Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd
Upload
85 views2 pages

JOSEPHINE WEE, Petitioner v. FELICIDAD MARDO, Respondent

Uploaded by

Pepper Potts

1) Respondent Felicidad Mardo owned a registered land title over Lot 8348 in Cavite. She allegedly sold a portion, Lot 8348-B, to petitioner Josephine Wee through a deed of sale in 1993. 2) Wee applied to register the land in her name, claiming ownership through the deed of sale. However, Mardo contested the sale and refused to vacate the property. 3) The Court of Appeals denied Wee's application, finding she did not meet the requirement of open, continuous, and notorious possession over the land, as it was never physically turned over to her. 4) Moreover, the land was already registered under Mardo's name, so the

Copyright:

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

JOSEPHINE WEE, Petitioner v. FELICIDAD MARDO, Respondent

Uploaded by

Pepper Potts
85 views2 pages
1) Respondent Felicidad Mardo owned a registered land title over Lot 8348 in Cavite. She allegedly sold a portion, Lot 8348-B, to petitioner Josephine Wee through a deed of sale in 1993. 2) Wee applied to register the land in her name, claiming ownership through the deed of sale. However, Mardo contested the sale and refused to vacate the property. 3) The Court of Appeals denied Wee's application, finding she did not meet the requirement of open, continuous, and notorious possession over the land, as it was never physically turned over to her. 4) Moreover, the land was already registered under Mardo's name, so the

Original Description:

LTD Case Digest

Original Title

LTD Wee vs Mardo

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) Respondent Felicidad Mardo owned a registered land title over Lot 8348 in Cavite. She allegedly sold a portion, Lot 8348-B, to petitioner Josephine Wee through a deed of sale in 1993. 2) Wee applied to register the land in her name, claiming ownership through the deed of sale. However, Mardo contested the sale and refused to vacate the property. 3) The Court of Appeals denied Wee's application, finding she did not meet the requirement of open, continuous, and notorious possession over the land, as it was never physically turned over to her. 4) Moreover, the land was already registered under Mardo's name, so the

Copyright:

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

JOSEPHINE WEE, Petitioner v. FELICIDAD MARDO, Respondent

Uploaded by

Pepper Potts
1) Respondent Felicidad Mardo owned a registered land title over Lot 8348 in Cavite. She allegedly sold a portion, Lot 8348-B, to petitioner Josephine Wee through a deed of sale in 1993. 2) Wee applied to register the land in her name, claiming ownership through the deed of sale. However, Mardo contested the sale and refused to vacate the property. 3) The Court of Appeals denied Wee's application, finding she did not meet the requirement of open, continuous, and notorious possession over the land, as it was never physically turned over to her. 4) Moreover, the land was already registered under Mardo's name, so the

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2

JOSEPHINE WEE, Petitioner v. FELICIDAD MARDO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 202414 : June 4, 2014

FACTS:

Respondent Felicidad Mardo was granted a registered Free Patent No. (IV-2)
15284, dated April 26, 1979, covering the Lot No. 8348, situated in Putting Kahoy,
Silang, Cavite.

On February 1, 1993, respondent allegedly conveyed to petitioner Josephine Wee,


through a Deed of Absolute Sale a portion of the said lot known as Lot No. 8348-B, for a
consideration of P250,000.00 which was fully paid. Respondent however refused to
vacate and turnover the subject property claiming that the alleged sale was falsified.

Petitioner filed an Application for Original Registration of a parcel of land


claiming that she is the owner of said unregistered land by virtue of a deed of absolute
sale.

Respondent filed a Motion to dismiss the application alleging that the land
described in the application was different from the land being claimed for titling. The
motion was however, denied. A motion for reconsideration and second urgent motion
for reconsideration were subsequently filed by respondent, but both were denied by the
RTC.

Upon presentation of evidence by the parties, the RTC granted the application of
the petitioner. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the
RTC, hence, respondent appealed to the CA

The CA held, among others, that petitioner was not able to comply with the
requirement of possession and occupation under Section 14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529. Her
admission that the subject lot was not physically turned over to her due to some
objections and oppositions to her title suggested that she was not exercising any acts of
dominion over the subject property, an essential element in the requirement and
occupation contemplated under Section 14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529.

ISSUE:

WON the Petitioner is entitled to the subject property.

HELD:

Court of Appeals decision is sustained.Based on the legal parameters, applicants


for registration of title under Section 14(1) must sufficiently establish:
(1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the
public domain;
(2) that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same; and
(3) that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

The CA denied the application on the issue of open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of the subject land. It was of the view that she
could not have complied with the requirement of possession and occupation under
Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 considering that she admitted that it was not physically
turned over to her.

A more important consideration, however, is that the subject land is already


registered under OCT No. OP-1840 (Patent No. 042118-03-6111) of the Registry of Deeds
of Cavite, under the name of respondent Felicidad Mardo. Hence, the Petition was
DENIED.

You might also like