G.R. No. L-40095 - JULY 1985 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-40095July 29, 1985Amparo F. Lim vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. L-61915-16July 29, 1985Jose I. Hernandez vs. J. Romeo D. Magat G.R. No. L-62091July 29, 1985Fe Madrideo, et al. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-62251July 29, 1985Irene Tac-An-Dano vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-66615July 26, 1985People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo M. Caitor, et al. G.R. No. 71171July 23, 1985Marciana Vda. De Hoyo-A, et al. vs. Dominador Virata G.R. No. L-52733July 23, 1985Pilar De Guzman, et al. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-58512July 23, 1985Manuel I. Santos vs. Commission on Elections G.R. Nos. L-68393-94July 23, 1985Sandoval Shipyards, Inc. vs. Vicente Leogardo, Jr. G.R. No. L-29352July 22, 1985Emerito M. Ramos vs. Central Bank of the Philippines G.R. No. L-53354July 22, 1985Carlos Batino, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. L-69500July 22, 1985Jose Antonio U. Gonzalez vs. Maria Kalaw Katigbak G.R. No. L-55798July 20, 1985Corazon S. Sayco vs. Phil. Sugar Com. G.R. No. L-59329July 19, 1985Eastern Broadcasting Corporation vs. Jose P. Dans, Jr. G.R. No. L-61388July 19, 1985Garcia Padilla vs. Juan Ponce Enrile G.R. No. L-68709July 19, 1985Napoleon E. Sanciangco vs. Jose A. Roño G.R. No. L-31736July 18, 1985Antonio Fa. Quesada, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-60033July 18, 1985Teofisto Guingona, Jr. et al. vs. City Fiscal of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-37976July 16, 1985Pablo R. Roman vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-44050July 16, 1985Carmen Siguenza vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-65953July 16, 1985Seavan Carrier, Inc. vs. GTI Sportswear Corporation G.R. No. L-31464July 15, 1985People of the Philippines vs. Anastacio Mendoza G.R. No. L-37798July 15, 1985People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Dadaeg G.R. No. L-38049July 15, 1985People of the Philippines vs. Delfino Beltran G.R. No. L-43796July 15, 1985People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Agudo G.R. Nos. L-48930-40July 15, 1985People of the Philippines vs. Rudelino Lao G.R. No. L-61134July 15, 1985People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Bocasas G.R. No. L-69899July 15, 1985Rommel Corro vs. Esteban Lising G.R. No. L-48667July 12, 1985Andres Patalinghug vs. Hon. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-44204July 11, 1985Beaterio Del Santisimo Rosario De Molo vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-63578July 11, 1985Phllippine Airlines Employees Association, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-69372July 11, 1985Monte De Piedad vs. Minister of Labor and Employment, et al. G.R. No. L-69416July 11, 1985Panay Railways, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-69730July 11, 1985Tranquilino Baladiang vs. Hon. Gregorio U. Aquilizan G.R. No. L-42225July 9, 1985Dolores De Mesa Abad, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. L-68351-52July 9, 1985Carlos M. Padilla vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. L-45588July 8, 1985M/L Negros Star vs. Alfredo Pio De Roda, Jr. G.R. No. L-54167July 8, 1985Godofredo M. Trinchera vs. Felix F. Eamiguel G.R. No. L-50336July 5, 1985National Union of Garments Textile Cordage vs. Ministry of Labor G.R. No. L-57595July 5, 1985United Cmc Textile Workers Union vs. Jacobo C. Clave G.R. No. L-68056July 5, 1985Bren Z. Guiao vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. L-61617July 2, 1985Dr. Tolomeo Zurbano vs. Conrado Estrella The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Amparo F. Lim vs. Court of AppealsJose I. Hernandez vs. J. Romeo D. MagatFe Madrideo, et al. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.Irene Tac-An-Dano vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo M. Caitor, et al.Marciana Vda. De Hoyo-A, et al. vs. Dominador VirataPilar De Guzman, et al. vs. Court of AppealsManuel I. Santos vs. Commission on ElectionsSandoval Shipyards, Inc. vs. Vicente Leogardo, Jr.Emerito M. Ramos vs. Central Bank of the PhilippinesCarlos Batino, Jr. vs. Commission on ElectionsJose Antonio U. Gonzalez vs. Maria Kalaw KatigbakCorazon S. Sayco vs. Phil. Sugar Com.Eastern Broadcasting Corporation vs. Jose P. Dans, Jr.Garcia Padilla vs. Juan Ponce EnrileNapoleon E. Sanciangco vs. Jose A. RoñoAntonio Fa. Quesada, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Teofisto Guingona, Jr. et al. vs. City Fiscal of Manila, et al.Pablo R. Roman vs. Court of AppealsCarmen Siguenza vs. Court of AppealsSeavan Carrier, Inc. vs. GTI Sportswear CorporationPeople of the Philippines vs. Anastacio MendozaPeople of the Philippines vs. Ramon DadaegPeople of the Philippines vs. Delfino BeltranPeople of the Philippines vs. Antonio AgudoPeople of the Philippines vs. Rudelino LaoPeople of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo BocasasRommel Corro vs. Esteban LisingAndres Patalinghug vs. Hon. Court of AppealsBeaterio Del Santisimo Rosario De Molo vs. Court of AppealsPhllippine Airlines Employees Association, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.Monte De Piedad vs. Minister of Labor and Employment, et al.Panay Railways, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.Tranquilino Baladiang vs. Hon. Gregorio U. AquilizanDolores De Mesa Abad, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Carlos M. Padilla vs. Commission on ElectionsM/L Negros Star vs. Alfredo Pio De Roda, Jr.Godofredo M. Trinchera vs. Felix F. EamiguelNational Union of Garments Textile Cordage vs. Ministry of LaborUnited Cmc Textile Workers Union vs. Jacobo C. ClaveBren Z. Guiao vs. Commission on ElectionsDr. Tolomeo Zurbano vs. Conrado EstrellaThe Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

1. According to respondent Court: "Mauricio Manasil was the original occupant and claimant of a 100-hectare forest land (t.s.n., Oct. 24, 1963, pp. 11, 13 and 14) situated in barrio Luna, municipality of Claveria, province of Misamis Oriental."1The land was occupied for "agricultural" purposes. It became alienable on March 28, 1950, the area being declared alienable and disposable and released as agricultural land under Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-51 (Exhibits "B-1" and "B-2").

2. After the death of Manuel Manasil, his son Mauricio "inherited" the land, declared the same for tax purposes in his name under Tax Declaration No. 4744 issued in 1930, paid realty taxes on the land from 1927, and inheritance tax on September 29, 1953 (Exhibit "5-Intervenor"). He had introduced improvements on the land.

3. It appears that, in 1948, Mauricio sold two parcels within the land, one of 11 hectares and the other of 10 hectares, to Catalino ALEMAN. Those two parcels constitute the Disputed Property in this case.

4. After the sale to him, ALEMAN declared the Disputed Property for tax purposes in his name under Tax Declarations No. 4979 and 4980. On May 31, 1956, he applied for a Free Patent over the Disputed Property (FPA No. 16-1840).

5. On February 1, 1957, ALEMAN mortgaged the Disputed Property (or his "rights") to petitioner Amparo LIM to secure the payment of a loan of P1,300.00 (Exhibit "C"). Due to ALEMAN's failure to pay the loan on due date, upon LIM's complaint in Civil Case No. 1435 of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, the mortgage was foreclosed. Said respondent Court: "The mortgage was foreclosed on January 17, 1957(should be January 19,1959). . . after whichshe took possession of the two parcels of land."2

6. On March 3,1960, for the sum of P3,000.00, ALEMAN further sold the Disputed Property to LIM (Exhibit "D") who, on the same day, filed a free patent application in her name (FPA No. 16-6769), ALEMAN's previous application being cancelled. The sale was evidently made to strengthen LIM's rights to the Disputed Property. LIM declared the Disputed Property for taxation purposes in her name on May 6, 1960, and was issued Tax Declarations 8438 and 8439, which cancelled the Tax Declarations in ALEMAN's name.

7. In the meanwhile, on February 29, 1959, the Deputy Sheriff of Misamis Oriental had levied upon and sold the Disputed Property at public auction to satisfy a judgment for P1,471.96, with interest, rendered on June 18, 1956 by the Municipal Court of Cagayan de Oro against ALEMAN in Civil Case No. 302, entitled "Soc Chao vs. Catalino Aleman". The highest bidder was Eugenio LAMBERANG, and the corresponding certificate of sale was executed in his favor.

8. On February 27, 1960, within one year after the auction sale, LIM offered to redeem the Disputed Property, and she deposited the amount of P2,400.00 with the Sheriff, but LAMBERANG refused to accept the same.ℒαwρhi৷Later, LIM withdrew the deposit on March 11, 1960, after ALEMAN had 11 sold" the Disputed Property to her. It may be mentioned that after LIM had foreclosed the Disputed Property on January 19, 1959, she acquired the right to redeem,3and LAMBERANG was in duty bound to snow her redemption of the Disputed Property.

9. On March 14, 1960, the Sheriff issued a deed of conveyance to LAMBERANG, which was recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Misamis Oriental on March 16, 1960. LAMBERANG obtained a Writ of Possession on April 11, 1960 by virtue of which he entered and occupied the Disputed Property.

10. On October 31, 1960, LIM and her husband filed a case against the Provincial Sheriff for the annulment of the execution sale (Civil Case No. 1856) on the ground that the Disputed Property was still public land at the time of said sale and, therefore, could not be the subject of levy and execution. LAMBERANG was allowed to intervene in the case.

11. Ultimately, the trial Court ruled in favor of LIM on the ground that the Disputed Property was public land and could not be subjected to levy and sale at public auction. LAMBERANG, as Intervenor, brought the case on appeal to respondent Court, which reversed the judgment of the lower Court.

12. Two important dates were not given full appreciation neither by the trial Court, nor by respondent Court. The latter had expressly found: (a) "The mortgage was foreclosed on January 17, 1957(should be January 19,1959). . . after which she (LIM) took possession of the two parcels of land." (b)"On February 28, 1959,the Deputy Sheriff of Misamis Oriental, Jose Velez Yasay, levied and sold at public auction the two parcels of land in question."4It should appear clear that when the Disputed Property was sold at public auction on February 28, 1959, ALEMAN, as judgment debtor, was no longer the owner of the Disputed Property, ownership having been acquired by LIM on January 19, 1959. The sale to LAMBERANG could not have been valid.

13. At the very least, LIM should have been allowed to redeem the Disputed Property within the one year period from February 28, 1959, which she offered to do on February 27, 1960. The mortgage in her favor was executed on February 1, 1957, while the judgment against ALEMAN was rendered on June 18, 1956. The mortgage was subsequent to the judgment.5

14. It is not necessary to rule on whether or not the Disputed Property had already become private property on the date of the public auction. The transactions herein mentioned were in regards to "rights" to the Disputed Property, irrespective of whether the physical property was or was not private property.

1p. 8, CA Decision: p. 159, Rollo.

2p. 10, CA Decision; p. 159, Rollo.

3Section 29, Rule 39, Rules of Court.

4p. 10, CA Decision; p. 159; Rollo.

5See Section 29, Rule 39, Rules of Court.