Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    WISCONSIN STREET Maria Carlos, Represented by Teresita Carlos Victoria

    Uploaded by

    WILHELMINA CUYUGAN
    1) Maria Carlos filed an application for registration and confirmation of title over a parcel of land in 2001, claiming open, exclusive, and continuous possession since 1945. 2) However, it was admitted that the land was sold to Ususan Development Corporation in 1996. 3) The court ruled against Maria Carlos, finding that she was no longer in possession of the property at the time of application, as required for confirmation of imperfect title. Possession must be under a bona fide claim of ownership.

    Copyright:

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

    WISCONSIN STREET Maria Carlos, Represented by Teresita Carlos Victoria

    Uploaded by

    WILHELMINA CUYUGAN
    28 views2 pages
    1) Maria Carlos filed an application for registration and confirmation of title over a parcel of land in 2001, claiming open, exclusive, and continuous possession since 1945. 2) However, it was admitted that the land was sold to Ususan Development Corporation in 1996. 3) The court ruled against Maria Carlos, finding that she was no longer in possession of the property at the time of application, as required for confirmation of imperfect title. Possession must be under a bona fide claim of ownership.

    Original Description:

    PROPERTY DIGEST

    Original Title

    Carlos Rp

    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) Maria Carlos filed an application for registration and confirmation of title over a parcel of land in 2001, claiming open, exclusive, and continuous possession since 1945. 2) However, it was admitted that the land was sold to Ususan Development Corporation in 1996. 3) The court ruled against Maria Carlos, finding that she was no longer in possession of the property at the time of application, as required for confirmation of imperfect title. Possession must be under a bona fide claim of ownership.

    Copyright:

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

    WISCONSIN STREET Maria Carlos, Represented by Teresita Carlos Victoria

    Uploaded by

    WILHELMINA CUYUGAN
    1) Maria Carlos filed an application for registration and confirmation of title over a parcel of land in 2001, claiming open, exclusive, and continuous possession since 1945. 2) However, it was admitted that the land was sold to Ususan Development Corporation in 1996. 3) The court ruled against Maria Carlos, finding that she was no longer in possession of the property at the time of application, as required for confirmation of imperfect title. Possession must be under a bona fide claim of ownership.

    Copyright:

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

    123457689 WISCONSIN STREET

    MARIA CARLOS, represented by TERESITA CARLOS VICTORIA

    - versus–

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    Facts:

    On December 19, 2001, petitioner Maria Carlos, represented by her daughter, Teresita
    Carlos Victoria, filed an application for registration and confirmation of title over a parcel of
    land. Petitioner alleged, that she is the owner of said parcel of land which she openly,
    exclusively and notoriously possessed and occupied since July 12, 1945 or earlier under a bona
    fide claim of ownership; that there is no mortgage or encumbrance affecting said property, nor
    is it part of any military or naval reservation; that the property is being used for industrial
    purposes; and that there are no tenants or lessees on the property. Petitioner further claimed
    that she has been in possession of the subject land in the concept of an owner; that her
    possession has been peaceful, public, uninterrupted and continuous since 1948 or earlier; and
    tacking her possession with that of her predecessors-in-interest, petitioner has been in
    possession of the land for more than 50 years.

    The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands, filed an opposition
    to petitioner’s application.

    During the hearing, they presented documentary and testimonial evidence to prove their
    allegations and to establish that the land in question is disposable and alienable. It was
    however admitted by the petitioner that the said land in question was sold to Ususan
    Development Corporation in 1996 but failed to deliver the title. Hence, the petitioner made a
    commitment to the corporation to deliver the certificate of title so that they could collect the
    unpaid balance of the purchase price.

    The trial court granted the application. However, the Court of Appeals reversed and set
    aside the decision of the trial court noting that the applicant at the time she filed her application
    for registration of title was no longer in possession and occupation of the land in question and
    thus has no registrable title over the said land.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the petitioner was in possession of the property at the time of the
    application for confirmation of title.
    Held:

    The court ruled in negative.

    Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must prove the following: (a) that the land
    forms part of the disposable and alienable agricultural lands of the public domain; and (b) that
    they have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the
    same under a bona fide claim of ownership either since time immemorial or since June 12,
    1945.

    Petitioner has met the first requirement but not the second one. The applicant, Maria
    Carlos, no longer had possession of the property at the time of the application for the issuance
    of a certificate of title. The application was filed in court on December 19, 2001. As admitted,
    the said land was sold to Ususan Development Corporation in 1996. This clearly contradicts
    petitioner’s claim that she was in possession of the property at the time that she applied for
    confirmation of title.

    Nonetheless, even if it were true that it was petitioner who had actual possession of the
    land at that time, such possession was no longer in the concept of an owner. Possession may
    be had in one of two ways: possession in the concept of an owner and possession of a holder.
    A possessor in the concept of an owner may be the owner himself or one who claims to be so.
    On the other hand, one who possesses as a mere holder acknowledges in another a superior
    right which he believes to be ownership, whether his belief be right or wrong.

    Petitioner herein acknowledges the sale of the property to Ususan Development


    Corporation in 1996 and in fact promised to deliver the certificate of title to the corporation
    upon its obtention. Hence, it cannot be said that her possession since 1996 was under a bona
    fide claim of ownership. Under the law, only he who possesses the property under a bona fide
    claim of ownership is entitled to confirmation of title.

    You might also like