0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
978 просмотров1 страница
1) Plaintiff Mesina claimed ownership of a parcel of land that he had openly possessed since 1914, which was subject to a registration proceeding.
2) Surprisingly, defendant Pineda obtained a homestead patent for the same land without the plaintiff's knowledge, despite not complying with the requirements and knowing the land belonged to the plaintiff.
3) The court ruled the homestead patent given to the defendant was null and void since the plaintiff had proven over 30 years of open, continuous possession, and the land was already private property under registration, making it beyond the control of the land authority to grant as a homestead.
1) Plaintiff Mesina claimed ownership of a parcel of land that he had openly possessed since 1914, which was subject to a registration proceeding.
2) Surprisingly, defendant Pineda obtained a homestead patent for the same land without the plaintiff's knowledge, despite not complying with the requirements and knowing the land belonged to the plaintiff.
3) The court ruled the homestead patent given to the defendant was null and void since the plaintiff had proven over 30 years of open, continuous possession, and the land was already private property under registration, making it beyond the control of the land authority to grant as a homestead.
1) Plaintiff Mesina claimed ownership of a parcel of land that he had openly possessed since 1914, which was subject to a registration proceeding.
2) Surprisingly, defendant Pineda obtained a homestead patent for the same land without the plaintiff's knowledge, despite not complying with the requirements and knowing the land belonged to the plaintiff.
3) The court ruled the homestead patent given to the defendant was null and void since the plaintiff had proven over 30 years of open, continuous possession, and the land was already private property under registration, making it beyond the control of the land authority to grant as a homestead.
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.