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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 381 views

    Capitle Vs de Gaban

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous yr555TSpbF
    1) The case involves a dispute over two parcels of land inherited by four heirs from their grandfather. 2) One of the heirs, Julian, occupied and cultivated the lands from the grandfather's death until his own death 67 years later, treating them as his exclusive property. 3) The court ruled that Julian's 67 years of sole occupation and denial of the other heirs' rights to the property constituted adverse possession, extinguishing the co-ownership and vesting him with sole ownership through acquisitive prescription.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    Capitle Vs de Gaban

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous yr555TSpbF
    381 views1 page
    1) The case involves a dispute over two parcels of land inherited by four heirs from their grandfather. 2) One of the heirs, Julian, occupied and cultivated the lands from the grandfather's death until his own death 67 years later, treating them as his exclusive property. 3) The court ruled that Julian's 67 years of sole occupation and denial of the other heirs' rights to the property constituted adverse possession, extinguishing the co-ownership and vesting him with sole ownership through acquisitive prescription.

    Original Description:

    captile vs gaban digest

    Original Title

    Capitle vs de Gaban

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The case involves a dispute over two parcels of land inherited by four heirs from their grandfather. 2) One of the heirs, Julian, occupied and cultivated the lands from the grandfather's death until his own death 67 years later, treating them as his exclusive property. 3) The court ruled that Julian's 67 years of sole occupation and denial of the other heirs' rights to the property constituted adverse possession, extinguishing the co-ownership and vesting him with sole ownership through acquisitive prescription.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    381 views1 page

    Capitle Vs de Gaban

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous yr555TSpbF
    1) The case involves a dispute over two parcels of land inherited by four heirs from their grandfather. 2) One of the heirs, Julian, occupied and cultivated the lands from the grandfather's death until his own death 67 years later, treating them as his exclusive property. 3) The court ruled that Julian's 67 years of sole occupation and denial of the other heirs' rights to the property constituted adverse possession, extinguishing the co-ownership and vesting him with sole ownership through acquisitive prescription.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    You are on page 1of 1

    Capitle Vs De gaban  The elements constituting adverse

    possession by a co-owner against


    Facts: another co-owner or cestui que
    1. Fabian inherited 2 parcels of land trust are: (1) that he has performed
    from his father. When Fabian died, unequivocal acts of repudiation
    there were four heirs to his estates amounting to an ouster of the cestui
    namely: Julian, Zacarias, Francisco que trust or other co-owners; (ii)
    and Manuel. that such positive acts of
    repudiation have been made known
    2. When Fabian died, Julian occupied
    to the cestui que trust or the other
    and cultivated the 2 subject lands till
    co-owners; and (iii) that the
    the day he died in 1950 leaving 3 evidence thereon must be clear and
    heirs, Julieta De gaban, Julia and convincing (Salvador vs. Court of
    Hermegildo (Respondents) Appeals,)
    3. Francisco and Zacarias died leaving  In this case the fact that the land was
    their heirs behind which consisted of improved by julias brother and also
    the petitioners. thhe father paying the realty texes as
    4. Petitioners then filed a complaint for the exclusive owners and also the
    partition of property and also for fact that after Julians (Father) they
    damages against respondents intended to enjoy the disputed
    asserting that Fabian(grandpa of pet property excluded of the respondents
    and resp.) had contracted 2 constitute to adverse possession by
    marriages. The first, with the mother co owner against co owner.
    of Julian and the second marriage  In the supreme court Art. 1137, New
    with the mother of the remaining Civil Code
    Siblings  ART. 1137. Ownership and other
    5. Pet also asserted that the property real rights over immovables also
    was still undivided even the death of prescribe through uninterrupted
    adverse possession thereof for thirty
    Julian, further stating that the
    years, without need of title or of
    respondents enjoyed thhe property
    good faith.
    in expense of the petitioners.
     The fact that petitioners fathers,
    Francisco and Zacarias were
    Issue: legitimate and were co owners. The
    Does co ownership in this case moment co owner Julian occupied
    extinguished? the land for 67 years and yield
    himself as the sole and exclusive
    Rationale: Yes owner of the property, denying the
     In Court of appeals it was opined share of hhis brothers vested them
    that the right of action to demand the ownership by means of
    partition does not prescribe prescription
    “acquisitive prescription may set in
    where one of the co-owners openly COST AGAINST PETITIONERS
    and adversely occupies the property
    without recognizing the co-
    ownership”

    You might also like