Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 245 views

    Godinez V CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Krizzia Gojar
    Felix Bergado owned a lot that was inherited by his seven children in 1929. A judge ordered the registration of the lot under the children but made a clerical error. In the 1960s and 1970s, different parties sued over ownership of the lot, claiming ownership through purchases and prescriptive rights. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that other parties had acquired the lot through acquisitive prescription, as they and their predecessors had possessed it for over 50 years in the concept of owners, in a manner that was adverse, continuous, uninterrupted, and notorious. Therefore, the claims of the original owners had prescribed and the other parties had valid ownership rights over the lot.

    Copyright:

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

    Godinez V CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Krizzia Gojar
    245 views2 pages
    Felix Bergado owned a lot that was inherited by his seven children in 1929. A judge ordered the registration of the lot under the children but made a clerical error. In the 1960s and 1970s, different parties sued over ownership of the lot, claiming ownership through purchases and prescriptive rights. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that other parties had acquired the lot through acquisitive prescription, as they and their predecessors had possessed it for over 50 years in the concept of owners, in a manner that was adverse, continuous, uninterrupted, and notorious. Therefore, the claims of the original owners had prescribed and the other parties had valid ownership rights over the lot.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Godinez v CA digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Felix Bergado owned a lot that was inherited by his seven children in 1929. A judge ordered the registration of the lot under the children but made a clerical error. In the 1960s and 1970s, different parties sued over ownership of the lot, claiming ownership through purchases and prescriptive rights. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that other parties had acquired the lot through acquisitive prescription, as they and their predecessors had possessed it for over 50 years in the concept of owners, in a manner that was adverse, continuous, uninterrupted, and notorious. Therefore, the claims of the original owners had prescribed and the other parties had valid ownership rights over the lot.

    Copyright:

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

    Godinez V CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Krizzia Gojar
    Felix Bergado owned a lot that was inherited by his seven children in 1929. A judge ordered the registration of the lot under the children but made a clerical error. In the 1960s and 1970s, different parties sued over ownership of the lot, claiming ownership through purchases and prescriptive rights. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that other parties had acquired the lot through acquisitive prescription, as they and their predecessors had possessed it for over 50 years in the concept of owners, in a manner that was adverse, continuous, uninterrupted, and notorious. Therefore, the claims of the original owners had prescribed and the other parties had valid ownership rights over the lot.

    Copyright:

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

    Godinez v CA

    Felix Bergado owned Lot 655. His seven children inherited it.

    1929 - Judge Pablo ordered the registration of the lot in the names of
    the children. Stating a share of 1/6 instead of 1/7. Due to the clerical
    error, no decree was issued and the land remained unregistered.

    children of Bergado. The heirs of Bergado then sold and reconveyed


    Lot 655A to the petitioners (Godinez & Jayme)
    1970 - Igot brothers sued some Bergado heirs due to that
    reconveyance made because they were already in the possession of
    such lot since the sale of the heirs to Magsumbol then from
    Magsumbol to Igots.

    2/7 of the lot pertaining to Macario and Vicente Bergado were


    sold to Patalinghung
    5/7 share of the other 5 children were sold and transferred in
    1929 and 1930 to Spouses Magsumbol. (Take note, the sellers,
    Bergado's children, weren't the real owner yet because the land
    remained unregistered during the sale.)

    TC ruled in favor of Igot brothers, which was affirmed by the CA.


    CA held that the Magsumbols acquired Lot 655A by
    prescription. And such right was transmitted to Igots (private
    respondents) under Sec 41 of Civil Procedure

    1934- the lot was subdivided w/ approval of the Director of Lands into
    Lot 655-A and Lot 655-B

    Petitioners (Godinez) acquired only a paper title in 1967 when


    OCT No. 8 was obtained.
    Petitioners contend that CA erred in not considering that the
    action of Igorots is barred by res judicata.

    So, the Bergado heirs ceased to have possession of the whole


    Lot 655 (because they already transferred it to Magsumbol
    spouses and Patilinghung)

    1962 - The heirs of Magsumbol upon having inherited the land, sold
    Lot 655A to private respondents Igot. So Igot continued the
    Magsumbol's possession of the lot.
    1967 - Judge Mendoza corrected the clerical errors in Judge Pablo's
    decision. So a decree was issued. OCT No. 8 was issued for Lot 655
    and the land finally became registered under the names of those 7

    Issue: W/N the Igots have acquired the Lot through prescription?
    Held:
    Yes. Lot 655A has been in adverse, continuous, uninterrupted
    and notorious possession of the Magsumbols and Igots in the
    concept of owner for more than half a century (more than 50
    years).
    And such OCT No. 8 rendered by Justice Mendoza did not
    nullify the sales made by the 5 Bergado children to Magsumbol
    spouses in 1929 and 1930.
    Doctrine:

    Where a property is in the possession of a person that is: in the


    concept of an owner, public, peaceful, continuous, and
    uninterrupted for a period of time required for acquiring a
    property, the property is already acquired by the possessor

    through prescription. Therefore, the claim over such property


    has already prescribed.

    You might also like