Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    Manlapas and Tolentino vs. Llorente

    Uploaded by

    May RM
    The case involves a dispute over land ownership between Leandra Manlapas and the San Francisco del Monte corporation. Manlapas opposed the registration of the land under the Franciscan corporation in 1906. A decree was issued excluding two parcels claimed by Manlapas. San Francisco del Monte later obtained a writ of possession over part of the land, which Manlapas challenged. The court ruled the writ of possession was legal and within the court's jurisdiction, as Manlapas was already occupying the land prior to registration and is directly affected by the original decree. The court also noted land titles from registration are imprescriptible and not subject to acquisition by adverse possession over time.

    Copyright:

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

    Manlapas and Tolentino vs. Llorente

    Uploaded by

    May RM
    50 views2 pages
    The case involves a dispute over land ownership between Leandra Manlapas and the San Francisco del Monte corporation. Manlapas opposed the registration of the land under the Franciscan corporation in 1906. A decree was issued excluding two parcels claimed by Manlapas. San Francisco del Monte later obtained a writ of possession over part of the land, which Manlapas challenged. The court ruled the writ of possession was legal and within the court's jurisdiction, as Manlapas was already occupying the land prior to registration and is directly affected by the original decree. The court also noted land titles from registration are imprescriptible and not subject to acquisition by adverse possession over time.

    Original Description:

    LTD

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involves a dispute over land ownership between Leandra Manlapas and the San Francisco del Monte corporation. Manlapas opposed the registration of the land under the Franciscan corporation in 1906. A decree was issued excluding two parcels claimed by Manlapas. San Francisco del Monte later obtained a writ of possession over part of the land, which Manlapas challenged. The court ruled the writ of possession was legal and within the court's jurisdiction, as Manlapas was already occupying the land prior to registration and is directly affected by the original decree. The court also noted land titles from registration are imprescriptible and not subject to acquisition by adverse possession over time.

    Copyright:

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

    Manlapas and Tolentino vs. Llorente

    Uploaded by

    May RM
    The case involves a dispute over land ownership between Leandra Manlapas and the San Francisco del Monte corporation. Manlapas opposed the registration of the land under the Franciscan corporation in 1906. A decree was issued excluding two parcels claimed by Manlapas. San Francisco del Monte later obtained a writ of possession over part of the land, which Manlapas challenged. The court ruled the writ of possession was legal and within the court's jurisdiction, as Manlapas was already occupying the land prior to registration and is directly affected by the original decree. The court also noted land titles from registration are imprescriptible and not subject to acquisition by adverse possession over time.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    48. Manlapas and Tolentino vs.

    Llorente

    FACTS: In 1906, a registration proceeding was instituted by the "Corporacion Francisca


    de la Provincia de San Gregorio Magno" for the registration of certain lands located in
    the barrio of San Francisco del Monte above mentioned. The petitioner Leandra
    Manlapas entered an opposition in said proceeding, and after a hearing, the Court of
    Land Registration, the property is ordered (at 12 m.) registered in the name of the
    'Corporacion Franciscana de la Provincia de San Gregorio Magno' with the exception of
    the two parcels claimed by the opponent, Leandra Manlapas. Later on, on a date not
    shown by the record, the corresponding decree was issued bearing the conformity of
    Leandra Manlapas, according to an order of the court. In that decree, there was ordered
    the registration of a land of 199 hectares, 99 ares and 97 centiares, approximately,
    "after excluding the area of lot B pertaining to Leandra Manlapas" of 5 hectares, 8 ares
    and 66 centiares, approximately, according to said decree. Then the corresponding title
    was issued to the applicant, the Franciscan corporation, which was later sold, a large
    part of the land to John W. Gordon, who in turn sold it to the herein respondent
    corporation, San Francisco del Monte, Inc. San Francisco del Monte, Inc., filed a
    petition for, and obtained, a writ of possession upon a portion of said land, the disposing
    part of which writ. Leandra Manlapas and Canuto Tolentino confine them to the area of
    50,866 square meters as excluded in the decree. The herein petitioners challenged the
    jurisdiction of the court and moved to set aside said writ of possession in so far as it
    affected them.

    ISSUE/S: Whether or not writ of possession is illegal and was issued without
    jurisdiction.

    RULING: No. In the instant case no writ of possession had been issued previous to the
    one here in question, and the possessors of the property did not enter the land after its
    registration, but were there before said registration and have been occupying it ever
    since. There is, therefore, no legal reason why the writ should not be issued, whether it
    be considered from the standpoint of the one asking for it, namely, the respondent
    corporation which has the right to the possession, of the occupant Leandra Manlapas,
    who is not a new possessor, but the same one who was a party to the registration
    proceeding and who is directly and personally affected and reached by the decree. The
    second point alleged by the petitioners has reference to the prescription of the rights of
    the respondent corporation to ask for a writ of possession. The law has not made
    applicable to the writ of possession provided for in section 17 of Act No. 496 and its
    amendments, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding execution of
    judgments. It cannot be held to have been the intention of the law to permit after five
    years the reinstitution of a registration proceeding, whether ordinary or cadastral, as the
    case may be, to revive a decree, which on the other hand, according to Act No. 496, is
    to exist forever, as provided in various section of said Act, among which may be cited
    section 45 which says: The obtaining of a decree of registration and the entry of a
    certificate of title shall be regarded as an agreement running with the land, and binding
    upon the applicant and all successors in title that the land shall be and always remain
    registered land, and subject to the provisions of this Act and all Acts amendatory
    thereof. Nor could the law make said provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure
    applicable to a decree of registration, since the property rights and possession of a
    registered owner would be nugatory when they are imprescriptible under the conclusive
    provisions of section 46 of said Act No. 496 which says: No title to registered land in
    derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse
    possession. Thus, in issuing the writ of execution in question, the respondent judge
    acted with jurisdiction and not in excess thereof.

    You might also like