Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Presbiterio Vs Fernandez Facts

    Uploaded by

    Katrina Vianca Decapia
    42 views4 pages
    1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land inherited by American citizens Helen Guzman and David Rey Guzman from Simeon de Guzman. Helen quitclaimed her interest in the land to David Rey, who then sold the land to Filipino citizen Emiliano Catanig. 2) Petitioners claimed a right to redeem the land under Article 1621 of the Civil Code. The courts found that while the initial transfer to the American citizen David Rey violated the Constitution, the subsequent sale to Catanig "cured" the flaw and rendered the title valid. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the sale, finding that the constitutional aim of preserving land for Fil

    Original Description:

    r

    Original Title

    Prop CD

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land inherited by American citizens Helen Guzman and David Rey Guzman from Simeon de Guzman. Helen quitclaimed her interest in the land to David Rey, who then sold the land to Filipino citizen Emiliano Catanig. 2) Petitioners claimed a right to redeem the land under Article 1621 of the Civil Code. The courts found that while the initial transfer to the American citizen David Rey violated the Constitution, the subsequent sale to Catanig "cured" the flaw and rendered the title valid. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the sale, finding that the constitutional aim of preserving land for Fil

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    42 views4 pages

    Presbiterio Vs Fernandez Facts

    Uploaded by

    Katrina Vianca Decapia
    1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land inherited by American citizens Helen Guzman and David Rey Guzman from Simeon de Guzman. Helen quitclaimed her interest in the land to David Rey, who then sold the land to Filipino citizen Emiliano Catanig. 2) Petitioners claimed a right to redeem the land under Article 1621 of the Civil Code. The courts found that while the initial transfer to the American citizen David Rey violated the Constitution, the subsequent sale to Catanig "cured" the flaw and rendered the title valid. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the sale, finding that the constitutional aim of preserving land for Fil

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Presbiterio vs Fernandez

    Facts:

    1) ESPERIDION Presbitero failed to furnish Nava the value of the properties under litigation.
    2.)Presbitero was ordered by the lower court to pay Nava to settle his debts. 3) Nava's counsel
    still tried to settle this case with Presbitero, out of court. But to no avail. 4) Thereafter, the
    sheriff levied upon and garnished the sugar quotas allotted to the plantation and adhered to the
    Ma-ao Mill District and registered in the name of Presbitero as the original plantation owner. 5)
    The sheriff was not able to present for registration thererof to the Registry of Deeds. 6) The
    court then ordered Presbitero to segregate the portion of Lot 608 pertaining to Nava from the
    mass of properties belonging to the defendant within a period to expire on August 1960. 7)
    Bottomline, Presbitero did not meet his obligations, and the auction sale was scheduled. 8)
    Presbitero died after. 9) RICARDO Presbitero, the estate administrator, then petitioned that the
    sheriff desist in holding the auction sale on the ground that the levy on the sugar quotas was
    invalid because the notice thereof was not registered with the Registry of Deeds.

    Issue:

    W/N the sugar quotas are real (immovable) or personal properties.

    Held:

    1) They are real properties. 2) Legal bases: a) The Sugar Limitation Law xxx attaching to the land
    xxx (p 631) b) RA 1825 xxx to be an improvement attaching to the land xxx (p 631) c) EO # 873
    "plantation" xxx to which is attached an allotment of centrifugal sugar. 3) Under the express
    provisions of law, the sugar quota allocations are accessories to the land, and cannot have
    independent existence away from a plantation. 4) Since the levy is invalid for non-compliance
    with law, xxx the levy amount to no levy at all

    US vs Carlos

    FACTS:

    Mr Carlos stole about 2273 kilowatts of electricity worth 909 pesos from Meralco. The court issued
    warrant for arrest. Mr. Carlos demurred and refused to enter a plea. He claimed that what he did
    failed to constitute an offense. His counsel further asserted that the crime of larceny applied only to
    tangibles, chattels and objects that can be taken into possession and spirited away.

    Deliberation quickly followed at the court which subsequently sentenced him to over a year in jail.
    Mr. Carlos contested saying that electrical energy cant be stolen (how can one steal an incorporeal
    thing?). He filed an appeal on such grounds and the court of first instance affirmed the decision. The
    case reached the supreme court.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not larceny can be committed against an intangible such as electricity

    HELD:

    Yes, larceny of incorporeal objects is possible. The right of ownership of electrical current was
    secured by

    Art 517 and 518 of the Penal Code which applies to gas.

    Analogically, electricity can be considered as gas which can be stolen. However, the true test of
    what constitutes the proper subject of larceny is not whether the subject is corporeal or
    incorporeal, but whether is is capable of appropriation by another other than the owner. It is a
    valuable article of merchandise, a force of nature brought under the control of science. Mr. Carlos
    secretly and with intent to deprive the company of its rightful property, used jumper cables to
    appropriate the same for his own use. This constitutes larceny.

    Pio Modesto et al Carlos Urbina et al

    FACTS:

    This case originates from a complaint of recovery of possession filed by respondent Urbina against
    thepetitioners Modesto, with the RTC of Pasig sometime in 1983.Urbina in his complaint alleged
    that he was the owner of a parcel of land situated at Lower Bicutan,Taguig.According to Urbina, the
    Modestos, through stealth, scheme, and machination, were able to occupy aportion of his
    property.Thereafter, the Modestos negotiated with Urbina for the sale of said lot. However, before
    the partiescould finalize the sale, the Modestos allegedly cancelled the transaction and began
    claiming ownership over the lot.The Modestos claimed that Urbina could not be the lawful owner of
    the lands because it was stillgovernment property, being part of the Fort Bonifacio Military
    Reservation.

    ISSUES:

    1. Whether or not the land subject of the controversy, is indeed, government property, hence,
    cannotbe privately owned.2. Whether or not petitioner have a better right of possession since they
    were in actual, adverse, public,and continuous possession of the property.

    HELD:

    1. Yes. The SC upheld the factual findings of the Land Management Bureau (LMB), the
    administrativeagency tasked with assisting the DENR in the management and disposition of
    alienable an disposable lands ofthe public domain when it invalidated the claim of respondent of
    possessory rights over said property since it

    was not yet alienable and disposable lands prior to then President Cory Aquinos public declaration
    of P

    .D. No.172 reclassifying it to be alienable and disposable lands on October 16, 1987.2. Yes. The
    Court resolved the issue by applying the legal provisions covering the subject property whichwas
    P.D. No. 172 implementing guidelines M.O. No. 119 where one of the qualifications to ownership is
    that onemust have constructed a house in the proclaimed area for disposition on or prior to January
    6, 1986 andactually residing therein.As reported by the special investigator and other land
    inspectors, it was the Modestos who were theactual occupants of the area unlike Urbina who never
    occupied the land and instead has been residing inMakati City

    Halili vs CA

    Facts:

    Simeon de Guzman, an American citizen, died sometime in 1968, leaving real

    properties in the Philippines. His forced heirs were his widow private respondent Helen

    Meyers Guzman, and his son, private respondent David Rey Guzman, both of whom

    are also American citizens. On August 9, 1989, Helen executed a deed of quitclaim,

    assigning, transferring and conveying to David Rey all her rights, titles and interests in

    and over six parcels of land which the two of them inherited from Simeon.

    Among the said parcels of land is that now in litigation Guzman then sold the

    parcel of land to Catanaig, who is one of respondents in this case. Petitioners, who are

    owners of the adjoining lot, filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos,

    Bulacan, questioning the constitutionality and validity of the two conveyances

    between Helen Guzman and David Rey Guzman, and between the latter and Emiliano

    Cataniag and claiming ownership thereto based on their right of legal redemption

    under Art. 1621 of the Civil Code. The trial court dismissed the complaint. The CA

    denied the appeal of the Halilis.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the sale of the land is null and void.

    Ruling:

    No, because the prohibition in the constitution has already been served. Article

    XII, Section 7 provides that Non- Filipinos cannot acquire or hold title to private lands or

    to lands of the public domain, In fine, non-Filipinos cannot acquire or hold title to private

    lands or to lands of the public domain, except only by way of legal succession. While it

    is true that the transfer of Helen of his right to her son who is an American citizen

    contradicts the prohibition set forth in the Constitution, the Supreme Court upheld the

    subsequent sale of the land to Catanig, a Filipino citizen. Jurisprudence is consistent

    that if land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a citizen or

    transfers it to a citizen, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the

    title of the transferee is rendered valid.

    The rationale of this principle was explained in Vasquez vs. Li Seng Giap thus

    [I]f the ban on aliens from acquiring not only agricultural but also urban lands, as

    construed by this Court in the Krivenko case, is to preserve the nations lands for future

    generations of Filipinos, that aim or purpose would not be thwarted but achieved by

    making lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino citizens by

    naturalization.

    Petition was denied.

    You might also like