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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 108 views

    Secuya V Vda de Selma

    Uploaded by

    JasOn Evangelista
    This case involves a land dispute between Secuya and Selma over a parcel of land. Secuya claims ownership through an agreement transferring a portion of the land from Caballero to Sabellona, and then from Sabellona to Secuya's predecessor through a private instrument that is now lost. Selma purchased the land, including the portion occupied by Secuya, from Caballero through a Deed of Sale and was issued a Transfer Certificate of Title. The Court of Appeals upheld Selma's title. The Supreme Court also found in favor of Selma, stating that the Secuyas did not have sufficient evidence like a public document to support their claim, whereas Selma had legal documentation and acted

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Secuya V Vda de Selma

    Uploaded by

    JasOn Evangelista
    108 views1 page
    This case involves a land dispute between Secuya and Selma over a parcel of land. Secuya claims ownership through an agreement transferring a portion of the land from Caballero to Sabellona, and then from Sabellona to Secuya's predecessor through a private instrument that is now lost. Selma purchased the land, including the portion occupied by Secuya, from Caballero through a Deed of Sale and was issued a Transfer Certificate of Title. The Court of Appeals upheld Selma's title. The Supreme Court also found in favor of Selma, stating that the Secuyas did not have sufficient evidence like a public document to support their claim, whereas Selma had legal documentation and acted

    Original Description:

    a

    Original Title

    Secuya v Vda de Selma

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a land dispute between Secuya and Selma over a parcel of land. Secuya claims ownership through an agreement transferring a portion of the land from Caballero to Sabellona, and then from Sabellona to Secuya's predecessor through a private instrument that is now lost. Selma purchased the land, including the portion occupied by Secuya, from Caballero through a Deed of Sale and was issued a Transfer Certificate of Title. The Court of Appeals upheld Selma's title. The Supreme Court also found in favor of Selma, stating that the Secuyas did not have sufficient evidence like a public document to support their claim, whereas Selma had legal documentation and acted

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    108 views1 page

    Secuya V Vda de Selma

    Uploaded by

    JasOn Evangelista
    This case involves a land dispute between Secuya and Selma over a parcel of land. Secuya claims ownership through an agreement transferring a portion of the land from Caballero to Sabellona, and then from Sabellona to Secuya's predecessor through a private instrument that is now lost. Selma purchased the land, including the portion occupied by Secuya, from Caballero through a Deed of Sale and was issued a Transfer Certificate of Title. The Court of Appeals upheld Selma's title. The Supreme Court also found in favor of Selma, stating that the Secuyas did not have sufficient evidence like a public document to support their claim, whereas Selma had legal documentation and acted

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SECUYA v VDA DE SELMA

    FACTS: Caballero owned certain friar lands. She entered into an Agreement of Partition where
    she parted with 1/3 of the said property in favor of Sabellona. Sabellona took possession
    thereof and sold a portion to Dalmacio Secuya through a private instrument that is already lost.
    Secuya, along with his many relatives took possession of the said land. Later on, Selma bought
    a portion of the said land, including that occupied by Secuya; she bought it from Caesaria
    Caballero. She presented a Deed of Absolute Sale and a TCT. Secuya filed a case for quieting of
    title. CA upheld Selmas title considering that she had a TCT and a Deed of Sale.
    ISSUE: Who has a better right, Secuya or Selma?
    HELD: The Secuyas have nothing to support their supposed ownership over the parcel of land.
    The best evidence they could have had was the private instrument indicating the sale to their
    predecessor-in-interest. But the instrument is lost. Even so, it is only binding as between the
    parties and cannot prejudice 3rd persons since it is not embodied in the public document.
    Selma, on the other hand, has all the supporting documents necessary; she also acted in good
    faith and thought that the Secuyas were merely tenants. They did not even pay realty taxes
    and did not have their claim annotated to the certificate of sale
    Sandoval v. Court of Appeals,[22] we held:
    "It is 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 and claims as are annotated on the title.
    "The aforesaid principle admits of an unchallenged exception: that a person dealing with
    registered land has a right to rely on the Torrens certificate of title and to dispense without
    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 sufficient facts
    to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of title of the property in
    litigation. The presence of anything which excites or arouses suspicion should then prompt the
    vendee to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the
    face of the certificate. One who falls within the exception can neither be denominated an
    innocent purchaser for value nor a purchaser in good faith; and hence does not merit the
    protection of
    the law."
    Granting arguendo that private respondent knew that petitioners, through Superales and his
    family, were actually occupying the disputed lot, we must stress that the vendor, Cesaria
    Caballero, assured her that petitioners were just tenants on the said lot. Private respondent
    cannot be faulted for believing this representation, considering that petitioners' claim was not
    noted in the certificate of the title covering Lot No. 5679.
    Moreover, the lot, including the disputed portion, had been the subject of several sales
    transactions. The title thereto had been transferred several times, without any protestation or
    complaint from the petitioners. In any case, private respondent's title is amply supported by
    clear evidence, while petitioners claim is barren of proof.

    You might also like