![]() ![]() They insisted that the deed of sale was genuine and authentic and was issued and certified by the Deputy Clerk of Court of the RTC. ![]() 6 Anent the alleged lack of cause of action due to the spurious deed of sale, petitioners argued that this contention was a matter of evidence which might only be resolved in a full-blown trial. Petitioners filed their Comment to Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses. Third, the action was also barred by res judicata and violated the prohibition against forum shopping, considering that petitioners had earlier filed a similar case for quieting of title against respondents, docketed as Civil Case No. They also raised the settled rule that a title registered under the Torrens system could not be defeated by adverse, open and notorious possession, or by prescription. Hence, it was much too late for petitioners to institute the action after more than 80 years. Second, the action was barred by prescription and that petitioners were guilty of laches in asserting their interest over the subject lot, considering that Land Registration Decree No. RO-1138 (11376) of the Registry of Deeds of Pampanga. The predecessors-in-interest of petitioners were among the oppositors in the land registration proceeding but, nevertheless, after the trial, the subject lot was awarded, decreed and titled in favor of respondents’ predecessor-in-interest, as per OCT No. 128, by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, in favor of their predecessor-in-interest. 122511 issued on Jin Land Registration Case No. They argued that: First, the petitioners "have no valid, legal and sufficient cause of action" 5 against them, because their deed of sale was spurious and could not prevail over Land Registration Decree No. They denied the allegations in the complaint and proffered affirmative defenses with counterclaims. RO-1138 (11376), as per the Project of Partition and Deed of Agreement, dated Januand that petitioners had been occupying the property by mere tolerance. 213777-R that they had inherited the same from their predecessor-in-interest, Fausta Baluyut, one of the registered owners under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. In their Answer, 4 respondents asserted that they were the absolute owners of the subject land as per TCT No. Hence, they prayed that the title be cancelled and a new title be issued in their favor. 213777-R that the said title was invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable and that they were the true owners of the property. Quiazon (respondents), claiming ownership over the subject property and demanding that they vacate the same that upon inquiry with the Register of Deeds of San Fernando, Pampanga, they confirmed that the property had been titled in the name of respondents under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. They alleged that they were the heirs of the late Epifanio Makam and Severina Bautista, who acquired a house and lot situated in Magalang, Pampanga, consisting of 557 square meters, by virtue of a Deed of Sale, dated Apthat since then, they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, adverse, and notorious possession for more than a hundred years, constructing houses and paying real estate taxes on the property that sometime in June 2005, they received various demand letters from the respondents, namely, Cesar B. Naguit, Rosalina Naguit Aumentado, Rizel Naguit Cunanan, Caridad Naguit Parajas, Millie Naguit Florendo, Marnel Naguit, Eduardo Naguit, Jose Naguit, Zoilo Naguit, and AmeliaNaguit Dizon, represented by Yssel L. On December 16, 2005, a complaint 3 for Annulment and Quieting of Title was filed before the RTC-Branch59 by the petitioners, namely, Leticia Naguit Aquino, Melvin Naguit, Rommel Naguit, Elma Naguit Tayag, Yssel L. ![]() 05-076, dismissing the complaint for quieting of title filed by the petitioners. 92887, which affirmed the Orders 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Angeles City, Branch 59, in SP Civil Case No. QUIAZON, Respondents.īefore the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the MaDecision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. NAGUIT, ROSALINA NAGUIT AUMENTADO, RIZEL NAGUIT CUNANAN, CARIDAD NAGUIT PARAJAS, MILLIE NAGUIT FLORENDO, MARNEL NAGUIT, EDUARDO NAGUIT, JOSE NAGUIT, ZOILO NAGUIT, AND AMELIA NAGUIT DIZON, represented by YSSEL L. LETICIA NAGUIT AQUINO, MELVIN NAGUIT, ROMMEL NAGUIT, ELMA NAGUIT TAYAG, YSSEL L. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |