Search
Home
Saved
665 views
0
Sign In
Upload
Join
RELATED TITLES
0
Land Titles Case Digests Uploaded by Joanne Rosaldes Ala
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Case Digests for Atty Cadiz
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents Sheet Music
Pimentel vs Comelec
1
of 11
Vda de Barroga vs. Albano, 157 SCRA 131 FACTS: CFI FACTS: CFI of Ilocos Norte adjudicated a parcel of land in favor of Delfina Aquino. One of the oppositors was Ruperta Pascual, who was declared in default. For unrecorded reasons, the decree of registration did not issue except until after the lapse of 14 years or so (October 14, 1955). It was only after 24 years (November 17, 1979) that OCT was issued in Delfina Aquino's name. 1970 - after the decree of registration had been handed down but before title issued in Delfina Aquino's favor, the children and heirs of Ruperta Pascual — appellants Eufemia Barroga and Saturnina Padaca-brought suit against the children and heirs of Delfina Aquino — appellees Angel Albano, et al.
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Barroga et.al.: et.al.: had been in possession of Lot 9821 since 9821 since 1941 and were the real owners thereof; they prayed that Delfina Aquino's title be voided and cancelled and that a new title be made out in their names.
Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Delfina Aquino's title encroached upon a 4-square-meter portion of an
Cunanan v. Jumping Jap,
Case Digest: Manotok v. CLT
Search document
Their argument: as possessors of the lot in question ejected therefrom by a mere motion for writ of possessi ISSUE: Whether or not they can be ejected.
HELD: Yes. The writ of possession could properly iss inconsiderable period of time that had elapsed from registration decree, since the right to the same d pursuant to the rulings in Heirs of Cristobal Marcos Lucero v. Loot , It also declared that the segregation of portion from Lot 9821 and its restoration as integral pa no effect whatever on the Albanos' right to the writ o was the appropriate process for the enforcement of th cadastral case.
Read Free Foron 30this Days Sign up to vote title Conformably with the established axioms
set ou paragraphs Useful of this opinion, theuseful appellees, Angel Alba Not anytime. declared to be Cancel entitled to a writ of possession ove enforcement of the decree of registration and vi ndicatio in favor of their predecessor-in-interest, Delfina Q. Aq
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
665 views
0
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Land Titles Case Digests Uploaded by Joanne Rosaldes Ala
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Case Digests for Atty Cadiz
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Join
Pimentel vs Comelec
1
of 11
Laude, the original claimant thereof. Petitioners alleged that t hey have been in possession of the lot for about 18 years from the time they purchased it from their predecessors-in-interest, have paid the realty taxes due thereon, and that their possession thereof was public, peaceful, in the concept of an o wner, continuous and against the world. Tacking their possession to that of their predecessors-in-interest, petitioners claimed that they have been in possession of the subject lot for almost 60 years now. (Note: lot involved was originally surveyed as Lot No. 1027 but what was adjudicated to petitioners is a portion designated as Lot No. 1027-A now equal to Lot No. 18009 of the Atimonan Cadastre.)
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Come 1996, the 7th MCTC of Atimonan-Plaridel issued an Order admitting petitioners’ Answer. After hearing, it rendered its decision confirming petitioners’ title over the lot being claimed and directing the issuance of a decree of registration in their favor. The Republic, represented by the Office of the General, on appeal to the CA on the sole Special offer forSolicitor students: Onlywent $4.99/month. jurisdictional issue of whether the trial court erred in proceeding with the
Cunanan v. Jumping Jap,
Case Digest: Manotok v. CLT
Search document
Ruling:
Yes. Without which, the trial court has no jurisdiction. T requirement is rendered even more imperative by the fa involved was originally surveyed as Lot No. 1027 but wh to petitioners is a portion designated as Lot No. 1027-A No. 18009 of the Atimonan Cadastre. It is incumbent up to establish by positive proof that the publication requir complied with, what with the fact that they are the ones benefited by the adjudication of the subject lot. Regrett present proof of publication of the Notice of Initial Hear that the instant case is a mere continuation of the proce Cadastral Case No. 67 whereat the Director of Lands mu the publication of the notice of initial hearing in the Offi Sign up to vote on this title hold water.
Read Free For 30 Days
Useful Not useful In view of want of publication, it is only necessary to pr Cancel anytime.
void, and a new trial is not called for.
You're Reading a Preview
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
665 views
0
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Land Titles Case Digests Uploaded by Joanne Rosaldes Ala
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Case Digests for Atty Cadiz
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Join
Pimentel vs Comelec
1
of 11
the case for hearing on October 18, 1958. The court then declared the petitioners the owners of the said misplaced lot. The spouses then moved for a write of execution and possession, but the 62 people who were already occupying the said additional lot opposed saying that they were granted the land by Dir of Lands. Subsequently, the Dir of lands made a motion to set aside the same judgment on the ground, among others, that said decision was a nullity for the reason that the court a quo did not acquire jurisdiction to act on the petition of Emilio Benitez and his wife for the reopening of the cadastral proceedings for lack of the requisite publication and notice as required by law. This was denied, and hence this petition.
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Issue: is the re-opening of the cadstral proceedings legal? a) due to lack of publication
b) there were already legal existing claimants at that time.
Special offer forisstudents: Held: There no questionOnly that $4.99/month. respondents Emilio Benitez and his wife
Cunanan v. Jumping Jap,
Search document
Republic vs. Vera, 120 SCRA 210
Doctrine: A land subjected to ca dastral adjudicatio Registration Act cannot be subject to registrat proceedings, except where the applicant can judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
Facts: These case involves two petitions for review.
Read Free Foron 30this Days Sign up to vote title
G.R. No. L-35778
Useful
Not useful
Cancel anytime.
You're Reading Respondent a PreviewLuisito
may file a petition for reopening of the Cadastral pursuant to Republic Act
Case Digest: Manotok v. CLT
Martinez filed with the lower c
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
665 views
0
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Land Titles Case Digests Uploaded by Joanne Rosaldes Ala
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks Magazines
News
Documents
Case Digests for Atty Cadiz
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Join
Pimentel vs Comelec
1
of 11
The Republic opposed the registration claiming that the land applied for are portions of the public domain thus not subject to private appropriation.
Cunanan v. Jumping Jap,
Case Digest: Manotok v. CLT
Search document
is one in rem and binds the whole world. Under this d precluded from re-litigating the same issues already d judgment.
***********************
Sheet Music
In both cases, the lower court ruled in favor of applicants Martinez and Tanalega, hence this petition. Republic argued that Mariveles Cadastre was declared public land by the decision of the Cadastral Court in 1937, thus the lower court is without jurisdiction over t he subject matter for voluntary registration under Act 496. The Republic also claimed that the lands in question can no longer be subject to registration by voluntary proceedings, for they have already been subjected to compulsory registration proceedings under the Cadastral Act.
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Issue: Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Even granting that respondents can still petition for jud imperfect title, the same must necessarily fail. In evidence for the respondents themselves tend to show of the entire area applied for are cultivated. Mere cultiv land does not constitute possession under claim of owne
In addition, the survey plans submitted by private res Sign to vote on this title but by the approved by up the Director of Lands CommissionUseful (LRC). The LRC no authority to appr Nothas useful Cancel anytime. plans. The submission of the plan is a statutory require character and unless the plan and its technical des approved the by the Director of Lands, the same are no
Read Free For 30 Days
You're Reading a Preview
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
665 views
0
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Land Titles Case Digests Uploaded by Joanne Rosaldes Ala
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Case Digests for Atty Cadiz
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Join
Pimentel vs Comelec
1
of 11
1957 - RTC – ruled in favor of Santos as evidenced by the OCT issued in the name of Santos’ father.
That in 1926, TCT was issued in the name of Ezequiel Santos That in 1926, the cadastral court declared l ot 395 public land, and as a consequence, De la Merced was able to obtain an OCT after filing a homestead application That the cadastral court had no jurisdiction to declare lot 395 as public land and ordered the cancellation of the OCT in the name of De la Merced Directed De la Merced to vacate the property
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times CA – affirmed RTC’s ruling
That upon the finality of the decree of the cadastral court, adjudicating ownership of the land, the title becomes incontrovertible and may no longer be acquired by prescription. As the land was no longer part of the public domain when the homestead patentOnly was obtained by De la Merced, it cannot prevail Special offer for students: $4.99/month. over the cadastral court’s decree of registration of Lot 395 in favor of Santos
Cunanan v. Jumping Jap,
Case Digest: Manotok v. CLT
Search document
c)
1926 – the same cadastral court declare public land and as a result, de la Merced homestead patent d) 1931 – De La Merced obtained a homes e) De La Merced was the overseer of the S therefore, he was a trustee at the time homestead f) 1952 – complaint for recovery of owner possession was filed 2) With regards to public lands, the act of registrat act to convey and affect such registration. It sh office of the RD. THEREFORE, the property is no registered until the final act or the entry in the r the RD had been accomplished. 3) Decree of registration and certificate of titl different things. is the of registration, to be iss Signo upItto votedecree on this title which shall be the basis of the certificat Useful useful the title to Not the land. Cancel anytime. HOWEVER, this only applies to VOLUNT o under the Land Registration Act 4) WHEN IS A TITLE TO THE LAND IN A CADASTRA
Read Free For 30 Days
You're Reading a Preview
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
665 views
0
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Land Titles Case Digests Uploaded by Joanne Rosaldes Ala
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Case Digests for Atty Cadiz
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Pimentel vs Comelec
1
Download
Join
of 11
Cunanan v. Jumping Jap,
Case Digest: Manotok v. CLT
Search document
Heirs vs. CA, 623 SCRA 637 Doctrine: A survey made in a cadastral proceeding merely identifies each lot preparatory to a judicial proceeding for adjudication of title to any of the lands upon claim of interested parties, the purpose of the survey plan being simply to identify and delineate the extent of the land it is not a proof of ownership of the land covered by the plan. –
Facts: Petitioners sought to enjoin National Power Corporation (Napocor) from selling the Caliraya Hydroeletric Power Plant, as they claimed ownership over the portions of the land where the power plant stood, specifically Lot 1873 and Lot 72.
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times
Napocor petitioners’ allegations and claimed that it acquired Lot Special offerdenied for students: Only $4.99/month. 1873 through purchase from the petitioners’ half sister, Olivia Ferrer
Issue:
W/N the certification from the BL showing that their p Ferrer was a survey claimant, is sufficient to establish 1873. Held:
NO. The certification did not adequately establish thei The certification only proved that Ferrer was a sur purpose of a survey plan is simply to identify and deli the land. A survey plan, even if approved by the BL ownership of the land. The petitioners were not even Sign up toapproved vote on this title actual survey plan by the BL, they only relie certificate which states that Lot 1873 is in the name Useful Not useful Cancel anytime. survey claimant). Nothing in the certificate indicated was actually in possession of the said lot or for how lo possesion thereof.
Read Free For 30 Days
You're Reading a Preview
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
665 views
0
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Land Titles Case Digests Uploaded by Joanne Rosaldes Ala
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks Magazines
News
Case Digests for Atty Cadiz
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Pimentel vs Comelec
1
of 11
Documents
Case Digest: Manotok v. CLT
Search document
Petitioner asserts that there is no substantial evidence t respondent nor her predecessors have been in possessio 30 years.
Facts:
Respondent Manuela Pastor filed an application for confirmation of imperfect title over 13 lots.
Sheet Music
Cunanan v. Jumping Jap,
Director of Lands vs. CA 106 SCRA 426
Join
Testimony of respondent which was corroborate testimonies and evidence has established beyon
Widows vs. CA, 201 SCRA 165
Seven of the lots – inherited from her parents. The other six lots – inherited from her aunt.
Doctrine:
Respondent claims that she and her predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the lot s under claim of ownership for more than 30 years.
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Director of Lands filed opposition – applicant and her predecessors neither had title in fee simple nor imperfect title over the lots Respondent submitted a certification from the Land Registration Commission stating that Lot 9330 from which Lot 9330-A and Lot 9330-C were derived, was declared public land in a cadastral survey.
Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month. The CFI as land registration court approved the application. Director
A certificate of title cannot be altered or cancelled exc proceeding in accordance with law.
No correction of certificate of title shall be made exce court inSign a petition the purpose up tofiled voteforon this title and entitled in which the decree of registration was
Read Free For 30 Days
Useful
You're Reading Facts: a Preview
appealed but the CA affirmed t he decision. Hence, this petition.
Not useful
Cancel anytime.
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
665 views
0
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Land Titles Case Digests Uploaded by Joanne Rosaldes Ala
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks Magazines
News
Documents
Case Digests for Atty Cadiz
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Pimentel vs Comelec
1
of 11
Cunanan v. Jumping Jap,
Same year, ORTIGAS filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that a Torrens title becomes indefeasible after a year and the same becomes conclusive against the whole world. Even the LRC itself has advised the court that the 156 hectares is covered by valid and subsisting titles in the name of ORTIGAS Motion was denied by trial court but set a date for hearing in order for WIDORA to prove that the TCTs of ORTIGAS are not proper derivatives of the OCT issued Trial court ruled, that TCTs presented by ORTIGAS show on its face that they were not derived from the OCTs of WIDORA and that if there was any error in the correct number of OCT on said titles, no step or measure to rectify the same was taken. Decree 1425- from which the TCTs of ORTIGAS were derived shows only 17hectares and is 4 km away from the 156 hectares subject of the application for registration of WIDORA. 1988, ORTIGAS filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that the trial had noOnly jurisdiction to hear an application for Special offer forcourt students: $4.99/month. registration of a registered land.
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times
Read Free For 30 Days
You're Reading a Preview
Proof of the execution of the ori It has been lost or destroyed or produced in court or that it is in an adverse party ORTIGAS has not shown compli mentioned and thus CA should accepted the secondary evid place On the unilateral action of CA Upon presentation of the secondary evid o substituted the findings of the trial cour of ORTIGAS SC is in the opinion that there should o on the merits for this case involves Sign upland, to vote on track this title a vast of land There was not even a request for evi o Useful Not useful of this anytime. case. CA went out of its way to ru Cancel ORTIGAS On correcting the alleged errors in the TCTs
Case Digest: Manotok v. CLT
Search document
Join
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
665 views
0
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Land Titles Case Digests Uploaded by Joanne Rosaldes Ala
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Case Digests for Atty Cadiz
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Join
Pimentel vs Comelec
1
of 11
Cunanan v. Jumping Jap,
was subsequently acquired by Eligio Naval and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 787 was issued in his name. A parcel of land located in Hermoso, Bataan was surveyed for Potenciano Gabriel. Survey Plan Psu- 9742 was prepared and approved by the Director of Lands, but was subsequently amended because it was found that certain portions of t he land transferred to Naval were included. The undivided portions were excluded by order of the Court and so Plan Psu- 9742 was amended with a reduction of 293,432 square meters. The Original Certificate of Title No. 1264 issued in the name of Potenciano Gabriel contained the reduced area.
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Another cadastral survey was made of the Municipality of Hermosa, Bataan and the land of Potenciano Gabriel became Lot No. 557 with a further reduction by 339,847 square meters. No new certificate of title was issued showing the reduced area so that Original Certificate of Title No. 1264 subsisted with an area of 2,436,280 square meters under Plan Psu-9742. Accordingly, the partition of t he estate of Potenciano Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month. Gabriel by his heirs was based on plan Psu-9742 with an area of 2,436,280 square meters, instead of Lot No. 557 with a smaller area of 2,096,433
Case Digest: Manotok v. CLT
Search document
prayed instead that said parties be joined as additional the court authorized the inclusion of new parties.
ISSUE
Whether or not courts have the authority to ord correction of an erroneous technical description and ma the correct area.
HELD NO. Read Free Foron 30this Days Sign up to vote title
Useful contendNot Petitioners thatuseful in ordering that OCT No Cancel anytime. conform with the land covered by Cadastral Lot No. 557 and later the Court of Appeals deprived them of their pr registered owners. Such act, petitioners insist, would am
You're Reading a Preview
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
665 views
0
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Land Titles Case Digests Uploaded by Joanne Rosaldes Ala
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Case Digests for Atty Cadiz
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Join
Pimentel vs Comelec
1
of 11
The fact that the portion of land in question is not a part of the property of the late Potenciano Gabriel, is established not only by the Hermoso and Orani Cadastre but by the behavior of Potenciano Gabriel himself, who is the original owner. He did not take the necessary action to recover said lot during his lifetime but after the discovery of its occupation in March, 1933, by the late Eligio Naval, he allowed instead the continued use and occupation of the same. In fact, there is no dispute that Eligio Naval and his successors-in-interest have always been in possession o f said property since that date. Finally as correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, petitioners for failing to prosecute their claims for twenty (20) years have lost by laches their right to recover their property.
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Abes vs. Rodil, 17 SCRA 832
This is a suit for reconveyance and damages.
Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month. -
FACTS:
Cunanan v. Jumping Jap,
Case Digest: Manotok v. CLT
Search document
HELD: YES. The action for reconveyance will not prospe
RATIO:
1. To set up res judicata the following requisi present Final judgment o Court must have jurisdiction o Judgment must be on the merits o Identity of i. parties, ii. Subject mat o action In this case, all were present. -
“Here, in the cadastral case, both t he judgment Read Free Foron 30this Days Sign up to vote title
the denying plaintiffs' petition for review, are final; Useful cadastral court both onNot the useful subject matter and part Cancel anytime. debate. For, defendants and Alejandro Abes, plaintif were claimants of the same lots in said cadastral ca plaintiffs were the petitioners for review in the same
You're Reading a Preview
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
665 views
0
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Land Titles Case Digests Uploaded by Joanne Rosaldes Ala
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Case Digests for Atty Cadiz
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Join
3.
Pimentel vs Comelec
1
of 11
Cunanan v. Jumping Jap,
Case Digest: Manotok v. CLT
Search document
Plaintiffs aver that their petition for review did not put in issue "the question of ownership or title". They claim that said petition was but a mere preliminary step to reopening and that this should not be confused with the second step which is the new trial. This argument is flawed. Obviously the plaintiffs have misconceived the reach of the court order denying their petition. The lower court allowed them due course and permitted them to submit their evidence however they were unable to overcome the evidence of the respondents. The court discovered that they only began paying taxes on the land one month before the filing of their petition for review
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Read Free Foron 30this Days Sign up to vote title
Useful
You're Reading a Preview
Not useful
Cancel anytime.
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
