Search
Home
Saved
295 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Statcon2
1
of 22
Spouses Dolores Medina and Moises Bernal, Bernal, petitioners petitioners, vs. Nelly L. Romero Spous ouses Ciprian riano o Valdellon, and Villanueva Rufi Rufina na Pang Pangan anib iban an,, and respondents. FACTS: ESGUERRA, J : petitioners s The complaint complaint alleges that petitioner are are the the owner wners s of a parc parcel el of land land in Hagonoy, Bulacan purchased (April 1967) for P800 •
•
•
Defend Defe ndan ants ts are are fami family ly frie friend nds s of the the petitioners, and were allowed to remain in the the pre premises and to constru struc ct their eir resid residen enti tial al house house,, subject to the condition that defendants will return unto the plaintiffs the premises upon demand, this info was amended to state that they defendants will return to the plaintiffs the premises in 1969; On demand, defendants defendants refu refuse sed d to surr surren ende derr the the pro propert perty y in question. Thus, plaintiffs plaintiffs had to institute action praying that defendants be ordered: (1) to vacate vacate the premise premises s and surrende surrenderr the said property; (2) to pay plaintiffs P500 as incidental incidental expenses ; and, (3) to pay P100 a month from the filing of this action to the time they surrender its possession to the plaintiffs.
CFI dismisse dismissed d the compla complaint int because because of another case pending between the same part partie ies s over over the the same same prop proper erty ty (Lan (Land d Registration Case). MR was denied. ISSUE: Will the pendency of a land regis registra trati tion on case case bar bar the instit institut utio ion n of an action for the recovery of possession? •
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
whenever the owner of dispossessed by any other means mentioned in the said rule, he m and and main mainta tain in a plen plenar ary y acti action on possessio possession n in the Court of First Ins it is not necessary for him to wa expirati expiration on of one year before such action. It may also be brought after the ex said period of one year, if no action initiated for forcible entry and deta that that time time in the the infe inferi rior or co PUBLICIANA must be instituted in th RE CFI’s CFI’s ACTION ACTION:: The respo action in dismissing this case is p ther there e is suff suffic icie ient nt me meri ritt in cont conten enti tio on that that the the righ rights ts so enforced and the reliefs prayed (r poss posse essio sion and dam damages) ges) separate and distinct from that sou C. Case. It is a fund fundam amen enta tall prin princi cipl ple e gove govern rnin ing g UNLA UNLAW WFUL FUL DETAI ETAI (including recovery of possession a mere plea of title or ownership disput disputed ed land land by the defend defendan an used as a sound legal basis for dis action for recovery of possession b action for recovery of possessi maintained even against the v of the property. property. In this case, there is not even a p on the part of private respondent disput disputed ed proper property ty but a mere that there is another regi regist stra rati tion on of titl title e to that that Sign up to vote on this title posse possessi ssion on of which which is being being rec useful Usefulin petitioners theNot Civil Case. An action for recovery of possession distinct distinct and different different from an
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
295 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Statcon2
1
of 22
RE CONS CONSOL OLID IDAT ATIO ION N OF CIVI CIVIL L AND AND LAND LAND CASES CA SES:: No suffi suffici cien entt reason reason for any any of the parties in this case to object to the consolidation of the trial of both cases, since the evidence that may be presented by the parties parties involving involving possess possession ion and ownersh ownership ip of the disputed parcel of land may facilitate an The expedi expeditio tious us termina terminatio tion n of both both cases cases. The evidenc evidence e involv involving ing the issues issues of possessi possession on and ownership over the same land must be related and its presentation before one court of justice would redound to a speedy disposition of this litigation. WHEREFO WHEREFORE, RE, the responden respondentt court's court's orders orders are hereby hereby decla declared red null and and void void and set aside; the complaint and amended complaint in Civi Civill Ca Case se reviv revived; ed; both both the respon responden dentt Judge and the Presiding Judge, Branch VI, of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, being directed to consolidate the trial of L. R. C. No. 2814 and Civil Case No. 4353-M in one branch of that court. [G.R. No. 173021. October 20, 2010.] Delf Delfin in Lamsi Lamsis s, et al, petitioners petitioners, vs. Margarita Semon Dong-e, respondent . FACTS:DEL CASTILLO, J: This case involves involves a conflict conflict of ownership ownership and possession over an untitled parcel of land land (80, (80,73 736 6 sqm) sqm) locate located d alo along ng Asin Road, Baguio City. While petitioners are the the actu actual al occu occupa pant nts s, resp respon onde dent nt is clai claimi ming ng ow owne ners rshi hip p and and is seek seekin ing g to recover its possession from petitioners. According to respondent Margarita, Margarita, her fami family ly's 's ow owne ners rshi hip p and and occu occupa pati tion on of subject Lot can be traced as far back as late grandfa grandfather ther,, Ap-ap. A 1922 to her late survey plan was obtained 1964 (186,090sqm). On the same year, they declared the property for taxation purposes. •
•
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
When When Gilb Gilber ertt Semo Semon n died died in 19 chil childr dren en extr extraj ajud udiicial ciallly part part property among themselves and a No. 1 thereof in favor of Margarita then, Margarita allegedly paid the over Lot No. 1 15 and occupied and the property together with her husb at the same time, tolerating her fir occupation of portions of the same This state of affairs changed changed when Delfin and Agustin allegedly began their occupation on the subject pr selling selling portions portions thereof thereof.. 16 Del sold a 400-square meter portion o to peti etitioner Mayn aynard ard 17 (Maynard) while Agustin sold anot to petitioner Jose Valdez (Jose). 18 C With such develop developmen ments, ts, Marg comp compla lain intt 19 for for reco recove very ry of poss posses essi sion on,, reco reconv nvey eyan ance ce an against all four occupants of Lot N the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of B The case was docketed docketed as Civil 4140-R and raf raffled to Bran compla complaint int prayed for the annulm annulm sales to Maynard and Jose and for to vacate the portions of the prop exceed the areas allowed t Margarita. 20 Margarita claimed th are her first cousins, she is willing to Delfin and Agustin a portion of provided that she retains the powe such portion. 21 Peti Pe titi tion oner ers s deni denied ed Marg Margar arit ita' a's s owner ow nershi ship p and and posse possessi ssion on over over According to Delfin and Agustin, Lo Sign up to vote on this title public land claimed by the heirs Usefulparties (not Nottouseful Smith the case). 22 gave their permission for Delfin an parents to occupy the land sometim
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
295 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Statcon2
1
of 22
Accordi According ng to Maynard Maynard and Jose, Jose, Delfin Delfin and Agustin were the ones publicly and openly in possessi possession on of the land land and who introduc introduced ed improvements thereon. They also corroborated corroborated Delfin and Agustin's Agustin's allegation allegation that the real owners of the property are the heirs of Joaquin Smith. 24 In order to debunk petitioners' claim that the Smiths owned the subject property, Margarita Margarita presen presente ted d a certif certifie ied d copy copy of a Re Resol solut utio ion n from from the Land Land Managem Management ent Office Office denying denying the Smiths' application for recognition of the subjec subjectt prope property rty as part part of their their ancest ancestral ral land land.. 25 The The reso resolu luti tion on expl explai ains ns that that the the appli applica cati tion on had had to be denied denied becau because se the Smiths did not "possess, occupy or utilize all or a portion of the property . . . . The actual occup ccupan ants ts (who who we were re not not name named d in the the resolut resolution ion)) whose whose improve improvemen ments ts are visible visible are not in any way related to the applicant or his co-heirs." 26 To bolster her claim of ownership and possession, possession, Margarita introduced as evidence an unnumbered resolution of the Community Spec Speciial Ta Task sk Forc Force e on Ance Ancest stra rall Land Lands s (CSTFAL) of the Department of Environment and Natura turall Re Reso sou urce rces (DENR), R), act acting favorably on her and her siblings' ancestral land land claim claim over a portio portion n of the the 186, 186,09 0900square meter property. 27 The said resolution states: DEICTS The land subject of the instant application application is the ancestr ancestral al land of the herein herein applica applicants. nts. Well Well-e -est stab abli lish shed ed is the the fact fact that that the the land land treated herein was first declared for taxation purposes in 1922 under Tax Declaration No. 363 by the applicant's grandfather Ap-Ap (one name). Said application was reconstructed in 1965 after the original got lost during the war. These tax declarations declarations were issued and
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
of Ba Bagu guiio in the the reo reopening Proce Proceedi eding ngs s under under Civil Civil Ca Case se Record No. 211 for the registratio issuanc issuance e of Certifi Certificate cate of Title Title The land registration registration case wa overt overtak aken en by the decis decisio ion n of Court declaring such judicial proce and void because the courts of la jurisdiction. jurisdiction. It has been sufficiently substantia applicants that prior to and at the pendenc pendency y of the land land registra registratio tio henceforth up to and including th the the here herein in appl applic ican ants ts by them them through through their their predece predecessor ssor-in -in-int -int been in exclusive, continuous, an possession and occupation of the of land land me ment ntio ione ned d abov above e unde unde ownership, devoting the same for and and agri agricu cult ltur ural al purp purpos oses es.. Fo residential houses of the applicants those of their close relatives, while area areas s plan plante ted d to frui fruitt tre trees, es, banana, and seasonal crops. Also therei therein n are perma permane nent nt stone stone fences, terraces, clearings, includin gadgets. IDScTE
On the matter of the applicant[s'] [sic] and qualifications, qualifications, there is no they they are me membe mbers rs of the the Natio Natio Comm Co mmun unit itie ies, s, parti particul cularl arly y the They are the legitimate legitimate grandchi Ap (one name) who lived along the area. His legal heirs are: Orani Ap-A to Calado Salda; Rita Ap-Ap, marr Sign up to vote on this title Bacaca Bacacan; n; Sucdad Sucdad Ap-Ap, Ap-Ap, married married Not t; Useful lber Waki Wakit; and and Gilb Gi erttuseful Semo Semon, n, a mayor of Tuba, Benguet, [who] ad common name of their father Sem
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
295 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Statcon2
1
of 22
denied by us in our Resolution dated Nove Novemb mber er 1997 1997.. As to the the othe otherr adve advers rse e claims therein by reason of prev revious conve conveyan yance ces s in favo favorr of third third partie parties, s, the the same were likewise excluded resulting in the reduction of the area originally applied from ONE HUND UNDRED EIG EIGHTY SIX THOUS HOUSA AND NINETY (186,090) SQUARE METERS, more or less to ONE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDR HUNDRED ED FORTY FORTY TWO TWO (110 (110,3 ,342 42)) SQUA SQUARE RE METE METERS RS,, mo more re or less less.. Co Cons nsiideri dering ng the the foregoing developments, we find no legal and procedural obstacle in giving due course to the instant application. Now therefore, we hereby [resolve] that the application for Recognition of Ancestral Land Clai Claim m filed filed by the Heirs Heirs of Gilbe Gilbert rt Semon Semon,, repres represen ente ted d by Juani Juanito to Semon Semon,, be grante granted d [and] [and] a Certifi Certificate cate of Ancestr Ancestral al Land Claim (CALC) be issued to the herein applicants by the Secretar Secretary, y, Departm Department ent of Environ Environmen mentt and and Natu Natura rall Re Reso sour urce ces, s, Visa Visaya yas s Aven Avenue ue,, Dilima Diliman, n, Quezon Quezon City, City, through through the Regional Regional Executive Executive Director, Director, DENR-CAR, DENR-CAR, Diego Silang Stree Street, t, Bagui Baguio o City. City. The area area of the clai claim m stated herein above is however subject to the outcome of the final survey to be forthwith executed. ETDAaC Carried this 23rd day of June 1998. 28 The resolution resolution was not signed by two members of the CSTFAL on the ground that the signing of the unnumbered resolution was overtaken by the enactment of the Republic Act (RA) No. 8371 or the Indigenous People's Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA). The IPRA removed the authority of the DENR to issue ancestral land land claim claim certific certificates ates and transfer transferred red the same to the the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). 29 The Ancestral Land Application No. Bg-L-064 of the Heirs of
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
her claim that her family predec predecess essor orss-inin-in inter terest est have have possession possession of the property to the others. The court likewise gave c the documentary evidence of the the land from the Heirs o resp respon onde dent nt's 's fath father er and, and, ev respondent herself. The series of t the property were indicatio responde respondent's nt's and her predeces predeces over the property. The court opined these pieces of documentary evid not not concl conclus usiv ive e proof proof of actua actua they they lend lend crede credenc nce e to respo respond nd because because,, "in the ordinary ordinary course perso persons ns will will not execu execute te legal legal deal dealin ing g with with real real prop proper erty ty,, believe, and have the basis to be they have an interest in the prope of the legal documents . . . ." 33 In contrast, the trial court found record to substantiate the allegat petitioners that they and their pa the the long long--time time poss posses esso sors rs of property. Their own statements b assertions. Petitioner Maynard and admitted that they could not secu the the prop prope erty rty from from the the Bure Bureau au because because there there were pending pending anc clai claim ms over over the the pro propert perty. y. 3 Agustin's Townsite Sales Applicatio prope property rty wa was s held held in abeya abeyanc nce e respondent's own claim, which was favo favora rabl bly y cons consid ider ered ed by the the DTAHEC The dispositive dispositive portion of the Sign to vote on this title Decisionup reads: Not usefulconsidered Useful WHEREFORE, premises is hereby rendered in fav [respondent] and against the [petit
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
295 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Statcon2
1
of 22
It appears that no motion for reconsideration was filed before the trial court. Nevertheless, the trial court issued an Order 37 allowing the petitioners' Notice of Appeal. 38 Ruling of the Court of Appeals 39 The sole issue resolved resolved by the appellate appellate court was whether the trial court erred in ruling in favor of respondent in light of the adduced evidence. Citing the rule on preponderance of evide evidenc nce, e, the CA held held that that the the respo responde ndent nt was able to discharge her burden in proving her title and interest to the subject property. Her Her docu docume ment ntar ary y evid eviden ence ce we were re am ampl ply y supported by the testimonial evidence of her witnesses. aTSEcA In cont contra rast st,, peti petiti tion oner ers s only only ma made de bare bare alle allega gati tion ons s in thei theirr test testim imon onie ies s that that are are insu insuff ffic iciient ent to over overco come me resp respon onde dent nt's 's documentary evidence. Petitioners moved for a reconsideration 40 of the the adve advers rse e deci decisi sion on but but the the same same wa was s denied. Hence this petition, which was initially denied for failure to show that the CA committed any reversible error. 41 Upon petitioners' motion for for reco recons nsid ider erat atio ion, n, 42 the the peti petiti tion on wa was s reinst reinstate ated d in the Co Court urt's 's Janu January ary 15, 15, 2007 2007 Resolution. 43 Petitioners' arguments Petitioners assign as error the CA's appreciation of the evidence already affirmed and and cons consid ider ered ed by the the tria triall cour court. t. They They main ma intai tain n that that the chan change ge in the the presi presidin ding g judges who heard and decided their case resul resulted ted in the appre appreci ciat atio ion n of what what would would othe otherw rwis ise e be inad inadmi miss ssib ible le evid eviden ence ce.. 44 Petitio Petitioners ners ask that the Court Court exempt exempt their petiti petition on from from the genera generall rule rule that that a trial trial judge's assessment assessment of the credibility credibility of witn witnes esse ses s is acco accord rded ed gre great resp respec ectt on
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
Respondent did not prove that sh husband possessed the subject pro time time imme immemo mori rial al.. Pe Peti titi tion oner ers s resp respo onden dent admi dmitte tted posses sses cultivating only the land that lies o subject property. 46 aDHScI Petitioners next assail the weight t to respo responde ndent nt's 's muni munimen ments ts of such as the tax declarations and plan. They insist that thes indubitable proofs of respondent's over the subject property given tha othe otherr clai claima mant nts s to the the land land (w part partie ies s to this this case case)) who who also also survey plan over the subject proper Petitioners then assert their super the the prop prope erty rty as the the pres presen en thereof. They cite pertinent provis New New Civi Civill Co Code de which which presu presume me possession on the part of the pos puts the burden on the plaintiff in a recover to prove her superior title. Petitioners next assert that they h to the subject property by the op acquisitive prescription. They posi have have been been in poss posses essi sion on of a publicl publicly, y, peacef peacefully ully,, exclusiv exclusively ely concept of owners for more than Respond Respondent' ent's s asserti assertion on that peti merely possessors by to unsubstantiated. 49 Petitioners also maintain reivindicatory action should be dis lack of jurisdiction in light of the en the IPRA, which gives original and jurisdiction jurisdiction over disputes involvi updto doma vote onins this land lands sSignand an do main s title to the the NC Not useful Useful customary assert that the laws o trib tribe e of the the Be Beng ngue uett Prov Provin ince ce appl applie ied d to thei theirr disp disput ute e as ma
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
295 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Statcon2
1
of 22
primary jurisdiction is clearly applicable, the court cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence." 53 The courts should stand aside in order to prevent the possibility of creating conflicting decisions. 54 Respondent's arguments Respondent opines that the appellate court did not com commit any rev reversi rsible ble erro rror in affi affirm rmin ing g the the tria triall cour court' t's s deci decisi sion on.. The The present petition is a mere dilatory tactic to frustrate the speedy administration administration of justice. 55 Respondent also asserts that questions of fact are prohibited in a Rule 45 petition. 56 Thus, the the apprec apprecia iati tion on and and consi conside derat ratio ion n of the factual issues are no longer reviewable. 57 The issue of lack of jurisdiction jurisdiction is raised for the first time in the petition before this Court. It was never raised before the trial court or the CA. Thus, resp respo onden dent insist sists s that that petiti petition oners ers are now now barred barred by lache laches s from from attacking the trial court's jurisdiction over the case. Citing Aragon v. Court of Appeals, 58 respondent argues that the jurisdictional issue should have been raised at the appellate level at the very least so as to avail of the doctrine that the ground lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case may be raised at any stage of the proceedings even on appeal. 59 HEacDA Respondent maintains that there is no room for the application of litis pendentia because the issues in the application for ancestral land claim are dif differen rent from rom the the issu ssue in a reivindi reivindicat catory ory action. action. The issue issue before before the NCIP is whether the Government, as grantor, will will recog recogni nize ze the ance ancestr stral al land land clai claim m of respondent over a public alienable land; while
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
3. Whe Whether ther the the tri trial al court has to decide the case in light of the RA 8371 or the Indigenous People's of 1997 at the time that the com instituted; TCASIH 4. If the trial court retains whethe whetherr the ances ancestra trall land land cl before the NCIP should take prece the reivindicatory action. 62 Our Ruling Whether the appellate court disrega material facts and circumstances in affirming the trial court's decision Both the trial and the appellate c that that respon responde dent nt has proven proven her ownership and possession preponderance preponderance of evidence. evidence. Petit argu argue e that that the the two two cour courts ts er appreci appreciati ation on of the evidenc evidence. e. The Court to review the evidence of bo despite the CA's finding that the comm commit itte ted d no erro errorr in appr appr evid eviden ence ce pres presen ente ted d duri during ng petitioners petitioners seek a review of questi which is beyond the province of peti petiti tion on.. A ques questi tion on of fact fact ex uncertainty centers on the truth o the the alle allege ged d fact facts. s. 63 "Suc "Such h whether certain items of evidence acco accord rded ed prob probat ativ ive e valu value e or rejected as feeble or spurious, or w proofs on one side or the other are conv convin inci cing ng and and adeq adequ uate ate to prop propos osit itiion in issu issue, e, are are wi questions of fact." 64 Since Since it raises raises essenti essentiall ally y ques Sign up to vote on this title this assignment of error must be Not useful isUseful for it settledthat only questions be revie reviewe wed d in an appea appeall by There is a question of law when when the
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
295 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Statcon2
1
of 22
respondent's father are well-taken, it will not suffice to defeat respondent's claim over the subject property. Even without the Deed of Quit Quitcl clai aim, m, resp respon onde dent nt's 's clai claims ms of prio priorr possessi possession on and ownershi ownership p were adequat adequately ely suppor supported ted and corro corrobo borat rated ed by her her other other documen documentary tary and testimo testimonia niall evidenc evidence. e. We agree with the trial court's observation that, in the ordinary course of things, people will not not go to grea greatt leng length ths s to exec execut ute e lega legall documents and pay realty taxes over a real property, unless they have reason to believe that they have an interest over the same. 67 The fact that respondent's respondent's documents documents traverse several decades, from the 1960s to the 1990s, is an indication that she and her fami family ly never never aband abandon oned ed their their right right to the proper property ty and have have conti continu nuou ously sly exerc exercise ised d rights of ownership over the same. Moreove Moreover, r, responde respondent's nt's version version of how the peti petiti tion oner ers s came came to occu occupy py the the prop proper erty ty coincides with the same timeline given by the petitioners petitioners themselves. The only difference is that that peti petiti tion oner ers s ma main inta tain in they they came came into into possession by tolerance of the Smith family, while while responde respondent nt maintai maintains ns that it was her parents who gave permission to petitioners. Given the context under which the parties' respective statements were made, the Court is inclined to believe the respondent's version, as both the trial and appellate courts have concluded, since her version is corroborated by the documentary evidence. Whether petitioners have acquired the subject property by prescription Assum ssumin ing g that that the the subj subjec ectt land land ma may y be acquire acquired d by prescri prescriptio ption, n, we cannot cannot accept accept petitioners' claim of acquisition by prescrip prescriptio tion. n. Petition Petitioners ers admitted admitted that they had occupied the property by tolerance of the
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
prescrip prescription tion.. Possess Possession ion by tolera tolera adverse and such possessory acts how long performed, do not start t of the period of prescription. 68 cSD In the instant case, petitioners mad to allege much less prove repudiation sufficient for the recko acquisitive prescription. At most, w on record the sale by petitioners Agustin of parts of the property to Maynard and Jose; but the same only in 1998, shortly before respon case against them. Hence, the 30-y neces necessar sary y for for the opera operati tion on of prescription had yet to be attained. Whether the ancestral land claim pending before the National Comm on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) shoul take precedence over the reivindica action The application application for issuance issuance of a Ce Ancestral Land Title pending befor is akin akin to a regis registra tratio tion n proce proceed ed seeks an official recognition of one a particular land and is also in rem. of ance ancest stra rall land lands s is for for the the "off "offic icia iall lly y esta establ blis ishi hing ng"" one' one's s ances ancestra trall land. land. 69 Just Just like like a proceeding, the titling of ancestral not vest ownership 70 upon the ap only only reco recogn gniz izes es owner wnersh ship ip 71 already vested in the applicant b his and his predecesso poss posse essio sion of the the prop roperty erty immemo immemorial rial.. As aptly aptly explaine explaine case: Sign up to vote on at thisthis title point that It bears stressing Not useful with a ce Useful should not beconfused titl title. e. Re Regi gist ster erin ing g land land unde underr system does not create or vest tit
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
295 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Statcon2
1
of 22
property. The Torrens system does not create or vest title. It has never been recognized as a mode mo de of acqu acquir irin ing g ow owne ners rshi hip p . . . If the the [res respondents] wished to assert their ownership, they should have filed a judicial actio action n for for recov recover ery y of posse possessi ssion on and and not not merely to have the land registered under their respective names. . . . Certificates of title do not not esta establ blis ish h ow owne ners rshi hip. p. 73 (Emp (Empha hasi sis s supplied) A registration proceeding is not a conclusive adjudication of ownership. In fact, if it is later on found in another case (where the issue of ownersh ownership ip is squarely squarely adjudica adjudicated ted)) that the registrant is not the owner of the property, the real owner can file a reconveyance case and have the title transferred to his name. 74 Given that a registration proceeding (such as the certification of ancestral lands) is not a conclus conclusive ive adjudic adjudicatio ation n of ownershi ownership, p, it will will not constitute litis pendentia on a rei reivindic ndica atory case where here the issu ssue is owne ow nersh rship. ip. 75 "For "For litis litis penden pendenti tia a to be a groun ground d for for the dismi dismissa ssall of an acti action on,, the the following requisites must concur: (a) identity of part partie ies, s, or at leas leastt such such part partie ies s who who represent the same interests in both actions; (b) (b) iden identi tity ty of righ rights ts asse assert rted ed and and reli relief ef prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case." 76 The third element is missing, for any judgment in the certi certifi fica cati tion on case case would would not not const constit itut ute e res judicata judicata or be conclusive conclusive on the ownership issue issue invol involved ved in the reivi reivindi ndica cato tory ry case. case. Since there is no litis pendentia, there is no
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
For the first time in the entire proc this case, case, petitio petitioners ners raise the alleged lack of jurisdiction over th matter in light of the effectivity 78 at the time that the complaint w 1998. They maintain that, under th the NCIP NCIP which which has has juris jurisdic dicti tion on disp disput utes es invo involv lvin ing g indi indige geno no communities and indigenous people As a rule, rule, an objecti objection on over sub jurisdiction jurisdiction may be raised at any proc procee eedi ding ngs. s. This This is beca becaus use e cannot be waived by the parties or the agreement of the parties. Jur vested by law, which prevails at t the filing of the complaint. An exception to this rule has been jurisprudence. jurisprudence. In the seminal case Sibon Sibongha ghano noy, y, 79 the Co Court urt rul existence of laches will prevent a raising the court's lack of jurisdicti is defined as the "failure or negl unreasonable and unexplained leng to do that which, by exercising due could or should have been done e negligence or omission to assert a a reasonable time, warr presumption that the party entitle it either has abandoned or decline it." 80 Wisely, some cases 81 have against applying Tijam, except fo exceptional cases where the factu similar to Tijam. ETAICc In Tijam, Tijam, the surety surety could could have have issue of lack of jurisdiction in the but but fail failed ed to do so. so. Inst Instea d, ead, Sign up to vote on this title part partic icip ipat ated ed in the the proc procee eedi ding ng useful Usefulother Not pleadings, than a motion to lack of jurisdic jurisdictio tion. n. When the cas ca the appellate court, the the s
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
295 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Statcon2
1
of 22
who raised the issue for the first time in their petition before this Court. At the time that the complaint was first filed in 1998, the IPRA was already in effect but the petitioners never raised the same as a ground for dismissal; instead they filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the value of the property did not meet the jurisdictional value for the RTC. They obviously neglected to take the IPRA into consideration. IaAEHD When When the ame amend nded ed compl complai aint nt was filed filed in 1998 1998,, the the petiti petition oners ers no longe longerr raised raised the issue of the trial court's lack of jurisdiction. Instead, they proceeded to trial, all the time aware of the the exist xiste ence of the IPR PRA A as evid eviden ence ced d by the the cros crosss-ex exam amin inat atio ion n 82 cond conduc ucte ted d by peti petiti tion oner ers' s' lawy lawyer er on the the CSTF CSTFAL AL Chai Chairma rman n Guill Guillerm ermo o Fianz Fianza. a. In the cross-e cross-exam xamina inatio tion, n, it was reveale revealed d that the peti petiti tio oners ners we were re aw awar are e that that the the DEN DENR, through the CSTFAL, had lost its jurisdiction over ancestral land claims by virtue of the enact enactme ment nt of the IPRA. IPRA. They They assai assaile led d the the vali validit dity y of the CSTF CSTFAL AL resol resoluti ution on favori favoring ng responde respondent nt on the ground that the CSTFAL CSTFAL had been rendered functus officio under the IPRA. IPRA. Inexpl Inexplic icab ably, ly, petit petitio ione ners rs still still did not question the trial court's jurisdiction. When petitioners recoursed to the appellate cour court, t, they they only only rais raised ed as erro errors rs the the tria triall court's appreciation of the evidence and the conclusions that it derived therefrom. In their brief, they once again assailed the CSTFAL's resolution as having been rendered functus offi offici cio o by the the enac enactm tmen entt of IPRA IPRA.. 83 But But nowhere did petitioners assail the trial court's ruli ruling ng for for havi having ng been been rend render ered ed with withou outt jurisdiction. jurisdiction. It is only before this Court, eight years after the filing of the complaint, after the trial court
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
WHE WHEREFO REFORE RE,, prem premis ises es cons cons petition is denied for lack of merit. 30, 2006 Decision of the Court of CA-G.R. CV No. 78987 and its May Resolution denying the reconsideration are AFFIRMED. Placido Placido Noceda, Noceda, plaintiffplaintiff-appe appe Marcos Escobar, defendant-app FAC FACTS: TS: • Plai Plaint ntif ifff-ap appe pell llan antt w of a motor cutter (N. S. del Rosari cost cost abou aboutt P16K P16K.. He used used it passengers passengers and cargo (Albay – Cat Durin During g WW2 WW2 (194 (1942) 2),, the Japan Japan forces seized the said vessel and u transport troops, ammunition, and • After the the li lib beration, US a found said vessel in Cebu and sold 1945 1945)) as enemy enemy proper property ty for for then sold (August 14, 1945) for defe defend ndan antt Marc Marco os Esco Escoba barr extensive repairs to be made on and named it "Long Distance."
• Plaintiff instituted an acti from from the the defen defendan dantt the posses posses vessel in the CFI-Cebu or its value of P20K, plus damages in the sum o
• The trial court found in "Long Distance" is the same vesse del Rosario I". It held that the boa lawf lawful ully ly seiz seized ed and and conf confis isca ca Japanese armed forces and that armed forces acquired a valid titl libera same when in the course of Sign up to vote on this title Philippines said authority took po Useful in Not useful waters." the vessel Philippine thus acquired a valid title to said dismissed plaintiff's complaint.
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
295 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Statcon2
1
of 22
HELD: Section 3 of Hague Convention of 1907 is not applicable. When the Japanese armed forces seized the vessel (February 11, 1942), they were already in military occupation of that territory. The vessel was not captured in the course of a naval war, but was seized by the the mili milita tary ry occu occupa pant nt,, who who used used it in the the prosecution of the war. The trial court erred in holding that the Japanese Army could lawfully confiscate confiscate said vess vessel el.. The The regu regula lati tion ons s unde underr Arti Articl cle e 53 authorized the seizure of the vessel but did not authorize its confiscation. It is expressly prov provid ided ed that that the the thin things gs seiz seized ed must must be rest restor ored ed at the the conc conclu lusi sion on of peac peace e and and indemnities paid for them. Therefore, Therefore, the title to the vessel did not pass to the Japanese but remained in the owner. The vessel did not become enemy property and was not such when it was sold to Vicente Asuncion. Hence said SALE WAS NOT VALID, and and the DEFE DEFEND NDAN ANT T AC ACQUI QUIRE RED D NO VALI VALID D TITLE to said vessel by virtue of his purchase from Vicente Asuncion. RE RIGHT OF THE DEFENDANT TO BE REIMBURSED: The defendant-appel defendant-appellee lee was initially initially a purchaser in good faith. But he ceased to be a possessor in good faith from the moment the owner wner of the the vess vesse el clai claime med d it from from the the defendan defendantt judicia judicially lly or extraju extrajudic dicial ially. ly. From that moment the defendant was not unaware that his possession was wrongful. Article 451 of the old Civil Code provides that "fruits received by one in possession in good faith, before possession is legally interrupted, interrupted, become his own." And article 453 says that "necessary expenditures shall be refunded to every every possess possessor; or; but only only the possesso possessorr in
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
origin for further proceedings in a with this decision. Republic v. CA - The subject property was by Santos de la Cruz who de same in his name Declaration - Subsequently, the subject pr succe successi ssive vely ly bough boughtt or Pedro Cristobal o They presented presented Tax D as proof - After Gil Alhambra died, his h judicially judicially partitioned partitioned property and declared it in th - On 5 July 1966, they execut of Sale Sale With With Mortg Mortgag age" e" subject property to petition the payment of which was se mortgage on the property - After the sale, petitioner-ap possession of the subject pr paid the taxes due thereon - Due to losses, the property was cultivated only for a whi - On 14 Nove Novemb mber er 1986 1986 appel appelle lee e filed filed a petit petitio ion, n, amen am ende ded d on 17 July July 19 registration and confirmation over the subject property Oppositor-a r-appel ppellan lant, t, the - Opposito the Philippines (Republic, fo filed its opposition Peti Pe tittioner-ap r-app pell ellee o prede predece cesso ssorsrs-inin-int intere ere not been bee n in open, ope n, Sign up to vote on this title exclusive and Not useful Useful posses possessi sion on and oc the the land land in ques questi ti June 1945 1945 or prior the
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
0
295 views
Sign In
Upload
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
-
-
-
-
Statcon2
1
of 22
Royal Decree 01-4, with approved plans registered under the Torrens System in compliance with, and as a consequence of, P.D. 872, it is the owner of the subject property Petitioner-a r-appellee or his o predec predecess essor orss-inin-int intere erest st have have not been been in open, open, conti continuo nuous, us, exclusive and notorious posse possessi ssion on and and occu occupa patio tion n of the the land land in ques questi tion on sinc since e 12 June 1945 1945 or earlier On 3 January January 1991 Procla Proclamat mation ion No. 679 was issued by the President of the Republic of the Philippines withdrawing the the subj subjec ectt pro propert perty y from from sal sale or settlement LC rendered judgment o Conf Co nfir irme med d De Demo mocr crit ito o Plaz Plaza’ a’s s title over Relocation Plan 1059 CA affirmed the decision of LC Hence this petition Acco Accordi rding ng to petiti petition oner, er, aside aside o from mere tax declarations all of whic which h are are of rece recent nt vint vintag age, e, pri private res respon pondent has not established actual possession of the property Petition Petitioner er also alleges alleges that the o land in question had been withd withdraw rawn n from from the alien alienab able le port portio ion n of the the publ public ic doma domain in pursuant to Presidential Proclamation No. 679 Proof Proof that petitio petitionerner-appe appelle llee e and his predecessors-in-interest have acquired and and have have been been in open, open, conti continu nuou ous, s, exclusive and notorious possession of
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
Merely withdrew it fro still subject to actual existing private rights Registration does not o merely evidence of tit - We have found that petition has proven his claim of own the subject property o This does not cont nega negatte the the inte inten n proclamation - Petition is DISMISSED Pleasantville Development Corp v. CA - Edith Edith Robil Robillo lo purch purchas ased ed fro a parcel of land - In 1975 1975,, respon responden dentt Eldre Eldred d bought the rights to the lot f Robillo. At that time, Lot 9 w - A TCT TCT wa was s then then issu issued ed unde unde - It was was then then that that he disc discov over er improvements had been intr Lot 9 by respondent Wilson K had taken possession thereo - It appe appears ars that that on on Marc March h2 bought on installment Lot 8 o same subdivision from C.T. T Enterprises, Inc. (CTTEI), the real estate agent of petitione Under the Contract to o Installment, Kee could the lot even before the completion of all insta payments - After After the the prep prepara arati tion onof th Sign up to on thereof this title given to K and a vote copy throughitsNot employee, Zenaid useful Useful Octaviano, accompanied Kee Donabelle Kee, to inspect Lo o
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
295 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
-
-
-
Statcon2
1
of 22
the latter’s failure to pay the installments due o The rescission rescission was effected effected in 1979 before the complaint was instituted o The MTCC MTCC concluded concluded that Kee Kee no longer had any right over the lot subject of the contract between him and petitioner. Consequently, Kee must pay reasonable rentals for the use of Lot 9, and, furthermore, he cannot claim reimbursement for the improvements he introduced RTC ruled: Kee was a builder in bad faith o o Assuming that he was a builder in good faith, nonetheless, guilty of unlawfully usurping the possessory right of Jardinico over Lot 9 from the time he was served with notice to vacate said lot He appe appeal aled ed dire direct ctly ly to the the SC, SC, but but referred back to the CA o The appellate appellate court ruled that that Kee was a builder in good faith, as he was unaware of the “mixup” when he began construction It further ruled that the o erroneous delivery was due to the negligence of CTTEI, and that such wrong delivery was likewise imputable to its principal, petitioner herein. Petit Petitio ione nerr then then filed filed the insta instant nt petit petitio ion n against Kee, Jardinico and CTTEI W/N W/N Kee Kee wa was s a buil builde derr in in goo good d fai faith th The The root roots s of of the the con contr trov over ersy sy can can be be traced directly to the errors committed
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
that what was describ 8 o Hence, he was accom a CTTEI employee, wh that the land she was is Lot 8 There was was no reason reason o be present during the engineer’s relocation s the final delivery of su lots was part of the re course of business of C - Go Good od faith faith consi consists sts in the be builder that the land he is bu his and his ignorance of any flaw in his title. And as good presumed, petitioner has the proving bad faith on the part - At the time time he he bui built lt impro improve ve Lot 8, Kee believed that said what he bought from petition was not aware that the lot de him was not Lot 8 o Petitioner failed to pro otherwise - Petit Petitio ione ner, r, to demon demonstr strat ate e pointed to contractual breac committed by Kee o Such violations have n whatsoever on whethe a builder in good faith on his state of mind These merely merely give rise o cause of action - Petit Petitio ione nerr then then poi points nts out out th Kee of the contract between Sign up to vote on this title former useful Useful Not o This fact fact does not neg negligence in the poin wrong lot to Kee
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
0
295 views
Sign In
Upload
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
-
-
-
Statcon2
1
of 22
representative of petitioner when it made the delivery to Kee. In acting within its scope of authority, it was, however, negligent; should then be held liable for damages The The rig right hts s of of Kee Kee and and Jar Jardi dini nico co vis-a-vis each other, as builder in good faith and owner in good faith, respectively, are regulated by law Kee Ke e and and Jard Jardin inic ico o hav have e ami amica cabl bly y settled through their deed of sale their rights and obligations with regards to Lot 9 Peti Pe titi tion on is PART PARTIA IALL LLY Y GR GRAN ANTE TED D o Kee was a builder in good faith Petitioner and its agent are o solidarily liable for damages due to negligence
Kasilag v. Roque - The The hei heirs rs of the the dec decea ease sed d Emi Emili lian ana a Ambrosio commenced a civil case for the recovery of possession of the land and its improvements from petitioner, which was granted to Emiliana by way of homestead - Pe Peti titi tion oner er alle allege ged d tha thatt he he was was in possession of the land and that he was receiving the fruits thereof by virtue of a mortgage contract between him and the deceased - A year year afte afterr the execu executio tion n of the said said deed, Emiliana was unable to pay the stipulated interests as well as the tax on the land and its improvements o They then then entered entered into an oral contract whereby she conveyed the to the latter the possession
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
It held the whole contr and void and without l as well as the subsequ contract - The litera literall sens sense e of of the the stipu stipu the contract should be follow If the words appear to o contrary to the eviden of the contracting par intention shall prevail - The The wor words ds used used by the the con con parties in the deed clearly sh they intended to enter into t principal contract of loan in t of P1,000, with interest at 12 per annum o In other words, the pa entered into a contrac mortgage of the impro on the land acquired a homestead to secure payment of the indebt P1,000 and the stipula interest thereon - Anot Anothe herr fun funda dame ment ntal al rule rule interpretation of contracts, n important than those indicat the effect that the terms, cla conditions contrary to law, m public order should be separ the valid and legal contract a such separation can be made they are independent of the contract - In the the contr contrac act, t, shoul should d Emil Emil would pay the mortgage, she Sign up to vote on this title deed of absolute sale useful Useful Not o This was however mod that the petitioner wo possession of the land o
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
0
295 views
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
1
Download
Magazines
News
-
Documents
Sheet Music
-
of 22
Moreo Moreove ver, r, the the petit petitio ione nerr was argui arguing ng that the CA erred in holding that the petitioner was a holder in bad faith in taking possession of the land and in taking advantage of the fruits thereof o From the facts found established by the Court of Appeals we can neither deduce nor presume that the petitioner was aware of a flaw in his title or in the manner of its acquisition, aside from the prohibition contained in section 116 This being being the case, the the question question o is whether good faith may be premised upon ignorance of the laws Gross and inexcusable ignorance of law may not be the basis of good faith, but possible, excusable ignorance may be such basis It is a fact fact that that the the petiti petition oner er is not not conversant with the laws because he is not a lawyer. In accepting the mortgage of the improvements he proceeded on the well-grounded belief that he was not violating the prohibition regarding the alienation of the land In tak takin ing g poss posses essi sion on ther thereo eoff and and in consenting to receive its fruits, he did not know, as clearly as a jurist does, that the possession and enjoyment of the fruits are attributes of the contract of antichresis and that the latter, as a lien, was prohibited by section 116 o Hence, his ignorance of the provisions of section 116 is
-
Statcon2
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery - The The "Com "Compa pañi ñia a Agr Agric icol ola a Fil Fil bought a considerable quant cleaning machinery company defendant machinery compa executed a chattel mortgage to secure payment of the pu price o It included in the mort the building of strong in which the machiner installed, without any to the land on which it - The The ind indeb ebte tedn dnes ess s was was not not pa mortgaged property was thu the sheriff and was bought b machinery company - A few few wee weeks ks there thereaf after ter,, on on o 14th of January, 1914, the "C Agricola Filipina" executed a sale of the land upon which t building stood to the machin company, but this deed of sa although executed in a publi document, was not registere - At or abo about ut the the tim time e whe when n th mortgage was executed in fa machinery company, the mo the "Compañia Agricola Filipi executed another mortgage plaintiff upon the building, se and apart from the land on w stood, to secure payment of balance of its indebtedness t plaintiff under a contract for construction of the building Sign up to vote on this title o Upon failure of the mo useful Useful pay, Not it levied the exec the building At the the tim time e whe when n the the exec exec
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
0
295 views
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
1
Download
Magazines
News Documents
Sheet Music
-
-
-
of 22
The company company had its title to the building registered prior to the date of registry of the plaintiff's certificate Relied on Article 1473 o If the same thing is sold to many vendees, the ownership should transfer to the person who may have first taken possession in good faith If it’s real property, it shall belong to the party who first recorded it in the registry If there’s no entry, then it shall belong to the person who first took possession in good faith The The Cou Court rt howe howeve verr rul rules es that that the the property mortgaged is not personal but real property, considering that it was attached to the building of strong materials The The ruli ruling ng of the the TC TC shou should ld be sustained on the basis of the third paragraph as herein respondent took possession of it first Havi Having ng boug bought ht in the the buil buildi ding ng at the the sheriff's sale with full knowledge that at the time of the levy and sale the building had already been sold to the machinery company by the judgment debtor, the plaintiff cannot be said to have been a purchaser in good faith o The subsequent subsequent inscription inscription of of the sheriff’s certificate of title must likewise be tainted with the same defect Good faith does not merely o
Statcon2
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
canned goods, and other sim merchandise, was illegal - Plaint Plaintif ifff alle alleges ges in its compl compl under the contract entered in 4th of March, 1905, by and b the Spanish-Filipino Bank and Reyes, the former, loaned to the sum of P141,702 which, the amount of the loan, mad P226,117.38, Philippine curre - That That to secu secure re the the pay payme ment nt two sums and the interest th debtor, Francisco Reyes, by a instrument executed before on the aforesaid date mortga favor of the plaintiff bank sev pieces of property belonging and pledged to the said bank his personal property That in the aforesaid aforesaid o pledge it was agreed b between the bank and debtor, Reyes, that th should be delivered to Garcia y Planas for saf - On the the 19th 19th of of Oct Octob ober er,, 190 190 action brought in the Court o Instance of the city of Manila Garcia y Planas against Fran Reyes and Ramon Agtarat o Judgment was rende the last-mentioned tw sum of P15,000 upon judgment execution execution w against the property o defendants, Reyes an Sign up to vote on this title - For For the the pur purpo pose se of levy levyin ing gu Not useful Useful property of the defendants, t at the request of Garcia, seiz goods which had been pledg
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
0
295 views
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
-
-
-
-
Statcon2
1
of 22
interest whatever in the property described in the complaint The The cour courtt belo below w ente entere red d jud judgm gmen entt on the 4th of January, 1906, dismissing plaintiff's action and directing that the defendant recover from the SpanishFilipino Bank Main Main issu issue e is is W/N W/N the the con contr trac actt of of pledge entered into by and between the Spanish-Filipino Bank and Francisco Reyes to secure a loan made by the former to the latter was valid, with all the requisites prescribed by the Civil Code having been complied with The The con contra tract ct in questi question on compl complie ies s with with all the requisites provided in article 1857 of the Civil Code o The property property was was pledged pledged to secure a debt the date of the execution, the terms of the pledge, and the property pledged, all of which appears in a public document, and the property pledged was placed in the hands of a third person by common consent of the debtor and creditor, under the supervision of an agent of the bank From From the the evid eviden ence ce intr introd oduc uced ed at at the the trial, both oral and documentary, it appears that a third person, appointed by the common consent of the debtor and creditor, was in possession of the goods pledged in favor of the bank under the direct supervision of an agent of the bank expressly appointed for this purpose o Testimonies Testimonies support the the fact fact that Reyes did not continue with
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
who represented it, th symbolical transfer of by means of the delive keys to the warehouse the goods were stored sufficient to show that depositary appointed common consent of th was legally placed in p of the goods The fact fact that the goo o remained in the wareh Reyes is immaterial - The The fac factt tha thatt the the debt debtor or,, Re procured purchasers and ma arrangements for the sale of pledged and that the bills for thus sold were signed by him affect the validity of the cont the pledgor, Reyes, continue owner of the goods - Judg Judgme ment nt is here hereby by REVE REVERS RS plaintiff had a preferential rig that of the defendant Garcia German Management and Servi CA - Spou Spouse ses s Cynt Cynthi hia a Cuy Cuyeg egke keng ng Manuel Rene Jose, residents Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, U owners of a parcel of land sit Sitio Inarawan - On Febru February ary 26, 26, 198 1982, 2, the executed a special power of authorizing petitioner Germa Management Services to dev property a title residential su Sign up to vote into on this - Useful Finding g tha that t part par t of the pro Not useful Findin occupied by private respond twenty other persons, petitio advised the occupants to vac
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
0
295 views
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks Magazines
News
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Documents
Sheet Music
-
-
Statcon2
1
of 22
and eject private respondents from their respective farmholdings The The resp respon onde dent nts s then then fil filed ed an an acti action on for forcible entry against the petitioner o Alleging that they are the mountainside farmers of Sitio Inarawan o That they they have occupied occupied and tilled their farmholdings some 12 to 15 years prior to the promulgation of PD 27 Petitioner deprived them of their o property without due process of law MTC dismis dismisse sed d respo responde ndent nts s compl complai aint nt for forcible entry RTC susta sustaine ined d the the decisi decision on of the MTC CA revers reversed ed the decis decisio ions ns of the the low lower er courts since private respondents were o in actual possession of the property at the time they were forcibly ejected by petitioner, private respondents have a right to commence an action for forcible entry regardless of the legality or illegality of possession Peti Pe titi tio oner’ ner’s s MR MR was was deni denied ed Hence this appeal Notwi Notwith thsta stand ndin ing g peti petitio tione ner's r's claim claim that that it was duly authorized by the owners to develop the subject property, private respondents, as actual possessors, can commence a forcible entry case against petitioner because ownership is not in issue o Forcible entry is merely a quieting process and never determines the actual title to an
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
-
-
possession shall not be turne strong hand, violence or terr The The MTC MTC and and RTC RTC rati ration onal aliz iz decision on the basis of the p self-help o Such justification is un because the doctrine can only be exercised time of actual or threa dispossession which is the case at bar o When possession has been lost, the owner m to judicial process for recovery of property Petition is is DE DENIED
Cuaycong v. Benedicto - The The iss issue ues s in in this this case case rela rela right of plaintiffs to make use roads existing on the Hacien which is the property of the d - One of these these roads roads is referr referr proceedings as the Nanca-Vi road and the other as the Da Toreno road - The alleg allegati ation ons s in the comp comp respect to the Nanca-Victoria that the appellees, Eduardo Lino Cuaycong, and Eulalio D the owners of a group of hac situated between the southe boundary of the Hacienda To the barrio of Nanca o That more more than twent appellees and their pr Sign up to vote on this title Not usefulhave made Useful in interest Nanca-Victorias road, crosses the Hacienda openly, publicly, and
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
0
295 views
Sign In
Upload
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
-
-
-
-
Statcon2
1
of 22
to pay toll for the privilege of doing so The The cou court rt held held that that it wa was s a publ public ic highway over which the public had acquired a right of use by immemorial prescription o It was only in 1911-1913 that toll was being collected; apparently done to raise funds for its repair The The ques questi tion on is whe wheth ther er this this use use was was limited to the plaintiffs, and their tenants and employees, or whether it was, as held by the lower court, a use enjoyed by the public in general Plai Plaint ntif iffs fs pro produ duce ced d 2 witn witnes esse ses s who who testified with regard to the use of the road by the present and former owners and occupants of the estates of Bacayan, Esperanza, Alcaigan, Pusot, and Dolores for the transportation of the products of these estates to the town of Victorias, and of supplies and agricultural implements from Victorias to the haciendas, but neither of them testified expressly that any other use had been made of said road o it may be reasonably inferred that the public made use of the road but such use did not extend beyond transportation of products and supplies and agricultural implements from Victorias to the haciendas Apar Apartt fro from m the the fact fact that that ther there e is is no no direct evidence to support the finding of the court concerning the general public use of the road in dispute, the record contains data strongly tending to show that when the complaint was filed, plaintiffs did not contend that the
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
The road has been in for 30-40 years o No public funds have b for its construction or but was worked on by of the owners of the h and their predecessor interest o The Nanca-V Nanca-Victoria ictorias sw including that part of i crosses the Hacienda has for thirty-five or fo been used by the app their predecessors in t transportation, by the means, of the product estates to their shippi in or near the town of and the transportation estates of all supplies by them, and has bee all persons having occ travel to and from all o the estates now owne appellees o The use of the Nancaroad in the manner an person above mention permitted without obje the owners of the Hac Toreno until the the year when they closed it, a charging a toll The Nanca-V Nanca-Victoria ictorias s ro o constitutes the only ou theonestates Sign up to vote this title of appellan nearest public road Useful Not useful - W/N the Nanc Nancaa-Vi Vict ctori orias as roa highway The The def defen enda dant nts s are are the the own own o
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
295 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
-
-
-
-
Statcon2
1
of 22
that the Government has at any time asserted any right or title in or to the land occupied by the road, or that it has incurred any expense whatever in its upkeep or construction The The evi evide denc nce e sho shows ws that that the the repa repair irs s were made by the owners of the estates benefited by the road, and by their laborers, as a pure voluntary act for their own convenience and interest Ther There e bei being ng no evid eviden ence ce that that the the original use of the road by plaintiffs' predecessors was based upon any grant of the fee to the road or of an easement of way, or that it began under the assertion of a right on their part, the presumption must be that the origin of the use was the mere tolerance or license of the owners of the estates affected the the cla claim ims s of of plai plaint ntif iffs fs,, whet whethe herr regarded as members of the public asserting a right to use the road as such, or as persons claiming a private easement of way over the land of another must be regarded as resting upon the mere fact of user o it was not shown that the road had been maintained at the public expense to show adverse possession by the government It is a fun fundam damen enta tall prin princi cipl ple e of of the the law in this jurisdiction concerning the possession of real property that such possession is not affected by acts of a possessory character which are "merely tolerated" by the possessor, or which are due to his license o Mere permission granted by the owner for people to cross his
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
license and tolerance defendants and their predecessors in title o That license license was esse revocable o The defendants defendants were rights when they close in 1911 - We are are also also of the the opi opini nion on plaintiffs have failed to show have acquired by prescriptio right of passage over the lan defendants - No evid eviden ence ce wa was s show shown n to immemorial use It is evident, therefore o vested right by user fr immemorial had been by plaintiffs - Judgm udgme ent is RE REVERSE RSED Bishop of Balanga v. CA - The The par parti ties es do not not disp disput ute et Roman Catholic Archbishop [ Manila was the owner of a pa land covered by OCT No. 143 - With With resp respec ectt to to its its righ rights ts ov properties in Bataan (inclusiv No. 1272), the said church w succeeded by the Roman Ca Bishop of San Fernando, Pam which was, likewise, succeed Catholic Bishop of Balanga — registered as a corporation o December 1975 - Prior Prior there thereto, to, or on 23 Augus Augus then priest Sign up toparish vote on this title and admin all the properties Useful Not usefulof the said the Municipality of Balanga B Rev. Fr. Mariano Sarili, execu Escritura De Donacion donat
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
0
295 views
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks Magazines
News
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Documents
Sheet Music
-
-
-
-
Statcon2
1
of 22
respondent] who immediately took possession of the property in concept of owner Here Herein in pet petit itio ione nerr file filed d the the inst instan antt complaint against him after more than 49 years after the deed of donation was executed Alleged that the respondent, w/o o knowledge and consent of the petitioner and its predecessorsin-interest, entered and occupied the subject property and that defendant refused to vacate the premises As his defen defense, se, defen defendan dantt-app appel ella lant nt [private respondent] maintains that by virtue of the deed of donation of 23 August 1936 executed in favor of his predecessor-in-interest, he is the lawful owner of the subject property and the complaint states no cause of action as it was filed only to harass him After After 10 mo mont nths, hs, the respon responde dent nt file filed da motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the instant action is barred by the statute of limitations Petit Petitio ione nerr oppos opposed ed alleg allegin ing g that that the defense of prescription was not raised in a timely filed motion to dismiss LC ren rendere dered d judgm udgme ent o Defendant-appellant [private respondent] failed to present the necessary power of attorney executed by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila giving Rev. Fr. Mariano Sarili the authority to execute the deed of donation The first first 2 paragraphs paragraphs of the o Excritura de Donacion indicates that the parish priest . . . was
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
acquired ownership ov subject property - CA rule ruled d in in fav favor or of resp respon on o Private respondent co have acquired owners the subject property t acquisitive prescriptio the same having been registered under the T system Nonetheless, respond o of Appeals ultimately under the doctrine of consequence of petitio inaction for 49 years s execution of the deed donation, despite its a undeniable knowledge respondent's adverse, and continuous posse the subject property in concept of an owner fr to the institution of th suit in 1985, is that it rights to the subject p and can no longer rec same - Hen Hence thi this pet petition ion Laches means the fail o neglect for an unreaso unexplained length of do that which, by exer diligence, could or sho been done earlier The time-hon time-hon on pu anchored Sign up to vote on this title is that relief wil Useful Not useful to a litigant who or demand has "stale", or who
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
295 views
0
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
1
Download
Magazines
News Documents
Sheet Music
of 22
Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit Injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant - Peti etitio tion is is DIS DISM MISSED Dizon vs. Suntay47 SCRA FACTS:Respondent Lourdes G. Suntay and one Clarita R. Sison entered into a transaction wherein the Suntay’s three-carat diamond ring, valued atP5,500.00, was delivered to Sison for sale on commission. Upon receivingthe ring, Sison executed and delivered to the receipt to Suntay. After thelapse of a considerable time without Clarita R. Sison having returned to thering to her, Suntay made demands on Clarita R. Sison for the return of said jewelry. Clarita R. Sison, however, could not comply with Suntay’s demands because on June 15, 1962, Melia Sison, niece of the husband ofClarita R. Sison, evidently in connivance with the latter, pledged the ringwith the petitioner Dominador Dizon's pawnshop for P2,600.00 without Suntay’s knowledge. When Suntay found out that Clarita R. Sison pledged the ring, she filed a case of estafa against the latter with the fiscal's office.Subsequently, Suntay wrote a letter to Dizon on September 22, 1962 asking for the return of her ring which was pledged with the latter’s pawnshop under its Pawnshop Receipt serial B No. 65606, dated June 15,1962.Dizon refused to return the ring, so Suntay filed an action for its recoverywith the CFI of Manila, which
Statcon2
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
recover it from the person in posses same. If the possessor of a movable which the owner has beenunlawfull has acquired it in good faith at a pu the ownercannot obtain its return w reimbursing the price paid therefor ” The only exception the law allows there is acquisition in good faith oft possessor at a public sale, in which owner cannot obtain its return with reimbursing the price. Hanging on t exception as hisbasis, Dizon insiste principle of estoppel should apply in casebut the Supreme Court ruled o the present case not only has the o and the origin of the jewelsmisappr been unquestionably proven but als Clarita R.Sison, acting fraudulently faith, disposed of them and pledged contrary to agreement with no righ ownership, and to theprejudice of S who was illegally deprived of said je who, asthe owner, has an absolute recover the jewels from the possess whosoever holds them, which in thi Dizon’s pawnshop. Dizon ought to h on his guard before accepting the p question,but evidently there was no precaution availed of and he has no blame but himself. While the activit engaged in is no doubt legal, it isno sight of that it thrives on taking adv the necessitiesprecisely of that elem population whose lives are blighted byextreme poverty. From whatever question is viewed then,estoppel ce Sign up to vote on this title cannot be justly invoked. Not useful August 29 Useful L-2939. [G.R. No. Placido Noceda, plaintiff-app Marcos Escobar, defendant-a
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
0
295 views
Upload
Sign In
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Digest PROPERTY Possession Uploaded by amun din
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks Magazines
News
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Documents Sheet Music
Statcon2
1
of 22
extensive repairs to be made on the vessel and named it "Long Distance." • Plaintiff instituted an action to recover from the defendant the possession of said vessel in the CFICebu or its value in the sum of P20K, plus damages in the sum of P5K. • The trial court found in effect that "Long Distance" is the same vessel as "N. S. del Rosario I". It held that the boat had been lawfully seized and confiscated by the Japanese armed forces and that ", the US armed forces acquired a valid title over the same when in the course of liberation of the Philippines said authority took possession of the vessel in Philippine waters." Defendant, thus acquired a valid title to said vessel. CFI dismissed plaintiff's complaint. • Appellant's contention is is predicated on Article 3 of Hague Conventions of 1907 which provides that “Vessels used exclusively for fishing along the coast or small boats employed in local trade are exempt from capture." ISSUE: *Should th the plaintiff reimburse the defendant for necessary and useful expenditures on said vessel? YES. *Does the defendant have a corresponding obligation to account to the plaintiff the earnings of the vessel during the pendency of this action? YES.
Property & Liu vs Loy Succession.casedigest
Search document
at the conclusion of peace an indemnities paid for them. Therefore, Therefore, the title to to the ves ve pass to the Japanese but rem the owner. The vessel did no enemy property and was not when it was sold to Vicente A Hence said SALE WAS NOT V the DEFENDANT ACQUIRED N TITLE to said vessel by virtue purchase from Vicente Asunc
RE RIGHT OF THE DEFENDAN REIMBURSED: The defendantdefendant-appelle appellee e was purchaser in good faith. But to be a possessor in good fai moment the owner of the ve claimed it from the defendan or extrajudicially. From that m the defendant was not unaw his possession was wrongful. Article 451 of the old Civil Co provides that "fruits received possession in good faith, bef possession is legally interrup become his own." And article that "necessary expenditure refunded to every possessor the possessor in good faith m the thing until they are repai Useful expenditures shall be possessor in good faith. . . ." Thus, the the defendant defendant must must ac the plaintiff for the net earnin vessel from the time the plai Sign up to vote on this title claimed said vessel from him Useful Not useful and whate or extrajudicially, necessary expenditures he m made on said vessel as well
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
