Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CADIZ
REMEDIES
D2012
(2) NEYPES V. CA
ISSUE:
(1) W/N motion for trial and petition for relief are
exclusive of each other
(2) W/N notice to counsel of the decision is notice to
the party for purposes of Section 3 of Rule 38.
RULING: Yes to both.
1. Another remedy is available, as, in fact, private
respondent had filed motion for new trial and/or
reconsideration alleging practically the same main
ground of the petition for relied under discussion,
which was denied, what respondent should have
done was to take a higher court such denial.
2. The principle that notice to the party, when he is
represented by a counsel of record is not valid is
applicable here in the reverse for the very same
reason that it is the lawyer who is supposed to
know the next procedural steps or what ought to be
done in law henceforth for the protection of the
rights of the client, and not the latter
ISSUE: W/N the notice of appeal was filed within the 15 day
reglementary period
HELD: YES. To standardize the appeal periods and to afford
litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court
deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within
which to file the notice of appeal in the RTC counted from
the receipt of order dismissing a motion for new trial or
reconsideration, hence this to should apply to MTC. The use
of the disjunctive word or signifies disassociation and
independence from one thing to another. The use therefore
of or should mean that the notice of appeal may be filed
15 days from the notice of judgment or 15 days from the
notice of the final order. The fresh period of 15 days
becomes significant only when a party opts to file a motion
for reconsideration. The petitioner therefore filed it well
within the fresh appeal period of 15 days.
Muli | Fajardo | Gran | Nograles | Fabia K | Zaragosa | Ang | Siron | Mendoza J | Cajucom | Raso | Hipolito
D2012
Muli | Fajardo | Gran | Nograles | Fabia K | Zaragosa | Ang | Siron | Mendoza J | Cajucom | Raso | Hipolito
3)
4)
2)
3)
4)
D2012
D2012
(8) SANDOVAL V. CA
FACTS: This is another dispute over land ownership. The
subject property is a parcel of land on which a five-door
apartment building stands, located at No. 88 Halcon Street,
Quezon City, for which a TCT was issued in the name of
private respondent Lorenzo Tan, Jr.
In October 1984, Tan was asked to present his owners
copy of the TCT to the RD of QC in connection with an
adverse claim. He explained however that he was still
looking for his copy of the TCT. A month after, he
discovered that the adverse claim of one Godofredo Valmeo
had been annotated on his title. Apparently, a Lorenzo Tan,
Jr., obviously an impostor, had mortgaged the property to
Valmeo to secure a loan. Thereafter, the real Tan sued for
the cancellation of the annotation of mortgage and damages
against Almeda and Valmeo.
In 1985, Tan met with petitioner Juan Sandoval who
claimed to be the new owner of the site of the property. It
was discovered that as early as September 1984, someone
purporting to be Tan sod the property to Almeda in a Deed
of Sale of Registered Land with Pacto de Retro. Said person
also apparently executed a waiver in favor of Almeda, which
caused the cancellation of the TCT in Tans name and its
issuance in Almedas. Later on, Almeda sold the property to
petitioner for Php230, 000; a TCT was issued in Sandovals
name.
Tan alleged that petitioner had prior knowledge of the
legal flaws, which tainted Almedas title. Petitioner
countered that he was a purchaser in good faith and for
valuable consideration. He bought the land through real
estate brokers whom he contacted after seeing the property
advertised in an issue of the Manila Bulletin. Upon
guarantees of the brokers and his lawyers go-signal, he
proceeded to purchase the land, and paid in two
installments.
ISSUE: W/N petitioner Sandoval is a purchaser in good faith,
hence, shouldnt be held accountable for the fraud
committed against respondent Tan.
RULING: NO, he wasnt.
True, a forged deed can be the basis of a valid title, but
only if the certificate of title has already been transferred
from the true owners name indicated by the forger and
while it remained as such, the land was subsequently sold to
an innocent purchaser. Unquestionably, the vendee had the
right to rely upon the certificate of title.
It is well-settled doctrine that one who deals with
property registered under the Torrens system need not go
beyond the same, but only has to rely on the title; he is
charged with notice only of such burdens as are annotated
on the title. This admits of an exception though: a person
dealing with registered land has a right to rely on the
Torrens certificate and dispense with the need of inquiring
further except when the party has actual knowledge of facts
and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious
man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has
knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of
D2012
Muli | Fajardo | Gran | Nograles | Fabia K | Zaragosa | Ang | Siron | Mendoza J | Cajucom | Raso | Hipolito
D2012
Muli | Fajardo | Gran | Nograles | Fabia K | Zaragosa | Ang | Siron | Mendoza J | Cajucom | Raso | Hipolito
(12) CABRERA V. CA
FACTS: The subject of the controversy is a parcel of land in
Cainta, Rizal. It was originally owned by the Spouses
Gonzaga, presumably with conjugal funds. Their
grandchildren, the private respondents claim the property
by right of succession. On the other hand, Cabrera, the
petitioner, claim the property by virtue of an alleged sale of
the uncle of the grandchildren in their favor.
The records show that the tax declaration on the land had
since 1921 been in the name of the spouses Gonzaga until
1944, when it was made in the name of Eliseo Gonzaga, the
petitioners uncle. In 1953, the tax declaration was again
changed in the name of Cabrera.
The grandchildren filed a complaint for recovery of the
property in the CFI of Rizal. Both parties adverted in their
respective pleadings to Cabreras application for registration
o the land under the Torrens system which was then pending
in another court.
At the trial, the counsel of the grandchildren asked for the
amendment of the complaint so as to make it read that they
discovered the change in the name of the tax declaration in
1969 instead of 1960 as erroneously writen. This was granted
without objection from the defense.
TC sustained the plaintiffs (grandchildren) after finding
that their evidence remained unrebutted and held that
Cabrera ailed to prove the alleged sale to them by Eliseo
(the uncle)
D2012
(13) PINO V. CA
FACTS: A parcel of land in Echague, Isabela was bought by
spouses Juan and Rafaela Gaffud in 1924. On 1936 Juan
died. The land was registered on 1938 and an OCT was
issued in favor of Rafaela and his 2 sons Raymundo and
Cicero as co-owners. The lot was sold to Rafaela through a
Deed of Transfer which cancelled the OCT and in lieu
thereof a TCT was issued in the name of Rafaela. On 1967,
Rafaela sold a portion of the lot to Pascua which caused the
subdivision of the lot to Lot-A and Lot-B which was issued its
corresponding TCTs. On 1970, Rafaela sold the Lot-B to
Felicisima Pino evidenced by a notarized Deed of Absolute
Sale. It was registered and the corresponding TCT was
issued. On 1980 Cicero died and his wife Demetria and sons
Romualdo and Adolfo filed a complaint for nullity of sale and
reconveyance against petitioner, the portion sold to Pascua
however was not questioned. During the pendency of the
case Rafaela died. In 1988 the trial court held that she was
not a purchaser in good faith and that the action to annul
the deed of sale has not yet prescribed (4 years). This was
affirmed by CA.
ISSUE: W/N the petitioner is a purchaser in good faith
HELD: YES. A vendee for value has a right to rely on what
appears on the face of the certificate of title and to
dispense with the need of inquiring further except when the
party concerned had actual knowledge of facts and
circumstances that should impel a reasonably cautious man
to make such further inquiry. In the case at bar the TCT was
in the name of Rafaela Donato alone.
The non-production of the extra-judicial statement does
not prove that there was fraud committed. The respondents
Muli | Fajardo | Gran | Nograles | Fabia K | Zaragosa | Ang | Siron | Mendoza J | Cajucom | Raso | Hipolito
D2012