Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 263 views

    Latoja Vs Lim

    Uploaded by

    Jonathan Dancel
    1) The Supreme Court granted the petition to vacate the writ of possession issued by the lower court in favor of respondent Cabe over property subject to a pacto de retro sale. 2) The consolidation of title under Article 1607 of the Civil Code is merely to register title upon the vendor's failure to redeem and does not allow issuance of a writ of possession. 3) Under the terms of the pacto de retro sale, respondent Cabe has a right to possession unless otherwise agreed, but this must be founded on the sale agreement rather than the consolidation case decision. The temporary restraining order against implementation of the writ of possession was made permanent.

    Copyright:

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

    Latoja Vs Lim

    Uploaded by

    Jonathan Dancel
    263 views1 page
    1) The Supreme Court granted the petition to vacate the writ of possession issued by the lower court in favor of respondent Cabe over property subject to a pacto de retro sale. 2) The consolidation of title under Article 1607 of the Civil Code is merely to register title upon the vendor's failure to redeem and does not allow issuance of a writ of possession. 3) Under the terms of the pacto de retro sale, respondent Cabe has a right to possession unless otherwise agreed, but this must be founded on the sale agreement rather than the consolidation case decision. The temporary restraining order against implementation of the writ of possession was made permanent.

    Original Description:

    latoja vs lim

    Original Title

    Latoja vs Lim

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Supreme Court granted the petition to vacate the writ of possession issued by the lower court in favor of respondent Cabe over property subject to a pacto de retro sale. 2) The consolidation of title under Article 1607 of the Civil Code is merely to register title upon the vendor's failure to redeem and does not allow issuance of a writ of possession. 3) Under the terms of the pacto de retro sale, respondent Cabe has a right to possession unless otherwise agreed, but this must be founded on the sale agreement rather than the consolidation case decision. The temporary restraining order against implementation of the writ of possession was made permanent.

    Copyright:

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

    Latoja Vs Lim

    Uploaded by

    Jonathan Dancel
    1) The Supreme Court granted the petition to vacate the writ of possession issued by the lower court in favor of respondent Cabe over property subject to a pacto de retro sale. 2) The consolidation of title under Article 1607 of the Civil Code is merely to register title upon the vendor's failure to redeem and does not allow issuance of a writ of possession. 3) Under the terms of the pacto de retro sale, respondent Cabe has a right to possession unless otherwise agreed, but this must be founded on the sale agreement rather than the consolidation case decision. The temporary restraining order against implementation of the writ of possession was made permanent.

    Copyright:

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

    LATOJA vs LIM Vacate issued by the court sheriff.

    SC granted the
    G. R. NO. 198925 TRO prayed for.
    JULY 13, 2016
    Sereno, CJ. Cabe contends that the Decision in the consolidation
    case had become final after the SC dismissed the
    FACTS: appeal of Cardona II and before the Judgment by
    Compromise was rendered in 2006. Therefore, Judge
    On May 21, 1997, respondent Teresita Cabe, together Lim was simply guided by the rule on the finality of
    with Donato A. Cardona II (Cardona II), executed a judgment when he issued the assailed Order. Cabe
    Deed of Sale with Pacto de Retro over a parcel of asserts that she is therefore entitled to the writ of
    land registered under the “Heirs of Donato Cardona possession prayed for
    represented by Jovita T. Cardona.” For failure of
    Cardona II to repurchase the property from her within ISSUE:
    one year as agreed upon in the deed, Cabe filed a
    Petition for Consolidation of Ownership pursuant to Whether Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion
    Article 1607 of the Civil Code to the RTC. The petition by Granting the Motion for Issuance of Writ of
    was granted. Cardona II questioned the trial court’s Possession - YES
    decision by filing with the Court of Appeals a petition
    HELD:
    for certiorari which was dismissed by the CA.
    Cardona II also appealed to the Supreme Court which Jurisprudence provides only these four instances
    was also denied. when a writ of possession may issue: (1) land
    registration proceedings; (2) extrajudicial foreclosure
    Thereafter, respondent Cabe filed a motion for
    of mortgage of real property; (3) judicial foreclosure of
    execution of the RTC decision in the consolidation
    property, provided that the mortgagor has possession,
    case which was granted. Cabe prayed for the
    and no third party has intervened; and (4) execution
    issuance of a Writ of Possession which was granted
    sales.
    by Judge Lim of RTC Branch 2.
    The consolidation of title prescribed in Article 1607 of
    Petitioners allege grave abuse of discretion on the
    the Civil Code is merely for the purpose of registering
    part of Judge Lim, contending that Judge Lim wrongly
    and consolidating title to the property in case of a
    granted the motion for the issuance of a Writ
    vendor a retro’s failure to redeem.
    ofPossession to Cabe. They allege that in 2006, this
    same Judge Lim rendered a Judgment by Judge Lim overlooked the nature of the Pacto de
    Compromise in an Action for Partition of Real Retro sale entered into by Cabe and Cardona II.
    Properties. This action was filed by Spouses Latoja
    against Spouses Cardona, who are the parents of It is basic that in a pacto de retro sale, the title and
    Cardona II, respondent in the consolidation case ownership of the property sold are immediately vested
    Among the properties included in the partition case in the vendee a retro. As a result, the vendee a retro
    was OCT No. 41, the same property subject of the has a right to the immediate possession of the
    consolidation case. The Judgment by Compromise property sold, unless otherwise agreed upon.
    awarded OCT No. 41 on a 50/50 pro indiviso Therefore, the right of respondent Cabe to possess
    ownership to Spouses Latoja and Spouses Cardona the subject property must be founded on the terms of
    pursuant to their Compromise Agreement. the Pacto de Retro Sale itself, and not on the decision
    in the consolidation case.Contract to Sell
    Spouses Latoja contend that Judge Lim, wrongly
    granted the motion for the issuance of a Writ of DISPOSITIVE: Petition GRANTED. TRO for the writ
    Possession to Cabe despite the Judgment by of possession made permanent
    Compromise he had previously rendered in the
    partition case. Judge Lim was then the presiding
    judge of RTC-Br. 1, Borongan, Eastern Samar when
    he awarded half of the same property to petitioners.
    Alleging that they are in possession of a portion of the
    subject property, petitioners also prayed for the
    issuance of a TRO to enjoin the implementation of the
    assailed Order in view of the issuance of the Notice to

    You might also like