Guia de Mesina, Taormina y el volcán EtnaDescripción completa
Labor Law Case digestFull description
APB AHB AXI DiferenceFull description
Full description
Descripción: pandora vs zabbix
Descripción: dig
perbandingan acrylic, kaca dengan polycarbonat, keuntungan dan kerugian serta aplikasinya
kumpulan bahan
OBDeleven PRO vs VCDS ( VAG COM ) vs VCP ( Vag Can Pro) vs Carista vs Carly for VAG vs Launch EasyDiag supported functions CompareFull description
Sandingan Sistem Manajemen Keamanan Informasi vs Sistem Manajemen Anti Penyuapan vs Sistem Manajemen Mutu vs Sistem Manajemen LayananFull description
PEOPLE VS PASUDAG, PEOPLE VS ZUELA, PEOPLE VS ABE VALDEZ PEOPLE VS PASUDAG, PEOPLE VS ZUELA, PEOPLE VS ABE VALDEZ CasesFull description
digestedFull description
Comparison of Petrol diesel,lpg & CNG run vehicle cars
VS Aristóteles - EnsayosDescripción completa
Descripción: P
difference between guilty and plead guilty under indian evidence act and inherent powers of the high courtFull description
vdb
cabague
kk
Full description
G.R. No. L-14722
May 25, 1960
IGNACIO MESINA, plaintiff-appellant, vs EULALIA PINEDA VDA. DE SONZA, ET AL., defendants.EULALIA PINEDA VDA. DE SONZA, defendantappellee. FACTS: Plaintiff Mesina claimed to be the owner of a parcel of land located in San Antonio, Nueva, Ecija. He has been in possession of the subject land openly, publicly and peacefully since 1914. The said lot was subject of registration proceedings. Surprisingly, the defendant Pineda without knowledge of the Plaintiff was able to procure a homestead patent in the same court were the registration of property was pending of the same land by the plaintiff, despite of the fact that defendant had not complied with the requirements of CA 141. That the said title was procured by defendants through frauds, deception and misrepresentation since they knew that the lot belong to the plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff sought to annulled and cancelled the patent issued to defendant and prayed that this registration case pending in the same court be given due course. ISSUE: WON the homestead patent given to defendant Pineda be declared null and void .RULING: In view of the fact that plaintiff was able to proved his open, continuous, exclusive possession of the disputed land for more than thirty years or since 1914 and that lot is at present subject of registration proceeding. Plaintiff is deemed to have acquired the lot by grant of the state, it follows that the same had ceased to part of the public and had become private property and therefore beyond the control of the Director of Land. The homestead patent issued to defendant therefore is null and void and for having it issued through fraud, deceit and misrepresentation. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
