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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 139 views

    2 - Ibarle vs. Po

    Uploaded by

    flormtej
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land that was originally owned by Leonardo Winstanley and his surviving spouse Catalina Navarro. After Winstanley's death, Catalina sold the entire parcel to the Spouses Maria Canoy. Catalina later sold half of the parcel, which belonged to her minor children as heirs, to the defendant Esperanza Po with approval from the court. The court held that the sale to the defendant was valid because upon Winstanley's death, ownership was transmitted to his heirs, including his minor children. Therefore, when Catalina initially sold the entire parcel, the sale was invalid as it included the children's half.

    Copyright:

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

    2 - Ibarle vs. Po

    Uploaded by

    flormtej
    139 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land that was originally owned by Leonardo Winstanley and his surviving spouse Catalina Navarro. After Winstanley's death, Catalina sold the entire parcel to the Spouses Maria Canoy. Catalina later sold half of the parcel, which belonged to her minor children as heirs, to the defendant Esperanza Po with approval from the court. The court held that the sale to the defendant was valid because upon Winstanley's death, ownership was transmitted to his heirs, including his minor children. Therefore, when Catalina initially sold the entire parcel, the sale was invalid as it included the children's half.

    Original Description:

    Succession digest

    Original Title

    2_Ibarle vs. Po

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land that was originally owned by Leonardo Winstanley and his surviving spouse Catalina Navarro. After Winstanley's death, Catalina sold the entire parcel to the Spouses Maria Canoy. Catalina later sold half of the parcel, which belonged to her minor children as heirs, to the defendant Esperanza Po with approval from the court. The court held that the sale to the defendant was valid because upon Winstanley's death, ownership was transmitted to his heirs, including his minor children. Therefore, when Catalina initially sold the entire parcel, the sale was invalid as it included the children's half.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    139 views1 page

    2 - Ibarle vs. Po

    Uploaded by

    flormtej
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land that was originally owned by Leonardo Winstanley and his surviving spouse Catalina Navarro. After Winstanley's death, Catalina sold the entire parcel to the Spouses Maria Canoy. Catalina later sold half of the parcel, which belonged to her minor children as heirs, to the defendant Esperanza Po with approval from the court. The court held that the sale to the defendant was valid because upon Winstanley's death, ownership was transmitted to his heirs, including his minor children. Therefore, when Catalina initially sold the entire parcel, the sale was invalid as it included the children's half.

    Copyright:

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

    2.

    ) IBARLE VS PO

    Facts -
    Leonardo Winstanley died leaving a parcel of land (conjugal property) located at
    Cebu to his surviving spouse Catalina Navarro and some minor children. Catalina
    sold the entire parcel of land to the Spouses Maria Canoy who later sold the same
    land to the plaintiff Bienvenido Ibarle on May 24, 1947. After some time, after her
    appointment as guardian of her minor children, Catalina again sold 1/2 of the subject
    property, which portion now belonged to the children as heirs, to herein defendant
    Esperanza Po.

    Issue -
    WON the sale to defendant Po was valid

    Held -
    The sale to defendant is valid.

    Article 657 of the old Civil Code provides: "The rights to the succession of a
    person are transmitted from the moment of his death." in a slightly different language,
    this article is incorporated in the new Civil Code as article 777.

    Manresa, commending on article 657 of the Civil Code of Spain, says:

    The moment of death is the determining factor when the heirs acquire a definite
    right to the inheritance, whether such right be pure or

    contingent. It is immaterial whether a short or long period of time lapses between the
    death of the predecessor and the entry into possession of the property of the
    inheritance because the right is always deemed to be retroactive from the moment of
    death. (5 Manresa, 317.)

    The above provision and comment make it clear that when Catalina Navarro
    Vda. de Winstanley sold the entire parcel to the Canoy spouses, one-half of it already
    belonged to the seller's children. No formal or judicial declaration being needed to
    confirm the children's title, it follows that the first sale was null and void in so far as it
    included the children's share.

    On the other hand, the sale to the defendant having been made by authority of
    the competent court was undeniably legal and effective. The fact that it has not been
    recorded is of no consequence. If registration were necessary, still the non-
    registration would not avail the plaintiff because it was due to no other cause than his
    own opposition.

    You might also like