Rodolfo Coronel filed a case against respondents claiming ownership over a parcel of land registered under his name. Respondents claim they inherited a 1/3 share of the land and have occupied it for years. The lower court and appellate court both ruled in favor of respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed but modified the ruling to segregate the 1/3 portion claimed by respondents from the title and issue new titles rather than voiding the original.
Rodolfo Coronel filed a case against respondents claiming ownership over a parcel of land registered under his name. Respondents claim they inherited a 1/3 share of the land and have occupied it for years. The lower court and appellate court both ruled in favor of respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed but modified the ruling to segregate the 1/3 portion claimed by respondents from the title and issue new titles rather than voiding the original.
Rodolfo Coronel filed a case against respondents claiming ownership over a parcel of land registered under his name. Respondents claim they inherited a 1/3 share of the land and have occupied it for years. The lower court and appellate court both ruled in favor of respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed but modified the ruling to segregate the 1/3 portion claimed by respondents from the title and issue new titles rather than voiding the original.
Rodolfo Coronel filed a case against respondents claiming ownership over a parcel of land registered under his name. Respondents claim they inherited a 1/3 share of the land and have occupied it for years. The lower court and appellate court both ruled in favor of respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed but modified the ruling to segregate the 1/3 portion claimed by respondents from the title and issue new titles rather than voiding the original.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
CORONEL VS.
IAC
JAY ANTHONY M. BANTUGAN
FACTS:
Petitioner Rodolfo Coronel filed a complaint for recovery of possession of a
parcel of land registered under his name (Transfer Certificate of Title No. T- 75543 in the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite).
The complaint docketed as Civil Case No. 651 was filed against the private respondents Elias Merlan, Brigido Merlan, Jose Merlan, Teodorico Nostrates, Severo Jeciel Santiago Fernan and Fortunato Ocampo before the then Court of First Instance of Cavite.
Coronel alleged in his complaint that at the time he purchased the subject parcel of land, the defendants (private respondents herein) were already occupying a portion thereof as "tenants at will" and that despite demands to vacate the premises, the defendants failed and refused to move out from the land.
In their Answer with Counterclaim and With Third-Party Complaint, the
defendants denied that Coronel was the owner of the whole parcel of land and alleged that the lots occupied by them form part of a 1/3 undivided share of brothers Brigido Merlan and Jose Merlan which they inherited from their deceased father Gabriel Merlan, one of the three heirs of Bernabela Lontoc, the original owner of Lot No. 1950-A of the Naic Estate; that the Merlan brothers together with their two brothers and a sister never sold their undivided 1/3 share of the lot to anybody; that it was actually their other co-heirs who sold their undivided portions and that the plaintiff's claim of ownership of the whole parcel of land, if ever it has basis, is fraudulent, void, and without effect; that the Merlans have always been in open and peaceful possession of their undivided share of the lot throughout the years from the first sale by their co-heirs of Lot No. 1950-A in 1950; and that the other defendants were legitimate tenants. They prayed that the plaintiff respect their rights over 1/3 (4,063 square meters) of Lot No. 1950- A of the Naic Estate,
The lower court ruled in favor of the defendants and on appeal, the lower court's decision was affirmed by the then Intermediate Appellate Court declaring null and void Transfer Certificate of Title No, T-75543. ISSUES:
THAT THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING PETITIONER AS A PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION.
II
THAT THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
HAS ERRED IN DECLARING AS NULL AND VOID TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. T-75543 OF THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF CAVITE WHICH IS ALREADY PACEL IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER. (at pp.1-2 Brief for the Petitioners)
RULING:
The SC affirmed the lower court decision with modification. The facts of the case negates the claim of the petitioner as purchaser in good faith.
We find no reversible error on the part of the lower courts in recognizing the ownership of the private respondents over 1/3 of Lot No. 1950-A of the Naic Estate. The petitioner is bound to recognize the lien in favor of the private respondents which was mistakenly excluded and therefore not inscribed in the torrens title of the land of his predecessors-in-interest.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The questioned
decision is AFFIRMED but with a modification to the effect that the statement "Hereby declaring null and void, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T- 75543 of the same registry" is deleted. Instead, the Registrar of Deeds of Cavite is ordered to segregate the 1/3 portion of Lot No. 1950-A of the Naic Estate (4,063 square meters) from the entire portion embraced in Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-75543 and issue a new certificate of title in favor of the heirs of Gabriel Merlan over the disputed one-third portion and another new certificate of title over the remaining two-thirds portion of the land in favor of petitioner Rodolfo Coronel after cancelling Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-75543.
Herminia L. Mendoza, in Her Capacity As Oic of The Register of Deeds of Lucena City, vs. Spouses Armando and Angela Garana and Far East Bank Trust and Co., Inc., G.R. No. 179751, August 5, 2015
