SPS. EROSTO SANTIAGO v. MANCER VILLAMOR

FACTS:

Spouses Erosto Santiago and Nelsie Santiago (petitioners) filed a petition for review on certiorari to challenge the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 59112. The CA decision set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. 201, while the resolution denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

The case involves a 4.5-hectare coconut land in San Jacinto, Masbate known as Lot No. 1814. In 1982, the land was mortgaged to the Rural Bank of San Jacinto (Masbate), Inc. (San Jacinto Bank) by the parents of the respondents, the spouses Domingo Villamor, Sr. and Trinidad Gutierrez Villamor. After the loan was not paid, the San Jacinto Bank foreclosed the mortgage, bought the land at a public auction, and obtained a final deed of sale in its favor.

The respondents, together with their sister Catalina Villamor Ranchez, decided to acquire the land from the San Jacinto Bank. They made installment payments and filed a complaint for specific performance with damages when the bank refused to issue a deed of conveyance despite full payment.

In a separate case, the petitioners purchased the land from Domingo Villamor, Sr. After the respondents refused to vacate the land, the petitioners filed a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring them as the legal owners of the land. However, the CA reversed the decision, finding that the petitioners failed to prove their legal or equitable title to the land.

The main issue in the case is whether the CA committed an error in setting aside the RTC decision and dismissing the petitioners' complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the CA committed a reversible error when it set aside the RTC decision and dismissed the petitioners' complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession.

RULING:

  1. The CA committed a reversible error when it set aside the RTC decision and dismissed the petitioners' complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession.

PRINCIPLES: