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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Alicia de Santos Vs IAC

    Uploaded by

    May RM
    The court ruled that the first reconstitution of the original land title was valid, making any subsequent reconstitutions void. Originally, a large parcel of land was owned jointly by two married couples, but the original land title was lost during WWII. The first reconstitution reissued the land title in the original owners' names. One couple then sold their share to Eleuteria, who was issued a new title. However, the other couple later sold their share to another buyer, the Bunagans, initiating a second reconstitution. The current plaintiff, Alicia, purchased from the Bunagans. But the court found the second reconstitution invalid since a valid title from the first reconstitution already existed. Therefore, all subsequent titles

    Copyright:

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

    Alicia de Santos Vs IAC

    Uploaded by

    May RM
    56 views2 pages
    The court ruled that the first reconstitution of the original land title was valid, making any subsequent reconstitutions void. Originally, a large parcel of land was owned jointly by two married couples, but the original land title was lost during WWII. The first reconstitution reissued the land title in the original owners' names. One couple then sold their share to Eleuteria, who was issued a new title. However, the other couple later sold their share to another buyer, the Bunagans, initiating a second reconstitution. The current plaintiff, Alicia, purchased from the Bunagans. But the court found the second reconstitution invalid since a valid title from the first reconstitution already existed. Therefore, all subsequent titles

    Original Title

    Alicia de Santos vs IAC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court ruled that the first reconstitution of the original land title was valid, making any subsequent reconstitutions void. Originally, a large parcel of land was owned jointly by two married couples, but the original land title was lost during WWII. The first reconstitution reissued the land title in the original owners' names. One couple then sold their share to Eleuteria, who was issued a new title. However, the other couple later sold their share to another buyer, the Bunagans, initiating a second reconstitution. The current plaintiff, Alicia, purchased from the Bunagans. But the court found the second reconstitution invalid since a valid title from the first reconstitution already existed. Therefore, all subsequent titles

    Copyright:

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

    Alicia de Santos Vs IAC

    Uploaded by

    May RM
    The court ruled that the first reconstitution of the original land title was valid, making any subsequent reconstitutions void. Originally, a large parcel of land was owned jointly by two married couples, but the original land title was lost during WWII. The first reconstitution reissued the land title in the original owners' names. One couple then sold their share to Eleuteria, who was issued a new title. However, the other couple later sold their share to another buyer, the Bunagans, initiating a second reconstitution. The current plaintiff, Alicia, purchased from the Bunagans. But the court found the second reconstitution invalid since a valid title from the first reconstitution already existed. Therefore, all subsequent titles

    Copyright:

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

    Alicia De Santos vs.

    IAC
    Facts:
    A large parcel of land located in in Mactan Cebu is owned in common by Spouses
    Aton and Arong (Spouses Aton) and Spouses Casiban and Aton (Spouses
    Casiban). However, due to world war, the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) of
    said property on file with Registry of Deeds got lost. Later, Spouses Aton sold
    their share to Eleuteria who filed an action/petition for the reconstitution of the said
    lost OCT in the names of original owners (Spouses Aton & Casiban).
    Consequently, a new OCT was issued in favor of said original owners, and
    thereafter, an oral division was executed in favor of Eleuteria naming her a
    successor -in-interest of the share owned by Spouses Aton. Subsequently, the heirs
    of Spouses Aton executed an extrajudicial declaration of heirs, which paved way to
    the execution of deed of sale in favor of Eleuteria for the portion owned by
    Spouses Aton. Hence, a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) was issued in the name
    of Eleuteria covering the said portion with Spouses Casiban.
    Four years thereafter, Spouses Casiban sold their portion to Spouses Bunagan, who
    likewise filed an action for the judicial reconstitution of the OCT of the entire
    property. Similarly, a new OCT was issued in the names of the original owners;
    then a deed of sale was executed by Spouses Casiban in favor of Spouses Bunagan.
    This also paved way to the issuance of TCT in favor of Spouses Bunagan for said
    portion with Spouses Aton.
    In other words, there was not only a double issuance of OCT due to reconstitution
    of title; there was also a double sale that took place: first is involving the sale in
    favor of Eleuteria; second the one executed to Spouses Bunagan. After the transfer
    of TCT to Spouses, Bunagan, they subsequently sold their portion of another
    person, Alicia Santos. The new owner, Alicia then filed a petition for Quieting of
    Title, to remove cloud or issue on her ownership.

    Issue:
    Which of the two reconstitution and transaction is valid and genuine and which is
    not.

    Ruling:
    The Court held that the first is valid. It ruled that the later reconstitution proceeding
    had no legal effect and validity because there was already a prior reconstitution of
    the original certificate of title covering the same lot way back. Notably, property
    involved here is registered under the Torrens System and all parties are deemed to
    have constructive notice of these public documents registered in the office of the
    Register of Deeds. The fact that there already existed a perfectly valid reconstituted
    title, TCT No. T-0043 in the name of Eleuteria and the Spouses Casiban, will make
    subsequent petition for reconstitution void and without any force and effect.
    Needless to state, all subsequent certificates of title including that of Spouses
    Bunagan and Alicia Santos, are also void because of the legal truism that the spring
    cannot rise higher than its source.
    In the same vein, Alicia De Santos cannot be considered as purchaser in good faith.
    A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buy property of another,
    without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and
    pays a full and fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase or before he has
    notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property.

    Consequently, the element of-"without notice that some other person has a right to
    or interest in such property"-is absent in this case. Alicia De Santos is deemed to
    have knowledge of a public record, that is, there is a prior reconstituted title on file
    with the Registry of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City. Besides, petitioner should know
    that respondent was in actual possession of this portion of Lot 5659.

    You might also like