Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Third Judicial Region
Macabebe, Pampanga
Branch ____

HERMINIA REYES, ANDREA

BUSTOS-MANANSALA, WARLITO
R. BUSTOS, JR. AND
CANDELARIA BUSTOS-
LAQUINDANUM represented by
MA. BELEN BUSTOS-ADVINCULA
Plaintiffs,

Civil Case No. ____________

- versus - For: Annulment of Transfer
Certificate of Title, Recovery
of Possession and Damages
SPS. FRISCO GABRIEL AND
EFIJPANIA P.GABRIEL, LUCIO F.
IGNACIO, SPS. FELIMON GUINTO
AND GLORIA F. GUINTO, AND THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS, SAN
FERNANDO, PAMPANGA
Defendants.
x==================================x

COMPLAINT

COME NOW, the paintiffs Herminia Reyes, Andrea Bustos-

Manansala, Warlito R. Bustos, Jr. and Candelaria Bustos-

Laquindanum, represented by Ma. Belen Bustos-Advincula through the

undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court respectfully allege the

following:

THE PARTIES
Reyes, et. al. vs. Viray, et. al
Petition
Page 2

1. Plaintiffs Herminia Reyes, Andrea Bustos-Manansala, Ma.

Belen Bustos-Advincula, Warlito R. Bustos, Jr. and Candelaria

Bustos-Laquindanum, are all Filipinos, of legal ages, residents of

________________________ Masanatol, Pampanga where they may be served

with summons and other court processes.

2. Defendant Lucio F. Ignacio, Filipino, is of legal age, married, a

resident of Masantol, Pampanga where he may be served with summons.

3. Defendants spouses Efipania P. Gabriel and Frisco Gabriel are

Filipinos, both of legal age, residents at Masantol, Pampanga where they may be

served with summons.

4. Defendants spouses Filemon or Felimon Guinto and Gloria F.

Guinto are Filipinos, both of legal ages, residents of Masantol, Pampanga where

they may be served with summons and other processes.

5. Defendant Register of Deeds for San Fernando Pampanga, which

office may be served with summons and other processes at San Fernando,

Pampanga.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

6. Defendants Epifania P. Gabriel and her spouse Frisco Gabriel

applied for free patent with the DENR CENTRO at Angeles City on the 2 nd day of

November 1994. Said application for free patent was supported by the following:

(1) Affidavit of applicant Epifania P. Gabriel at Masantol,

Pampanga on the 2nd day of November, 1994 and subscribed and
sworn to on the 2nd day of November, 1994 at Masantol Pampanga
before Celso L. Pacate as appears on the said one page affidavijt;
notijce of Application for free patent (unsigned by the name
ABELARDO G. PALAD, Director of Land) but which bears the
signature of Epifania P. Gabriel and Celso L. Pacate, date – 21 st
day of November, 19974;

(2) JOINT AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE PATENT

APPLICATION by VENANCIO M. VIRAY and LUCIO F. FAJARDO,
dated the 2nd day of November, 1994, in the Municipality of
Masantol, Pampanga which appears to have been “SUBCRIBED
Reyes, et. al. vs. Viray, et. al
Petition
Page 3

AND SWORN to before me (Celso L. Pacate) in the date and place

stated”

(3) DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE executed by LUCIO F.

IGNACIO as seller in favor of the spouses VENANCIO M. VIARY
and CECILIA R. NUNGA, over the parcel of land “designated as Lot
No. 284-B, Masantol Cadastre, situated in the Poblacion of
Masantol, Pampanga” containing an area of THREE HUNDRED
SIXTY (360) METERS, more or less”. (names of witnesses are
illegible) but the notary public is Zacaria V. Viray – date of
instrument is 16th day of February, 1987 – place Masantol,
Pampanga, Doc. No. 69; Page NO. 15; Book No. XI; Series of 1987
of the notarial registry of said notary;

(4) DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE executed by Sps.

VENANCIO M. VILARAY AND CECILIA R. NUNGA in favor of
FRISCO GABRIEL and EFIPANIA B. PEREZ and spouses
CHRISTOPHER SIGUA and CLARITA B. PEREZ over “A parcel of
land, designated as Lot 284-B Masantol Cadastre, situated in the
Poblacion of Masantol, Pampanga x x Containing an area of 360
square meters, more or less”, notarized by ex-officio Notary Public,
Nicanor D. Guevarra at Masantol, Pampanga; the date of the
signing by spouses Virays appears 21st day of April, 1987 which
deed is Doc. No. 1443; Page No. 58; Book No. 24; Series of 1987;

(5) DEED OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL PARTITION OF REAL

WSTATE LEFT BY THE LATE TRINIDAD F. FAJARDO.

8. In the said Extra Judicial Partition by the heirs of Trinidad F. Ignacio

who died on 1972, the heirs, namely: Lucio F. Ignacio married to Luisita Guinto;

Jose F. Ignacio; Reynaldo F. Ignacio; Victorino Ignacio and Franciso S. Ignacio, --

“Lot 2k84 Masantol Cadastre situated in san Nicolas, Masantol, Pampanga” was

falsely and deceitfully included as one of the real estate left by Trinidad V.

Igancio and the “whole of Lot 284 Masantol Cadastre” was among those

adjudicated to Lucio F. Ignacio, This deed of extra-judicial partition was notarized

by Atty. Venancio M. Viray on the 15 th day of December, 1984 at Masantol,

Pampanga; Doc. No. 6355; Page No. k61; Book No. XIII, Series of 1984.

9. Although the deed of sale by Venancio Viray and Cecilia Nunga

over the said Lot 284-B says that the vendees are spouses Frisco Gabriel and

Epifania P. Gabriel and the spouses Christopher Sigua and Clarita B. Perez, only

the spouses Frisco Gabriel and Epifania P. Gabriel appeared in the record as
Reyes, et. al. vs. Viray, et. al
Petition
Page 4

applicants for free patent and only they obtained the free patent No. 035412

appearing in their name.

10. Lucio F. Ignacio to whom Lot was adjudicated caused the

subdivision of the same into Lots 284-A and 284-B.

11. Defendants spouses Gloria F. Guinto and Felimon A. Guinto

likewise applied or free patent and the application is supported by the following:

(1) Joint Affidavit of spouses Isaias V. Viray and Lewina L.

Viray and spouses Jose S. Bonifacio and Consolacion R. Bonifacio;

(2) Supposed Deed of Absolute Sale by Trinidad F. Fajardo

and Franciso Ignacio to spouses Filemon Guinto and Gloria
Fajardo, residents of Masantol, Pampanga over a portion only of a
residential lot which portion is described, to wit:

“A portion of the lot above-described is hereby sold

containing an area of ONE HUNDRED FOURTEEM (114) square
meters more or less; x x which residential lot I acquired by
inheritance as evidenced by a deed of extra-judicial partition
notarized by Mr. Venancio M. Viray of Masantol, Pampanga;

12. An “APPROVAL OF APPLICATION AND ISSUANCE OF PATENT”

dated December 1, 1994, was issued on favor of applicants spouses Guinto

signed by OIC Romarico P. Melchor, OIC Provincial Environment and Natural

Resources Officer (PENRO for brevity) with office at DENR CENTRO, Angeles

City.

13. In an undated transmittal letter the free patent was sent to patentee

Gloria F. Guinto of Poblacion, Masantol, Pampanga and the Register of Deeds,

San Fernando, Pampanga.

14. Free Patent No. 035412 dated December 1, 1994, signed by

Romarico Melchor was issued to said Gloria F. Guinto and the name was

registered on January 5, 1995 at 9:00 a.m. in the Registry of Deeds Pampanga

by the registrar, Bienvenido C. Ocampo at San Fennado, Pampanga.

15. Over the said whole Lot 284 Masantol Cadastre, complainant or

plaintiff Warlito Bustos and his family were first bona fide tenants and physical
Reyes, et. al. vs. Viray, et. al
Petition
Page 5

possessors and on the said lot is erected their family house, and with the sale to

him by Ellen Mendoza ownership on possession were consolidated.

16. The said lot was falsely and wrongly included in the deed of

partition for the said lot was among the lots included in the sale by Manuela

Fajardo who inherited said lot among her inherited share from the estate of her

father Paulino Fajardo to Moses Mendoza, Do.. No. 444; Page No. 42; Book No.

III, Series of 1964, of the notarial registry of the notary public Nicanor D.

Guevarra.

17. Consequently, Moses Mendoza filed Civil Case 3833 later docketed

Civil Case No. 830005-M for partition before the Regional Trial Court of

Macabebe, Pampanga Branch 55. Before the said Court could render decision,

Lucio Fajardo Ignacio (son of Trinidad Fajardo-Ignacio) sold part of the subject

land (Lot 284-B Masantol Cadastre) to defendants herein spouses Viray and

Nunga on 16 February 1987.

18. Spouses Viray-Nunga in turn executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in

favor of spouses Frisco Gabriel and Epifania B. Perez and spouses Christopher

Sigua and Clarita B. Perez over said project lot 284-B Masantol Cadastre dated

21st April 1987.

19. On February 8, 1989, the trial court, RTC Macabebe, Pampanga,

Branch 55 rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 830005-M in favor of Moses G.

Mendoza who was substituted by his widow, Ellen P. Mendoza and their children

upon the death of Moses G. Mendoza while Trinidad Fajardo who died in 1972

was substituted by her heirs (Luicio F. Ignacio, being one as a son), to wit –

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is

hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants, and hereby orders –

“1. The division and partition of the parcel of land

identified and described earlier with the aid
and assistance of a qualified surveyor,
segregating therefrom an area equivalent to ¼
Reyes, et. al. vs. Viray, et. al
Petition
Page 6

portion to be taken from the vacant right

eastern portion which is toward the national
road the same to be determined by one (or the
said surveyor) standing on the subject land
facing the municipal road, at the expense of
the plaintiffs;

2. The said ¼ portion segregated shall be a fixed

portion, described by metes and bounds, and
shall be adjudicated and assigned to the
plaintiffs;

3. In case of disagreement as to where the said

right eastern portion should be taken, a
commission is hereby constituted, and the
OCI-Clerk of Court is hereby appointed
chairman, and the OCI-Branch Clerk of Court
of Branches 54 and 55 of this Court are
hereby appointed members, to carry out the
orders contained in the foregoing first two
paragraphs.

4. The defendants to pay the plaintiffs the sum of

P500.00 as attorney’s fees, and to pay the
costs of proceedings.

SO ORDERED.”

A copy of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court is herein attached as

Annex “___”

20. Spouses Venancio M. Viray and Cecilia Nunga-Viray, buyers of

Lucio Ignacio’s share of the property, filed an unlawful detainer case NO. 89 (12)

on Nov. 6, 1989 over Lot No. 284-B against Warlito Bustos who has been in

lawful possession with his family house which is erected on the whole subject lot

284 Masantol Cadastre.

21. The Virays obtained a favorable decision in the Macabebe

Masantol Municipal Circuit Trial Court. Subsequently, the Trial Court issued Writs

of Execution and Demolition, but were stayed when spouses Bustos filed with
Reyes, et. al. vs. Viray, et. al
Petition
Page 7

the Regional Trial Court, Pampanga, Macabebe, Branch 55, a petition for

certiorari, prohibition and injunction.

22. On September 13, 1991, Ellen Mendoza sold the whole subject lot

284 to spouses Warlito Bustos (now deceased) and Herminia R. Bustos in a

Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 13, 1991.

23. Spouses Warlito Bustos and Herminia Reyes filed Civil Case No.

92-0421-M before RTC Branch 55 of Macabebe, Pampanga, questioning the

decision of the Macabebe-Masantol Municipal Circuit and on December 16,

1992, said court DISMISSED Civil Case No. 92-0421-M. The dispositive portion

of which, reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this

case, is as it is hereby, dismissed. The preliminary
injunction is ordered dissolved and the petitioners
and Meridian Assurance Corporation are hereby
ordered jointly and severally, to pay the private
respondents the sum of P20,000.00 by way of
litigation expenses and attorney’s fees, and to pay
the cost of the proceedings.”

Herein attached as Annex “__” is a copy of the said Decision of the

RTC Macabebe Br. 55.

24. Spouses Bustos-Reyes appealed to the Court of Appeals and the

case is docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 30369.

25. Lucio F. Ignacio appealed to the Court of Appeals the decision in

Civil Case No. 830005-M and the same is docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 37607.

26. Lot 284 of Masantol Cadastre being involved in CA-G.R. CV No.

37607 and likewise the subject matter or object in CA-G.R CV No. 30369 and as

the said cases were related, the same were consolidated.

27. Under date of August 26, 1994, a DECISION of the Court of

Appeals was rendered. The dispostive portion of the said Decision provides:

“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing,

consolidated judgment is hereby rendered for both
Reyes, et. al. vs. Viray, et. al
Petition
Page 8

CA-G.R. SP No. 37607 and CA-G.R. SP No. 30369

as follows:

“1. The appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.

37607 is dismissed; Moses Mendoza is
declared as owner of the ¼ undivided share
previously owned by Manuela Fajardo; and
the decision of the Regional Trial Court dated
February 8, 1989 in Civil Case No. 83-0005-M
is affirmed but MODIFIED as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises
considered, judgment is hereby
rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and
against the defendants, and hereby
orders –

“1. A relocation survey to be conducted

(at the expense of the plaintiffs) to
retrace the land subject of the deed of
sale dated September 30, 1964
between Manuela Fajardo and Moses
Mendoza;

“2. The division and partition of said

relocated land by segregating therefrom
an are equivalent to ¼ portion to be
taken from the vacant right eastern
portion which is toward the national
road, the same to be determined by one
standing on the subject land facing the
municipal road, at the expense of the
plaintiff-appellees;

“3. The said ¼ portion segregated shall

be a fixed portion, described by metes
and bounds, and shall be adjudicated
and assigned to the plaintiffs-appellees;

“4. In case of disagreement as to where

the said right eastern portion should be
taken, a Commission is hereby
constituted, with the OIC/present Clerk
of Court of Branches 54 and 55 of the
Court (RTC) as members, to carry out
and implement the Orders contained in
the second and third paragraphs hereof;

“5. The defendants are ordered to pay

the plaintiffs the sum of P500.00 as
attorney’s fees, and to pay the costs of
the proceedings.
Reyes, et. al. vs. Viray, et. al
Petition
Page 9

“2. The dismissal of Civil Case No. 92-0421-M

is AFFIRMED but the reasons for its dismissal
shall be effective only as to the issue of
possession. CA-G.R. SP No. 30369 is
DISMISSED.

“3. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.”
Herein attached as Annex “___” is a copy of the 26 August 1994

Decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals.

28. Motion for Reconsiderations were filed by the Fajardos-Ignacios,

but both motions were denied by the Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated

June 21, 1995. The Fajardos-Ignacios did not appeal the denial, nor filed a

petition to the honorable Supreme Court. Insofar as the ownership which the

Hon Court of Appeals decided in favor of Elena P. Mendoza and heirs and

against the Fajardos – Ignacios over the subject matter of the case, the same is

therefore final and executory by operation of law.

29. Spouses Bustos-Reyes elevated the case to the Supreme Court

and is docketed as G.R. No. 120781- (CA SP No. 30369). On 24 January 2001,

a Decision was rendered by no less than this Honorable Supreme Court, through

Justice Pardo, affirming the Decision of the Court of Appeals in an accion

reinvindicatoria case involving the parties to the present case; to wit:

“ The issue raised is whether petitioners

could be ejected from what is now their own land.

The petition is meritorious.

In this case, the issue of possession is

intertwined with the issue of ownership. In the unlawful
detainer case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the trial court as to possession on the
ground that the decision has become final and
executory. This means that the petitioners may be
evicted. In the accion reinvindicatoria, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the ownership of petitioners over the
subject land. Hence, the court declared petitioners as
the lawful owners of the land.
Reyes, et. al. vs. Viray, et. al
Petition
Page 10

Admittedly, the decision in the ejectment case is

final and executory. However, the ministerial duty of the
court to order execution of a final and executory
judgment admits of exceptions. In Lipana vs.
Development Bank of Rizal, the Supreme Court
reiterated the rule “once a decision becomes final and
executory, it is the ministerial duty of the court to order
its execution, admits of certain exceptions as in cases
of special and exceptional nature where it becomes
imperative in the higher interest of justice to direct the
suspension of its execution (Vecine v. Geronimo, 59
O. G. 579); whenever it is necessary to accomplish the
aims of justice (Pascual v. Tan, 85 Phil. 164); or when
certain facts and circumstances transpired after the
judgment became final which could render the
execution of the judgment unjust (Cabrias v. Adil, 135
SCRA 354).

In the present case, the stay of execution is

warranted by the fact that petitioners are now legal
owners of the land in question and are occupants
thereof. To execute the judgment by ejecting petitioners
from the land that they owned would certainly result in
grave injustice. Besides, the issue of possession was
rendered moot when the court adjudicated ownership to
the spouses Bustos by virtue of a valid deed of sale.

Placing petitioners in possession of the land in

question is the necessary and logical consequence of
the decision declaring them as the rightful owners of the
property. One of the essential attributes of ownership is
possession. It follows that as owners of the subject
property, petitioners are entitled to possession of the
same. “An owner who cannot exercise the seven (7)
“juses” or attributes of ownership--the right to possess,
the use and enjoy, to abuse or consume, to
accessories, to dispose or alienate, to recover or
vindicate and to the fruits—is a crippled owner.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET

ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R.
SP No. 30609 for being moot and academic. We
AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA
G.R. CV No. 37606.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.” (emphasis supplied)

30. The Decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in G.R. Nos.

120784-85 under date of January 24, 2001 arrived at by unanimous

Reyes, et. al. vs. Viray, et. al
Petition
Page 11

agreement of the Honorable Justices of the First Division is attached as

Annex “___” to this Petition.

31. The Resolution of the First Division of the Honorable Supreme

Court on the motion for reconsideration by the respondents under date of March

19, 2001 denying reconsideration with FINALITY is attached as Annex “___” to

this Petition.

32. A copy of the Entry of Judgment dated 19 April 2001, issued by

Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Judicial Records Officer Teresita G. Dimaisip is

herein attached as Annex “__”.

33. In view of the finality of the Resolution of the First Division of the

Honorable Supreme Court on March 19, 2001, herein petitioners respectfully

requests this Honorable Court that TCT No.__________ be declared annulled

and that the property subject matter of the case be reconveyed to them as

rightful owners of the property.

P R A Y E R

WHEREFORE, premises considered, and in view of the foregoing, it is

respectfully prayed of this honorable Court, that after hearing, judgment be

rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, ordering as follows:

1. Declaring the patent obtained by the defendants spouses Epifania P.

Gabriel and Frisco Gabriel to e the null and void ab initio and canceling the

registration of the said patent from the Registry of Deeds of Pampanga;

3. Declaring the DENR CENRO without the jurisdiction over the subject

lots, the same being private properties long before 1945;

4. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally moral damages

in the amount of P100,000.00;

Reyes, et. al. vs. Viray, et. al
Petition
Page 12

5. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally, exemplary

damages in the amount of P100,000.00;

6. It is further prayed for that the award of damages be explicitly

stated in the decision and the reason/s for the award of the said damages in

accordance with existing jurisprudence;

7. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally, the attorney’s

fees of P50,000.00, and P3,000.00 as appearance fee for every Court

appearance;

8. Ordering the defendants to pay the cost of suit.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed

for.

__ July 2008, Pasig City for Macabebe, Pampanga.

DAVID TAMAYO CUI-DAVID LAW OFFICES

1905-A, Philippine Stock Exchange Center
West Tower, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
Tel Nos. 6876022/6876921
By:

LANEE S. CUI-DAVID
PTR No. 4309686/01-04-2008/Pasig City
IBP LR No. 02695/01-03-2002/Pampanga
Attorneys' Roll No. 40347