Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
This case is filed by the spouses Roman A. Pascual and Mercedita Pascual
(Spouses Pascual), Francisco A. Pascual, Margarita Corazon D. Mariano,
Edwin D. Mariano, and Danny R. Mariano
The instant case involves a 1,539 square meter parcel of land (subject
property) situated in Barangay Sta. Maria, Laoag Cityand covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-30375[3] of the Laoag City registry
The subject property is owned by the following persons, with the extent of
their respective shares over the same: (1) the spouses Albino and Margarita
Corazon Mariano, 330 square meters; (2) Angela Melchor (Angela), 466.5
square meters; and (3) the spouses Melecio and Victoria Melchor (Spouses
Melchor), 796.5 square meters.
To whom did Margarita, together with her children, sell the property when she
become widow?
Petitioners - They claim that there's no co-ownership over the subject property
considering the shares of the registered owners. Hence the respondents have
no right to redeem the portion of the subject property that was sold to them.
2. The RTC ruled that the respondents failed to seasonably exercise their
right of redemption within the 30-day period pursuant to Article 1623 of
the Civil Code. Notwithstanding the lack of a written notice of the sale of
a portion of the subject property to Spouses Pascual and Francisco, the
RTC asserted that the respondents had actual notice of the said sale.
Failing to exercise their right of redemption within 30 days from actual
notice of the said sale, the RTC opined that the respondents can no
longer seek for the redemption of the property as against the petitioners
The appeal of the respondents was GRANTED and the appealed January 31,
2007 Decision is, accordingly, REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof,
another is entered approving [respondents] legal redemption of the portion in
litigation. The rest of their monetary claims were, however, DENIED for lack of
factual and/or legal bases.
The petition was denied. The assailed ruling of RTC was Affirmed.
Case 2
FACTS:
The Bidding Rules also provide that if the importer fails to make the
importation or if the imported sugar fails to arrive on or before the
set arrival date, 25% of the conversion fee is forfeited in favor of the
Sugar Regulatory Administration.
Pursuant to the Bidding Rules, Sugar Mill paid 25% of the conversion
fee amounting to P14,340,000.00, while Pacific Sugar paid 25% of the
conversion fee amounting to P28,599,000.00.
The Court of Appeals held that the deputized SRA counsel had
authority to file a notice of appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not a deputized SRA counsel may file a notice of appeal.
First issue: The deputized SRA counsel may file a notice of appeal.
Section 35, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code of
1987 authorizes the OSG to represent the SRA, a government agency
established pursuant to Executive Order No. 18, Series of 1986, in any
litigation, proceeding, investigation, or matter requiring the services
of lawyers.
Paragraph G.1 of the Bidding Rules provides that if the importer fails
to make the importation, 25% of the conversion fee shall be forfeited
in favor of the SRA.
Case 3