Luis Ribad vs Filipinas Investment and Finance Corp G.R. No. L-39806, January 27, 1983

Luis Ribad vs Filipinas Investment and Finance Corp
G.R. No. L-39806, January 27, 1983
120 SCRA 246


Facts:

On April 14, 1964, plaintiffs purchased from the Supreme Sales arid Development Corporation two (2) brand new Ford Consul Sedans complete with accessories, for P26,887 payable in 24 monthly installments. To secure payment thereof, plaintiffs executed on the same date a promissory note covering the purchase price and a deed of chattel mortgage not only on the two vehicles purchased but also on another car (Chevrolet) and plaintiffs' franchise or certificate of public convenience granted by the defunct Public Service Commission for the operation of a taxi fleet. Then, with the conformity of the plaintiffs, the vendor assigned its rights, title and interest to the above-mentioned promissory note and chattel mortgage to defendant Filipinas Investment and Finance Corporation.



Due to the failure of the plaintiffs to pay their monthly installments as per promissory note, the defendant corporation foreclosed the chattel mortgage extra-judicially, and at the public auction sale of the two Ford Consul cars, of which the plaintiffs were not notified, the defendant corporation was the highest bidder and purchaser. Another auction sale was held on November 16, 1965, involving the remaining properties subject of the deed of chattel mortgage since plaintiffs' obligation was not fully satisfied by the sale of the aforesaid vehicles, and at the public auction sale, the franchise of plaintiffs to operate five units of taxicab service was sold for P8,000 to the highest bidder, herein defendant corporation, which subsequently sold and conveyed the same to herein defendant Jose D. Sebastian, who then filed with the Public Service Commission an application for approval of said sale in his favor.



On February 21, 1966, plaintiffs filed an action for annulment of contract before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch I, with Filipinas Investment and Finance Corporation, Jose D. Sebastian and Sheriff Jose San Agustin, as party-defendants. By agreement of the parties, the case was submitted for decision in the lower court on the basis of the documentary evidence adduced by the parties during the pre-trial conference. Thereafter, the lower court declared the chattel mortgage to be null and void in so far as the taxicab franchise and the used Chevrolet car of plaintiffs are concerned, and the sale at public auction conducted by the City Sheriff of Manila concerning said taxicab franchise, to be of no legal effect.



Issue:

The validity of the chattel mortgage in so far as the franchise and the subsequent sale thereof are concerned.



Ruling:

The resolution of said issue is unquestionably governed by the provisions of Article 1484 of the Civil Code.

The precise purpose of the law is to prevent mortgagees from seizing the mortgaged property, buying it at foreclosure sale for a low price and then bringing suit against the mortgagor for a deficiency judgment, otherwise, the mortgagor-buyer would find himself without the property and still owing practically the full amount of his original indebtedness.


The lower court rightly declared the nullity of the chattel mortgage in question in so far as the taxicab franchise and the used Chevrolet car of plaintiffs are concerned, under the authority of the ruling in the case of Levy Hermanos, Inc. vs. Pacific Commercial Co., et al., 71 Phil. 587, the facts of which are similar to those in the case at bar. There, we have the same situation wherein the vendees offered as security for the payment of the purchase price not only the motor vehicles which were bought on installment, but also a residential lot and a house of strong materials. This Court sustained the pronouncement made by the lower court on the nullity of the mortgage in so far as it included the house and lot of the vendees, holding that under the law, should the vendor choose to foreclose the mortgage, he has to content himself with the proceeds of the sale at the public auction of the chattels which were sold on installment and mortgaged to him and having chosen the remedy of foreclosure, he cannot nor should he be allowed to insist on the sale of the house and lot of the vendees, for to do so would be equivalent to obtaining a writ of execution against them concerning other properties which are separate and distinct from those which were sold on installment. This would indeed be contrary to public policy and the very spirit and purpose of the law, limiting the vendor's right to foreclose the chattel mortgage only on the thing sold.


Costs against the appellants.

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 155650 July 20, 2006

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 155650 July 20, 2006

Facts:

MIAA received Final Notices of Real Estate Tax Delinquency from the City of Parañaque for the taxable years 1992 to 2001. MIAA’s real estate tax delinquency was estimated at P624 million.

The City of Parañaque, through its City Treasurer, issued notices of levy and warrants of levy on the Airport Lands and Buildings. The Mayor of the City of Parañaque threatened to sell at public auction the Airport Lands and Buildings should MIAA fail to pay the real estate tax delinquency.

MIAA filed with the Court of Appeals an original petition for prohibition and injunction, with prayer for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. The petition sought to restrain the City of Parañaque from imposing real estate tax on, levying against, and auctioning for public sale the Airport Lands and Buildings.

Paranaque’s Contention: Section 193 of the Local Government Code expressly withdrew the tax exemption privileges of “government-owned and-controlled corporations” upon the effectivity of the Local Government Code. Respondents also argue that a basic rule of statutory construction is that the express mention of one person, thing, or act excludes all others. An international airport is not among the exceptions mentioned in Section 193 of the Local Government Code. Thus, respondents assert that MIAA cannot claim that the Airport Lands and Buildings are exempt from real estate tax.

MIAA’s contention: Airport Lands and Buildings are owned by the Republic. The government cannot tax itself. The reason for tax exemption of public property is that its taxation would not inure to any public advantage, since in such a case the tax debtor is also the tax creditor.

Issue:

WON Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are exempt from real estate tax under existing laws? Yes. Ergo, the real estate tax assessments issued by the City of Parañaque, and all proceedings taken pursuant to such assessments, are void.

Held:

1. MIAA is Not a Government-Owned or Controlled Corporation

MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation but an instrumentality of the National Government and thus exempt from local taxation.

MIAA is not a stock corporation because it has no capital stock divided into shares. MIAA has no stockholders or voting shares.

MIAA is also not a non-stock corporation because it has no members. A non-stock corporation must have members.

MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers to perform efficiently its governmental functions. MIAA is like any other government instrumentality, the only difference is that MIAA is vested with corporate powers.

When the law vests in a government instrumentality corporate powers, the instrumentality does not become a corporation. Unless the government instrumentality is organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, it remains a government instrumentality exercising not only governmental but also corporate powers. Thus, MIAA exercises the governmental powers of eminent domain, police authority and the levying of fees and charges. At the same time, MIAA exercises “all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law, insofar as these powers are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order.”

2. Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are Owned by the Republic

a. Airport Lands and Buildings are of Public Dominion

The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are property of public dominion and therefore owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines.

No one can dispute that properties of public dominion mentioned in Article 420 of the Civil Code, like “roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State,” are owned by the State. The term “ports” includes seaports and airports. The MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings constitute a “port” constructed by the State. Under Article 420 of the Civil Code, the MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings are properties of public dominion and thus owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines.

The Airport Lands and Buildings are devoted to public use because they are used by the public for international and domestic travel and transportation. The fact that the MIAA collects terminal fees and other charges from the public does not remove the character of the Airport Lands and Buildings as properties for public use.

The charging of fees to the public does not determine the character of the property whether it is of public dominion or not. Article 420 of the Civil Code defines property of public dominion as one “intended for public use.” The terminal fees MIAA charges to passengers, as well as the landing fees MIAA charges to airlines, constitute the bulk of the income that maintains the operations of MIAA. The collection of such fees does not change the character of MIAA as an airport for public use. Such fees are often termed user’s tax. This means taxing those among the public who actually use a public facility instead of taxing all the public including those who never use the particular public facility.

b. Airport Lands and Buildings are Outside the Commerce of Man

The Court has also ruled that property of public dominion, being outside the commerce of man, cannot be the subject of an auction sale.

Properties of public dominion, being for public use, are not subject to levy, encumbrance or disposition through public or private sale. Any encumbrance, levy on execution or auction sale of any property of public dominion is void for being contrary to public policy. Essential public services will stop if properties of public dominion are subject to encumbrances, foreclosures and auction sale. This will happen if the City of Parañaque can foreclose and compel the auction sale of the 600-hectare runway of the MIAA for non-payment of real estate tax.

c. MIAA is a Mere Trustee of the Republic

MIAA is merely holding title to the Airport Lands and Buildings in trust for the Republic. Section 48, Chapter 12, Book I of the Administrative Code allows instrumentalities like MIAA to hold title to real properties owned by the Republic. n MIAA’s case, its status as a mere trustee of the Airport Lands and Buildings is clearer because even its executive head cannot sign the deed of conveyance on behalf of the Republic. Only the President of the Republic can sign such deed of conveyance.

d. Transfer to MIAA was Meant to Implement a Reorganization

The transfer of the Airport Lands and Buildings from the Bureau of Air Transportation to MIAA was not meant to transfer beneficial ownership of these assets from the Republic to MIAA. The purpose was merely toreorganize a division in the Bureau of Air Transportation into a separate and autonomous body. The Republic remains the beneficial owner of the Airport Lands and Buildings. MIAA itself is owned solely by the Republic. No party claims any ownership rights over MIAA’s assets adverse to the Republic.

e. Real Property Owned by the Republic is Not Taxable

Sec 234 of the LGC provides that real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person following are exempted from payment of the real property tax.

However, portions of the Airport Lands and Buildings that MIAA leases to private entities are not exempt from real estate tax. For example, the land area occupied by hangars that MIAA leases to private corporations is subject to real estate tax.

JG Summit Holdings Inc. vs. CA G.R. No. 124293, November 20, 2000

JG Summit Holdings Inc. vs. CA
G.R. No. 124293, November 20, 2000

FACTS:

The National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC), a government corporation, entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. for the construction, operation and management of the Subic National Shipyard, Inc., later became the Philippine Shipyard and Engineering Corporation (PHILSECO). Under the JVA, NIDC and Kawasaki would maintain a shareholding proportion of 60%-40% and that the parties have the right of first refusal in case of a sale.

Through a series of transfers, NIDC’s rights, title and interest in PHILSECO eventually went to the National Government. In the interest of national economy, it was decided that PHILSECO should be privatized by selling 87.67% of its total outstanding capital stock to private entities. After negotiations, it was agreed that Kawasaki’s right of first refusal under the JVA be “exchanged” for the right to top by five percent the highest bid for said shares. Kawasaki that Philyards Holdings, Inc. (PHI), in which it was a stockholder, would exercise this right in its stead.

During bidding, Kawasaki/PHI Consortium is the losing bidder. Even so, because of the right to top by 5% percent the highest bid, it was able to top JG Summit’s bid. JG Summit protested, contending that PHILSECO, as a shipyard is a public utility and, hence, must observe the 60%-40% Filipino-foreign capitalization. By buying 87.67% of PHILSECO’s capital stock at bidding, Kawasaki/PHI in effect now owns more than 40% of the stock.

ISSUE:

* Whether or not PHILSECO is a public utility
* Whether or not Kawasaki/PHI can purchase beyond 40% of PHILSECO’s stocks


HELD:

In arguing that PHILSECO, as a shipyard, was a public utility, JG Summit relied on sec. 13, CA No. 146. On the other hand, Kawasaki/PHI argued that PD No. 666 explicitly stated that a “shipyard” was not a “public utility.” But the SC stated that sec. 1 of PD No. 666 was expressly repealed by sec. 20, BP Blg. 391 and when BP Blg. 391 was subsequently repealed by EO 226, the latter law did not revive sec. 1 of PD No. 666. Therefore, the law that states that a shipyard is a public utility still stands.

A shipyard such as PHILSECO being a public utility as provided by law is therefore required to comply with the 60%-40% capitalization under the Constitution. Likewise, the JVA between NIDC and Kawasaki manifests an intention of the parties to abide by this constitutional mandate. Thus, under the JVA, should the NIDC opt to sell its shares of stock to a third party, Kawasaki could only exercise its right of first refusal to the extent that its total shares of stock would not exceed 40% of the entire shares of stock. The NIDC, on the other hand, may purchase even beyond 60% of the total shares. As a government corporation and necessarily a 100% Filipino-owned corporation, there is nothing to prevent its purchase of stocks even beyond 60% of the capitalization as the Constitution clearly limits only foreign capitalization.

Kawasaki was bound by its contractual obligation under the JVA that limits its right of first refusal to 40% of the total capitalization of PHILSECO. Thus, Kawasaki cannot purchase beyond 40% of the capitalization of the joint venture on account of both constitutional and contractual proscriptions.

PIANSAY V. DAVID, G.R. No. L-19468, October 30, 1964

PIANSAY V. DAVID
12 SCRA 227

FACTS:
David secured a loan from Vda. De Uy Kim, and to secure the payment, he executed a chattel mortgage over a house in favor of Kim. Due to failure to pay, the CM was foreclosed and Kim was the highest bidder in the public auction. Kim then sold the house to Mangubat. The latter then filed charges against David for the collection of loan and praying that the deed of sale issued by Kim in favor of Piansay be declared null and void. The trial court held David liable to Mangubat but dismissed the complaint with regard Kim and Piansay.

Kim and Piansay then filed charges against David and Mangubat. Due to the civil case, David demanded from Piansay the payment of rentals for the use of the house, which the latter claims to be his property.

ISSUE:
W/N the chattel mortgage constituted in favor of Mrs. Uy Kim is valid.

HELD:
Regardless of the validity of a contract constituting a chattel mortgage on a house, as between the parties to the said contract, the same cannot and doesn’t bind third persons who aren’t parties to the aforementioned contract or their privies. As a consequence, the sale of the house in question in the proceedings for the sale of the house in question in the proceedings for the extrajudicial foreclosure of said chattel mortgage, is null and void insofar as Mangubat is concerned and didn’t confer upon Kim as buyer in said sale, any dominical right in and to said house.

MANARANG V. OFILADA, G.R. No. L-8133, May 18, 1956

MANARANG AND MANARANG V. OFILADA AND ESTEBAN

99 SCRA 108

FACTS:

Manarang secured a loan from Esteban guaranteed by a chattel mortgage over  a  house  of  mixed  materials.    Due  to  failure  to  pay,  the  chattel mortgage was foreclosed.  Before the sale of the property, Manarang tried to pay for the property but the sheriff refused to accept tender unless there is payment for the publication of the notice of sale in the newspapers. 

This prompted Manarang to bring this suit to compel the sheriff to accept payment.  He averred that the publication was unnecessary as the house should  be  considered  as  personal  property  per  agreement  in  the  chattel mortgage, and the publication for notice of sale is unnecessary.

ISSUE:

W/N the fact that the parties entering into a contract regarding a house gave said property the consideration of personal property in their contract, binding the sheriff in advertising the property's sale at public auction as personal property.

HELD:

There is no question that a building of mixed materials may be a subject of chattel mortgage, in which case it is considered as between the parties as personal property.

The mere fact that a house was the subject of chattel mortgage and was considered  as  personal  property  by  the  parties  doesn’t  make  the  said house personal property for purposes of the notice to be given for its sale in public auction.  It is real property within the purview of Rule 39, Section 16 of the Rules of Court as it has become a permanent fixture on the land, which is real property.

TUMALAD vs. VICENCIO, G.R. No. L-30173, September 30, 1971

TUMALAD V. VICENCIO
41 SCRA 143

FACTS:

Vicencio and Simeon executed a chattel mortgage in favor of plaintiffs Tumalad over their house, which was being rented by Madrigal and company. This was executed to guarantee a loan, payable in one year with a 12% per annum interest.

The mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed upon failure to pay the loan. The house was sold at a public auction and the plaintiffs were the highest bidder. A corresponding certificate of sale was issued. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an action for ejectment against the defendants, praying that the latter vacate the house as they were the proper owners.

ISSUE:

W/N the chattel mortgage was null and void ab initio because only personal properties can be subject of a chattel mortgage.

HELD:

Certain deviations have been allowed from the general doctrine that buildings are immovable property such as when through stipulation, parties may agree to treat as personal property those by their nature would be real property. This is partly based on the principle of estoppel wherein the principle is predicated on statements by the owner declaring his house as chattel, a conduct that may conceivably stop him from subsequently claiming otherwise.

In the case at bar, though there be no specific statement referring to the subject house as personal property, yet by ceding, selling or transferring a property through chattel mortgage could only have meant that defendant conveys the house as chattel, or at least, intended to treat the same as such, so that they should not now be allowed to make an inconsistent stand by claiming otherwise.

NAVARRO vs. PINEDA G. R, No. L-18456 November 30 1963

NAVARRO V. PINEDA

9 SCRA 631

FACTS:

Pineda and his mother executed real estate and chattel mortgages in favor of Navarro, to secure a loan they got from the latter.  The REM covered a parcel of land owned by the mother while the chattel mortgage covered a residential  house.    Due  to  the  failure  to  pay  the  loan,  they  asked  for extensions to pay for the loan.  On the second extension, Pineda executed a PROMISE wherein in case of default in payment, he wouldn’t ask for any additional extension and there would be no need for any formal demand.  In spite of this, they still failed to pay.

 Navarro then filed for the foreclosure of the mortgages.  The court decided in his favor.

  

ISSUE:

W/N the deed of real estate mortgage and chattel mortgage appended to the complaint is valid notwithsteed of real estate mortgage and chattel mortgage appended to the complaint is valid anding the fact that the house was made subject of chattel mortgage for the reason that it is erected on a land that belongs to a third person.

HELD:

Where  a  house  stands  on  a  rented  land  belonging  to  another  person,  it may be the subject matter of a chattel mortgage as personal property if so stipulated in the document of mortgage, and in an action by the mortgagee for the foreclosure, the validity of the chattel mortgage cannot be assailed by one of the parties to the contract of mortgage.

 Furthermore, although in some instances, a house of mixed materials has been considered as a chattel between the parties and that the validity of the  contract  between  them,  has  been  recognized,  it  has  been  a  constant criterion  that  with  respect  to  third  persons,  who  are  not  parties  to  the contract, and specially in execution proceedings, the house is considered as immovable property.  

PRUDENTIAL BANK V. PANIS G.R. No. L-50008 August 31, 1987

PRUDENTIAL BANK V. PANIS
153 SCRA 390

FACTS:
Spouses Magcale secured a loan from Prudential Bank. To secure payment, they executed a real estate mortgage over a residential building. The mortgage included also the right to occupy the lot and the information about the sales patent applied for by the spouses for the lot to which the building stood. After securing the first loan, the spouses secured another from the same bank. To secure payment, another real estate mortgage was executed over the same properties.

The Secretary of Agriculture then issued a Miscellaneous Sales Patent over the land which was later on mortgaged to the bank.

The spouses then failed to pay for the loan and the REM was extrajudicially foreclosed and sold in public auction despite opposition from the spouses. The respondent court held that the REM was null and void.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a valid RE mortgage can be constituted on the building erected on the belonging to another.

HELD:
A real estate mortgage can be constituted on the building erected on the land belonging to another.

The inclusion of building distinct and separate from the land in the Civil Code can only mean that the building itself is an immovable property.

While it is true that a mortgage of land necessarily includes in the absence of stipulation of the improvements thereon, buildings, still a building in itself may be mortgaged by itself apart from the land on which it is built. Such a mortgage would still be considered as a REM for the building would still be considered as immovable property even if dealt with separately and apart from the land.

The original mortgage on the building and right to occupancy of the land was executed before the issuance of the sales patent and before the government was divested of title to the land. Under the foregoing, it is evident that the mortgage executed by private respondent on his own
building was a valid mortgage.

As to the second mortgage, it was done after the sales patent was issued and thus prohibits pertinent provisions of the Public Land Act.

EVANGELISTA vs. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. G.R. No. L-11139 April 23, 1958

EVANGELISTA vs. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.
G.R. No. L-11139 April 23, 1958


FACTS:

On June 4, 1949, petitioner herein, Santos Evangelista, instituted Civil Case No. 8235 of the Court of First, Instance of Manila for a sum of money. On the same date, he obtained a writ of attachment, which levied upon a house, built by Rivera on a land situated in Manila and leased to him, by filing copy of said writ and the corresponding notice of attachment with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Manila, on June 8, 1949. In due course, judgment was rendered in favor of Evangelista, who, on October 8, 1951, bought the house at public auction held in compliance with the writ of execution issued in said case. The corresponding definite deed of sale was issued to him on October 22, 1952, upon expiration of the period of redemption. When Evangelista sought to take possession of the house, Rivera refused to surrender it, upon the ground that he had leased the property from the Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. and that the latter is now the true owner of said property. It appears that on May 10, 1952, a definite deed of sale of the same house had been issued to respondent, as the highest bidder at an auction sale held, on September 29, 1950, in compliance with a writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 6268 of the same court for the sum of money, had been rendered in favor respondent herein, as plaintiff therein. Hence, on June 13, 1953, Evangelista instituted the present action against respondent and Ricardo Rivera, for the purpose of establishing his (Evangelista) title over said house, securing possession thereof, apart from recovering damages. After due trial, the CFI Manila rendered judgment for Evangelista, sentencing Rivera and Alto Surety to deliver the house in question to Evangelista and to pay him, jointly and severally, P40 a month from Oct. 1952 until said delivery, plus costs.

On appeal taken by respondent, this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals, which absolved said respondent from the complaint, upon the ground that, although the writ of attachment in favor of Evangelista had been filed with the Register of Deeds of Manila prior to the sale in favor of respondent, Evangelista did not acquire thereby a preferential lien, the attachment having been levied as if the house in question were immovable property, although in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, it is "ostensibly a personal property.

ISSUE:

W/N a house constructed by the lessee of the land on which it is built, should be dealt with, for the purpose of attachment, as immovable property.

HELD:

The said house is not personal property, much less a debt, credit or other personal property not capable of manual delivery, but immovable property. As explicitly held, in Laddera vs. Hodges (48 Off. Gaz., 5374), "a true building (not merely superimposed on the soil) is immovable or real property, whether it is erected by the owner of the land or by usufructuary or lessee. This is the doctrine of our Supreme Court in Leung Yee vs. Strong Machinery Company, 37 Phil., 644.

It is true that the parties to a deed of chattel mortgage may agree to consider a house as personal property for purposes of said contract (Luna vs. Encarnacion, * 48 Off. Gaz., 2664; Standard Oil Co. of New York vs. Jaramillo, 44 Phil., 630; De Jesus vs. Juan Dee Co., Inc., 72 Phil., 464). However, this view is good only insofar as the contracting parties are concerned. It is based, partly, upon the principle of estoppel. Neither this principle, nor said view, is applicable to strangers to said contract. Much less is it in point where there has been no contract whatsoever, with respect to the status of the house involved, as in the case at bar.

PUNSALAN, JR. V. VDA. DE LACSAMANA G.R. No. L-55729 March 28, 1983

PUNSALAN, JR. V. VDA. DE LACSAMANA
G.R. No. L-55729 March 28, 1983


FACTS:
Punsalan was the owner of a piece of land, which he mortgaged in favor of PNB. Due to his failure to pay, the mortgage was foreclosed and the land was sold in a public auction to which PNB was the highest bidder.

On a relevant date, while Punsalan was still the possessor of the land, it secured a permit for the construction of a warehouse.

A deed of sale was executed between PNB and Punsalan. This contract was amended to include the warehouse and the improvement thereon. By virtue of these instruments, respondent Lacsamana secured title over the property in her name.

Petitioner then sought for the annulment of the deed of sale. Among his allegations was that the bank did not own the building and thus, it should not be included in the said deed.

Petitioner’s complaint was dismissed for improper venue. The trial court held that the action being filed in actuality by petitioner is a real action involving his right over a real property.

 ISSUE:

W/N the trial court erred in dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue.
W/N the warehouse is an immovable and must be tried in the province where the property lies.



HELD:
 Warehouse claimed to be owned by petitioner is an immovable or real property. Buildings are always immovable under the Code. A building treated separately from the land on which it is stood is immovable property and the mere fact that the parties to a contract seem to have dealt with it separate and apart from the land on which it stood in no wise changed its character as immovable property.

PEOPLE'S BANK AND TRUST CO. vs. DAHICAN LUMBER COMPANY G.R. No. L-17500 May 16, 1967

PEOPLE'S BANK AND TRUST CO. vs. DAHICAN LUMBER COMPANY
G.R. No. L-17500 May 16, 1967

Facts:

On September 8, 1948, Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Company of Manila, a West Virginia corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines sold and assigned all its rights in the Dahican Lumber concession to Dahican Lumber Company - hereinafter referred to as DALCO - for the total sum of $500,000.00, of which only the amount of $50,000.00 was paid. Thereafter, to develop the concession, DALCO obtained various loans from the People's Bank & Trust Company amounting, as of July 13, 1950, to P200,000.00. In addition, DALCO obtained, through the BANK, a loan of $250,000.00 from the Export-Import Bank of Washington D.C., evidenced by five promissory notes of $50,000.00 each, maturing on different dates, executed by both DALCO and the Dahican America Lumber Corporation, a foreign corporation and a stockholder of DALCO,

As security for the payment of the abovementioned loans, on July 13, 1950 DALCO executed in favor of the BANK a deed of mortgage covering five parcels of land situated in the province of Camarines Norte together with all the buildings and other improvements existing thereon and all the personal properties of the mortgagor located in its place of business in the municipalities of Mambulao and Capalonga, Camarines Norte. On the same date, DALCO executed a second mortgage on the same properties in favor of ATLANTIC to secure payment of the unpaid balance of the sale price of the lumber concession amounting to the sum of $450,000.00. Both deeds contained a provision extending the mortgage lien to properties to be subsequently acquired by the mortgagor.

Both mortgages were registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Camarines Norte. In addition thereto DALCO and DAMCO pledged to the BANK 7,296 shares of stock of DALCO and 9,286 shares of DAMCO to secure the same obligation.

Upon DALCO's and DAMCO's failure to pay the fifth promissory note upon its maturity, the BANK paid the same to the Export-Import Bank of Washington D.C., and the latter assigned to the former its credit and the first mortgage securing it. Subsequently, the BANK gave DALCO and DAMCO up to April 1, 1953 to pay the overdue promissory note.c

After July 13, 1950 - the date of execution of the mortgages mentioned above - DALCO purchased various machineries, equipment, spare parts and supplies in addition to, or in replacement of some of those already owned and used by it on the date aforesaid. Pursuant to the provision of the mortgage deeds quoted theretofore regarding "after acquired properties," the BANK requested DALCO to submit complete lists of said properties but the latter failed to do so. In connection with these purchases, there appeared in the books of DALCO as due to Connell Bros. Company (Philippines) - a domestic corporation who was acting as the general purchasing agent of DALCO -the sum of P452,860.55 and to DAMCO, the sum of P2,151,678.34.chan

On December 16, 1952, the Board of Directors of DALCO, in a special meeting called for the purpose, passed a resolution agreeing to rescind the alleged sales of equipment, spare parts and supplies by CONNELL and DAMCO to it.

On January 13, 1953, the BANK, in its own behalf and that of ATLANTIC, demanded that said agreements be cancelled but CONNELL and DAMCO refused to do so. As a result, on February 12, 1953; ATLANTIC and the BANK, commenced foreclosure proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte against DALCO and DAMCO.

Upon motion of the parties the Court, on September 30, 1953, issued an order transferring the venue of the action to the Court of First Instance of Manila.

On August 30, 1958, upon motion of all the parties, the Court ordered the sale of all the machineries, equipment and supplies of DALCO, and the same were subsequently sold for a total consideration of P175,000.00 which was deposited in court pending final determination of the action. By a similar agreement one-half (P87,500.00) of this amount was considered as representing the proceeds obtained from the sale of the "undebated properties" (those not claimed by DAMCO and CONNELL), and the other half as representing those obtained from the sale of the "after acquired properties".


ISSUE:

WON the "after acquired properties" were subject to the deeds of mortgage mentioned heretofore. Assuming that they are subject thereto,
WON the mortgages are valid and binding on the properties aforesaid inspite of the fact that they were not registered in accordance with the provisions of the Chattel Mortgage Law.

HELD:

Under the fourth paragraph of both deeds of mortgage, it is crystal clear that all property of every nature and description taken in exchange or replacement, as well as all buildings, machineries, fixtures, tools, equipments, and other property that the mortgagor may acquire, construct, install, attach; or use in, to upon, or in connection with the premises - that is, its lumber concession - "shall immediately be and become subject to the lien" of both mortgages in the same manner and to the same extent as if already included therein at the time of their execution. Such stipulation is neither unlawful nor immoral, its obvious purpose being to maintain, to the extent allowed by circumstances, the original value of the properties given as security.

Article 415 does not define real property but enumerates what are considered as such, among them being machinery, receptacles, instruments or replacements intended by owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and shall tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works. On the strength of the above-quoted legal provisions, the lower court held that inasmuch as "the chattels were placed in the real properties mortgaged to plaintiffs, they came within the operation of Art. 415, paragraph 5 and Art. 2127 of the New Civil Code". In the present case, the characterization of the "after acquired properties" as real property was made not only by one but by both interested parties. There is, therefore, more reason to hold that such consensus impresses upon the properties the character determined by the parties who must now be held in estoppel to question it.

DAVAO SAW MILL CO. VS. CASTILLO G.R. No. L-40411 August 7, 1935

DAVAO SAW MILL CO. VS. CASTILLO

G.R. No. L-40411     August 7, 1935

MALCOLM, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner is the holder of a lumber concession.  It operated a sawmill on a land, which it doesn’t own.  Part of the lease agreement was a stipulation in which after the lease agreement, all buildings and improvements would pass to the ownership of the lessor, which would not include machineries and  accessories.    In  connection  to  this,  petitioner  had  in  its  sawmill machineries and other equipment wherein some were bolted in foundations of cement.  

Issue:
Whether or not the trial judge erred in finding that the subject properties are personal in nature.

HELD:

The machinery must be classified as personal property.

The lessee placed the machinery in the building erected on land belonging to another, with the understanding that the machinery was not included in the improvements which would pass to the lessor on the expiration of the lease  agreement.    The  lessee  also  treated  the  machinery  as  personal

property  in  executing  chattel  mortgages  in  favor  of  third  persons.    The machinery was levied upon by the sheriff as personalty pursuant to a writ of execution obtained without any protest being registered.

Furthermore, machinery only becomes immobilized when placed in a plant by the owner of the property or plant, but not when so placed by a tenant, usufructuary,  or  any  person  having  temporary  right,  unless  such  person acted as the agent of the owner.

Bicerra v. Teneza [G.R. No. L-16218. November 29, 1962.]

Bicerra v. Teneza
[G.R. No. L-16218. November 29, 1962.]
En Banc, Makalintal (J): 10 concur.

FACTS: The Bicerras are supposedly the owners of the house worth P200, built on a lot owned by them in Lagangilang, Abra; which the Tenezas forcibly demolished in January 1957, claiming to be the owners thereof. The materials of the house were placed in the custody of the barrio lieutenant. The Bicerras filed a complaint claiming actual damages of P200, moral and consequential damages amounting to P600, and the costs. The CFI Abra dismissed the complaint claiming that the action was within the exclusive (original) jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court of Lagangilang, Abra.

ISSUE:
W/N the action involves title to real propety.
W/N the dismissal of the complaint was proper.

HELD:
The Supreme Court affirmed the order appealed. Having been admitted in forma pauperis, no costs were adjudged.

1. House is immovable property even if situated on land belonging to a different owner; Exception, when demolished
A house is classified as immovable property by reason of its adherence to the soil on which it is built (Article 415, paragraph 1, Civil Code). This classification holds true regardless of the fact that the house may be situated on land belonging to a different owner. But once the house is demolished, as in this case, it ceases to exist as such and hence its character as an immovable likewise ceases.

2. Recovery of damages not exceeding P2,000 and involving no real property belong to the Justice of the Peace Court
The complaint is for recovery of damages, the only positive relief prayed for. Further, a declaration of being the owners of the dismantled house and/or of the materials in no wise constitutes the relief itself which if granted by final judgment could be enforceable by execution, but is only incidental to the real cause of action to recover damages. As this is a case for recovery of damages where the demand does not exceed PhP 2,000 and that there is no real property litigated as the house has ceased to exist, the case is within the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court (as per Section 88, RA 296 as amended) and not the CFI (Section 44, id.)

ASSOCIATED INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY V. IYA, ET. AL 103 SCRA 972 G.R. Nos. L-10837-38 May 30, 1958

ASSOCIATED INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY V. IYA, ET. AL

103 SCRA 972

G.R. Nos. L-10837-38 May 30, 1958

FACTS:

Spouses Valino were the owners of a house, payable on installments from Philippine Realty Corporation. To be able to purchase on credit rice from NARIC, they filed a surety bond subscribed by petitioner and therefor, they executed an alleged chattel mortgage on the house in favor of the surety company. The spouses didn’t own yet the land on which the house was constructed on at the time of the undertaking. After being able to purchase the land, to be able to secure payment for indebtedness, the spouses executed a real estate mortgage in favor of Iya.

The spouses were not able to satisfy obligation with NARIC, petitioner was compelled to pay. The spouses weren’t able to pay the surety company despite demands and thus, the company foreclosed the chattel mortgage. It later learned of the real estate mortgage over the house and lot secured by the spouses. This prompted the company to file an action against the spouses. Also, Iya filed another civil action against the spouses, asserting that she has a better right over the property. The trial court heard the two cases jointly and it held that the surety company had a preferred right over the building as since when the chattel mortgage was secured, the land wasn’t owned yet by the spouses making the building then a chattel and not a real property. 


ISSUE:

WON the auction sale was null and void
WON the house can be considered as personal property.

HELD:

A building certainly cannot be divested of its character of a realty by the fact that the land on which it is constructed belongs to another. To hold it the other way, the possibility is not remote that it would result in confusion, for to cloak the building with an uncertain status made dependent on ownership of the land, would create a situation where apermanent fixture changes its nature or character as the ownership of the land changes hands. In the case at bar, as personal properties may be the only subjects of a chattel mortgage, the execution of the chattel mortgage covering said building is null and void.

FRANCISCO M. ALONSO vs. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, INC. G.R. No. 130876 January 31, 2002

G.R. No. 130876 January 31, 2002
FRANCISCO M. ALONSO, substituted by his heirs, petitioners,
vs.
CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, INC., respondent.
PARDO, J.:

FACTS: The case is an appeal via certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming in toto that of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Cebu City, declaring that the title to the contested Lot No. 727, Banilad Friar Lands Estate, Cebu City, was validly re-constituted in the name of the Cebu Country Club, Inc. and ordering petitioners to pay attorney’s fees of P400,000.00, and litigation expenses of P51,000.00, and costs.

Petitioner Francisco M. Alonso, who died pendente lite and substituted by his legal heirs, a lawyer by profession, the only son and sole heir of the late Tomas N. Alonso and Asuncion Medalle, who died on June 16, 1962 and August 18, 1963, respectively. Cebu Country Club, Inc. is a non-stock, non-profit corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine Laws the purpose of which is to cater to the recreation and leisure of its members.

Sometime in 1992, petitioner discovered documents and records — Friar Lands Sale Certificate Register/Installment Record Certificate No. 734, Sales Certificate No. 734 and Assignment of Sales Certificate — showing that his father acquired Lot No. 727 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate from the Government of the Philippine Islands in or about the year 1911 in accordance with the Friar Lands Act (Act No. 1120). The documents show that one Leoncio Alburo, the original vendee of Lot No. 727, assigned his sales certificate to petitioner’s father on December 18, 1911, who completed the required installment payments thereon under Act No. 1120 and was consequently issued Patent No. 14353 on March 24, 1926. On March 27, 1926, the Director of Lands, acting for and in behalf of the government, executed a final deed of sale in favor of petitioner’s father Tomas N. Alonso. It appears, however, that the deed was not registered with the Register of Deeds because of lack of technical requirements, among them the approval of the deed of sale by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, as required by law.

Upon investigation of the status of the land, petitioner found out from the office of the Registrar of Deeds of Cebu City that title to Lot No. 727 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate had been "administratively reconstituted from the owner’s duplicate" on July 26, 1948 under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-1310 (T-11351) in the name of United Service Country Club, Inc., predecessor of Cebu Country Club, Inc. On March 8, 1960, upon order of the Court of First Instance, the name of the registered owner in TCT No. RT-1310 (T-11531) was changed to Cebu Country Club, Inc. Moreover, the TCT provides that the reconstituted title was a transfer from TCT No. 1021.

In the firm belief that petitioner’s father is still the rightful owner of Lot No. 727 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate since there are no records showing that he ever sold or conveyed the disputed property to anyone, on July 7, 1992, petitioner made a formal demand upon Cebu Country Club, Inc. to restore to him the ownership and possession of said lot within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof. Cebu Country Club, Inc., however, denied petitioner’s claim and refused to deliver possession to him.

Left with no other recourse, on September 25, 1992, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, a complaint for declaration of nullity and non-existence of deed/title, cancellation of certificates of title and recovery of property against defendant Cebu Country Club, Inc. He alleged that the Cebu Country Club, Inc. fraudulently and illegally managed to secure in its name the administrative reconstitution of TCT No. RT-13 10 (T-11351) despite the absence of any transaction of specific land dealing that would show how Lot No. 727 had come to pass to Cebu Country Club, Inc.; that TCT No. 11351 which is the source title of TCT No. RT-1310 (T-11351) does not pertain to Lot No. 727; that the reconstituted title which was issued on July 26, 1948, did not contain the technical description of the registered land which was inserted only on March 8, 1960, twenty-eight (28) years after the issuance of TCT No. RT-1310 (T-11351), hence, Cebu Country Club, Inc.’s title is null and void. Petitioner thus prayed for the cancellation of TCT No. RT-1310 (T-11351) and the issuance of another title in his name as the sole heir of Tomas Alonso, for Cebu Country Club, Inc. to deliver possession of the property to petitioner, and render an accounting of the fruits and income of the land. Petitioner likewise prayed for the sum of P100, 000.00 by way of attorney’s fees plus P500.00 per hearing as appearance fee, and P10, 000.00 as reasonable litigation expenses.

On November 5, 1992, Cebu Country Club, Inc. filed with the trial court its answer with counterclaim. It alleged that petitioner had no cause of action against Cebu Country Club, Inc. since the same had prescribed and was barred by laches, Cebu Country Club, Inc. having been in possession of the land since 1935 until the present in the concept of an owner, openly, publicly, peacefully, exclusively, adversely, continuously, paying regularly the real estate taxes thereon; that Cebu Country Club, Inc. acquired the lot in good faith and for value; that it caused the administrative reconstitution of Lot No. 727 in 1948 from the owner’s duplicate, the original of TCT No. 11351 having been lost or destroyed during the war, pursuant to Republic Act No. 26, its implementing Circular, GLRO Circular No. 178 and Circular No. 6 of the General Land Registration Office; that unlike Cebu Country Club, Inc., petitioner’s father never had any registered title under the Land Registration Act No. 496 nor did he pay the necessary taxes on Lot No. 727 during his lifetime; that petitioner’s father knew that the United Service Country Club, Inc., predecessor of Cebu Country Club, Inc. was occupying Lot No. 727 as owner; that petitioner’s father never reconstituted his alleged title to Lot No. 727 but did so over Lot No. 810 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate, a lot adjacent to the disputed property, in 1946; that petitioner himself lived in Cebu City, a few kilometers away from the land in litigation; that petitioner’s father or petitioner himself, both of whom are lawyers and the former a congressman as well, for more than sixty (60) years, never made any demand on Cebu Country Club, Inc. for the recovery of the property knowing fully well that said land was owned and utilized by Cebu Country Club, Inc. as its main golf course. By way of counterclaim, Cebu Country Club, Inc. prayed for the award of attorney’s fees in the amount of P900,000.00 and litigation expenses of P100,000.00, moral damages of P500,000.00 and exemplary damages of P2,000,000.00.

Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff: declaring the contested property or Lot 727 as legally belonging to the defendant; directing the plaintiff to pay attorney'’ fee of P400, 000.00; and litigation expenses of P51, 000.00; and finally, with costs against the plaintiff.

After proceedings on appeal, on March 31, 1997, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.

On April 30, 1997, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration; however, on October 2, 1997, the Court of Appeals denied the motion. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the validity of TCT No. RT-1310 (T-11351).
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining respondent’s claim of ownership over Lot No. 727;
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the present action is barred by prescription and/or by laches;
4. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not applying the doctrine of stare decisis;
5. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court’s award for damages in the form of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

1. Reconstitution was based on the owner’s duplicate of the title, hence, there was no need for the covering deed of sale or other modes of conveyance. Cebu Country Club, Inc. was admittedly in possession of the land since long before the Second World War, or since 1931. In fact, the original title (TCT No. 11351) was issued to the United Service Country Club, Inc. on November 19, 1931 as a transfer from Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1021. More importantly, Cebu Country Club, Inc. paid the realty taxes on the land even before the war, and tax declarations covering the property showed the number of the TCT of the land. Cebu Country Club, Inc. produced receipts showing real estate tax payments since 1949. On the other hand, petitioner failed to produce a single receipt of real estate tax payment ever made by his father since the sales patent was issued to his father on March 24, 1926. Worse, admittedly petitioner could not show any torrens title ever issued to Tomas N. Alonso, because, as said, the deed of sale executed on March 27, 1926 by the Director of Lands was not approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and could not be registered. "Under the law, it is the act of registration of the deed of conveyance that serves as the operative act to convey the land registered under the Torrens system. The act of registration creates constructive notice to the whole world of the fact of such conveyance." On this point, petitioner alleges that Cebu Country Club, Inc. obtained its title by fraud in connivance with personnel of the Register of Deeds in 1941 or in 1948, when the title was administratively reconstituted. Imputations of fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner failed to adduce evidence of fraud. In an action for re-conveyance based on fraud, he who charges fraud must prove such fraud in obtaining a title. "In this jurisdiction, fraud is never presumed." The strongest suspicion cannot sway judgment or overcome the presumption of regularity. "The sea of suspicion has no shore, and the court that embarks upon it is without rudder or compass." Worse, the imputation of fraud was so tardily brought, some forty-four (44) years or sixty-one (61) years after its supposed occurrence, that is, from the administrative reconstitution of title on July 26, 1948, or from the issuance of the original title on November 19, 1931, that verification is rendered extremely difficult, if not impossible, especially due to the supervening event of the second world war during which practically all public records were lost or destroyed, or no longer available.

Petitioners next question the lack of technical description inscribed in the reconstituted title in Cebu Country Club, Inc.’s name. This is not a bar to reconstitution of the title nor will it affect the validity of the reconstituted title. A registered owner is given two (2) years to file a plan of such land with the Chief of the General Land Registration Office. The two-year period is directory, not jurisdictional. In other words, the failure to submit the technical description within two (2) years would not invalidate the title. At most, the failure to file such technical description within the two-year period would bar a transfer of the title to a third party in a voluntary transaction.

2. Admittedly, neither petitioners nor their predecessor had any title to the land in question. The most that petitioners could claim was that the Director of Lands issued a sales patent in the name of Tomas N. Alonso. The sales patent, however, and even the corresponding deed of sale were not registered with the Register of Deeds and no title was ever issued in the name of the latter. This is because there were basic requirements not complied with, the most important of which was that the deed of sale executed by the Director of Lands was not approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Hence, the deed of sale was void. "Approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce is indispensable for the validity of the sale." Moreover, Cebu Country Club, Inc. was in possession of the land since 1931, and had been paying the real estate taxes thereon based on tax declarations in its name with the title number indicated thereon. Tax receipts and declarations of ownership for taxation purposes are strong evidence of ownership. This Court has ruled that although tax declarations or realty tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner for no one in his right mind will be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession.

Notwithstanding this fatal defect, the Court of Appeals ruled that "there was substantial compliance with the requirement of Act No. 1120 to validly convey title to said lot to Tomas N. Alonso."

On this point, the Court of Appeals erred.

Under Act No. 1120, which governs the administration and disposition of friar lands, the purchase by an actual and bona fide settler or occupant of any portion of friar land shall be "agreed upon between the purchaser and the Director of Lands, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (mutatis mutandis)."

In his Memorandum filed on May 25, 2001, the Solicitor General submitted to this Court certified copies of Sale Certificate No. 734, in favor of Leoncio Alburo, and Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 734, in favor of Tomas N. Alonso. Conspicuously, both instruments do not bear the signature of the Director of Lands and the Secretary of the Interior. They also do not bear the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Only recently, in Jesus P. Liao v. Court of Appeals, the Court has ruled categorically that approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce of the sale of friar lands is indispensable for its validity, hence, the absence of such approval made the sale null and void ab-initio. Necessarily, there can be no valid titles issued on the basis of such sale or assignment. Consequently, petitioner Francisco’s father did not have any registerable title to the land in question. Having none, he could not transmit anything to his sole heir, petitioner Francisco Alonso or the latter’s heirs.

Consequently, we rule that neither Tomas N. Alonso nor his son Francisco M. Alonso or the latter’s heirs are the lawful owners of Lot No. 727 in dispute. Neither has the respondent Cebu Country Club, Inc. been able to establish a clear title over the contested estate. The reconstitution of a title is simply the re-issuance of a lost duplicate certificate of title in its original form and condition. It does not determine or resolve the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. A reconstituted title, like the original certificate of title, by itself does not vest ownership of the land or estate covered thereby.

3. An action for re-conveyance is a legal remedy granted to a landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another’s name, but then the action must be filed within ten years from the issuance of the title since such issuance operates as a constructive notice." In addition, the action is barred by laches because of the long delay before the filing of the case. Petitioner Francisco’s action in the court below was basically one of re-conveyance. It was filed on September 25, 1992, sixty-one (61) years after the title was issued on November 19, 1931, and forty-four (44) years after its reconstitution on July 26, 1948.

4. Petitioners assert that as the Court of Appeals annulled Cebu Country Club, Inc.’s title in the Cabrera-Ingles case, so too must the title in this case be declared void. In the first place, there is no identity of parties; secondly, neither the titles to nor the parcels of land involved are the same. Consequently, the doctrine of res-judicata does not apply. Momentarily casting aside the doctrine of res-judicata, there is an important moiety in the Cabrera-Ingles case. There, the Director of Lands, after the administrative reconstitution of the title, issued a directive to the Register of Deeds to register the lot in question in favor of Graciano Ingles. This superseded the administrative reconstitution, rendering allegations of fraud irrelevant. Here, the Director of Lands did not issue a directive to register the land in favor of Tomas N. Alonso. And worse, the sales patent and corresponding deed of sale executed in 1926 are now stale.

5. An award of attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation is proper under the circumstances provided for in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, one of which is when the court deems it just and equitable that attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered and when the civil action or proceeding is clearly unfounded and where defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review. However, we SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals and that of the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Branch 08. IN LIEU THEREOF, we DISMISS the complaint and counterclaim of the parties in Civil Case No. CEB 12926 of the trial court. We declare that Lot No. 727 D-2 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate covered by Original Certificate of Title Nos. 251, 232, and 253 legally belongs to the Government of the Philippines.