FELIPA CORDERO (Dee!"e#$ %A&RO OCA%PO, CA'I%IRO OCA%PO !(# ELI'EA OCA%PO, petitioners, vs. )IC*ORIA P. CA+RAL, ALEJANDRO +ER+O'O, DAL%ACIO %ON*AO' !(# ,ONORA+LE CO&R* OF APPEAL', respondents.
A+AD 'AN*O', J.- Petition to review a decision of the defunct Court of Appeals. In Civil Case No. 2323 of the defunct Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Felipa Cordero and her children Mauro, Casimiro and lisea all surnamed !campo sued "ictoria Ca#ral, Ale$andro Ber#oso and %almacio Montaos in aComplaint which reads as follows& '. (hat the plaintiffs are all of le)al a)e, all residin) and with postal address at Me*caua*an, Bulacan+ Felipa Cordero is a widow while lisea !campo is sin)le+ and the defendants are all of le)al a)e, "ictoria P. Ca#ral is married #ut she is livin) apart and separate from her hus#and so the latter is not included herein as part* defendant, and all of them are residin) and with postal address at Me*caua*an, Bulacan, where the* ma* #e served with summons+ 2. (hat Mr. ,re)orio -. !campo of Me*caua*an, Bulacan, hus#and of the plaintiff Felipa Cordero and father of the other plaintiffs surnamed !campo, died on Ma* '., '/01, and that said deceased left several properties, which were inherited #* the plaintiffs, one of which is a parcel of land descri#ed as follows& A parcel of land 23ot No. 0, plan Psu4533627, with the improvements thereon, situated in the #arrio of 8alu*so*, Municipalit* of Me*caua*an. Bounded on the N. #* 8apa and properties of Pedro %a9o and Catalino :altacion+ on the N. #* propert* of (rinidad ;odri)ue9 < Mateo Mistica+ on the 8. #* properties of "icente Mistica, Antonio ;odri)ue9, =ermo)enes Blanco, 3ucio 8ul#era and Pa#lo Francia+ on the 8>. #* properties of Concepcion ;odri)ue9 and Ale$andro de la Cru9+ and on N>. #* a 8apa ... + containin) an area of 8event*4ei)ht thousand one hundred and ei)ht*4one s?uare meters 2.1,'1'7, more or less. >ith (;AN8F; C;(IFICA( !F (I(3 N!. '50'3 in the name of ,re)orio -. !campo and has (a: %eclaration No. 21'/ and is assessed at P5,2/6.66. which parcel of land was ori)inall* re)istered in accordance with the 3and ;e)istration Act on %ecem#er '5, '/33, and was re)istered and@or transferred in the name of Mr. ,re)orio -. !campo on Aul* 3', '/35+ 3. (hat after the death of the said Mr. ,re)orio -. !campo the plaintiffs herein tooB possession of the properties left #* him, amon) others is the afore4descri#ed parcel of land which is a riceland, #ut the* found out that the southern portion of the same with an area 5,363 s?uare meters, more or less, upon verification, was possessed #* the defendants herein, "ictoria P. Ca#ral, Ale$andro Ber#oso and %almacio Montaos and that the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral claimed to #e the owner of said portion while her co4defendants co4possessed the same as her tenants+ 5. (hat the plaintiffs demanded of the defendants to surrender to the former possession of the afore4 mentioned portion of land and@or vacate it #ut the* refused and failed to do so, and the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral continued claimin) to #e the owner of the same while her co4defendants continued reco)ni9in) her as the owner thereof instead of the plaintiffs+ that the plaintiffs had the afore4 descri#ed parcel of land 2with (.C.(. No. '50'37 relocated in the presence of the defendantsC representatives and it was found and@or determined that the afore4said portion of land with the area of 5,363 s?uare meters, more or less, was a part of the plaintiffsC land with (.C.(. No. '50'3+ that even after the said relocation the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral persisted and still persist in her claim of ownership over the said portion and her co4defendants persisted and still persist in reco)ni9in) her as the owner thereof instead of the plaintiffs+ that the defendants continue in possession of the same+ and that the defendants still refuse and fail to surrender and@or vacate said portion of land inspite of demands made on them #* the plaintiffs+ 0. (hat #ecause of the defendantsC occupanc* of the aforementioned plaintiffsC portion of land with the area of 5,363 s?uare meters, more or less, to the e:clusion of the latter, the said plaintiffs failed to reali9e a *earl* harvest of at least ten 2'67 cavanes of pala* at the rate of P'6.66 per cavan, from the harvest4time of '/01 up to the present+ D. (hat #ecause of the defendantsC refusal to reco)ni9e plaintiffsC ownership over the afore4mentioned portion of land and also #ecause of their refusal and failure to surrender and@or vacate the same the plaintiffs were forced to emplo* the services of the undersi)ned counsel to institute this action at an a)reed fees of P066.66. >=;F!;, premises considered, the plaintiffs herein respectfull* pra* of this =on. Court to render $ud)ment in favor of the plaintiffs and a)ainst the defendants thus orderin) them& a7 (o reco)ni9e the ownership of the plaintiffs over the afore4 mentioned portion of land with an area of 5,363 s?uare meters, more or less, and to surrender it to the plaintiffs or vacate the same+ #7 (o deliver, $ointl* and severall*, to the plaintiffs pala* in the amount of ten 2'67 cavanes or pa* their marBet price at the rate of P'6.66 per cavan per harvest4time #e)innin) the *ear '/01 up to the time of their deliver* or pa*ment. c7 (o pa*, $ointl* and severall*, the plaintiffsC law*erCs fees in the amount of P066.66+ and d7 (o pa* the costs of this suit. And to )rant an* remed* and relief $ust and e?uita#le in the premises.E 2;ecord on Appeal, pp. 24D.7 (he Answer of the defendants contains the followin) alle)ations& I. (hat defendants have no Bnowled)e or information sufficient to form a #elief as to the truth of the alle)ations in para)raph 2 of the complaint+ II. (hat defendants admit #ein) in possession of the portion of land alle)ed in para)raph 3 of the complaint, as said portion of land #elon)s to defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral+ III. (hat defendants den* the alle)ation in para)raph 5 of the complaint to the effect that the said portion of 5,363 s?uare meters, more or less, is a part of the plaintiffsC land+ I". (hat defendants have no Bnowled)e or information sufficient to form a #elief as to the truth of the alle)ations in para)raph 0 of the complaint+ ". (hat defendants liBewise have no Bnowled)e or information sufficient to form a #elief as to the truth of the alle)ations in para)raph D of the complaint+ And #* wa* of 8PCIA3 %FN8, defendants alle)e& "I. (hat defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral and her predecessors in interest #efore her are the real owners, and have #een in actual, adverse, peaceful and continuous possession, of that portion of land claimed #* the plaintiffs in their complaint, which portion is more particularl* descri#ed as 3ot 04B of plan Psd4''5/D, dul* approved #* the %irector of 3ands on %ecem#er 2', '/30+ "II. (hat the deceased ,re)orio -. !campo and@or his heirs, the herein plaintiffs, have admitted, acBnowled)ed and reco)ni9ed the defendant Ca#ral and her predecessors in said portion of land, as the real owners thereof+ "III. (hat the deceased ,re)orio -. !campo and his predecessors in interest, as well as the defendant Ca#ral and her predecessors in interest, have alwa*s reco)ni9ed as the #oundar* #etween their respective properties, a #arrio road which has e:isted since the 8panish re)ime and has continued to e:ist up to the present time+ and all the residents of the rural areas usin) said #arrio road Bnow for a fact that, with respect to the respective properties of the parties hereto, said road is the #oundar* #etween said properties+ IF. (hat the inclusion of that portion claimed #* the plaintiffs in their complaint in the ori)inal re)istration of their propert* was o#tained thru error or fraud #* the ori)inal applicant, #ut was never possessed #* him nor #* his successors in interest, as the* have alwa*s openl* reco)ni9ed the ownership of said portion as #elon)in) to defendant Ca#ral and her predecessors in interest #efore her+ And #* wa* of C!GN(; C3AIM, defendants alle)e& F. (hat all the fore)oin) para)raphs are pleaded herein and made parts hereof+ FI. (hat the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral is the real owner of 3ot No. 04 B, plan Psd4''5/D, with an area of 5,363 s?uare meters, more or less, erroneousl* or fraudulentl* included in the propert* descri#ed in (ransfer Certificate of (itle No. '50'3 of the ;e)ister of %eeds of the Province of Bulacan, re)istered in the name of the deceased ,re)orio -. !campo and now claimed #* the herein plaintiffs+ FII. (hat defendant Ca#ral and her predecessors in interest have #een in possession of said portion of land for more than fift* *ears, their possession #ein) actual, adverse, peaceful and continuous, as owners thereof+ FIII. (hat said deceased ,re)orio -. !campo and@or his heirs, and their predecessors in interest have openl* admitted, acBnowled)ed and reco)ni9ed the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral and her predecessors in interest as the real owners of said portion of land, 3ot 04B plan Psd4''5/D, and said ,re)orio -. !campo and@or his heirs and their predecessors in interest have never #een in possession of said portion of land+ FI". (hat the plaintiffs, claimin) to #e the heirs of the deceased ,re)orio -. !campo, are therefore under o#li)ation to e:ecute a deed of transfer of said portion of land in favor of the true owner thereof, the herein defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral, in accordance with law+ F". (hat #ecause of the present action filed #* the plaintiffs, the defendants have suffered dama)es in the amount of Pl,666.66+ >=;F!;, defendants pra* that $ud)ment #e rendered& 2a7 dismissin) the complaint, with costs a)ainst the plaintiffs+ 2#7 declarin) the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral as the owner of 3ot 04B, plan Psd4 ''5/D, which has #een erroneousl* included in the propert* of the deceased ,re)orio -. !campo covered #* (ransfer Certificate of (itle No. '50'3, Bulacan, and orderin) the herein plaintiffs to e:ecute a deed of transfer of said 3ot No. 04B, plan Psd4'' 5/D in favor of the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral+ and 2c7 orderin) the plaintiffs to pa* to the defendants the sum of P l,666.66. %efendants further pra* for such other reliefs and remedies which ma* #e proper and $ust under the premises. 2;.A., pp. 14'3.7 (he plaintiffs filed a Reply and Answer to Counterclaim as follows& '. (hat the plaintiffs den* the alle)ation in para)raph II of the Answer that the portion of land now under liti)ation #elon)s to the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral, and liBewise den* the alle)ations in para)raphs "I and FI of the same that the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral and her predecessors in interest are the real owners of this portion 2under liti)ation7 with an area of 5,363 s?uare meters, 3ot 04B of plan Psd4''5/D with (ransfer Certificate of (itle No. '50'3 in the name of Mr. ,re)orio -. !campo, #ecause the truth is that the said Mr. !campo and his successors in interest, the plaintiffs herein, are the real owners thereof+ and that said portion is a part and is included in the plaintiffsC #i) parcel of land Bnown as 3ot 0, Psu453362, and covered #* the afore4mentioned Certificate+ (hat the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral and her predecessors in interest were never the owners of the said portion of land and in fact none of them, much less "ictoria P. Ca#ral, has #een in possession or in possession of an* title or an* document. either pu#lic or private, showin) his or her ownership, and not even a (a: %eclaration for ta:ation purposes+ the truth is that when the late Mr. Antonio ;odri)ue9, ori)inal owner of the land with plan Psu4'6603D, ad$acent to that of the plaintiffs, sold said land to his successor 8e)unda Prodon he did not include in the said sale this portion, under liti)ation, 3ot 04B, of plan Psd4''5/D with an area of 5,363 s?uare meters, more or less, Bnowin) that it did not #elon) to him+ and #ecause of 8e)unda Prodon has not ac?uired this portion of land with an area of 5,363 s?uare meters, more or less, it is clear, therefore, that she could not have transmitted it to her successors includin) the herein defendant, "ictoria P. Ca#ral+ 2. (hat the plaintiffs den* the defendantsC alle)ations in para)raphs "I and FII of their Answer that the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral and her predecessors in interest have #een in actual, adverse, peaceful and continuous possession of this portion of land for a period of more than 06 *ears #ecause the truth is that, if the* were ever in possession of the same, their possession was Cnot adverseC and Cnot continuousC. >hen Mr. ,re)orio -. !campo #ou)ht the parcel of land Bnown as 3ot 0, Psu4 53362 with an area of .1,'1' s?uare meters, more or less, in '/35, 2wherein this portion under liti)ation is included7 the said Mr. !campo tooB possession of this whole land. In the *ear '/30 the ad$oinin) owner of the said propert*, the late Mr. Antonio ;odri)ue9 and predecessor of the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral, re?uested Mr. !campo to sell to him a portion of said land with an area of 5,363 s?uare meters, more or less, to which Mr. !campo a)reed. As there was alread* a meetin) of the mind Mr. ;odri)ue9 re?uested Mr. !campo that he #e allowed to possess the said portion as the* were )oin) to maBe the formal deed of sale, to which proposition Mr. !campo liBewise a)reed. (his proposed sale never materiali9ed so if Mr. ;odri)ue9 ever possessed the said portion of land, now under liti)ation, he did not possess it as owner #ut onl* as a Cprospective ownerC. =is possession cannot, therefore, #e termed CadverseC. 8uch possession cannot also #e termed CcontinuousC for 06 *ears #ecause Mr. !campo was in possession of the same in '/35 #efore Mr. ;odri)ue9 came in possession of the same, first, with the consent and later #* toleration of Mr. !campo. ,rantin) #ut without admittin), that the defendant Ca#ral and her predecessors in interest have #een in possession of this portion of land with an area of 5,363 s?uare meters, more or less for more than 06 *ears, does she mean to impl* now that she ac?uires ownership over the same #* virtue of CprescriptionC 8he must remem#er that this propert* is titled under Act 5/D and, therefore, Cimprescripti#leC, 3. (hat the plaintiffs den* the defendantsC alle)ations in para)raphs "I and IF of their Answer that the plaintiffs have admitted, acBnowled)ed and reco)ni9ed the defendant Ca#ral and her predecessors in said land as the real owners thereof, #ecause the truth is that the plaintiffs are the real owners of the same, and that the* have never admitted, acBnowled)ed nor reco)ni9ed the defendant Ca#ral nor an* of her predecessors in interest as the owners of said portion of land+ 5. (hat the plaintiffs admit he alle)ation in para)raph "III of the Answer that the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral owns an ad$oinin) propert* which is descri#ed in her plan Psu4'6603D #ut the* den* there is a C#arrio roadC #etween her land and that of the plaintiffs which serves as the #oundar* and that there has never #een an* road much less a #arrio road #etween their properties. (hat, if the defendants are referrin) to 3ot 04B, plan Psd4 ''5/D, and the rest of the land of the plaintiffs 3ot No. 0, Psu453362, which said 3ot 04B is a part, the plaintiffs den* the e:istence of such road much less a #arrio road, and that there has never #een a road therein. >ith the permission of the =on. Court the e:istence or non4e:istence of a road can #e verified #* an ocular inspection and if need #e with the aid of a licensed surve*or+ 0. (hat the plaintiffs den* the alle)ations in para)raphs IF and FIII of the Answer that Mr. ,re)orio -. !campo and his successors in interest have never #een in possession of this portion of land now under liti)ation. Mr. ,re)orio -. !campo tooB possession of said propert* after he #ou)ht it in '/35 and if the predecessors in interest of the defendant Ca#ral happened to #e in its possession it was, first, with the consent of Mr. !campo and later #* his toleration as we have alread* e:plained in para)raph 2 of this ;epl*+ D. (hat the plaintiffs den* the alle)ation in para)raph IF of the Answer that the inclusion of this portion of propert* under liti)ation was Co#tained thru error or fraudC #* the ori)inal applicant, and the* liBewise den* the alle)ation in para)raph FI of the Answer that this portion with an area of 5,363 s?uare meters, more or less, was erroneousl* and fraudulentl* included in the propert* descri#ed in (ransfer Certificate of (itle No. '50'3 of the ;e)ister of %eeds of the Province of Bulacan, #ecause in truth and in fact there was no such error or fraud. (he title of this propert* was )ranted and o#tained in a re)ular proceedin). If there was an* error or fraud the predecessor in interest of the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral would have filed a petition for review or would have sued for dama)es. !r the said defendant or an* of her predecessors in interest would have resorted to some le)al remed*. (he fact is that the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral or an* of her predecessors in interest did not sincerel* and honestl* #elieve that the* were the owners of this portion of propert*. In fact the* did not have and do not have an* Bind of title or an* Bind of document, either pu#lic or private, over this propert* and the* did not even have this propert* declared in their names for ta:ation purposes. ,rantin), #ut without admittin), that the title to this propert* was o#tained either #* error or fraud *et the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral can have no valid claim a)ainst the plaintiffs #ecause she has never #een the owner of said propert* and also #ecause the plaintiffsC predecessor, Mr. ,re)orio -. !campo, ac?uired this propert* as Can innocent purchaser, in )ood faith and for value. .. (hat the plaintiffs den* the alle)ation in para)raph FI" of the Answer that the plaintiffs are under o#li)ation to e:ecute a deed of transfer of the portion of land in favor of the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral #ecause, first, the title to this land was o#tained in a re)ular proceedin) where there was neither error nor fraud+ second, said defendant or her predecessors in interest are not the owners of said land much less said defendant Ca#ral who has nothin) at all in her possession to show an* Bind of ri)ht over said portion of land, and third, Mr. ,re)orio -. !campo, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, ac?uire this propert* as an Cinnocent purchaser, in )ood faith and for valueC, and 1. (hat the plaintiffs have no Bnowled)e or information sufficient to form a #elief as to the truth of the alle)ation in para)raph F" of the defendants, Answer 2Counterclaim7. >=;F!;, it is respectfull* pra*ed of this =on. Court to )rant the plaintiffs Petition in their Complaint.E 2;.A., pp. '542'.7 It can #e seen that the thrust of the Complaint is that a piece of land covered #* (.C.(. No. '50'3 in the name of ,re)orio -. !campo was ille)all* possessed #* the defendants. Gpon the other hand, the thrust of the Answer is that Ethe defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral is the real owner of 3ot No. 04B, plan Psd4''5/D, with an area of 5,363 s?uare meters, more or less, erroneousl* or fraudulentl* included in the propert* descri#ed in (ransfer Certificate of (itle No. '50'3 of the ;e)ister of %eeds of the Province of Bulacan, re)istered in the name of the deceased ,re)orio -. !campo and now claimed #* the herein plaintiffs.E 2Answer, par. FI.7 (he decision of the trial court is not clear as to whether or not the disputed lot is included in (.C.(. No. '50'3. =owever, the decision contains the followin) statement& Eif it is included in their title, such title is void insofar as the portion of the Panda*an road is concerned.E 2;.A., p. 36.7 (he trial court )ave the followin) $ud)ment& >=;F!;, plaintiffsC complaint is here#* %I8MI88%, without costs. For lacB of proof that plaintiffs were in #ad faith in the filin) of the present action, defendantsC counter4claim is liBewise dismissed. 2;.A., p. 36.7 (he plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals and made the followin) assi)nment of errors& I. (= 3!>; C!G;( ;;% IN =!3%IN, (=A( (= PAN%AHAN ;!A% I8 3!CA(% IN8I% (= P;!P;(H %8C;IB% IN (.C.(. N!. '50'3 AN% INC!N8IGN(3H =!3%IN, (=A( (= 8AM C!N8(I(G(8 (= B!GN%A;H 3IN B(>N (= P;!P;(I8 !F P3AIN(IFF84APP33AN(8 AN% %FN%AN(4APP33 "IC(!;IA CAB;A3. II. (= 3!>; C!G;( ;;% IN =!3%IN, (=A( (.C.(. N!. '50'3 I8 C"!I% IN8!FA; A8 (= P!;(I!N F;!M (= PAN%AHAN ;!A% I8 C!NC;N%C, AN% IN N!( =!3%IN, (=A( 8AI% (.C.(. I8 INC!N(;!";(IB3. III. (= 3!>; C!G;( ;;% IN ,I"IN, IMP!;(ANC (! %FN%AN(84APP338C A33,% C!PN, C!N(ING!G8 AN% A%";8 P!8888I!NC AN% IN %I8MI88IN, P3AIN(IFF84APP33AN(8C C!MP3AIN(.E 2Brief, pp. a4#7. (he Court of Appeals found as a fact& EThat disputed portion Lot 5-a is admittedly part of the land originally registered in the name of plaintiff's predecessor in interest, there should be no question that that title had become imprescriptible and original registrant as well as his successors had the right to indicate their ownership against any body else. E 2;ollo, p. 05.7 But the Court of Appeals went further. 8ei9in) a statement in the ;epl* and Answer to Counterclaim filed #* the plaintiffs, it held that ,re)orio -. !campo had #* an oral contract sold the disputed land to Antonio ;odri)ue9 the defendantCs predecessor in interest. (he Court of Appeals further said Ethat agreement oral albeit, became binding upon !campo, it was een e"ecuted in part by the actual deliery of possession, it amounted to a superening fact, posterior to the title, and the fact that !campo's title was not afterwards cancelled can not at all mean that the title could be used as a weapon to annul that posterior agreement by !campo oluntarily entered into and by reason of which he had deliered possession unto defendant's predecessor# of course, no deed of sale was formali$ed for a reason not clear in the eidence# but whether or not formali$ed, it was a binding personal agreement upon !campo. E 2;ollo, pp. 0D40..7 (he statement upon which the Court of Appeals #uilt its decision is as follows& >hen Mr. ,re)orio -. !campo #ou)ht the parcel of land Bnown as 3ot 0, Psu453362 with an area of .1,'1' s?uare meters, more or less, in '/35, 2wherein this portion under liti)ation is included7, the said Mr. !campo tooB possession of this whole land. In the *ear '/30 the ad$oinin) owner of the said propert*, the late Mr. Antonio ;odri)ue9 and predecessor of the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral, re?uested Mr. !campo to sell to him a portion of said land with an area of 5,363 s?uare meters, more or less, to which Mr. !campo a)reed. As there was alread* a meetin) of the mind Mr. ;odri)ue9 re?uested Mr. !campo that he #e allowed to possess the said portion as the* were )oin) to maBe the formal deed of sale, to which proposition Mr. !campo liBewise a)reed. (his proposed sale never materiali9ed so if Mr. ;odri)ue9 ever possessed the said portion of land, now under liti)ation, he did not possess it as owner #ut onl* as a Cprospective ownerC. =is possession cannot, therefore, #e termed CadverseC. 8uch possession cannot also #e termed CcontinuousC for 06 *ears #ecause Mr. !campo was in possession of the same in '/35 #efore Mr. ;odri)ue9 came to possession of the same, first, with the consent and later #* toleration of Mr. !campo. 2;.A. pp. '04'D.7 It passes understandin) wh* the plaintiffs mentioned a non4consummated transaction #etween ,re)orio -. !campo and Antonio ;odri)ue9 when the defendants made no claim of such transaction nor was the name of Antonio ;odri)ue9 even mentioned in their Answer. ven as the Court of Appeals found that the disputed piece of land is re)istered in the name of the plaintiffs #ut #ecause of the supposed oral sale of the same to the predecessors of the defendants, it affirmed the $ud)ment of the trial court dismissin) the complaint for the recover* of the land. (he instant petition assails the Court of Appeals for renderin) a decision #ased on a )round which was never raised nor discuss whether in the trial court or #efore it #* an* of the parties. (he )round to #e sure, is the supposed oral contract of sale made to the predecessors of the defendants coverin) the disputed piece of land. (he petition is hi)hl* impressed with merit. It is a well4settled rule that, e:cept ?uestions on $urisdiction, no ?uestion will #e entertained on appeal unless it has #een raised in the court #elow and it is within the issues made #* the parties in their pleadin)s. 28ee cases cited in II Moran, ;ules of Court, pp. 0654060 J'/.6K.7 In this case, the Court of Appeals erred when it rendered a decision #ased on a )round which was not liti)ated in the trial court and which could not have #een raised on appeal. (hat the supposed oral contract of sale was never an issue is demonstrated #* the followin). '. (he pleadin)s of the parties have #een purposel* reproduced in full a#ove. It can #e seen therefrom that no issue in respect of the supposed oral sale actuall* emer)ed. 2. (he decision of the trial court is a#solutel* silent on the supposed oral contract of sale. 3. (he plaintiffs who appealed the decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals did not maBe an assi)nment of error in respect of the supposed oral sale. (he Court of Appeals found as a fact that the disputed piece of land is re)istered in the name of the plaintiffsC predecessor. (he defendants claimed in their answer that the* and their predecessors are the owners of the land in dispute #ut that the plaintiffsC predecessor was a#le to re)ister the same in his name throu)h error or fraud. =owever, the trial court made no cate)orical findin) on this claim of the defendants otherwise it would have )ranted the affirmative relief which the* asBed, namel*& E2#7 declarin) the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral as the owner of 3ot 04 B, plan Psd4''5/D, which has #een erroneousl* included in the propert* of the deceased ,re)orio -. !campo covered #* (ransfer Certificate of (itle No. '50'3, Bulacan, and orderin) the herein plaintiffs to e:ecute a deed of transfer of said 3ot No. 04B, plan Psd4 ''5/D in favor of the defendant "ictoria P. Ca#ral.E (he Court of Appeals did not deal with this issue #ecause there was no appeal made #* the defendants. (he followin) conclusions have to #e made. '. (he disputed land is included in (.C.(. No. '50'3 issued to ,re)orio -. !campo, the predecessor of the plaintiffs. 2. (he ori)inal re)istration which includes the disputed land was not vitiated #* error or fraud. 3. (he Court of Appeals erred when it held that ,re)orio -. !campo had orall* sold the disputed land to the predecessors of the defendants. 5. (he defendants, #* their own admission, are in possession of the disputed land. (here is no evidence that the* were possessors in #ad faith. =owever, their )ood faith ceased when the* were served with summons to answer the complaint. 2Art. 021, Civil Code+ (acas vs. (o#on, 03 Phil. 30D J'/2/K.7 As possessors in #ad faith from the service of the summons the* Eshall reim#urse the fruits received and those which the le)itimate possessor could have received, ... 2Art. 05/, Civil Code.7 >=;F!;, the $ud)ment of the Court of Appeals is here#* reversed and another one rendered in that the defendants shall vacate and surrender the land in ?uestion to the plaintiffs+ and the defendants shall also account for the fruits thereof pursuant to Article 05/ of the Civil Code from the service of the summons. Costs a)ainst the defendants. 8! !;%;%. %a&asiar 'Chairman(, Aquino, Concepcion )r*, +uerrero and ,scolin ))*, concur* -e Castro, )*,is on leae*
Howard Rothacker v. Walter E. Black, JR., Trustee, in The Matter of First Capitol Savings and Loan Association, Inc., Bankrupt, 333 F.2d 845, 1st Cir. (1964)