TIU v SPS JANGAS

FELIX B. TIU VS SPOUSES JACINTO JANGAS AND PETRONILA MERTO JANGAS, MARIA G. ORTIZ, MELENCIO ORTIZ, MERLA M. KITANE, PACITO KITANE, CANDELARIA RUSIANA, RODRIGO RUSIANA, JUANA T. JALANDONI, ADELAIDA P. RAGAY and TEOFISTO RAGAY, 

G.R. No. 200285

March 20, 2017

Facts:

During Gregorio Pajulas' lifetime, he owned a parcel of land known as Lot No. 480. He then gave a portion of the land (Lot No. 480-B) to his granddaughter Lulihala Pajulas who took care of him. In 1956, Gregorio died and was survived by his three daughters, namely, Adelaida, Bruna and Isabel (Pajulas sisters), who adjudicated in 1958 the remaining portion of the land (Lot No. 480-A) unto themselves and declared the same in their names under Tax Declaration (TD) No. 17560. In 1962, the Pajulas sisters agreed to divide Lot No. 480-A equally among themselves; d) Upon the death of Isabel, her share was inherited by her heirs, namely: her husband and children Iluminada Gadiane (Iluminada), Norma Gadiane (Norma) and Maria Gadiane-Ortiza (Maria) (Gadiane sisters); e) On August 5, 1974, Norma sold to Spouses Jangas a portion of her share with an area of 1,462 sq m, which the latter declared in the name of Petronila under TD No. 21-827. On December 31, 1981, Iluminada and Norma sold to the Spouses Jangas another portion with an area of 912 sq m, which was later also declared in the name of Petronila under TD No. 21-1064. Thereafter, Iluminada made subsequent sales as follows: (1) 288 sq m to Candelaria Rusiana (Candelaria); (2) 3,243 sq m to Merla Macalipay-Kitane (Merla); and (3) 288 sq m to Juana Jalandoni (Juana). Sometime in 1962, Bruna sold her one-third-share of Lot No. 480-A to Spouses Gaudencio Delayco (Gaudencio) and Lucia Amigo-Delayco (Spouses Delayco). On January 8, 1980, the heirs of Gaudencio, represented by Bridiana Delayco (Bridiana), applied for and was granted a free patent over the entire Lot No. 480-A. Consequently, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. FV- 29932 under Free Patent (FP) No. (VII-3) 9852 was issued in the name of the heirs of Gaudencio.

Subsequently, Bridiana transferred the title over Lot No. 480-A to her name alone, and was issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. FT-4925 on September 26, 1985. She also declared the subject property under her name for taxation purposes evidenced by TD No. 21-1031. In March of 1990, Bridiana sold the subject property to the petitioner and On August 24, 1990, TCT No. FT-5683 was issued to Spouses Felix and Evelyn Tiu (Spouses Tiu), who also had the subject property declared in their names under TD No. 21-1097 (A). Then, in 1991, the Spouses Tiu mortgaged the subject property with the RBAI.

A motion for leave to intervene and complaints in intervention was filed, on March 31, 1993, by Spouses Maria and Melencio Ortiz (Spouses Ortiz), Spouses Merla and Pacito Kitane (Spouses Kitane), Spouses Candelaria and Rodrigo Rusiana (Spouses Rusiana) and Juana, who contended that they are now the owners of different portions of Lot No. 480-A, having bought the same from the Gadiane sisters. The complaints in interventiqn were later amended to include Spouses Adelaida and Teopisto Ragay, Sr. (Spouses Ragay), who assailed that they owned one-third-share of Lot No. 480-A, since Adelaida is the daughter of Gregorio.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the reconveyance of the subject property.

Held:

No. The contention of the petitioner the he is a buyer in good faith is not tenable.The determination of whether the petitioner is a buyer in good faith is a factual issue, which generally is outside the province of this Court to determine in a petition for review. Although this rule admits of exceptions, none of these apply to this case. There is no conflict between the factual findings and legal conclusions of the RTC and the CA, both of which found the petitioner to be a buyer in bad faith and not entitled to reconveyance of the subject property.

The Court has repeatedly emphasized that one who purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect or lack of title in his vendor cannot claim that he has acquired title thereto in good faith as against the true owner of the land or of an interest therein; and the same rule must be applied to one who has knowledge of facts which should have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to acquaint him with the defects in the title of his vendor.