Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 44 views

    7 Balangcad Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Cali Ey
    1) Civil Case No. 1411 was filed by respondents to quiet title to a parcel of land that was illegally registered under petitioner Lunesa Balangcad's name. 2) Balangcad argued that the cadastral proceedings made her title to the disputed land indefeasible after one year of registration. 3) The respondents contended that the disputed land was already private land as they had possessed it for over 30 years before Balangcad claimed ownership in 1978. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that Free Patent Title No. 213712 granted to Balangcad was invalid as the land had already been private land possessed by the respondents for decades.

    Copyright:

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

    7 Balangcad Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Cali Ey
    44 views1 page
    1) Civil Case No. 1411 was filed by respondents to quiet title to a parcel of land that was illegally registered under petitioner Lunesa Balangcad's name. 2) Balangcad argued that the cadastral proceedings made her title to the disputed land indefeasible after one year of registration. 3) The respondents contended that the disputed land was already private land as they had possessed it for over 30 years before Balangcad claimed ownership in 1978. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that Free Patent Title No. 213712 granted to Balangcad was invalid as the land had already been private land possessed by the respondents for decades.

    Original Title

    7 Balangcad vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Civil Case No. 1411 was filed by respondents to quiet title to a parcel of land that was illegally registered under petitioner Lunesa Balangcad's name. 2) Balangcad argued that the cadastral proceedings made her title to the disputed land indefeasible after one year of registration. 3) The respondents contended that the disputed land was already private land as they had possessed it for over 30 years before Balangcad claimed ownership in 1978. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that Free Patent Title No. 213712 granted to Balangcad was invalid as the land had already been private land possessed by the respondents for decades.

    Copyright:

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

    7 Balangcad Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Cali Ey
    1) Civil Case No. 1411 was filed by respondents to quiet title to a parcel of land that was illegally registered under petitioner Lunesa Balangcad's name. 2) Balangcad argued that the cadastral proceedings made her title to the disputed land indefeasible after one year of registration. 3) The respondents contended that the disputed land was already private land as they had possessed it for over 30 years before Balangcad claimed ownership in 1978. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that Free Patent Title No. 213712 granted to Balangcad was invalid as the land had already been private land possessed by the respondents for decades.

    Copyright:

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

    BALANGCAD vs.

    COURT OF APPEALS
    G.R. No. 83888, February 12, 1998

    FACTS:

    Civil Case No. 1411 was filed by respondent for quieting of title to a parcel of land with Lot no.2858
    which they alleged had been illegally registered in the name of Lunesa Balangcad (Petitioner). This was
    the civil case in which the petitioner faulted in his petition in questioning the ruling of court of appeals
    on affirming on the decision of the trial court on having the jurisdiction over civil case no. 1411 because
    of non-payment of the docket fee. But after trial, judgment was rendered annulling defendant’s Free
    Patent Title No. 213712 with respect to the land in suit, which the defendant was ordered to vacate. But
    Balangcad invokes that cadastral proceedings is in rem in character, she insists on the indefeasibility of
    her title to the disputed land after one year from its registration and contends it is too late now for the
    respondents to contest her ownership. She stresses that the private respondents slept on their rights.
    But the respondent contends that the disputed land was already private land when the petitioner
    continuously possessed it for over 30 years. And Perico Arcedo, plaintiff, just came to know the claim of
    defendant Balangcad and issuance of a free patent title in her name in 1978 because he was in Kabacan,
    Cotabato. Also it is hard to believe that she was already claiming and possessing the land before 1962,
    were she filed the case on 1978.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the issuance of Free Patent Title No. 213712 in petitioner’s name is valid?

    HELD:

    No. The land in suit is already a private land from the time the petitioners possessed the said land. The
    grant therefore indicated in the cadastral survey is null and void with respect to the land in litigation, but
    valid with respect to the unquestioned portion.

    You might also like