Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 55 views

    Madrid V Mapoy

    Uploaded by

    Val Sanchez
    The case involved a dispute over ownership of two parcels of land between the Spouses Mapoy (respondents), who possessed land titles for the properties, and the petitioners, who claimed oral sale of the properties. The petitioners occupied the land for many years but could not prove ownership. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that the certificates of title were definitive proof of the respondents' ownership. The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the previous rulings, stating that a certificate of title constitutes indefeasible evidence of ownership and that the respondents were entitled to possession of the legally owned properties.

    Copyright:

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

    Madrid V Mapoy

    Uploaded by

    Val Sanchez
    55 views1 page
    The case involved a dispute over ownership of two parcels of land between the Spouses Mapoy (respondents), who possessed land titles for the properties, and the petitioners, who claimed oral sale of the properties. The petitioners occupied the land for many years but could not prove ownership. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that the certificates of title were definitive proof of the respondents' ownership. The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the previous rulings, stating that a certificate of title constitutes indefeasible evidence of ownership and that the respondents were entitled to possession of the legally owned properties.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    Madrid v Mapoy

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a dispute over ownership of two parcels of land between the Spouses Mapoy (respondents), who possessed land titles for the properties, and the petitioners, who claimed oral sale of the properties. The petitioners occupied the land for many years but could not prove ownership. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that the certificates of title were definitive proof of the respondents' ownership. The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the previous rulings, stating that a certificate of title constitutes indefeasible evidence of ownership and that the respondents were entitled to possession of the legally owned properties.

    Copyright:

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

    Madrid V Mapoy

    Uploaded by

    Val Sanchez
    The case involved a dispute over ownership of two parcels of land between the Spouses Mapoy (respondents), who possessed land titles for the properties, and the petitioners, who claimed oral sale of the properties. The petitioners occupied the land for many years but could not prove ownership. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that the certificates of title were definitive proof of the respondents' ownership. The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the previous rulings, stating that a certificate of title constitutes indefeasible evidence of ownership and that the respondents were entitled to possession of the legally owned properties.

    Copyright:

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

    Madrid v Mapoy

    Facts:
    - Spouses Mapoy (respondent) own two parcels of land (Lot. No 79-80), rizal Park Subd.
    Sampaloc, Manila, 270 sq meters.
    - They allege that they acquired the properties under a Deed of Absolute Sale (proof
    having Torrens Certificate of Title) and tolerated continued occupancy of petitioners
    until they demand them to vacate the properties.
    - These spouses sought to recover possession of said properties through accion
    publiciana to the herein petitioner-defendants (Madrid) and Miranda (who did not
    appeal after RTC ruling)
    - Petitioner-defendant Bernardo son of Miranda, is a carpenter who alleges that the
    properties were oral sale to them by Antonio (real owner) for their years of loyal
    service.
    - Madrid claims to occupy and build a house on the lot with permission of bernardo.
    - On the basis of length of stay, they invoked PD 1517 (Urban Land Reform Law),
    provides that they cannot be dispossessed of the occupied lands and right of first
    refusal to purchase said lands w/in reasonable time and prices.
    - RTC and CA ruled in favor of respondents. There’s no public document proving the
    ownership of the petitioners and continuous occupation is misplaced.
    Issue:
    WON herein petitioners are legitimate owner of the said parcels of land. - NO
    Held:
    Petition is denied for lack of merit.
    - Accion publiciana is an action to recover possession only, not ownership. However,
    where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon the issue to
    determine who has the right to possess the property. In the present case, both parties
    raised the issue of ownership. The petitioner-defendants claim ownership based on the
    oral sale to Gregorio Miranda in 1948. On the other hand, respondent-plaintiffs claim
    they are the owners, evidenced by the TCT in their names. Both RTC and CA gave more
    weight to the certificate of title by respondent-plaintiffs.

    - As a matter of law, a Torrens Certificate of Title is evidence of indefeasible title of


    property in favor of the person in whose name the title appears.

    - The title holder is entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the property, including
    possession, subject only to limits imposed by law.

    You might also like