Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2.republic Vs Sayo

    Uploaded by

    Jay-rCanonigoCastillon
    7 views1 page
    The Supreme Court was asked to annul a lower court judgment approving a compromise agreement to partition 33,950 hectares of land among private parties. The Solicitor General argued the land was still part of the public domain. The Supreme Court ruled the lower court's judgment was incorrect because a compromise agreement alone is not sufficient basis for land registration. There must be competent evidence proving private ownership and an act reclassifying and declaring the land as alienable.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    2.Republic vs Sayo

    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 Supreme Court was asked to annul a lower court judgment approving a compromise agreement to partition 33,950 hectares of land among private parties. The Solicitor General argued the land was still part of the public domain. The Supreme Court ruled the lower court's judgment was incorrect because a compromise agreement alone is not sufficient basis for land registration. There must be competent evidence proving private ownership and an act reclassifying and declaring the land as alienable.

    Copyright:

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

    2.republic Vs Sayo

    Uploaded by

    Jay-rCanonigoCastillon
    The Supreme Court was asked to annul a lower court judgment approving a compromise agreement to partition 33,950 hectares of land among private parties. The Solicitor General argued the land was still part of the public domain. The Supreme Court ruled the lower court's judgment was incorrect because a compromise agreement alone is not sufficient basis for land registration. There must be competent evidence proving private ownership and an act reclassifying and declaring the land as alienable.

    Copyright:

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

    Republic vs Sayo

    GR. No. L-60413 October 31, 1990


    NARVASA, J.:

    FACTS:
    Casiano Sandoval and Luz Marquez filed an application for registration of the 33,950-
    hectare land. This was opposed by the Director of Lands and Director of Forestry. 20 years later,
    the parties entered into a compromise agreement that the said land will be partitioned among
    them. Subsequently, the judge rendered its decision and approved the said compromised
    agreement.
    The Solicitor General ask the Supreme Court for the annulment of the said judgment
    stating that the land is still part of the public domain.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the judgement of the lower court is correct?

    RULING:
    No, the judgment of the lower court is not correct. The compromise agreement should
    not be the basis of approving the registration. It should be a competent evidence that proves
    ownership and an act of the executive reclassifying the said land into an agricultural land.
    Further there must also proof that the said agricultural land was already been declared as an
    alienable land.

    You might also like