Case Digest: JOSE CAOIBES, JR., et al. v. CORAZON CAOIBES-PANTOJA

JOSE CAOIBES, JR., et al. v. CORAZON CAOIBES-PANTOJA

496 SCRA 273 (2006)

The law does not require that the application for registration be amended by substituting the “buyer” or the “person to whom the property has been conveyed” for the applicant. Neither does it require that the “buyer” or the “person to whom the property has been conveyed” be a party to the case.

In 1982, Jose Caoibes Jr., et al. (Caoibes, Jr., et al.) and Corazon Caoibes-Pantoja (Pantoja) entered to a contract of sale stating that a certain lot will be transferred, ceded and conveyed by the former in favour of the latter in consideration for a sum of money. The agreement included the stipulation that Pantoja will be subrogated or substituted to whatever rights, interests or representations Caoibes Jr., et al. may have pending land registration proceeding.

Fourteen years after the execution of the parties, Pantoja filed a motion to intervene and be substituted as applicant in the Land Registration Court. The Land Registration Court denied the motion. Pantoja filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for specific performance of the agreement. Caoibes, Jr., et al. opposed on the grounds of prescription. The RTC ruled in favor of Caoibes, Jr., et al. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, holding that prescription had not yet set in.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the action of for prescription on Pantoja started from the time of the agreement of the parties

RULING:

The law does not require that the application for registration be amended by substituting the “buyer” or the “person to whom the property has been conveyed” for the applicant. Neither does it require that the “buyer” or the “person to whom the property has been conveyed” be a party to the case.

He may thus be a total stranger to the land registration proceedings. The only requirements of the law are: (1) that the instrument be presented to the court by the interested party together with a motion that the same be considered in relation with the application; and (2) that prior notice be given to the parties to the case.

The agreement of the parties is analogous to a deed of sale in favour of Pantoja, it having transferred ownership for and in consideration of her payment of the loan.. The agreement having been made through public instrument, the execution was equivalent to the delivery of the property to Pantoja.

The agreement is of course in consonance with Sec. 22 of P.D. 1529 (Property Registration Decree which became effective on June 11, 1978). In light of the law and jurisprudence, the substitution by Pantoja of Caoibes, Jr., et al. as applicant in the land registration case over Lot 2 is not even necessary. All Pantoja has to do is to comply with the requirements under the above-quoted Sec. 22 of the Property Registration Decree. It was unnecessary for Pantoja to file the case for specific performance subject of the present petition against Caoibes, Jr., et al. to honor their agreement allowing her to be substituted in their stead as applicant in the land registration proceeding.