PROPERTY_ Art.
434
ROGELIO J. JAKOSALEM AND GODOFREDO B. DULFO v. ROBERTO S. BARANGAN
G.R. No. 175025 February 15, 2012
FACTS:
Respondent Col. Barangan entered into a Land Purchase Agreement with Ireneo S. Labsilica of Citadel Realty
Corporation. Upon full payment of the purchase price, a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed in his favor. Consequently,
the old title TCT No. 171453, which was a transfer from TCT No. 165456, was cancelled and a new one, TCT No. N-10772
was issued in his name. While he has been dutifully paying real property taxes for the said property, respondent was not,
however, able to physically occupy the subject property because as a member of the Philippine Air Force, he was often
assigned to various stations in the Philippines.
When he was about to retire from the government service, respondent Barangan went to visit his property, where
he was planning to build a retirement home. It was only then that he discovered that it was being occupied by petitioner
Godofredo Dulfo (petitioner Dulfo) and his family. Consequently, Barangan sent a letter to petitioner Dulfo demanding
that he and his family vacate the subject property. In reply, petitioner Atty. Rogelio J. Jakosalem (petitioner Jakosalem),
the son-in-law of petitioner Dulfo, sent a letter claiming ownership over the subject property.
Respondent Barangan commissioned Geodetic Engineer Lope C. Jonco (Engr. Jonco) of J. Surveying Services to
conduct a relocation survey of the subject property based on the technical description appearing on respondents TCT. The
relocation survey of the subject property revealed that the property occupied by petitioner Dulfo and his family is the same
property covered by respondent Barangans title. On November 1994, respondent filed a Complaint for Recovery of
Possession, against petitioners Dulfo and Jakosalem with the RTC, praying that petitioners be ordered to vacate the
subject property and pay a monthly rental of P3,000.00 for the use and occupancy of the subject property from May 1979
until the time the subject property is vacated.
Petitioners claim that the relocation survey conducted by Engr. Jonco violated the agreement they made before
the Barangay that the survey should be conducted in the presence of both parties. They also claim that the title number
stated in the Land Purchase Agreement is not the same number found in the Deed of Absolute Sale. Respondent
Barangan, on the other hand, argues that being the registered owner of the subject property, he is entitled to its
possession. He maintains that his Torrens title prevails over the Assignment of a Right presented by petitioners.
ISSUE/S:
Whether Barangan was able to identify the exact location of his property described under TCT No. N-10772 and whether
the property occupied by Dulfo is the same property claimed by Barangan so as to entitle respondent to recover the subject
property.
HELD:
YES. In accordance with Art. 434 of the Civil Code, in order to recover possession, a person must prove (1) the
identity of the land claimed, and (2) his title. In this case, respondent was able to prove the identity of the property and his
title. To prove his title to the property, he presented in evidence the following documents: (1) Land Purchase Agreement;
(2) Deed of Absolute Sale; (3) and a Torrens title registered under his name, TCT No. N-10772.
To prove the identity of the property, respondent offered the testimonies of Engr. Jonco, who conducted the
relocation survey, and Estardo, the caretaker of the subdivision, who showed respondent the exact location of the subject
property. He likewise submitted as evidence the Verification Survey Plan of the lot, which was plotted based on the
technical description appearing on respondents title. As found by CA, TCT No. 171453, the title stated in the Deed of
Absolute Sale, is a transfer from TCT No. 165456, the title stated in the Land Purchase Agreement. Hence, both TCTs
pertain to the same property.
To us, the persistent refusal of petitioners to participate in the relocation survey for so many times does not speak
well of their claim that they are not occupying respondent Barangans property. By refusing to attend and participate in
the relocation survey, they are now estopped from questioning the results of the relocation survey.
