Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Lamsis v. Dong-E (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Tini Guanio
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of an untitled parcel of land between petitioners, the current occupants, and respondent, who is claiming inheritance of ownership dating back to 1922. The trial court and court of appeals both ruled in favor of the respondent, finding evidence of respondent's family historically occupying and declaring the land since 1922. The issues on appeal are whether the appellate court disregarded facts, whether petitioners acquired the land through prescription, and whether the case should be under the jurisdiction of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples due to the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997. The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, finding the petitioners guilty of laches for not raising jurisdictional issues earlier in the litigation and after full proceedings

    Copyright:

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

    Lamsis v. Dong-E (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Tini Guanio
    1K views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of an untitled parcel of land between petitioners, the current occupants, and respondent, who is claiming inheritance of ownership dating back to 1922. The trial court and court of appeals both ruled in favor of the respondent, finding evidence of respondent's family historically occupying and declaring the land since 1922. The issues on appeal are whether the appellate court disregarded facts, whether petitioners acquired the land through prescription, and whether the case should be under the jurisdiction of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples due to the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997. The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, finding the petitioners guilty of laches for not raising jurisdictional issues earlier in the litigation and after full proceedings

    Original Description:

    CivPro

    Original Title

    Lamsis v. Dong-e (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?

    This case involves a dispute over ownership of an untitled parcel of land between petitioners, the current occupants, and respondent, who is claiming inheritance of ownership dating back to 1922. The trial court and court of appeals both ruled in favor of the respondent, finding evidence of respondent's family historically occupying and declaring the land since 1922. The issues on appeal are whether the appellate court disregarded facts, whether petitioners acquired the land through prescription, and whether the case should be under the jurisdiction of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples due to the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997. The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, finding the petitioners guilty of laches for not raising jurisdictional issues earlier in the litigation and after full proceedings

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Lamsis v. Dong-E (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Tini Guanio
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of an untitled parcel of land between petitioners, the current occupants, and respondent, who is claiming inheritance of ownership dating back to 1922. The trial court and court of appeals both ruled in favor of the respondent, finding evidence of respondent's family historically occupying and declaring the land since 1922. The issues on appeal are whether the appellate court disregarded facts, whether petitioners acquired the land through prescription, and whether the case should be under the jurisdiction of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples due to the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997. The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, finding the petitioners guilty of laches for not raising jurisdictional issues earlier in the litigation and after full proceedings

    Copyright:

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

    LAMSIS vs.

    DONG-E
    GR No. 173021 October 20, 2010
    Del Castillo
    SUBJECT:
    FACTS:
    This case involves a conflict of ownership and possession over an
    untitled parcel of land.
    Petitioners are the actual occupants of the subject land and respondent
    is claiming ownership thereof and is seeking to recover its possession
    from petitioners.
    According to respondent, her familys ownership and occupation of the
    land can be traced as far back as 1922 to her late grandfather, Ap-ap.
    Upon Ap-aps death, the property was inherited by his children, who
    obtained a survey plan and declared the property for tax purposes in
    the name of Teirs of Ap-ap.
    The heirs of Ap-ap then executed a deed of quitclaim in favor of
    respondents father.
    That the heirs of Gilbert Semon tolerated the acts of their first cousins,
    petitioners in-laws, to stay on a Lot No. 1 together with their
    respective families.
    When Gilbert Semon died, his children extrajudicially partitioned the
    property among themselves and allotted Lot No. 1 in favor of
    Margarita.
    When the petitioner began expanding their occupation on the subject
    property and selling portions thereof, Margarita filed a complaint for
    recovery of ownership, possession, reconveyance, and damages.
    RTC: preponderates in favor of respondents long-time possession of and
    claim of ownership over the subject property. The survey plan, tax
    declarations, and the documentary evidence of the transfer of the land from
    the heirs of ap-ap to respondent father were given credence.
    CA: Ruled that the respondent was able to discharge her burden in proving
    her title and interest to the subject property.
    ISSUE:
    (1) WON appellate court disregarded material facts and circumstances in
    affirming the trial courts decision
    (2) WON petitioner have acquired the subject property by prescription
    (3) WON the ancestral land claim pending before the National Commission
    on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) should take precedence over the
    reivindicatory action.
    (4) WON the trial court has jurisdiction to decide the case in light of the
    effectivity of RA 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of
    1997 at the time that the complaint was instituted.
    HELD:
    (1)Asda
    (2)Asda
    (3)No.
    (4)Yes.

    As a general rule, an objection over subject-matter may be raised any time


    of the proceedings. This is because jurisdiction cannot be waived by the
    parties or vested by the agreement of the parties. Jurisdiction is vested by
    law, which prevailed at the time of the filing of the complaint.
    However, an exception to this rule has been carved by jurisprudence. In
    Tajim v. Sibonghanoy, the court ruled that the existence of laches will
    prevent a party from raising the courts lack of jurisdiction. Laches is defined
    as the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time,
    to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been
    done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable
    time, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either
    has abandoned or declined it.
    In the case at bar, the application of the Tijam doctrine is called for because
    of the presence of laches cannot be ignored.
    At the time the complaint was file in 1998, the IPRA was already in effect but
    the petitioners never raised the same as a ground for dismissal; instead they
    filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the value of the property did not
    meet the jurisdictional value for the RTC. They obviously neglected to take
    the IPRA into consideration.
    It is only before the SC, 8 years after the filing of the complaint, after the trial
    court had already conducted a full-blown trial and rendered a decision on the
    merits, after the appellate court had made a thorough review of the records,
    and after petitioner have twice encountered adverse decision from the trial
    and the appellate courts that petitioner now want to expunge all the efforts
    that have gone into the litigation and resolution of their case and start of
    over again.

    You might also like