G.R. No. L-7289, March 28, 1912
ANDRES TOBIAS Y SANDOVAL, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. GABRIEL ENRICO Y CUSTODIO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On July 6, 1908, the Tobias siblings (Andres, Serapion, Leoncio, Crispin, Monico, Maxima, and Regino) filed an application for land registration over a parcel of land in Santa Cruz, Laguna, which they claimed to have inherited from their father, Bernardo Tobias. Gabriel Enrico, on behalf of himself and his siblings, opposed the application, asserting ownership by inheritance from their parents, Marcelo Enrico and Celedonia Custodio, who allegedly purchased the land from Serapion Tobias more than 16 years prior. In support, Enrico presented a registered possessory information title and tax receipts. During trial, Serapion Tobias admitted mortgaging his undivided share to Marcelo Enrico for P50 but denied selling the entire property. The Court of Land Registration initially dismissed the opposition but recognized the mortgage on Serapion’s share. After a rehearing, the court upheld its decision, ordering registration in favor of the Tobias siblings, subject to the mortgage on Serapion’s portion. Gabriel Enrico appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Land Registration erred in ordering the registration of the land in favor of the Tobias siblings, despite the opponents’ claim of ownership based on a purported sale and possession.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Land Registration. The opponents’ evidence, particularly the registered possessory information, merely recited Marcelo Enrico’s claim of purchase from Serapion Tobias but did not substantiate the sale’s validity. Serapion Tobias only mortgaged his undivided share, not the entire property, and this act was without the knowledge or consent of his co-heirs, who owned the land pro indiviso. Thus, Serapion could not validly encumber or dispose of the whole property. The mortgage on Serapion’s share was noted in the decree, but no appeal was taken by Serapion regarding this encumbrance. The Supreme Court declined to review the evidence anew, as no new trial was requested, and upheld the factual findings of the lower court.