5.

Mangahas vs CA
GR No. 95815, March 10, 1999

FACTS:
Since April 1955,the spouses, Severo S. Rodil and Caridad S. Rodil, occupied and
possessed the subject property,[5] which is an agricultural land with an area of 15.0871 hectares.
On February 1, 1971, they sold the said piece of land to the spouses, Pablo Simeon and Leonora
Cayme, for Seven Thousand (P7,000.00) Pesos, as evidenced by the affidavit executed by the
former in favor of the latter in the presence of the herein petitioner, Servando Mangahas.
Servando Mangahas, had been in possession thereof by virtue of the agreement between
him and the spouses Rodil, allowing him (petitioner) to occupy and cultivate the said parcel of
land. For allowing him to occupy and cultivate the same, petitioner Servando Mangahas paid the
amount of P7,000.00 to the Rodils, as mentioned in the "Kasulatan ng Pagtanggap ng Salapi"
Petitioner was permitted by the private respondents to continue possessing and working
on the same land, even after the sale, upon the request of the private respondents themselves.
However, the private respondents had long before demanded from the petitioner the return of the
premises in question but the latter refused to vacate the place alleging that he has been
possessing the property in an open and continuous manner in concepto de dueno upto the
present.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Mangahas is the real owner of the property.

RULING:
No. The possession of the spouses Rodil, from whom petitioner traces the origin of his supposed title,
commenced only in April 1955. Petitioner ca not now feign ignorance of such judicial admission which
he has resolutely repudiated in his present petition. Acquisition of ownership under the law on
prescription cannot be pleaded in support of petitioner's submission that subject land has ipso
jure become his private property.
6. Embrado v CA
GR No. 51457, June 27, 1994

FACTS:
Lot No. 564 is a 366-square meter lot situated in Dipolog City originally owned by Juan,
Pastor and Matias Carpitanos. On 2 July 1946, a Venta Definitiva, a notarized document written
entirely in Spanish, was executed by the Carpitanos whereby they sold Lot No. 564 to "Srta.
LUCIA C. EMBRADO soltera, con residencia y direccion postal Municipio de Dipolog, Provincia
de Zamboanga." The document provided that even though the deed was prepared and signed on
2 July 1946, the effects of the document would retroact to the 15th day of April 1941, the date the
lot and its improvements were actually sold to Lucia C. Embrado.
The sale was registered and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-99 was issued on 13
February 1948 in the name of Lucia Embrado alone, who was by then already married to petitioner
Oreste Torregiani since 1943. However, by virtue of a court order in Misc. Sp. Proc. No. 2330 of
the then Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, the word "single" appearing in TCT No.
T-99 was canceled and replaced on 19 October 1970 by the phrase "married to Oreste
Torregiani." The Torregianis then made their conjugal abode on the lot and in 1958 constructed
a residential/commercial building thereon.
On 6 March 1972, Eda Jimenez sold sixty-five (65) square meters of Lot 564 to Marcos
Salimbagat for P6,500.00, and on 1 August 1972, conveyed 301 square meters of the same lot to
Pacifico Cimafranca for P30,000. Both sales were duly annotated on TCT No. T-17103.

ISSUE:
Whether or not vendees Marcos Salimbagat and Pacifico Cimafranca were buyers in good faith.

RULING:
We agree with the trial court when it found that Salimbagat and Cimafranca purchased the
disputed lot from Eda and Santiago Jimenez with knowledge of facts and circumstances which
should have put them upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to acquaint them
with the defects in the title of their vendor. A purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should
put a reasonable man on his guard and then claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that
there was no defect in the title of the vendor. His mere refusal to believe that such defect exists,
or his willful closing of his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in the vendor's title
will not make him an innocent purchaser for value if afterwards it develops that the title is in fact
defective, and it appears that he had such notice of the defect as would have led to its discovery
had he acted with the measure of precaution which may reasonably be required of a prudent man
in like situation.

7. Editha Alviola vs CA
GR No. 117642 , April 24, 1998

FACTS:
On April 1, 1950, Victoria Sonjaconda Tinagan purchased from Mauro Tinagan two (2)
parcels of land situated at Negros Oriental One parcel of land contains an area of 5,704 square
meters, more or less; while the other contains 10,860 square meters. Thereafter, Victoria and her
son Agustin Tinagan, took possession of said parcels of land.
Sometime in 1960, petitioners occupied portions thereof whereat they built a copra dryer
and put up a store wherein they engaged in the business of buying and selling copra.
 On June 23, 1975, Victoria died. On October 26, 1975, Agustin died, survived by herein
private respondents, namely his wife, Florencia Buling Vda. de Tinagan and their children.
On December 24, 1976, petitioner Editha assisted by her husband filed a complaint for
partition and damages before the then Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, Branch 1,
Dumaguete City, claiming to be an acknowledged natural child of deceased Agustin Tinagan and
demanding the delivery of her shares in the properties left by the deceased.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners are in bad faith when they constructed the copra dryer.

RULING:
As correctly ruled by the respondent court, there was bad faith on the part of the petitioners
when they constructed the copra dryer and store on the disputed portions since they were fully
aware that the parcels of land belonged to Victoria Tinagan. And, there was likewise bad faith on
the part of the private respondents, having knowledge of the arrangement between petitioners
and Victoria Tinagan relative to the construction of the copra dryer and store. Thus, for purposes
of indemnity, Article 448 of the New Civil Code should be applied. However, the copra dryer and
the store, as determined by the trial court and respondent court, are transferable in nature. Thus,
it would not fall within the coverage of Article 448. As the noted civil law authority, Senator Arturo
Tolentino, aptly explains: "To fall within the provision of this Article, the construction must be of
permanent character, attached to the soil with an idea of perpetuity; but if it is of a transitory
character or is transferable, there is no accession, and the builder must remove the construction.
The proper remedy of the landowner is an action to eject the builder from the land."

8. DBP VS CA
GR No. 111737, Oct 13, 1999

FACTS:

Spouses Piñedas are registered owners of a parcel of land in Capiz, which they mortgaged
to DBP to secure the loan (P20,000) they obtained from the latter. Piñedas eventually defaulted,
prompting DBP to extra-judicially foreclose and take possession of such property. The Ministry of
Justice, then, opined through its Opinion No. 92 (’78) that lands covered by P.D. No. 27, to which
the subject property was included, may not be the object of foreclosure proceedings. The Piñedas,
then, sought to redeem such property (with P10,000 as downpayment) but was denied as the
land was allegedly tenanted. They then sought the cancellation of the title and specific
performance, stating that DBP acted in bad faith when it took possession of the property and
caused the consolidation of its title in spite of the fact that the 5-year redemption period expressly
stated in the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale had not yet lapsed and that their offer to redeem was
within the redemption period.

ISSUE:

Whether or not DBP acted in bad faith when it took possession of the property

RULING:

NO. DBP’s act of consolidating its title and taking possession of the property after the expiration
of the redemption period was in accordance with Sec. 6 of Act No. 3135, which states that if no
redemption of a foreclosed property is made within one year, the purchaser (DBP) is entitled as
a matter of right to consolidate and to possess the property. In addition to this, it was in
consonance with Sec. 4 of the mortgage contract between DBP and the Piñedas where they
agreed the appointment of DBP as receiver to take charge and to hold possession of the
mortgaged property in case of foreclosure

It may also be argued that P.D. No. 27 was already in effect when DBP foreclosed the property.
However, the legal propriety of the foreclosure of the land was questioned only after Opinion No.
92 (’78) was issued, which happened almost 2 months after DBP consolidated its title to the
property. By law and jurisprudence, a mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may
properly be the basis of good faith.
9. Alejo vs Spouses Cortez
GR No.206114, June 19, 2017

FACTS:
The property belonged to the conjugal property/absolute community of property of the
respondent Spouses Jorge and Jacinta Leonardo and upon which their residential house was
built.
Sometime in March 1996, Jacinta executed a Kasunduan with Dolores for the sale of the
property for a purchase price of PhP500,000. Jorge, however, did not sign the agreement.
Down payment of PhP70,000 and the PhP230,000 were paid by Dolores. Thereafter,
Dolores was allowed to possess the property and introduce improvements thereon.
 Jorge filed a complaint against Dolores and during the pendency of said cases, the subject
property was sold by Jorge and Jacinta to respondents Spouses Ernesto Cortez and Priscilla San
Pedro under a Deed of Absolute Sale where new transfer certificate of title was issued in the
latter's names.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Dolores is a possessor in good faith.

RULING:
Dolores acted in good faith in entering the subject property and building improvements on
it. Ricardo represented that Jacinta and Jorge wanted to sell the subject property. Dolores had no
reason to believe that Ricardo and Jacinta were lying. Indeed, upon her own brother's prodding,
Dolores willingly parted with her money and paid the down payment on the selling price and later,
a portion of the remaining balance. The signatures of Jacinta and of Ricardo (as witness) as well
as her successful entry to the property appear to have comforted Dolores that everything was in
order. Article 526 of the Civil Code provides that she is deemed a possessor in good faith, who is
not aware that there exists in her title or mode of acquisition any flaw that invalidates it.
Dolores, as possessor in good faith, is under no obligation to pay for her stay on the
property prior to its legal interruption by a final judgment. She is further entitled under Article 448
to indemnity for the improvements introduced on the property with a right of retention until
reimbursement is made. The Spouses Leonardo have the option under Article 546 of the Civil
Code of indemnifying Dolores for the cost of the improvements or paying the increase in value
which the property may have acquired by reason of such improvements.