Pinoy Mobile Case Digests

 [ G.R. No. 193305, January 27, 2021 ] PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: Disposition:     T he petition is  DENIED . The Amended Decision dated January 8, 2010 and the Resolution dated August 3, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 82888 approving respondent Banal na Pag-aaral, Phil., Inc.'s application for original registration of the subject lot are hereby affirmed. FACTS: Respondent filed an Amended Application for Registration of Lot Nos. 2304 and 2312, Cad. 482-D Amadeo Cadastre (consolidated as Lot No. 9404) with an area of 57,989 square meters (sq. m.) situated in Barangay Dagatan, Amadeo, Cavite (subject lot) with the RTC, docketed as LRC Case No. TG-898. Respondent claimed ownership and actual possession of the subject lot on the ground of its continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation in the concept of an owner long before World War II, reckoned from the possession of its predecessors-in-interest, the Heirs of Hermogenes Bayot (vendors),...

FACTS: By virtue of   RA   4726   or   the   Condominium   Act,   Multi-Realty   Incorporated (MDC)   Makati   Tuscany   (MATUSCO)   to   hold   over   title   and   manage   its   condominium,   the Makati Tuscany. To enable it to perform its function, MDC and MATUSCO executed a Master Deed and a Deed of Assignment transferring to MATUSCO the common areas,   including   the   98   parking   lots.   Despite   the   deeds,   MDC   exercised   ownership   over   the   parking lots such that it   sold some of it in several occasions to unit owners.   Subsequently,   MDC   filed   a   complaint   against   MATUSCO   for   reformation   of   contract   with   damages.   MDC   alleged   that   the   deed   did   no...

FACTS:   Respondent M. Lhuiller has a branch in San Fernando, Pampanga and had installed its signage free from any obstacle. On the other hand, petitioner Visayan Electric Company is the only electric distribution company in San Fernando, Pampanga. When the Municipality of San Fernando, Pampanga commenced its road widening project, the Municipal engineer asked the petitioner to relocate its post as this will be affected by the said project. Petitioner relocated its post closer to the signage of M.Lhuiller with a distance of only inches between them. Because of the constant rubbing of the sagging wires of the petitioner with M. Lhuiller signage a fire broke out. As a result, the fire destroyed the properties of respondents Emilio Alfeche, Gilbert Alfeche, Emmanuel Manugas. When the respondents demands payment of indemnity for damages, the petitioner refused to pay. It denied its liability, arguing that the cause of fire was attributable to respondent M.Lhuiller, because by placing...

FACTS: Respondent Lorenzo Musni (Musni) was the compulsory heir of Jovita Musni (Jovita), who was the owner of a lot in Comillas, La Paz, Tarlac. Musni filed before the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City a complaint for reconveyance of land and cancellation of TCT against Spouses Nenita Sonza Santos and Ireneo Santos (Spouses Santos), Eduardo Sonza (Eduardo), and Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank). Musni alleged that Nenita falsified a Deed of Sale, and caused the transfer of title of the lot in her and her brother Eduardo's name. Then the spouses Santos and Eduardo mortgaged the lot to Land Bank as security for their loan. Musni said that he was dispossessed of the lot when Land Bank foreclosed the property upon Nenita and Eduardo's failure to pay their loan. Later, the titles of the lot and another foreclosed land were consolidated in anothet TCT, under the name of Land Bank. Musni also claimed that Nenita and Eduardo was convicted for falsification of a public docum...

FACTS: On April 23, 1990, the Department of Public Works and Highways initiated an action for expropriation for the widening of Dr. A. Santos Ave, which also known as Sucat Road. This action was brought against 26 defendants, none of whom are respondents in this case. On November 2, 1993, the Commissioners appointed by the Regional Trial Court in the expropriation case submitted a resolution recommending that just compensation for the expropriated areas be set to P12, 000.00 per square meter. Llamas spouses filed "Most Urgent and Respectful Motion for Leave to be Allowed Intervention as Defendants-Intervenors-Oppositors" on January 27, 1994. They also filed their Answer-in-Intervention on March 21, 1994. After which, on August 2, 1994, they filed a "Most Urgent Motion for the Issuance of an Order Directing the Immediate Payment of 40% of Zonal Value of Expropriated Land and Improvements." After years of not obtaining a favorable ruling, the Llamas Sp...

FACTS: Pedro acquired a lot. He sold this to Faustina. After the death of Faustina, her heirs executed a notarized Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs and Deed of Absolute Sale of the subject lot and it was conveyed to Alejandra. Alejandra sold the land Deen, who in turn sold it to Atty. Deen. Upon Atty. Deen's death, an extrajudicial settlement of estate, which did not include subject lot, was executed by his heirs. Later they executed an Additional ExtraJudicial Settlement with Absolute Deed of Sale, which sold the land to Norberto who took possession of and built a house on it. Norberto died without a will and was succeeded by Lolita. Josefina, who represented the Heirs Pedro, filed a complaint for Clarification of Ownership of the subject lot against Lolita. Later, Lolita sought to register her portion in subject lot but was denied by the Register of Deeds, citing the need for a court order. Lolita then learned that TCT No. T-96676 had been partially cancelled and TCT Nos...

FACTS: The present case involves two (2) free patent applications over a 71,014 square-meter parcel of land (the Property) located in Barangay Parsolingan, Genova, Tarlac.   Narcisa Taar (Narcisa), Alipio Duenas (Alipio), Fortunata Duena (Fortunata), and Pantaleon Taar (Pantaleon) inherited two (2) vast tracts of land situated in Tarlac. One (1) parcel of land was adjudicated exclusively in favor of Pantaleon while the other parcel of land was given to Pantaleon, Narcisa, Alipio, and Fortunata.   Narcisa sold her share to Spouses Primitivo T. Adaoag and Pilar Tandoc (the Adaoag Spouses) and to Spouses Ignacio Gragasin and Genoveva Adaoag (the Gragasin Spouses).   Later, Pantaleon, and others executed an agreement to partition the second parcel of land. This agreement was approved by the Court of First Instance of Tarlac   Pantaleon, Alipio, and Fortunata were the predecessors-in-interest of Francisca, Joaquina, Lucia, and Oscar L. Galo. Based on t...

FACTS: Subject property: two parcels of prime sugar land in Negros Occidental. On June 29, 1960, Alfredo de Ocampo filed an application for registration of the two parcels of land. This was contested by the Republic of the Philippines Bureau of Education. The reason is according to the Republic, the lots were bequeathed to the Bureau of Education by Esteban Jalandoni on September 21, 1926. And by virtue of the donation, they have a TCT. In 1965, the CFI ordered the registration of the lot in favor of de Ocampo. In the same year, an OCT was issued in his name. On January 6, 1966, de Ocampo sold one whole lot and a portion of the other lot to Anglo Sr. The deed of absolute sale was registered and annotated at the back of the OCTs. The Republic caused the annotations of notice of lis pendens in Anglo Sr.’s TCT. Despite the notice of lis pendens, Anglo Sr., conveyed the lots to Anglo Agricultural Corporation in exchange for shares of stock. The CA ruled agains...

FACTS: Spouses Briones took out a loan which was executed though a promissory note which appointed the bank as attorney-in-fact of the spouse with the obligation among others to file an insurance claim in case of loss or damage to the vehicle of the car. The vehicle was subsequently carnapped. iBank instead of filing for insurance filed in behalf of Spouses it collected from former. Now respondents was forced to claim for insurance. ISSUES: 1) Whether an agency relationship existed between the parties. 2)Whether the agency relationship was revoked or terminated when Spouses Briones themselves claimed for insurance. 3) Whether petitioner is entitled to the return of the mortgaged vehicle or, in the alternative, payment of the outstanding balance of the loan taken out for the mortgaged vehicle. HELD: 1) The Supreme Court ruled in affirmative. All the elements of agency exist in this case. Under the promissory note with chattel mortgage, Spouses Briones appointed iB...

FACTS: This case involves a parcel of land located in Cabancalan, Mandaue City, initially registered as Original Certificate of Title No. 0-887, and titled under the name of Roberto Aboitiz (Roberto). The land is referred to as Lot No. 2835. This parcel of land originally belonged to the late Mariano Seno. On July 31, 1973, Mariano executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of his son, Ciriaco Seno (Ciriaco), over a 1.0120hectare land in Cebu covered by Tax Declaration No. 43358. This property included two (2) lots: Lot No. 2807 and the land subject of this case, Lot No. 2835. In 1990, Peter Po (Peter) discovered that Ciriaco "had executed a quitclaim dated August 7, 1989 renouncing [his] interest over Lot [No.] 2807 in favor of [petitioner] Roberto." In the quitclaim, Ciriaco stated that he was "the declared owner of Lot [Nos.] 2835 and 2807." The Spouses Po confronted Ciriaco. By way of remedy, Ciriaco and the Spouses Po executed a Memorandum of Agreement dated...