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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 76 views

    Cabrera V CA

    Uploaded by

    Rosana Villordon Solite
    1) Vda. de Cabrera filed a case to quiet title over a lot that she had physically possessed. The RTC ruled in her favor but the CA reversed, stating that the claim of implied trust was barred by prescription. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that prescription does not apply when the plaintiff is in actual possession of the property. Additionally, a co-owner cannot sell the whole property without the consent of the other co-owners. 3) The Supreme Court therefore set aside the CA's decision and reinstated the original RTC decision in favor of Vda. de Cabrera.

    Copyright:

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

    Cabrera V CA

    Uploaded by

    Rosana Villordon Solite
    76 views2 pages
    1) Vda. de Cabrera filed a case to quiet title over a lot that she had physically possessed. The RTC ruled in her favor but the CA reversed, stating that the claim of implied trust was barred by prescription. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that prescription does not apply when the plaintiff is in actual possession of the property. Additionally, a co-owner cannot sell the whole property without the consent of the other co-owners. 3) The Supreme Court therefore set aside the CA's decision and reinstated the original RTC decision in favor of Vda. de Cabrera.

    Original Description:

    land titles digest

    Original Title

    Cabrera v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Vda. de Cabrera filed a case to quiet title over a lot that she had physically possessed. The RTC ruled in her favor but the CA reversed, stating that the claim of implied trust was barred by prescription. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that prescription does not apply when the plaintiff is in actual possession of the property. Additionally, a co-owner cannot sell the whole property without the consent of the other co-owners. 3) The Supreme Court therefore set aside the CA's decision and reinstated the original RTC decision in favor of Vda. de Cabrera.

    Copyright:

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

    Cabrera V CA

    Uploaded by

    Rosana Villordon Solite
    1) Vda. de Cabrera filed a case to quiet title over a lot that she had physically possessed. The RTC ruled in her favor but the CA reversed, stating that the claim of implied trust was barred by prescription. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that prescription does not apply when the plaintiff is in actual possession of the property. Additionally, a co-owner cannot sell the whole property without the consent of the other co-owners. 3) The Supreme Court therefore set aside the CA's decision and reinstated the original RTC decision in favor of Vda. de Cabrera.

    Copyright:

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

    Cabrera vs Court of Appeals

    Facts:

    The petitioner assailed the decision of CA in reversing the decision of CFI and ordered defendant Vda. de
    Cabrera to vacate the portion of a lot in question and surrender the possession thereof to Orais.

    The lot in question was originally owned by Daniel Teokemian, Albertana Teokemian and Felicidad
    Teokemian then later sold to Orais without signature of Felicidad. Another deed of sale was executed by
    Felicidad for the same lot in favor of the petitioner Vda. De Cabrera. Thereafter Vda. De Cabrera and he
    husband immediately took possession on the said lot.

    Before the RTC of Davao Oriental, an action for Quieting of Title to Real Property was raised by
    defendant Vda. de Cabrera against Orais. RTC ruled in favor of the defendant Vda. de Cabrera to execute
    a re-conveyance within thirty (30) days after this decision on the portion of a lot in question actually and
    physically possessed and occupied by the defendant plus damages.

    Orais filed an appeal to CA. CA reversed the decision of CFI based on the fact that even as the appellate
    court observed that the registration made by the plaintiffs was fraudulent insofar as it involved the one-
    third interest of Felicidad Teokemian, which was not included in the sale executed by them and
    Albertana and Daniel Teokemian, it nevertheless upheld its effects, on the justification that the
    defendants action for re-conveyance based on an implied trust had already been barred by prescription.

    Hence, Vda. De Cabrera are now before the Court as Petitioners for Review on Certiorari.

    Issue:

    Whether or not CA erred in ruling that the private respondents complaint filed for quieting of title which
    actually is one for recovery of ownership and possession and is not barred by laches

    Held:

    Yes. An action for re-conveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in
    10 years, the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of
    the certificate of title over the property. But this rule applies only when the plaintiff or the person
    enforcing the trust is not in possession of the property, since if a person claiming to be the owner
    thereof is an actual possession of the property, as the defendants are in the instant case, the right to
    seek re-conveyance, which, in effect, seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe. Also, even
    if a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will affect only his own share but not those of the
    other co-owners who did not consent to the sale. This is because the sale or other disposition affects
    only his undivided share and the transferee gets only what would correspond to his grantor in the
    partition of the things owned in common. No prescription shall lie in favor of a co-owner or co-heir so
    long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.

    Thus, The decision of CA is set aside and the decision of CFI is reinstated.

    You might also like