Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Case Digest - San Agustin v. CA, 371 SCRA 348

    Uploaded by

    Audrey M
    Maximo Menez Jr. purchased land in 1974 from Macaria Vda. de Caiquep, but did not register the sale. In 1990, Menez discovered the title was missing. He filed to replace the lost title. San Agustin, niece of the original seller, claimed the land as heir and occupant in 1992 but was not notified of the case. The Supreme Court ruled that [1] San Agustin did not have a registered interest and was not entitled to notice, and [2] the original sale contract remained valid and binding on the seller's heirs unless annulled by the proper party.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest - San Agustin v. CA, 371 SCRA 348

    Uploaded by

    Audrey M
    9 views2 pages
    Maximo Menez Jr. purchased land in 1974 from Macaria Vda. de Caiquep, but did not register the sale. In 1990, Menez discovered the title was missing. He filed to replace the lost title. San Agustin, niece of the original seller, claimed the land as heir and occupant in 1992 but was not notified of the case. The Supreme Court ruled that [1] San Agustin did not have a registered interest and was not entitled to notice, and [2] the original sale contract remained valid and binding on the seller's heirs unless annulled by the proper party.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Maximo Menez Jr. purchased land in 1974 from Macaria Vda. de Caiquep, but did not register the sale. In 1990, Menez discovered the title was missing. He filed to replace the lost title. San Agustin, niece of the original seller, claimed the land as heir and occupant in 1992 but was not notified of the case. The Supreme Court ruled that [1] San Agustin did not have a registered interest and was not entitled to notice, and [2] the original sale contract remained valid and binding on the seller's heirs unless annulled by the proper party.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest - San Agustin v. CA, 371 SCRA 348

    Uploaded by

    Audrey M
    Maximo Menez Jr. purchased land in 1974 from Macaria Vda. de Caiquep, but did not register the sale. In 1990, Menez discovered the title was missing. He filed to replace the lost title. San Agustin, niece of the original seller, claimed the land as heir and occupant in 1992 but was not notified of the case. The Supreme Court ruled that [1] San Agustin did not have a registered interest and was not entitled to notice, and [2] the original sale contract remained valid and binding on the seller's heirs unless annulled by the proper party.

    Copyright:

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

    San Agustin v.

    CA, 371 SCRA 348


    FACTS:

    On February 11, 1974, a parcel of residential land with an area of 168 square meters
    located in Rosario, Pasig City was sold by Government Service Insurance System
    (GSIS) to Macaria Vda. de Caiquep. The sale is evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale.
    2 On February 19, 1974, the Register of Deeds of Rizal issued in the name of Macaria
    Vda. de Caiquep.

    On February 20, 1974, Macaria Vda. de Caiquep sold the subject lot to private
    respondent, Maximo Menez, Jr., as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale, which was
    also notarized but was not registered because of the the five-year prohibition to sell
    during the period ending in 1979.

    In 1979, Menez was detained for two (2) years for having been suspected as a
    subversive. After his release, there was another order of his arrest so he hid for another
    four (4) years in Mindanao until March 1984.

    In December 1990, he discovered that the TCT was missing. He consulted a lawyer and
    filed an Affidavit of Loss with the Register of Deeds and a certified copy of TCT was
    issued. Menez also declared the said property for tax purposes and obtained a
    certification thereof from the Assessor’s office. He then tried to search for the registered
    owner at her address appearing in the title and in the Deed of Sale but to no avail and
    this prompted him to file a petition for the issuance of owner’s duplicate copy to replace
    the lost one.

    During the hearing on September 3, 1992, only Menez and his counsel appeared. The
    Register of Deeds who was not served notice, and the Office of the Solicitor General
    and the Provincial Prosecutor who were notified did not attend. On September 30, 1992,
    the trial court granted his petition after Menez presented his evidence ex parte for the
    issuance of a new Owner's Duplicate Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title.

    On October 13, 1992, San Agustin, the niece of Ma. Vda de Caiquep claimed this was
    the first time he became aware of the case and that he was the present occupant of the
    property and the heir of Macaria. He filed a Motion to Reopen Reconstitution
    Proceedings but RTC denied said motion. Petitioner moved for motion for
    reconsideration but was again denied. Thus this petition for review on certiorari.

    ISSUE:

    1. Whether or not the petitioner, as the actual possessor of the lot needs to be
    notified?
    2. Whether or not the petitioner is bound by the contract entered into by his
    predecessor-in-interest?
    RULING:

    1. No. Petitioner is not entitled to notice. Petitioner San Agustin does not appear to
    have an interest in the property being the heir and the present occupant of the lot
    is not annotated at the back memorandum of encumbrances of the title.

    2. It is the GSIS and not the petitioner who had a cause of action against the private
    respondent. The contract of sale remains valid between the parties, unless and
    until annulled in the proper suit filed by the rightful party, the GSIS. The said
    contract of sale is binding upon the heirs of Macaria Vda. de Caiquep, in
    reference to the rule that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their
    predecessors-in-interest

    You might also like