JOSE R. CRUZ AND EMILIA P. CRUZ, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. LEONICIO LANSANG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

The present case here on appeal had its origin in Civil Case No.
3262 of the Municipal Court of Manila, wherein Jose R. Cruz and his
wife Emilia P. Cruz brought action for ejectment against Leoncio Lansang
to oust him from lots Nos. 1118 and 1120 and the two houses constructed
thereon, in Kundiman street, Sampaloc, Manila. The facts necessary for
the determination of this case as may be gathered from the record may
be briefly stated as follows:

It would appear that Leoncio Lansang and his wife Nicolasa Miranda
were, formerly, owners of these two lots in question under Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos. 55598 and 66933. By virtue of a deed of sale
executed by the couple on January 14, 1944, they transferred and sold
these two lots and the houses thereon to two Chinese nationals Ng Han
Kiat and Dy Hoe. The deed was filed for record in the office of the
Register of Deeds on January 25, 1944 under entry No. 10738. On
November 16, 1946, the two vendees Ng Han Kiat and Dy Hoe sold the same
lots to Jose R. Cruz and his wife Emilia P. Cruz. Because the Register
of Deeds doubted the right of the two Chinese nationals to buy real
property in the Philippines, he did not issue to them the corresponding
Transfer Certificates of Title on the basis of the sale to them by
Lansang and his wife. So, the last vendees Cruz and his wife in order
to complete the chain of title, petitioned the Court of First Instance
(4th branch) in G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 11546, to direct the Register of
Deeds to issue to them the corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title
on the basis of the sale made to them by the two Chinese nationals
notwithstanding the fact that their vendors, the said Chinese nationals
had no Transfer Certificates of Title in their favor. The court of
first instance granted their request and directed the Register of Deeds
of Manila to annotate and record the deed of sale by Lansang and his
wife in favor of the two Chinese nationals, object of Entry No, 10738,
but without issuing new Transfer Certificates of Title, and then
annotate and record the deed of sale by Ng Han Kiat and By Hoe in favor
of Jose R. Cruz and Emilia 0. Panganiban. As a result, Cruz and his
wife now have Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 6090 and 6091 (Exhs.
A and B) to evidence their ownership of these two lots.

In the Municipal Court, Lansang claimed he had never been a tenant
of Cruz and his wife; that he was still the owner of the two lots in
litigation and therefore may not be ousted therefrom; that he never
sold these two lots to the two Chinese nationals but had merely
mortgaged them; that the subsequent transfer of said properties to Cruz
and his wife was illegal and fraudulent; and that he had filed In the
Court of First Instance of Manila, Civil Case No. 1620 seeking to
cancel the alleged mortgage of the two lots.

After hearing, the Municipal Court rendered Judgment in favor of
Cruz and his wife and ordered Lansang and all others claiming under him
to vacate the premises and to pay to the plaintiffs the rentals in
arrears from November 16, 1946 until the premises were restored to said
plaintiffs, at the rate of P60 a month.

Lansang appealed the case to the court of first instance and in that
court he reiterated his claim of ownership over the two properties.
Said court after receiving evidence, rendered judgment in favor of the
defendant, Lansang, absolving him from the complaint. Cruz and his wife
are now appealing from that decision.

In its decision the Court of First Instance found that according to Exhs. A and B, the Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 6090 and 6091,
appellants Cruz and his wife were the owners of the two lots in
question but it also found that Cruz and his wife were never in
possession of these two lots nor of the two houses thereon, and
apparently on that basis alone, it ruled that they had no right to oust
Lansang from the premises.

The trial court erred in making this finding regarding lack of
possession, by Cruz because the evidence shows and even Lansang himself
admits that since the year Cruz and his wife had been occupying the
upper story of the house on lot No. 1118 and had been paying the
corresponding monthly rentals to the two Chinese nationals who later
sold the two lots to them. But even if Cruz and his wife had never been
in possession, as vendees of the property they had a right to terminate
the lease of the two lots in favor of Lansang not only because the
latter had deliberately failed and refused to pay the corresponding
rents, but also because Cruz and his wife needed the premises for their
own use.

The claim of title made by Lansang did not divest the Municipal
Court of jurisdiction; neither did it prevent Cruz and his wife from
exercising their rights as alleged vendees and owners of the property
from getting the possession thereof. As far as title to the property is
concerned, they have all the presumptions in their favor. The record of
the Register of Deeds shows as already stated, that the.se two lots had
been sold and disposed of by Lansang and his wife, and by a subsequent
deed Cruz and his wife had acquired title thereto and now they have the
corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title. It still remains for
Lansang to prove in the Civil Case he has instituted in the Court of
First Instance of Manila that the transaction had between him and his
wife on one side and the two Chinese nationals on the other, was only a
mortgage and not a sale. Until be succeeds in this venture and proves
that the title of Cruz and his wife is null and void, the courts will
in the meantime respect said title possessed by Cruz and Mrs. Cruz and
allow them to exercise their rights as such owners, including
possession of the property as against a mere occupant like Lansang
whose alleged title still remains to be proven.

In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Manila is hereby reversed. Judgment is rendered in favor of
the plaintiffs-appellants Jose R. Cruz and Emilia P. Cruz and
defendant-appellee Lansang and all others claiming ownership under him
are hereby ordered to vacate the premises in question and to pay to the
appellants rentals at the rate of P60 a month from November 16, 1946
until said premises shall have been restored to the possession of the
appellants, Lansang will pay costs in both instances.

Ozaeta, Bengzon, Tuason, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

MORAN, C.J.:

I concur in the result. The Krivenko ruling is not involved here. The property is at present in the hands of Filipino citizens.

---

PABLO, M., disidente:

En 14 de enero de 1944 Leoncio Lansang vendio dos lotes en Manila
con sus mejoras bajo certificados de transferencia de tltulo Nos. 55598
y 66933, a Ng Han Kiat y Dy Hoe, ciudadanos chinos, Estos los vendieron
en 16 de noviembre de 1946 a los demandantes Josi R. Cruz y señora. Si
la primera venta, ya bajo la constitucion del Commonwealth, ya bajo la
constitucion aprobada bajo el regimen japones, es nula y de ningun
valor, como podian los dos chinos venderlos validamente a los hoy
demandantes? Y si Sstos no han podido legalmente adquirir la propiedad
de los lotes tampoco han podido obtener su posesion. La pretension de
que tienen derecho a poseer los terrenos en virtud de la compra es
insostenible. Como pueden reclamar con Ixito ante nuestros tribunales
el lanzamiento de Leoncio Lansang, que es el dueno y poseedor actual de
los mismos?

Se dice que solamente el Estado puede reclamar la nulidad de la
venta. Eso tal vez este bien en algunos estados de America en cuanto a
la adquisicidn por un extranjero de un terreno publico. Pero en
Filipinas, la parte interesada, y no el Estado, (Pindangan Agricultural
Co., Inc. contra Schenkel, et al., 83 Phil., 529) debe
suscitar la declaracion judicial de que la venta a un extranjero de un
terreno de propiedad privada es nula. (Regla 3, art. 2).

En mi opinion, la causa debe sobreseerse.