Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 406 views

    Frias Vs Esquivel Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ling Escalante
    1. In 1952, Alfredo and Belen Frias applied to register a residential lot in Nueva Ecija. The Esquivel family opposed this, claiming ownership of part of the land. 2. A civil case in 1956 determined that the deed of sale from one Esquivel sister to the Friases was valid for some heirs but not minors. The land was declared common property of the sister and minor heirs at the time of sale. 3. In 1958, the guardian of the minor heirs filed to reopen the registration, alleging fraud by the Friases. The court denied the petition, finding no actual and extrinsic fraud as required to set aside the registration.

    Copyright:

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

    Frias Vs Esquivel Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ling Escalante
    406 views1 page
    1. In 1952, Alfredo and Belen Frias applied to register a residential lot in Nueva Ecija. The Esquivel family opposed this, claiming ownership of part of the land. 2. A civil case in 1956 determined that the deed of sale from one Esquivel sister to the Friases was valid for some heirs but not minors. The land was declared common property of the sister and minor heirs at the time of sale. 3. In 1958, the guardian of the minor heirs filed to reopen the registration, alleging fraud by the Friases. The court denied the petition, finding no actual and extrinsic fraud as required to set aside the registration.

    Original Description:

    Frias vs Esquivel digest

    Original Title

    Frias vs Esquivel digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. In 1952, Alfredo and Belen Frias applied to register a residential lot in Nueva Ecija. The Esquivel family opposed this, claiming ownership of part of the land. 2. A civil case in 1956 determined that the deed of sale from one Esquivel sister to the Friases was valid for some heirs but not minors. The land was declared common property of the sister and minor heirs at the time of sale. 3. In 1958, the guardian of the minor heirs filed to reopen the registration, alleging fraud by the Friases. The court denied the petition, finding no actual and extrinsic fraud as required to set aside the registration.

    Copyright:

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

    Frias Vs Esquivel Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ling Escalante
    1. In 1952, Alfredo and Belen Frias applied to register a residential lot in Nueva Ecija. The Esquivel family opposed this, claiming ownership of part of the land. 2. A civil case in 1956 determined that the deed of sale from one Esquivel sister to the Friases was valid for some heirs but not minors. The land was declared common property of the sister and minor heirs at the time of sale. 3. In 1958, the guardian of the minor heirs filed to reopen the registration, alleging fraud by the Friases. The court denied the petition, finding no actual and extrinsic fraud as required to set aside the registration.

    Copyright:

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

    1 | L e z l e e A m o r R .

    E s c a l a n t e

    FRIAS VS ESQUIVEL. Gr No. L- 17366, July 31, 1962

    March 26, 1952, appellee spouses Alfredo N. Frias and Belen Lustre filed in the Court of First
    Instance of Nueva Ecija an application to register a residential lot situated in Jaen, Nueva Ecija,
    containing an area of about 2,974 square meters. This was opposed on September 22, 1952 by the
    Esquivels claiming ownership of a portion of the land sought to be registered. They alleged that such
    land was inherited by them from their parents. They also sought the postponement of the
    proceedings pending final determination of Civil Case No. 998 of the same court between themselves
    as plaintiffs and the applicants as defendants, involving the ownership and possession of the land
    subject of their opposition. In the said civil case, Esquivels contended that the land which they
    inherited from their parents and owned in common amongst themselves, containing an area of 1,357
    square meters was sold by their youngest sister to the Frias without their knowledge. They further
    added that the Frias knew that the property was not yet partitioned but defendants still took
    possession and refused to reconvey land to the Esquivels despite demands.

    On April 20, 1956 the court rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 998 (G.R. No. 8825) declaring the
    deed of sale executed by Anastacia Esquivel valid insofar as Santiago, Felisa, Ceferina and Anastacia
    were concerned, but invalid with respect to the minor heirs of the late Alvaro Esquivel. In the said
    decision, it has been established that the partition was made in 1946, the applicable law was found
    to be Section 553 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provided that the father or mother is only
    deemed to be the natural guardian of his or her minor children and not of his estate unless appointed
    by the court. As a result, the land in question was declared to be common property of Anastacia
    Esquivel and the minor heirs of Alvaro Esquivel at the time of its sale by the former to the Frias
    spouses. On October 2, 1957, the Court rendered judgment adjudicating the land in favor of the
    applicants and ordering its registration in their name.

    On December 8, 1958, Rosario Esquivel-Gonzales, as the duly appointed guardian of the minors
    Reynaldo and Ricardo Esquivel, filed a verified petition to reopen the decree of registration on the
    ground of fraud stating that the Frias committed fraud in obtaining decree of registration by false
    representation claiming to be the owners of the entire residential lot.

    Ruling:
    To justify the setting aside or review of a decree of registration under Section 38 of Act No. 496, the
    party seeking relief must allege and prove, inter alia, that the registration was procured through
    fraud actual and extrinsic.

    Definition of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Fraud:
    Intrinsic: if the fraud alleged in the petition to set aside the decree is involved in the same
    proceedings in which the party seeking relief had ample opportunity to assert his right, to attack the
    document presented by the applicant for registration, and to cross- examine the witnesses who
    testified relative thereto.

    Extrinsic: if it was employed to deprive a party of his day in court, thus preventing him from
    asserting his right to the property registered in the name of the applicant.

    PETITION DENIED

    You might also like