Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
TEODICIA LOZADA
90 SCRA 503
FACTS:
Lozada filed an application for registration and confirmation of two (2)
parcels of lands. She asserts title thereto by rights of inheritance from her
deceased parents coupled with continuous and exclusive possession.
Within one (1) however, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a
petition for review on the ground of fraud considering that she deliberately
concealed the fact that the lots were covered by Recovable Permit
Application and Miscellaneous Sales Application both in the name of her
husband Cristobal and that these applications were rejected by the Bureau
of lands since these lots were reserved for school site and also portions of
said land are part of the public domain.
The CFI found actual fraud was employed in procuring the title, hence
the CFI issued a a decision setting aside the MeTC decision. Lozada
appealed to the CA but the CA affirmed the CFI decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the title was properly voided by the RTC?
HELD:
Yes, it was properly voided by the RTC for the following reasons:
1. Lozada was clearly guilty of fraud for not disclosing in her
application for registration that the lots were the same lots applied
for by his husband but was denied because it was reserved by the
republic for a school site. Also by falsely declaring that said lands
were inherited by her from her parents.