Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Chapter 11

Heirs of Marciano Nagano v. CA

Respondents filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of OCT in the name of heirs
of Marciano. They allege that issuance was with fraud committed by Valerio.
Valerio committed perjury by attested that subject lot was not occupied or being
claimed by other persons.
Defendants argued that said land was owned by their P-i-D (Mallari and Jamlig) and
they are in possession of the land since 1920.
They discovered that their land was registered by Valerio in the name of Marciano
Ngano. They demanded from Valerio to execute necessary docs to segregate their
land from the land bought by Marciano. Valerio refused.
RTC in favor of petitioner saying that action should be filed by the OSG. CA reversed
saying that 1 yr prescription does not apply because said action was to declare said
titles null and void.
No. The free patent issued is null and void.
Also, claim of possession of defendants of the land which is illegally included in the
title is imprescriptible.

Secuya v. Vda. De Selma

Petitioners filed an action for quieting of title.
Petitioners version:
Friar Land was sold to Maxima Caballero. Caballero entered into an agreement of
partition with Paciencia Sabellona where Caballero bound herself to give 1/3 of the
land to Sabellona.
Sabellona occupied that land and later on sold to Dalmacio Secuya through a private
document which was admitted by the only heir of Sabellona. Dalmacio took the land
and let the husband of his niece to build a house there and lie there up til now.
Secuya died.
Selma bought a big land which the disputed land is included.
Defendants version:
Selma is the reg owner of the subject land which she bought from Cesaria Cabaleero
as evidenced by a notarized deed of sale. Cesaria is the widow of Aro, who died.
She inherited the said land and sold it to Selma.
RTC and CA ruled in favor or def.
WON the transfer of land bet Maxima Caballero and Pacencia Sabellona valid.
The agreement is a trust and not a partition because parties are not co-owners.
Heirs of Caballero sold the land to Aro.
Private document was not presented. It is not binding upon third persons. Ramons
status as heir of Paciencia was not established properly.

DE Guzman, Jr. v. Natioinal Treasurer

Spouse Milambing purchased a land in Rizal. They bought it when they were already
civilly married but it was registered in the Maiden name of Asuncion because she
was conservative. When they got married they planned to go to Europe and then
Before leaving they entrusted the deed of sale and the cert which is still in the name
of Sta. Lucia Realty Co to a long-time friend Marilyn Belgica. She volunteered to
register the sale in the spouses name.
Belgica called the spouses and told the spouses that it waw already transferred in
their name. She told them that she will deliver it to them personally but when
Belgica arrived in Saudi, she told the spouses the she left the title in Phil.
Milambing called up her family in Phil to inquire in RD about the title. They found
out that the title was indeed issued in their names but was subsequently cancelled
and transferred in favor of spouses De Guzman.
They found out that an impostor of the spouses Milambing sold the land to De
Guzman. Milambing went home and filed a case in RTC to declare the nullity of sale
and title. RTC ruled in favor of Milambing. CA affirmed. SC affirmed.
De Guzman filed an action for damages against Assurance Fund, National Treasure,
and RD.
RTC ruled in favor of De Guzman.CA reversed.
WON Assurance Fund liable.
NO. De Guzman was not able to prove the loss or damages they got because of the
mistake,malfeance, or omission by the RD and court personnel. They were not
deprived of land by reason of mistake of fault of the government.
De Guzman is also negligent.

Vios v. Pantangco
Pantangco filed a case for ejectment against Vios. Pantangaco alleged that:(91) He is
a co-owner (2) prior to his purchase,he inquire from the petitioners if they are
interested to buy the land. when Petitioners responded that they were not
interested, defendant gave them 1 week to vacate the premises from his purchase
(3) petitioners refused to vacate (4) he filed the complaint
Petitioners denied the allegations of defendant. They alleged (1) the property is
unclassified public forest (2) said land was owned by Alfredo where they acquired
their rights through a document entitled waiver (3) Pantangcos title is fake
because said title originated from a nullified title (4) assuming the title is valid, the
property it covers is different from the premise they occupy.
MTC decided in favor of Pantangco. Vios filed a petition to quash the execution of the
decision of MTC because according to him, his lawyer which who received said
notice already withdrawn as his counsel before the judgment, hence he did not
receive the notice. Sheriff still implemented the writ of execution of the judgment.
Petitoner filed a certiorari in the RTC. RTC decided in favor of Vios saying that since
there is lack of notice to the petitioners, the decision has not become final and
executor. It also ordered the return of land in favor of the petitioner.
Vios filed for immediate execution of RTC decision but was denied because of MR.
MR was denied so Vios filed for 2nd immediate execution of judgment which was
Pantangco filed with CA for the declaration of nullity of the decision of RTC. CA ruled
in favor of VIOS saying that vios filed a motion to be furnished a copy of the decision
2 days before its finality. It would deprived Vios right if the decision of MTC is

Heirs of Toribio v. Sacabin

Petitioners P-i-D Toribio Waga filed a Free Patent Application for a parcel of land.
Free patent and OCT were issuedin the name of the Heirs.
Isabelo Sacabin filed a protest before DENR saying that around 500sq m were
erroneously included in the Land owned by the Heirs. DENR region x issued a
decision recommending that an action be taken by the Dir of Lands for segrating
said land.
Dir lands failed to act so respondent filed a case. RTC found that defendant and his
P-i-D have been in possession of the contested part of the land in an OCEN manner
since 1940. RTC ruled in favor defendants. CA affirmed.
WON the action for reconveyance of said parcel of land already prescribed.
NO. Respondents Possession of the land since 1940 is uncontroverted.
2 surveys were done by the special inspector and said that there was actually wrong
An action for reconveyance of property respects the decree of registration as
incontrovertible and merely seeks the transfer of the property wrongfully or
erroneously registered in anothers name to its rightful owner or to one who claims
to have a better right.
However, the ten-year prescriptive period for an action for reconveyance is not
applicable where the complainant is in possession of the land to be reconveyed and
the registered owner was never in possession of the disputed property.12 In such a
case, the action for reconveyance filed by the complainant who is in possession of
the disputed property would be in the nature of an action to quiet title which is