Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 81 views

    Del Prado VS Caballero

    Uploaded by

    Allan Cj Sangkate
    The petitioner filed a petition for registration of a land title under her name for Cadastral Lot No. 11909, which was more than the area sold to her by the respondents based on their tax declaration. The court ruled the petitioner's filing in the same cadastral case was improper. A certificate of title serves as indefeasible and incontrovertible evidence of title. The one-year period for filing a review of the registration in favor of the respondents had expired, making the title in their name final. Additionally, the boundaries defined the land area, not the specified quantity, and the 10,475 sqm excess here was unreasonable and not deemed included in the deed of sale.

    Copyright:

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

    Del Prado VS Caballero

    Uploaded by

    Allan Cj Sangkate
    81 views1 page
    The petitioner filed a petition for registration of a land title under her name for Cadastral Lot No. 11909, which was more than the area sold to her by the respondents based on their tax declaration. The court ruled the petitioner's filing in the same cadastral case was improper. A certificate of title serves as indefeasible and incontrovertible evidence of title. The one-year period for filing a review of the registration in favor of the respondents had expired, making the title in their name final. Additionally, the boundaries defined the land area, not the specified quantity, and the 10,475 sqm excess here was unreasonable and not deemed included in the deed of sale.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    DEL PRADO VS CABALLERO

    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 petitioner filed a petition for registration of a land title under her name for Cadastral Lot No. 11909, which was more than the area sold to her by the respondents based on their tax declaration. The court ruled the petitioner's filing in the same cadastral case was improper. A certificate of title serves as indefeasible and incontrovertible evidence of title. The one-year period for filing a review of the registration in favor of the respondents had expired, making the title in their name final. Additionally, the boundaries defined the land area, not the specified quantity, and the 10,475 sqm excess here was unreasonable and not deemed included in the deed of sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    81 views1 page

    Del Prado VS Caballero

    Uploaded by

    Allan Cj Sangkate
    The petitioner filed a petition for registration of a land title under her name for Cadastral Lot No. 11909, which was more than the area sold to her by the respondents based on their tax declaration. The court ruled the petitioner's filing in the same cadastral case was improper. A certificate of title serves as indefeasible and incontrovertible evidence of title. The one-year period for filing a review of the registration in favor of the respondents had expired, making the title in their name final. Additionally, the boundaries defined the land area, not the specified quantity, and the 10,475 sqm excess here was unreasonable and not deemed included in the deed of sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DEL PRADO VS CABALLERO

    Several parcels of land, including Cadastral Lot No. 11909, were adjudicatedin favor of Spouses Antonio and Leonarda Caballero
    in 1985; hence, the courtordered for the issuance of the decree of registration and the corresponding titles of the lots in favor
    of the Caballeros.On June 11, 1990, Spouses Caballero sold to Carmen del Prado, Cadastral LotNo. 11909 on the basis of the tax
    declaration covering the property. On March 20,1991, petitioner filed in the same cadastral proceedings a "Petition for
    Registrationof Document Under PD 1529" in order that a certificate of title be issued in hername, covering the whole Lot No.
    11909, which is in excess of the allotted area tobe sold. In the petition, she alleged that the tenor of the instrument of
    saleindicated that the sale was for a lump sum, in which case, the vendor was bound todeliver all that was included within said
    boundaries even when it exceeded the areaspecified in the contract.
    Issue
    WON the petitioner’s recourse, by filing the petition for registration in thesame cadastral case, was proper.
    Ruling
    Petitioner’s recourse, by filing the petition for registration in the samecadastral case, was improper. It is a fundamental
    principle in land registration that acertificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title tothe
    property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. Suchindefeasibility commences after one year from the date of
    entry of the decree of registration. Inasmuch as the petition for registration of document did not interruptthe running of the
    period to file the appropriate petition for review and consideringthat the prescribed one-year period had long since expired, the
    decree of registration, as well as the certificate of title issued in favor of respondents, hadbecome incontrovertible.In addition,
    what really defines a piece of ground is not the area, calculatedwith more or less certainty, mentioned in its description, but the
    boundaries thereinlaid down, as enclosing the land and indicating its limits. However, numerical dataare not the sole gauge of
    unreasonableness of the excess or deficiency in area. Inthe instant case, the parties agreed on the purchase price of P

    40,000.00 for apredetermined area of 4,000 sq m, with the specified boundaries. Clearly, thediscrepancy of 10,475 sq m cannot
    be considered a slight difference in quantity. Itis not a reasonable excess or deficiency that should be deemed included in
    thedeed of sale

    You might also like