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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 258 views

    Facts:: Pamplona vs. Moreto G.R. No. L-33187 - March 31, 1980 Ponente: J. Guerrero

    Uploaded by

    Elah Viktoria
    Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega acquired adjacent lots during their marriage and had six children. After Monica's death, Flaviano sold the lot to Geminiano Pamplona without the consent of Monica's heirs. Monica's heirs argued the sale was invalid as the lot belonged to the conjugal partnership of Flaviano and Monica. The Supreme Court ruled the sale was valid, as Flaviano pointed out the location and boundaries of the lot to Pamplona, and Monica's heirs acquiesced to the alienation and occupation by not objecting. Under the Civil Code, Monica's heirs inherited all property rights and obligations that were not extinguished by her death.

    Copyright:

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

    Facts:: Pamplona vs. Moreto G.R. No. L-33187 - March 31, 1980 Ponente: J. Guerrero

    Uploaded by

    Elah Viktoria
    258 views2 pages
    Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega acquired adjacent lots during their marriage and had six children. After Monica's death, Flaviano sold the lot to Geminiano Pamplona without the consent of Monica's heirs. Monica's heirs argued the sale was invalid as the lot belonged to the conjugal partnership of Flaviano and Monica. The Supreme Court ruled the sale was valid, as Flaviano pointed out the location and boundaries of the lot to Pamplona, and Monica's heirs acquiesced to the alienation and occupation by not objecting. Under the Civil Code, Monica's heirs inherited all property rights and obligations that were not extinguished by her death.

    Original Description:

    tyuky

    Original Title

    Pamplona v Moreto

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega acquired adjacent lots during their marriage and had six children. After Monica's death, Flaviano sold the lot to Geminiano Pamplona without the consent of Monica's heirs. Monica's heirs argued the sale was invalid as the lot belonged to the conjugal partnership of Flaviano and Monica. The Supreme Court ruled the sale was valid, as Flaviano pointed out the location and boundaries of the lot to Pamplona, and Monica's heirs acquiesced to the alienation and occupation by not objecting. Under the Civil Code, Monica's heirs inherited all property rights and obligations that were not extinguished by her death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    258 views2 pages

    Facts:: Pamplona vs. Moreto G.R. No. L-33187 - March 31, 1980 Ponente: J. Guerrero

    Uploaded by

    Elah Viktoria
    Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega acquired adjacent lots during their marriage and had six children. After Monica's death, Flaviano sold the lot to Geminiano Pamplona without the consent of Monica's heirs. Monica's heirs argued the sale was invalid as the lot belonged to the conjugal partnership of Flaviano and Monica. The Supreme Court ruled the sale was valid, as Flaviano pointed out the location and boundaries of the lot to Pamplona, and Monica's heirs acquiesced to the alienation and occupation by not objecting. Under the Civil Code, Monica's heirs inherited all property rights and obligations that were not extinguished by her death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PAMPLONA VS.

    MORETO
    G.R. No. L-33187 - March 31, 1980

    Ponente: J. Guerrero

    FACTS:

    Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega were husband and wife. During their
    marriage, they acquired adjacent lots. The spouses Flaviano Moreto and Monica
    Maniega begot during their marriage six children, namely, Ursulo, Marta, La Paz,
    Alipio, Pablo, and Leandro.

    Ursulo died intestate leaving as his heirs herein plaintiffs Vivencio, Marcelo,
    Rosario, Victor, Paulina, Marta and Eligio. Marta died also intestate leaving as her
    heir plaintiff Victoria Tuiza. La Paz died intestate leaving the following heirs,
    namely, herein plaintiffs Pablo, Severina, Lazaro, and Lorenzo, all surnamed
    Mendoza. Alipio Moreto died intestate leaving as his heir herein plaintiff Josefina
    Moreto. Pablo Moreto died intestate oleaving no issue and as his heirs his brother
    plaintiff Leandro Moreto and the other plaintiffs herein. Monica Maniega died
    intestate in Calamba, Laguna.

    More than six years after the death of his wife Monica, Flaviano Moreto,
    without the consent of the heirs of his said deceased wife Monica, and before any
    liquidation of the conjugal partnership of Monica and Flaviano could be effected,
    executed in favor of Geminiano Pamplona, married to defendant Apolonia Onte, the
    deed of absolute sale.

    Flaviano Moreto died intestate. In 1961, the plaintiffs demanded on the


    defendants to vacate the premises where they had their house and piggery on the
    ground that Flaviano Moreto had no right to sell the lot which he sold to Geminiano
    Pamplona as the same belongs to the conjugal partnership of Flaviano and his
    deceased wife and the latter was already dead when the sale was executed without
    the consent of the plaintiffs who are the heirs of Monica.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the sale is valid.

    RULING:

    Yes, it is valid.

    The title may be pro-indiviso or inchoate but the moment the co-owner as
    vendor pointed out its location and even indicated the boundaries over which the
    fences were to be erectd without objection, protest or complaint by the other co-
    owners, on the contrary they acquiesced and tolerated such alienation, occupation
    and possession,
    Under Article 776, New Civil Code, the inheritance which private
    respondents received from their deceased parents and/or predecessors-in-interest
    included all the property rights and obligations which were not extinguished by
    their parents' death.

    You might also like