Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Pamplona V Moreto

    Uploaded by

    Rebecca Chan
    Flaviano Moreto and his wife Monica owned adjacent lots that they acquired during their marriage. After Monica died, Flaviano sold one of the lots to the Pamplonas without the consent of his and Monica's heirs. The Pamplonas built their house on the mistaken lot. Monica's heirs sued, seeking to invalidate the sale. The court initially ruled the sale was partially invalid but the property belonged to the conjugal partnership. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled the entire sale was valid because Flaviano pointed out the boundaries and location without objection at the time of sale, and as a co-owner he had the right to dispose of his portion. The heirs inherited all the rights and obligations that were

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pamplona V Moreto

    Uploaded by

    Rebecca Chan
    1K views1 page
    Flaviano Moreto and his wife Monica owned adjacent lots that they acquired during their marriage. After Monica died, Flaviano sold one of the lots to the Pamplonas without the consent of his and Monica's heirs. The Pamplonas built their house on the mistaken lot. Monica's heirs sued, seeking to invalidate the sale. The court initially ruled the sale was partially invalid but the property belonged to the conjugal partnership. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled the entire sale was valid because Flaviano pointed out the boundaries and location without objection at the time of sale, and as a co-owner he had the right to dispose of his portion. The heirs inherited all the rights and obligations that were

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Pamplona v Moreto

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Flaviano Moreto and his wife Monica owned adjacent lots that they acquired during their marriage. After Monica died, Flaviano sold one of the lots to the Pamplonas without the consent of his and Monica's heirs. The Pamplonas built their house on the mistaken lot. Monica's heirs sued, seeking to invalidate the sale. The court initially ruled the sale was partially invalid but the property belonged to the conjugal partnership. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled the entire sale was valid because Flaviano pointed out the boundaries and location without objection at the time of sale, and as a co-owner he had the right to dispose of his portion. The heirs inherited all the rights and obligations that were

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    Pamplona V Moreto

    Uploaded by

    Rebecca Chan
    Flaviano Moreto and his wife Monica owned adjacent lots that they acquired during their marriage. After Monica died, Flaviano sold one of the lots to the Pamplonas without the consent of his and Monica's heirs. The Pamplonas built their house on the mistaken lot. Monica's heirs sued, seeking to invalidate the sale. The court initially ruled the sale was partially invalid but the property belonged to the conjugal partnership. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled the entire sale was valid because Flaviano pointed out the boundaries and location without objection at the time of sale, and as a co-owner he had the right to dispose of his portion. The heirs inherited all the rights and obligations that were

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Pamplona v. Moreto No.

    L-33187 Facts: Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega, a husband and wife, who acquired adjacent lots nos. 1495, 4545, and 1496 of the Calamba Friar Land Estate covered by certificates of title issued in the name of Flaviano Moreto married to Monica Maniega. They had 6 children who left heirs after their death as well as became co-heirs with respect to the property owned by Flaviano and Monica. More than 6 yrs after Monica Maniegas death, Flaviano sold lot 1495 for P900 to spouses Pamplona without the consent of his heirs and without any liquidation of the conjugal partnership. The spouses Pamplona constructed their house on the eastern part of lot 1496 as it was pointed out by Flaviano which was a mistake on the part of both seller and buyer. Flaviano died intestate on August 12, 1956 and in 1961, the plaintiffs demanded on the defendants to vacate the premises where they had their house and piggery on the ground that Flaviano had no right to sell the lot which he sold to Pamplona as the same belongs to the conjugal partnership. The spouses Pamplona refused to vacate the premises and this suit was instituted by the heirs of Monica Maniega seeking for the declaration of nullity of the deed of sale executed in the formers favor. The RTC ruled in favor of the plaintiff declaring null and void the sale with respect to 390.5 sq.m. of the total 781 sq.m. of which is rightfully owned by the plaintiffs. The RTC decision was affirmed by the CA; hence, this petition was instituted appealing the decision of the CA. Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the full ownership of the property in litigation, or only of the same? Held: Yes, they are entitled to the full ownership of the property in litigation because at the time of the sale, the co-owner (Flaviano) as vendor pointed out its location and even indicated the boundaries over which the fences were to be erected without objection. Despite the fact that at the time of sale, there was no partition of the subject property between the co-owners and Flaviano, as vendor, had ownership of an undetermined portion of the hereditary estate which he had a perfect and legal right to dispose of to the Spouse Pamplona. According to Art. 776, the inheritance which private respondents may receive from their deceased parents includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person which are not extinguished by their parents death. In addition, under Art. 1311 of the NCC, the contract of sale executed by Flaviano took effect between the parties, their assigns and heirs which includes the private respondents; therefore, they must comply with said obligation. The petition is affirmed with modification with respect to the fact that the sale executed in favor of Spouses Pamplona is legal and valid in its entirety. March 31, 1980

    You might also like