Facts:
·
Pablo D. Palma filed an ejectment against Eduardo Reyes Cristobal
of a parcel of land in Tondo, Manila. It was decided in favor of Cristobal. He
filed a petition to be declared the owner of the land. Petition was dismissed
by the TC and CA.
·
1909 – OCT 1627 issued in the names of Pablo Palma and Luisa
Cristobal.
·
1923 – OCT 1627 cancelled and substituted by TCT 20968
·
Substituted by TCT 26794 in the name of PP and LC
·
1922 – Luisa Critobal died and the certificate was
substituted with only the name of Pablo Palma.
·
CFI:
o
community property held by Pablo Palma in trust for the real owners.
Eduardo Reyes Cristobal is an heir of the real owners.
o
Registered by reason of the confidence of the co-owners to PP and LC #peaches
o
Co-owners were receiving their shares in the rentals so they
did not partition
·
CA:
o
At the death of LC and PP had taken a second wife that
trouble arose between PP and ERC.
o
LC on her deathbed asked PP to give her co-owners theirs
shares in the parcel of land
Issue
and Ruling:
·
1st Issue
o
Petitioner: CA considered the oral testimony to re rebut the
legal presumption that he is the owner of the land
o
Court: Fiduciary relationship between PP and ERC. As an agent,
he cannot assert a title adverse to that of the principal
·
2nd Issue
o
Petitioner: After LC died n 1922, instead of partitioning the
property, considering that PP promised the partition, ERC appeared as attorney
for petitioner and prayed that a new TCT be issued as the sole owner of the
property.
o
ERC party to the fraud upon court and that estops him from
asserting that he is the co-owner of the land.
o
Court: Fact that ERC is a party to the deception is not a
valid reason for changing the legal relationship between the petitioner and its
true owners. Fraud cannot affect the substantial rights of the real owners.
o
ERC is not barred because his appearance as attorney for
petitioner was not a misrepresentation which would induce petitioner to believe
that respondent recognized PP as the sole owner.
o
ERC’s appearance as attorney for petitioner in 1923 was a
consequence of the understanding, and petitioner could not legitimately assume
that it had the effect of breaking or reversing said understanding.
·
3rd Issue
o
Petitioner: He acquired absolute ownership through
prescription. When he caused the trust property and partitioned it between
himself and his daughter Ildelfonsa Cristobal Ditangco he openly breached the
agreement of 1909 and his promise to his dying wife and that breach was an assumption
of ownership.
o
Court: PP cannot acquire it by prescription because he held
it in a fiduciary capacity. Position is that of a cestui que trust.
0 comments:
Post a Comment