Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Roxas Et Al Vs Cuevas Et Al (1907)

    Uploaded by

    JOFAMIL SEVILLENO
    46 views1 page
    This document summarizes a court case from 1907 regarding an application for registration of title to a large tract of land in the Philippines. Several groups opposed the application. The court held that in order for an opposition to be valid, it must claim some right of ownership or real right over the land, not just oppose the adjudication in general. Since the opposition groups did not claim their own rights over the land, just that it belonged to the government instead of private individuals, they did not have standing to appeal the registration of title to the applicants.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Roxas et al vs Cuevas et al (1907)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case from 1907 regarding an application for registration of title to a large tract of land in the Philippines. Several groups opposed the application. The court held that in order for an opposition to be valid, it must claim some right of ownership or real right over the land, not just oppose the adjudication in general. Since the opposition groups did not claim their own rights over the land, just that it belonged to the government instead of private individuals, they did not have standing to appeal the registration of title to the applicants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    46 views1 page

    Roxas Et Al Vs Cuevas Et Al (1907)

    Uploaded by

    JOFAMIL SEVILLENO
    This document summarizes a court case from 1907 regarding an application for registration of title to a large tract of land in the Philippines. Several groups opposed the application. The court held that in order for an opposition to be valid, it must claim some right of ownership or real right over the land, not just oppose the adjudication in general. Since the opposition groups did not claim their own rights over the land, just that it belonged to the government instead of private individuals, they did not have standing to appeal the registration of title to the applicants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    CHAPTER 8: METHODS OF REGISTRATION

    ROXAS, ET AL. v. CUEVAS, ET AL.


    G.R. No. L-3637, August 31, 1907

    FACTS:
    An application was filed with the Court of Land Registration for the registration in their name of certain land
    situated in the Province of La Laguna, known as Hacienda of Calauang, having an area of 7,813 hectares and 87
    ares, valued according to the last assessment at $525,000. The Government of the Philippine Islands through the
    Attorney-General; 367 residents of the town of Calauang, Province of La Laguna, represented by Jose Santiago; 136
    residents of the ancient town of Alaminos, now a barrio of the municipality of San Pablo, Province of La Laguna,
    and three residents of Santo Tomas, in the Province of Batangas, represented by Juan Alvarez; and 80 residents of
    the municipality of San Pablo, Province of La Laguna, represented by Julian Gerona and Gregorio Pineda opposed
    the said application.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the counter- proofs and additional evidence, even when the same are not deeds of successive
    conveyances from the first holder, justify the right of dominion of Roxas, et al.

    HELD:
    NO. In order that an application for registration of the title of ownership in the Court of Land Registration may be
    objected to, pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 496, the opposition must be based on the right of dominion or
    some other real right opposed to the adjudication or recognition of the ownership of the petitioner, whether it be
    limited or absolute; and if none such rights of the respondent have been injured by the judgment, he cannot have,
    on his part, the right to appeal from the said judgment, whatever it may be, as neither the said act nor any other
    law on this matter grants anyone the right to appeal on behalf of another party and not in his own name and by
    reason of his own interest. If it is the opinion of the appellant that the land awarded by the judgment to the
    petitioners does not belong to private individuals but to the Government, it follows that the appellants, as
    respondents residing in Calauang, can have no interest in said land, as they are not the Government but mere
    citizens.

    You might also like