This case involves a dispute over ownership of land covered by Lot No. 8348 in Silang, Cavite. [1] The respondent was originally granted a free patent for the land. [2] The petitioner claims she purchased a portion of the land known as Lot 8348-B from the respondent through a deed of sale. [3] However, the respondent refused to vacate the property, claiming the sale was falsified. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court both ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that the petitioner did not meet the possession and occupation requirements to register the land under her name.
This case involves a dispute over ownership of land covered by Lot No. 8348 in Silang, Cavite. [1] The respondent was originally granted a free patent for the land. [2] The petitioner claims she purchased a portion of the land known as Lot 8348-B from the respondent through a deed of sale. [3] However, the respondent refused to vacate the property, claiming the sale was falsified. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court both ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that the petitioner did not meet the possession and occupation requirements to register the land under her name.
This case involves a dispute over ownership of land covered by Lot No. 8348 in Silang, Cavite. [1] The respondent was originally granted a free patent for the land. [2] The petitioner claims she purchased a portion of the land known as Lot 8348-B from the respondent through a deed of sale. [3] However, the respondent refused to vacate the property, claiming the sale was falsified. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court both ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that the petitioner did not meet the possession and occupation requirements to register the land under her name.
This case involves a dispute over ownership of land covered by Lot No. 8348 in Silang, Cavite. [1] The respondent was originally granted a free patent for the land. [2] The petitioner claims she purchased a portion of the land known as Lot 8348-B from the respondent through a deed of sale. [3] However, the respondent refused to vacate the property, claiming the sale was falsified. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court both ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that the petitioner did not meet the possession and occupation requirements to register the land under her name.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
JOSEPHINE WEE
v. FELICIDAD GONZALEZ
G.R. No. 202414, June 04, 2014
PONENTE: MENDOZA, J.
FACTS:
Respondent Felicidad Gonzales, married to Leopoldo Mardo,
was granted a registered Free Patent No. (IV-2) 15284, dated April 26, 1979, covering Lot No. 8348, situated in Puting Kahoy, Silang, Cavite. On February 1, 1993, respondent allegedly conveyed to petitioner, Josephine Wee, through a Deed of Absolute Sale,1 a portion of Lot No. 8348 known as Lot No. 8348-B, for a consideration of P250,000.00 which was fully paid. Respondent, however, refused to vacate and turn over the subject property claiming that the alleged sale was falsified. On December 22, 1994, petitioner filed an Application for Original Registration of a parcel of land located at Barangay Putting Kahoy, Silang, Cavite, known as Lot No. 8349. Said application was amended on September 19, 1996, this time covering a parcel of land known as Lot 8348-B situated in Barangay Puting Kahoy, Silang, Cavite. Petitioner claimed that she is the owner of the said unregistered land by virtue of a deed of absolute sale.
The CA held, among others, that petitioner was not able to
comply with the requirement of possession and occupation under Sec. 14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529. Her admission that the subject lot was not physically turned over to her due to some objections and oppositions to her title suggested that she was not exercising any acts of dominion over the subject property, an essential element in the requirement of possession and occupation contemplated under Sec. 14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529. A copy of the decision was received by petitioner on July 2, 2012. On August 15, 2012, petitioner filed this subject petition for review challenging the CA decision.
ISSUE:
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred and ruled contrary
to law in not finding that petitioner is entitled to register the subject land under her name.
RULING: The petition deserves no merit. The Court finds no merit in petitioner’s argument. It is settled in this jurisdiction that the issue of the validity of title can only be assailed in an action expressly instituted for such purpose.9 A certificate of title cannot be attacked collaterally. This rule is provided under Section 48 of PD 1529 which states that:
SEC. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. - A certificate
of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. (Emphasis supplied)
