Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 72 views

    MENESES vs. CA Et Al

    Uploaded by

    May RM
    This case involves a land dispute between the Meneses brothers and the Quisumbing family over accretion lands along Laguna de Bay. The Quisumbing family had owned the riparian land since 1919 and registered additional accretion lands that had gradually accumulated along the shoreline. In 1979, they filed a case alleging that Lorenzo Meneses illegally occupied the accretion lands with the help of his brother Pablito and government officials. The trial court found in favor of the Quisumbings. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court also held that the lands were legally accretion lands belonging to the Quisumbings as owners of the adjacent riparian land. The Court also found that the Meneses

    Copyright:

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

    MENESES vs. CA Et Al

    Uploaded by

    May RM
    72 views3 pages
    This case involves a land dispute between the Meneses brothers and the Quisumbing family over accretion lands along Laguna de Bay. The Quisumbing family had owned the riparian land since 1919 and registered additional accretion lands that had gradually accumulated along the shoreline. In 1979, they filed a case alleging that Lorenzo Meneses illegally occupied the accretion lands with the help of his brother Pablito and government officials. The trial court found in favor of the Quisumbings. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court also held that the lands were legally accretion lands belonging to the Quisumbings as owners of the adjacent riparian land. The Court also found that the Meneses

    Original Description:

    MENESES vs. CA et al

    Original Title

    MENESES vs. CA et al

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a land dispute between the Meneses brothers and the Quisumbing family over accretion lands along Laguna de Bay. The Quisumbing family had owned the riparian land since 1919 and registered additional accretion lands that had gradually accumulated along the shoreline. In 1979, they filed a case alleging that Lorenzo Meneses illegally occupied the accretion lands with the help of his brother Pablito and government officials. The trial court found in favor of the Quisumbings. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court also held that the lands were legally accretion lands belonging to the Quisumbings as owners of the adjacent riparian land. The Court also found that the Meneses

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    72 views3 pages

    MENESES vs. CA Et Al

    Uploaded by

    May RM
    This case involves a land dispute between the Meneses brothers and the Quisumbing family over accretion lands along Laguna de Bay. The Quisumbing family had owned the riparian land since 1919 and registered additional accretion lands that had gradually accumulated along the shoreline. In 1979, they filed a case alleging that Lorenzo Meneses illegally occupied the accretion lands with the help of his brother Pablito and government officials. The trial court found in favor of the Quisumbings. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court also held that the lands were legally accretion lands belonging to the Quisumbings as owners of the adjacent riparian land. The Court also found that the Meneses

    Copyright:

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

    MENESES vs.

    CA et al
    G.R. No. 82220 July 14, 1995

    FACTS:
    Darum, then the District Land Officer of Los Baños, Laguna, issued to Pablito
    Meneses 2 Free Patent and 2 OCT covering lots located in Los Baños, Laguna.
    Pablito acquired said property from Bautista through a Deed of Waiver and
    Transfer of Rights executed in 1975 in consideration of Bautista’s “love and
    affection” for and “some monetary obligations” in favor of Meneses. After the
    execution of said document, Meneses took possession of the land, introduced
    improvements thereon, declared the land as his own for tax purposes and paid the
    corresponding realty taxes. On the other hand, the Quisumbing family traces
    ownership of their land as far back as 1919 when their matriarch was issued an
    OCT covering a lot, with the Laguna de Bay as its northwestern boundary. The
    same parcel of land was registered on 1973 under a TCT in the names of her heirs,
    all surnamed Quisumbing.
    The Quisumbings applied for registration and confirmation of title over an
    additional area which had gradually accrued to their property by the natural action
    of the waters of Laguna de Bay. The CFI of Biñan confirmed the Quisumbings’
    title thereto.
    In 1979, the Quisumbings filed a case before the CFI of Calamba against Lorenzo
    and Pablito Meneses, Darum and Almendral for nullification of the free patents
    and titles issued to Pablito Meneses. They alleged that Lorenzo Menesis, then the
    Mayor of Los Baños, using his brother Pablito as a “tool and dummy,” illegally
    occupied their “private accretion land” and confederating with District Land
    Officer Darum and Land Inspector Almendral, obtained free patents and OCTs to
    the land.
    In 1984, the trial court rendered the decision finding that the lands registered by the
    Meneses brothers are accretion lands to which the Quisumbings have a valid right
    as owners of the riparian land to which nature had gradually deposited the disputed
    lots. (The lots occupied by Meneses, as found by the court, are to be accretion
    lands forming parts of the bigger accretion land owned by the Quisumbings. )
    Meanwhile, the Meneses brothers and Darum appealed the to the CA, which
    affirmed in toto the lower court’s decision.The defendants-appellants filed two
    MRs of the CA decision but it was denied, hence this petition for review on
    certiorari.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the lands in question were not accretion lands but lands of the
    public domain
    Whether or not conspiracy to commit fraud, deceit and bad faith attended the
    issuance of the free patent and titles to Pablito Meneses; and

    HELD:
    While the lots occupied by Villamor and Lanuzo may not be the very same lots
    petitioners are claiming here, the two cases refer to the same accretion lands
    northwest of the original land owned by the Quisumbings.
    The submersion in water of a portion of the land in question is due to the rains
    “falling directly on or flowing into Laguna de Bay from different sources.” Since
    the inundation of a portion of the land is not due to “flux and reflux of tides” it
    cannot be considered a foreshore land. The land sought to be registered not being
    part of the bed or basin of Laguna de Bay, nor a foreshore land as claimed by the
    Director of Lands, it is not a public land and therefore capable of registration as
    private property provided that the applicant proves that he has a registerable title.
    Additionally, the provision of the law on waters will govern in determining the
    natural bed or basin of the lake. And accordingly, to Art. 84 of the Law of Waters
    of August 3, 1866:
    Accretions deposited gradually upon land contiguous to creeks, streams, rivers and
    lakes by accessions or sediments from the waters thereof, belong to the owners of
    such lands.
    As pointed out by the lower court, no act of appropriation is necessary in order to
    acquire ownership of the alluvial formation as the law does not require the same.
    2. As found by the CA, petitioners conspired in the approval and grant of the free
    patents heirs Quisumbing. Such fraud was confirmed by this Court in Meneses v.
    People, which held the petitioners therein liable for violation of the Anti-Graft and
    Corrupt Practices Act in the issuance of the same free patents and titles. In due
    course, the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision finding the defendants guilty as
    charged. The judgment of conviction was affirmed.

    You might also like