Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 188 views

    Usufruct Case Digests

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous oO1cYv
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of an unregistered parcel of land originally owned by Jose Hemedes. Jose Hemedes conveyed ownership of the land to his third wife Justa Kausapin in 1947. Justa Kausapin later executed documents conveying the land to both Maxima Hemedes and Enrique D. Hemedes. The Supreme Court ruled that the conveyance to Maxima Hemedes was valid, as Justa Kausapin could not deny or evade a valid contract simply by alleging defects. Therefore, any subsequent conveyances of the land, including to Enrique D. Hemedes and Dominium Realty, were deemed null and void since the land was no longer owned

    Copyright:

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

    Usufruct Case Digests

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous oO1cYv
    188 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of an unregistered parcel of land originally owned by Jose Hemedes. Jose Hemedes conveyed ownership of the land to his third wife Justa Kausapin in 1947. Justa Kausapin later executed documents conveying the land to both Maxima Hemedes and Enrique D. Hemedes. The Supreme Court ruled that the conveyance to Maxima Hemedes was valid, as Justa Kausapin could not deny or evade a valid contract simply by alleging defects. Therefore, any subsequent conveyances of the land, including to Enrique D. Hemedes and Dominium Realty, were deemed null and void since the land was no longer owned

    Original Description:

    Property Law Case Digests

    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 dispute over ownership of an unregistered parcel of land originally owned by Jose Hemedes. Jose Hemedes conveyed ownership of the land to his third wife Justa Kausapin in 1947. Justa Kausapin later executed documents conveying the land to both Maxima Hemedes and Enrique D. Hemedes. The Supreme Court ruled that the conveyance to Maxima Hemedes was valid, as Justa Kausapin could not deny or evade a valid contract simply by alleging defects. Therefore, any subsequent conveyances of the land, including to Enrique D. Hemedes and Dominium Realty, were deemed null and void since the land was no longer owned

    Copyright:

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

    Usufruct Case Digests

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous oO1cYv
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of an unregistered parcel of land originally owned by Jose Hemedes. Jose Hemedes conveyed ownership of the land to his third wife Justa Kausapin in 1947. Justa Kausapin later executed documents conveying the land to both Maxima Hemedes and Enrique D. Hemedes. The Supreme Court ruled that the conveyance to Maxima Hemedes was valid, as Justa Kausapin could not deny or evade a valid contract simply by alleging defects. Therefore, any subsequent conveyances of the land, including to Enrique D. Hemedes and Dominium Realty, were deemed null and void since the land was no longer owned

    Copyright:

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

    HEMEDES VS.

    CA
    G.R. No. 108472 October 8, 1999
    Facts: The disagreement involves a question of ownership over an
    unregistered parcel of land. The late Jose Hemedes originally
    owned the land, father of Maxima Hemedes and Enrique D.
    Hemedes. On March 22, 1947 Jose Hemedes executed a document
    entitled Donation Inter Vivos With Resolutory Conditions whereby
    he conveyed ownership over the subject land, together with all its
    improvements, in favor of his third wife, Justa Kausapin. Maxima
    Hemedes, through her counsel, filed an application for registration
    and confirmation of title over the subject unregistered land.
    Subsequently, an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) was issued in
    the name of Maxima Hemedes married to Raul Rodriguez by the
    Registry of Deeds of Laguna on June 8, 1962, with the annotation
    that Justa Kausapin shall have the usufructuary rights over the
    parcel of land herein described during her lifetime or widowhood.
    However, Enrique D. Hemedes subsequently sold the property to
    Dominium Realty and Construction Corporation (Dominium). Justa
    Kausapin also executed and affidavit confirming the conveyance of
    the subject property in favor of Enrique D. Hemedes as embodied
    in the Kasunduan dated May 27, 1971, and at the same time
    denying the conveyance made to Maxima Hemedes.
    A complaint was filed by Enrique D. Hemedes for the annullment of
    the TCT issued in favor of R&B Insurance and/or the reconveyance
    to Dominium of the subject property. Specifically, the complaint
    alleged that Dominium has become the absolute owner of the
    subject property by virtue of the February 28, 1979 deed of sale
    executed by Enrique D. Hemedes, who in turn obtained ownership
    of the land from Justa Kausapin, as evidenced by the Kasunduan.
    The Plaintiffs contend that Justa Kausapin never transferred the
    land to Maxima Hemedes and that Enrique D. Hemedes had no
    knowledge of the registration proceedings initiated by Maxima
    Hemedes.
    The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs
    Dominium and Enrique D. Hemedes. Both R&B Insurance and
    Maxima Hemedes appealed from the trial courts decision. The
    Court of Appeals affirmed the assailed decision in toto. Hence, this
    petition.

    Issue: Whether or not the conveyance by Justa Kausapin in favour


    of Enrique D. Hemedes transferred ownership over the subject
    land?
    Ruling: The Supreme Court held that petitioner R & B Insurances
    assertion of ownership over the property in dispute, as evidenced
    by TCT No. 41985, subject to the usufructuary rights of Justa
    Kausapin, which encumbrance has been properly annotated upon
    the said certificate of title.
    The finding of the public respondents that the Deed of
    Conveyance of Unregistered Real Property By Reversion executed
    by Justa Kausapin in favor of Maxima Hemedes is false and not
    supported by the factual findings in this case. It is grounded upon
    the mere denial of the same by Justa Kausapin.
    A party to a contract cannot just evade compliance with his
    contractual obligations by the simple expedient of denying the
    execution of such contract. If, after a perfect and binding contract
    has been executed between the parties, it occurs to one of them to
    allege some defect therein as a reason for annulling it, the alleged
    defect must be conclusively proven, since the validity and
    fulfilment of contracts cannot be left to the will of one of the
    contracting parties. In upholding the deed of conveyance in favor
    of Maxima Hemedes, the Court must concomitantly rule that
    Enrique D. Hemedes and his transferee, Dominium, did not acquire
    any rights over the subject property.
    Justa Kausapin sought to transfer to her stepson exactly what she
    had earlier transferred to Maxima Hemedes the ownership of the
    subject property pursuant to the first condition stipulated in the
    deed of donation executed by her husband. Thus, the donation in
    favor of Enrique D. Hemedes is null and void for the purported
    object thereof did not exist at the time of the transfer, having
    already been transferred to his sister. Similarly, the sale of the
    subject property by Enrique D. Hemedes to Dominium is also a
    nullity for the latter cannot acquire more rights than its
    predecessor-in-interest and is definitely not an innocent purchaser
    for value since Enrique D. Hemedes did not present any certificate
    of title upon which it relied.

    You might also like