Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 254 views

    Director of Lands vs. CA and Pizarro

    Uploaded by

    JL A H-Dimaculangan
    - Silvestre Manlapaz and Natividad Pizarro sought to register land they purchased, but the Director of Lands opposed it, arguing the land was still part of the public domain. - Both the trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Manlapaz and Pizarro, finding they had adequately proven over 30 years of continuous possession by predecessors. - The Director of Lands argued res judicata on appeal, but the Court of Appeals rejected this because it was not raised during the trial.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Director of Lands vs. CA and Pizarro

    Uploaded by

    JL A H-Dimaculangan
    254 views1 page
    - Silvestre Manlapaz and Natividad Pizarro sought to register land they purchased, but the Director of Lands opposed it, arguing the land was still part of the public domain. - Both the trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Manlapaz and Pizarro, finding they had adequately proven over 30 years of continuous possession by predecessors. - The Director of Lands argued res judicata on appeal, but the Court of Appeals rejected this because it was not raised during the trial.

    Original Description:

    Civ Pro Case digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Silvestre Manlapaz and Natividad Pizarro sought to register land they purchased, but the Director of Lands opposed it, arguing the land was still part of the public domain. - Both the trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Manlapaz and Pizarro, finding they had adequately proven over 30 years of continuous possession by predecessors. - The Director of Lands argued res judicata on appeal, but the Court of Appeals rejected this because it was not raised during the trial.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    254 views1 page

    Director of Lands vs. CA and Pizarro

    Uploaded by

    JL A H-Dimaculangan
    - Silvestre Manlapaz and Natividad Pizarro sought to register land they purchased, but the Director of Lands opposed it, arguing the land was still part of the public domain. - Both the trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Manlapaz and Pizarro, finding they had adequately proven over 30 years of continuous possession by predecessors. - The Director of Lands argued res judicata on appeal, but the Court of Appeals rejected this because it was not raised during the trial.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs.

    THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SILVESTRE MANLAPAZ and NATIVIDAD PIZARRO, respondents Facts: Private respondent spouses Silvestre Manlapaz and Natividad Pizarro sought to have the land they bought to be registered. The director of lands filed an opposition on the ground that neither the applicants nor their predecessor-in-interest possess sufficient title to acquire ownership in fee simple of the parcels of land applied for; that they have not been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land in question for at least thirthy (30) years immediately preceding the filing of the present application; and that these parcels of land are portions of the public domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines, and therefore, not subject to appropriation. The trial court and the court of appeals both ruled in favor of respondents. The court of appeals cited that the defense of res judicata was belatedly raised on appeal. The omission to include the same in the answer as one of the affirmative defenses constitutes a waiver of said defense. The manifestation of Mr. Masicampo stating that the two (2) parcels of land have been the subject of registration proceedings was not enough to support res judicata. It concluded that the 30-year period of continuous possession of private respondents' predecessors-in-interest has been satisfactorily proved, the Director of Lands not having presented any evidence to contradict, impugn or impeach the facts established by private respondents. Issue: Whether or not the Respondent Court erred in ruling that petitioner failed to raise the defense of res judicata in the trial court and, hence, waived the same. Held: Negative. The Court of Appeals committed no error in disregarding res judicata. The oppositor Director of Lands, petitioner herein, did not interpose any objection nor set up the defense of res judicata with respect to the lots in question. Such failure on the part of oppositor Director of Lands. to OUR mind, is a procedural infirmity which cannot be cured on appeal. All defenses therefore not interposed in a motion to dismiss or in an answer are deemed waived. Thus, the defense of res adjudicata when not set up either in a motion to dismiss or in answer, is deemed waived. It cannot be pleaded for the first time at the trial or on appeal. But granting for a moment, that the defenses of res adjudicata was properly raised by petitioner herein, WE still hold that, factually, there is no prior final judgment all to speak of. The decision in Cadastral Case No. 41 does not constitute a bar to the application of respondent But the court still ruled in favor of the director of lands because the applicant failed to adequately prove their predecessors-in-interest's actual, peaceful and adverse possession in the concept of owner of the lots in question during the period required, by law. Such burden of proof rests upon the applicant and not the government.

    You might also like