Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 6|Likes:
Published by histab

More info:

Published by: histab on Sep 03, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





G.R. No. 172660, 24 August 2011Del Castillo, J.:
On September 2, 1976, respondent Beata Sayson and her husband Roberto Sayson, Sr. filed aPetition for Registration of an agricultural land located in Cagbatang, Balagtas, Matag-ob, Leyte.The said application was opposed by the Republic of the Philippines and herein petitionersEugenio Basbas, Teofilo Aras and Rufino Aras. On March 22, 1979, the Court of First Instance of Leyte rendered a Decision adjudicating to the spouses Sayson said agricultural land andapproving its registration under their names.The oppositors filed their appeal to the CA. The appellate court affirmed in toto the Decision of the CFI. This CA Decision became final and executory on August 21, 1985 and, accordingly, aWrit of Possession was issued on November 21, 1985, which was never implemented.The following year or on September 17, 1986, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 2496 wasissued to the spouses Sayson pursuant to the March 22, 1979 CFI Decision. An Alias Writ of Possession was issued on April 6, 1989 but this could also not be implemented in view of therefusal of Eugenio Sr. and his son Eugenio Basbas, Jr. (Eugenio Jr.). Claiming that the land theyoccupied is not the same land subject of the CFI Decision, they demanded that a relocationsurvey be conducted.The RTC approved the Commissioner's Report on the relocation survey and ordered the originaloppositors, petitioners Eugenio Sr., Teofilo and Rufino, as well as their co-petitioners herein tovacate the subject property.This September 13, 1989 Order was, however, not implemented within the five-year periodfrom the time it became final. Hence, respondent Beata and her son Roberto Sayson, Jr.
(Roberto Jr.), as successor-in-interest of the late Roberto Sr., filed on August 18, 1995 aComplaint for Revival of Judgment before the RTC of Ormoc City.
Whether or not the respondents are entitled to revival of judgment in the earlier landregistration case and recover the subject property.
Yes.While we note that the present action for revival of judgment is not an action for recovery, theSeptember 13, 1989 Order sought to be revived herein ordered the petitioners, among others,to vacate the subject property pursuant to the final and executory judgment of the CA affirmingthe CFI's adjudication of the same in favor of respondents. This Order was issued after thefailure to enforce the writ of execution and alias writ of execution due to petitioners' refusal tovacate the property. To this Court's mind, respondents' purpose in instituting the presentaction is not only to have the CA Decision in the land registration case finally implemented butultimately, to recover possession thereof from petitioners. This action is therefore one whichRoberto Jr., as co-owner, can bring and prosecute alone, on his own behalf and on behalf of hisco-owner, Beata. Hence, a dismissal of the case with respect to Beata pursuant to Sec. 5, Rule18 of the Rules of Court will be futile as the case could nevertheless be continued by Roberto Jr.in behalf of the two of them.
G.R. No. 179978, 31 August 2011Villarama, JR.,
On January 19, 2001, petitioner DCD Construction, Inc., through its President and CEO Danilo D.Dira, Jr., filed a verified application for registration of a parcel of land situated in Taytay, DanaoCity with an area of 4,493 square meters. It was alleged that applicant which acquired theproperty by purchase, together with its predecessors-in-interest, have been in continuous,open, adverse, public, uninterrupted, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of theproperty for more than thirty (30) years. Thus, petitioner prayed to have its title judiciallyconfirmed.
Based on petitioner’s documentary and testimonial evidence, it appears that the approved
technical description is allegedly identical to that of another lot consisting of 3,781 squaremeters. 712 square meters of said lot can be segregated as salvage zone pursuant to DENRAdministrative Order No. 97-05.On August 22, 2002, the trial court declared that the applicant DCD CONSTRUCTION INC., has aregisterable title to subject lot.On appeal by respondent Republic of the Philippines, the CA reversed the trial court. The CAruled that the evidence failed to show that the land applied for was alienable and disposableconsidering that only a notation in the survey plan was presented to show the status of theproperty. It was further noted that the earliest tax declaration submitted was issued only in1988. It was also held that petitioner did not prove open, continuous, exclusive and notoriouspossession under a
bona fide
claim of ownership since June 12, 1945.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->