Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    129 Suobiron Vs CA 07DE4.Tmp

    Uploaded by

    Leo Tumagan
    This document summarizes a land dispute case that went to the Supreme Court. It details the history of conflicting land claims between the Adelantar family and others over two parcels of land originally awarded to Luis Adelantar and Fortunata Ponce in 1941. In 1980, spouses Suobiron filed a case to annul the titles of the Adelantars. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Adelantars, finding that the reconstitution of records requirements after the war were substantially met and that the Suobirons were no longer in good faith possession after being served in 1970. The Suobirons were ordered to vacate the land and pay damages to the Adelantars.

    Copyright:

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

    129 Suobiron Vs CA 07DE4.Tmp

    Uploaded by

    Leo Tumagan
    38 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a land dispute case that went to the Supreme Court. It details the history of conflicting land claims between the Adelantar family and others over two parcels of land originally awarded to Luis Adelantar and Fortunata Ponce in 1941. In 1980, spouses Suobiron filed a case to annul the titles of the Adelantars. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Adelantars, finding that the reconstitution of records requirements after the war were substantially met and that the Suobirons were no longer in good faith possession after being served in 1970. The Suobirons were ordered to vacate the land and pay damages to the Adelantars.

    Original Title

    129 Suobiron vs CA~07DE4.Tmp

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a land dispute case that went to the Supreme Court. It details the history of conflicting land claims between the Adelantar family and others over two parcels of land originally awarded to Luis Adelantar and Fortunata Ponce in 1941. In 1980, spouses Suobiron filed a case to annul the titles of the Adelantars. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Adelantars, finding that the reconstitution of records requirements after the war were substantially met and that the Suobirons were no longer in good faith possession after being served in 1970. The Suobirons were ordered to vacate the land and pay damages to the Adelantars.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    38 views3 pages

    129 Suobiron Vs CA 07DE4.Tmp

    Uploaded by

    Leo Tumagan
    This document summarizes a land dispute case that went to the Supreme Court. It details the history of conflicting land claims between the Adelantar family and others over two parcels of land originally awarded to Luis Adelantar and Fortunata Ponce in 1941. In 1980, spouses Suobiron filed a case to annul the titles of the Adelantars. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Adelantars, finding that the reconstitution of records requirements after the war were substantially met and that the Suobirons were no longer in good faith possession after being served in 1970. The Suobirons were ordered to vacate the land and pay damages to the Adelantars.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    SPOUSES ANDRES SUOBIRON and SOCORRO SUOBIRON, JOSE SULLANO

    JR. and IRENEO FERRARIS,petitioners, 


    vs.
    COURT OF APPEALS, LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION, REGISTER OF
    DEEDS of the PROVINCE OF ILOILO, FORTUNATA PONCE VDA. DE
    ADELANTAR, REMEDIOS ADELANTAR, CARIDAD A. CHANCO,
    FLORECITA A. MONTILLA, EVANGELINA A. COSCOLUELA, LYNDE
    ADELANTAR, DOUGLAS M. ADELANTAR, PROTACIO ADELANTAR himself
    and as Administrator of the INTESTATE ESTATE of the late LUIS
    ADELANTAR, respondents.

    Facts

    1 September 1941, CFI awarded the subject parcels of land in favor of spouses Luis
    Adelantar and Fortunata Ponce.

    22 March 1945, 4 days after the American forces liberated Panay Island, the CFI was
    reorganized.
    - clerk of court submitted a report stating that all court records were destroyed/
    burned in battle
    - the court issued an order directing the reconstitution of the records in june that year

    18 August 1945 Luis Adelantar filed a motion for reconstitution of the records of LRC
    Case No. 673

    28 January 1946, CFI directed the issuance of decrees


    - OCT Nos. 69237 and 69238 were issued in the name of the spouses Luis Adelantar
    and Fortunata Ponce.

    26 August 1947Adelantars filed an action in the CFI of Iloilo against the Lorezos for
    recovery of possession
    claim: Lorenzos entered litigated property and appropriated produce to themselves to
    the prefjudice of adelantars

    27 February 1954 writ of execition issued by court, the lots were delivered to sps
    adelantars
    - however, the lorenzos still re-entered the premise

    Later, at unknown time sps suobiron also file for claim of ownership, alleging that they
    purchased such lots in 1960

    22 July 1970 Fortunata Ponce and heirs of Luis Adelantar, filed an action for quieting of
    title and for recovery of possession with damages before the CFI of Iloilo, . However, this
    action was dismissed
    21 December 1972 sps suobiron sought annulment of certificates of title of the
    Adelantars- this action was also dismissed

    CFI ruling sps suobiron lost,


    - they were ordered to vacate the lot

    2 December 1980 sps suobiron filed an action to annul the ff:


    -2 orders made by CFI of Iloilo in LRC Case
    - OCT Nos. 69237 and 69238
    - corresponding decrees issued by the Land Registration Commission
    * their contention was that the land registration court acted without or in excess of
    jurisdiction in issuing both orders because the requirements of the law on
    reconstitution of court records were not complied with thus rendering void not
    only the orders but also the decrees and certificates of title issued thereunder.
    Ngano nakaingon sila no compliance of reconstitution?
    1. no general notice of loss were served by registered mail to
    interested parties
    2. no general notice was publicated in the Official Gazette
    3. no notice of loss was sent to counsel of record of their
    predecessors-in-interest;
    4. no duly certified of CA resolution was produced in the
    reconstitution proceeding
    (numbers 1, 2, 3 are violations of act 3110 daw, matter on
    reconstitution)

    SC held sps suobiron lost

    1. Act 3110 requirements substantially met

    Act 3110:requirementsy: after an occurrence of any fire or any public calamity resulting
    to the loss of all or part of records of judicial proceeding, clerk of court must notify the
    judge and all lawyers interested in the proceedings. The court will then circulate general
    notice to the public (newspaper & OG) for 4 consecutive weeks. Any interested pary shall
    then appear in court for reconstitution

    --- these were followed in the present case. It was adelantar who cam
    forward for reconstitution

    2. Sps suobiron ceased to be in GF at time they were served with summons

    - the ruling of court awarding land to sps adelantar is now res judicata
    - even if sps suobiron might have occupied the land in GF in the beginning, it ceased on
    the day they were served w/ summons (regarding the recovery of possession casein july
    22 1970), because at that time, they were already aware of a defect to their claim
    --- as such, sps suobiron were liable to sps alendar for the net produce of the
    properties in question from the time their GF was interrupted (service of summons) at the
    rate of P1,500.00 per hectare or P39,750.00 for 26.5 hectares annually until possession
    will be restored to sps alendar.

    You might also like