawyer of Muertegi at the
itme Garcia sold the lot to Juanito and that as such, he was consulted
by the family before the sale was executed. After such alleged sale,
Domingo Sr. took actual possession of the lot.
Sabitsana: After conducting investigations regarding the lot, he
concluded that such sale was not recorded due to the fact that the
document of the sale was missing. He discovered that the lot was still
in the name of Garcia. Therefore, he concluded that the Muertegis
were merely bluffing and that they probably did not want him to buy
the property because they were interested in buying it for themselves
considering that it was adjacent to a lot which they owned.
Lower courts decisions
RTC Sale was valid, Muertegi won. Sabitsana ordered to pay the
family because he was not a buyer in good faith.
after conducting an investigation, Atty. Sabitsana went on to
purchase the same lot and raced to registerd the sale ahead of the
Muertegis expecting thath is purchase and prior registration would
prevail over that of his clients. Applying the principle under Art. 1544
[double sales], Sabitsanas registration was not in good faith,
preference should be given to the sale in favor of Juanito, as he was
the first to take possession of the lot in good faith. MR was filed but
was denied.
CA Juanito is the rightful owner of the lot and possessed the
requisite cause of action to institute the suit for quieting of totle and
obtain judgment in his favor. RTC was affirmed.
ISSUE/S:
Main issue who has the better right over the property?
Relevant to the topic W/N CA erred in not holding that RTC did not ave
jurisdiction over the case at bar?
HELD:
1. Muertegi has a better right over the subject lot. [this is irrelevant but
read nalang in case she asks more details]
First, double sales [Art 1544] does not apply to sales invokving
unregisterdc land. Suffice it to state that the issue of the buyers good
or bad faith is relevant only where the subject of the sale is registered
land, and the purchaser is buying the same from the registered owner
whose title to the land is clean. In such case, the purchaser who relies
 on the clean title of the registered owner is protected if he is a
purchaser in good faith for value.

Second, Muertegi has a better right to the lot!

The sale to respondent Juanito was executed on September 2, 1981
via an unnotarized deed of sale, while the sale to petitioners was made
via a notarized document only on October 17, 1991, or ten years
thereafter. Thus, Juanito who was the first buyer has a better right to
the lot, while the subsequent sale to petitioners is null and void,
because when it was made, the seller Garcia was no longer the owner
of the lot. Nemo dat quod non habet.

2. RTC has jurisdiction over the suit for quieting of title.

On the question of jurisdiction, it is clear under the rules that an
action for quieting of title may be instituted in the RTC, regardless of
the assessed value of the real property in dispute. Under Rule 63, an
action to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom may
be brought in the appropriate RTC.

I nthis case, the suit for quieting of title was prompted by

petitioners August 24, 1998 letter-opposition to respondents
application for registration. Thus, in order to prevent a cloud from
being cast upon his application for a title, respondent filed this action
for QT to obtain a declaration of his rights. In this sense, the action is
one for declaratory relief, which falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC
pursuant to R63.