Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 61 views

    Concepcio v. Concepcion DATE - Jan. 11, 2005

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Yrreverre
    The Supreme Court ruled that while the cadastral court has jurisdiction over petitions for cancellation of titles, its order directing the petitioners to surrender a title was void. The underlying order amended a final judgment partitioning an estate, which courts cannot do except to fix clerical errors. As the cadastral court's order relied on the invalidated underlying order, it too must be invalidated. The Supreme Court granted the petition and vacated the Court of Appeals' decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Concepcio v. Concepcion DATE - Jan. 11, 2005

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Yrreverre
    61 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that while the cadastral court has jurisdiction over petitions for cancellation of titles, its order directing the petitioners to surrender a title was void. The underlying order amended a final judgment partitioning an estate, which courts cannot do except to fix clerical errors. As the cadastral court's order relied on the invalidated underlying order, it too must be invalidated. The Supreme Court granted the petition and vacated the Court of Appeals' decision.

    Original Description:

    3. Concepcio v. Concepcion DATE- Jan. 11, 2005

    Original Title

    3. Concepcio v. Concepcion DATE- Jan. 11, 2005

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that while the cadastral court has jurisdiction over petitions for cancellation of titles, its order directing the petitioners to surrender a title was void. The underlying order amended a final judgment partitioning an estate, which courts cannot do except to fix clerical errors. As the cadastral court's order relied on the invalidated underlying order, it too must be invalidated. The Supreme Court granted the petition and vacated the Court of Appeals' decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    61 views2 pages

    Concepcio v. Concepcion DATE - Jan. 11, 2005

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Yrreverre
    The Supreme Court ruled that while the cadastral court has jurisdiction over petitions for cancellation of titles, its order directing the petitioners to surrender a title was void. The underlying order amended a final judgment partitioning an estate, which courts cannot do except to fix clerical errors. As the cadastral court's order relied on the invalidated underlying order, it too must be invalidated. The Supreme Court granted the petition and vacated the Court of Appeals' decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    3. Concepcio v.

    Concepcion
    DATE: Jan. 11, 2005  Jose filed with the RTC-Cebu, then sitting as a land registration court, a
    By: EAY3 Petition for the Cancellation of TCT.
    Topic:  Cadastral Court - dismissed the complaint and ordered the surrender of
    Petitioners: Concepcion the TCT.
    Respondents: Concepcion
    Ponente: NACHURA. J, ISSUE: W/N the cadastral court have jurisdiction over the petition for cancellation -
    Yes
    FACTS: W/N the said order may be enforced - NO
     All the parties in this case are descendants of the late spouses Regino
    Concepcion, Sr. and Concepcion Famador. Petitioner Emmanuel is a son of
    the late spouses while the other petitioners Betty, Jimmy, Rosario and HELD/RATIO:
    Jernie (all surnamed Concepcion) and the respondents are grandchildren  YES. the CFI, as a Land Registration Court, can hear cases otherwise
    of the spouses. litigable only in ordinary civil actions, since the Court of First Instance are
     The deceased spouses Regino Concepcion, Sr. and Concepcion Famador at the same time, courts of general jurisdiction
    had seven children. the couple acquired 4 properties.  Sec. 2 of PD 1529 has eliminated the distinction between the general
     Regino, Sr. died in 1944. 10 years later or in 1954, his wife, Concepcion jurisdiction vested in the regional trial court and the limited jurisdiction
    Famador, also passed away. Upon the latter's death, she left a will 1 conferred upon it by the former law when acting merely as a cadastral
    disposing of all her paraphernal properties as well as her share in the court. Aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits the change has simpli􏰀ed
    conjugal partnership of gains. registration proceedings by conferring upon the regional trial courts the
     The will was subjected to probate in a Special Proceedings in CFI Cebu. authority to act not only on applications for original registration but also
    Jose, one of the sons of the late spouses and father of the herein over all petitions 􏰀led after original registration of title, with power to hear
    respondents, contested the probate on the ground that the disposition and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions.
    made therein impaired his legitime.  NO. Be that as it may, it is, to us, improper for the cadastral court to issue
     Eventually, the will was allowed probate. However, on July 6, 1960, the its order of January 22, 1988, directing the petitioners to surrender
    probate court motu proprio dismissed the probate proceedings because and/or deliver the title covering the Zulueta property. That order is void
    Jesus, as the estate's executor, neglected to perform his duties after the and definitely without force and effect.
    will was probated. Consequently, the probate court was not able to  As it were, said order is premised on an earlier order issued on May 27,
    adjudicate to the heirs their respective shares in the estate. 1987 by the RTC-Cebu (former CFI-Cebu) Branch XIII in its Civil Case No. R-
     Jose 􏰀led a complaint for partition with damages against his 6 brothers 13850, which latter order is very much challenged by the herein
    and sisters before the CFI Cebu. - Rendered decision declaring the entitled petitioners. Accordingly, the propriety or validity of the cadastral court's
    share of the plaintiff. (Jose) order of January 22, 1988 is, in turn, dependent on the propriety or validity
     The decision became final and executory as no appeal was taken therefrom of the order dated May 27, 1987.
    by the herein petitioners. The court issued a writ of execution dated  By issuing its order of May 27, 1987, RTC-Cebu, Branch XIII, sought to
    February 23, 1982. It was returned unsatisfied. amend its August 10, 1978 decision. We must emphasize, however, that
     Sheriff Gadrinab executed a Deed of Conveyance over the Zulueta property there is nothing in the August 10, 1978 decision of said court which
    in favor of Jose. authorizes the surrender and/or delivery of the title covering the Zulueta
    property. It merely required the defendants therein to "contribute
     when Jose presented the same deed for registration, the Register of Deeds
    required him to surrender the owner's duplicate copy of TCT covering the proportionately to the completion of the plaintiff's legitime." In fact, said
    court has previously denied a "Motion for Projected Partition and
    Zulueta property, which title was then in the possession of the petitioners.
    Despite demands, petitioners refused delivery of the title. Execution of Judgment" 􏰀led before it by the respondents precisely
    because, according to it, to allow partition of the Zulueta propertywill "in
    effect amend or alter the decision (referring to its earlier decision dated
    August 10, 1978) which has long become final and executory."
     The subsequent issuance of the order dated May 27, 1987 which amends
    the 􏰀nal and executory decision dated August 10, 1978 cannot be allowed.
    We have repeatedly held that a judgment that has become 􏰀nal and
    executory can no longer be amended or corrected except for clerical errors
    and mistakes. This rule holds true regardless of whether the modi􏰀cation
    is to be made by the magistrate who rendered the judgment or by an
    appellate tribunal which reviewed the same. 11 Doubtless, then, the order
    dated May 27, 1987 of RTC-Cebu, Branch XIII, in Civil Case No. R-13850 is a
    nullity.

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed decision dated
    November 27, 2000 of the Court of Appeals VACATED and SET ASIDE.
    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like