Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    23 ALSONS-v-HEIRS-OF-CONFESOR-2nd-set

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Dag-um Macalolot
    The petitioner entered into a lease agreement with DENR for land that respondents claimed to own under a land title. Respondents filed a protest, arguing the land was privately owned. DENR dismissed the protest finding the title valid. On appeal, the court upheld the title. Meanwhile, a case was filed to annul the title. The Supreme Court ruled the case on the title's validity was a prejudicial question that should be resolved before cancelling the lease, to avoid conflicting decisions if the title was later found invalid. The civil case on the title's validity must be resolved before proceeding with the case on cancelling the lease.

    Copyright:

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

    23 ALSONS-v-HEIRS-OF-CONFESOR-2nd-set

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Dag-um Macalolot
    1K views2 pages
    The petitioner entered into a lease agreement with DENR for land that respondents claimed to own under a land title. Respondents filed a protest, arguing the land was privately owned. DENR dismissed the protest finding the title valid. On appeal, the court upheld the title. Meanwhile, a case was filed to annul the title. The Supreme Court ruled the case on the title's validity was a prejudicial question that should be resolved before cancelling the lease, to avoid conflicting decisions if the title was later found invalid. The civil case on the title's validity must be resolved before proceeding with the case on cancelling the lease.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner entered into a lease agreement with DENR for land that respondents claimed to own under a land title. Respondents filed a protest, arguing the land was privately owned. DENR dismissed the protest finding the title valid. On appeal, the court upheld the title. Meanwhile, a case was filed to annul the title. The Supreme Court ruled the case on the title's validity was a prejudicial question that should be resolved before cancelling the lease, to avoid conflicting decisions if the title was later found invalid. The civil case on the title's validity must be resolved before proceeding with the case on cancelling the lease.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    23 ALSONS-v-HEIRS-OF-CONFESOR-2nd-set

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Dag-um Macalolot
    The petitioner entered into a lease agreement with DENR for land that respondents claimed to own under a land title. Respondents filed a protest, arguing the land was privately owned. DENR dismissed the protest finding the title valid. On appeal, the court upheld the title. Meanwhile, a case was filed to annul the title. The Supreme Court ruled the case on the title's validity was a prejudicial question that should be resolved before cancelling the lease, to avoid conflicting decisions if the title was later found invalid. The civil case on the title's validity must be resolved before proceeding with the case on cancelling the lease.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ALSONS v HEIRS OF CONFESOR G.R. NO.

    215671, September 19, 2018


    FACTS:
    Petitioner and the DENR, through its Regional Executive Director executed a leasehold
    agreement with a term of 25 years over a parcel of land in General Santos City, South Cotabato,
    wherein the coverage area was later on expanded.
    Respondent filed a protest against the petitioner before the DENR, praying for the
    cancellation of IFPMA No. 21 on the ground that a large portion of the land was part of the
    property covered by consolidated Original Certificate of Title. Furthermore, they argued that
    the DENR had no jurisdiction to enter into the said leasehold agreement because the subject
    property was no longer classified as a public land.
    Prior to the filing of the respondent’s protest, the subject property was put under
    investigation through the Task Force Titulong Malinis of the LRA with a report stating that it is a
    spurious title and that the Plan is situated in San Pablo City, Laguna. However, the said report
    was set aside by the DOJ, sustaining the validity and authenticity of the said title. Furthermore,
    the DOJ found that the said title existed in the DENR files; that it was affirmed that the said land
    is located in Buayan, Cotabato; and that the subject property was classified as alienable and
    disposable with no adverse claim of ownership except that of the registered owners.
    The DENR conducted its own investigation and found out that the said title was genuine,
    and that there were other certificates of title issued to the heirs of Confesor which were all fake
    and spurious. Thus, the respondents’ protest was dismissed for lack of merit.
    On appeal, the OP set aside the DENR’s decision, upholding the validity and existence of
    the said title under the Torrens system, and the OP ruled that the respondents have established
    their ownership of the subject property.
    The petitioner file a Petition for Review with a Prayer for Status Quo Order before the
    CA, questioning the OP’s decision, manifesting that a petition for annulment of title and
    reversion of the land was filed before the RTC to nullify the respondents’ title for being fake and
    spurious. However, the CA denied the motion and the Civil Case No. 7711 was ordered
    dismissed by the RTC, without prejudice, for failure of parties to file judicial affidavits.
    The Republic re-filed the petition for the annulment of titles before the RTC. With that,
    the petitioner now argues that the CA erred in not considering that the issue of whether or not
    to cancel IFPMA No. 21 is dependent solely on the outcome of the Civil Case.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the civil case for annulment of title and reversion before the RTC
    constitutes a prejudicial question.
    RULING:
    Yes, because considering the rationale of the Article 36 of the Civil Code, pertaining to
    the principle of prejudicial question, which is to avoid two conflicting decisions, prudence
    dictates that the principle underlying the doctrine should be applied to the case at bar as based
    on the case of Abacan, Jr. v. Northwestern University, Inc.
    In this case, the 2 cases involved are the cancellation of IFPMA No. 21 in the case at bar,
    and the cancellation of title and reversion case before the RTC. The cancellation of the IFPMA
    No. 21 should solely depend on the determination of whether or not the respondents have the
    right over the subject property, and whether or not the title is indeed fake and spurious.
    Furthermore, if the cancellation of the IFPMA No. 21 would be allowed and later on found out
    that the said title is indeed fake and spurious, it would then turn out that the cancellation was
    not proper. Thus, making it a clear case of conflicting decisions.
    Therefore, the petition is granted.

    You might also like