Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Cenido V Apacionado

    Uploaded by

    nadgb
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent spouses in a case regarding ownership of a parcel of land. [1] The spouses purchased the land from its previous owner, Bonifacio Aparato, who had mortgaged the land twice, which the spouses paid off. [2] Although the document transferring ownership ("Pagpapatunay") was not notarized, it was still valid to transfer ownership as the Statute of Frauds only requires it be in writing and signed by the party charged. [3] The tax declaration in petitioner Cenido's name was declared null and void as he did not prove any successional or administrative rights to the property.

    Copyright:

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

    Cenido V Apacionado

    Uploaded by

    nadgb
    1K views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent spouses in a case regarding ownership of a parcel of land. [1] The spouses purchased the land from its previous owner, Bonifacio Aparato, who had mortgaged the land twice, which the spouses paid off. [2] Although the document transferring ownership ("Pagpapatunay") was not notarized, it was still valid to transfer ownership as the Statute of Frauds only requires it be in writing and signed by the party charged. [3] The tax declaration in petitioner Cenido's name was declared null and void as he did not prove any successional or administrative rights to the property.

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    Cenido v Apacionado

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent spouses in a case regarding ownership of a parcel of land. [1] The spouses purchased the land from its previous owner, Bonifacio Aparato, who had mortgaged the land twice, which the spouses paid off. [2] Although the document transferring ownership ("Pagpapatunay") was not notarized, it was still valid to transfer ownership as the Statute of Frauds only requires it be in writing and signed by the party charged. [3] The tax declaration in petitioner Cenido's name was declared null and void as he did not prove any successional or administrative rights to the property.

    Copyright:

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

    Cenido V Apacionado

    Uploaded by

    nadgb
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent spouses in a case regarding ownership of a parcel of land. [1] The spouses purchased the land from its previous owner, Bonifacio Aparato, who had mortgaged the land twice, which the spouses paid off. [2] Although the document transferring ownership ("Pagpapatunay") was not notarized, it was still valid to transfer ownership as the Statute of Frauds only requires it be in writing and signed by the party charged. [3] The tax declaration in petitioner Cenido's name was declared null and void as he did not prove any successional or administrative rights to the property.

    Copyright:

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

    CENIDO v.

    SPOUSES APACIONADO
    GR No. 132474, November 19, 1999
    PONENTE: PUNO, J.
    FACTS:
    On May 22, 1989, respondent spouses filed with the RTC Rizal a complaint against petitioner
    Renato Cenido for Declaration of Ownership, Nullity, with Damages. The spouses alleged that
    they are the owners of a parcel of unregistered land, 123 square meters located at Binangonan,
    Rizal. The house and lot were purchased by the spouses from its previous owner, Bonifacio
    Aparato, now deceased, who lived under the spouses' care and protection prior to his death.
    While he was alive, Aparato mortgaged the said property twice, one to the Rural Bank of
    Binangonan and the other to Linda C. Ynares, as security for loans obtained by him. Said loans
    were paid off by the spouses thereby securing the release and cancellation of said mortgages.
    And from then on, they have been in open, public, continuous and uninterrupted possession of
    the property in the concept of owners. On January 7, 1987, petitioner Renato Cenido, claiming
    to be the owner of the subject house and lot, filed a complaint for ejectment against them and
    through fraudulent and unauthorized means, Cenido was able to cause the issuance in his name
    of a tax declaration over the subject property, which fact the spouses learned only upon the filing
    of the ejectment case.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the sale of the real property should be in writing for it to be enforceable.

    RULING:
    The sale of real property should be in writing and subscribed by the party charged for it to be
    enforceable. The "Pagpapatunay" is in writing and subscribed by Bonifacio Aparato, the vendor.
    Hence, it is enforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Not having been subscribed and sworn to
    before a notary public, however, the "Pagpapatunay" is not a public document, and therefore
    does not comply with Article 1358, paragraph 1 of the Civil Code. The requirement of a public
    document in Article 1358 is not for the validity of the instrument but for its efficacy. Although a
    conveyance of land is not made in a public document, it does not affect the validity of such
    conveyance. Article 1358 does not require the accomplishment of the acts or contracts in a public
    instrument in order to validate the act or contract but only to insure its efficacy, so that after the
    existence of said contract has been admitted, the party bound may be compelled to execute the
    proper document. On the other hand, the Real Property Tax Code provides that real property
    tax be assessed in the name of the person "owning or administering" the property on which the
    tax is levied. Since petitioner Cenido has not proven any successional or administrative rights to
    Bonifacio's estate, Tax Declaration No. 02-6368 in Cenido's name must be declared null and
    void. Hence, the petition is denied.

    You might also like