Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Facts:
Ponce apparently gained possession of a considerable tract
of land in Nueva Ecija (1882) by taking advantage of the
Royal Decree to obtain possessory information title to the
land and registered as such.
Parcel 1 was sold to Ramos and wife Salamanca.
Ramos instituted appropriate proceedings to have his title
registered.
Director of Lands opposed on the groung that Ramos had
not acquired a good title from the Spanish Government, and
by the Director of Forestry on the ground that the Parcel 1
was forest land.
Trial Court excluded Parcel 1 from registration.
Facts:
Issue:
WON the actual occupancy of a part of land sufficient to give title to
the entire tract of land
Held:
Yes, based on the doctrine of constructive possession.
The general rule is that the possession and cultivation of a
portion of a tract under claim of ownership of all is a
constructive possession of all, if the remainder is not in
adverse possession of another.
The claimant has color of title, he acted in good faith and he
has open, peaceable and notorious possession of a portion
of the property, sufficient to apprise the community and the
world that the land was for his enjoyment.
Possession in the eyes of law does not mean that a man has
to have his feet on every square meter of ground before it
can be said that he is in possession.
Issue:
WON the courts can reclassify the subject public land.
Held:
Kasilag v Rodriguez
Facts:
The parties stipulated that Ambrosio was to pay the debt with
interest within 4 years and in such case, mortgage would
not have any effect. They also agreed that Ambrosio would
execute a deed of sale if it would not be paid within 4
years and that she would pay the tax on the land.
After a year, it turned out that she was not able to pay the
tax.
Issue:
Issue:
Facts:
Issue:
W.O.N. the courts should fix the duration of possession.
Held:
Cuaycong v. Benedicto
Issues
1. WON the Nanca-Victorias road a public highway. (NO)
2. If on the negative, WON the Nanca-Victoria road, or that part of it
which crosses the Hacienda Toreno, is subject to a private easement
of way in favor of the appellees Cuaycong et al. (NO)
Held
The Supreme Court from the testimonial evidence presented that the
use of the road in question is limited to the use of owners, tenants, or
employees of adjoining estates but there is nothing in the evidence
to indicate that the use extended beyond this i.e. not used by the
public in general.
It is not averred in the complaint that the road in question
was used by the public. On the contrary, it is averred that it
was used by the plaintiffs and their predecessors. It shows
that when they commenced this action they had in mind the
provisions of articles 564 [649 NCC], et seq. of the Civil
Code, which relate to the method of establishing the
compulsory easement of way. The owners of an existing
easement, as well as those whose properties are adjacent
with a public road, have no occasion to invoke these
provisions of the Code, which relate to the creation of new
rights, and not the enforcement of rights already in
existence.
Where it appears that the road has been kept in repair by
private enterprise and that the Government has not
contributed to the cost of its construction and maintenance,
such road shall be presumed private.
The mere fact that the tract of land has been used for a long
time as a road will not alone warrant the presumption that it
has been dedicated to the public.
There being no evidence that the original use of the road by
plaintiffs' predecessors was based upon any grant of the fee
to the road or of an easement of way, or that it began under
the assertion of a right on their part, the presumption must
be that the origin of the use was the mere tolerance or
license of the owners of the estates affected.
Possession, to constitute the foundation of prescriptive right,
must be possession under claim of title i.e. it must be
adverse. Acts of possessory character performed by one
who holds by mere tolerance of the owner cannot be made
the basis of the prescriptive acquisition of rights. This
principle is applicable not only with respect to the
prescription of the dominium as a whole, but to the
prescription of right in rem.
After Mitra had paid in full the price, a final deed of sale was
executed in his favor and TCT was issued to him.
ISSUE:
W/N Astudillo has a cause of action to annul the sale of Lot
16 to Mitra.
HELD:
HELD:
No.
PERAN v CFI
FACTS:
Yu vs. Honrado
Facts:
Subject of the case is the possession of about forty-two metric tons
of scrap engine blocks (valued at more than forty thousand pesos),
part of a stock which Marcelo Steel Corporation sold to an alleged
swindler and which scrap iron was allegedly purchased in good faith
by the Yu spouses from the swindler but retrieved from the
purchasers by Marcelo Steel Corporation by means of a search
warrant.
Held: