Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 309 views

    Paciente v. Dacuycuy

    Uploaded by

    Donvidachiye Liwag Cena
    The guardianship court ordered the cancellation of the transfer certificate of title for a lot that was originally owned by Leonardo Homeres and left to his widow Lilia and two minor children. The lot was subsequently sold without the consent of the minors. The Supreme Court ruled that the guardianship court has jurisdiction to order the cancellation of the title since the minors' ownership over the property was clear, but that the order to pay 10,000 pesos for the property was void since the valuation was determined without a hearing.

    Copyright:

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

    Paciente v. Dacuycuy

    Uploaded by

    Donvidachiye Liwag Cena
    309 views1 page
    The guardianship court ordered the cancellation of the transfer certificate of title for a lot that was originally owned by Leonardo Homeres and left to his widow Lilia and two minor children. The lot was subsequently sold without the consent of the minors. The Supreme Court ruled that the guardianship court has jurisdiction to order the cancellation of the title since the minors' ownership over the property was clear, but that the order to pay 10,000 pesos for the property was void since the valuation was determined without a hearing.

    Original Description:

    guradianship

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The guardianship court ordered the cancellation of the transfer certificate of title for a lot that was originally owned by Leonardo Homeres and left to his widow Lilia and two minor children. The lot was subsequently sold without the consent of the minors. The Supreme Court ruled that the guardianship court has jurisdiction to order the cancellation of the title since the minors' ownership over the property was clear, but that the order to pay 10,000 pesos for the property was void since the valuation was determined without a hearing.

    Copyright:

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

    Paciente v. Dacuycuy

    Uploaded by

    Donvidachiye Liwag Cena
    The guardianship court ordered the cancellation of the transfer certificate of title for a lot that was originally owned by Leonardo Homeres and left to his widow Lilia and two minor children. The lot was subsequently sold without the consent of the minors. The Supreme Court ruled that the guardianship court has jurisdiction to order the cancellation of the title since the minors' ownership over the property was clear, but that the order to pay 10,000 pesos for the property was void since the valuation was determined without a hearing.

    Copyright:

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

    Paciente v.

    Dacuycuy
    G.R. No. L-58319 June 29, 1982
    Ponente: Guttierez, J.:
    Facts:
    Leonardo Homeres died, leaving to his widow Lilia, and two (2) minor children a lot.
    Subsequently, the lot was sold to Conchita Dumdum, who later on sold it to the
    petitioner. The petitioner then mortgaged the subject lot to the Citytrust bank as
    security for a loan. Thereafter, Lilia was declared guardian of the minors in the
    guardianship proceedings.
    The guardianship court issued an order for the cancellation of the transfer certificate of
    title for the lot. It also ordered the petitioner to pay the minors the price of the lot
    alienated. Hence, this petition.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the guardianship court has jurisdiction to order the cancellation
    on the transfer certificate of title of the subject lot
    RULING:
    Yes, in this case the title and ownership of the minors over the disputed property is
    clear and indisputable, as such, the court orders for the return or deliver of the
    property is valid. However, the order directing the payment or deposit of 10,000 is
    null and void as it was issued without a hearing to determine the value of the property
    and the time frame for fixing such valuation was unclear.

    You might also like