Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Logrosa vs. Spouses Azares

    Uploaded by

    Rob
    2K views2 pages
    1) Petitioner Logrosa claimed he was a co-owner of eight parcels of land based on titles listing him as such along with respondents. 2) A notarized deed of absolute sale from 1987 showed petitioner and respondents collectively purchased the properties from the original owner. 3) Respondents Azares disputed petitioner's claim, arguing he never contributed to the properties' acquisition or maintenance and only worked for them. 4) The court ruled petitioner was a co-owner based on the titles and notarized deed listing him as a co-buyer, and respondents failed to prove otherwise.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    99. Logrosa vs. Spouses Azares

    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) Petitioner Logrosa claimed he was a co-owner of eight parcels of land based on titles listing him as such along with respondents. 2) A notarized deed of absolute sale from 1987 showed petitioner and respondents collectively purchased the properties from the original owner. 3) Respondents Azares disputed petitioner's claim, arguing he never contributed to the properties' acquisition or maintenance and only worked for them. 4) The court ruled petitioner was a co-owner based on the titles and notarized deed listing him as a co-buyer, and respondents failed to prove otherwise.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    Logrosa vs. Spouses Azares

    Uploaded by

    Rob
    1) Petitioner Logrosa claimed he was a co-owner of eight parcels of land based on titles listing him as such along with respondents. 2) A notarized deed of absolute sale from 1987 showed petitioner and respondents collectively purchased the properties from the original owner. 3) Respondents Azares disputed petitioner's claim, arguing he never contributed to the properties' acquisition or maintenance and only worked for them. 4) The court ruled petitioner was a co-owner based on the titles and notarized deed listing him as a co-buyer, and respondents failed to prove otherwise.

    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 2

    G.R. No.

    217611, March 27, 2019

    ROGELIO LOGROSA, PETITIONER, v. SPOUSES CLEOFE AND CESAR AZARES,


    SPOUSES ABUNDIO, JR. AND ANTONIETA TORRES, SPOUSES NELSON SALA AND
    ARLENE ANG, AND SPOUSES BONIFACIO, JR., AND WELHELMINA BARUIZ,
    RESPONDENTS.

    Facts: Petitioner Logrosa alleged that he, together with the respondents are co-owners of eight
    (8) parcels of lands the Transfer Certificates of. The TCTs all indicate that petitioner Logrosa,
    together with the respondents, are co-owners of the subject properties.

    Petitioner Logrosa alleged that in 1987, the original owner of the subject properties, one
    Benjamin A. Gonzales, sold the subject properties collectively to petitioner Logrosa and the
    other respondents. The records show that a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale was executed by
    the parties, bearing the signatures of Gonzales, petitioner Logrosa, respondents Cleofe, Nelson,
    Bonifacio, and Abundio.

    Respondents Sps. Azares contended that while it may be true that petitioner Logrosa's name
    appeared in the titles of the properties aforementioned, however, they belied petitioner
    Logrosa's claim that he is a co-owner of the same, as he never contributed as to its acquisition
    and never contributed for their maintenance, much less paid the taxes due thereon.

    They further alleged that petitioner Logrosa, being their cousin, used to work for them as their
    trusted laborer together with the other respondents at their gold mining tunnel. They also
    allowed petitioner Logrosa to construct his house upon condition that petitioner Logrosa would
    pay and reimburse them for all his expenses thereto when petitioner Logrosa's finances allow.

    It is the main contention of respondents Sps. Azares that despite the inclusion in the documents
    of title of petitioner Logrosa and the other parties.

    Issue: Whether or not petitioner Logrosa is a co-owner of the subject property.

    Held: No. It is a fundamental principle in land registration that the certificate of title serves as
    evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose
    name appears therein. It becomes the best proof of ownership of a parcel of land. Such
    principle of indefeasibility has long been well-settled in this jurisdiction and it is only when the
    acquisition of the title is attended with fraud or bad faith that the doctrine finds no application. In
    the instant case, there is no accusation whatsoever that petitioner Logrosa was included as co-
    owner in the TCTs through means of fraud or bad faith.

    Aside from the foregoing, it is also not disputed by any party that a duly notarized Deed of
    Absolute Sale was executed by all the parties, wherein it clearly states without ambiguity that
    one of the vendees of the subject properties is petitioner Logrosa. It must be stressed that
    respondents Sps. Azares do not deny whatsoever that petitioner Logrosa is a co-vendee under
    the Deed of Absolute Sale.

    The Court has previously held that a document evidencing a sale transaction, such as a deed of
    sale, which is duly notarized is considered a public document and therefore enjoys the
    presumption of validity as to its authenticity and due execution.
    It is not disputed that petitioner Logrosa possesses a portion of the subject property with no
    opposition by the other parties, aside from respondents Sps. Azares, who disclaimed petitioner
    Logrosa's status as co-owner only after more than two decades since the execution of the Deed
    of Absolute Sale, and only as a mere reaction to the Complaint for Partition filed by petitioner
    Logrosa.

    Hence, with the strong legal presumption created by the eight certificates of title and duly
    notarized Deed of Absolute Sale that petitioner Logrosa is a co-buyer and co-owner of the
    subject properties, the burden to prove otherwise was shifted to respondents Sps. Azares.

    From the evidence on record, the Court finds that respondents Sps. Azares have not
    successfully hurdled this burden.

    You might also like