Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 664 views

    #2 Cimafranca vs. IAC 1987

    Uploaded by

    iicaii
    - The case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land originally registered in 1919 to multiple parties. In 1917, one party (Pedro Gurdiel) sold a portion of the land to Perfecto Jalosjos. In 1958, a deed was executed partitioning the land and confirming the previous sale to Jalosjos. Title was issued accordingly. - In 1971, 14 years later, the plaintiffs filed a case seeking partition of the property and reconveyance of the excess portion occupied by Jalosjos' heirs, arguing the deed and title were invalid. However, the Supreme Court ruled the defendants could no longer question the validity of the deed and title after the 4-year period for filing fraud cases had lap

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    #2 Cimafranca vs. IAC 1987

    Uploaded by

    iicaii
    664 views3 pages
    - The case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land originally registered in 1919 to multiple parties. In 1917, one party (Pedro Gurdiel) sold a portion of the land to Perfecto Jalosjos. In 1958, a deed was executed partitioning the land and confirming the previous sale to Jalosjos. Title was issued accordingly. - In 1971, 14 years later, the plaintiffs filed a case seeking partition of the property and reconveyance of the excess portion occupied by Jalosjos' heirs, arguing the deed and title were invalid. However, the Supreme Court ruled the defendants could no longer question the validity of the deed and title after the 4-year period for filing fraud cases had lap

    Original Description:

    gg

    Original Title

    #2 Cimafranca vs. IAC 1987.docx

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, 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 a parcel of land originally registered in 1919 to multiple parties. In 1917, one party (Pedro Gurdiel) sold a portion of the land to Perfecto Jalosjos. In 1958, a deed was executed partitioning the land and confirming the previous sale to Jalosjos. Title was issued accordingly. - In 1971, 14 years later, the plaintiffs filed a case seeking partition of the property and reconveyance of the excess portion occupied by Jalosjos' heirs, arguing the deed and title were invalid. However, the Supreme Court ruled the defendants could no longer question the validity of the deed and title after the 4-year period for filing fraud cases had lap

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    664 views3 pages

    #2 Cimafranca vs. IAC 1987

    Uploaded by

    iicaii
    - The case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land originally registered in 1919 to multiple parties. In 1917, one party (Pedro Gurdiel) sold a portion of the land to Perfecto Jalosjos. In 1958, a deed was executed partitioning the land and confirming the previous sale to Jalosjos. Title was issued accordingly. - In 1971, 14 years later, the plaintiffs filed a case seeking partition of the property and reconveyance of the excess portion occupied by Jalosjos' heirs, arguing the deed and title were invalid. However, the Supreme Court ruled the defendants could no longer question the validity of the deed and title after the 4-year period for filing fraud cases had lap

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    COLLATERAL ATTACK CIMAFRANCA VS. IAC 147 SCRA 611 (1987) G.R. No.

    L-68687 January 3l, 1987 SPOUSES FRANCISCO CIMAFRANCA and VIBESA GURDIEL, CARIDAD EGUIA, and FIDELA EGUIA, petitioners, vs. THE HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, THE HEIRS OF PERFECTO JALOSJOS, namely: DOMINADOR JALOSJOS, TEODULO JALOSJOS, REMEDIOS JALOSJOS, ELITIO JALOSJOS, FELISA JALOSJOS, JOSEFA JALOSJOS, AQUILINO JALOSJOS, RODRIGO JALOSJOS, ARCELITA JALOSJOS, BONIFACIA LORETE VDA. DE JALOSJOS, and THE HEIRS OF MARIA CLEOFE JALOSJOS, namely: LINO PALACIO, VERGEL PALACIO, LOLITO PALACIO, NIEVES PALACIO, and ADE PALACIO, respondents. FACTS: Lot No. 86 (1589 sq. m.) of Cad. Survey of Lubungan, Zamboanga del Norte is the subject land of this case. It was originally registered on August 8, 1919 in the names of 'Simplicia Bagsican, a, widow; Pedro Gurdiel, married to Simplicia Adrias; Delfina Gurdiel, the wife of Jose Dalman and Cristeto Gurdiel, single, in the proportion of 1/2 share to the first named and the remaining 1/2 in undivided equal shares to the last three ...,' pursuant to a decree dated March 2, 1917. In 1917, Pedro Gurdiel sold a portion of the lot to Perfecto Jalosjos, respondents father. The latter took possession of the portion of the lot and constructed a house on it. In 1919, he declared the portion of the lot for taxation purposes. On March 13, 1958, Pedro Gurdiel and the heirs of Dalman executed a "Deed of Extrajudicial partition and confirmation of Previous Sale". In the deed, Lot 86 was adjudicated to Pedro Gurdiel and Lot 9 to the Dalmans. Also, in the deed, Pedro further ratified the sale he made of interest in Lot 86 to Perfecto. Subsequently, OTC No. RO-1708 (6515) was cancelled and TCT No. T-4569 was issued. It appears that some of the heirs of Pedro conveyed their 1/9 share in Lot No. 86 pertaining to the share of the late father. On December 21, 1970, the heirs of the deceased Pedro executed an "Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased Person with Simultaneous Deed of

    Sale and Confirmation of Previous Sales" whereby 3/4 share over Lot No. 86 of the deceased Pedro was first adjudicated to his 8 children in 1/9 share each, except Dominador who had acquired the 1/9 share of his mother and was given 2/9 share; and thereafter, taking cognizance of the various conveyances made by some of the heirs in favor of Vibesa Gurdiel married to Francisco Cimafranca declared the latter the owner of 7/9 share of 3/4 of the lot. It appears that the other 2/9 shares were acquired by the sisters Eguia, 1/9 share each, who are co-plaintiffs in this case and owners of an adjoining Lot No. 87. When surveyed on June 12, 1971, the portion occupied by the petitioners had an area of 487 square meters while the portion occupied by private respondents had an area of 1,109 square meters as shown in the Sketch Plan. On December 10, 1971, petitioners filed a Complaint for Partition and Damages seeking the partition of the property in question and the reconveyance by private respondents of the excess portion they had been allegedly illegally occupying, the demolition and transfer of their residential building and fence, and damages. Said complaint was amended to include private respondent Bonifacia Lorete Vda. de Jalosjos. In the answer of private respondents, they pray for the cancellation of TCT No. T-4569, and for an award of damages by way of counterclaim. Petitioners argue that TCT No. T-4569 which respondents sought to nullify is and has always been valid and binding against the whole world, and its validity cannot now be properly raised in the instant suit. The trial court decided in favor of the respondents. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed trial courts decision in toto. Hence, the appeal to the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether or not after the lapse of 14 years respondent can still question the validity of the deed of extrajudicial partition and subsequently TCT No. T-4569. HELD: NO. An action for reconveyance of real property on the ground of fraud must be filed within 4 years from the discovery of the fraud. Such discovery is deemed to have taken place from the issuance of the certificates of title. Respondents had only 4 years from October, 1958 or until 1962 to bring this action which respondents failed to do. They have not taken any step to have the deed of extrajudicial

    partition corrected, if it is true as they claim it is, that what had been sold to their father is 3/4 share of Lot 86 instead of 1/4 share. It is now both too late and bereft of basis to ask for the cancellation of TCT No. T-4569. In fact, petitioners' claim that it is private respondents themselves who are in estoppel or are barred by prescription and laches from questioning the validity and binding effect of TCT No. 4569 is well taken under the circumstances considering particularly the time that has elapsed since the issuance of the pertinent Torrens Title. Besides, a Torrens title cannot be attached collaterally. The issue on its validity can be raised only in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. The efficacy and integrity of the Torrens System must be protected.

    You might also like