Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Carag Spouses Republic Vs

    Uploaded by

    Alyssa Louissie Abrera
    21 views2 pages
    The Trial court issued a Decree in favor of spouses Carag in 1930, granting them ownership of the land. 68 years later, others filed a complaint to annul the decree and cancel titles, arguing that a portion of the land was classified as timber land in 1930 and therefore not alienable. The Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled that 1) the land was properly classified as agricultural in 1930, making it alienable, and 2) the 1935 Constitution recognized existing rights like the Carag's decree, so their titles would not be canceled.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Carag Spouses Republic vs

    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
    The Trial court issued a Decree in favor of spouses Carag in 1930, granting them ownership of the land. 68 years later, others filed a complaint to annul the decree and cancel titles, arguing that a portion of the land was classified as timber land in 1930 and therefore not alienable. The Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled that 1) the land was properly classified as agricultural in 1930, making it alienable, and 2) the 1935 Constitution recognized existing rights like the Carag's decree, so their titles would not be canceled.

    Copyright:

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

    Carag Spouses Republic Vs

    Uploaded by

    Alyssa Louissie Abrera
    The Trial court issued a Decree in favor of spouses Carag in 1930, granting them ownership of the land. 68 years later, others filed a complaint to annul the decree and cancel titles, arguing that a portion of the land was classified as timber land in 1930 and therefore not alienable. The Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled that 1) the land was properly classified as agricultural in 1930, making it alienable, and 2) the 1935 Constitution recognized existing rights like the Carag's decree, so their titles would not be canceled.

    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

    Carag Spouses Republic vs. CA. et.

    The Trial court issued a Decree in favor of spouses Carag. Pursuant to said Decree, the Register of
    Deeds of Cagayan issued Original Certificate of Title in the name of spouses Carag.

    OCT No. 11585 was canceled to discharge the encumbrance expressly stated in Decree No. 381928.
    Two transfer certificates of title were issued.

    Bienvenida Taguiam Vda. De Dayag and others filed with the Regional Officer Department of
    Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Tuguegarao, Cagayan, a letter-petition requesting the
    DENR to initiate the filing of an action for the annulment of Decree No. 381928 on the ground that
    the trial court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a portion of the subject property which was allegedly
    still classified as timber land at the time of the issuance of Decree No. 381928.

    68 years after the issuance of Decree No. 381928, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a complaint
    for annulment of judgment, cancellation and declaration of nullity of titles on the ground that in 1930 the
    trial court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate a portion of the subject property. The disputed portion was
    allegedly still classified as timber land at the time of issuance of Decree No. 381928 and, therefore, was
    not alienable and disposable until 22 February 1982 when the disputed portion was classified as alienable
    and disposable.

     2001 – CA dismissed the complaint:


    -annulment could only be based on either extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction,both were absent
    -issues raised were factual in nature and should be raised in trial court
    Issue:

    1. Whether the land was agricultural or timber land


    2. Whether the titles should be canceled
    Ruling
    1. Agricultural, and therefore alienable.
     When the trial court issued the decision for the issuance of Decree No. 381928 in
    1930, the trial court had jurisdiction to determine whether the subject property,
    including the disputed portion, applied for was agricultural, timber or mineral land.
    The trial court determined that the land was agricultural and that spouses Carag
    proved that they were entitled to the decree and a certificate of title. The
    government, which was a party in the original proceedings in the trial court as
    required by law, did not appeal the decision of the trial court declaring the subject
    land as agricultural. Since the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter
    of the action, its decision rendered in 1930, or 78 years ago, is now final and
    beyond review.
    2. No:
     Even as the 1935 Constitution declared that all agricultural, timber and mineral
    lands of the public domain belong to the State, it recognized that these lands
    were “subject to any existing right, grant, lease or concession at the time of
    the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution.”
    When the Commonwealth Government was established under the 1935
    Constitution, spouses Carag had already an existing right to the subject land,
    including the disputed portion, pursuant to Decree No. 381928 issued in 1930 by
    the trial court.
    Doctrines
     Under the Spanish regime, unless specifically declared as mineral or forest zone, or
    reserved by the State for some public purpose in accordance with law, all Crown lands
    were deemed alienable.
     1935 Constitution: SECTION 1. All agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public
    domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential
    energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their
    disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the
    Philippines, or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of
    which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession
    at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution

    You might also like