3Republit of tbe ~bilippines

$>upreme QCourt
,1llllanila

SECOND DIVISION

LORENZO WILLY, substituted G.R. No. 207051

by his heirs, namely: FELICIDAD
D. WILLY, BETTY WILLY
CADANGEN, TONY WILLY, Present:
COSME WILLY, ROSARIO
WILLY-ARMAS, ERLINDA PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J,
WILLY-DAPYAWON, JOHNNY Chairperson,
WILLY, JOSE WILLY, HERNANDO,
RODOLFO WILLY, SWINIE INTING,
WILLY, ISABEL WILLY, NEDA GAERLAN,* and
CACANANDO, and BENITA DIMAAMPAO,* JJ
WILLY, herein represented by
their Attorneys-in-fact, MARIA
APRILA WILLY CRUZ and
BETTY WILLY CADANGEN,
Petitioners,

- versus -

REMEDIOS F. JULIAN,
GEORGE F. JULIAN, JOAN J.
AGUIRRE, EMILY J. Promulgated:
BUSTARDE, and WILLIAM F.
JULIAN,
Respondents.
--
x------------------------------------------------------------- :.::::.:::>-<'.'.'.:-----------------------x

DECISION
HERNANDO, J.:

We have here divergent rulings of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court

(MCTC), the Regional Trial Court (RTC), and the Court of Appeals (CA),
vacillating between the petitioners, heirs of Lorenzo Willy (Lorenzo), who are all

On official leave.
Decision -2- G.R. No.,,207051

represented by their Attorneys-in-Fact, Betty Willy Cadangen and Maria Aprila

Willy Cruz, and respondents, heirs of Ricardo Julian (Ricardo), the original
plaintiff.

This petition for review on certiorari 1 challenges the February 21, 2013
Decision2 and the April 26, 2013 Resolution3 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No.
122133, which reversed and set aside the July 12, 2011 Decision4 of the RTC,
Branch 62, La Trinidad, Benguet in Civil Case No. 10-CV-2664, which, in turn,
reversed and set aside the September 20, 2010 Decision5 of the 5th MCTC, Tuba-
Sablan, Benguet in Civil Case No. 196.

The Facts:

The controversy between the parties is traced to a 67,635-square meter6

unregistered land located at Beckel, Sto. Tomas, Tuba, Sablan, Benguet (subject
property), owned by Modesto Willy (Modesto) 7 and covered by tax declarations 8
· in his name. 9 The subject property is covered by Bureau of Lands PSU No.
192802. 10 Modesto was the father of Lorenzo Willy (Lorenzo), who was likewise
the progenitor of the some of the petitioners. 11

On March 29, 1963, 12 Modesto executed a written agreement 13 (1963

Agreement) conveying portions of the subject property to three individuals who
rendered services to Modesto in connection therewith:

In consideration of the Surveyor's services, the Lawyer's services and

the amount of ONE THOUSAND NINETY FIVE (Pl,095) PESOS; and the
Agent's services, the Owner by these presents, does hereby transfer and convey
to the following named persons, portions of the above land as follows:

1 - To Perfecto Jularbal, an undivided TEN THOUSAND (10,000) square

meters;

2 -To B. F. Catbagen, Jr. an undivided TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND

THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE (27,365) square meters;

Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Rollo, pp. 43-60. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and concurred in by Associate Justices
Fiorito S. Macalino and Edwin D. Sorongon.
Id. at 61-63.
4 CA rollo, pp. 131-145. Penned by Judge Danilo P. Camacho.
5
Id. at 42-60. Penned by Judge Marietta S. Brawner-Cualing.
6
Rollo, p. 44.
7
Id.
CA rollo, p. 41.
9
Id.
10 Rollo, pp. 44-45 and 134. The survey plan was prepared by Engr. Perfecto Jularbal and approved on August
13, 1962.
11
Id. at 44.
12
Id.
13
CA rollo, p. 34.
 Decision -3- G.R. No. 207051

3 - To Emilio Dongpaen, an undivided TEN THOUSAND square

meters;

including their heirs, and assigns, together with any improvements found
thereon, subject to the following conditions:

a - Each will [bear] the cost of his own sub-division survey;

b - Each will proportionately share in the costs of procuring title

thereto, in an appropriate land registration proceeding to be filed;

c - The lawyer will undertake the above-mentioned proceeding with

the end in view of procuring a title. 14 (Emphasis supplied)

On November 16, 1968, the subject property was surveyed anew for the
benefit of a prospective buyer, Ricardo, to whom Modesto's agent, Emilio
Dongpaen (Dongpaen), offered for sale his portion of the subject property. 15
During the survey, at the direction of Mo,desto, with Dongpaen likewise
present, another surveyor, Engr. Jose Fernandez, delineated and segregated a
total area of 15,000 square meters for Ricardo's intended acquisition. 16 The
segregated portion was designated as Lots 1 and 2. 17

Subsequently, on various dates, a series of sale transactions occurred

among Modesto, Dongpaen, and Ricardo for the sale of Lots 1 and 2 to
Ricardo:

1.On January 27, 1969, Dongpaen sold to Ricardo the 10,000-square

meter portion of the subject property initially conveyed to Dongpaen by
Modesto under the 1963 Agreement. 18

2. On June 17, 1969, Dongpaen sold to Ricardo an additional 5,000

square meters of the subject property. 19

3. On June 24, 1969, 20 Modesto sold to Dongpaen an additional 5,000

square meters of the subject property ostensibly covered by a Deed of Sale 21
which was notarized on the following day, June 25, 1969. 22

14
Id. at 34.
15
Rollo, pp. 50-51.
16
Id.
17
Id. at 50-52.
18
CA rollo, pp. 35-36.
19
Id. at 39-40.
20
See id. at 37-38. The MCTC and the RTC vary on the actual dates of execution of the sales documents.
21
Id.
22
Id. at 38.
Decision -4- G.R. No. 207051

Thereafter, pursuant to an arrangement with Modesto and his son,

Lorenzo, who offered to cultivate Ricardo's pmiion of the subject property,
Ricardo saw no need to occupy Lots l and 2, and simply allowed Lorenzo's
possession thereof. 23 According to Ricardo, Lorenzo tilled Lots l and 2 on his
behalf, and remitted to Ricardo his share of the fruits thereof. 24

In 1979, Modesto died. 25

Later, upon learning that petitioners had attempted to sell even his
portion of the subject property, 26 Ricardo began resorting to administrative
remedies to protect and effect his ownership over Lots I and 2, 27 including the
execution of an Affidavit of Adverse Claim 28 on the tax declaration of the
subject property, and securing an advisory opinion29 from the Department of
Agrarian Reform. 30 In addition, Ricardo persistently demanded from
petitioners the partition of the subject property and the actual conveyance of
his portion, Lots l and 2, to no avail.

Consequently, Ricardo filed Civil Case No. 196, the complaint for
Partition of Property and Damages, 31 against the heirs of Modesto before the
MCTC staking his ownership over Lots 1 and 2, the 15,000-square meter
eastern portion, and asking for its segregation from the subject property.

In their answer, 32 petitioners denied Ricardo's ownership of Lots 1 and

2 and raised the following defenses: 33

1. Modesto was an illiterate who did not learn how to write his name
and who thus, could not have signed the 1963 Agreement34 and the June 17,
1969 Deed of Sale35 conveying a total of 15,000 square meters of the subject
property to Dongpaen; 36

23
Id. at 134.
24 Id.
25
Rollo p. 45.
26 CA rollo, p. 134.
27 Id.
2s Id.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Rollo, p. 44.
32
Id. at 45-46.
33
Rollo, pp. 45-46.
34
CA rollo, p. 34.
35
Id. at 39-40.
36
Rollo, p. 45.
 Decision -5- G.R. No. 207051

2. The 1963 Agreement did not comply with the suspensive conditions
stated therein; 37

3. Ricardo's cause of action to enforce the 1963 Agreement has long

prescribed in 1973 and his execution of an Affidavit of Adverse Claim 38 on
the subject property did not effectively interrupt the prescriptive period; 39

4. They are not privies to the contracts of sale between Dongpaen and
Ricardo; 40 and

5. Dongpaen did not validly transfer ownership of Lots l and 2 to

Ricardo since the June 17, 1969 Deed of Sale41 was executed prior to the June
24, 1969 Deed of Sale 42 between Modesto and Dongpaen, conveying 5,000
square meters of the subject property. 43

Ruling of the Municipal Circuit

Trial Court:

In its September 20, 2010 Decision, 44 the MCTC ruled in favor of

Ricardo and ordered the segregation of his portion of the subject property:

WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in

favor of [respondents] and against [petitioners]. It is hereby ordered that:

1. Plaintiff [Ricardo Julian] is a co-owner over 15,000 square meters of

the undivided property registered for taxation purposes tmder
Assessment of Real Property No. 99-001-00914 in the name of Modesto
Willy;

2. [Petitioners] to segregate the said 15,000 square meters identified as

Lots l and 2 in the Survey Plan prepared by Engr. Jose Fernandez located
on the eastern portion of said parcel of land and to deliver the 15,000
square meters to [respondents];

3. [Respondents] and [petitioners] to execute a project of partition in

accordance with this Decision indicating the partition of the property
registered under ARP No. 99-001-00914 in the name of Modesto Willy
after the finality of this Decision;

37
Id.
38
Id. at 45-46.
39
Id.
40
Id.
41
CA rollo, pp. 39-40.
42
Id. at 37-38.
43
Rollo, p. 46.
44
CA rollo, pp. 42-60.
Decision -6- G.R. No. 207051

4. [Petitioners] to pay [respondents] the amount of Php50,000.00 as

attorney's fees; and

5. Costs of this suit. 45

According to the MCTC, the 1963 Agreement46 and the 1969 Deed of
Sale47 executed by Modesto were public documents; as such, their due
execution may only be disputed upon "evidence so clear, strong and
convincing as to exclude all controversy as to the falsity of the certificate." 48
Contrary to petitioners' arguments, the MCTC ruled that the 1963 Agreement
was not a conditional sale, but an absolute one. 49 The MCTC declared that the
conditions stated therein only pertained to the original transferees' obligations
to identify their assigned portions and to shoulder expenses for the titling of
the subject property. 50

The MCTC found that Modesto intended the sale of the subject property,
specifically, the portion thereof (Lots 1 and 2) sold to Ricardo, as evidenced
by the November 16, 1968 survey 51 of the subject prope1iy. It held that the
survey described and delineated the portion initially sold to Dongpaen, and
was undertaken for the eventual sale of Lots 1 and 2 to Ricardo. 52

The MCTC likewise found that the discrepancy in the dates of

notarization of the various Deeds of Sale53 between Modesto and Dongpaen
on one hand, and Dongpaen and Ricardo, on the other hand, were innocuous. 54
The evidence showed that all the documents were actually prepared on the
same date, i.e., June 17, 1969. 55 The MCTC gave credence to Ricardo's
testimony that on June 17, 1969, the scheduled date when all the documents
of sale among Modesto, Dongpaen, and Ricardo were to be signed by them
and notarized, Modesto did not have a residence certificate number to sign the
acknowledgment of the deeds of conveyances. 56 Thus, Modesto had to first
obtain a residence certificate before acknowledging and signing the document
of sale with Dongpaen on June 24, 1969. 57

45
Id. at 59-60.
46
Id. at 34.
47
Id.at 51.
48
Id.
49
Id. at 52-54.
50
Id. at 57-59.
51
Id. at 54-55.
52 Id.
53
Id. at 52-55.
54 Id.
55
Id. at 54.
56
Id. at 52-54.
57 Id.
 Decision -7- G.R. No. 207051

On the whole, the MCTC ruled that Modesto validly conveyed the
15 ,000-square meter portion of the subject property to Dongpaen, who then
validly transferred it to Ricardo. The MCTC pronounced that as co-owner of
the subject property, Ricardo's right to demand partition was imprescriptible
and cannot be barred by laches. 58

Maintaining their claim of absolute ownership over the entire subject

property, petitioners appealed the MCTC's Decision to the RTC which was
docketed as Civil Case No. 10-CV-2664.

Ruling of the Regional Trial

Court:

In its July 12, 2011 Decision, 59 the RTC reversed the ruling of the
MCTC:

WHEREFORE, the appeal taken by [petitioners] is found in order. The

appealed decision of the 5th Municipal Trial Court of Tuba-Sablan, Benguet in
this case is hereby set aside.

The [respondents'] complaint and [petitioners'] counterclaim are hereby

dismissed. 60

While the RTC concuned in the MCTC's factual findings on: (1) the
authenticity of the Deeds of Sale as public documents; 61 (2) the 1963
Agreement as an ancient document and an absolute contract of sale; 62 and (3)
the valid sale of 5,000 square meters of the subject property between
Dongpaen and Ricardo, 63 it differed with the MCTC' s ultimate ruling that
Ricardo was a co-owner of the subject property and thus entitled to its
partition. 64

According to the RTC, the 1963 Agreement is a private document which

did not have the effect of constructive delivery to the intended transferees,
specifically Dongpaen, of their respective shares to the subject property. 65
Consequently, Dongpaen did not acquire ownership over the 10,000-square
meter portion of the subject property and, in tum, did not validly transfer

58
Rollo, p. 47.
59
CA rollo, pp. 131-145.
60
Id. at 43.
61
Rollo, p. 47.
62
Id.
63
Id. at 47-48.
64
Id.
65
Id. at 48.
Decision -8- G.R. No. 207051

ownership thereof to Ricardo by virtue of the January 27, 1969 Deed ofSale. 66
In short, Ricardo is not a co-owner of the subject property and thus not entitled
to its partition.

Moreover, the RTC ruled that the prior execution of the June 17, 1969
Deed of Sale67 (between Dongpaen and Ricardo), covering the additional
5,000 square meters of the subject property, did not validly convey ownership
thereof to Ricardo, the ultimate buyer, since Dongpaen, Modesto's sales
agent, only obtained ownership thereof upon the sale to him by Modesto, the
original seller, ostensibly covered by the June 24, 1969 Deed of Sale. 68 Thus,
the RTC declared that Ricardo merely acquired the right to demand
performance and delivery of Lots l and 2, which right of action, however, had
already prescribed. 69

On Ricardo's motion for reconsideration, 70 the RTC, in its Order71 dated

October 17, 2011, stood pat on its ruling that ownership of the 15,000-square
meter portion of the subject property was not effectively transferred to
Ricardo. 72

Not surprisingly, Ricardo appealed73 to the CA. During the pendency of

the appeal, Ricardo died and was substituted by respondents as plaintiff-
appellant in CA-G.R. SP No. 122133. 74

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

The CA reversed the RTC ruling and reinstated the September 20, 2010
Decision of the MCTC:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed RTC Decision

dated July 12, 2011 and Order dated October 17, 2011 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE, and the MCTC Decision dated September 20, 2010,
REINSTATED. 75

In its February 21, 2013 Decision, 76 the CA ruled that Lots land 2 were
constructively delivered to Dongpaen by Modesto under the 1963 Agreement
and the survey of the subject property on November 16, 1968.77 The CA found

66 Id.
67 Id.
68 Id.
69 ld.
7
° CA rollo, pp. 146-152.
71
Id.atl53-155.
72
ld.atl55.
73
Rollo, p. 48.
74 Id.
75
Id. at 59.
76 Id. at 43-60.
77
Id. at 49-52.
 Qecision -9- G.R. No. 207051

that the 1963 Agreement was a fully consummated contract78 where the
parties already performed their obligations thereunder: Modesto did convey
10,000 square meters of the subject property while Dongpaen did render
agency services upon finding a buyer, Ricardo. 79

The CA construed the events comprising the November 16, 1968 survey
and the subsequent execution of the conesponding deeds of conveyances as
constructive delivery. The CA found that the 1968 survey that was attended
by Modesto, Dongpaen, and Ricardo, was undertaken to identify the 15,000-
square meter portion of the subject property, Lots 1 and 2, for the intended
sale to Ricardo. 80

As regards the prior execution of the June 17, 1969 Deed of Sale
conveying the additional 5,000 square meters of the subject property from
Dongpaen to Ricardo, the CA upheld the intention of all the parties, including
Modesto's, to effect Ricardo's complete acquisition of Lots 1 and 2. 81 The
CA ruled that the intention of Modesto, Dongpaen, and Ricardo, the parties to
the sales transactions, to convey Lots l and 2 initially to Dongpaen for
ultimate sale to Ricardo, is reflected by, and consistent with, their
contemporaneous and subsequent actions. 82 In all, the CA affirmed the
MCTC's ruling that the subsequent execution and notarization of the June 24,
1969 Deed of Sale (between Modesto and Dongpaen) were mere formal acts
ratifying the actual conveyance to Ricardo of Lots 1 and 2, the segregated
portion of the subject property. 83

Finally, on the issue of the MCTC's jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the complaint, the CA clarified that Ricardo's action for partition is "an
action involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein" 84 since the alleged facts and the relief sought reveal that there is no
co-ownership of an undivided land and there "is nothing to partition." 85 The
CA declared that the real issue delves into Ricardo's claimed ownership of
Lots l and 2, the segregated 15,000-square meter portion of the subject
property, with an assessed value of Pl9,100.00, which properly falls within
the jurisdiction of the MCTC. 86

Aggrieved by the CA's ruling, petitioners filed a motion for extension87

of time to file a motion for reconsideration asking for 30 days from March 23,
2013 within which to file their pleading. Respondents, on the other hand, filed

78
Id.at53.
79 Id.
80
Id. at 52.
81
Id. at 54.
82
Id. at 52.
83
Id. at 54.
84
Id. at 58-59.
85
Id. at 58.
86
Id. at 59.
87
Id. at 61-62.
Decision - 10 - G.R. No.~207051

a motion for entry of judgement. On April 22, 2013, petitioners filed their
motion for reconsideration. 88

On April 26, 2013, the CA denied89 petitioners' motion for extension but
granted90 respondents' motion for entry of judgment, thus:

WHEREFORE, [petitioners'] Motion for Extension of Time to File

Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

[Respondents'] Motion for Entry of Judgment is hereby GRANTED.

Let an Entry of Judgment be issued in this case. 91

Issues

Rebuffed in the CA, petitioners appeal 92 to us by certiorari under Rule

45 of the Rules of Court positing serious errors in the appellate court's:

1. [DENIAL OF] THE MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION;

2. [DISAFFIRMANCE] THAT THE [MCTC] HAS NO JURISDICTION

OVER THE CASE AND THE PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING THE
JUDGMENT, IS VOID;

3. xx x HOLDING THAT THE DEEDS OF SALE ARE VALID;

4. x x x HOLDING THAT THE AGREEMENT TO SELL FUTURE

GOODS CAN BE COVERED BY A DEED OF SALE. 93

Stated differently, the definitive issue for our resolution is whether the
CA erred in upholding Ricardo's claim of ownership over Lots l and 2 of the
subject property.

Our Ruling

We deny the petition and affirm the ruling of the CA. We rule that
Ricardo is the valid owner of Lots 1 and 2 of the subject property which right
of ownership vested in his heirs at the moment of his death. 94

88
Id. at 116.
89
Id. at 63.
90 Id.
91 Id.
92
Id. at 3-42.
93
Id. at 130-131.
94
See Article 777 of the Civil Code:

Art. 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.
 Decision - 11 - G.R. No. 207051

I. PROCEDURAL

_ Befo:~ anything else, however, we will dispose of a threshold procedural

ISsue: petitioners' belated filing of a motion for reconsideration and the
consequent Order of the CA directing Entry of Judgment.

Petitioners argue that for reasons of equity, the period to file a motion for
reconsideration may be extended as it has been extended by the Court on
various occasions.

Period for filing a motion for

reconsideration is not extendible.

The Rules of Court and the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals
(IRCA) 95 are explicit:

Rule 52 of the Rules of Comi states:

SECTION 1. Period for Filing. - A party may file a motion for

reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution within fifteen (15) days from
notice thereof, with proof of service on the adverse party.

Sections l and 5, Rule 7 of the 2009 IRCA state:

SECTION 1. Entry ofJudgment. - Unless a motion for reconsideration

or new trial is filed or an appeal taken to the Supreme Court, judgments and
final resolutions of the Court shall be entered upon expiration of fifteen (15)
days from notice to the pmiies.

xxxx

SECTION 5. Entry ofJudgment and Final Resolution.- If no appeal or

motion for reconsideration is filed within the time provided in these Rules,
the judgment or final resolution shall forthwith be entered by the clerk
in the book of entries of judgments. The date when the judgment or final
resolution becomes executory shall be deemed as the date of its
entry. The record shall contain the dispositive part of the judgment or final
resolution and shall be signed by the clerk, with a certificate that such judgment
or final resolution has become final and executory.

While on several occasions we have allowed the relaxed application of

our rules of procedure, petitioners, however, failed to cite exceptional
circumstances that justify their procedural lapse. 96

95
AM. No. 09-11-11-CA, effective on December 15, 2009.
96
See Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Comi and Malixi v. Baltazar, 821 Phil. 423 (2017).
Decision - 12 - G.R. No. 207051
0

II. SUBSTANTIVE

Nonetheless, considering the divergent rulings of the MCTC, RTC, and

the CA, we will dispose of the substantive issues in this appeal:

1. Whether the MCTC properly exercised jurisdiction over Civil Case

No. 196, Ricardo's original action for partition of property and damages;

2. Whether the sale transactions among Modesto, Dongpaen, and

Ricardo, covered by three Deeds of Sales, validly conveyed to Ricardo Lots 1
and 2 of the subject property;

2.1 Whether there was constructive delivery to Dongpaen of l 0,000

square meters of the subject property under the 1963 Agreement; and

2.2 Whether the 1963 Agreement and the two Deeds of Sale
respectively dated June 17 and 24, 1969 are unenforceable contracts under
Aliicle 1403 of the Civil Code.

The MCTC correctly exercised

jurisdiction over Ricardo's action
for partition and damages.

Petitioners take exception to the appellate court's ruling that based on

the allegations contained in Ricardo's complaint, albeit designated as one "for
partition of prope1iy and damages," the complaint is ultimately an action
"involving title to, or possession of, real property with an assessed value not
exceeding P20,000.00." 97 The CA ruled, viz.:

Ricardo Julian's Complaint dated February 21, 2002 was captioned as a

petition for pmiition. In truth, however, there is nothing to partition. There is
no co-ownership of an undivided land to speak of. As stated, the disputed
portions of subject land had already been long segregated and conveyed to
Emilio Dongpaen who further sold them to Ricardo Julian. Indeed, though
captioned as a petition for partition, its allegations revealed that it was actually
an action involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein. For what determines the nature of an action as well as which court has
jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the character of the
relief sought. Here, the ultimate issue is whether the late Ricardo Julian owned
the surveyed and segregated 15,000-square-meter portion of the land covered
by Plan Psu-192802 with a total value of Pl9,100.00. And since the MCTC has
exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions involving title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of
the property or interest therein does not exceed P20,000.00, it rightfully acted

97
Rollo, pp. 30-31.
Decision - 13 - G .R. No. 207051

on the complaint fi led and rendered the appropriate judgment. 98 (Citations

omitted)

We are in full accord with the CA' s ruling.

Indeed, the nature of an action and the jurisdiction of a court is

determined by the allegations in the complaint. 99 In this case, the primary
relief sought by Ricardo is the recovery of purchased property (Lots 1 and 2)
which had long been identified, separated, and segregated from a larger parcel
of property, the herein subject property. 100 The allegations in Ricardo's
complaint likewise included his claim of possession, in the concept of
owner, 101 of Lots 1 and 2, through Modesto's son, Lorenzo, who was
purportedly only cultivating the lots on Ricardo's behalf. Moreover, Ricardo
alleged that Lorenzo regularly delivered to him the fruits of Lots 1 and 2.
These averments of possession in the concept of owner and receipt of fruits
were made to support Ricardo's claim of ownership of Lots 1 and 2 and the
consequent reconveyance thereof to him. 102 Suffice to state that, palpably,
Ricardo's complaint involves title to real property.

An action "involving title to real property" is defined as an action where

the plaintiff's cause of action is based on a claim of ownership of prope1iy or
the holding of legal rights to have exclusive control, possession, enjoyment,
or disposition thereof. 103 In this case, Ricardo instituted this complaint hinged
on his cause of action that Modesto's successors-in-interest, specifically
Lorenzo, actually claimed ownership of the entirety of the subject property,
repudiated Ricardo's ownership of Lots 1 and 2, and offered the whole subject
property for sale under the same claim of ownership. 104

98
Id . at 58-59.
99 See Maslagv. Monzon, 711 Phil. 274 (2013).
100
Rollo, p. 58.
101 See Article 525 of the Civil Code:

ARTICLE 525. The possession of things or rights may be had in one of two concepts: either in the
concept of owner, or in that of the holder of the thing or right to keep or enjoy it, the ownership
pertaining to another person .
102 See Articles 440 and 441 of the Civil Code:

ARTICLE 440 . The ownership of property gives the right by accession to everything which is
produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially.

ARTICLE 441. To the owner belongs:

( l) The natural fruits;

(2) The industrial fruits ;

(3) The civil fruits.

103 Maslagv. Monzon, 711 Phil. 274,282 (2013).
104 See Sections 1 and 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court.
Decision - 14 - G.R. No. '207051

Sections 19 105 and 33 106 ofBatas PambansaBlg. (BP) 129, 107 as amended
by Republic Act No. (RA) 7691, 108 provide that in cases involving title to real
105
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.

(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;

(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real prope1iy, or any interest
therein, where the assessed value of the prope1iy involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00)
or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (PS0,000.00) except
actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over
which is confened upon the Metropolitan Comis, Municipal Trial Comis, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts;

(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds One
hundred thousand pesos(Pl00,000.00) or, in Metro Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds Two
hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00);

(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds
One hundred thousand pesos (Pl 00,000.00) or, in probate matters, in Metro Manila, where such gross
value exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00);

(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;

(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions;

(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law;
and

(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred
thousand pesos (Pl,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive of the
abovementioned items exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00).
106
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts in Civil Cases.

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate,
including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property,
estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00) or, in Metro
Manila where such personal prope1iy, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Two hundred
pesos (P200,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interest, damages
of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be included in the determination
of the filing fees: Provided, fmiher, That where there are several claims or causes of action between the
same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality
of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whatever the causes of action arose out of the
same or different transactions;

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and un:tawful detainer: Provided,
That when in such cases, the defendant raises the questions of ownership in his pleadings and the
question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership shall be resolved
only to detennine the issue of possession; and

(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the prope1iy or interest therein does not
exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Mpmila, where such assessed
value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for
taxation purposes, the value of such prope1iy shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent
lots.
!07
Entitled, "AN ACT REORGANIZING THE JUDICIARY, APPRORIA TING FUNDS AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES," approved August 14, 1981.
 E>ecision - 15 - G.R. No. 207051

property, original and exclusive jurisdiction belongs to either the RTC or the
MTC, depending on the assessed value of the subject property. Clearly, since
the alleged assessed value of Lots 1 and 2 is Pl9,100.00, the MCTC properly
exercised jurisdiction over Ricardo's complaint.

The series of transfers among

Modesto, Dongpaen and Ricardo
were valid conveyances; the
deeds of sale were fully executed
by the parties thereto.

Petitioners are adamant that the deeds of sale covering the series of
conveyances, beginning from Modesto to Dongpaen, and Dongpaen to
Ricardo, of Lots I and 2, spanning 15,000 square meters of the subject
property, are all void since the originating document, the 1963 Agreement,
was unenforceable 109 and failed to comply with the formalities of the contract
under Article 1403 110 of the Civil Code.

We disagree.

The 1963 Agreement is not purely

a sales contract; it is an
innominate contract reflecting a
sales contract, a contract of

108
AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA
BLG. 129, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980," approved on March
25, 1994.
109
Rollo, pp. 31-33.
110
ARTICLE 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified:
xxxx
(2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth in this number. In the following
cases an agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some note or
memorandum, thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent; evidence,
therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its
contents:
(a) An agreement that by its tenns is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof;

(b) A special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another;

(c) An agreement made in consideration of marriage, other than a mutual promise to mmTy;

(d) An agreement for the sale of goods, chattels or things in action, at a price not less than five
hundred pesos, unless the buyer accept and receive part of such goods and chattels, or the
evidences, or some of them, of such things in action, or pay at the time some part of the
purchase money; but when a sale is made by auction and entry is made by the auctioneer in his
sales book, at the time of the sale, of the amount and kind of property sold, terms of sale, price,
names of the purchasers and person on whose account the sale is made, it is a sufficient
memorandum;

(e) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real
property or of an interest therein; ·

(f) A representation as to the credit of a third person.

-,_,
Decision - 16 - G.R. No:207051

agency to sell the subject

property; and contract to
transfer ownership of property in
exchange for services.

We restate the general rule found in Article 1483 of the Civil Code that
"subject to the provisions of the Statute of Frauds and of any other
applicable statute, a contract of sale may be made in writing, or by word of
mouth, or partly in writing and partly by word of mouth, or may be inferred
from the conduct of the parties." The Statute of Frauds covers an agreement
for the sale of real property or of an interest therein. 111

It is important to note, however, that the 1963 Agreement between

Modesto, as seller on one hand, and three individuals, as buyers, on the other
hand, contained all the essential terms of the agreement between the parties. 112
More importantly, all the requisites of a contract are reflected therein: (a)
consent of the parties; (b) subject matter of the contract; and (c)
consideration. 113

Article 1305, in relation to Article 1307, of the Civil Code, provide for
the definition of a contract in general, and the contemplation of innominate
contracts, to wit:

Art. 1305. A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons

whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to
render some service.

Art. 1307. Innominate contracts shall be regulated by the stipulations of

the parties, by the provisions of Titles I and II of this Book, by the rules
governing the most analogous nominate contracts, and by the customs of the
place.

The peculiarity and nature of the agreement among Modesto, Dongpaen,

and Ricardo are limned from the 1963 Agreement's listing of the respective
services of the three transferees, the surveyor (Jularbal), the lawyer
(Catbagen), and the agent (Dongpaen), as consideration for their allotted
portions of the subject property:

In consideration of the Surveyor's services, the Lawyer's services

and the amount of ONE THOUSAND NINETY FIVE (Pl,095) PESOS;
111
See Article 1403 of the Civil Code.
112 See Heirs ofSan Andres v. Rodriguez, 388 Phil. 571 (2000).
113 Article 1318 ofthe Civil Code: ·

ARTICLE 1318. There is no contract unless the following requisites concur:

(1) Consent of the contracting parties;

(2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;

(3) Cause of the obligation which is established.

7,
 :Decision - 17 - G.R. No. 207051

and the Agent's services, the Owner by these presents, does hereby transfer
and convey to the following named persons, portions of the above land as
follows:

1-To Perfecto Jularbal, an undivided TEN THOUSAND (10,000) square

meters;

2 -To B. F. Catbagen, Jr. an undivided TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND

THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE (27,365) square meters;

3 - To Emilio Dongpaen, an undivided TEN THOUSAND square meters;

including their heirs, and assigns, together with any improvements found
thereon, subject to the following conditions:

a - Each will [bear] the cost of his own sub-division survey;

b - Each will proportionately share in the costs of procuring title thereto, in an

appropriate land registration proceeding to be filed;

c - The lawyer win undertake the above-mentioned proceeding with the

end in view of procuring a title. 114

It is apparent from the foregoing contract and the established facts that
Dongpaen merely holds title to the subject property as Modesto's sales agent
for the further sale of a portion thereof. And thus, in furtherance of their
arrangement, the November 1968 survey, undertaken at the behest and for the
benefit of Ricardo, which identified and segregated Ricardo's 15,000-square
meter portion of the subject property. The contemporaneous acts of Modesto,
Dongpaen and Ricardo, after the execution of the 1963 Agreement, albeit
unnotarized, point to a meeting of the minds for the ultimate sale and transfer
to Ricardo of Lots l and 2, comprised of Dongpaen's initial 10,000-square
meter portion and the subsequent sale to him by Modesto of an additional
5,000 square meters of the subject property. 115

Article 1868, in relation to Article 1466, of the Civil Code, are likewise
applicable in our construction of the 1963 Agreement as an innominate
contract ultimately intended for the disposition of portions of the subject
property, to wit:

Art. 1868. By the contract of agency a person binds himself to render

some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with
the consent or authority of the latter.

Art. 1466. In construing a contract containing provisions characteristic

of both the contract of sale and of the contract of agency to sell, the essential
clauses of the whole instrument shall be considered.

114
CA rollo, p. 34.
115
Supra note 77.
Decision - 18 - G.R. No. 207051

Arrogante v. Sps.Deliarte 116 (Arrogante) is instructive in carving out the

existence of an innominate contract contemplating the real intention and
agreement of the parties. In Arrogante, while the Court confirmed that the
subject contracts therein were void pursuant to Article 1347, paragraph 2 of
the Civil Code on contracts entered into involving future inheritance, the
Court found that the arrangement among the squabbling siblings albeit
evidenced by a void deed of sale, pointed to a meeting of the minds among
the parties constitutive of an innominate contract, akin to both an onerous and
a remunerative donation. The Court held, thus:

Considering the foregoing, it follows that the 1986 deed of confirmation

of sale which sought to ratify the 1978 sale likewise suffers from the same
infirmity. In short, the 1986 deed is also void.

Nevertheless, it is apparent that Bernabe treated his share in the subject

lot as his children's present inheritance, and he relinquished all his rights and
claim thereon in their favor subject to Beethoven's compensation for the
expenses he initially shouldered for the family. The records reveal that
Bernabe, prior to his hospitalization and death, wanted to ensure that his
children attended to the expenditure relating thereto, and even articulated his
desire that such surpass the provision for both his son and wife, Beethoven's
and Fe's brother and mother, respectively. Their arrangement contemplated the
Deliarte siblings' equal responsibility for the family's incurred expenses.

We take judicial notice of this collective sense of responsibility towards

family. As with most nuclear Filipino families, the Deliarte siblings
endeavored to provide for their parents or any member of their family in need.
This was evident in Florenda Deliarte Nacua's, the youngest Deliarte sibling's,
remittance to her parents of her salary for two years so they could redeem the
subject lot.

Florenda corroborated the testimony of Beethoven that their father was

present during, and was aware o±: the transaction that took place among his
children. The 1978 deed of sale, albeit void, evidenced the consent and
acquiescence of each Deliarte sibling to said transaction. They raised no
objection even after Beethoven forthwith possessed and occupied the subject
lot.

The foregoing arrangement, vaguely reflected in the void deed of

sale, points to a meeting of the minds among the parties constitutive of an
innominate contract, akin to both an onerous and a remuneratory
donation. In this regard, Bernabe's waiver and relinquishment of his share
in the subject lot is effectively a donation inter vivos to his children.
However, the gratuitous act is coupled with an onerous cause - equal
accountability of the Deliarte siblings for the hospitalization and death
expenses of deceased family members to be taken from their shares in the
subject lot. In turn, the remunerative cause pertains to Beethoven's
recompense for the family expenses he initially shouldered.

116
555 Phil. 60 (2007).
 Decision - 19 - G.R. No. 207051

During his lifetime, Bernabe remained the absolute owner of his

undivided interest in the subject lot. Accordingly, he could have validly
disposed of his interest therein. His consent to the disposition of the subject lot
in favor of Beethoven, agreed upon among his children, is evident, considering
his presence in, knowledge of, and acquiescence to the transaction. Further, the
arrangement was immediately effected by the parties with no objection from
Bernabe or any of the Deliarte siblings, including herein petitioner Fe.
Ineluctably, the actual arrangement between the parties included Bernabe and
t~e ~bject ~hereof did not constitute future inheritance. (Emphasis sup;lied;
c1tat10n omitted)

The Statute of Frauds, Article

1403 (2) of the Civil Code, is not
applicable to totally or partially
performed contracts.

All contracts invoked in this case, from the 1963 Agreement to the
documents of sale executed after the 1968 survey of Lots 1 and 2 of the subject
property, i.e., Dongpaen's sale to Ricardo of a total of 15,000 square meters
of the subject property on separate dates, January 27, 1969 and June 17, 1969,
and the June 24, 1969 Deed of Sale between Modesto and Dongpaen of an
additional 5,000 square meters of the subject property to complete the latter's
sale to Ricardo of Lots 1 and 2 which was already effected by Dongpaen and
Ricardo, have been either partially or totally performed by Modesto,
Dongpaen and Ricardo. Perforce, the contracts are removed from the ambit
of the Statute of Frauds and cannot be considered as unenforceable
contracts. 117

In the case at bench, we find that all the requisites for a valid contract 118
are present in all the questioned deeds of sale, specifically: ( 1) consent of the
parties; (2) object or subject matter, comprised of Lots 1 and 2 of the subject
property; and (3) the various consideration listed in the 1963 Agreement and
the purchase price for Lots l and 2 paid by Ricardo. The 1963 agreement
between Modesto and Dongpaen had long been consummated and completed.
In fact, the 1963 Agreement was continuously performed by Modesto and
Dongpaen which led to the November 1968 survey of the subject property for
Ricardo's benefit, and finally resulted in the sale of Lots l and 2 to Ricardo.
More importantly, Modesto and his successors-in-interest, including Lorenzo,
ratified the agreement by the acceptance of benefits thereunder. 119

Truly significant is the fact that Modesto's conveyance to Dongpaen of

10,000 square meters of the subject property was intended for Dongpaen's

117
See Article 1403(2) of the Civil Code.
118
See San Miguel Foods, Inc. v. Magtuto, G.R. No. 225007, July 24, 2019.
119
Article 1405 of the Civil Code:

A1iicle 1405. Contracts infringing the Statute of Frauds, referred to in No. 2 of article 1403, are
ratified by the failure to object to the presentation of oral evidence to prove the same, or by the
acceptance of benefits under them.

-Z..
Decision - 20 - G.R. No.•207051

1968 survey of the subject property to expedite the segregation of the 15,000-
square meter portion to be sold to Ricardo through Modesto's agent,
Dongpaen.

The conduct of Modesto, Dongpaen and Ricardo subsequent to the

execution of the 1963 Agreement and prior and simultaneous with the
execution of the three 1969 deeds of sale demonstrate their intent to transfer
ownership of Lots 1 and 2 to Ricardo. We cannot overemphasize that the
November 1968 survey to segregate Lots 1 and 2, Ricardo's portion of the
subject property, amounts to partial performance sufficient to take the matter
away from the operation of the Statute of Frauds.

There was constructive delivery

of Lots 1 and 2 to Ricardo.

One other thing militates against petitioners' claim that the 1963
Agreement is unenforceable - Ricardo's possession of Lots 1 and 2 in the
concept of owner and receipt of fruits thereof. The fact that Ricardo did not
physically possess the purchased lots is of no moment since at the time of sale
to him in 1969, Ricardo's possession was exercised by Lorenzo, Modesto's
son, in his behalf. Modesto proposed to Ricardo, who consented thereto, that
Lorenzo will till the subject property, including the portion Ricardo had
purchased and deliver the fruits thereof to Ricardo.

With this arrangement, under Article 1477 120 of the Civil Code,
Ricardo's ownership of Lots 1 and 2 was perfected upon delivery. Article
1477 provides that the thing sold shall be understood as delivered, when it is
placed in the control and possession of the vendee.

In this case, title passed to Ricardo from the moment Lots 1 and 2 were
placed in his possession. Corollary thereto, Ricardo's indicia of ownership of
Lots 1 and 2 are his possession in the concept of owner and his receipt of fruits
from the cultivation of the land which Lorenzo regularly remitted to him, in
contrast to that of Lorenzo, as tenant farmer, a legal possessor of the land.

Articles 525, 440, and 441 of the Civil Code could not be any clearer:

Art. 525. The possession of things or rights may be had in one of two
concepts: either in the concept of owner, or in that of the holder of the thing or
right to keep or enjoy it, the ownership pertaining to another person.

Art. 440. The ownership of property gives the right by accession to

everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached
thereto, either naturally or artificially.

120
Article 1477. The ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or
constructive delivery thereof. ·
Decision - 21 - G.R. No. 207051

Art. 441. To the owner belongs:

(1) The natural fruits;

(2) The industrial fruits;

(3) The civil fruits.

Unequivocally, delivery to Ricardo of Lots l and 2 produced its natural

effects in law, the principal and most important of which being the conveyance
of ownership. Therefrom, Ricardo exercised the rights of ownership until acts
of repudiation by Modesto's successors-in-interest, herein petitioners,
consisting in attempting to sell the whole of the subject property, including
the portion already conveyed to, and thus owned by, Ricardo.

The true agreement among

Modesto, Dongpaen, and Ricardo
is supported by deeds of sale
executed among them.

The varying dates of the Deeds of Sale executed among the parties after
the November 1968 survey of the subject property further buttress Ricardo's
assertion that Modesto knew and intended the ultimate sale to Ricardo of Lots
1 and 2. Thus, the MCTC and the CA correctly stressed:

[A] s testified to by [Ricardo], while these Deeds of Sale were prepared in one
day, June 17, 1969, the Deed of Sale executed by Modesto Willy was
nevertheless signed on a later date because he was made to secure his residence
certificate.

'Q. Mr. Witness, Exhibit "C" which is the Deed of Sale executed by Modesto
Willy in favor of Emilio Dongpaen bears the handwritten date of execution as
24th day of June and it was notarized on the 25th of June with typewritten year
as 1969. On the other hand, Exhibit "D" which is the Deed of Sale which was
executed by Emilio Dongpaen in your favor bears the handwritten day 17th
with the typewritten month and year June 1969. Thus, it would appear from
these documents that the sale of Modesto Willy to Emilio Dongpaen is after
the sale of Emilio Dongpaen to you. Can you explain this?

A. Yes Ma'am, because everybody are present to the time of June 17, 1969
supposed to be prepared by Atty. Sulpicio D. Marquez in his office at Carantes
Street. Now, when the secretary prepared the Deed of Sale, there was no
Residence Certificate of Modesto Willy so he was asked to get a Residence
Certificate but to proceed our transaction, my Deed of Sale between the Deed
of Sale of Emilio Dongpaen in my favor was notarized on June 17, 1969.

ATTY. GALACGAC:
May I interrupt; they are putting things in the documents. The best evidence
rule. The document speaks for itself.

ATTY. GAYO:
We are letting him explain the apparent seemingly discrepancy on the date.
Decision - 22 - G.R. No. f07051
.,.

COURT:
Alright, but let him answer. I just want to be clarified.

WITNESS:
A. So Modesto Willy was asked to return after he secured his Residence
Certificate. After a week together with Emilio Dongpaen and Modesto Willy,
we went to the City Hall that is June 24 to get a Residence Certificate so we
returned to the office of Atty. Marquez and the secretary prepared the signing
of Emilio Dongpaen and Modesto Willy the documents but because Atty.
Marquez at that time is not present, we were asked to return back the following
day. It is Jtme 24, 1969.

COURT:
Q: So you are saying that Emilio Dongpaen first conveyed his 5,000 sq. m.
to you?
A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: Was that 5,000 sq. m. already conveyed to him by

Modesto Willy?
A: Suppose to beat (sic) that time because in one sitting it was prepared by
the secretary.

Q: But the document was first typed because you said everybody was
present so I assume you were also present at that time?
A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: So which document was first typed if you know?

A: They were both typewritten but there is a blank date. The Deed of Sale
made by Emilio Dongpaen which was complete in each requirements were the
first to be implemented as notarized by Atty. Sulpicio D. Marquez between
Emilio Dongpaen and Modesto[Willy] were asked to return back after securing
the Residence Certificate.

Q: Why did you not correct already the June 17th date in your document?
A: I do not know suppose to be so I just left it to the Notary Public. (Citations
removed)

Clearly, from the foregoing, the intention on June 17, 1969 was for both
documents to be notarized simultaneously. However, as Modesto Willy did not
have a Residence Certificate, he was made to secure one before the Deed of
Sale he will enter into will be notarized. Nevertheless, the Deed of Sale of
Emilio Dongpaen and plaintiff was notarized on said date.

The Court can therefore deduce from these evidence that Modesto Willy
did intend to sell to Emilio Dongpaen a portion of 5,000 square meters from
his undivided parcel of land. In turn, Emilio Dongpaen will sell said 5,000
square meters to [Ricardo]. Anent the 'inconsistencies' in the deed of sale,
suffice it to say that they are not really inconsistencies but rather trivial flaws
appearing in the acknowledgement, and not in the body of the deed itself which
contains the operative provisions." xx x

Both law and jurisprudence mandate that comis must give life to the
agreement between parties and not strangle it by stringent application of
technicalities. Verily, Modesto Willy validly sold the 5,000-square-meter

-,_
 Decision - 23 - G.R. No. 207051

portion of the lot to Emilio Dongpaen, who in turn, sold it to Ricardo Julian
through the deed of sale executed on June 17, 1969. 121

In view of the policy of the law to encourage and assist owners of real
estate in procuring the registry of their property, 122 We exhort both petitioners
and respondents as well as their successors-in-interest to obtain title and
institute proceedings for the registration and titling of land pertaining to them,
without prejudice to the disposition of tribunals in pending cases involving
the subject property or a portion thereof.

The award of attorney's fees in the amount of PS0,000.00 shall earn legal
interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until full
satisfaction thereof. 123

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The February 21, 2013

Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 122133 reinstating the
September 20,2010 Decision of the 5 th Municipal Circuit Trial Court ofTuba-
Sablan, Benguet in Civil Case No. 196, is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION, in that:

a) Ricardo Julian, respondents' predecessor-in-interest, is declared a

co-owner over 15,000 square meters of the undivided property registered for
taxation purposes under Assessment of Real Property No. 99-001-00914 in
the name of Modesto Willy;

b) Petitioners are directed to segregate the said 15,000 square meters

identified as Lots 1 and 2 in the Survey Plan prepared by Engr. Jose Fernandez
located on the eastern portion of said parcel of land and to deliver the 15,000
square meters to respondents;

c) Respondents and petitioners are directed to execute a project of

part1t10n in accordance with this Decision indicating the partition of the
property registered under Assessment of Real Property No. 99-001-00914 in
the name of Modesto Willy after the finality of this Decision;

d) Petitioners are directed to pay respondents the amount of

PS0,000.00 as attorney's fees; and

The award of attorney's fees in the amount of P50,000.00 shall earn legal
interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until full
satisfaction thereof.

With costs against petitioners.

121
Rollo, pp. 56-58.
122
Rodriguez v. Director o/Lands, 31 Phil. 272 (1915).
123
Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013).

--Z)
Decision - 24 - G.R No. 2070°51

SO OIU.lERED.

Associate Justice

L' CQ7'..JC,PJC)'
W. 1_:., ..,.,, 1
"ti: I'-.~
~;

ESTELA M-~~'ri:lfiu;RNABE
(;,:,)N>tn•fi
i.J'C-H<-Uf· ,i ""'n-~:a;.e
.,;1,,~,t.,tA "U"tice
/. C, J, ••:; • -;;

Chaif7Jerson

On official leave.
. , ' .

IULN., SAIVIUEL H. GAERLAN

Associate Justice

On offk:ial leave.
Decision - 25 - G.R. No. 207051

AT'fESTATIOl~
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

ESTELA M~~RNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson

CE .RTl"F,
.. · . ... . 1
~ C A TION·
.l'l.-,fi . '

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Courf s Division.