BUDLONG V BONDOC Francisco Garrote, an alleged brother of

Isabela Pondoc and Crispina Pondoc, left

PLAINTIFF: Andrea Budlong Bohol 30 years before 1966 and had never
DEFENDANTS: Juan Pondoc returned to that province.
Fabio Pondoc Isabela Garrote-Pondoc died and was
Apolinaria Pondoc survived by her five children named:
Benedicta Pondoc o Juan, Fabio, Apolinaria, Benedicta
Felicidad Pondoc and Felicidad all surnamed Pondoc y
Francisco Garrote Garrote.
DOCKET NO.: GR No. L-27702
DATE: September 9, 1977 THE LOT IN DISPUTE
PONENTE: Aquino, J. o In possession of Andrea
o Declared it for tax purposes under
FACTS: her name
ACTION FOR PARTITION o She paid the realty taxes there on
o Lot 5447 from 1936-1966
o 12, 524 square meters o She planted the lot to coconuts,
o Barrio Ubujan, Tagbilaran City, bamboos, bananas and a mango
Bohol tree.
o 600 pesos, in 1965 1965 Andrea wanted to register the Deed
On October 27, 1934, the sisters Isabela of Donation. The RD asked Juan Pondoc to
Pondoc and Crispina Pondoc donated to surrender the owners duplicate of OCT 4718,
Andrea Budlong in a notarial instrument to which he did not comply.
their 2/3 share in the said lot in consideration
of the donees personal services to the May 11, 1965 Andrea filed before CFI Bohol
donors. an action for partition of said lot against
In the deed of donation, it states THAT that Francisco Garrote, and the 5 children of
by virtue hereof, the said Andrea Budlong is Isabela G-Pondoc.
hereby vested with full ownership and The childrens Answer: the donation was
property of the lot in question. Which was fraudulently executed.
acknowledged before Genaro Visarra the
mayor of Tagbilaran, an ex oficio notary. THE TRIAL COURT
o DISMISSED the complaint.
2 years after, October 27, 1936, OCT 4718 o Andrea was guilty of LACHES, and
was issued for said lot. The title shows that the registration of the lot
the lot is co-owned by the following: extinguished her rights under the
o Crispina Pondoc 1/3 deed of donation.
o Isabela Pondoc 1/3 o She could not ask for the partition of
o Francisco Garrote 1/6 the lot because she does not appear
o Isabela Garrote-Pondoc 1/6 as a co-owner in the title thereof.
Andrea did not intervene in the cadastral o The court intimated that she could
proceeding. She was not substituted for the ask for an indemnity from the
donors in that proceeding maybe because assurance fund.
the hearing had already been terminated
when the donation was made to her. ANDREAS APPEAL
However, the owners duplicate of OCT No. o She stated in her notice of appeal
4718 was in the ion of Andrea. that the lower courts decision is
Sometime in January, 1965, Juan Pondoc contrary to law.
talked with Andrea about the sale of the lot. o She assailed the trial court's rulings
He got the said title from Andrea. When the that she is guilty of laches; that the
projected sale did not go through, Juan did one-year period provided in section
not return the title to her. 38 of Act No. 496 applies to this
case.
Isabrla and Crispina died w/o any
descendants in 1935 and 1937, respectively.
 ISSUE: WON the donation of the land in o By reason of Section 70, it was held
dispute to Andrea Budlong is valid that a parcel of land, which was
acquired during the marriage and
HELD: which was registered under the
o YES. The trial court correctly held Torrens system in the name of one
that the donation is valid. spouse, is presumed to be conjugal
o Defendants-appellees belated unless proven otherwise.
contention on appeal that the o The registration in the name of one
donation is mortis causa (they did not spouse does not preclude the
raise that issue in their answer or in application of the rule that all
the lower court) is wrong. property the marriage is presumed to
o There is not the slightest indication in belong to the conjugal partnership,
the deed that the donation would unless it be proved that it pertains
take effect upon the donors death. It exclusively to the husband or to the
is indisputably an inter vivos wife.
donation.
The deed of donation made Andrea Budlong
o ANDREAS APPEAL WAS RULED a co-owner of Lot No. 5447. She became the
TO BE MERITORIOUS. successor-in-interest of the donors, Isabela
o The trial court erred in assuming that Pondoc and Crispina Pondoc The fact that in
the donee ceased to be a co-owner OCT No. 4718, which was issued subsequent
bemuse her name does not appear in to the donation, the donors appear to be the
OCT No. 4718 which was issued 2 co-owners and not Andrea Budlong did not
years after the execution of the deed extinguish at all the rights of Andrea as a co-
of donation. owner.
Section 70 of Act No. 496 is crystal clear. It
The SC cited Section 70 of Act 496: unmistakably provides that the conversion of
o Registered land is subject to the unregistered land into registered land does
same legal burdens and incidents as not affect the rights of the CO-owners nor the
unregistered land and, therefore, legal rights and liabilities applicable to
fake unregistered land, it is subject to unregistered land.
attachment and execution for the o That the registration did not wipe out
payment of debts. The rights and the rights of Andrea, as the
liabilities which are created by law successor- in-interest of the donors,
and are made applicable to is shown by the fact that she
unregistered land, are applicable to remained in ion of the donated lot
registered land, except as otherwise and that the owners duplicate of
provided in Act No. 496. OCT No. 4718 was given to her and
o The rights arising from the relation of was in her custody from 1936 to
husband and wife are applicable to January, 1965, when she entrusted it
registered lands. to defendant Juan Pondoc because
o Registered land is subject (a) to any of the plan to sell the lot and dissolve
alien of any description established the co-ownership.
by law on land and the b thereon, or
the interest of the owner in such land The trial court erred in applying to this case
or buildings, (b) to the laws of section 38 of Act No. 496 regarding review of
descent, and (c) to the rights of the decree of registration on the ground of
partition between coparceners joint fraud.
tenants, will other cotenants except o This is not a case of fraudulent
as otherwise expressly provoked in registration.
Act No. 496. o Nor is this a case where the rule on
The situation of Andrea Budlong is analogous laches is applicable.
to that of a spouse whose name was not o Moreover, the defendants waived
included in the Torrens title when conjugal that defense because they did not
land was metered in the name of the other invoke it in their answer.
spouse.
 In conclusion, we hold that the 1934
donation should be given effect. It was
confirmed by plaintiff-appellants ion of the
donated lot, her improvements thereon, her
enjoyment of the fruits thereof, and her
payment of the realty taxes dues thereon for
the years 1936 to 1966.
WHEREFORE, the trial courts decision is
reversed and set aside. If the parties cannot
agree on the partition of the disputed lot, then
the trill court should conduct proceedings for
the partition thereof in conformity with Rule
69 of the Rules of Court.
Defendant Juan Pondoc is ordered to
surrender the owners duplicate of OCT No.
4718 to the register of deeds of Tagbilaran
City within five days from his counsels
receipt of the notice from the clerk of the
lower court. The register of deeds is
directed to register the deed of donation,
to cancel OCT No. 4718, and to issue a
new transfer certificate of title showing
the two-thirds interest of Andrea Budlong
in Lot No. 5447. No costs.