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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    Uploaded by

    Baphomet Junior
    83 views1 page
    The Court of Appeals did not err in resolving issues of ownership and possession in the Garcia v. Court of Appeals case. According to the facts, a lot was registered and sold to Luisito and Ma. Luisa Magpayo by Luisa's father Atty. Pedro Garcia with consent from his wife Remedio Garcia. The spouses later mortgaged the lot to secure a loan from Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom). When the loan matured and was not repaid, PBCom foreclosed on the lot. Jose Garcia, Luisa's brother, claimed he inherited the lot from his mother Remedio and sued for ownership. However, the Court of Appeals found that at the time of transfer, Pedro and

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    34. GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Court of Appeals did not err in resolving issues of ownership and possession in the Garcia v. Court of Appeals case. According to the facts, a lot was registered and sold to Luisito and Ma. Luisa Magpayo by Luisa's father Atty. Pedro Garcia with consent from his wife Remedio Garcia. The spouses later mortgaged the lot to secure a loan from Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom). When the loan matured and was not repaid, PBCom foreclosed on the lot. Jose Garcia, Luisa's brother, claimed he inherited the lot from his mother Remedio and sued for ownership. However, the Court of Appeals found that at the time of transfer, Pedro and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    83 views1 page

    GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    Uploaded by

    Baphomet Junior
    The Court of Appeals did not err in resolving issues of ownership and possession in the Garcia v. Court of Appeals case. According to the facts, a lot was registered and sold to Luisito and Ma. Luisa Magpayo by Luisa's father Atty. Pedro Garcia with consent from his wife Remedio Garcia. The spouses later mortgaged the lot to secure a loan from Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom). When the loan matured and was not repaid, PBCom foreclosed on the lot. Jose Garcia, Luisa's brother, claimed he inherited the lot from his mother Remedio and sued for ownership. However, the Court of Appeals found that at the time of transfer, Pedro and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    GARCIA V.

    COURT OF APPEALs

    FACTS: A lot had been registered and sold to SPS. LUISITO & MA. LUISA MAGPAYO by
    Luisa’s father Atty. Pedro Garcia along with the consent on his wife, Remedio Garcia.
    Subsequently, said spouses entered the aforementioned lot into mortgage by Philippine Bank
    of Communications (PBCom) to secure a loan.

    Consequently, spouses had failed to pay the loan upon its maturity and PBCom ordered the
    mortgaged lot to be extrajudicially foreclosed and entered into auction where they were the
    highest bidders.

    Later on, the lot was issued under PBCom. PBCom then filed for a writ of possession against
    Jose Garcia, Luisa Magpayo’s brother, who was currently in possession of the land. Jose
    assailed that he was the true owner of the land as he inherited it from his mother Remedio
    Garcia and he then filed for a suit for realty and damages.

    PBCom, however, averred that the land was not among those listed in Remedio’s Intestate of
    Estate and was therefore not inherited by Jose. The lower court ruled in favor of Jose and
    declared the subsequent mortgage of the lot null and void.

    However, the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals asserting that at the time of the
    transfer and registration of the land to Magpayo, Remedio Garcia and Pedro Garcia were the
    true owners and could therefore enjoy the right to dispose of such.

    Though Jose Garcia was in possession of the land time after that is of no hindrance to the
    ownership truly belonging to the Magpayo’s who then later on enjoyed their right to mortgage
    said land.

    ISSUE: Whether or not The Court of Appeals erred in resolving the issues of “ownership” and
    “possession”.

    RULING: No. The Supreme Court held that where there is no taking of property for purposes
    of neither eminent domain nor condemnation proceedings instituted, the basis for
    determination of just compensation is the time when the trial court made its order of
    expropriation; Factors to be considered in estimating market value of property for purposes of
    compensation.

    By virtue of the special and peculiar circumstances of the case at bar, there being no taking of
    the property in question for purposes of eminent domain nor condemnation proceedings
    instituted over the same to speak of, the time as of which the market value should be fixed is
    the time when the trial court made its order of expropriation.

    It is the date of appropriation or the investing date which as everyone knows required more
    than a day, sometimes weeks to carry through as would an ordinary real estate purchase and
    sale. Hence, in estimating the market value, all the capabilities of the property and all the
    uses to which it may be applied or for which it is adapted are to be considered and not merely
    the condition it is in the time and the use to which it is then applied by the owner.

    All the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, its improvements and
    capabilities may be shown and considered in estimating its value. 

    You might also like