Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Obli 41 - Villegas Vs Arjona

    Transféré par

    MariaAyraCelinaBatacan
    141 vues2 pages
    In 1996, petitioners Proceso Quiros and Leonarda Villegas filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land located at Labney, Pangasinan. Petitioners sought to recover from their uncle Marcelo arjona, one of the respondents herein, their lawful share of the inheritance from their late grandmother Rosa Arjona Quiros alias Doza. In 1997, an amicable settlement was reached between the parties by reason thereof, respondent Arjona executed a document

    Description originale:

    Titre original

    Obli 41 - Villegas vs Arjona

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    DOC, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    In 1996, petitioners Proceso Quiros and Leonarda Villegas filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land located at Labney, Pangasinan. Petitioners sought to recover from their uncle Marcelo arjona, one of the respondents herein, their lawful share of the inheritance from their late grandmother Rosa Arjona Quiros alias Doza. In 1997, an amicable settlement was reached between the parties by reason thereof, respondent Arjona executed a document

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme DOC, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    141 vues2 pages

    Obli 41 - Villegas Vs Arjona

    Transféré par

    MariaAyraCelinaBatacan
    In 1996, petitioners Proceso Quiros and Leonarda Villegas filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land located at Labney, Pangasinan. Petitioners sought to recover from their uncle Marcelo arjona, one of the respondents herein, their lawful share of the inheritance from their late grandmother Rosa Arjona Quiros alias Doza. In 1997, an amicable settlement was reached between the parties by reason thereof, respondent Arjona executed a document

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme DOC, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 2

    VILLEGASvs.

    ARJONA
    Facts
    In Dec 1996, petitioners Proceso Quiros and Leonarda Villegas filed with the office of the
    barangaycaptainofLabney,Pangasinan,acomplaintforrecoveryofownershipandpossession
    ofaparceloflandlocatedatLabney,Pangasinan.Petitionerssoughttorecoverfromtheiruncle
    MarceloArjona,oneoftherespondentsherein,theirlawfulshareoftheinheritancefromtheir
    lategrandmotherRosaArjonaQuirosaliasDoza.
    In1997,anamicablesettlementwasreachedbetweentheparties.Byreasonthereof,respondent
    Arjona executed a document denominated as "PAKNAAN" ("Agreement", in Pangasinan
    dialect).
    PetitionersfiledacomplaintwiththeMCTCwithprayerfortheissuanceofawritofexecution
    of the compromise agreement which was denied because the subject property cannot be
    determinedwithcertainty.
    TheRTCreversedthedecisionofthemunicipalcourtonappealandorderedtheissuanceofthe
    writofexecution.
    RespondentsappealedtotheCA,whichreversedthedecisionoftheRTCandreinstatedthe
    decisionoftheMCTC.
    Issue:
    WhetherornotthefailuretoincludeinthePaknaanasufficientdescriptionoftheproperty
    toconveycallsfornullificationofthePaknaanorforreformationonly.
    Ruling:
    Forreformationonly.
    Althoughbothpartiesagreedtotransferonehectarerealproperty,theyfailedtoincludein
    thewrittendocumentasufficientdescriptionofthepropertytoconvey.Thiserrorisnotonefor
    nullificationoftheinstrumentbutonlyforreformationsincethereisnoquestionthattherewas
    meetingofthemindsbetweenthecontractingparties.Clearly,thePaknaanhasalltheearmarks
    ofavalidcontract.
    Theinabilityofthemunicipalcourttoidentifytheexactlocationoftheinheritedproperty
    didnotnegatetheprincipalobjectofthecontract.Thisisanerroroccasionedbythefailureof
    thepartiestodescribethesubjectproperty,whichiscorrectiblebyreformationanddoesnot
    indicatetheabsenceoftheprincipalobjectastorenderthecontractvoid.Itcannotbedisputed
    thattheobjectisdeterminableastoitskindandcanbedetermined withoutneedofanew
    contractoragreement.
    Reformationisaremedyinequitywherebyawritteninstrumentismadeorconstruedsoas
    toexpressorconformtotherealintentionofthepartieswheresomeerrorormistakehasbeen

    committed.Ingrantingreformation,theremedyinequityisnotmakinganewcontractforthe
    parties,butestablishingandperpetuatingtherealcontractbetweentheparties.
    InorderthatanactionforreformationofinstrumentasprovidedinArticle1359oftheCivil
    Codemayprosper,thefollowingrequisitesmustconcur:(1)theremusthavebeenameetingof
    themindsofthepartiestothecontract;(2)theinstrumentdoesnotexpressthetrueintentionof
    theparties;and(3)thefailureoftheinstrumenttoexpressthetrueintentionofthepartiesisdue
    tomistake,fraud,inequitableconductoraccident.
    Bothpartiesacknowledgethatpetitionersareentitledtotheirinheritance,hence,theremedy
    ofnullification,whichinvalidatesthePaknaan,wouldprejudicepetitionersanddeprivethemof
    theirjustshareoftheinheritance.Respondentcannot,asanafterthought,beallowedtorenege
    on his legal obligation to transfer the property to its rightful heirs. A refusal to reform
    thePaknaanunder such circumstances would have the effect of penalizing one party for
    negligentconduct,andatthesametimepermittingtheotherpartytoescapetheconsequencesof
    hisnegligenceandprofitthereby.Nopersonshallbeunjustlyenrichedattheexpenseofanother.

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi