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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    Millena v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Louella Tura
    1) A land dispute arose over a 14,282 sq. m. lot (Lot 1874) that was divided between Gregoria Listana and Potencia Maramba Listana and her children after a cadastral survey. 2) Gregoria later sold her portion to Gaudencio Jacob before dying, and Jacob took possession of the land. 3) Felisa Jacob, daughter of Gaudencio Jacob, continued possessing the land until Alejandro Millena acquired title to the entire lot. Felisa filed a case to have Millena reconvey the portion she claimed to possess.

    Copyright:

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

    Millena v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Louella Tura
    67 views2 pages
    1) A land dispute arose over a 14,282 sq. m. lot (Lot 1874) that was divided between Gregoria Listana and Potencia Maramba Listana and her children after a cadastral survey. 2) Gregoria later sold her portion to Gaudencio Jacob before dying, and Jacob took possession of the land. 3) Felisa Jacob, daughter of Gaudencio Jacob, continued possessing the land until Alejandro Millena acquired title to the entire lot. Felisa filed a case to have Millena reconvey the portion she claimed to possess.

    Original Description:

    Land Titles & Deed Case Digest

    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) A land dispute arose over a 14,282 sq. m. lot (Lot 1874) that was divided between Gregoria Listana and Potencia Maramba Listana and her children after a cadastral survey. 2) Gregoria later sold her portion to Gaudencio Jacob before dying, and Jacob took possession of the land. 3) Felisa Jacob, daughter of Gaudencio Jacob, continued possessing the land until Alejandro Millena acquired title to the entire lot. Felisa filed a case to have Millena reconvey the portion she claimed to possess.

    Copyright:

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

    Millena v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Louella Tura
    1) A land dispute arose over a 14,282 sq. m. lot (Lot 1874) that was divided between Gregoria Listana and Potencia Maramba Listana and her children after a cadastral survey. 2) Gregoria later sold her portion to Gaudencio Jacob before dying, and Jacob took possession of the land. 3) Felisa Jacob, daughter of Gaudencio Jacob, continued possessing the land until Alejandro Millena acquired title to the entire lot. Felisa filed a case to have Millena reconvey the portion she claimed to possess.

    Copyright:

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

    ALEJANDRO MILLENA, petitioner, vs CA and FELISA JACOB, represented herein by her

    attorney-in-fact JAIME LLAGUNO, respondents.

    Facts:
    - A 14,282 sq.mtr. land (Lot 1874) is a subject of cadastral proceeding w/ claimants
    Gregroria Listana and her sister-in-law Potencia Maramba Listana w/ her 7 children
    - Parties reached a compromise agreement w/c was submitted to the Court and
    adjudicated accordingly where Gregoria gets 1/4 share (3,934 sq.mtr) and Potencia and
    children gets 3/4 share
    - Gregoria was sick of TB and death being inevitable executed an SPA authorizing cousin
    Antonio Lipato to sell her portion of Lot 1874 for proceeds to be used for her burial
    - Lipato sold Gregoria’s portion to Gaudencio Jacob on Oct 23, 1926 and incidentally on
    the same day Gregoria died
    - Jacob thereafter took possession of land and started harvesting coconuts therein
    - Potencia having learned of Jacob’s entry of Gregroia’s lot portion, filed an ejectment
    case
    - Court dismissed case on Dec 31, 1926 ruling Jacob’s possession of land was authorized
    having with him a document of sale as evidence
    - Thereafter, Jacob had a continuous, actual and peaceful possession of said lot for 40 yrs
    until Apr 4, 1966 when such land was adjudicated to her daughter Felisa Jacob in an
    extra-judicial settlement
    - Right after acquiring the property, Felisa instructed her nephew Jaime Llaguno to
    continue working as caretaker of the land making improvements on it and paid it’s
    property taxes
    - Sometime in Nov 1981 Felisa discovered that Florencio Listana, son of Potenciana,
    acquired from the Bureau of Lands a Free Patent Certificate dated Aug 28, 1980
    covering the entire 14,284-square meter area of Lot 1874 which included her portion
    - Felisa immediately filed a protest before the Bureau of Lands alleging that she was the
    absolute owner of a 1/4 portion of Lot 1874 and that through misrepresentation and
    deceit Florencio was able to secure title for the whole lot and prayed that an investigation
    be conducted and that the Free Patent issued be annulled and set aside
    - Subsequently, Florencio died and despite the protest filed by Felisa, the heirs of
    Florencio sold the entire Lot 1874 to Alejandro Millena (nephew of Florencio) on Sep 30,
    1986 who was eventually issued TCT covering the whole of Lot 1874
    - On Mar 17, 1992 Felisa filed a complaint against Millena for annulment of title and claim
    for reconveyance of 1/4 porition of Lot 1874, with preliminary injunction on the
    construction of a house on said lot and damages
    - RTC ruled in favor of Felisa w/c was affirmed by CA upon appeal
    - A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 was filed in SC by Millena contending
    that lower courts failed to consider the issue of prescription
    Issue
    Whether or not action for reconveyance is barred by prescription.
    Ruling
    No. While an action for reconveyance based on fraud prescribes 4 years from the
    discovery of the fraud w/c is deemed to take place at the issuance of OCT and 10 years if it
    is based on an implied or a constructive trust, from the issuance of the OCT or TCT, there
    is an exception to this rule. Prescription cannot be invoked in an action for reconveyance
    when the plaintiff is in possession of the land to be reconveyed.
    Possession of a certificate of title alone does not necessarily make the holder, the true
    owner of all the property described therein since the inclusion of an area which the
    registered owner or successful applicant has no claim on and any right of ownership is void
    and of no effect.
    Petition is denied and petitioner is ordered to reconvey w/in 30 days from the finality of
    Decision that portion of Lot 1874 consisting of 3,934 square meters in favor of Felisa Jacob,
    represented by her attorney-in-fact Jaime Llaguno.

    You might also like